Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on August 18, 2015, 09:20:20 AM
-
deleted
-
As usual, you judge all those who are charismatics by the low standards of the fellowship you attended as a child.
There are charismatic within most denominations - through RC, Anglican, Baptist, evangelical, even as I can testify from my own experience, Church of Scotland.
The Charismatic movement is not confined to Pentecostalism (mor. thamkfully, the 'Toronto blessing')
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
People impelled to spout gobbledegook is a common feature of our society Floo. Statistically speaking, not speaking it is the aberration.
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
This was a problematic issue for the Christian community as commented on in the Epistles.
-
Again, a sweeping statement, floo.
Leaving your childhood experiences aside, have you actually studied the charismatic movement in any depth before coming to your opinion?
-
As usual, you judge all those who are charismatics by the low standards of the fellowship you attended as a child.
There are charismatic within most denominations - through RC, Anglican, Baptist, evangelical, even as I can testify from my own experience, Church of Scotland.
The Charismatic movement is not confined to Pentecostalism (mor. thamkfully, the 'Toronto blessing')
If the charismatic way of doing things turns you on, fine, but I find it totally embarrassing and cringe worthy.
Floo, did you ever try it yourself.
All the teaching I've heard is that it is under the control of the person not a ''possession'' or anything like that by God.
-
Vlad:
Yep.
There has never been an occasion when I am not fully in control.
There has never been an occasion when I let the experience substitute for the study of Scripture (nor should there be)
That's why I have no interest in the 'Toronto blessing'.
I have no wish to bark like a dog for Jesus - or anyone else, for that matter.
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
Floo, speaking in 'tongues', it's no more loony than a large amount of the rest of it.
ippy
-
I have attended many services where the congregation start to sing in tongues. The singing often comprises of beautiful spontaneous harmonies which are worlds away from the dreadful noises produced in the Toronto Blessing.
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
Floo, speaking in 'tongues', it's no more loony than a large amount of the rest of it.
What like Christian aid and food banks?
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
Floo, speaking in 'tongues', it's no more loony than a large amount of the rest of it.
What like Christian aid and food banks?
Floo, speaking in 'tongues', it's no more loony than a large amount of the rest of it.
-
If it sounds like gobbledegook it's most probably because it is. On the day of Pentecost every man heard the Apostles speaking in his own tongue.
-
If it sounds like gobbledegook it's most probably because it is.
One to remember, for sure ;)
-
Again, a sweeping statement, floo.
Leaving your childhood experiences aside, have you actually studied the charismatic movement in any depth before coming to your opinion?
I have seen enough of it to know it makes me want to vomit, that is how strongly I dislike it!
-
So: you've seen charismatic Anglicans?
Roman Catholics?
Church of Scotland?
When. where, and what did you see, please?
-
I have seen enough of it to know it makes me want to vomit, that is how strongly I dislike it!
This suggests that you have actually seen very little of it, Floo. I realise that for some parts of Pentecostalism speaking in tongues is a must-have, but there is nothing 'must-have' in the Biblical teaching. If anything, it is deemed to be something that is not that common.
May I also remind you that 'speaking in tongues' doesn't onmly refer to speaking with sounds that could be deemed to be gobbledegook. The 2nd Chapter of Acts records an event where hundreds, if not thousands of poeople heard the Gospel being declared in their own languages, but coming from the mouths of a small group of Jews. 'Speaking in tongues' ranges from speaking in a human language that you no previous knowledge of to expressing things in ways that human language currently has no set forms for. Its very similar to the long, drawn-out Wow's and Sheesh's one often hears when people see something astonishing (after all, neither of those terms have any meaning in any dictionary)
-
Again, a sweeping statement, floo.
Leaving your childhood experiences aside, have you actually studied the charismatic movement in any depth before coming to your opinion?
I have seen enough of it to know it makes me want to vomit, that is how strongly I dislike it!
-
So: you've seen charismatic Anglicans?
Roman Catholics?
Church of Scotland?
When. where, and what did you see, please?
OK then explain your definition of charismatic, maybe it is different to mine.
-Charismatic:
Someone who has experienced the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and exercises them.
I could fling in jargon and theology speak, but, basically, that's it.
-
So, again:
Have you witnessed the exercise of these gifts in any other context apart from the one you endured as a child?
-
The so called 'gifts' of the mythical HS are crazy nonsense, imo!
Teaching, Serving, hospitality, the ability to make wise judgements, Exhortation, the ability to heal, Giving, Leadership, Mercy- these are all 'crazy nonsense'? Should you wish to check out others, see Romans 12: 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
Blimey, a Floo post that I agree with ;D
I have on the other hand heard of someone being empowered to preach the gospel in a foreign language (which they could not speak)
-
The so called 'gifts' of the mythical HS are crazy nonsense, imo!
Teaching, Serving, hospitality, the ability to make wise judgements, Exhortation, the ability to heal, Giving, Leadership, Mercy- these are all 'crazy nonsense'? Should you wish to check out others, see Romans 12: 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10
I suppose there's no way you could back up; no no don't worry.
ippy
-
The so called 'gifts' of the mythical HS are crazy nonsense, imo!
Teaching, Serving, hospitality, the ability to make wise judgements, Exhortation, the ability to heal, Giving, Leadership, Mercy- these are all 'crazy nonsense'? Should you wish to check out others, see Romans 12: 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10
-
C'mon, Hope.
Floo's read her Bible.
She's supposed to know this...dunno why she condemns it, though.....
-
The so called 'gifts' of the mythical HS are crazy nonsense, imo!
Teaching, Serving, hospitality, the ability to make wise judgements, Exhortation, the ability to heal, Giving, Leadership, Mercy- these are all 'crazy nonsense'? Should you wish to check out others, see Romans 12: 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10
Take out the 'ability to heal' bit and the rest are human behaviours, not that every human exhibits them all.
-
Take out the 'ability to heal' bit and the rest are human behaviours, not that every human exhibits them all.
I'd disagree with you on two scores; firstly I believe that these are all abilities (not merely behaviours) with which humans are endowed by a creator God. The fact that not all humans exhibit all of them is actually highlighted in the two passages I referenced. 'Some are ...; some are ...; ...'
Secondly, I believe that people can be healed by other humans. Through the use of their God-given skills, doctors and nurses are able to heal other humans (and other species as well)
-
I'd disagree with you on two scores
This should be good ...
firstly I believe that these are all abilities (not merely behaviours) with which humans are endowed by a creator God. The fact that not all humans exhibit all of them is actually highlighted in the two passages I referenced. 'Some are ...; some are ...; ...'
Mere unsubstantiated belief with which we needn't trouble ourselves, then.
Secondly, I believe that people can be healed by other humans. Through the use of their God-given skills, doctors and nurses are able to heal other humans (and other species as well)
It looks as though you've been taking lessons from Alan Burns. He too is very fond of shoring up his god-belief by ensuring that it has the magic cloak of indefeasibility and is specially greased to be able to slip away from every challenge and critique when on any other issue any rational person would conclude: "Yeah, you're right; this hypothesis is a load of old pony." Humans healing humans (or non-human animals) is what doctors, nurses, surgeons, vets - medical folk generally - do, because humans have a theory of mind and generally are an empathetic lot, able imaginatively to place themselves in the position of one who is suffering even though they themselves are not. (Exceptions to this rule are sociopaths). Adding God into the picture as the ultimate "rationale" (not the word I'm after, obviously) for this violates Occam's Razor. It's the classic fifth wheel; useless lumber that means nothing, does nothing, says nothing and explains nothing.
-
Take out the 'ability to heal' bit and the rest are human behaviours, not that every human exhibits them all.
I'd disagree with you on two scores; firstly I believe that these are all abilities (not merely behaviours) with which humans are endowed by a creator God. The fact that not all humans exhibit all of them is actually highlighted in the two passages I referenced. 'Some are ...; some are ...; ...'
Secondly, I believe that people can be healed by other humans. Through the use of their God-given skills, doctors and nurses are able to heal other humans (and other species as well)
This reads like the Mary Poppins approach to theology - apply a 'spoonful of sugar' so that it tastes nicer: but apply it only to the bits you already like.
Now that you clarified that by 'healing' you are talking about people applying the skills they have learned, like Mrs G (who is a Community Nurse), then all the attributes you mention are exactly that: human attributes which our species has the capacity for, along with the associated behaviours.
We aren't clones though so these attributes aren't uniformally distributed; so some prople have natural leadership skills, many are altruistic and choose to learn skills and take on roles that support others, and some acquire profioiency at playing snooker - this is all just applied biology though.
Interesting that you rush to credit your God with the good stuff but not the bad stuff: cue excuses that get God off the hook.
-
Interesting that you rush to credit your God with the good stuff but not the bad stuff: cue excuses that get God off the hook.
OK, examples of the 'bad stuff'?
-
Interesting that you rush to credit your God with the good stuff but not the bad stuff: cue excuses that get God off the hook.
OK, examples of the 'bad stuff'?
Recent events in Thailand - the list really is endless.
-
There is NO ability to heal in the supernatural sense of the word.
That remains open to debate, floo, as the medical world have steadfastly refused to release medical records of such instances, despite requests to do so by those whose records are apparently being 'protected'.
As for the rest you don't have to be religious in order to have the other attributes.
Did I say you have to be religious to have the other attributes? No.
I said that, as people created by God, we have been endowed with one or more of them as part and parcel of our humanity. Therefore, the ability to heal, teach, care for, host, advise, excel in sports or academia, etc. are all God-given abilities. God doesn't say: "She's a Christian, so I'll give her this or that ability; he isn't, so I won't give him any"; rather, God says 'this is a human being, and I'll give them this or that ability'. There ain't discrimination, regardless of gender, race, age, philosophy, etc.
In fact, discrimination is, in and of itself, neutral. We all need the ability to discriminate between the safe and the dangerous, the healthy and the unhealthy, etc. The problem comes when we abuse that ability.
-
Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it! ::)
Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.
-
Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it! ::)
Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.
An assertion back up by the FACT you have NEVER produced any credible evidence to support your beliefs!
-
Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it! ::)
Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.
It's you that's out of order on this again, fair enough you believe the stuff in your post 32 on this thread, there is no way you can possibly know it's factual and as Floo has said " you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it"! in view of the actual words used by Floo, if in the unlikely event you can prove post 32 on this thread is a fact, the onus, as you are well aware, is on you to prove it is so.
ippy
-
Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it! ::)
Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.
It's you that's out of order on this again, fair enough you believe the stuff in your post 32 on this thread, there is no way you can possibly know it's factual and as Floo has said " you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it"! in view of the actual words used by Floo, if in the unlikely event you can prove post 32 on this thread is a fact, the onus, as you are well aware, is on you to prove it is so.
ippy
It would appear if Hope believes something to be true it is evidence enough for him! ::)
-
It's you that's out of order on this again, ...
Not out of order, simply stating what Christian teaching states. If you can prove that it doesn't state what I have said, ...
-
Just because Christianity states something doesn't give it instant credibility, unless the statement it is credible, which often it isn't!
I didn't say that it did; mind you, what does 'credible' mean? For instance, I think it was Jim who challenged the credibility of some of your statements about Christianity and the gifts of the Spirit earlier on this thread.
-
It's you that's out of order on this again, ...
Not out of order, simply stating what Christian teaching states. If you can prove that it doesn't state what I have said, ...
That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.
If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.
Strange beliefs, not so much strange because of the numbers of people that believe these religious magic, mythical and superstitious offerings; but it is in fact very strange that anyone still believes these well known religious magical, mystical, superstitious stories, for example, coming back from the dead or walking on water etc etc.
You do in fact try to represent/infer these beliefs as though you're talking about things that have really happened and then another time you tell us you have supplied evidence that no one here on the forum has seen, had you done so why are there still so many, as you call us, atheists, still posting here; if this elusive evidence of yours was that good we'd all be joining you, including me, with a few hallelujahs thrown in.
It's Floo that's not promoting the odd anything you're the one promoting your odd beliefs so it's for you to come up with some evidence, not the other way around; how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in.
ippy
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
It might be related to what we do when learning how to speak when we are infants, but in a more elaborate way - kind of like being dumb struck, say when a young man has to talk to a very beautiful woman he looses the ability to form a coherent sentence or when in front of your boss(?). You see this kind of thing on Dragons Den sometimes etc.
-
I have often wondered about tongues. It was something that I got a little worked up about in my earlier Christian days. Others seemed to do it but not me. It wasn't until I was a little more mature than my university self that I realised that it wasn't for me. I have often felt the touch of the Holy Spirit but it doesn't ever get beyond my control.
I find the impact of the Spirit to be in gentler ways these days. Guiding my preaching and teaching. Calming me during periods of work stress, an aid to focusing on God when this is difficult.
I have also seen a lot of strange stuff but I don't judge others. I would never presume to tell someone that their time with God should fit into my template. Even if it makes me 'sick' I have no right to condemn others for their ways of worship. The planks in my own eyes obscure the motes in others'
-
It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!
OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?
-
That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.
If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.
It is interesting to notice that you seem very keen to promote beliefs about humanity and the universe that you have no direct evidence for, ippy, relying as you do on articles by other people, scientific findings that are, in themselves, open to debate by different scientists and often based on large doses of human assumption based on limited knowledge and experience - especially when it comes to events that are supposed to have occurred before humanity existed on the earth.
As such, the onus is no less for you to prove that your beliefs have validity than it is for me and mine.
-
That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.
If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.
It is interesting to notice that you seem very keen to promote beliefs about humanity and the universe that you have no direct evidence for, ippy, relying as you do on articles by other people, scientific findings that are, in themselves, open to debate by different scientists and often based on large doses of human assumption based on limited knowledge and experience - especially when it comes to events that are supposed to have occurred before humanity existed on the earth.
As such, the onus is no less for you to prove that your beliefs have validity than it is for me and mine.
The wrongness is strong in this one.
Events which occurred (not "supposed to have occurred" - that domain belongs to the nonsense of the assertions made by Christians, Muslims etc., i.e. wholly irrational belief systems) before humanity existed on the Earth leave behind traces which can be, and more to the point are, not only in principle testable but are in practice tested anew and found to be sound, reliable and accurate every single day.
It should go without saying, but in the circumstances it can never be said often enough, that these things are predicated upon a methodology the soundness and reliability of which was not only demonstrated long ago but is still demonstrated every single day that passes.
-
Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available. We have the Word of God and we no longer need a sign. The apostles used that gift so they could speak to people in their own languages, it was never a bunch of gibberish, it was real languages that were spoken. This before the written Word. It was temporary.
1Corinthians 13 is a chapter to read at this point.
-
Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available.
There is general scholarly agreement that writing arose in Mesopotamia around 3200 B.C.E., i.e. about five thousand years ago and therefore three thousand years before the alleged and assumed appearance of Jesus. In other words, by the presumed time of Jesus writing was already, to put it mildly, rather well established.
What was happening with the, as you put it, "Holy Ghost" for all that time?
-
New Testament, Shaker. I get that you are not familiar with what Christians are talking about when they refer to the written Word in such a context as this thread. Well you have learned something today Shaker. That's a first.
-
Why does written word change into written Word [sic] from one post to another?
-
Cause I was in a rush at that moment. Why are you beings so arrogant and anal today Shaker?
-
That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.
If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.
It is interesting to notice that you seem very keen to promote beliefs about humanity and the universe that you have no direct evidence for, ippy, relying as you do on articles by other people, scientific findings that are, in themselves, open to debate by different scientists and often based on large doses of human assumption based on limited knowledge and experience - especially when it comes to events that are supposed to have occurred before humanity existed on the earth.
As such, the onus is no less for you to prove that your beliefs have validity than it is for me and mine.
I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
He is of course a product of the New Atheism which prizes ignorance.
-
Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available. We have the Word of God and we no longer need a sign. The apostles used that gift so they could speak to people in their own languages, it was never a bunch of gibberish, it was real languages that were spoken. This before the written Word. It was temporary.
1Corinthians 13 is a chapter to read at this point.
-
Can you give me chapter and verse to confirm the withdrawal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church, please?
-
I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.
A great many, in fact by far the great majority do.
The point at issue is that they have no ground or warrant for flip-flopping back and forth - as they inescapably do - between the empirically, the naturalistically, the evidentially, the rationally-grounded and the polar opposite of all these as they do.
It's not a matter of raw intelligence alone, since there are some people who are by any yardstick awesomely clever in those areas where intellectual reach and grasp (i.e. science) can be quantified. It's about having a coherent and consistent map of the universe in which we exist, one which either demonstrates its efficacy in understanding the way things are or doesn't.
-
I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.
A great many, in fact by far the great majority do.
The point at issue is that they have no ground or warrant for flip-flopping back and forth - as they inescapably do - between the empirically, the naturalistically, the evidentially, the rationally-grounded and the polar opposite of all these as they do.
Utter nonsense based on not only a faith in naturalism but a faith in the superiority of naturalism.
People avoid this forum because of pieces of ignorance as shown by you here Shaker.
There is nothing magical about the empirical method Shaker.
A belief in naturalism is not necessary to carry out science.
You have nothing at all to link science with your beliefs Shaker. Go away, have the existential crisis and come back a better human being.
-
Utter nonsense based on not only a faith in naturalism but a faith in the superiority of naturalism.
I don't do faith.
People avoid this forum because of pieces of ignorance as shown by you here Shaker.
Ironically for the likes of you, you'll have to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.
What will actually happen in practice is that you'll do a Hope, and won't.
There is nothing magical about the empirical method Shaker.
That would be a contradiction in terms, wouldn't it?
A belief in naturalism is not necessary to carry out science.
Yes it is, or it's not science.
-
Utter nonsense based on not only a faith in naturalism but a faith in the superiority of naturalism.
I don't do faith.
People avoid this forum because of pieces of ignorance as shown by you here Shaker.
Ironically for the likes of you, you'll have to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.
What will actually happen in practice is that you'll do a Hope, and won't.
There is nothing magical about the empirical method Shaker.
That would be a contradiction in terms, wouldn't it?
A belief in naturalism is not necessary to carry out science.
Yes it is, or it's not science.
Cobblers, You can do the empirical method and you can be a great writer of poetry. If you say all disciplines are open to science apart from theology you are specially pleading as well as asserting rubbish.
You can have science and everything else.
You need to show now why a belief in naturalism is necessary for science.
Take some time to change clothing if you have soiled yourself at that challenge before showing why a belief in naturalism is necessary to do science.
-
Cobblers, You can do the empirical method and you can be a great writer of poetry.
I wasn't aware that anybody had said otherwise.
I do relish the fact however that you've compared religious belief to poetry. It's the sort of thing that liberal believers say quite often, and always, I always think, without ever truly realising the implications of what they're saying. So it's nice to see it yet again. You might want to think it through a bit more though :)
You need to show now why a belief in naturalism is necessary for science.
Take some time to change clothing if you have soiled yourself at that challenge before showing why a belief in naturalism is necessary to do science.
No, my clothing is fine. In fact, it wouldn't even be besmirched by so much as a drop of sweat (or other bodily secretion) at describing/explaining the success of the entirely methodologically naturalistic paradigm in explaining/describing reality. That ship sailed an awful long time ago, even if you happened to miss it. It's up to you - the bearer of the burden of proof - to substantiate your claim that your supernaturalist paradigm can do the job.
Good luck ;)
-
I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.
A great many, in fact by far the great majority do.
The point at issue is that they have no ground or warrant for flip-flopping back and forth - as they inescapably do - between the empirically, the naturalistically, the evidentially, the rationally-grounded and the polar opposite of all these as they do.
It's not a matter of raw intelligence alone, since there are some people who are by any yardstick awesomely clever in those areas where intellectual reach and grasp (i.e. science) can be quantified. It's about having a coherent and consistent map of the universe in which we exist, one which either demonstrates its efficacy in understanding the way things are or doesn't.
Any body with an ounce of sense here will spot you promulgating an either science or religion. That is the very nonsense on which New Atheism is largely based.
You can have science and religion.
You can no more forbid religious people doing science than you can stop them using Brobat to clean their toilets because ''it isn't the Holy spirit''.
What wonderful finding of science do you need to have believe in naturalism to appreciate?
-
You're a few posts behind, Vlad, old stick :D
-
You're a few posts behind, Vlad, old stick :D
Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.
Both fascinating and wonderful but terrifying.
Still if you want to believe that the successes of science are the successes of philosophical naturalism carry on with your grandiose delusion.
-
Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.
Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explaining/understanding the universe.
-
Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available. We have the Word of God and we no longer need a sign. The apostles used that gift so they could speak to people in their own languages, it was never a bunch of gibberish, it was real languages that were spoken. This before the written Word. It was temporary.
1Corinthians 13 is a chapter to read at this point.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the gift has ceased but we are in agreement that what is presented as the gift of tongues nowadays simply isn't.
-
Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.
Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explainining/understanding the universe.
No one is arguing how good science is at, er, science.
It still doesn't help you to get from science to a belief in naturalism.
You are adding a romantic, sentimental and mystical dimension to science (with what warrant?)in order to sex it up into philosophical naturalism.
-
No Vlad; only you bore on and on and on and on and on and on and on about philosophical naturalism.
-
Anchorman,
Read 1Corinthians13. It is plain there that the gift of tongues was temporary. It was a temporary gift to the apostles not to you or anybody alive today. There are NO apostles today. What language are you speaking when you speak in tongues Anchorman? Who is there to hear and understand and interpret for you. Tongues was NEVER used for a person alone. If you are speaking a gibberish language not known in the world, if you are using this speaking in tongues alone, if you have nobody that understands the language you speak, if you need a sign of tongues to tell you that the Holy Spirit is present because the Word fails to do that for you, fails to satisfy you, then I have to say your gift is not of God.
-
Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.
Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explainining/understanding the universe.
No one is arguing how good science is at, er, science.
It still doesn't help you to get from science to a belief in naturalism.
You are adding a romantic, sentimental and mystical dimension to science (with what warrant?)in order to sex it up into philosophical naturalism.
Nope, that be you lying about what people are saying, as you do continually. Please stop.
-
Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.
Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explainining/understanding the universe.
No one is arguing how good science is at, er, science.
It still doesn't help you to get from science to a belief in naturalism.
You are adding a romantic, sentimental and mystical dimension to science (with what warrant?)in order to sex it up into philosophical naturalism.
Nope, that be you lying about what people are saying, as you do continually. Please stop.
How else are people getting from the methodology to the philosophy except by romanticising science and elevating it by giving it a quality it doesn't have?
-
Who is doing that, Vlad?
-
Anchorman,
Read 1Corinthians13. It is plain there that the gift of tongues was temporary. It was a temporary gift to the apostles not to you or anybody alive today. There are NO apostles today. What language are you speaking when you speak in tongues Anchorman? Who is there to hear and understand and interpret for you. Tongues was NEVER used for a person alone. If you are speaking a gibberish language not known in the world, if you are using this speaking in tongues alone, if you have nobody that understands the language you speak, if you need a sign of tongues to tell you that the Holy Spirit is present because the Word fails to do that for you, fails to satisfy you, then I have to say your gift is not of God.
-
Yep.
Read it...in many translations, including Koine Greek umpteen years ago.
Ut does say
"Are there tongues? They will cease".
It does noot say when or why.
And surely it is by the power of the Holy Spirit - another of the charisma - that we read and understand Scripture; as per John 15, Acts 1:8, etc.
Has this charism gone as well?
If that gift remains, why should you think others have ceased with the Apostolic age?
I'm led to believe in Jesus Christ; the same Yesterday, today and forever. Since the Holy Spirit is part of the Triune nature of God also, then the same must apply to Him.
-
Anchorman,
Read 1Corinthians13. It is plain there that the gift of tongues was temporary. It was a temporary gift to the apostles not to you or anybody alive today. There are NO apostles today. What language are you speaking when you speak in tongues Anchorman? Who is there to hear and understand and interpret for you. Tongues was NEVER used for a person alone. If you are speaking a gibberish language not known in the world, if you are using this speaking in tongues alone, if you have nobody that understands the language you speak, if you need a sign of tongues to tell you that the Holy Spirit is present because the Word fails to do that for you, fails to satisfy you, then I have to say your gift is not of God.
Mr Canoe
You should read 1 Corinthians 14.
-
Yes Mr. Meth, I am aware of Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14, about how useless it is to speak in tongues when nobody can understand that gibberish.
-
Yes Mr. Meth, I am aware of Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14, about how useless it is to speak in tongues when nobody can understand that gibberish.
-
You realise, of course, that there is more than one type of 'tongue' gift described in the NT, JC?
While, yes, you are correct in saying that, where there is prophesy, there needs to be interpretation - and that's why I'm a bit dubious about certain fringe churches.
But I think you'll find that there are other types of tongue described - and (thankfully) one doesn't need to exhibit the Toronto effect to demonstrate them...indeed, I'd suggest that, if one were not in control, that would be absolutely against Scripture.
I don't know why I was given the ability to use tongues - and I do, in my private prayer and meditation times, when I can't find the words but need to pray very deeply.
Presumably for the "building up of the Church" as Scripture has it.
Certainly nothing - absolutely nothing - can take away from the study of Scripture and prayer as essential elements in our growth as believers. Tongues, for me, are an added extra.
I wouldn't urge anyone else to seek them, or indeed use them. That's between them and God.
-
Yes Mr. Meth, I am aware of Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14, about how useless it is to speak in tongues when nobody can understand that gibberish.
I think there is a bit more to it than that Mr C. However I do agree that Paul didn't think such public displays were as great as those churches who were into it were portraying.
-
The existence of the HS for a start!
Why is his existence nonsensical?
-
The existence of the HS for a start!
Why is his existence nonsensical?
Existence is time and physically based concept.
-
Events which occurred (not "supposed to have occurred" - that domain belongs to the nonsense of the assertions made by Christians, Muslims etc., i.e. wholly irrational belief systems) before humanity existed on the Earth leave behind traces which can be, and more to the point are, not only in principle testable but are in practice tested anew and found to be sound, reliable and accurate every single day.
Is this why scientists are unable to agree on the age of the universe, on the way that the universe came into being, on the age of the earth, ... Realy does sound like "sound, reliable and accurate".
It should go without saying, but in the circumstances it can never be said often enough, that these things are predicated upon a methodology the soundness and reliability of which was not only demonstrated long ago but is still demonstrated every single day that passes.
Shaker, something like the half-life of an element is, I accept, based on observation - but often on observation of something over a period of decades, rather than centuries or millennia. Necessarily, there have to be assumptions made in any such calculation.
I can remember one of our science teachers at school, who had worked at the JET Project in Harwell for 20 years before become a teacher, saying that one shouldn't believe a scientist when they tell you that science is 'sound, reliable or accurate' (though he didn't use those exact terms). He said that, instead, it is inexact, open to debate and its reliability is time-limited. He actually used the issue of half-lives and pointed out that, in view of the comparatively short period that we have known about half-lives, scientists have to assume that the rate of decay is uniform across all time, when in reality, we have no idea whether it has been in the past. The extension of the earth's age from about 4 billion years old when you and I were at school, to the modern belief that it is more like 4.5 billion would also throw the previous calculations regarding half-lives.
-
Existence is time and physically based concept.
According to what? Scientific naturalism? ;) Isn't that rather a circular argument?
-
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
-
Is this why scientists are unable to agree on the age of the universe, on the way that the universe came into being, on the age of the earth, ... Realy does sound like "sound, reliable and accurate".
You seem to be, to put it mildly, singularly misinformed in these matters. What leads you to believe that there isn't a common consensus on these things in the scientific community?
-
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Schizophrenic is the wrong word.
The word you're after is doublethink.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
That one's worth remembering, isn't it?
-
Schizophrenic is the wrong word.
Why? What makes 'doublethink' more suitable?
That one's worth remembering, isn't it?
I agree, which is why I stated it.
-
You seem to be, to put it mildly, singularly misinformed in these matters. What leads you to believe that there isn't a common consensus on these things in the scientific community?
Discussions with scientists from a variety of fields - geologists, medical scientists and related fields, physicists, chemists - several of whom I see and talk to on a regular basis at church.
-
I can only assume you must mix with an unrepresentative not to say downright bizarre subsection of scientists, then.
A suspicion further bolstered by the fact that you talk to them at church.
-
Why?
Schizophrenic, like theory in science, has a very precise and specific meaning within psychiatry; like theory it has escaped into the wild and become bastardised by non-specialists who use it in a way completely at odds with its actual definition. Like people who insist on using phrases such as begging the question in their proper sense and not the mangled version so prevalent in everyday speech maybe it's too late by now to try to drag people back to the proper meanings of words and phrases, but I'd sooner stick with correct usage.
What makes 'doublethink' more suitable?
It's a vastly more accurate way of describing the ability of some people to hold at least two incompatible and mutually contradictory ideas or worldviews in their heads simultaneously without the intellectual and emotional discomfort of its step-brother, cognitive dissonance.
-
Just to add to Shaker's point here about the use of schizophrenic, it's 'in the wild' use is also to my mind quite offensive to those who are genuinely in the proper sense schizophrenic.
-
I don't think it's deliberate offence, but I can see that to use the word to mean 'split-minded; contradictory; in two minds' of such an horrific condition which causes such untold misery and agony to sufferers and loved ones alike is unhelpful at best.
-
What makes 'doublethink' more suitable?
It's a vastly more accurate way of describing the ability of some people to hold at least two incompatible and mutually contradictory ideas or worldviews in their heads simultaneously without the intellectual and emotional discomfort of its step-brother, cognitive dissonance.
Assuming, of course, that these two disparate views are actually incompatible and mutually contradictory. There are, of course, many who don't believe that they are, including some scientists.
That is why I disputred the term 'doublethink'.
-
The existence of the HS for a start!
Why is his existence nonsensical?
Because it doesn't make any sense at all, especially as people who claim to be 'spirit filled' often behave like complete idiots, in my experience!
-
But your experience seems somewhat blinkered and limited.
-
Because it doesn't make any sense at all, especially as people who claim to be 'spirit filled' often behave like complete idiots, in my experience!
But none of that is pertinent to the question "Why is the existence of the HS nonsensical?'.
I could equally suggest that, because you behave so idiotically in some of your critique of religion, and are a-theistic, than all a-theistic people are nonsensical.
-
Existence is time and physically based concept.
According to what? Scientific naturalism? ;) Isn't that rather a circular argument?
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
-
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions. In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.
-
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions. In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.
So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.
-
And if God 'must have been' - you are also using time based concepts - and again making as much sense as four sided triangle
-
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.
You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.
Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.
The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).
ippy
-
Assuming, of course, that these two disparate views are actually incompatible and mutually contradictory.
They are. You don't have to, in fact shouldn't assume it; you just have to understand them to know why this is so.
There are, of course, many who don't believe that they are, including some scientists.
That is why I disputred the term 'doublethink'.
Doubtless you could find somebody who would dispute anything at all, but it doesn't mean that their view has any credibility or needs to be given credence.
-
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
No it isn't it's thick and ignorant.
Not only does it make people who claim it look thick and stupid, but those who don't challenge it as well.
-
Just to add to Shaker's point here about the use of schizophrenic, it's 'in the wild' use is also to my mind quite offensive to those who are genuinely in the proper sense schizophrenic.
This kind of misuse of words is quite common, like using the word brainwashing when indoctrination is plainly meant.(Actual brainwashing is no longer used, because it doesn't work, torture is a necessary part of the brainwashing process and it's against the law).
I just knew you'd all be unusually interested in this little snipit.
ippy
-
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
And I have often challenged the belief, ippy, without any sensible response from the nlikes of yourself.
There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.
Again, the 'dichotomy' is between two ideas that don't very often deal with the same aspects of life. I know that some like to try to get them to do so, but that is a minority.
You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum,
I'd agree that I have made some pretty tough comments about homosexuality, into which people like you have read some 'terrible things about, gay people'. That's your prerogative. As for "what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow"; they'd be the same sinvce the majority of my views have nothing to do with your so-called 'bronze-age manual'. 'So-called' because the New Testament records events dating from some 1200 years after the Bronze Age came to an end in the Near East, and 600-odd after it came to an end in Europe.
Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.
The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, ...
ippy, in whiuch sense are the people 'more educated'? Does it refer to the number of people who have qualifications in scientific disciplines, or does it refer to people who have a better understanding and practise of human relationships? Clearly, with the number of people determined to drive a wedge between religion and science on the scientific side, the former will inevitably indicate that the number of religious people is falling. If you use the latter explanation, you may well not get the same correlation.
-
Assuming, of course, that these two disparate views are actually incompatible and mutually contradictory.
They are. You don't have to, in fact shouldn't assume it; you just have to understand them to know why this is so.
In that case, why do many well-educated peple believe that they aren't, some even writing books about why they aren't? Or are you saying that you know better than someone like Denis Alexander - a neuroscientist who believes passionately in both the biblical doctrine of creation and the coherence of evolutionary theory.
Doubtless you could find somebody who would dispute anything at all, but it doesn't mean that their view has any credibility or needs to be given credence.
Which is probably why I don't believe that your 'view has any credibility or needs to be given credence'. As we've seen before, comments that both of us have made about each other's positions can equally be applied to their authors.
-
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.
You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.
Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.
The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).
ippy
How many of these atheist scientists believe you have to be an atheist to be a scientist?
Firstly there is that group of scientist/autist so brilliantly observed in the Big Bang theory.
Secondly there is a class of scientist who has slipped into thinking that what they do and how they do it is the way the world is and how life should be done...Brilliant scientists but probably shit at everything else.
But then there are scientists who recognise there atheism for what it is......an opinion.
The days of Yuri Gagarin going into space and reinforcing the state message that because he didn't see God in space, there wasn't a God are over but obviously there are a few proletariat still willing to drink in what certain scientists feed them.
For those I would recommend Bibledex on Youtube produced by the University of Nottingham.
-
In that case, why do many well-educated peple believe that they aren't, some even writing books about why they aren't?
For the same reason that people who aren't well-educated entertain religious beliefs; because these beliefs bypass the rational, critical faculties and go straight to the emotions, providing the sort of grand narratives - about the meaning and purpose of human life (never, you'll notice, about the lives of dung beetles and termites); about an assumed objective and absolute grounding for moral values; about the ultimate destiny of the human individual - that science doesn't provide because there's absolutely no warrant for such beliefs whatever.
The locus classicus for this kind of venture is Francis Collins's The Language of God. It's clear that Collins is in his field a very, very, very smart man indeed. You don't get to be the leader of the Human Genome Project by being a dummy - or, for that matter, just an ordinary, run of the mill scientist. But I found it impossible to read that book without coming to the conclusion that however brilliant he may be as a geneticist, there's just something about religious beliefs and the 'rationale' that people give for holding them that as soon as it comes to these beliefs, otherwise highly intelligent people turn off their brains and accept as true the most witless twaddle for appallingly sloppy reasons. The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense.
Or are you saying that you know better than someone like Denis Alexander - a neuroscientist who believes passionately in both the biblical doctrine of creation and the coherence of evolutionary theory.
From what I know of Alexander's, for want of a better word, thinking on the issue, yes. And it's not difficult, either, for the same reasons as with Collins.
-
But I found it impossible to read that book without coming to the conclusion that however brilliant he may be as a geneticist, there's just something about religious beliefs and the 'rationale' that people give for holding them that as soon as it comes to these beliefs, otherwise highly intelligent people turn off their brains and accept as true the most witless twaddle for appallingly sloppy reasons. The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense.
I haven't read the book, but my claim about religious beliefs has always been just what you say.
It matters not one jot how intelligent a person is, if his/her need to find an answer for everything is there, they will find a god.
They simply will not accept that we don't know.
-
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
And I have often challenged the belief, ippy, without any sensible response from the nlikes of yourself.
There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.
Again, the 'dichotomy' is between two ideas that don't very often deal with the same aspects of life. I know that some like to try to get them to do so, but that is a minority.
You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum,
I'd agree that I have made some pretty tough comments about homosexuality, into which people like you have read some 'terrible things about, gay people'. That's your prerogative. As for "what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow"; they'd be the same sinvce the majority of my views have nothing to do with your so-called 'bronze-age manual'. 'So-called' because the New Testament records events dating from some 1200 years after the Bronze Age came to an end in the Near East, and 600-odd after it came to an end in Europe.
Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.
The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, ...
ippy, in whiuch sense are the people 'more educated'? Does it refer to the number of people who have qualifications in scientific disciplines, or does it refer to people who have a better understanding and practise of human relationships? Clearly, with the number of people determined to drive a wedge between religion and science on the scientific side, the former will inevitably indicate that the number of religious people is falling. If you use the latter explanation, you may well not get the same correlation.
Like I said it's not a belief that a christian or holder of any other belief has to be split, on the one hand there are religious beliefs as opposed to clear analytical thought without the handicap of superstitious clutter.
Reasoned logic is just that; what other way is there to reason other than using reason and logic?
Your manual started off in the bronze age and obviously things didn't move on much between whenever it is you would like to date additions to that book where more magic, myth and more pursuance of superstition was added, since it's no longer relevant, other than it is a part of our common history; why is there any need for that lot where science is concerned?
Just put in Win/Gallup Atheism poll, it soon comes up then you can look at the figures for yourself without anything from my direction, please feel free to make up your own mind about the figures they are presenting.
Psychology used to be a B A degree or something like that it now comes as a BSC a science degree that being so where is there any need for religion in any of the science based reasonings if we did need religion there surly there must be a place for Tarot and other things like Astrology too.
The way I see it is that there is no wedge as you call it between science and religion, science can do all of the reasoning they can manage to do without a need for superstitions of any kind, call them what you like religions superstitions, unexplained magic tricks etc, in fact science is more likely to prove or disprove these things more than anything else is likely to.
ippy
-
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.
You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.
Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.
The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).
ippy
How many of these atheist scientists believe you have to be an atheist to be a scientist?
Firstly there is that group of scientist/autist so brilliantly observed in the Big Bang theory.
Secondly there is a class of scientist who has slipped into thinking that what they do and how they do it is the way the world is and how life should be done...Brilliant scientists but probably shit at everything else.
But then there are scientists who recognise there atheism for what it is......an opinion.
The days of Yuri Gagarin going into space and reinforcing the state message that because he didn't see God in space, there wasn't a God are over but obviously there are a few proletariat still willing to drink in what certain scientists feed them.
For those I would recommend Bibledex on Youtube produced by the University of Nottingham.
All I can tell you Big W is that If you go for, "Win/Gallup Atheism poll", on google, you can look at the figures for yourself, I found the poll came up with ease on google, with as above, in no time.
ippy
-
For the same reason that people who aren't well-educated entertain religious beliefs; because these beliefs bypass the rational, critical faculties and go straight to the emotions, providing the sort of grand narratives - about the meaning and purpose of human life (never, you'll notice, about the lives of dung beetles and termites); about an assumed objective and absolute grounding for moral values; about the ultimate destiny of the human individual - that science doesn't provide because there's absolutely no warrant for such beliefs whatever.
So, you are saying that said educated people aren't able to use their educational skills to discriminate between that hich is real and that which is not? Is there any reason why this same argument cannot be applied to those educated people who claim that they can discriminate between that hich is real and that which is not?
But I found it impossible to read that book without coming to the conclusion that however brilliant he may be as a geneticist, there's just something about religious beliefs and the 'rationale' that people give for holding them that as soon as it comes to these beliefs, otherwise highly intelligent people turn off their brains and accept as true the most witless twaddle for appallingly sloppy reasons.
OK, you're entitled to those opinions.
The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense.
But other than your own opinion as expressed here, do you actually have any solid evidence that the 'reasoning' isn't valid?
From what I know of Alexander's, for want of a better word, thinking on the issue, yes. And it's not difficult, either, for the same reasons as with Collins.
So, again, you have your own opinion, but no solid evidence.
-
I haven't read the book, but my claim about religious beliefs has always been just what you say.
So, your opinion, Len
They simply will not accept that we don't know.
Which, of course, is merely an opinion in its own right, isn't it Len.
-
But other than your own opinion as expressed here, do you actually have any solid evidence that the 'reasoning' isn't valid?
Yes. Collins - as high profile a scientist as he is - knows the stunning (and daily) success of the scientific method, but abandons it when it suits him for a method (if it can even be called that) which has never once, anywhere, ever demonstrated any reliable knowledge of the world.
So, again, you have your own opinion, but no solid evidence.
I've just given it. It's usually considered good form to wait for an answer to be given or for the other person to concede that they have no answer rather than to assume that there's no answer as a means of claiming that you've won the debate.
-
Shaker wrote this:
"The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense".
Then Hope replied this:
"But other than your own opinion as expressed here, do you actually have any solid evidence that the 'reasoning' isn't valid"?
You've done it again Hope? Surly you're not that thick how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in?
It's for believers to come up with evidence; you must know this by now, you do get it? You must have got it by now?
ippy
-
Like I said it's not a belief that a christian or holder of any other belief has to be split, on the one hand there are religious beliefs as opposed to clear analytical thought without the handicap of superstitious clutter.
And here's the third of the opinion-Trinity who is determined that his opinion, despite having provided no supporting evidence, is fact.
Reasoned logic is just that; what other way is there to reason other than using reason and logic?
There are many who have used the reason and logic and come to the conclusion that the atheist position is untenable - some such people starting out as atheists, some not. How do you explain that?
... why is there any need for that lot where science is concerned?
OK, ippy, where did science come from? For instance, did natural laws and the laws of physics on which science is dependent just appear out of nothing?
Just put in Win/Gallup Atheism poll, it soon comes up then you can look at the figures for yourself without anything from my direction, please feel free to make up your own mind about the figures they are presenting.
OK, ippy, how do you square the indication that China - possibly the least educated country in the world when its thousands of rural communities with limited educational facilities are taken into account, but also has sizeable Christian and other religious communities, many of them amongst the more educated ranks of the nation - has the highest figure of convinced atheists, with your claim that it is with education that religious belief dies out. Remember too that most of the Chinese of our age would have had any religious belief that they might have had drummed out of them by the agents of Mao, thus skewing the figues in regard to atheism - the 'state religion' as it were.
Psychology used to be a B A degree or something like that it now comes as a BSC a science degree that being so where is there any need for religion in any of the science based reasonings if we did need religion there surly there must be a place for Tarot and other things like Astrology too.
Not quite sure of your point(s) here. There are a whole host of subjects that used to be regarded as Humanity disciplines, but are now regarded as Science disciplines. Maths and Physics are two good historical examples!!
The way I see it is that there is no wedge as you call it between science and religion, science can do all of the reasoning they can manage to do without a need for superstitions of any kind, call them what you like religions superstitions, unexplained magic tricks etc, in fact science is more likely to prove or disprove these things more than anything else is likely to.
ippy
I would agree whole-heartedly with you, ippy. Science doesn't need superstition, but sometimes requires what you call 'unexplained magic tricks' (such as so-called 'spontaneous healings' which have absolutely no medical or scientific explanations, yet are widely documented in medical records). But then, nor does religious belief. You (and others) like to call it 'superstition' and 'magic' because that allows you to dismiss it as fantasy rather than confronting it for what it is; something beyond the physical and physically evidence-able.
It's like the preference to use euphemisms rather than the real word; passing on, passing over, gone to glory, left this life, pushing up daisies, resting in peace, six feet under, ... I could go on, but there are probably about 100 (http://www.listology.com/rosiecotton/list/euphemisms-deathdeadto-die) and listing them would take for ever.
-
You've done it again Hope? Surly you're not that thick how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in?
It's for believers to come up with evidence; you must know this by now, you do get it? You must have got it by now?
ippy
ippy, Shaker came up with a claim concerning a person's written documentation. He claims that "It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense". As I am sure you would agree that there is no scientifically provable evidence in that jumble of emotional phraseology. I have, quite legitimately asked him for the scientific evidence to support that claim. It is not for me, as a religious person, to attempt to explain what is clearly an emotional claim on Shaker's part.
-
You (and others) like to call it 'superstition' and 'magic' because that allows you to dismiss it as fantasy rather than confronting it for what it is; something beyond the physical and physically evidence-able.
Your evidence for the assertion that there is anything beyond the physical and physically evidence-able is what, precisely? What method are you using to ascertain the existence of this something?
-
Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.
I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.
Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.
It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.
You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.
Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.
The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).
ippy
How many of these atheist scientists believe you have to be an atheist to be a scientist?
Firstly there is that group of scientist/autist so brilliantly observed in the Big Bang theory.
Secondly there is a class of scientist who has slipped into thinking that what they do and how they do it is the way the world is and how life should be done...Brilliant scientists but probably shit at everything else.
But then there are scientists who recognise there atheism for what it is......an opinion.
The days of Yuri Gagarin going into space and reinforcing the state message that because he didn't see God in space, there wasn't a God are over but obviously there are a few proletariat still willing to drink in what certain scientists feed them.
For those I would recommend Bibledex on Youtube produced by the University of Nottingham.
All I can tell you Big W is that If you go for, "Win/Gallup Atheism poll", on google, you can look at the figures for yourself, I found the poll came up with ease on google, with as above, in no time.
ippy
Yes and I've explained them:
Over inflated view of the capabilities of their own profession.
To which one could add peer pressure.
-
Vlad: quoting - learn how to do it, for crying out loud.
-
Yes. Collins - as high profile a scientist as he is - knows the stunning (and daily) success of the scientific method, but abandons it when it suits him for a method (if it can even be called that) which has never once, anywhere, ever demonstrated any reliable knowledge of the world.
Again, your own opinion, Shaker. Just in case you have missed some the stuff in the Bible, how many psychological and even physiological principles are built on tenets laid out in religious texts - for instance: everything in moderation, do as you would be done by, try, try, try again, ...
I've just given it.
Where?
It's usually considered good form to wait for an answer to be given or for the other person to concede that they have no answer rather than to assume that there's no answer as a means of claiming that you've won the debate.
It's also considered good form - or at least a lot of posts here are predicated on the idea that if you haven't provided the evidence alongside your argument than it doesn't exist. For instance, you have asked me several times to lay out my evidence for a comment I made about homosexuality about a fortnight ago. In the interim, in addition to working on 4 job applications and a number of other 'work-related' matters that have nothing to do with this forum, I have been trying to pull up old threads and posts from the archives, both of this and other forums, where the likes of Jim, Alien and myself have laid out these same arguments before. But, oh no, you originally wanted the answer within minutes, and made it clear that my not providing it showed that it didn't exist.
I curreewntly have 2 sides of A4 of notes from this exercise. Don't worry, I won't cut and paste it all, I'll summarise and condense it to headings if necessary.
-
Vlad: quoting - learn how to do it, for crying out loud.
My apologies to everyone except Shaker.
-
Again, your own opinion, Shaker. Just in case you have missed some the stuff in the Bible, how many psychological and even physiological principles are built on tenets laid out in religious texts - for instance: everything in moderation, do as you would be done by, try, try, try again, ...
These also are merely opinions.
For instance, you have asked me several times to lay out my evidence for a comment I made about homosexuality about a fortnight ago. In the interim, in addition to working on 4 job applications and a number of other 'work-related' matters that have nothing to do with this forum, I have been trying to pull up old threads and posts from the archives, both of this and other forums, where the likes of Jim, Alien and myself have laid out these same arguments before.
Not my problem, so I don't need to hear about it.
But, oh no, you originally wanted the answer within minutes, and made it clear that my not providing it showed that it didn't exist.
It has been conspicuous by its absence, as is the substantiation of your claim that I have deployed the negative proof fallacy more than you. These are just a couple of immediately notable examples; I am in no doubt that even a cursory trawl back through your recent posting history will unearth even more.
-
Your evidence for the assertion that there is anything beyond the physical and physically evidence-able is what, precisely? What method are you using to ascertain the existence of this something?
I am basing my thinking on the fact that, within academia, there are fields of study that don't require scientific evidence in order to exist. For instance, I don't know what art you like but let's say, for sake of argument, you are a Picasso-loving Cubist and ippy is a Monet-loving impressionist. Do you have any scientific way of explaining that your love of cubism is better than ippy's impressionism?
Or, do you have any scientific means of explaining why Jo Bloggs, having lain in a vegetative state for 20+ years suddenly comes out of it with remarkably limited brain damage even though there has been no medical, as opposed to simply drip-feeding and bottle-darining of waste products intervention for several years? Such things have happened and doctors hgave recorded them and even written papers on them for journals like the Lancet.
-
These also are merely opinions.
Tu quoque, to quote others.
Not my problem, so I don't need to hear about it.
So, I don't need to post it, then? When I do, can I be sure that you won't be commenting on any of the points if, as you say "Not my problem, so I don't need to hear about it". ;)
I am in no doubt that even a cursory trawl back through your recent posting history will unearth even more.
Go on then.
-
Your evidence for the assertion that there is anything beyond the physical and physically evidence-able is what, precisely? What method are you using to ascertain the existence of this something?
I am basing my thinking on the fact that, within academia, there are fields of study that don't require scientific evidence in order to exist. For instance, I don't know what art you like but let's say, for sake of argument, you are a Picasso-loving Cubist and ippy is a Monet-loving impressionist. Do you have any scientific way of explaining that your love of cubism is better than ippy's impressionism?
So god is like my liking of marmite - entirely subjective and not a claim about reality?
-
I am basing my thinking on the fact that, within academia, there are fields of study that don't require scientific evidence in order to exist. For instance, I don't know what art you like but let's say, for sake of argument, you are a Picasso-loving Cubist and ippy is a Monet-loving impressionist. Do you have any scientific way of explaining that your love of cubism is better than ippy's impressionism?
I'm aways delighted whenever somebody compares religious belief to the aesthetic sense - to a feeling for visual art or music or poetry; delighted partly because it's such an easy argument to refute and partly because those who try to mount this argument are clearly unaware of the implications and ramifications for religious belief if pursued to its logical conclusion. That conclusion is that if religious belief is a matter of individual taste and subjective opinion, there is absolutely no ground for anyone else to take it even remotely seriously. Of course, what happens more often than not in actual practice is that few believers treat their religion in this way. Rather than a personal inclination, most take it very seriously indeed as purporting to talk about actual states of affairs - things that really do (to them) exist and events that really did (to them) occur. The resurrection, for example. Apart from a small minority of very liberally-minded believers, for most the articles of their faith - certainly the irreducible core, such as the resurrection for Christians - purport to be real and true descriptions of actual states of affairs, not even remotely comparable to a liking for marzipan or an aversion to death metal.
I can categorically state that the members of ISIS today, acting as they do as Christians did in the Middle Ages, do not do what they do on the basis that their beliefs are subjective opinions which are 'true for them.' This is typical. Even though Christianity has, thank goodness, largely had its teeth comprehensively pulled, every time that some bishop or other stands up to denounce equal marriage or abortion or stem cell research, he's not merely expressing a personal opinion: he's trying to sway the debate in his favour by appealing to what he thinks, on no grounds at all, are objective truths. They have to do this, because nobody can sway a debate or enforce their beliefs on others merely on the basis of opinion. People would, quite rightly, turn round and tell such individuals to piss off and take their opinions with them; it's one of the best features of the modern world that with religious 'authorities' people are increasingly doing this, as we saw in Ireland back in May for instance.
So no, there is no scientific means of establishing why Tim's preference for Pam Ayres is objectively better (or worse) than Tom's preference for Ezra Pound. There doesn't have to be, when most people regard these as matters of indvidual taste, preference and wholly subjective opinion - all the things that religionists generally do not say of their chosen religion. If you want to consider your adherence to your religion to be on the same footing as - to use NS's example - a liking for Marmite, I'd be only too delighted to agree. Only, if you want to go down that particular road, you'll have absolutely no basis for trying to convince anyone that your religion's ridiculous claims are true.
Personal opinion or objective truth - one or the other; it can't be both. So which will it be today?
ETA: While I was writing I see that Nearly Sane has just made precisely the same point in #124.
Or, do you have any scientific means of explaining why Jo Bloggs, having lain in a vegetative state for 20+ years suddenly comes out of it with remarkably limited brain damage even though there has been no medical, as opposed to simply drip-feeding and bottle-darining of waste products intervention for several years? Such things have happened and doctors hgave recorded them and even written papers on them for journals like the Lancet.
Statistics. Given a big enough sample size - I'd say seven billion should do it - and such a thing is bound to happen.
-
So, I don't need to post it, then? When I do, can I be sure that you won't be commenting on any of the points if, as you say "Not my problem, so I don't need to hear about it". ;)
I was referring to your job applications and other trivia as not being my problem and something I don't need to hear about.
-
So god is like my liking of marmite - entirely subjective and not a claim about reality?
Aren't Cubism and impressionism expressions of reality?
-
You've done it again Hope? Surly you're not that thick how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in?
It's for believers to come up with evidence; you must know this by now, you do get it? You must have got it by now?
ippy
ippy, Shaker came up with a claim concerning a person's written documentation. He claims that "It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense". As I am sure you would agree that there is no scientifically provable evidence in that jumble of emotional phraseology. I have, quite legitimately asked him for the scientific evidence to support that claim. It is not for me, as a religious person, to attempt to explain what is clearly an emotional claim on Shaker's part.
Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.
ippy
-
Your evidence for the assertion that there is anything beyond the physical and physically evidence-able is what, precisely? What method are you using to ascertain the existence of this something?
I am basing my thinking on the fact that, within academia, there are fields of study that don't require scientific evidence in order to exist. For instance, I don't know what art you like but let's say, for sake of argument, you are a Picasso-loving Cubist and ippy is a Monet-loving impressionist. Do you have any scientific way of explaining that your love of cubism is better than ippy's impressionism?
Or, do you have any scientific means of explaining why Jo Bloggs, having lain in a vegetative state for 20+ years suddenly comes out of it with remarkably limited brain damage even though there has been no medical, as opposed to simply drip-feeding and bottle-darining of waste products intervention for several years? Such things have happened and doctors hgave recorded them and even written papers on them for journals like the Lancet.
Evolution relies on all sorts of quirks of nature that assist with survival which without going into all of the evlutionary details, evolutions reliance on quirks; the quirk of someone coming out of a vegative state would be just that, a quirk, which can be from any number of chance happenings that have come together and this chap comes out of a vegative state, no need for MrMagic to put in an attendance.
How can you prove that a Mr Magic had anything to do with this fortunate persons recovery, you can't, the chance happening of several factors leading to this person recovering is far more likely, in fact very likely.
By the by I'm more Picasso than Monet although there's nothing wrong with Monet's works.
ippy
-
Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.
ippy
OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?
-
Evolution relies on all sorts of quirks of nature that assist with survival which without going into all of the evlutionary details, evolutions reliance on quirks; the quirk of someone coming out of a vegative state would be just that, a quirk, which can be from any number of chance happenings that have come together and this chap comes out of a vegative state, no need for MrMagic to put in an attendance.
That's a very convenient way of thinking, ippy. Inexplicable quirks occur in order to clear up issues that evolution has got wrong? Accidental quirks occur when something inexplicable occurs.
How can you prove that a Mr Magic had anything to do with this fortunate persons recovery, you can't, the chance happening of several factors leading to this person recovering is far more likely, in fact very likely.
Not quite sure how you got from the idea that reality occurs outside of the parameters of scientific naturalism to the existence of a Mr Magic (whoever that might be - is it another of your euphemistic characters that help you to avoid reality ;) )
By the by I'm more Picasso than Monet although there's nothing wrong with Monet's works.
Just for Shaker's benefit, is there any scientific reason why you prefer Picasso's Cubism to Monet's Impressionism?
-
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions. In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.
So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.
I see what you did there, you mentioned something logically not possible and hoped some of it's ridiculousness would rub off. There is no obvious link between time and existence that just seems to be an assumption drawn from philosophical naturalism. Perhaps you would like to show your working out.
-
You've done it again Hope? Surly you're not that thick how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in?
It's for believers to come up with evidence; you must know this by now, you do get it? You must have got it by now?
ippy
ippy, Shaker came up with a claim concerning a person's written documentation. He claims that "It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense". As I am sure you would agree that there is no scientifically provable evidence in that jumble of emotional phraseology. I have, quite legitimately asked him for the scientific evidence to support that claim. It is not for me, as a religious person, to attempt to explain what is clearly an emotional claim on Shaker's part.
Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.
ippy
Let me help you out here Ippy.
What is it we're not supposed to believe in? And why?
-
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions. In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.
So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.
I see what you did there, you mentioned something logically not possible and hoped some of it's ridiculousness would rub off. There is no obvious link between time and existence that just seems to be an assumption drawn from philosophical naturalism. Perhaps you would like to show your working out.
Except there is am obvious link between time and existence since it is at statement about something being. This has a built in statement about time as indeed all our language on this does.
It is exactly the same as the four sided triangle because a non temporal existence is definitionallly contradictory. Merely waving your hands and saying of course non temporal existence makes sense is the equivalent of waggling your pink painted arse and saying of course you can have a four sided triangle.
-
Merely waving your hands and saying of course non temporal existence makes sense is the equivalent of waggling your pink painted arse and saying of course you can have a four sided triangle.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh dearie me, man, how do you think up these side-splitting analogies?
-
Let me help you out here Ippy.
What is it we're not supposed to believe in? And why?
The idea of you helping Ippy out on this particular subject is the height of irony! ::)
-
Merely waving your hands and saying of course non temporal existence makes sense is the equivalent of waggling your pink painted arse and saying of course you can have a four sided triangle.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh dearie me, man, how do you think up these side-splitting analogies?
Unfortunately for me, in the case of Vlad, they often pop fully formed into my mind with pictures
-
Unfortunately for me, in the case of Vlad, they often pop fully formed into my mind with pictures
Poor you! A picture of Vlad wagging his pink-painted arse must be among the yukkiest things on this planet. :(
-
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions. In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.
So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.
I see what you did there, you mentioned something logically not possible and hoped some of it's ridiculousness would rub off. There is no obvious link between time and existence that just seems to be an assumption drawn from philosophical naturalism. Perhaps you would like to show your working out.
Never mind time and existence, but time and logic are linked. You make a nonsense of logic when you start talking about existence without a concept of time. It's right there in the classical laws of thought with the law of non-contradiction - something cannot be A and not A at the same time. Remove time and you remove the application of this logic. Even Alien has made the case that it's innacurate/doesn't make sense to say that god does things simultaneously without time, and I agree, but then what the fuck are we talking about? It all goes out the window when we throw away a cornerstone of logic.
-
No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions. In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.
So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.
I see what you did there, you mentioned something logically not possible and hoped some of it's ridiculousness would rub off. There is no obvious link between time and existence that just seems to be an assumption drawn from philosophical naturalism. Perhaps you would like to show your working out.
Except there is am obvious link between time and existence since it is at statement about something being. This has a built in statement about time as indeed all our language on this does.
It is exactly the same as the four sided triangle because a non temporal existence is definitionallly contradictory. Merely waving your hands and saying of course non temporal existence makes sense is the equivalent of waggling your pink painted arse and saying of course you can have a four sided triangle.
Nearly you have merely reasserted your original assertion.
What is the link between time and existence?
Secondly, Isn't there a question mark within physics and certainly within maths about time itself?
Read anything about the philosophy of existence and time does not seem to feature. I don't think it is that fundamental to being.
Then we are back to the issue of an eternal universe, what meaning does time have for an eternal infinite without end or beginning universe?
If it has none then any eternal being can as it were claim the same privileges.
Not only did you make the category error of a four sided triangle once you made it again.
So I ask you again show your working out. How is time fundamental to being
-
More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.
-
More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.
Pah, Hand waving.
Here's one for you and the Andster
Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
-
Is Andy's thread on time still about? If so, I would suggest we revive it to discuss this as this is way off topic
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
An entire universe in which there is no overall motion (where would it move?)or no net heat gain or loss (where would it gain it from or lose it to?).
Explain why time is necessary for existence after all I asked you first.
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
So the universe was created with logic?
tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?
-
Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.
Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.
-
Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.
Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.
eh?
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
So the universe was created with logic?
tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?
First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.
Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.
-
Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.
Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.
eh?
change that your for then your.
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
So the universe was created with logic?
tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?
First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.
Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.
Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
Have a cup of something, let your nerves or angry wrath at being so far bested subside and try again a bit later.
Much of physics sees time as illusiory. You guys shouldn't get upset at the idea, after all you use it enough yourselves.
-
More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.
Pah, Hand waving.
Here's one for you and the Andster
Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?
No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.
The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.
-
More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.
Pah, Hand waving.
Here's one for you and the Andster
Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?
No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.
The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.
Time is contingent on being not the other way round.
Nobody is suggesting you can be using logic and not using it the same time.
Using though is different from being though since using something is contingent on it being.
You have ignored my example of a universe as being without time since there is no net movement nor energy change.
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
So the universe was created with logic?
tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?
First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.
Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.
Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
Have a cup of something, let your nerves or angry wrath at being so far bested subside and try again a bit later.
Much of physics sees time as illusiory. You guys shouldn't get upset at the idea, after all you use it enough yourselves.
I don't know who 'you guys' are but the points I am making are about language and how we might describe something. Physics throws up problems in how we use this and as I have previously suggested, I think talking of anything beyond Planck time with our assumptions of how we experience things is possibly meaningless.
Oh and by the way if I were you I wouldn't go down the route of implying that if someone writes something others find obscure and difficult to understand means they have been bested in argument, for your own sake.
-
More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.
Pah, Hand waving.
Here's one for you and the Andster
Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?
No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.
The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.
Time is contingent on being not the other way round.
Nobody is suggesting you can be using logic and not using it the same time.
Using though is different from being though since using something is contingent on it being.
You have ignored my example of a universe as being without time since there is no net movement nor energy change.
I've not argued that time isn't contingent on being, only that to talk about a being doing stuff without time is meaningless wibble.
And you are inadvertently using logic and removing it's usage in one foul swoop as I have already explained above (for which you have ignored).
I haven't ignored anything that you have directed at me. To be clear, I am not making the conflation between space-time and the concept of time. In fact, I've only mentioned the concept - the idea in a metaphysical sense where events appear to happen in series bound in some form of continuum.
-
Change with time? No. Dependent as we use it on the concept of time, yes. If there was no time, would there be such a thing as logic, not in any sense we currently understand it and if anyone wants to posit such a thing then burden of proof is on them.
So once again explain existence without a concept of time.
So the universe was created with logic?
tell me if the universe ended...and then another one started would it have a completely new logic or be bound by the old one?
First question, first of don't import ideas unnecessarily. Created is a weighted term. It also includes an assumption of there somehow being a time, in imputing a change from some earlier state which would not make any sense. As to logic, it seems to me about our perception of it, I think we run into the problem of induction beyond that.
Essentially, you are trying to describe things with language based on concepts that you then try to remove. At that point the language becomes meaningless.
Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
Have a cup of something, let your nerves or angry wrath at being so far bested subside and try again a bit later.
Much of physics sees time as illusiory. You guys shouldn't get upset at the idea, after all you use it enough yourselves.
I don't know who 'you guys' are but the points I am making are about language and how we might describe something. Physics throws up problems in how we use this and as I have previously suggested, I think talking of anything beyond Planck time with our assumptions of how we experience things is possibly meaningless.
Oh and by the way if I were you I wouldn't go down the route of implying that if someone writes something others find obscure and difficult to understand means they have been bested in argument, for your own sake.
No...you asked me to provide an example of how something existing without time and I did.
I also put it in terms I thought you would understand
You have yet to prove it incorrect.
I never said you had been bested but that you were ''so far bested.'' I even suggested that you take a break to mount your counter argument.
I would like to see that.
However the tone has become rather menacing and I can think of more enjoyable ways of passing the time so I shall leave you to it.
-
Menacing????? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?
-
More arse waggling from you, Vlad. Stating something exists is a statement of time. As Andy has pointed out, you are breaking the excluded middle here. When you can get to actually talking about how existence I.e. that something is, a tensed statement, one time, get back to me.
Pah, Hand waving.
Here's one for you and the Andster
Does logic itself change with time? Is it affected by time?
No, but it's application is dependent on the concept. If you think otherwise, that you can use logic while simultaneously not use it, that would be some demonstration.
The weird thing is, you kinda do think that without realising. Any statement you make is based on it not currently being the opposite, so when you say god is timeless, you're saying that god is not in time, but you've removed the logic that makes that distinction while still trying to use it.
Time is contingent on being not the other way round.
Nobody is suggesting you can be using logic and not using it the same time.
Using though is different from being though since using something is contingent on it being.
You have ignored my example of a universe as being without time since there is no net movement nor energy change.
I've not argued that time isn't contingent on being, only that to talk about a being doing stuff without time is meaningless wibble.
And you are inadvertently using logic and removing it's usage in one foul swoop as I have already explained above (for which you have ignored).
I haven't ignored anything that you have directed at me. To be clear, I am not making the conflation between space-time and the concept of time. In fact, I've only mentioned the concept - the idea in a metaphysical sense where events appear to happen in series bound in some form of continuum.
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
-
Menacing????? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?
Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
You should be having this chat with Alien, as he thinks god is without time without the universe and with time with the universe. When you come to some form of consensus, so the rest of us don't have to flip flop between contradictory theologies, then perhaps we can continue down the one path.
-
Menacing????? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?
Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''
I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.
-
Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.
ippy
OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?
No, it's an easy job, it would be exactly similar to mentioning those that have a belief in Unicorns.
It's so unlikely Unicorns exist due to the lack of any evidence that would confirm that they do really/actually exist.
So unless the necessary credible evidence is found why would I believe in the existence of Unicorns? There is no logical or rational reason to believe in them, in an exactly similar ditto, religion.
If you had come up with the evidence no matter how long winded, it would have been splashed all over the world media, as you must know, it hasn't happened which should be telling you Hope, you're on a looser.
ippy
P S, I'm finding it difficult to see why you seem so totally unable to understand that the ball for supplying evidence is firmly in your court?
-
Evolution relies on all sorts of quirks of nature that assist with survival which without going into all of the evlutionary details, evolutions reliance on quirks; the quirk of someone coming out of a vegative state would be just that, a quirk, which can be from any number of chance happenings that have come together and this chap comes out of a vegative state, no need for MrMagic to put in an attendance.
That's a very convenient way of thinking, ippy. Inexplicable quirks occur in order to clear up issues that evolution has got wrong? Accidental quirks occur when something inexplicable occurs.
How can you prove that a Mr Magic had anything to do with this fortunate persons recovery, you can't, the chance happening of several factors leading to this person recovering is far more likely, in fact very likely.
Not quite sure how you got from the idea that reality occurs outside of the parameters of scientific naturalism to the existence of a Mr Magic (whoever that might be - is it another of your euphemistic characters that help you to avoid reality ;) )
By the by I'm more Picasso than Monet although there's nothing wrong with Monet's works.
Just for Shaker's benefit, is there any scientific reason why you prefer Picasso's Cubism to Monet's Impressionism?
Not my problem Hope if you don't know the basis of how evolution works; well I'll try; each living thing when it reproduces, some offspring have minor differences some of no use, some that can aid survival, the latter because they aid survival they get passed on, call them minor differences or quirks or whatever you wish to call them please yourself but these are the chance happenings that I referred to in my former post.
Does your kind of response mean that evolution can't be mentioned unless followed by a complete up to date explanation of the whole process, surly not?
Sorry, if someone recovers from a certain death type ailment Mr Magic didit and then if they die after a long bout of suffering Mr Diabolo, I forgot how simple it is to explain life in your world.
ippy
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.
Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.
So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.
It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.
And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''
-
Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.
ippy
OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?
No, it's an easy job, it would be exactly similar to mentioning those that have a belief in Unicorns.
It's so unlikely Unicorns exist due to the lack of any evidence that would confirm that they do really/actually exist.
So unless the necessary credible evidence is found why would I believe in the existence of Unicorns? There is no logical or rational reason to believe in them, in an exactly similar ditto, religion.
If you had come up with the evidence no matter how long winded, it would have been splashed all over the world media, as you must know, it hasn't happened which should be telling you Hope, you're on a looser.
ippy
P S, I'm finding it difficult to see why you seem so totally unable to understand that the ball for supplying evidence is firmly in your court?
So there is Ippy all dressed up to give Norf Lunnen community a talk on atheism and he short changes them by shooting some shit about unicorns.....................
-
Menacing????? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?
Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''
I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.
Well, something Distinctly Dawkins shaped seems to have sucked lots of people in at least.
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.
Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.
So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.
It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.
And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''
Is God "An entity". I know there are some theologians who would dispute that (theologians do so like to quibble over minor particles of language (such as the 'que' in 'filioque'). Of course that indefinite article doesn't even exist in koine Greek, in which the basics of Christian theology were first laid down, so I don't think we should worry about it too much. However, I can't help thinking there is some sort of difference between "A being" and "Being". Long live English, the language of theological precision*!
*oxymoron intended :)
-
Menacing????? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?
Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''
I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.
Well, something Distinctly Dawkins shaped seems to have sucked lots of people in at least.
Personally, I prefer Stephen Jay Gould, but NS considers him philosophically inferior to Dawkins. Since I happen to respect NS's thinking, I have to weigh this up. Must admit, though, I never thought that Dawkins' take on scripture (at least the Judaeo/Christian stuff) was all that great.
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.
Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.
So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.
It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.
And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''
Is God "An entity". I know there are some theologians who would dispute that (theologians do so like to quibble over minor particles of language (such as the 'que' in 'filioque'). Of course that indefinite article doesn't even exist in koine Greek, in which the basics of Christian theology were first laid down, so I don't think we should worry about it too much. However, I can't help thinking there is some sort of difference between "A being" and "Being". Long live English, the language of theological precision!
I think Andy and nearly Sane would argue that neither beings nor being are possible in/with/up etc ''timelessness''.
I take a bit of an''Ippyesque'' approach and use the word entity as meaning the opposite of non existent bollocks or whatever the technical term for that is.
-
Menacing????? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?
Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''
I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.
Well, something Distinctly Dawkins shaped seems to have sucked lots of people in at least.
Personally, I prefer Stephen Jay Gould, but NS considers him philosophically inferior to Dawkins. Since I happen to respect NS's thinking, I have to weigh this up. Must admit, though, I never thought that Dawkins' take on scripture (at least the Judaeo/Christian stuff) was all that great.
We could be twins!
I like SJ GOULD, respect NS....a little, and agree with you on Dawkins and scripture.
-
We could be twins!
God -ahem! - forbid! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.
Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.
So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.
It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.
And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''
Is God "An entity".
Is the Universe an entity?
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.
Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.
So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.
It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.
And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''
Is God "An entity".
Is the Universe an entity?
I suppose some forms of pantheism might say it was.
-
Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.
ippy
OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?
No, it's an easy job, it would be exactly similar to mentioning those that have a belief in Unicorns.
It's so unlikely Unicorns exist due to the lack of any evidence that would confirm that they do really/actually exist.
So unless the necessary credible evidence is found why would I believe in the existence of Unicorns? There is no logical or rational reason to believe in them, in an exactly similar ditto, religion.
If you had come up with the evidence no matter how long winded, it would have been splashed all over the world media, as you must know, it hasn't happened which should be telling you Hope, you're on a looser.
ippy
P S, I'm finding it difficult to see why you seem so totally unable to understand that the ball for supplying evidence is firmly in your court?
So there is Ippy all dressed up to give Norf Lunnen community a talk on atheism and he short changes them by shooting some shit about unicorns.....................
What?
ippy
-
Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.
Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.
But, NS, the concept of time can differ between cultures, so existence can't be dependent on a given understanding of time.
-
Not my problem Hope if you don't know the basis of how evolution works; well I'll try; each living thing when it reproduces, some offspring have minor differences some of no use, some that can aid survival, the latter because they aid survival they get passed on, call them minor differences or quirks or whatever you wish to call them please yourself but these are the chance happenings that I referred to in my former post.
But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc.?
Does your kind of response mean that evolution can't be mentioned unless followed by a complete up to date explanation of the whole process, surly not?
In view of youer incredibly simplistic take on evolution given here - perhaps we need to be made aware of just how you are defining evolution everytime you mention it.
Sorry, if someone recovers from a certain death type ailment Mr Magic didit and then if they die after a long bout of suffering Mr Diabolo, I forgot how simple it is to explain life in your world.
Oh, so that's how you believe things happen. I begin to understand why you find things so difficult. Just for your information, the Christian perspective is that God is in overall control - he has won the war, as it were - but evil still wins the occasional battle. Death is a natural event, which we will all ultimately experience. For some, like my father, that experience will be very brief (he is thought to have died even before hitting the Underground station platform he was standing on, following a massive heart attack); for others it will be longer (my mother became increasingly ill over a period of 2 - 2.5 years before she died). For others, that experience will be far longer than that 2-2.5 year period. There is nothing within Christian thought that suggests that a healing or a death in less than X months is down to God, and a death in more than x months being down to Satan.
I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.
-
But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc.?
ippy's suspicion that you don't understand the basis of EbNS has been vindicated.
I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.
Is this "reality" the same one for which, despite repeated requests by umpteen different posters, you can offer no methodology whatsoever?
-
ippy's suspicion that you don't understand the basis of EbNS has been vindicated.
So, you would disagree with this, from wikipedia? Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)
As I said, evolution takes place, at least in part, in response to external factors such as the external environment.
Is this "reality" the same one for which, despite repeated requests by umpteen different posters, you can offer no methodology whatsoever?
Well, when the parameters for a methodology that is acceptable to some here are limited to those that are scientifically verifiable, 'reality' is limited to a very narrow concept.
-
Not my problem Hope if you don't know the basis of how evolution works; well I'll try; each living thing when it reproduces, some offspring have minor differences some of no use, some that can aid survival, the latter because they aid survival they get passed on, call them minor differences or quirks or whatever you wish to call them please yourself but these are the chance happenings that I referred to in my former post.
But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc.?
Does your kind of response mean that evolution can't be mentioned unless followed by a complete up to date explanation of the whole process, surly not?
In view of youer incredibly simplistic take on evolution given here - perhaps we need to be made aware of just how you are defining evolution everytime you mention it.
Sorry, if someone recovers from a certain death type ailment Mr Magic didit and then if they die after a long bout of suffering Mr Diabolo, I forgot how simple it is to explain life in your world.
Oh, so that's how you believe things happen. I begin to understand why you find things so difficult. Just for your information, the Christian perspective is that God is in overall control - he has won the war, as it were - but evil still wins the occasional battle. Death is a natural event, which we will all ultimately experience. For some, like my father, that experience will be very brief (he is thought to have died even before hitting the Underground station platform he was standing on, following a massive heart attack); for others it will be longer (my mother became increasingly ill over a period of 2 - 2.5 years before she died). For others, that experience will be far longer than that 2-2.5 year period. There is nothing within Christian thought that suggests that a healing or a death in less than X months is down to God, and a death in more than x months being down to Satan.
"I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.
"But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc."?
You've repeated what I have said, why's that?
"In view of youer incredibly simplistic take on evolution given here - perhaps we need to be made aware of just how you are defining evolution everytime you mention it".
I see we do need a detailed description of evolution every time it's mentioned, I thought as much.
Oh, so that's how you believe things happen. I begin to understand why you find things so difficult. Just for your information, the Christian perspective is that God is in overall control - he has won the war, as it were - but evil still wins the occasional battle. Death is a natural event, which we will all ultimately experience. For some, like my father, that experience will be very brief (he is thought to have died even before hitting the Underground station platform he was standing on, following a massive heart attack); for others it will be longer (my mother became increasingly ill over a period of 2 - 2.5 years before she died). For others, that experience will be far longer than that 2-2.5 year period. There is nothing within Christian thought that suggests that a healing or a death in less than X months is down to God, and a death in more than x months being down to Satan". Very funny
I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.
ippy
P S, the very funny statement of mine stands other than where it could apply to your loss of family which of course isn't in the least bit funny.
ippy
-
Shakes, I'm beginning to worry about Hope, I thought he had lost his grip, but after that last lot, well?
ippy
-
ippy's suspicion that you don't understand the basis of EbNS has been vindicated.
So, you would disagree with this, from wikipedia? Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)
As I said, evolution takes place, at least in part, in response to external factors such as the external environment.
This has no bearing on your previous post. You asked: "Are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances?" The answer is that they are chance happenings. Evolution isn't "controlled" by circumstances; natural selection acts upon random events, acting as a sieve or filter upon stochastic occurrences - genetic chance and environmental necessity, as Jacques Monod famously put it.
Your example of "plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution" is presumably a reference to industrial melanism in the peppered moth - one of the best-known examples, literally a textbook case, of evolution in action.
Well, when the parameters for a methodology that is acceptable to some here are limited to those that are scientifically verifiable, 'reality' is limited to a very narrow concept.
Except of course you've no way of knowing that your "reality" is less limited because you've no means of showing it to be so.
-
I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.
Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.
The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.
Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.
The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.
So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.
I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.
Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.
So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.
It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.
And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''
Where have I said it's my idea? I've been talking about it making logic useless. Regardless of that, you haven't demonstrated anything, only posited something... for which you don't believe anyway.
The issue with whether something can exist without time (the concept or otherwise) is a knock on effect from the problem with logic. We're at a point where it doesn't make sense to say that something exists if the antithesis of this (not existing) isn't even excluded. So no, we don't know whether timeless things can exist because our language doesn't cater for it so that we can make sense of it.
Yes, the best model we have of the observable universe suggests it began. I don't think that means the metaphysical concept of time only applies from that point, but time relative to the objects that make up the observable universe. You're positing the existence of some sort of mind that exists outside the concept of time, and I fail to see how such a thing can function without it and still be considered a mind.
As for the "why is there anything anyway", I see no reason to beg the purpose question and put the cart before the horse. Asking "why" doesn't bring you to the existence of an entity that has purpose, an entity that has purpose brings you to ask them why.
-
It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!
OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
-
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
Wooo...wooo...wooo
(Accompanied by much sackcloth and ashes.)
-
This has no bearing on your previous post. You asked: "Are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances?" The answer is that they are chance happenings. Evolution isn't "controlled" by circumstances; natural selection acts upon random events, acting as a sieve or filter upon stochastic occurrences - genetic chance and environmental necessity, as Jacques Monod famously put it.
Have to say that whenever we studied evolution at school, it was made clear that there are 2 types of evolution, macro- and micro-. As far as I can make out, micro-evolution is very much in response to circumstances - the environment, for instance - as it can happen in as short a time as 3 or 4 generations, much quicker than macro-evolution.
Except of course you've no way of knowing that your "reality" is less limited because you've no means of showing it to be so.
We do have the means. The evidence is there to be seen by all humanity - in the New Testament, for instance - but since it doesn't fit the physical, materialistic parameters that you feel everything has to occur within then, of course, you can't see it.
-
What silly superstitious claptrap! ::)
I'd be careful, Floo. "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law" ;) :D
-
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
Also watch out for the bogeyman under the bed, Holy Spirit my arse. :)
-
This has no bearing on your previous post. You asked: "Are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances?" The answer is that they are chance happenings. Evolution isn't "controlled" by circumstances; natural selection acts upon random events, acting as a sieve or filter upon stochastic occurrences - genetic chance and environmental necessity, as Jacques Monod famously put it.
Have to say that whenever we studied evolution at school, it was made clear that there are 2 types of evolution, macro- and micro-. As far as I can make out, micro-evolution is very much in response to circumstances - the environment, for instance - as it can happen in as short a time as 3 or 4 generations, much quicker than macro-evolution.
Except of course you've no way of knowing that your "reality" is less limited because you've no means of showing it to be so.
We do have the means. The evidence is there to be seen by all humanity - in the New Testament, for instance - but since it doesn't fit the physical, materialistic parameters that you feel everything has to occur within then, of course, you can't see it.
Do you know Hope I keep forgetting this other eye or whatever it is that enables you to see more clearly than the rest of us underprivileged mere mortals, you really are so impressive, I can't even imagine how you're able to do these really remarkable things.
ippy
-
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
Also watch out for the bogeyman under the bed, Holy Spirit my arse. :)
You've got one under your bed too?
ippy
-
It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!
OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
I do know how you feel Sass, none of the rest of my family believe that Star Trek is a log of actual events, it can be very lonely when you know you're out there on your own.
ippy
P S, May the force be with you Sass.
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
Not a lot.
But don't you start on Star Trek.
ippy
-
But don't you start on Star Trek.
I didn't know that Floo had appeared on Star Trek. Which episode(s)?
-
But don't you start on Star Trek.
I didn't know that Floo had appeared on Star Trek. Which episode(s)?
Hope, what are you on about?
I think it's jealousy because I've stood on the bridge of the Enterprise when it was exhibited at the science museum in South Kensington London and that was some time back.
I didn't want to go and see it but both of my boys, a lot younger then, made me go to see it.
Did you see Captain Kirk on the BBC's 'Have I got News for You" he travelled faster than the speed of light especially so that he could be on the show that was made some time before he was born, so there, not a lot of people know that.
ippy
-
Do you know Hope I keep forgetting this other eye or whatever it is that enables you to see more clearly than the rest of us underprivileged mere mortals, you really are so impressive, I can't even imagine how you're able to do these really remarkable things.
It's really very simple, ippy. It's about being a human being.
-
But don't you start on Star Trek.
I didn't know that Floo had appeared on Star Trek. Which episode(s)?
Hope, what are you on about?
ippy asked about you starting on Star Trek. People who appear in TV programmes and films will often say that they 'start' in episode x. ;)
-
It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!
OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
What silly superstitious claptrap! ::)
Sad you have no reasoning to err on the side of caution.
-
It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!
OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
I do know how you feel Sass, none of the rest of my family believe that Star Trek is a log of actual events, it can be very lonely when you know you're out there on your own.
ippy
P S, May the force be with you Sass.
What does on your own mean. Born alone and die alone. No one does either with you. Star trek is not unexplainable we know from whence it came and from whom. Your family does too, but no one knows where God came from or us, outside God.
It is all faith... but I have hope and look forward with faith.
Never alone....
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
Tell me who is the Christian closest to you. Ask them why they do not accept what you have written.
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.
Asking a question (trying to achieve the near-impossible, i.e. getting a straight answer out of you) is not the same as believing in the existence of anything contained within that question, is it?
-
In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.
Fiction writers have been mentioning gods and ghosts for donkey's years ... but that doesn't mean they believe in them.
-
Do you know Hope I keep forgetting this other eye or whatever it is that enables you to see more clearly than the rest of us underprivileged mere mortals, you really are so impressive, I can't even imagine how you're able to do these really remarkable things.
It's really very simple, ippy. It's about being a gullible human being.
I'll go with that Hope.
ippy
-
It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!
OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?
Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...
I do know how you feel Sass, none of the rest of my family believe that Star Trek is a log of actual events, it can be very lonely when you know you're out there on your own.
ippy
P S, May the force be with you Sass.
What does on your own mean. Born alone and die alone. No one does either with you. Star trek is not unexplainable we know from whence it came and from whom. Your family does too, but no one knows where God came from or us, outside God.
It is all faith... but I have hope and look forward with faith.
Never alone....
Perhaps I can help Sass the god idea dates back a long way to the earliest presence of mankind here on this planet.
Referring to anything not understood and boy there were a lot of things early mankind didn't know about so when things happened like say lightning and thunder, earthquakes they didn't know what they were or what caused them, so instant answer goddit, a bit like the rain dance to please the gods then when they thought they had pleased the gods they thought they would get it.
All your workshop manual is, is a slightly more advanced load of old tosh based on the same ages old and very basic, me no understand so it all must be goddit.
It'd certainly do you as much good and probably do you more good if you studied "Star Trek", than your present workshop manual jobby.
ippy
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.
And your evidence for that is? ::)
There isn't any, of course. It's just how it "seems" to him ::)
-
And your evidence for that is? ::)
See the post you responded to. It's in there.
-
So first you said that it seems as though Floo believes in both, and now you're claiming that her post is evidence that she believes in both - which is it, subjective impression ("seems") or evidence? It can't be both.
-
So first you said that it seems as though Floo believes in both, and now you're claiming that her post is evidence that she believes in both - which is it, subjective impression ("seems") or evidence? It can't be both.
I noted that 'In view of the number of times you mention them'; so there was a basis on which I was making my assumption. Floo is perfectly entitled to contradict or challenge that assumption, but it is one made from solid practical evidence.
-
No, there's no "solid practial evidence" that Floo believes in either deities or bogeymen under the bed. Mentioning both in the context of a question does not equate to believing in either no matter how many times they're mentioned (as per #205) - unless you think it does?
Floo, you might not have noticed, has contradicted your "assumption" many times over, let alone a few posts back on this thread.
-
Poor Hope seems to have a problem with written English! I have stated my position so many times it has become BORING! But here it is again.
Whilst I believe ALL deities belonging to the world's religions, including Christianity, are human creations, there is just an outside chance a deity of some sort could exist in another dimension. I don't believe if that is the case humans are in touch with it. Now is that clear enough Hope, or do you need it put in reception class first reading books simple language?
He'll still find something to nit pick about exactly what it is he likes to think you're saying.
ippy
-
Poor Hope seems to have a problem with written English! I have stated my position so many times it has become BORING! But here it is again.
Whilst I believe ALL deities belonging to the world's religions, including Christianity, are human creations, there is just an outside chance a deity of some sort could exist in another dimension. I don't believe if that is the case humans are in touch with it. Now is that clear enough Hope, or do you need it put in reception class first reading books simple language?
He'll still find something to nit pick about exactly what it is he likes to think you're saying.
ippy
It is rather sad that Hope hasn't anything better to occupy his time, rather than posting nonsense statements on this forum, which are very easily refuted!
The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.
If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.
ippy
-
Polishing the vicar - that really was a LOL moment. Thanks for that ipples ;D
-
Polishing the vicar - that really was a LOL moment. Thanks for that ipples ;D
Yes these days; well errhm?
ippy
-
Poor Hope seems to have a problem with written English! I have stated my position so many times it has become BORING! But here it is again.
Whilst I believe ALL deities belonging to the world's religions, including Christianity, are human creations, there is just an outside chance a deity of some sort could exist in another dimension. I don't believe if that is the case humans are in touch with it. Now is that clear enough Hope, or do you need it put in reception class first reading books simple language?
He'll still find something to nit pick about exactly what it is he likes to think you're saying.
ippy
It is rather sad that Hope hasn't anything better to occupy his time, rather than posting nonsense statements on this forum, which are very easily refuted!
The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.
If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.
ippy
Fortunately for my husband and I, our three Christian daughters are very down to earth where their faith is concerned; their deeds do the talking, not their words!
You say down to Earth?
ippy
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.
Asking a question (trying to achieve the near-impossible, i.e. getting a straight answer out of you) is not the same as believing in the existence of anything contained within that question, is it?
You mean you do not know the answer as to the evidence for deity/HS and opposed to that of a bogey man??????? :o :o :o :o
Well the answer given by Hope is because it is obvious in the case of the Christian/Jewish God. That Jesus Christ, what he did is the ultimate proof having been foretold and the fact God has actually spoken to mankind from the beginning. No evidence of a bogey man but you could I suppose compare him to Satan... LOL.
Creation and us, are the evidence seen. No real explanation as to why we exist at all... Other than God and Genesis 1.
-
There are none so blind as those who won't see! :)
-
There are none so blind as those who won't see! :)
Precisely, Len. You put it very succinctly ;)
-
There are none so blind as those who won't see! :)
Precisely, Len. You put it very succinctly ;)
Moreover, I do it with my eyes and mind wide open.
-
Whilst I believe ALL deities belonging to the world's religions, including Christianity, are human creations, there is just an outside chance a deity of some sort could exist in another dimension. I don't believe if that is the case humans are in touch with it. Now is that clear enough Hope, or do you need it put in reception class first reading books simple language?
Yes, it is perfectly clear, but as I've asked on a number of occasions, I'd like some evidence that what you believe has anything to do with reality
It is rather sad that Hope hasn't anything better to occupy his time, rather than posting nonsense statements on this forum, which are very easily refuted!
The problem is, Floo, that in order to refute another person's opinions or statements, one has to provide evidence. You - and you aren't alone - have never produced that evidence. All you have produced is opinion. Often that opinion is wrapped up in the form of assertion, but it doesn't take a great deal of education to realise that that is all it is - unevidenced assertion.
-
There are none so blind as those who won't see! :)
Precisely, Len. You put it very succinctly ;)
Moreover, I do it with my eyes and mind wide open.
And do you have any external evidence to show that your eyes and mind are wide open or is this just your opinion?
-
I'd like some evidence that what you believe has anything to do with reality
People have been asking the same of you for months at least to my knowledge and have you provided it? Have you buggery.
The problem is, Floo, that in order to refute another person's opinions or statements, one has to provide evidence. You - and you aren't alone - have never produced that evidence. All you have produced is opinion. Often that opinion is wrapped up in the form of assertion, but it doesn't take a great deal of education to realise that that is all it is - unevidenced assertion.
There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!
-
The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.
You must have some really weird acquaintances, ippy. My religious acquaintences are mostly working in the fields of medicine, business, education, international development, economics, parenting, sport, etc.
If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.
...what would you be trying to say? That parents across the world teach their children about their own belief systems, be that atheism or animism, Hinduism or Christianity?
-
There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!
Not surprised; irony-o-meters aren't decided to deal with rality, Shaker. After all, you are no better. You make assertions on a regular basis, clearly based on what you believe, but without providing any evidence that that belief is in tune with reality.
-
And do you have any external evidence to show that your eyes and mind are wide open or is this just your opinion?
The evidence is abundant everywhere, in the form of people who believe in gods for which there is no evidence. :)
-
There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!
Not surprised; irony-o-meters aren't decided to deal with rality, Shaker. After all, you are no better. You make assertions on a regular basis, clearly based on what you believe, but without providing any evidence that that belief is in tune with reality.
Any point asking which ones? Nah, tried that before - "good reasons" for homosexuality being viewed with revulsion, where I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you, etc.
-
There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!
Not surprised; irony-o-meters aren't decided to deal with rality, Shaker. After all, you are no better. You make assertions on a regular basis, clearly based on what you believe, but without providing any evidence that that belief is in tune with reality.
Any point asking which ones? Nah, tried that before - "good reasons" for homosexuality being viewed with revulsion, where I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you, etc.
You produced one earlier - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6) on the 'Atheism and Meaning' thread
Then there was this one on the 'Just supposing ...' thread
The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.
The assertion is that because theists - who not believe that science is the be-all and end-all of life - can't produce a methodology that is limited to scientific parameters, they are limping 'along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals'.
As I have said numerous times, your posts reflect your world-view; a world-view that, in my understanding, is limited to and by science. It will not allow for anything that science can't explain. Yet, you have not provided any hard evidence that it is a world-view that is line with reality, relying instead on the circular argument that because X doesn't fit into the scientific parameters you have hedged yourself around with, X can't exist.
-
What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.
In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.
Asking a question (trying to achieve the near-impossible, i.e. getting a straight answer out of you) is not the same as believing in the existence of anything contained within that question, is it?
You mean you do not know the answer as to the evidence for deity/HS and opposed to that of a bogey man??????? :o :o :o :o
Well the answer given by Hope is because it is obvious in the case of the Christian/Jewish God. That Jesus Christ, what he did is the ultimate proof having been foretold and the fact God has actually spoken to mankind from the beginning. No evidence of a bogey man but you could I suppose compare him to Satan... LOL.
Creation and us, are the evidence seen. No real explanation as to why we exist at all... Other than God and Genesis 1.
Another post from Sass which is worthy of a giggle. ;D
-
You produced one earlier - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6) on the 'Atheism and Meaning' thread
Addressed in some detail and at some length - despite which you must have missed it.
The assertion is that because theists - who not believe that science is the be-all and end-all of life - can't produce a methodology that is limited to scientific parameters, they are limping 'along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals'.
Yes, that's right. How many times have the likes of you and Alien been asked to provide a methodology for determining the truth of your beliefs about reality, and what has been the result?
As I have said numerous times, your posts reflect your world-view; a world-view that, in my understanding, is limited to and by science. It will not allow for anything that science can't explain. Yet, you have not provided any hard evidence that it is a world-view that is line with reality, relying instead on the circular argument that because X doesn't fit into the scientific parameters you have hedged yourself around with, X can't exist.
No, that would be yet another example of the negative proof fallacy, and we all know that you've practically got exclusive rights to that one. It's more to do with the fact that the worldview to which I adhere has a methodology which allows claims to be evaluated with the absolute minimum of personal preference and subjective bias, allows for claims to be tested, shared with others for them to test, and so on and so forth. Your methodology is ... well, what is it, exactly? You lot seem incredibly unwilling to say. Remember that you and your ilk can't go bandying around words such as "limited" and "reality" when you can't provide any method by which reality can even be known and your so-called "limits" to be demonstrated to be limits. Without such a methodology (demonstrated to exist; shown to work) this is just sloganeering.
-
You produced one earlier - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6) on the 'Atheism and Meaning' thread
Addressed in some detail and at some length - despite which you must have missed it.
The assertion is that because theists - who not believe that science is the be-all and end-all of life - can't produce a methodology that is limited to scientific parameters, they are limping 'along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals'.
Yes, that's right. How many times have the likes of you and Alien been asked to provide a methodology for determining the truth of your beliefs about reality, and what has been the result?
As I have said numerous times, your posts reflect your world-view; a world-view that, in my understanding, is limited to and by science. It will not allow for anything that science can't explain. Yet, you have not provided any hard evidence that it is a world-view that is line with reality, relying instead on the circular argument that because X doesn't fit into the scientific parameters you have hedged yourself around with, X can't exist.
No, that would be yet another example of the negative proof fallacy, and we all know that you've practically got exclusive rights to that one. It's more to do with the fact that the worldview to which I adhere has a methodology which allows claims to be evaluated with the absolute minimum of personal preference and subjective bias, allows for claims to be tested, shared with others for them to test, and so on and so forth. Your methodology is ... well, what is it, exactly? You lot seem incredibly unwilling to say. Remember that you and your ilk can't go bandying around words such as "limited" and "reality" when you can't provide any method by which reality can even be known and your so-called "limits" to be demonstrated to be limits. Without such a methodology (demonstrated to exist; shown to work) this is just sloganeering.
Science has a method......How does that help you out Shakey in your quest to seek the ultimate athegasm?
-
The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.
You must have some really weird acquaintances, ippy. My religious aquaintances are mostly working in the fields of medicine, business, education, international development, economics, parenting, sport, etc.
If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.
...what would you be trying to say? That parents across the world teach their children about their own belief systems, be that atheism or animism, Hinduism or Christianity?
Yes it's weird and they're probably well educated too; oh and the second part of that mailing, yes the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense, takes some believing?
ippy
P S, did you see my wife on Songs of Praise last and this week? She's one of the many non-religious gospel singers that were there.
-
Filling heads with religious lyrics was she. Praise the Lord Ippy!
-
and the second part of that mailing, yes the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense, takes some believing?
No more so than the determination I've met amongst a number of atheists 'to fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense', ippy. That's why I worded that 2nd part of my post in the way I did.
-
and the second part of that mailing, yes the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense, takes some believing?
No more so than the determination I've met amongst a number of atheists 'to fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense', ippy. That's why I worded that 2nd part of my post in the way I did.
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
-
You can't support any of your faith 'nonsense' either, however many times you have been ask to do so! ::)
Floo, you seem to assume that the scientific method of evidence is the only one. My experience of life is that it isn't. Until you see that bigger picture, you'll never understand any evidence for 'faith'. However, since you do subscribe to this 'science-only' approach, you should be able to present some evidence for your position that we can all understand.
-
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
Evidence, please, Jakswan.
-
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
Evidence, please, Jakswan.
Some I've met.
-
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
Evidence, please, Jakswan.
Some I've met.
Really?
I hope you reported it.
No, not really just wandering if Hoppity would accept the same standard of evidence he cites.
-
Really?
I hope you reported it.
You beat me to it, Rose. If he hasn't, could he be deemed to be an accessory to the fact?
-
Post #250. Do try and keep up.
-
Again, a sweeping statement, floo.
Leaving your childhood experiences aside, have you actually studied the charismatic movement in any depth before coming to your opinion?
I have seen enough of it to know it makes me want to vomit, that is how strongly I dislike it!
-
So: you've seen charismatic Anglicans?
Roman Catholics?
Church of Scotland?
When. where, and what did you see, please?
A friend of mine is a charismatic Anglican
She used to go to a Pentecostal church a long time ago.
She says she can speak in tongues.
It's not unknown to find supporters of it in the Anglican Church.
It's just not considered appropriate behaviour in the middle of a service.
My friend reckons there is no point in spouting in tongues if someone is not present who can understand them.
She wears the robes, dog collar and has been ordained although she isn 't a vicar.
She can do everything except weddings I think.
-
My experience was somewhat similar to your friend's.
I had attended a Pentecostal bible study group thirty odd years ago.
As Pentecostals go, though, they weren't 'in-your-face' sort of thing.
I wasn't particularly interested in the charisma - till one night, in a private prayer time, I started using tongues to express soomething I couldn't put into words - and I haven't stopped since.
I thought that there was no such animal as a charismatic Presbyterian - till a local minister from Prestwick and I were talking about the Holy Spirit, and he 'let slip' that he used tongues in prayer!
Arthur Kent and I became friends - and still are, though he moved away years ago.
We formed the nucleus of a charismatic group within our local Presbytery - a group that continues today.
I've never used tongues in any worship situation which might embarass or disturb my fellow worshippers, nor has there ever been a moment when I was not in control of my actions.
-
Really?
I hope you reported it.
You beat me to it, Rose. If he hasn't, could he be deemed to be an accessory to the fact?
No
-
Your experience is NOT evidence, ...
Only in the scientific sense of the word, Floo. As I've pointed before, life doesn't always adhere to scientific parameters.
At least science is credible, which mere belief isn't!
I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'credible', Floo.
-
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
Evidence, please, Jakswan.
Bumped for Jakswan. ;)
-
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
Evidence, please, Jakswan.
Bumped for Jakswan. ;)
As Shaker pointed out in #252 you need to see #250.
-
Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....
Evidence, please, Jakswan.
Bumped for Jakswan. ;)
Oh dear I didn't know you'd need a diagram. You said 'I've met amongst a number of atheists who fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense' and this is quite typical of you. Who can forget the 'verifiable evidence for a miracle' the evidence was your testimony and you failed to provide details that we could verify.
However if someone else offers a point on the same flaky grounds you won't accept it because you need supporting evidence. Which is why I ignore 90% of your posts.
-
Oh dear I didn't know you'd need a diagram. You said 'I've met amongst a number of atheists who fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense' and this is quite typical of you. Who can forget the 'verifiable evidence for a miracle' the evidence was your testimony and you failed to provide details that we could verify.
However if someone else offers a point on the same flaky grounds you won't accept it because you need supporting evidence. Which is why I ignore 90% of your posts.
jakswan, in the case of the 'miracles' I've referred to over the years, not only did I explain what had happened, (to which no-one actually gave any answers - though I believe that there was one suggestion of the euphemistic 'spontaneous healing' response) I also explained why I could NOT provide any evidence, such as the fact that medical journals aren't very keen on publishing this kind of material, even when supported by medical records and my not having access to such records even when the patient has expressed a wiliingness to have them made public.
Obviously, reminding people about all that deatil doesn't help your case - so you conveniently forget it.
Whilst we're on the subject, how do you explain 'spontaneous healing' scientifically?
Regarding the 'I know several atheists ...' bit, this was in response to a blanket assertion by ippy about 'the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense' (post #240), which was a reply to my question in post #232 '...what would you be trying to say? That parents across the world teach their children about their own belief systems, be that atheism or animism, Hinduism or Christianity?'; itself, a reply to ippy's rather truncated comment in post #219 "If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks."
May I suggest that you take the context of posts into account rather than making up your own context, or ignoring context completely.
-
By credible I mean things which don't beggar belief like virgin births and resurrections for instance!
Oh, so you are using your own credibility-gauge to generalise about everything.
-
By credible I mean things which don't beggar belief like virgin births and resurrections for instance!
Oh, so you are using your own credibility-gauge to generalise about everything.
Surely miracles are by definition incredible otherwise they would not be miracles.
-
Hope once again claiming evidence but with no methodology so speciously
-
I also explained why I could NOT provide any evidence, such as the fact that medical journals aren't very keen on publishing this kind of material, even when supported by medical records and my not having access to such records even when the patient has expressed a wiliingness to have them made public.
Ah, the usual old excuse! "I've got the evidence, but I can't show it to you." ::)
And there was me thinking Jackanory finished years ago ;)
-
Surely miracles are by definition incredible otherwise they would not be miracles.
I'm not convinced, NS. A miracle can occur as a result of hard work, dedication, etc. Take last night's Euro. qualifier between Scotland and Germany. Had Scotland won that match, it would have been deemed a miracle by many; but that ignores the fact that the Scottish players would have put in an amazing performance, would have 'worked their socks off' and, unless there were a host of examples of good/bad luck, would have deserved that victory. The same goes for medicine; a doctor can come across a case or condtion that they have never seen before, and for which there is no written documentation, and as a result of dogged determination and - yes - by the application of science, perform a miracle. In my view, miracles happen, on a daily basis, in the hospitals of this and other nations. No two cases are identical, so no doctor can perform precisely the same procedure; they will always have to deal with individual elements that complicate things. Medical science can tell them the outline, they then have to fill in the detail for themselves.
-
Ah, the usual old excuse! "I've got the evidence, but I can't show it to you." ::)
So, which of your views and opinions does this NOT apply to, Shaker?
-
Ah, the usual old excuse! "I've got the evidence, but I can't show it to you." ::)
So, which of your views and opinions does this NOT apply to, Shaker?
None that spring to mind. Interesting albeit depressingly predictable to see that you've added the tu quoque to your collection of fallacies, by the way.
I'd ask you which ones you think it applies to, but I know it would be a waste of time. It always is.
-
A miracle can occur as a result of hard work, dedication, etc.
... in which case it isn't a miracle but the outcome of hard work and dedication.
The expertise and efforts of medical personnel especially are often denigrated and demeaned with this inane wibble about "miracles."
-
jakswan, in the case of the 'miracles' I've referred to over the years, not only did I explain what had happened, (to which no-one actually gave any answers
Yeah but you can't explain my pet dragon either.
- though I believe that there was one suggestion of the euphemistic 'spontaneous healing' response) I also explained why I could NOT provide any evidence, such as the fact that medical journals aren't very keen on publishing this kind of material, even when supported by medical records and my not having access to such records even when the patient has expressed a wiliingness to have them made public.
You are lying I asked you to give the name of the person cured and specific dates and times in order that we could verify the details you provided.
Obviously, reminding people about all that deatil doesn't help your case - so you conveniently forget it.
It does actually because its easier to demonstrate how you lie.
Whilst we're on the subject, how do you explain 'spontaneous healing' scientifically?
I've no interest in debating issues with you, just to clarify as I know how you will 'remember' this. Its not because I can't explain spontaneous healing or I'm scared of debating the topic its because of you and your history of lying.
Regarding blah blah
May I suggest that you take the context of posts into account rather than making up your own context, or ignoring context completely.
Right back at you, I assume you've caught up now.
-
By credible I mean things which don't beggar belief like virgin births and resurrections for instance!
Oh, so you are using your own credibility-gauge to generalise about everything.
Oh come on virgin births and people popping up alive when they are truly dead, just don't happen in reality!
-
And your evidence for that assertion is....?
-
By credible I mean things which don't beggar belief like virgin births and resurrections for instance!
Oh, so you are using your own credibility-gauge to generalise about everything.
Oh come on virgin births and people popping up alive when they are truly dead, just don't happen in reality!
-
And your evidence for that assertion is....?
The lack of any contrary evidence.
-
The lack of any contrary evidence.
... that you are able to accept in view of your world-view.
-
Hi Len old chum - hope the sun is shining for you and the Amontillado is chilled to perfection.
The lack of any contrary evidence.
Just to note that Hoppity's problems go much deeper than the absence of evidence (which as we all know does not constitute evidence of absence). First, he'd have to trouble himself with providing a meaningful and coherent definition of this "god" of which he speaks, and second he'd have to come up with a method or process to which any evidence could be applied - science does it with testing etc but I've no idea how he'd propose to apply any evidence he might eventually suggest to a claim of the supernatural.
Depressingly so far at least he's failed to notice that a "don't know" (re a surprising medical cure for example) says nothing to a possible divine intervention, and he's played fast and loose with the meaning of "miracle" (conflating "surprising" with "the outcome of a divine intervention").
Ah well ;)
-
How many people do you know who have been conceived by a woman in the way Mary was supposed to have conceived Jesus? How many people who are genuinely dead have come to life again?
I assume that you are referring to human beings who are nothing but human? Do you have any evidence that Jesus - who is of course the subject of this debate - was merely human?
-
Hope,
I assume that you are referring to human beings who are nothing but human? Do you have any evidence that Jesus - who is of course the subject of this debate - was merely human?
S'funny - you've had the burden of proof issue explained to you many times, yet you continue to crash blithely through it with posts like this. Do you have any evidence that unicorns don't enjoy a nice chicken tikka masala on a Friday night?
As you have not, does that mean that my unicornist claims must be true too?
-
First, he'd have to trouble himself with providing a meaningful and coherent definition of this "god" of which he speaks, ...
That's been done by several people on this board before, so I wouldn't attempt to reinvent that particular wheel.
... and second he'd have to come up with a method or process to which any evidence could be applied - science does it with testing etc but I've no idea how he'd propose to apply any evidence he might eventually suggest to a claim of the supernatural.
Again, the methodology has been in existence for many centuries, but because it doesn't fit the scientific definitions that define your life, you can't see it.
Depressingly so far at least he's failed to notice that a "don't know" (re a surprising medical cure for example) says nothing to a possible divine intervention, ...
but equally it says nothing against a divine intervention ...
-
How many people do you know who have been conceived by a woman in the way Mary was supposed to have conceived Jesus? How many people who are genuinely dead have come to life again?
I assume that you are referring to human beings who are nothing but human? Do you have any evidence that Jesus - who is of course the subject of this debate - was merely human?
Hope bingo - eyes down everybody!
-
Again, the methodology has been in existence for many centuries, but because it doesn't fit the scientific definitions that define your life, you can't see it.
"Accept what you've been told because it's what your ancestors believed" is not a methodology. I've not seen a methodology that enables me to either accept the supernatural claims of a religion or differentiate between the claims of various religious groups.
Depressingly so far at least he's failed to notice that a "don't know" (re a surprising medical cure for example) says nothing to a possible divine intervention, ...
but equally it says nothing against a divine intervention ...
The burden of proof still lies on you or we can simply resort to 'we don't know'.
O.
-
S'funny - you've had the burden of proof issue explained to you many times, yet you continue to crash blithely through it with posts like this. Do you have any evidence that unicorns don't enjoy a nice chicken tikka masala on a Friday night?
But how do we know that the burden of proof that you adhere to actually matches reality?
-
Hopester,
That's been done by several people on this board before, so I wouldn't attempt to reinvent that particular wheel.
Not only has it never been done on this board, it's never been done by anyone anywhere. That's why ignosticism exists - "god" is just so much white noise until and unless someone ever does provide a meaningful definition of the term.
Again, the methodology has been in existence for many centuries, but because it doesn't fit the scientific definitions that define your life, you can't see it.
Again, "faith" isn't a method of any kind - it's just an assertion of personal belief, which is why your faith in your god is no more a method for establishing that god than is anyone else's faith in any other god, and nor for that matter any more a method than my faith in unicorns. Even if any of us could define the members of the menagerie of spooks, gods ghouls and ghosties in which we separately believe should we then accept them all as true? And if not, why not?
...but equally it says nothing against a divine intervention ...
No-one says that it does, any more than it says anything against unicorn intervention. What it does tell us though is that your thinking in support of your claim - the argument from personal incredulity - is fundamentally flawed. Before Jenner no-one knew why milkmaids didn't get smallpox either - does that mean that a god did it with miracles, or just that the answer wasn't immediately to hand and so the only honest response was a "don't know"?
-
I assume that you are referring to human beings who are nothing but human? Do you have any evidence that Jesus - who is of course the subject of this debate - was merely human?
Human females always give birth to humans. This is an observed fact.
-
Hope,
But how do we know that the burden of proof that you adhere to actually matches reality?
You don't understand "burden of proof". It's not a description of reality - it's the logic by which it's for those who make claims to provide the proof for them, rather than for others to provide proof against (especially when the conjecture is framed in such a way as to be impervious to proof/disproof).
See "Russell's Teapot" for an analogy that may help you.
-
A miracle can occur as a result of hard work, dedication, etc. Take last night's Euro. qualifier between Scotland and Germany. Had Scotland won that match, it would have been deemed a miracle by many; but that ignores the fact that the Scottish players would have put in an amazing performance, would have 'worked their socks off' and, unless there were a host of examples of good/bad luck, would have deserved that victory.
No it wouldn't - it would just have been the outcome of their 'amazing performance': stuff like skills, training, fitness and tactics - nothing miraculous there; just biology. Sadly history now shows that they lost.
The same goes for medicine; a doctor can come across a case or condtion that they have never seen before, and for which there is no written documentation, and as a result of dogged determination and - yes - by the application of science, perform a miracle. In my view, miracles happen, on a daily basis, in the hospitals of this and other nations. No two cases are identical, so no doctor can perform precisely the same procedure; they will always have to deal with individual elements that complicate things. Medical science can tell them the outline, they then have to fill in the detail for themselves.
Nonsense - treatment is based on established knowledge and known effective practices (with the exception of designated research activities) and not this kind of filling in the blanks that you imagine is the case. I spent the first half of my career in clinical settings and attended countless case conferences, and in all the reviews and discussions the word 'miracle' was never mentioned once: on the other hand 'don't know', 'need more information', 'review in 3 months', 'repeat investigations' etc were regular comments.
Perhaps you could find some published papers in peer-reviewed medical journal in which a qualified medic writing about his or her medical activities argues that 'divine intervention' is a clinical possibility: I doubt you will find any, but you will find plenty of noted uncertainties along with 'further study is required into condition X'.
-
Perhaps you could find some published papers in peer-reviewed medical journal in which a qualified medic writing about his or her medical activities argues that 'divine intervention' is a clinical possibility: I doubt you will find any, but you will find plenty of noted uncertainties along with 'further study is required into condition X'.
Even if he finds one we won't get to see the bloody thing!
-
Has anybody else ever, in any other forum, seen the appeal to ignorance pressed into service quite as often by one person?
-
Perhaps you could find some published papers in peer-reviewed medical journal in which a qualified medic writing about his or her medical activities argues that 'divine intervention' is a clinical possibility: I doubt you will find any, but you will find plenty of noted uncertainties along with 'further study is required into condition X'.
Even if he finds one we won't get to see the bloody thing!
He won't though, unless he descends into pseudo-science (and that doesn't count).
-
Well, quite. Though it would be no surprise.
-
I also explained why I could NOT provide any evidence, such as the fact that medical journals aren't very keen on publishing this kind of material, even when supported by medical records and my not having access to such records even when the patient has expressed a wiliingness to have them made public.
Ah, the usual old excuse! "I've got the evidence, but I can't show it to you." ::)
And there was me thinking Jackanory finished years ago ;)
There are some things that only we know ourselves. That should be blindingly obvious but these days of doubting the self, one wonders if it is.
If experiences are merely a matter of electricity theoretically they should be transferable in future and we could perhaps download them.
Would an atheist be happy to ''download'' a religious experience into their own brain?
-
Would an atheist be happy to ''download'' a religious experience into their own brain?
Some atheists can already have them via gadgets like Michael Persinger's "God helmet."
-
The lack of any contrary evidence.
... that you are able to accept in view of your world-view.
Quite! I don't accept it for the same reason that I don't accept any other god stories.
You, on the other hand, seem quite willing to reject all other god stories in favour of your own, even though they have the same kind of "evidence".
-
Would an atheist be happy to ''download'' a religious experience into their own brain?
Some atheists can already have them via gadgets like Michael Persinger's "God helmet."
A crude device given exaggerated precision or accuracy by strawclutchers like yourself. which leaves one thinking why millions of people have had religious experiences of far superior quality without them.
Hardly an analogy for what I am suggesting.
-
A crude device given exaggerated precision or accuracy by strawclutchers like yourself. which leaves one thinking why millions of people have had religious experiences of far superior quality without them.
Hardly an analogy for what I am suggesting.
Temporal lobe epilepsy is another factor - no gizmos required.
-
A crude device given exaggerated precision or accuracy by strawclutchers like yourself. which leaves one thinking why millions of people have had religious experiences of far superior quality without them.
Hardly an analogy for what I am suggesting.
Temporal lobe epilepsy is another factor - no gizmos required.
What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!
How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!
What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.
-
What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!
How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!
A good thing, given what we already know about people who have temporal lobe "issues."
What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.
No it doesn't.
-
What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!
How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!
A good thing, given what we already know about people who have temporal lobe "issues."
What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.
No it doesn't.
Oh yes it does. Anyone claiming that religion is merely Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is now countered with atheism/antitheism being merely Low Temporal lobe sensitivity.
-
... which demonstrates that you are to knowledge of temporal lobe epilepsy and its manifestations as Stephen Hawking is to contemporary jazz dance.
-
... which demonstrates that you are to knowledge of temporal lobe epilepsy and its manifestations as Stephen Hawking is to contemporary jazz dance.
No, it demonstrates that Dawkins is to Temporal Lobe sensitivity as Stephen Hawking is to contemporary jazz dance.
-
What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!
How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!
What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.
Not really. Yes lower temporal lobe activity is correlated with a lack of religious experience, by implication, as higher temporal lobe activity is correlated with religious experience.
However, the sensation has not been tied an actual event, still, so it's still effectively explanation of why that particular delusion or hallucination occurs.
In order to demonstrate that people were 'missing' out on an experience of an actual event because of temporal lobe insensitivity, you'd need to demonstrate by some other means that there was reason to think the religious activity to be sensed was real.
It's a little like saying that people that don't hear voices criticizing them in their own heads are suffering from low schizophrenia...
O.
-
Oh yes it does. Anyone claiming that religion is merely Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is now countered with atheism/antitheism being merely Low Temporal lobe sensitivity.
Which we've known all along! Theists are much more prone to "God" hallucinations than atheists are.
-
Vlad,
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
And there's your problem - only you "know" it. The problem though is that people with these private, subjective beliefs - in your god, in other gods, in the ghosts of their grandfathers, in unicorns for all I know - have a tendency to overreach by insisting that these are also objective, "true for you too" beliefs with no argument to take them from the former to the latter.
By all means conclude that a universe-creating deity has been in touch if you want to. If you set the evidential bar low enough and that belief suits you, that's no-one's business but your own. The moment though that you insist that this god is objectively real for me too then you must also explain why none of the many naturalistic (but less thrilling) possible alternative explanations are more likely in your case, but are more likely in the cases of everyone who believes in supernatural "somethings" other than your own.
So far as I'm aware you've never shown any awareness of the problem, let alone attempted to address it. A problem it is though nonetheless - your conviction that your experience and your attribution of its cause is real but those of others about their gods, Napoleon talking to them on the bus etc are not is just that - a conviction - but one entirely unsupported by any sort of argument to support it.
And there's your problem.
-
Vlad,
So far as I'm aware you've never shown any awareness of the problem, let alone attempted to address it. A problem it is though nonetheless - your conviction that your experience and your attribution of its cause is real but those of others about their gods, Napoleon talking to them on the bus etc are not is just that - a conviction - but one entirely unsupported by any sort of argument to support it.
And there's your problem.
And it ain't ever going to go away. :)
-
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
No.
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. Everything else is, at least, provisional, and some of them are more provisional than others.
If you have 'an experience' that can't be associated with any physically detectable source, can't be described to other people because we haven't developed the vocabulary to refer to the hypothetical sense that's used, and can't be reliably reported amongst the populace - given the majority of religious people do not claim to have come to their faith by personal revelation - then we have an extremely provisional claim.
You do not 'know' your experience was actually of god, you believe it was.
O.
-
What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!
How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!
What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.
Not really. Yes lower temporal lobe activity is correlated with a lack of religious experience, by implication, as higher temporal lobe activity is correlated with religious experience.
However, the sensation has not been tied an actual event, still, so it's still effectively explanation of why that particular delusion or hallucination occurs.
In order to demonstrate that people were 'missing' out on an experience of an actual event because of temporal lobe insensitivity, you'd need to demonstrate by some other means that there was reason to think the religious activity to be sensed was real.
It's a little like saying that people that don't hear voices criticizing them in their own heads are suffering from low schizophrenia...
O.
I think a low temporal lobe sensitivity rather sounds like a condition though Rider.
Well I think according to Persinger other atheists have higher temporal lobe sensitivity than Dawkins'.
No doubt there will be a rush amongst the unfaithful to have Temporal Lobe reductions so they can be like their pin up Kim Kardashsorry Richard Dawkins.
I think it's called a ''Lobe Job''.
-
Vlad,
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
And there's your problem - only you "know" it. The problem though is that people with these private, subjective beliefs - in your god, in other gods, in the ghosts of their grandfathers, in unicorns for all I know - have a tendency to overreach by insisting that these are also objective, "true for you too" beliefs with no argument to take them from the former to the latter.
By all means conclude that a universe-creating deity has been in touch if you want to. If you set the evidential bar low enough and that belief suits you, that's no-one's business but your own. The moment though that you insist that this god is objectively real for me too then you must also explain why none of the many naturalistic (but less thrilling) possible alternative explanations are more likely in your case, but are more likely in the cases of everyone who believes in supernatural "somethings" other than your own.
So far as I'm aware you've never shown any awareness of the problem, let alone attempted to address it. A problem it is though nonetheless - your conviction that your experience and your attribution of its cause is real but those of others about their gods, Napoleon talking to them on the bus etc are not is just that - a conviction - but one entirely unsupported by any sort of argument to support it.
And there's your problem.
Yes Blue but the point is I have come to know it.
As CS Lewis would put it, I was ''surprised by it''.
That just leaves you to pray that a) it happens to you or b) pray that it doesn't.
I believe that one day all of us either have to acquiesce to the source of the experience or be prepared to throw totally oneself in resistance to it. I think the story of Pincher Martin is perhaps the finest exposition of what that struggle may be like.
-
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
No.
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...
O.
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
-
Which atheists? Where? When?
-
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
No.
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...
O.
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
I'm not sure accepting or rejecting Descartes is really an atheist/theist split, to be honest...
O.
-
Vlad,
Yes Blue but the point is I have come to know it.
This is like opening a window to let out a bluebottle, only to watch it continually bang its head against the closed window next to it. No, you don't "know" that at all - you think it likely, you can grasp no argument to the contrary, you really want it to be true perhaps but it's still just a belief, and a personal one too. If you really think there to be a logical path from your subjective belief to an objective certainty by all means try to set it out, but for now you have only assertion - as does the muslim about Allah, the Aztec about the panther gods, and for all we know the unicornist about unicorns.
As CS Lewis would put it, I was ''surprised by it''.
Why? If you're able to set the evidential bar low enough, you cleave inextricably to narratives that make sense to you however daft, you're entirely untroubled by the co-incidence of the "real" god just happening to be the one with which you're most familiar, you refuse to extend to the beliefs of others just on their say-so the same courtesy you expect others to offer your belief just on your say-so etc then I'd have thought you'd inevitably end up as you have.
That just leaves you to pray that a) it happens to you or b) pray that it doesn't.
No, it still leaves you finally to explain why your confidence in your faith should be taken any more seriously than anyone else's confidence in his faith in anything else.
I believe that one day all of us either have to acquiesce to the source of the experience or be prepared to throw totally oneself in resistance to it. I think the story of Pincher Martin is perhaps the finest exposition of what that struggle may be like.
Well, not sure you can "acquiesce" to something you've yet to establish exists - especially as you seem to have no interest in making an argument for it, in eliminating first the myriad naturalistic causal alternatives, in suggesting why you're right and believers in other supernaturalisms are wrong etc so you seem again to be overreaching here.
-
Which atheists? Where? When?
IIRC, BeRational for one. It came up in the context of whether we can be certain of anything. I said I was certain I exist. IIRC, BeRational did not agree. I can't find the posts relating to this, however. Shall I PM BeRational or would that be seen as me stalking him?
-
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
No.
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...
O.
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
I'm not sure accepting or rejecting Descartes is really an atheist/theist split, to be honest...
O.
Eh? I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm not fussed who said what. True is true whoever writes/says it. Ditto for untrue.
-
I remember saying that some Buddhists don't believe that they exist, but I don't think this has anything to do with their atheism really. They have pursued a line of enquiry, which concludes that the separate self is an illusion, but I think this is found in other religions and philosophies. Interestingly (or not), there is an argument about whether there is any self, not just a separate one, but it becomes a bit obscure.
-
There are some things that only we know ourselves.
No.
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...
O.
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
I'm not sure accepting or rejecting Descartes is really an atheist/theist split, to be honest...
O.
Eh? I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm not fussed who said what. True is true whoever writes/says it. Ditto for untrue.
I misunderstood the implication in your post - when you said 'atheists who argued against me' I thought you were making a point about atheists rather than a point about a specific person whose atheism wasn't actually part of the issue.
O.
-
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...
O.
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
The quote is "Cogito ergo sum" not "Cogito ergo sumus". You don't appear to appreciate the difference Al.
-
There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...
O.
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
The quote is "Cogito ergo sum" not "Cogito ergo sumus". You don't appear to appreciate the difference Al.
"I think, therefore we are"? Since I don't have the posts to hand, it would be unfair of me to argue more about what I (think I) remember BeRational as saying.
-
Since I don't have the posts to hand, it would be unfair of me to argue more about what I (think I) remember BeRational as saying.
That was my concern too.
-
Alien,
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.
-
Alien,
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.
OK with that. I am certain that whatever "I" am/is, it/I exists.
With regard to your Michael Faraday quote, are you sure he actually said that? I was not able to find anything concrete when I looked for a primary source some weeks ago.
-
Alien,
OK with that. I am certain that whatever "I" am/is, it/I exists.
Fine - that's all that's being said here.
With regard to your Michael Faraday quote, are you sure he actually said that? I was not able to find anything concrete when I looked for a primary source some weeks ago.
It's certainly on t'interweb as a quote, here for example:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/294913-there-s-nothing-quite-as-frightening-as-someone-who-knows-they
Not sure how accurate the attribution is though. I'll have a look for a primary source.
-
Alien,
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.
Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.
-
Alien,
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.
Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.
"Cogito ergo sum" means "I think therefore I am". Both verbs are first person singular, aka "I".
Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?
-
Alien,
Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?
Well yes, but can you see now how far adrift you were earlier with:
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
?
"We" know that we/I exist, but not necessarily what we/I entails, let alone what subsidiary truth claims might entail. The best we can do is a probabilistic approach - it's true enough that the apple will fall, that murder is wrong etc to give us approximations we can act on and work with. That's why I always look askance at the certainties of the religious in particular - the blessed Vlad's assertions about categorically "knowing" that a god has been in touch with him personally for example. Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science).
Odd eh?
-
Alien,
Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?
Well yes, but can you see now how far adrift you were earlier with:
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
?
"We" know that we/I exist, but not necessarily what we/I entails, let alone what subsidiary truth claims might entail. The best we can do is a probabilistic approach - it's true enough that the apple will fall, that murder is wrong etc to give us approximations we can act on and work with. That's why I always look askance at the certainties of the religious in particular - the blessed Vlad's assertions about categorically "knowing" that a god has been in touch with him personally for example. Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science).
Odd eh?
I'd change "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this." to "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know I exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this."
I'm not sure you exist, but I do.
If you exist, I'd be interested in hearing you defend, "Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science)."
-
Alien,
Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?
Well yes, but can you see now how far adrift you were earlier with:
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
?
"We" know that we/I exist, but not necessarily what we/I entails, let alone what subsidiary truth claims might entail. The best we can do is a probabilistic approach - it's true enough that the apple will fall, that murder is wrong etc to give us approximations we can act on and work with. That's why I always look askance at the certainties of the religious in particular - the blessed Vlad's assertions about categorically "knowing" that a god has been in touch with him personally for example. Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science).
Odd eh?
I think you and I have the Dawkins /Jay Gould divide to contend with Blue.
I believe there is scientific fact and facts gleaned from experience. Now we either bite the bullet and dismiss facts gleaned by experience as generically untrue or we say that the domain or magisterium of science deals in this type of fact and religion deals with that type of fact.
Two big red herrings have wormed their way into this argument.
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion.
-
Alien,
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.
Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.
That's an old criticism of Descartes, I think. When he says 'I think ...' he is cheating really, since it's the I he is after, but he has pre-empted the discussion. In the old phrase, he starts with his conclusion. It reminds me that the traditional Buddhist critique is not of the I (self) but the separate I. Where is it?
-
Is it possible for there even to be the thought "There is thinking" (or "Thinking is going on") without an implicit but automatic corollary "... and I am the one doing it"?
If not "I," who else?
-
Alien,
I'd change "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this." to "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know I exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this."
Again, this statement has nothing to do with atheism (so if anyone had said it, that they might happen to be atheists is no more relevant than would be, say, the fact that they are UKIP members). The most you can say with certainty is, “I know that something exists” and the rest is all probabilities. I don’t think Outrider is saying anything that contradicts this.
I'm not sure you exist, but I do.
If you exist, I'd be interested in hearing you defend, "Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science)."
It’s simple enough: very often “faith” is used as a placemarker for facts – something you’ll readily acknowledge I think, at least in respect of the faiths that concern supernatural “somethings” you don’t think exist. “I’m certain that X exists because, while I have no verifiable facts to support me, that’s my faith” is a common enough position I’d have thought to make the point for me.
-
Vlad,
I think you and I have the Dawkins /Jay Gould divide to contend with Blue.
Let’s see…
I believe there is scientific fact and facts gleaned from experience.
But how would you propose to distinguish a “fact gleaned from experience” from a non-fact also gleaned from experience – a simple mistaken attribution of cause, a foundation of a logical fallacy etc? We can all I suppose think we find facts because they pop into our heads if we’re so minded, but that’s hopeless if you want to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.
Now we either bite the bullet and dismiss facts gleaned by experience as generically untrue or we say that the domain or magisterium of science deals in this type of fact and religion deals with that type of fact.
That’s a false opposition – a basic logical fallacy. The third option you’ve ignored is to conclude that all claimed facts with no method to verify them are neither true nor untrue – they’re just claims (or worse when the claim is incoherent like “god” – these are “not even false”).
Two big red herrings have wormed their way into this argument.
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Who has done that? I haven’t seen it. Rather science is introduced when the religious attempt scientific truths, at which point the scientific method shows them to be wrong about that.
Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion.
Or perhaps “science and just guessing”, but ok.
Either way, while Stephen Jay Gould proposed non-overlapping magisteria (wrongly in my view) I don't think he also claimed that it was possible to say anything about one of them did he?
-
Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion.
Or perhaps “science and just guessing”, but ok.
Well now you have stated there is ''science and just guessing'' I'm sure you, being on the side of the angels, will subscribe to a policy of Sola scientia and remain silent about anything which isn't science.
Yours
looking forward to not hearing from you (unless it is about science)
Vlad
-
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Who has done that? I haven’t seen it. Rather science is introduced when the religious attempt scientific truths
[/quote]
Who has done that? You are here of course confirming Jay Gould here since you are pleading for a magisterium namely scientific truths.
-
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Who has done that? I haven’t seen it. Rather science is introduced when the religious attempt scientific truths
Who has done that? You are here of course confirming Jay Gould here since you are pleading for a magisterium namely scientific truths.
For once in your life, answer the question.
-
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Who has done that? I haven’t seen it. Rather science is introduced when the religious attempt scientific truths
Who has done that? You are here of course confirming Jay Gould here since you are pleading for a magisterium namely scientific truths.
For once in your life, answer the question.
How patronising and angry.
Science versus religion is the subtext of arguments like the one we are having now.
Of Course this is where science is a subtle cover for and interchangeable with atheism.
Bluehillside ,of course, helps us out here when he says there is science or just guessing. Atheism is not science.......whether atheism is just guessing though........
-
Alien,
I'd change "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this." to "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know I exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this."
Again, this statement has nothing to do with atheism (so if anyone had said it, that they might happen to be atheists is no more relevant than would be, say, the fact that they are UKIP members). The most you can say with certainty is, “I know that something exists” and the rest is all probabilities. I don’t think Outrider is saying anything that contradicts this.
As I said in an earlier post, I don't have access (i.e. can't find) the posts where this was discussed, so am not going to pursue this as I could well be putting words into people's mouths/keyboards.
I'm not sure you exist, but I do.
If you exist, I'd be interested in hearing you defend, "Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science)."
It’s simple enough: very often “faith” is used as a placemarker for facts – something you’ll readily acknowledge I think, at least in respect of the faiths that concern supernatural “somethings” you don’t think exist. “I’m certain that X exists because, while I have no verifiable facts to support me, that’s my faith” is a common enough position I’d have thought to make the point for me.
That is not how it is argued, as has been pointed out many, many times before. If you were to present something which Christians here actually put forward, then I am happy to argue for it (if I agree with that position put forward by those Christians), but I am not going to try to defend the position you describe above as that is a straw man.
-
...
Or perhaps “science and just guessing”, but ok.
...
Your post was not a scientific remark. Does that mean you were just guessing?
-
Vlad,
Well now you have stated there is ''science and just guessing'' I'm sure you, being on the side of the angels, will subscribe to a policy of Sola scientia and remain silent about anything which isn't science.
Yours
looking forward to not hearing from you (unless it is about science)
Here's what actually happened.
You said: "Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion."
To which I replied: "Or perhaps “science and just guessing”, but ok."
Notice that I characterised only religion as "just guessing" (presumably something with which you agree in respect of all the claims gods you don't think to exist). That though says nothing to whether we can't readily discuss aesthetics, morality etc when the proponents make no claims to objective factual truths.
The problem comes when theists say something like, "miracle X actually happened" and then look to naturalistic concepts like scientific evidence or the historical method to prove it and thus fall flat on their faces or, as in your case, when they just assert it and expect everyone else to take their claims seriously.
-
Alien,
Your post was not a scientific remark. Does that mean you were just guessing?
You've missed the point. See 339.
-
Alien,
Your post was not a scientific remark. Does that mean you were just guessing?
You've missed the point. See 339.
OK.
-
That is not how it is argued, as has been pointed out many, many times before. If you were to present something which Christians here actually put forward,
But if bhs or any of the others were to 'present something which Christians here actually put forward', alien, their arguments would sound even less convincing than they already do. ;)
-
Alien,
As I said in an earlier post, I don't have access (i.e. can't find) the posts where this was discussed, so am not going to pursue this as I could well be putting words into people's mouths/keyboards.
Okey-doke.
That is not how it is argued, as has been pointed out many, many times before. If you were to present something which Christians here actually put forward, then I am happy to argue for it (if I agree with that position put forward by those Christians), but I am not going to try to defend the position you describe above as that is a straw man.
Actually that’s exactly how it’s argued: the theist either reaches across to naturalistic disciplines like science and history to establish his claims (your approach), or he just asserts it and expects everyone else to accept his claims (Vlad’s approach).
The former seems to me to fail a priori in any case – if you want to posit the supernatural, how on earth would you expect the natural to demonstrate it? – but, even it didn’t, it only works when you set the evidential bar so low that any such conjecture would pass. If you think the resurrection is legit, how then would you deny the legitimacy of a prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse given equivalent “evidence”? If you think the universe to be 6,000 years old because an ancient book says so, how then would you deny the person who thinks it started last Tuesday because he has a different book that says so?
The latter on the other hand is just “not even wrong”: if someone thinks he’s established some objective facts because he’s “experienced” them, how then would he deny the truthfulness of the supposed facts of others who think just as sincerely as him that they’ve experienced them too? Now Vlad never troubles himself with such questions – he just throws sand in your eyes in the hope that no-one notices – but it’s the Grand Canyon-sized whole in the middle of his schtick nonetheless.
And so it goes…
-
Hope,
But if bhs or any of the others were to 'present something which Christians here actually put forward', alien, their arguments would sound even less convincing than they already do. ;)
That's easily remedied: just finally post this "evidence" you claim to have posted already but no-one has ever been able to find and we'll address it.
Why the coyness?
-
Hope,
But if bhs or any of the others were to 'present something which Christians here actually put forward', alien, their arguments would sound even less convincing than they already do. ;)
That's easily remedied: just finally post this "evidence" you claim to have posted already but no-one has ever been able to find and we'll address it.
Why the coyness?
Don't be silly bluey; that would entail Hope actually providing back-up for some of his assertions, and the theist contingent here aren't in the habit of doing that.
-
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Who has done that? I haven’t seen it. Rather science is introduced when the religious attempt scientific truths
Who has done that? You are here of course confirming Jay Gould here since you are pleading for a magisterium namely scientific truths.
For once in your life, answer the question.
How patronising and angry.
Science versus religion is the subtext of arguments like the one we are having now.
Of Course this is where science is a subtle cover for and interchangeable with atheism.
Bluehillside ,of course, helps us out here when he says there is science or just guessing. Atheism is not science.......whether atheism is just guessing though........
Answer the question. Who is using science interchangeably with atheism. A name or an admission that you're lying is acceptable.
-
That's easily remedied: just finally post this "evidence" you claim to have posted already but no-one has ever been able to find and we'll address it.
Why the coyness?
The problem is that it has already been addressed by several people here, in the form of dismissal, bhs. Whether you were part of that group I can't remember, but as I've been at pains to point out in recent weeks, the reason it is dismissed is purely because those same people can't fit it with their understanding that everything that occurs in life has to fit into a naturalistic framework. One only has to look at the times that bits of the evidence have been posted by different folk over the last few months and simply poo-pooed.
-
The problem is that it has already been addressed by several people here, in the form of dismissal, bhs. Whether you were part of that group I can't remember, but as I've been at pains to point out in recent weeks, the reason it is dismissed is purely because those same people can't fit it with their understanding that everything that occurs in life has to fit into a naturalistic framework. One only has to look at the times that bits of the evidence have been posted by different folk over the last few months and simply poo-pooed.
So the evidence you're being asked to provide has already been provided by people arguing against it, is that what you're saying?
-
... the reason it is dismissed is purely because those same people can't fit it with their understanding that everything that occurs in life has to fit into a naturalistic framework. .
What other "framework" is there, apart from an imagined one?
-
Hope,
The problem is that it has already been addressed by several people here, in the form of dismissal, bhs. Whether you were part of that group I can't remember, but as I've been at pains to point out in recent weeks, the reason it is dismissed is purely because those same people can't fit it with their understanding that everything that occurs in life has to fit into a naturalistic framework. One only has to look at the times that bits of the evidence have been posted by different folk over the last few months and simply poo-pooed.
Doesn't wash. On the one hand you accuse others of not addressing that which theists have "put forward", but on the other hand you not only refuse to put forward anything of your own to address, you then hide behind vague assertions that others have done so.
You're really not helping yourself one bit here are you?
-
You'll knit sawdust before you get a straight answer to a straight question out of this one, blue.
-
Alien,
...
That is not how it is argued, as has been pointed out many, many times before. If you were to present something which Christians here actually put forward, then I am happy to argue for it (if I agree with that position put forward by those Christians), but I am not going to try to defend the position you describe above as that is a straw man.
Actually that’s exactly how it’s argued: the theist either reaches across to naturalistic disciplines like science and history to establish his claims (your approach),
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here. Just repeating that it is is a bit weak and the sort of thing that Vlad points out to be the case. or he just asserts it and expects everyone else to accept his claims (Vlad’s approach).
Really? I'll leave you and him to argue that out.
The former seems to me to fail a priori in any case – if you want to posit the supernatural, how on earth would you expect the natural to demonstrate it? – but, even it didn’t, it only works when you set the evidential bar so low that any such conjecture would pass.
Why? Though I posted (some months ago) the Bayesian probability calculation, there has been very little uptake. It might have been when you were away. If you think the resurrection is legit, how then would you deny the legitimacy of a prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse given equivalent “evidence”? If you think the universe to be 6,000 years old because an ancient book says so, how then would you deny the person who thinks it started last Tuesday because he has a different book that says so?
How would I deny the legitimacy of the Mo flying to heaven? Firstly, I would question whether the Quran actually says he did that. I may be wrong, but I thought some Muslims (not sure how many) thought that was not what the text means. As for anyone claiming the universe is 6000 years old, I would point out that, assuming they are YECers, that this is not what the bible teaches anyway.
Back to Mo for a mo. If the Quran does actually claim he went for that ride, I would not attack that particular claim directly. If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
The latter on the other hand is just “not even wrong”: if someone thinks he’s established some objective facts because he’s “experienced” them, how then would he deny the truthfulness of the supposed facts of others who think just as sincerely as him that they’ve experienced them too?
There are times when we experience things which we cannot prove to others. This is, yet again, about the difference between being able to know something and being able to demonstrate something. It is stuff which has been discussed a number of times on this board. Let me bring up the example of Fred walking through the forest on his own and seeing the light through the trees in a particular way. He sees it. He knows he saw it, but he cannot demonstrate that he saw it to anyone (unless he recorded it on his camera, say).
Now, as I have said from time to time, I am loathe to try to use personal experience as evidence for other people to be convinced by since it has the problem you have raised. However, if it is consistent with other stuff known to be true, then it could be used as evidence, perhaps. For example, if someone had looked through some more objective evidence and come to the conclusion that this was good evidence (and there being insufficient good evidence against), then it may be OK to accept that personal stuff someone is speaking of (unless there is good reason not to). Maybe. Possibly.
It might be that God deals directly with a person and, say, give them an awareness that they are indeed a forgiven, child of God (them having repented and stuff). How would they convince other people of it? I don't know. Perhaps they can't. How would they know that their conviction was a correct conviction? If it is, then it should match up with facts obtainable elsewhere, I would suggest. Now Vlad never troubles himself with such questions – he just throws sand in your eyes in the hope that no-one notices – but it’s the Grand Canyon-sized whole in the middle of his schtick nonetheless.
And so it goes…
I think you do a disservice. I don't read all his posts, but the ones I have read have repeatedly pointed out that some of the arguments put forward by those of an atheist ilk make a number of critical assumptions and doesn't get much response (at least not in the posts I have read).
-
...
How patronising and angry.
Science versus religion is the subtext of arguments like the one we are having now.
Of Course this is where science is a subtle cover for and interchangeable with atheism.
Bluehillside ,of course, helps us out here when he says there is science or just guessing. Atheism is not science.......whether atheism is just guessing though........
Answer the question. Who is using science interchangeably with atheism. A name or an admission that you're lying is acceptable.
I'm not sure whether this is what Vlad meant, but there are some here who seem (to me, at least) who think that science implies (strong) atheism to be correct. Floo, for example. I could scour back and look up the occasions where Floo (bless her cotton socks) has said that she expects science will come up with all the answers for just about everything. Mind you, she does use language like "I suspect that...", so perhaps I am being a bit hard on her.
-
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here.
Yes it is.
Unless of course you're going to do what you've so far signally failed to do despite innumerable requests and provide a methodology for assessing supernatural claims.
If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
This sort of twaddle is of course mere assertion, which we can ignore.
-
... the reason it is dismissed is purely because those same people can't fit it with their understanding that everything that occurs in life has to fit into a naturalistic framework. .
What other "framework" is there, apart from an imagined one?
And thus Len designates all frameworks apart from the (philosophical?) naturalistic one as "imagined". It can't be true, because it is imaginary. Why is it imaginary, Len? Because it can't be true.
Etc.
-
You'll knit sawdust before you get a straight answer to a straight question out of this one, blue.
Maybe not. BHS engages in actual discussion rather than the sort of sound bites you provide us with most of the time.
-
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here.
Yes it is.
Unless of course you're going to do what you've so far signally failed to do despite innumerable requests and provide a methodology for assessing supernatural claims.
If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
This sort of twaddle is of course mere assertion, which we can ignore.
So, do you think Islam is correct?
-
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here.
Yes it is.
Unless of course you're going to do what you've so far signally failed to do despite innumerable requests and provide a methodology for assessing supernatural claims.
If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
This sort of twaddle is of course mere assertion, which we can ignore.
So, do you think Islam is correct?
In what respect?
-
You'll knit sawdust before you get a straight answer to a straight question out of this one, blue.
Maybe not. BHS engages in actual discussion rather than the sort of sound bites you provide us with most of the time.
Short, sweet and accurate is my watchword ;)
-
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here.
Yes it is.
Unless of course you're going to do what you've so far signally failed to do despite innumerable requests and provide a methodology for assessing supernatural claims.
If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
This sort of twaddle is of course mere assertion, which we can ignore.
So, do you think Islam is correct?
In what respect?
Its claim that there is one God and that Mohammed is his messenger.
-
You'll knit sawdust before you get a straight answer to a straight question out of this one, blue.
Maybe not. BHS engages in actual discussion rather than the sort of sound bites you provide us with most of the time.
Short, sweet and accurate is my watchword ;)
:)
-
Why is it imaginary, Len?
Because it is not based on any facts.
-
Why is it imaginary, Len?
Because it is not based on any facts.
Why do you claim that, Len?
-
but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
If a Muslim said ' but there is a God and he is not the Christian God so there is no good reason for thinking he would resurrect Jesus from being dead' they would seemingly be stating their case on the same basis that you have stated yours - that they can is surely as problematic for Christianity as you think yours is for Islam.
-
Why is it imaginary, Len?
Because it is not based on any facts.
Why do you claim that, Len?
Because it's true. There no facts that back up god stories.
-
Its claim that there is one God and that Mohammed is his messenger.
No. No more so than you do.
But then I disbelieve in all gods, or I wouldn't be an atheist.
-
but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
If a Muslim said ' but there is a God and he is not the Christian God so there is no good reason for thinking he would resurrect Jesus from being dead' they would seemingly be stating their case on the same basis that you have stated yours - that they can is surely as problematic for Christianity as you think yours is for Islam.
Then we would need to look to see if there were sufficient grounds for believing Islam to be true. If it isn't, the night flight by Mohammed goes out of the window since there is not even a claim for evidence for it happening outside the Quran and Muslims claim that the Quran came entirely through Mohammed.
Compare this with the Christian claim for the resurrection of Jesus: Recording by at least 5 1st century authors of details of about a dozen individuals and groups who claimed to have met Jesus after his flogging and crucifixion, the empty tomb and the start of the Christian church.
Islam? Mo said he went on a night flight.
-
Why is it imaginary, Len?
Because it is not based on any facts.
Why do you claim that, Len?
Because it's true. There no facts that back up god stories.
Why do you claim that, Len (without just repeating yourself)?
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
No, as in no facts.
-
Compare this with the Christian claim for the resurrection of Jesus: Recording by at least 5 1st century authors of details of about a dozen individuals and groups who claimed to have met Jesus after his flogging and crucifixion, the empty tomb and the start of the Christian church.
Islam? Mo said he went on a night flight.
Christians said Jesus was resurrected - so no real difference there then: just claims.
How do you know they weren't lying?
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
No, as in no facts.
Why do you think that to be the case? You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.
-
Why do you think that to be the case?
Because there are no facts that back up god stories.
You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.
That's right, and I'm making that positive claim on the grounds that there are no facts which back up god stories.
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
Ah - so Christians have their own facts then?
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
Ah - so Christians have their own facts then?
Some of them appear to, G ::)
-
...
How do you know they weren't lying?
Because of the reasons given lots of times before which you seem to have missed. Do you really want me to go into this again or is this Gordon's WUM day?
-
Why do you think that to be the case?
Because there are no facts that back up god stories.
You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.
That's right, and I'm making that positive claim on the grounds that there are no facts which back up god stories.
OK, over to you to demonstrate your claim is correct. No hurry.
-
Because it's true - there are no facts that back up god stories.
Unless you can think of some, of course, in which case I'd be very interested to hear them.
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
Ah - so Christians have their own facts then?
No, I did not claim that and you know I did not claim that. Naughty boy. For your punishment, go and watch Scotland play a game of rugby.
-
OK, over to you to demonstrate your claim is correct. No hurry.
So you're asking me to prove a negative by demonstrating the absence of something which you already know to be the case, then?
-
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
No, there is nothing anyone recognises as facts - there is methodology by which supernatural claims, either competing or in isolation, can be assessed to determine if they have any validity. They remain not only unproven but unprovable, and therefore are not facts but just assertions.
O.
-
OK, over to you to demonstrate your claim is correct. No hurry.
So you're asking me to prove a negative by demonstrating the absence of something which you already know to be the case, then?
No, I am asking you to prove what you described as a "positive claim" in #374. Here it is again from you, "That's right, and I'm making that positive claim on the grounds that there are no facts which back up god stories."
-
Why do you think that to be the case? You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.
No, the burden of proof still lies with you, he's simply making the case that you've failed to prove your case. You make the claim there are facts supporting religion, yet you've failed to demonstrate it.
O.
-
How does one present no facts?
-
As in there are nothing which you recognize as facts which back up god stories?
No, there is nothing anyone recognises as facts - there is methodology by which supernatural claims, either competing or in isolation, can be assessed to determine if they have any validity. They remain not only unproven but unprovable, and therefore are not facts but just assertions.
O.
Shaker says there are no facts, not just that he does not recognise them as facts. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. Simples.
-
How does one present no facts?
Quite.
-
Why do you think that to be the case? You are making a positive claim here and thus the burden of proof is yours.
No, the burden of proof still lies with you, he's simply making the case that you've failed to prove your case. You make the claim there are facts supporting religion, yet you've failed to demonstrate it.
O.
No he did not say that. He said there are no such facts. Read his posts.
-
Shaker says there are no facts, not just that he does not recognise them as facts. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. Simples.
As Andy has just said, how do you present 'no facts'?
The method is probably hiding out in the same place as your methodology for assessing supernatural claims, Alan ;)
-
How does one present no facts?
Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why." Something a bit humbler.
Off to do some work.
-
No he did not say that. He said there are no such facts. Read his posts.
And, to date, he's right - there are no facts. If that changes we'll need to review the situation, but before that happens you need to posit a methodology that would allow a critical review of the claims with a means by which we could establish their veracity.
In the absence of a methodology or system, there can be no facts. Don't get me wrong, in that sense it's a subjective decision on whether the outcome of the body of scientific work done by humanity constitutes 'facts' in any meaningful sense.
O.
-
How does one present no facts?
Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why."
I did indeed ask you (in #369) to present to us what you regard as these "facts" that back up god stories, but needless to say ...
Something a bit humbler.
I leave humility to those who are supposed to think it a virtue.
-
How does one present no facts?
Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why." Something a bit humbler.
Off to do some work.
"I see no ships". What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".
"There are no biscuits in the barrel." What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".
I take it you say this every time you claim there is a nothing?
-
No he did not say that. He said there are no such facts. Read his posts.
And, to date, he's right - there are no facts. If that changes we'll need to review the situation, but before that happens you need to posit a methodology that would allow a critical review of the claims with a means by which we could establish their veracity.
In the absence of a methodology or system, there can be no facts.
... "which back up the god stories".
That is incorrect. It would mean, at most, that there would be no way of determining or identifying those facts.Don't get me wrong, in that sense it's a subjective decision on whether the outcome of the body of scientific work done by humanity constitutes 'facts' in any meaningful sense.
O.
Fairy nuff.
-
How does one present no facts?
Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why."
I did indeed ask you (in #369) to present to us what you regard as these "facts" that back up god stories, but needless to say ...
Yes, I know you did. However, you then went on to assert that there are no such facts. That is a positive claim and I am under no obligation to come up with evidence for the opposite of your claim.Something a bit humbler.
I leave humility to those who are supposed to think it a virtue.
OK.
-
How does one present no facts?
Pass, but that is not what he needs to do. He says there are no such facts. He should have been saying something like, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge. If you Christians think you are onto something, please explain why." Something a bit humbler.
Off to do some work.
"I see no ships". What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".
"There are no biscuits in the barrel." What he really should have said is, "There is insufficient evidence as far as I can see and I think I am a pretty good judge".
Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).
I take it you say this every time you claim there is a nothing?
"There is a nothing"? What's that in English?
-
Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).
... just as people who believe in invisible entities like gods and expect other people to take them seriously argue for the existence of invisible entities.
-
Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).
... just as people who believe in invisible entities like gods and expect other people to take them seriously argue for the existence of invisible entities.
So you only believe in things you can actually see then?
Looking forward to you trying to back up your claim, by the way.
-
Vlad,
Well now you have stated there is ''science and just guessing'' I'm sure you, being on the side of the angels, will subscribe to a policy of Sola scientia and remain silent about anything which isn't science.
Yours
looking forward to not hearing from you (unless it is about science)
Here's what actually happened.
You said: "Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion."
To which I replied: "Or perhaps “science and just guessing”, but ok."
Notice that I characterised only religion as "just guessing" (presumably something with which you agree in respect of all the claims gods you don't think to exist). That though says nothing to whether we can't readily discuss aesthetics, morality etc when the proponents make no claims to objective factual truths.
The problem comes when theists say something like, "miracle X actually happened" and then look to naturalistic concepts like scientific evidence or the historical method to prove it and thus fall flat on their faces or, as in your case, when they just assert it and expect everyone else to take their claims seriously.
Sorry, but philosophical naturalism is still just a punt.
You know that and I know that because I've been through that phase.
Science doesn't help you Blue not even waving it shamanically like wot you are doing.
-
Yes, I know you did. However, you then went on to assert that there are no such facts. That is a positive claim and I am under no obligation to come up with evidence for the opposite of your claim.
This is an online chat forum. No one is under any obligation to do anything. However, if you think I am wrong in stating that there are no facts that back up god stories - that's to say, you think there are such facts - then the simplest way of showing me to be wrong would be to provide them.
-
Seeing an empty space in a biscuit barrel is good evidence that there are no biscuits in there (unless you are arguing for the existence of invisible biscuits).
... just as people who believe in invisible entities like gods and expect other people to take them seriously argue for the existence of invisible entities.
Sorry Shakes but when you play the invisible entity card we know you conceive of them as old men with beards or little nippers with green faces.
-
No Vlad; I don't conceive of them at all, because that would be very, very silly indeed.
-
Yes, I know you did. However, you then went on to assert that there are no such facts. That is a positive claim and I am under no obligation to come up with evidence for the opposite of your claim.
This is an online chat forum. No one is under any obligation to do anything. However, if you think I am wrong in stating that there are no facts that back up god stories - that's to say, you think there are such facts - then the simplest way of showing me to be wrong would be to provide them.
No Shakes, go and scour the known universe so you can conclusively say there are no facts while I sit on one I think I have...
-
Notice that I characterised only religion as "just guessing" (presumably something with which you agree in respect of all the claims gods you don't think to exist).
No, I think other gods are obviously expressions of the divine.
I find your use of the word gods and the context you put that in to be just an extension of your mocking argumentum ad ridiculum playing to the gallery.
Again you seem to be pleading for science as a non overlapping magisterium and yet posturing as a POMA exponent......in other word you have been stretched to breaking point in your gymnastic opposition.
Science doesn't help and support your arguments Blue.
-
;) That's the size of it Andy - that and Hoppity's "I don't have to provide any evidence for my claims because I've already done it ... somewhere."
"Where and when, Hoppity?"
"Here, before."
"But specifically?"
The rest is silence.
-
I often play the game with my litlun where she'll go out of the room while I'll hide a toy. On the odd occasion I'll hide the toy on myself so she'll search the room, not find a thing and say it's not here. It's a bit of a tease - a bit of a torment hiding it on myself but all harmless giggles to a 2 year old. Pissing around like this in adult conversation is, however, no different - childish.
-
Yeah :(
-
Alien,
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here. Just repeating that it is is a bit weak and the sort of thing that Vlad points out to be the case.
You can try to “point that out” if you wish, but you’d be wrong to do so. Of course it’s naturalistic – what else could it be as it deals only with facts and evidence and records and interpretations and any manner of things that are entirely natural? If though you seriously think that history concerns itself with the non-natural/supernatural, then by all means have a go at explaining how it does so.
This incidentally is where you go wrong when you attempt analogies with athletes and the like. For that to work, you’d need to say something more like, “Fred ran the 100m in 12 seconds, then there’s a folk myth that he turned into a shape-shifting lizard, then there are records that he won the 1,500m” or some such. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that, and not less evidence than we’d need to have any degree of certainty about a supposed event that happened some 150 years before, at a time when any manner of beliefs in spooks were prevalent, that no-one bothered recording at the time, that could readily be explained by natural means etc etc. And when you set the evidence bar as low as that then of course you have no defence against any other tale of the supernatural either.
Really? I'll leave you and him to argue that out.
By all means, but you’ll find his entire argument to be, “I experienced it” nonetheless.
Why? Though I posted (some months ago) the Bayesian probability calculation, there has been very little uptake. It might have been when you were away.
Sounds like more WLC wrongheadedness to me, but by all means provide a link if you’d like to.
How would I deny the legitimacy of the Mo flying to heaven? Firstly, I would question whether the Quran actually says he did that. I may be wrong, but I thought some Muslims (not sure how many) thought that was not what the text means. As for anyone claiming the universe is 6000 years old, I would point out that, assuming they are YECers, that this is not what the bible teaches anyway.
Back to Mo for a mo. If the Quran does actually claim he went for that ride, I would not attack that particular claim directly. If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
You’re missing it. If you think that something was factually true because a book you think to be holy says so, what defence do you have against the claims of any other books that other think to be holy with just as much conviction and faith as you do? That’s what happens when you set the bar so low for your beliefs – pretty much any other claim of equal provenance makes it over too.
Are they all true then and, if not, why not?
There are times when we experience things which we cannot prove to others.
But how then would you establish that you actually “know” them, rather than are mistaken for any number of reasons? You might for example be convinced that a god has been speaking to you, when all along your speaker cables were just picking up junk radio signals and playing them. It's the attribution of cause that's the problem, not the fact of the "experience".
This is, yet again, about the difference between being able to know something and being able to demonstrate something.
No it isn’t, at least not until you’ve been able to provide a method to show beyond reasonable doubt that you do in fact “know” it in the first place, rather than just believe it – with all the risks of misattribution etc that involves.
It is stuff which has been discussed a number of times on this board. Let me bring up the example of Fred walking through the forest on his own and seeing the light through the trees in a particular way. He sees it. He knows he saw it, but he cannot demonstrate that he saw it to anyone (unless he recorded it on his camera, say).
But that’s not a problem – there’s any number of reasons that might explain the light. The moment though he insists that this light was in fact, say, the ghost of Pocahontas then the problems begin.
Now, as I have said from time to time, I am loathe to try to use personal experience as evidence for other people to be convinced by since it has the problem you have raised. However, if it is consistent with other stuff known to be true, then it could be used as evidence, perhaps. For example, if someone had looked through some more objective evidence and come to the conclusion that this was good evidence (and there being insufficient good evidence against), then it may be OK to accept that personal stuff someone is speaking of (unless there is good reason not to). Maybe. Possibly.
In what way would, say, a claim about a resurrection be consistent with anything we know about the way the universe actually works? If on the other hand the claim was just, say, “Jesus liked his fish and chips of a Friday” then there’s be no particular reason to doubt it and it would be accepted – at least provisionally.
It might be that God deals directly with a person and, say, give them an awareness that they are indeed a forgiven, child of God (them having repented and stuff). How would they convince other people of it? I don't know. Perhaps they can't. How would they know that their conviction was a correct conviction? If it is, then it should match up with facts obtainable elsewhere, I would suggest.
More to the point, how would they convince themselves without first troubling to eliminate every other possible explanation?
I think you do a disservice. I don't read all his posts, but the ones I have read have repeatedly pointed out that some of the arguments put forward by those of an atheist ilk make a number of critical assumptions and doesn't get much response (at least not in the posts I have read).
No, so far as know he’s never once – not ever ever ever – answered a question, despite demanding countless answers from others. His only effort in the direction you suggest rests on his misunderstanding of philosophical materialism, which he’s had corrected many times but he returns to it nonetheless. Essentially his schtick is “I experienced it so it’s true for you too” but he’s never shown any awareness of the problems that gives him.
-
Alien,
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here. Just repeating that it is is a bit weak and the sort of thing that Vlad points out to be the case.
You can try to “point that out” if you wish, but you’d be wrong to do so. Of course it’s naturalistic
I don't think historians reject gospel accounts because they do not follow the doctrines of philosophical naturalism. Nor conversely would any academics be drummed out for treating the gospel accounts as historical evidence.
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
-
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
You really do need to seek help for this monomaniacal idée fixe* with philosophical naturalism you so boringly have.
In the field of history methodological naturalism is perfectly sufficient :)
* "An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it, a fixation. The name originates from the French idée, "idea" and fixe, "fixed." Although not used technically to denote a particular disorder in psychology, idée fixe is used often in the description of disorders, and is employed widely in literature and everyday English ... As an everyday term, idée fixe may indicate a mindset akin to prejudice or stereotyping ... However, idée fixe has also a pathological dimension, denoting serious psychological issues ... Idée fixe began as a parent category of obsession, and as a preoccupation of mind the idée fixe resembles today's obsessive-compulsive disorder: although the afflicted person can think, reason and act like other people, they are unable to stop a particular train of thought or action. However, in obsessive-compulsive disorder, the victim recognizes the absurdity of the obsession or compulsion, not necessarily the case with an idée fixe, which normally is a delusion." - Wikipedia.
-
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
You really do need to seek help for this monomaniacal idée fixe with philosophical naturalism you so boringly have.
In the field of history methodological naturalism is perfectly sufficient :)
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
-
History is not science though Shakes.
And plumbing isn't quantum electrodynamics. Nevertheless, history is naturalistic, because there's no methodology for assessing supernatural claims.
People like Hope and Alien think there is and claim there is, but every single time without fail or exception they're asked to substantiate this, they shit it.
The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
No they can't.
-
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
You really do need to seek help for this monomaniacal idée fixe with philosophical naturalism you so boringly have.
In the field of history methodological naturalism is perfectly sufficient :)
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
Then you'll have no problem using the historical method to determine when a god has or hasn't intervened. Off you pop.
-
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
You really do need to seek help for this monomaniacal idée fixe with philosophical naturalism you so boringly have.
In the field of history methodological naturalism is perfectly sufficient :)
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
Then you'll have no problem using the historical method to determine when a god has or hasn't intervened. Off you pop.
No, what I am saying is that there is no historical reason to reject the miracle accounts as being historical evidence. History cannot probably establish whether God was the cause.
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
-
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
You really do need to seek help for this monomaniacal idée fixe with philosophical naturalism you so boringly have.
In the field of history methodological naturalism is perfectly sufficient :)
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
Then you'll have no problem using the historical method to determine when a god has or hasn't intervened. Off you pop.
No, what I am saying is that there is no historical reason to reject the miracle accounts as being historical evidence. History cannot probably establish whether God was the cause.
Miracle accounts being historical evidence for what exactly?
-
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
You really do need to seek help for this monomaniacal idée fixe with philosophical naturalism you so boringly have.
In the field of history methodological naturalism is perfectly sufficient :)
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
Then you'll have no problem using the historical method to determine when a god has or hasn't intervened. Off you pop.
No, what I am saying is that there is no historical reason to reject the miracle accounts as being historical evidence. History cannot probably establish whether God was the cause.
Miracle accounts being historical evidence for what exactly?
Sorry Andy, but there is no warrant in the study of history to discard or discount a record of a unique event as evidence even though it does not fit the description of a ''natural'' event.
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
History as a method and a subject does. Do you have a method of doing history other than is taught at all British universities? If you do, please outline.
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
-
Sorry Andy, but there is no warrant in the study of history to discard or discount a record of a unique event as evidence even though it does not fit the description of a ''natural'' event.
Surely though there is the need with any historical record to assess the risks of mistakes, bias or lies - so how have you tackled these aspects?
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
unique does not mean supernatural and history as it is studied and is a method is naturalistic.
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
Don't think that your switch from miracle account to unique event has gone unnoticed.
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
History as a method and a subject does. Do you have a method of doing history other than is taught at all British universities? If you do, please outline.
How does it do that( reject unique event records which do not fit into the term natural )without undermining it's own method which is the study of unique events as well as ceremonial ones?
What is special about British universities?
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
Don't think that your switch from miracle account to unique event has gone unnoticed.
Oh so miracles don't come in the unique event category now?
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
unique does not mean supernatural and history as it is studied and is a method is naturalistic.
Firstly, how are supernatural events not unique?
Secondly, How does rejecting events recorded on the ground of not fitting the term not contradict the method of history which is to study recorded events?
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
History as a method and a subject does. Do you have a method of doing history other than is taught at all British universities? If you do, please outline.
How does it do that( reject unique event records which do not fit into the term natural )without undermining it's own method which is the study of unique events as well as ceremonial ones?
What is special about British universities?
Can you stop lying about what I say? I didn’t say it rejects unique events, just that it is methodologically naturalistic. As to British universities, nothing special, just the places I understand because I got my degrees there.
Any method for the supernatural from a British or other university in history?
-
I'm not equating a unique event with a miracle - you are.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
Don't think that your switch from miracle account to unique event has gone unnoticed.
Oh so miracles don't come in the unique event category now?
No idea, thought you were the expert on these things?
Do miracles have to be unique? I would've thought though that you would understand that something unique doesn't equal miracle, but hey ho.
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural. Unless you have a method for the supernatural, Vlad? Got one? Anything? After hundreds of asks? Anything? A smudge? A tiny klingon? A picayune idea?
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural. Unless you have a method for the supernatural, Vlad? Got one? Anything? After hundreds of asks? Anything? A smudge? A tiny klingon? A picayune idea?
Maybe it's impossible to sneeze without divine intervention?
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
History as a method and a subject does. Do you have a method of doing history other than is taught at all British universities? If you do, please outline.
How does it do that( reject unique event records which do not fit into the term natural )without undermining it's own method which is the study of unique events as well as ceremonial ones?
What is special about British universities?
Can you stop lying about what I say? I didn’t say it rejects unique events, just that it is methodologically naturalistic. As to British universities, nothing special, just the places I understand because I got my degrees there.
Any method for the supernatural from a British or other university in history?
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
Therefore you have to justify what is naturalistic about history.
History has no method for saying whether the cause of the events was God since that is a question of faith and theology.
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?
You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.
BTW any method yet? Which you avoided even looking by omission?
-
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
They (historians) would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely cautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
I've yet to see a theist here address these risks without resorted to special pleading - perhaps you might buck the trend.
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?
You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.
BTW any method yet? Which you avoided even looking by omission?
First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What is good/bad, right or wrong within the supernatural is intuitive just like moral intuition.
I have said the resurrection is a sneeze? Where did that happen?
As for this gem.
''Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?''
Who can doubt it's intellectual power?
-
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
They would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely cautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
And they would be free to do that.........
-
First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
So supernatural = whatever can't currently be explained at the moment, which sounds suspiciously like a variant on Hope's dearly beloved negative proof fallacy.
Sure about that, Vlad?
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?
You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.
BTW any method yet? Which youit avoided even looking by omission?
First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What is good/bad, right or wrong within the supernatural is intuitive just like moral intuition.
I have said the resurrection is a sneeze? Where did that happen?
As for this gem.
''Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?''
Who can doubt it's intellectual power?
It's its.
-
First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
So supernatural = whatever can't currently be explained at the moment, which sounds supiciously like Hope's dearly beloved negative proof fallacy.
Sure about that, Vlad?
yes Shaker but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
Aren't the boundaries of naturalism already set Shaker?
-
yes Shaker
Thought so. Glad you agree.
but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
No.
But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.
You'll find a few oddballs who think there is, but as soon as you ask them to provide it they suddenly have other stuff to do.
-
The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?
You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.
BTW any method yet? Which youit avoided even looking by omission?
First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What is good/bad, right or wrong within the supernatural is intuitive just like moral intuition.
I have said the resurrection is a sneeze? Where did that happen?
As for this gem.
''Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?''
Who can doubt it's intellectual power?
It's its.
D'oh.
-
First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What kind of sneaked in bullshit is this? I take it you're going to go down the road of naturalism doesn't cover itself therefore super god? You make an absolute nonsense of what it means to describe anything as natural if all you do is have the supernatural supersede everything.
-
yes Shaker
Thought so. Glad you agree.
but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
No.
But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
-
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
Quite predictably nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism but you, Vladdypops.
-
yes Shaker
Thought so. Glad you agree.
but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
No.
But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
Which is a big own goal as it's an indirect admission that you have no method for falsifying the supernatural.
-
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
They would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely clautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
And they would be free to do that.........
So, if the historical method as applied by professional historians regarded the NT accounts that Alan sets so much store by (empty tomb and Jesus interacting with other having been previously dead) as being inadequate as evidence of the historical fact of the resurrection claim then it becomes more likely that we are dealing with the human as opposed to the divine - would you agree?
-
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
Quite predictably nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism but you, Vladdypops.
Shaker. Your implicit and explicit collection of views actually has a name you know. Do you want them not to because you are operating undercover or something.?
-
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
They would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely clautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
And they would be free to do that.........
So, if the historical method as applied by professional historians regarded the NT accounts that Alan sets so much store by (empty tomb and Jesus interacting with other having been previously dead) as being inadequate as evidence of the historical fact of the resurrection claim then it becomes more likely that we are dealing with the human as opposed to the divine - would you agree?
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
-
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
Quite predictably nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism but you, Vladdypops.
Shaker. Your implicit and explicit collection of views actually has a name you know.
Let me guess: is it shamanistic Brobat philosophically naturalist intellectually totalitarian materialist Stalinism, by any chance?
-
yes Shaker
Thought so. Glad you agree.
but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
No.
But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
Which is a big own goal as it's an indirect admission that you have no method for falsifying the supernatural.
you have elevated science (The naturalistic method) to be the only source of truth. That is a leap of faith since the naturalistic method doesn't establish that.
Of course either that is the truth or it isn't. But the method doesn't cover it.
Does that mean we can never know? What's to stop us knowing it?
I don't recall the inability to falsify something means that thing cannot be merely that it is not subjectable to science.
-
yes Shaker
Thought so. Glad you agree.
but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
No.
But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.
But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
Which is a big own goal as it's an indirect admission that you have no method for falsifying the supernatural.
you have elevated science (The naturalistic method) to be the only source of truth. That is a leap of faith since the naturalistic method doesn't establish that.
Of course either that is the truth or it isn't. But the method doesn't cover it.
Does that mean we can never know? What's to stop us knowing it?
I don't recall the inability to falsify something means that thing cannot be merely that it is not subjectable to science.
Back to lying about what people say. Well it's either that or you're ignorant or stupid.
I think you should head back under your bridge.
-
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
So you're saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?
-
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
So you re saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?
Nope why should I be?
I agree with much of the rest of your post. I think comparing Christian sincerity with roman religious sincerity is straying a bit since the roman pantheon was apparently not interactive physically in the same way as the Christian God was reported to be at this time and it is the Christian account of a historical event that is in question.
-
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
So you re saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?
Nope why should I be?
I agree with much of the rest of your post. I think comparing Christian sincerity with roman religious sincerity is straying a bit since the roman pantheon was apparently not interactive physically in the same way as the Christian God was reported to be at this time and it is the Christian account of a historical event that is in question.
Which sounds like special pleading in favour of the sincerity of Christians being somehow a superior example of sincerity, and you are also presuming that there was an 'event' to be sincere about - how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts of this alleged event?
-
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
So you re saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?
Nope why should I be?
I agree with much of the rest of your post. I think comparing Christian sincerity with roman religious sincerity is straying a bit since the roman pantheon was apparently not interactive physically in the same way as the Christian God was reported to be at this time and it is the Christian account of a historical event that is in question.
Which sounds like special pleading in favour of the sincerity of Christians being somehow a superior example of sincerity, and you are also presuming that there was an 'event' to be sincere about - how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts of this alleged event?
Nowhere have I given any judgment over the level of sincerity of belief. I merely point out that the Christians believed a substantial physical and historical event had taken place.
In a discussion about historical events, why compare a historical event with a theological position Gordon?
-
And thus Len designates all frameworks apart from the (philosophical?) naturalistic one as "imagined". It can't be true, because it is imaginary. Why is it imaginary, Len? Because it can't be true.
All you have to do is tell us what this alternative framework is and we'll shut up. But all we see is mockery and no goods.
-
And thus Len designates all frameworks apart from the (philosophical?) naturalistic one as "imagined". It can't be true, because it is imaginary. Why is it imaginary, Len? Because it can't be true.
All you have to do is tell us what this alternative framework is and we'll shut up. But all we see is mockery and no goods.
What you are asking for is the scientific method for something not scientific. You know and we know that isn't possible.
For some reason you specially plead that your own views are exempt from this...They aren't.
Either there is or isn't a God. Either position cannot be demonstrated by science.
The fact that science has a methodology does not help you out one bit.
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
Actually, it does if the event described is considered to be supernatural.
-
Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
Actually, it does if the event described is considered to be supernatural.
If it's the ''war in heaven'' I would agree.
However, if it's a physical event History would be undermining it's own brief which is the study of unique events.
-
What you are asking for is the scientific method for something not scientific. You know and we know that isn't possible.
I didn't use the word "scientific", I just asked for the framework.
Your evasion just confirms that the scientific one is the only one we have.
-
What you are asking for is the scientific method for something not scientific. You know and we know that isn't possible.
I didn't use the word "scientific", I just asked for the framework.
Your evasion just confirms that the scientific one is the only one we have.
And that helps you out exactly how?
-
If it's the ''war in heaven'' I would agree.
However, if it's a physical event History would be undermining it's own brief which is the study of unique events.
If a document describes an event that is obviously supernatural, it will automatically be classified as "containing fictional elements" by historians. Frequently they look for a naturalistic explanation for why the document recounts the fictional event, but they do not ever assume the supernatural version must be true, or even could be true.
-
If it's the ''war in heaven'' I would agree.
However, if it's a physical event History would be undermining it's own brief which is the study of unique events.
If a document describes an event that is obviously supernatural, it will automatically be classified as "containing fictional elements" by historians. Frequently they look for a naturalistic explanation for why the document recounts the fictional event, but they do not ever assume the supernatural version must be true, or even could be true.
Nor is it discarded or discounted as possible historical evidence.
History will only say that something is fictional if it establishes that historically.
-
Nor is it discarded or discounted as possible historical evidence.
But it's never considered as historical evidence for a supernatural event.
Can you point to any description of a supernatural event described in a historical document where the consensus amongst historians is that the supernatural event really happened? No you can't.
-
Jakswan,
I would really like to see your pet dragon! :)
-
What it boils down to is this:
Historians know that there was an empty tomb. They know that Christianity was first preached, by the apostles, in Jerusalem.
They have proposed various 'naturalistic' explanations for the above, alternative to the Resurrection.
None of the alternative explanations hold water.
This leaves us with the Resurrection.
-
Historians do not know there was a tomb, empty or otherwise.
-
What it boils down to is this:
Historians know that there was an empty tomb. They know that Christianity was first preached, by the apostles, in Jerusalem.
They have proposed various 'naturalistic' explanations for the above, alternative to the Resurrection.
None of the alternative explanations hold water.
This leaves us with the Resurrection.
1. No doubt there were empty tombs around - but that there was one that was previously occupied by a dead Jesus is a claim and not a historical fact.
2. What alternative explanations are these, on what basis have they been found wanting and by whom?
-
Vlad,
You’re really going off the deep end now:
Sorry, but philosophical naturalism is still just a punt.
You know that and I know that because I've been through that phase.
Science doesn't help you Blue not even waving it shamanically like wot you are doing.
Evasion noted, and it’s only a “punt” if you ignore what it observably achieves.
Again you seem to be pleading for science as a non overlapping magisterium and yet posturing as a POMA exponent......in other word you have been stretched to breaking point in your gymnastic opposition.
I do no such thing. Stop lying.
Science doesn't help and support your arguments Blue.
“Science” exactly helps the argument that claims made by the religious of the scientific truth of those claims are wrong.
I don't think historians reject gospel accounts because they do not follow the doctrines of philosophical naturalism. Nor conversely would any academics be drummed out for treating the gospel accounts as historical evidence.
They don’t reject them, they’re indifferent to them – for the good reason that the claims made cannot engage with the methods historians use. History no more has anything to say about miracle claims than architecture has anything to say about morris dancing.
I think the philosophical naturalism of history is, as described something merely asserted. And as it is a positive one someone around here has the burden of proof.
Then you think wrongly, for reasons that have been explained to you many times but you ignore nonetheless. The naturalism of historicity produces outcomes that are consistent with the way the world appears to be. If you think that your claims outside of that paradigm are true, then still you have all your work ahead of you to provide a method to distinguish those claims from guessing, mistake, lying etc.
And that, as we know, is the point at which you either vanish or throw more irrelevance at the question in the hope that no-one notices.
History is not science though Shakes. The Gospel accounts can therefore be treated as historical evidence so it is hard to see how history is a natural fit with er, methodological naturalism.
No, what I am saying is that there is no historical reason to reject the miracle accounts as being historical evidence. History cannot probably establish whether God was the cause.
Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.
The trouble is history cannot reject unique events since that is the raw material of history. History therefore has no mechanism for weeding out that which isn't considered natural without undermining it's own methodology.
Bullshit. Of course they can’t be treated as “historical evidence” at all for the good reason that they fail utterly the methods of verification on which academic history relies.
Oh so miracles don't come in the unique event category now?
Often they don’t, no – the resurrection myth is a basic re-telling of the same story from various previous theisms – a process called syncretism - which in turn are rooted in the turning of the seasons, the "birth" of the new year etc.
No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.
Wrongly so. “History” cannot “reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea” because those claims are, for the purpose of the historic method, incoherent. That’s why history is jut indifferent to them
Therefore you have to justify what is naturalistic about history.
No he doesn’t. It justifies itself because it fits exactly with the way the universe appears to be. If you want to posit claims outside of that, then finally propose a method to validate those claims.
yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.
It’s not “historic” at all – at best it’s folklore, and there’s nothing unique about it.
Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.
What relevance do you think that sincerity has to accuracy?
The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.
You’ve “strayed” into none of these things. What you have jumped into with both feet though is faith.
you have elevated science (The natur Nowhere have I given any judgment over the level of sincerity of belief. I merely point out that the Christians believed a substantial physical and historical event had taken place.
As have lots of people about lots of supposed miracles – the Vikings sincerely thought Thor was making thunder for example.
So what?
alistic method) to be the only source of truth. That is a leap of faith since the naturalistic method doesn't establish that.
No-one claims it to be the “only source of truth” at all. Rather what’s actually said is that it’s the only approach we have so far to distinguish probable truths from probable non-truths.
I don't recall the inability to falsify something means that thing cannot be merely that it is not subjectable to science.
You don't recall it because no-one says it. Anything could be – your problem though is to get from the “could bes” of your particular suite of beliefs to a “probably is” with no intervening method to take you there.
What you are asking for is the scientific method for something not scientific. You know and we know that isn't possible.
No he isn’t. What he’s actually asking for is a method, something, anything at all in fact to distinguish your claims from guessing, mistake etc.
For some reason you specially plead that your own views are exempt from this...They aren't.
Either there is or isn't a God. Either position cannot be demonstrated by science.
So what method would you propose instead to determine that?
-
Alien,
Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.
You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.
Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.
"Cogito ergo sum" means "I think therefore I am". Both verbs are first person singular, aka "I".
Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?
Just seen this, so apologies for the late response.
Thanks for the translation, Alan. I am well aware of how the latin translates(and the French before it). However I was giving my interpretation(not translation) of what I think it means, especially in the light of recent developments in neuroscience. This, of course, as Wiggs has pointed out, isn't a new idea. The point about the 'I' is that it is assumed, rather than a conclusion arrived at.
Of course, you are right, in the 'real world', as you call it, we don't exactly bother about such niceties, just as I don't bother about thinking about any god at all as I go about my business. This doesn't stop me being interested in such things though, and, in the particular case of Descartes where he wanted a solid base from which to start, I think it is quite appropriate and pertinent to pay attention to the 'I' in his proposition.
-
2Corrie,
None of the alternative explanations hold water.
And you propose to demonstrate this remarkable claim how exactly?
-
What it boils down to is this:
Historians know that there was an empty tomb.
No they don't. They know they have two possibly independent documents that describe the empty tomb but they do not know if those documents describe real events or fiction.
They know that Christianity was first preached, by the apostles, in Jerusalem.
They have proposed various 'naturalistic' explanations for the above, alternative to the Resurrection.
None of the alternative explanations hold water.
Actually, many of them do, whereas the resurrection is discounted out of hand because it would be a supernatural event.
-
Nor is it discarded or discounted as possible historical evidence.
But it's never considered as historical evidence for a supernatural event.
Can you point to any description of a supernatural event described in a historical document where the consensus amongst historians is that the supernatural event really happened? No you can't.
The consensus amongst historians is that there is a report among and by a Christian community of a resurrection. That is an OK historical position to take. Anything else is a philosophical take on it. Good historians will acknowledge that the current philosophical naturalism prevalent in certain circles which apparently needs to be pandered to is itself likely to be an historical phenomenon.
I notice the way you flip flop between historians and history so the two appear interchangeable.
-
What it boils down to is this:
Historians know that there was an empty tomb.
No they don't. They know they have two possibly independent documents that describe the empty tomb but they do not know if those documents describe real events or fiction.
They know that Christianity was first preached, by the apostles, in Jerusalem.
They have proposed various 'naturalistic' explanations for the above, alternative to the Resurrection.
None of the alternative explanations hold water.
Actually, many of them do, whereas the resurrection is discounted out of hand because it would be a supernatural event.
Only some historians reject the resurrection out of hand but the reasons are not likely to be historical.
If you are arguing that History is now coopted to the naturalist movement then historians are now straight jacketed by the dogma.
That is just a naturalists wankfantasy of Bluehillsidian proportions.
-
Can you point to any description of a supernatural event described in a historical document where the consensus amongst historians is that the supernatural event really happened? No you can't.
The consensus amongst historians is that there is a report among and by a Christian community of a resurrection.
Is this your example? Because whilst I would agree that there is a consensus that the report (several reports, actually) exists, there is no consensus that it describes a real resurrection. In fact,if you exclude the "I wish it were true so it is" Christians, you'll find that the consensus is that the supernatural event described in the reports is fiction.
-
Can you point to any description of a supernatural event described in a historical document where the consensus amongst historians is that the supernatural event really happened? No you can't.
The consensus amongst historians is that there is a report among and by a Christian community of a resurrection.
Is this your example? Because whilst I would agree that there is a consensus that the report (several reports, actually) exists, there is no consensus that it describes a real resurrection. In fact,if you exclude the "I wish it were true so it is" Christians, you'll find that the consensus is that the supernatural event described in the reports is fiction.
To decide whether it was a real resurrection is not ''historical'' is it?
In fact any discussion that it might not have been arrives quite late in the day and in any case would just be a response to the claim that it was real.
The reality of it is rather a philosophical question.
if it is discarded or discounted it is not on historical grounds. If you think otherwise please demonstrate.
-
To decide whether it was a real resurrection is not ''historical'' is it?
There's no decision to make. Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity. As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.
Resurrection is not even wrong.
-
To decide whether it was a real resurrection is not ''historical'' is it?
There's no decision to make. Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity. As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.
Resurrection is not even wrong.
Note to readers we are no longer discussing history but philosophy in case you hadn't noticed.
You can't help spouting the dogma can you Jeremy?
-
Note to readers we are no longer discussing history but philosophy in case you hadn't noticed.
We are discussing how history is done. Why do you have a problem with that? Is it because doing history properly means you have to admit that the resurrection is not supported by history? Why, yes it is.
You can't help spouting the dogma can you Jeremy?
You can call explaining how history and science work dogma if you like, but it is dogma that successfully explains the natural world. This contrasts strongly with the dogma of Christianity which seems most successful at parting gullible people from their money and lining the pockets of church leaders.
-
There's no decision to make. Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity. As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.
You could always try asking for a supernatural methodol ... oh, no, wait: forget it.
-
Vlad,
Only some historians reject the resurrection out of hand but the reasons are not likely to be historical.
They’re “historical” because the story offers nothing with which the methods of academic history can engage, and they’re rational because it’s just a myth.
If you are arguing that History is now coopted to the naturalist movement then historians are now straight jacketed by the dogma.
It’s not “co-opted to the naturalistic movement” – it is naturalistic. It cannot be otherwise because those who assert supernatural phenomena never offer a method of any kind to test those claims with which history – or any other discipline – could engage. They’re only “straighjacketed” therefore if you also think that they – and you – are straighjacketed from grasping the true wonder of leprechauns too.
That is just a naturalists wankfantasy of Bluehillsidian proportions.
Masking your deep stupidity with vulgarity doesn’t remove that stupidity.
How’s it coming by the way with you finally attempting to propose a method to distinguish your claims from mistake, delusion, deception etc? Surely after all these years of asking you for it you must have something by now?
Anything?
A working draft maybe?
Vlad?
-
How’s it coming by the way with you finally attempting to propose a method to distinguish your claims from mistake, delusion, deception etc? Surely after all these years of asking you for it you must have something by now?
Anything?
A working draft maybe?
Vlad?
He could always ask Hoppity and Alien for help - they claim such a methodology exists.
Never provided it, mind; they always seem to be busy.
-
Floo
It's all in John 16 and Acts 2. ;)
-
There's no decision to make. Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity. As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.
You could always try asking for a supernatural methodol ... oh, no, wait: forget it.
or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.
-
There's no decision to make. Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity. As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.
You could always try asking for a supernatural methodol ... oh, no, wait: forget it.
or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.
I know it's hard for you, but please to to focus on the problem at hand. The problem being that, if you want to treat the resurrection as a historical event, you need to find some methodology for dealing with the supernatural that can then be incorporated into the historical method.
At various times you, Alan and Hope have claimed that such a methodology exists, but for some strange reason you always try to deflect attention when we ask you what it is. I'm beginning to suspect you are all lying.
-
Vlad,
or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.
Been done many times, but always falls on deaf ears because of your misunderstanding of the term.
Yet another evasion of the question you always run from noted by the way. As we know you'll never answer it and that you'll never even tell us why you won't answer it, how about instead just telling us whether you even understand the question and the problem it gives you?
-
Vlad,
or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.
Been done many times, but always falls on deaf ears because of your misunderstanding of the term.
Yet another evasion of the question you always run from noted by the way. As we know you'll never answer it and that you'll never even tell us why you won't answer it, how about instead just telling us whether you even understand the question and the problem it gives you?
Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.
-
I know it's hard for you, but please to focus on the problem at hand. The problem being that, if you WANT to treat the resurrection as a historical event, you need to find some methodology work dealing with the supernatural that can then be incorporated into the historical method.
At various times you, Alan and Hope have claimed that such a methodology exists, but for some strange reason you always try to deflect attention when we ask you what it is. I'm beginning to suspect you are all lying.
Once again, Jeremy, I don't think they are lying ... they really believe it is there but it just hasn't been found yet.
-
Vlad,
or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.
Been done many times, but always falls on deaf ears because of your misunderstanding of the term.
Yet another evasion of the question you always run from noted by the way. As we know you'll never answer it and that you'll never even tell us why you won't answer it, how about instead just telling us whether you even understand the question and the problem it gives you?
Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.
And you know for fact that BILLIONS of people would have that impression do you? ::)
Coming from the Queen of Bovine Efflux herself that's a compliment indeed.
-
Vlad,
Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.
The rationale for philosophical naturalism, or for your misunderstanding of what it entails? I can do the former again readily, but no-one can help you with the latter.
Tell you what - I'll explain it to you on condition you finally attempt a method to distinguish your claims for the supernatural from mistake, delusion, deception etc.
Deal?
-
Vlad,
Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.
The rationale for philosophical naturalism, or for your misunderstanding of what it entails? I can do the former again readily, but no-one can help you with the latter.
How does the rationale for philosophical naturalism translate into it therefore being proved correct rather than at base a circular argument?
-
Vlad,
How does the rationale for philosophical naturalism translate into it therefore being proved correct rather than at base a circular argument?
Prove what it actually means or prove your misunderstanding of what it means?
Anyway, what about the deal?
-
Vlad,
How does the rationale for philosophical naturalism translate into it therefore being proved correct rather than at base a circular argument?
Prove what it actually means or prove your misunderstanding of what it means?
Anyway, what about the deal?
I'm always pretty careful when dealing with accountants.
-
Vlad,
I'm always pretty careful when dealing with accountants.
I'll take that to mean:
1. You'll never answer the question.
2. You'll never tell us why you won't answer the question.
3. You have no understanding of the question, and no of why it causes "assertion as fact" schtick such a problem.
Ah well.
-
Vlad,
I'm always pretty careful when dealing with accountants.
I'll take that to mean:
1. You'll never answer the question.
2. You'll never tell us why you won't answer the question.
3. You have no understanding of the question, and no of why it causes "assertion as fact" schtick such a problem.
Ah well.
or 4. positive assertions come with burden of proof. There is no hierarchy of response.
5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.
6. You claim that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. The burden of proof on that positive assertion is yours
therefore points 4 and 5 considered it is up to you because you seem to be the only person claiming something.
-
5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.
I'll give you this much Vladdypops; you earn full marks for a sincere and honest answer to the point, which is more than we've ever had from Hope and Alien who still squirm and writhe like greased snakes and who rely either on saying that the methodology has already been provided somewhere else, once, somewhere, some other time so it doesn't have to be provided again (Hope) or suddenly finding that they have something urgent to do at that very moment (Alien).
It holes any case you might ever once have thought you had below the waterline, of course; all of your claims and assertions can be blithely ignored because by your own admission you won't provide any method by which the claims can be assessed to be real as opposed to mistake, delusion, deception etc. But at least you're honest about it.
-
5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.
I'll give you this much Vladdypops; you earn full marks for a sincere and honest answer to the point, which is more than we've ever had from Hope and Alien who still squirm and writhe like greased snakes and who rely either on saying that the methodology has already been provided somewhere else, once, somewhere, some other time so it doesn't have to be provided again (Hope) or suddenly finding that they have something urgent to do at that very moment (Alien).
It holes any case you might ever once have thought you had below the waterline, of course; all of your claims and assertions can be blithely ignored because by your own admission you won't provide any method by which the claims can be assessed to be real as opposed to mistake, delusion, deception etc. But at least you're honest about it.
But you are still missing the elephant in the room Shaker. The method only applies to science and so the method itself has shortcomings in it's ability to assess claims! For example it has nothing to contribute about the unfalsifiable.
And as it only applies to science there is no method to establish philosophical naturalism.
Religious knowledge is intuited and then, on sharing that knowledge areas of agreement form.
Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed then one applies reason also.
Atheists who are also moral realists will recognise the above, yes I'm going to use the word methodologies since they would agree that they intuit moral truth and areas of agreement form.
But lets turn things around Shaker......given there is no methodology to establish Philosophical naturalism:
How do you know you are not mistaken about philosophical naturalism, or deluded about it, or deceived about it?
-
Religious knowledge is intuited
So it is just guesswork.
Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed
The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.
-
Religious knowledge is intuited
So it is just guesswork.
Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed
The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.
No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.
I guess by natural I mean what you guys believe.
-
Religious knowledge is intuited
So it is just guesswork.
Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed
The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.
There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.
-
Religious knowledge is intuited
So it is just guesswork.
Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed
The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.
No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.
You said you didn't have a methodology for telling if something is supernatural earlier, so you can't tell if any experience you have is supernatural.
-
Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.
Would they? Surely supernatural is applied to events/situations that are experienced, something that wouldn't apply to telephonic conversations or space-travel 200 years ago (similar to ideas that Leonardo de Vinci had posited through technical drawings some 300 years earlier).
After all 'science fiction' writing can be traced back to 'The Arabian Nights' (circa 10th century), even Lucian's 2nd century work 'True History'. Were what was portrayed in these regarded as 'supernatural'.
-
Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.
Would they? Surely supernatural is applied to events/situations that are experienced, something that wouldn't apply to telephonic conversations or space-travel 200 years ago.
Wouldn't it? Before the telephone was invented, talking with somebody on the other side of the planet would probably have been considered a 'supernatural' ability, men walking on the moon even moreso.
-
There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.
There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is - yet at no time in the past 4 or 5 years have any of them produced evidence to show this, let alone prove it.
I realise that some of them, if not all of them will now tell me that the burden of proof lies with those of us who disagree with them, but that ignores the fact that they regularly make blanket assertions about 'life, the universe and everything' (Douglas Adam's title does have that umbrella status!!) whilst never actually providing any evidence to back them up. Ironically, even science doesn't provide any such basis, since - because it is naturalistic in nature - it can't speak to things that are outside its parameters.
-
Wouldn't it? Before the telephone was invented, talking with somebody on the other side of the planet would probably have been considered a 'supernatural' ability, men walking on the moon even moreso.
I would question whether they were even considered, other than by the scientists of the day, let alone considered 'supernatural'.
-
'Supernatural' is a just term given to something for which science hasn't yet discovered a natural explanation at present.
No it isn't.
That would imply that many supernatural phenomena are just waiting for a scientific explanation. For example, Jesus was resurrected but it was a natural process we don't understand.
It would also imply that every phenomenon we don't understand is classified as supernatural. For instance, we don't know how life first started on this planet and there are people who think it was supernatural but scientists classify it as a natural event that we do not yet understand.
-
There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.
There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is
Why don't you name who they are so we can see if you're correct, cos as far as I'm aware, there are plenty who are misrepresented even though they have categorically stated, more than once, that they don't believe this.
-
Religious knowledge is intuited
So it is just guesswork.
Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed
The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.
No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.
You said you didn't have a methodology for telling if something is supernatural earlier, so you can't tell if any experience you have is supernatural.
No, let me make this clear Jeremy,
I am answering two questions
How does one know if something is supernatural? and How do I know that I am not mistaken, deluded or illuded about supernatural things.
The answer to the first thing is, of course, if it is not 'natural' then it is 'supernatural'.
The answer to the second is that I cannot think of science in any other context than matter/energy and therefore I cannot offer anything like it.
I also have to add that that therefore is not a serious limitation of the supernatural but a serious limitation of science.
Philosophical naturalism is an attempt to big science up beyond it's limitations.
-
Wouldn't it? Before the telephone was invented, talking with somebody on the other side of the planet would probably have been considered a 'supernatural' ability, men walking on the moon even moreso.
I would question whether they were even considered, other than by the scientists of the day, let alone considered 'supernatural'.
Just so! The majority of ordinary people, if told about such a thing, would have considered it an "unnatural" event, either a lie or due to some power beyond natural.
-
'Supernatural' is a just term given to something for which science hasn't yet discovered a natural explanation at present. Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.
No.....Science is a methodology which is tightly defined.
The supernatural is anything beyond those definitions. It deals with the unfalsifiable.
You are confusing the undiscovered with the supernatural.
-
'Supernatural' is a just term given to something for which science hasn't yet discovered a natural explanation at present. Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.
No.....Science is a methodology which is tightly defined.
The supernatural is anything beyond those definitions. It deals with the unfalsifiable.
You are confusing the undiscovered with the supernatural.
Am I? Tell me how YOU distinguish one from the other?
-
'Supernatural' is a just term given to something for which science hasn't yet discovered a natural explanation at present. Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.
No.....Science is a methodology which is tightly defined.
The supernatural is anything beyond those definitions. It deals with the unfalsifiable.
You are confusing the undiscovered with the supernatural.
Am I? Tell me how YOU distinguish one from the other?
Sorry I should perhaps have differentiated the scientifically undiscovered (things made of matter/energy)and the scientifically undiscoverable (things not made of matter/energy).
Any basic science education distinguishes scientific questions not yet answered and questions which cannot be answered by science.
(source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
-
Vlad:
Me:
I'll take that to mean:
1. You'll never answer the question.
2. You'll never tell us why you won't answer the question.
3. You have no understanding of the question, and no of why it causes "assertion as fact" schtick such a problem.
Ah well.
You:
or 4. positive assertions come with burden of proof. There is no hierarchy of response.
5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.
6. You claim that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. The burden of proof on that positive assertion is yours
therefore points 4 and 5 considered it is up to you because you seem to be the only person claiming something.
4 is incoherent.
5 is at least a response of some kind, but your problem isn’t finding a method that I would recognise, it’s finding a method of any kind. “Intuiting” something isn’t a method – it’s just a feeling, and anyone can have them about anything at all. Not only does your claim give nothing to anyone else to make them think you might not be wholly wrong about that, it gives you nothing either for you to test your feeling against the possibility of mistake, delusion etc.
6 is a straw man. No-one claims that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. This is where you keep going off the rails because of your failure to comprehend what it does entail.
Philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is no means to test or examine or verify claims of the supernatural. It does not assert that there is necessarily no such thing as the supernatural (that’s just your straw man version of it) but it does say that those claims are incoherent unless they can be verified and so can safely be ignored. Methodological naturalism is just the application of that, for example in the working methods of science.
The resulting findings are a provisional truths, but no-one claims the absolute truth. Thus the claim that jumping out of the window will make you hit the deck shortly after can be tested, and when you do indeed hit the deck – and so does everyone else who tries it – then gravity is accepted as a provisional truth.
By contrast, someone else may claim that if he jumps out of a window a god will lower him safely to the ground. The problem though is that, unless he submits to have the claim falsified, then all he has is a claim. Now that claim may be true - as may any other clam anyone else thinks they “intuit” – but that helps you not a jot.
What you’re actually saying here is effectively, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you”. It fails because it’s dishonest, (equivalent to one four-year-old saying to another, “you smell” and the other replying, “well you’re fat” as if that were in some way relevant), and because it fundamentally fails to understand that naturalism provides enough inter-subjective commonality of experience to enable a probabilistic assessment of truth, whereas claims of the supernatural offer nothing at all.
You’ve been corrected on your going nuclear approach several times now, but here once again is the Stephen Law's essay that will explain it to you:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
-
Vlad,
No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.
It's been a while since you attempted the god of the gaps fallacy. Congratulations.
-
Sorry I should perhaps have differentiated the scientifically undiscovered (things made of matter/energy)and the scientifically undiscoverable (things not made of matter/energy).
I'm still in the dark. Can you give me an example of something that is not made of matter/energy?
-
The answer to the first thing is, of course, if it is not 'natural' then it is 'supernatural'.
That's not really an answer. "How do you tell if something is not natural?" is really the same question as "how do you tell if something is supernatural?"
The answer to the second is that I cannot think of science in any other context than matter/energy and therefore I cannot offer anything like it.
So you can't tell if your supernatural experience is really just delusion.
-
Hi Len,
I'm still in the dark. Can you give me an example of something that is not made of matter/energy?
Gods, ghosts, spooks, ghoulies, pixies, Jack Frost, you name it. Curiously those who believe in these things tend to privilege their own “intuited” belief in one of them over the intuited beliefs of everyone else in all the others, albeit with no method of any kind either to verify their own or to invalidate the others. Seems to me to be a sort of Messiah complex – “obviously a god has paid a visit to little old me, but all the others are mistaken, delusional etc” but there it is. So far as I know Vlad doesn’t plan to hole up in a compound with his followers while the feds lay siege though so he seems to me to be harmlessly daft rather than dangerously so ;)
-
Hi Blue,
Gods, ghosts, spooks, ghoulies, pixies, Jack Frost, you name it.
But these are not examples of phenomena that have no matter/energy, as he was claiming. They are simply due to the workings of the human imagination. Surely he must realise that.
Curiously those who believe in these things tend to privilege their own “intuited” belief in one of them over the intuited beliefs of everyone else in all the others, albeit with no method of any kind either to verify their own or to invalidate the others. Seems to me to be a sort of Messiah complex – “obviously a god has paid a visit to little old me, but all the others are mistaken, delusional etc” but there it is. So far as I know Vlad doesn’t plan to hole up in a compound with his followers while the feds lay siege though so he seems to me to be harmlessly daft rather than dangerously so ;)
I find such an attitude unworthy of a rational adult. :(
-
As one who has probably experienced more so called 'supernatural' events of the 'haunting' kind since I was born, you would expect me to be a believer in other worldly experiences. However, I always look for the natural explanation, and in some instances have found it!
Can you be sure that you found the 'natural explanation' in those instances? Or was this just your gut opinion?
-
Vlad,
No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.
It's been a while since you attempted the god of the gaps fallacy. Congratulations.
Golly Blue I can't believe you have made an elementary howler like that.
There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
It gets worse for you since any scientific conclusion doesn't actually exclude the possibility of God being involved in some way through his will, purpose etc.
-
The answer to the first thing is, of course, if it is not 'natural' then it is 'supernatural'.
That's not really an answer. "How do you tell if something is not natural?" is really the same question as "how do you tell if something is supernatural?"
The answer to the second is that I cannot think of science in any other context than matter/energy and therefore I cannot offer anything like it.
So you can't tell if your supernatural experience is really just delusion.
a delusion of what?
-
Vlad,
No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.
It's been a while since you attempted the god of the gaps fallacy. Congratulations.
Since you are being so dense Hillside. Your accusation is firmly based in promissory scientism. The belief that science will solve everything............that's a fallacy.
-
Vlad:
Me:
I'll take that to mean:
1. You'll never answer the question.
2. You'll never tell us why you won't answer the question.
3. You have no understanding of the question, and no of why it causes "assertion as fact" schtick such a problem.
Ah well.
You:
or 4. positive assertions come with burden of proof. There is no hierarchy of response.
5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.
6. You claim that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. The burden of proof on that positive assertion is yours
therefore points 4 and 5 considered it is up to you because you seem to be the only person claiming something.
4 is incoherent.
5 is at least a response of some kind, but your problem isn’t finding a method that I would recognise, it’s finding a method of any kind. “Intuiting” something isn’t a method – it’s just a feeling, and anyone can have them about anything at all. Not only does your claim give nothing to anyone else to make them think you might not be wholly wrong about that, it gives you nothing either for you to test your feeling against the possibility of mistake, delusion etc.
6 is a straw man. No-one claims that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. This is where you keep going off the rails because of your failure to comprehend what it does entail.
Philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is no means to test or examine or verify claims of the supernatural. It does not assert that there is necessarily no such thing as the supernatural (that’s just your straw man version of it) but it does say that those claims are incoherent unless they can be verified and so can safely be ignored. Methodological naturalism is just the application of that, for example in the working methods of science.
The resulting findings are a provisional truths, but no-one claims the absolute truth. Thus the claim that jumping out of the window will make you hit the deck shortly after can be tested, and when you do indeed hit the deck – and so does everyone else who tries it – then gravity is accepted as a provisional truth.
By contrast, someone else may claim that if he jumps out of a window a god will lower him safely to the ground. The problem though is that, unless he submits to have the claim falsified, then all he has is a claim. Now that claim may be true - as may any other clam anyone else thinks they “intuit” – but that helps you not a jot.
What you’re actually saying here is effectively, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you”. It fails because it’s dishonest, (equivalent to one four-year-old saying to another, “you smell” and the other replying, “well you’re fat” as if that were in some way relevant), and because it fundamentally fails to understand that naturalism provides enough inter-subjective commonality of experience to enable a probabilistic assessment of truth, whereas claims of the supernatural offer nothing at all.
You’ve been corrected on your going nuclear approach several times now, but here once again is the Stephen Law's essay that will explain it to you:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
How do you do it Blue? What's the methodology for getting from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism?
-
There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
Does it give a list? Can you tell us what those matters are?
-
a delusion of what?
Of a supernatural experience.
With such incredibly stupid questions, one might think you are running away again.
-
Hi Blue,
Gods, ghosts, spooks, ghoulies, pixies, Jack Frost, you name it.
But these are not examples of phenomena that have no matter/energy, as he was claiming. They are simply due to the workings of the human imagination.
Evidence Len.....of a degree in psychiatry or psychology that is.
-
a delusion of what?
Of a supernatural experience.
With such incredibly stupid questions, one might think you are running away again.
How can an experience not explicable in terms of the natural possibly be er, natural?............What is the matter with you?
-
There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
Does it give a list? Can you tell us what those matters are?
Why,......are you on the brink of writing a stern letter to somebody?
-
a delusion of what?
Of a supernatural experience.
With such incredibly stupid questions, one might think you are running away again.
How can an experience not explicable in terms of the natural possibly be er, natural?............What is the matter with you?
Why do you think delusion is not natural?
-
There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
Does it give a list? Can you tell us what those matters are?
Why,......are you on the brink of writing a stern letter to somebody?
No. I think you read that somewhere without understanding it and now you carry it like a talisman hoping it will prevent people from realising you are an empty vessel. That fact that you, yet again, evade answering the question confirms my thought.
-
a delusion of what?
Of a supernatural experience.
With such incredibly stupid questions, one might think you are running away again.
How can an experience not explicable in terms of the natural possibly be er, natural?............What is the matter with you?
Why do you think delusion is not natural?
Jeremy. You have said one can be deluded into thinking they have had an experience of the supernatural.
Firstly, there is the problem that the deluded never check if they are deluded. If one checks that the experience is natural. If it is explicable then one knows one has not had the supernatural experience. But if it is inexplicable in natural terms then it is supernatural.
Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by deluded into thinking one has had a supernatural experience.
-
There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
Does it give a list? Can you tell us what those matters are?
Why,......are you on the brink of writing a stern letter to somebody?
No. I think you read that somewhere without understanding it and now you carry it like a talisman hoping it will prevent people from realising you are an empty vessel. That fact that you, yet again, evade answering the question confirms my thought.
Ah, so you have written a stern epistle.....to me.
There are some matters that science cannot deal with. To believe that is not so is what we call scientism.....and yes, Jeremy I am saying it as though it was a bad thing ...and which you seem to be guilty of.
-
Quite sure!
And your evidence for that assurance?
-
The answer to the first thing is, of course, if it is not 'natural' then it is 'supernatural'.
That's not really an answer. "How do you tell if something is not natural?" is really the same question as "how do you tell if something is supernatural?"
The answer to the second is that I cannot think of science in any other context than matter/energy and therefore I cannot offer anything like it.
So you can't tell if your supernatural experience is really just delusion.
Do you think the apostles were deluded? Did they willingly die for this delusion?
-
Firstly, there is the problem that the deluded never check if they are deluded.
Don't they? Maybe your memory that you have checked your experiences for delusion is itself a delusion.
But if it is inexplicable in natural terms then it is supernatural.
How do you know that something is inexplicable in natural terms? What if you just don't know what the naturalistic explanation is?
-
There are some matters that science cannot deal with. To believe that is not so is what we call scientism.....and yes, Jeremy I am saying it as though it was a bad thing ...and which you seem to be guilty of.
Still no list of matters inaccessible to science then.
The empty vessel is making some noise.
-
Do you think the apostles were deluded?
Yes, quite possibly.
Did they willingly die for this delusion?
Part of the problem with being deluded is that you don't know you are suffering from delusion. Of course they would die for a delusion if they thought it was real and worth dying for,
-
Firstly, there is the problem that the deluded never check if they are deluded.
Don't they? Maybe your memory that you have checked your experiences for delusion is itself a delusion.
But if it is inexplicable in natural terms then it is supernatural.
How do you know that something is inexplicable in natural terms?
Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural. How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.
Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.
-
Do you think the apostles were deluded?
Yes, quite possibly.
Did they willingly die for this delusion?
Part of the problem with being deluded is that you don't know you are suffering from delusion. Of course they would die for a delusion if they thought it was real and worth dying for,
ok, let's run with it, what could possibly have caused them to have been convinced that they saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord ?
-
Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural. How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.
There's almost no danger of God showing up though.
Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.
The evidence is simple and compelling. No person who has had what they call a supernatural experience has ever come up with any evidence that it actually was supernatural.
Nice attempt to shift the burden of evidence. This is itself good evidence that you can't back up your argument because you resort to dishonesty instead.
-
ok, let's run with it, what could possibly have caused them to have been convinced that they saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord ?
You need to learn to walk before you run. Who exactly do you think saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord. What evidence do you have that these sightings and interactions were anything more than visions?
-
ok, let's run with it, what could possibly have caused them to have been convinced that they saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord ?
You need to learn to walk before you run. Who exactly do you think saw and interacted with the resurrected Lord. What evidence do you have that these sightings and interactions were anything more than visions?
So you think they were visions?
-
who saw and interacted?
How about we start with the women at the tomb?
Women's testimony was worth diddly squat in 1st century Judea, so why would anyone listen to them? Indeed why bother to record their testimony?
-
So you think they were visions?
What evidence do you have that they were anything more?
-
who saw and interacted?
How about we start with the women at the tomb?
Women's testimony was worth diddly squat in 1st century Judea, so why would anyone listen to them? Indeed why bother to record their testimony?
What women at the tomb? They only appear as characters in late novelisations of Jesus' life. Do you have the authentic testimony of any women at a tomb?
-
who saw and interacted?
How about we start with the women at the tomb?
Women's testimony was worth diddly squat in 1st century Judea, so why would anyone listen to them? Indeed why bother to record their testimony?
What women at the tomb? They only appear as characters in late novelisations of Jesus' life. Do you have the authentic testimony of any women at a tomb?
ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?
-
Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural. How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.
There's almost no danger of God showing up though.
Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.
The evidence is simple and compelling. No person who has had what they call a supernatural experience has ever come up with any evidence that it actually was supernatural.
Nice attempt to shift the burden of evidence. This is itself good evidence that you can't back up your argument because you resort to dishonesty instead.
Sorry Jezzer but if you are saying that supernatural events are really natural events or could be natural events then that is a positive assertion and therefore you have the burden of proof therein.
-
ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?
You have to make the story credible. The women had a credible reason to go to the tomb because it was their job to tend to the dead.
Note also that having women be the first people to find the empty tomb allows you to deploy exactly the same argument you just deployed.
-
Sorry Jezzer but if you are saying that supernatural events are really natural events or could be natural events
I'm not saying anything. You are the one who is claiming that some event is supernatural.
-
ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?
You have to make the story credible. The women had a credible reason to go to the tomb because it was their job to tend to the dead.
Note also that having women be the first people to find the empty tomb allows you to deploy exactly the same argument you just deployed.
So they made up the story about the women. Meanwhile the message of the resurrected Messiah was spreading like wild fire around Jerusalem. Why didn't someone produce the body?
-
Nothing in the writings used to back up the historicity of Jesus indicates any awareness of the idea of a physical resurrection or even a desire to disprove any of it. Further it is a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of religion Of the time to suggest the idea of disproof in this sense.
-
So they made up the story about the women. Meanwhile the message of the resurrected Messiah was spreading like wild fire around Jerusalem. Why didn't someone produce the body?
Like wildfire? Really? How come history is practically silent on the matter?
-
! silent ! LOL
-
! silent ! LOL
Except it is in the sense I already covered. Your lack of knowledge of that might be worth of a hearty chortle but it is hugely problematic to any claim of people either being aware enough of the claim or in general approaching the idea of religious claims in this hugely anachronistic way,you were suggesting. Essentially in historical terms the resurrection isn't even a non event.
-
! silent ! LOL
Show me contemporary records of Christianity spreading like wildfire in Jerusalem.
-
Why didn't someone produce the body?
I think the right answer to this question is that nobody cared enough to try to find the body. I don't think the empty tomb story became currency or Christianity became a threat until many years after Jesus' death.
However, it's interesting to note that the followers of a religion can maintain their beliefs in the face of incontrovertible evidence. The rastafarians revere Haile Selassie as a god in spite of the fact that he explicitly denied it at least once. If anybody had produced Jesus' body, it is highly unlikely that his fanatical supporters would have taken any notice.
-
Vlad,
Golly Blue I can't believe you have made an elementary howler like that.
There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).
It gets worse for you since any scientific conclusion doesn't actually exclude the possibility of God being involved in some way through his will, purpose etc.
The only “howler” is yours. Of course there are phenomena that cannot be explained by the methods of science. That’s why people do science – to discover more. Jumping straight to, “that’ll be the supernatural then” as you do is just your basic, common-or-garden god of the gaps fallacy.
Since you are being so dense Hillside. Your accusation is firmly based in promissory scientism. The belief that science will solve everything............that's a fallacy.
I see that you still don’t do irony. I’ve made perfectly clear that anything might be – for all I and you know, there may even be stuff out there that you call “supernatural” (whatever that means). Your problem though is that just asserting its existence doesn’t make it exist. I notice by the way that you (and Hope too) have casually elided "claims of the supernatural" with "the supernatural" as if its existence was agreed, only some silly people hadn't realised it yet. Big cheat.
Me:
4 is incoherent.
5 is at least a response of some kind, but your problem isn’t finding a method that I would recognise, it’s finding a method of any kind. “Intuiting” something isn’t a method – it’s just a feeling, and anyone can have them about anything at all. Not only does your claim give nothing to anyone else to make them think you might not be wholly wrong about that, it gives you nothing either for you to test your feeling against the possibility of mistake, delusion etc.
6 is a straw man. No-one claims that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. This is where you keep going off the rails because of your failure to comprehend what it does entail.
Philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is no means to test or examine or verify claims of the supernatural. It does not assert that there is necessarily no such thing as the supernatural (that’s just your straw man version of it) but it does say that those claims are incoherent unless they can be verified and so can safely be ignored. Methodological naturalism is just the application of that, for example in the working methods of science.
The resulting findings are a provisional truths, but no-one claims the absolute truth. Thus the claim that jumping out of the window will make you hit the deck shortly after can be tested, and when you do indeed hit the deck – and so does everyone else who tries it – then gravity is accepted as a provisional truth.
By contrast, someone else may claim that if he jumps out of a window a god will lower him safely to the ground. The problem though is that, unless he submits to have the claim falsified, then all he has is a claim. Now that claim may be true - as may any other clam anyone else thinks they “intuit” – but that helps you not a jot.
What you’re actually saying here is effectively, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you”. It fails because it’s dishonest, (equivalent to one four-year-old saying to another, “you smell” and the other replying, “well you’re fat” as if that were in some way relevant), and because it fundamentally fails to understand that naturalism provides enough inter-subjective commonality of experience to enable a probabilistic assessment of truth, whereas claims of the supernatural offer nothing at all.
You’ve been corrected on your going nuclear approach several times now, but here once again is the Stephen Law's essay that will explain it to you:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
You:
How do you do it Blue? What's the methodology for getting from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism?
It’s the other way around, I’ve just explained it to you and I posted a link for you so you could understand it better. What more do you want?
Either address the argument or walk away, but enough already with the wilful obtuseness.
Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural.
No, it’s indifferent to it because there’s no definition of it, no evidence for it and no method to establish whether it’s real or just a natural phenomenon we’ve yet to figure out.
How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.
I thought superstitionists like you thought he had “turned up” already – what happened to omnipresence?
Anyway, how could a naturalistic method explain any non-naturalistic phenomena that might be –your god, other gods, unicorns, Jack Frost, whatever? It couldn’t, but that helps you not a jot with your central problem: how on earth would you know that any of these things had turned up at all, rather than that something had happened for which you just had no other explanation (the god of the gaps fallacy of which you’re so fond)?
Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.
Again, you fail to grasp how the burden of proof works. If you want to assert the existence of the supernatural, then it’s for you to demonstrate it. That gives you two problems: first, you need to show that you’ve considered and refuted all known natural possible causes (something about which you seem to be remarkably indifferent by the way); and second you need to explain why your “experience” wasn’t a natural phenomenon that you’ve misattributed to the god of your choice pending a natural explanation becoming available (the god of the gaps daftness you keep peddling).
Unless you can do these things, then “supernatural” is just overreaching.
Look, face it – your schtick here has been found out. It goes like this:
1. Realise that, despite countless requests for it, you have no method to distinguish the thing you think you intuit from mistake, delusion, false attribution etc.
2. Rather than address that, lay waste instead to any method of establishing probable truths in the hope that the relativism of, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” will somehow help you.
3. To achieve Step 2, misdescribe naturalism as the conviction that the natural is all there ever could be, then keep attacking that straw man.
4. Wait until everyone else gives up in frustration at your dishonesty, evasion and obtuseness.
5. Declare victory.
It’s your call – either address the rebuttals or continue with the schtick. If, as I suspect, it’ll be the latter there’s nothing more to say really.
-
There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.
There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is
Why don't you name who they are so we can see if you're correct, cos as far as I'm aware, there are plenty who are misrepresented even though they have categorically stated, more than once, that they don't believe this.
Bump
-
There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.
There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is
Why don't you name who they are so we can see if you're correct, cos as far as I'm aware, there are plenty who are misrepresented even though they have categorically stated, more than once, that they don't believe this.
Bump
I believe this is a natural universe, because we have no evidence of it being anything more.
However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.
-
ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?
You have to make the story credible. The women had a credible reason to go to the tomb because it was their job to tend to the dead.
Note also that having women be the first people to find the empty tomb allows you to deploy exactly the same argument you just deployed.
Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.
-
Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.
Eh?
-
Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.
Eh?
Apparently Neil Armstrong admitted to being worried about the moon being covered in deep layers of soft dust. Had the reports of the lunar landings been fabricated, the loose dust would probably have been reported to be deeper in order to add credibility to the story. Likewise, had the resurrection story been fabricated, and assuming the authors wanted to maximise its credibility, the first witnesses would most likely have been men.
-
However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.
So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?
-
However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.
So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?
What is your methodology for determining what is such evidence?
-
However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.
So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?
What is your methodology for detreming what is such evidence?
Uh-oh, that's knackered it now!
-
However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.
So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
-
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.
-
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.
I thought we'd already established that without your provision of a methodology for supernaturalism (that thing with which you're struggling so much) you can't actually use a term such as "limiting."
-
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.
We're skeptical - we adopt a position of finding it difficult to acknowledge ANYTHING.
We only do so when some sort of methodology is presented by which we can decide if there's sufficient basis to accept the claim. Science gives such a methodology for naturalistic claims.
We aren't predisposed to accept naturalistic claims per se, it's simply that we've already accepted the scientific method, and naturalistic claims are typically presented within that framework.
If you were to present a valid methodology for claims outside of a naturalistic framework that were to then become as mainstream as science is we'd accept things within that - at the moment that simply isn't there.
O.
-
Hope,
But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.
First, it’s claims about “anything that is not naturalistic in nature”, not just “anything that is not naturalistic in nature”. You have all your work ahead of you still to establish such things before troubling yourself with whether or not others accept their existence. (That's called reification by the way, an informal logical fallacy.)
Second, yes we do find it difficult to accept anything that pops into your head (or, as Vlad would have it, that you “intuit”), especially when those conjectures fail to cohere with anything about the way the world observably works. We do so for exactly the same reason that you find it “difficult to accept” whatever pops into the heads of others that also fails to cohere with the way the world observably works.
-
Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.
Eh?
Apparently Neil Armstrong admitted to being worried about the moon being covered in deep layers of soft dust. Had the reports of the lunar landings been fabricated, the loose dust would probably have been reported to be deepe in order to add credibility to the story. Likewise, had the resurrection story been fabricated, and assuming the authors wanted to maximise its credibility, the first witnesses would most likely have been men.
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
Can God bring His Son back to life again? Or is your whole position based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist?
How would you go about explaining the empty tomb, the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?
-
2Corrie,
Can God bring His Son back to life again? Or is your whole position based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist?
How would you go about explaining the empty tomb, the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?
Wow, a logical fallacy full house. Good effort!
1. Shifting of the burden of proof.
2, Argument from personal incredulity.
3. The reification fallacy – what you should have asked is how there came to be stories about these events, not how come the events themselves which you’ve yet to establish are true.
The answer by the way is that there are many entirely naturalistic possible explanations, albeit less solipsistically thrilling ones. There’s no way of knowing at this distance which are the most likely ones, but no matter: your problem is to explain why a different explanation entirely outside all known experience of the way the universe works is more likely than any of them.
Good luck!
-
Look, face it – your schtick here has been found out. It goes like this:
1. Realise that, despite countless requests for it, you have no method to distinguish the thing you think you intuit from mistake, delusion, false attribution etc.
2. Rather than address that, lay waste instead to any method of establishing probable truths in the hope that the relativism of, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” will somehow help you.
3. To achieve Step 2, misdescribe naturalism as the conviction that the natural is all there ever could be, then keep attacking that straw man.
4. Wait until everyone else gives up in frustration at your dishonesty, evasion and obtuseness.
5. Declare victory.
It’s your call – either address the rebuttals or continue with the schtick. If, as I suspect, it’ll be the latter there’s nothing more to say really.
Declare victory? You mean like your shameful assertion that you had proved moral non realism/subjective morality a few weeks back.
You know and I know that your position is not supported by 'The methodology' any more than mine is.
You see that as a defeat which is why you cannot stand to 'own it'
Unlike you I don't see aspects of the cosmos 'failing' the methodology.
It is the methodology which is limited.
POMA is just a shoe in for the philosophical contradiction of wanting to be considered a logical positivist but wanting the rest as well.
Being a logical positivist manqué is a sorry state to find oneself in, i would have thought.
Contrary to the bollocks narrative you and others have weaved, I and others are both adherents of science and religion.
Have a good one.
-
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
-
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
That would therefore include the Big Bang, although we have abundant evidence for that event/process.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
Documentation alone offers absolutely no methodology for assessing the truth or falsity of what is documented, though, does it? Literally all you have is words on a page.
-
Wow, a logical fallacy full house. Good effort!
No, not a logical fallacy anything, bhs. I am nigh on 60 and over those 6 decades I have had experiences that naturalism has no explanations for and, in my view, will never have explanations for. Therefore, for me to assume that naturalistic science can and will provide the answers to every question to do with 'life, the universe and everything' is illogical. The only logical process is therefore to assume that there is some part of reality that is not within the parameters that define naturalism. After all, that is all anyone is doing as far as naturalism as the sole arbiter is concerned.
... your problem is to explain why a different explanation entirely outside all known experience of the way the universe works is more likely than any of them.
We've been through this process before, bhs- though I can't recall the exact thread but it was earlier this year. Oddly enough, none of the naturalistic options came near to standing up to criticism.
-
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
As pointed out to Vlad this would mean the sneeze I made some minutes ago is non naturalistic. This is obviously nonsense so try again.
-
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
I'm not aware of any event that is 100% repeatable, in fact I would say it's nigh on impossible. There is no Groundhog Day. That's why science is the way it is - provisional, because we can't predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any event.
-
I am nigh on 60 and over those 6 decades I have had experiences that naturalism has no explanations for and, in my view, will never have explanations for.
And you know this - the use of the word 'never' especially as that's a positive assertion standing in need of proof - how, exactly?
The only logical process is therefore to assume that there is some part of reality that is not within the parameters that define naturalism. After all, that is all anyone is doing as far as naturalism as the sole arbiter is concerned.
No, actually, it isn't. It really isn't. That's an example of the fallacy of the false dichotomy or excluded middle.
In eighteen years (this month) online I have seen every logical fallacy going at one time or another, but I have never, ever, once, anywhere seen any one individual deploy so many fallacies so often. Quite extraordinary.
-
How would you go about explaining the empty tomb,
It's fiction.
Or, if not, human beings moved the body elsewhere, likely to an unmarked grave.
the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?
All fiction.
-
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
I'm not aware of any event that is 100% repeatable, in fact I would say it's nigh on impossible. There is no Groundhog Day. That's why science is the way it is - provisional, because we can't predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any event.
It's not your science it's all our science.
-
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
I'm not aware of any event that is 100% repeatable, in fact I would say it's nigh on impossible. There is no Groundhog Day. That's why science is the way it is - provisional, because we can't predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any event.
It's not your science it's all our science.
What you on about now, apart from putting words in people's mouths yet again. Fuck off.
-
How would you go about explaining the empty tomb,
It's fiction.
Or, if not, human beings moved the body elsewhere, likely to an unmarked grave.
the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?
All fiction.
What a stunning rebuttal of the Christian faith, have you considered publishing?
-
What a stunning rebuttal of the Christian faith, have you considered publishing?
I'd be rather late to the party. I haven't said anything that isn't held by at least some mainstream scholars and the idea that Jesus rose from the dead is frankly laughable.
-
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
What about people who have reached maturity and have committed no sin? Do they stay dead?
-
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
What about people who have reached maturity and have committed no sin? Do they stay dead?
Until some evidence is produced to the contrary, it is only logical assume that any form of life stays dead after it has died.
There is an infinity of things we could claim happens to them after death, but without supporting evidence all are equally possible.
-
As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.
What about people who have reached maturity and have committed no sin? Do they stay dead?
Once clinically brain dead they do (irrespective of 'sin', whatever that is) - no exceptions, as your local undertaker will confirm.
-
Anyway we have all done wrong things in our lives, no one is perfect!
That's one move in the right direction in your understanding, Floo ;)
-
Vlad,
Declare victory? You mean like your shameful assertion that you had proved moral non realism/subjective morality a few weeks back.
Just making shit up and throwing it at the person who's found you out as a diversionary tactic isn't helping you I'm afraid. (I wonder if I can get the tactic entered into an urban dictionary as a new term though - "Vladism" does have a ring to it.)
You know and I know that your position is not supported by 'The methodology' any more than mine is.
Flat wrong, for the reasons I've set out for you already.
You see that as a defeat which is why you cannot stand to 'own it'
Yes it is a "defeat" - yours. You've had your arse handed to you in a sling - again. Either finally attempt to address that, or stop already with the dummy spitting.
Unlike you I don't see aspects of the cosmos 'failing' the methodology.
Presumably that meant something in your head when you typed it?
It is the methodology which is limited.
Of course it is. Naturalism only ever claims to provide provisional truths, and is indifferent to any "might bes" beyond its purview. That's why your straw man version of it is misguided/dishonest. That though does not mean that it produces outcomes of equal epistemic value to your guesses.
POMA is just a shoe in for the philosophical contradiction of wanting to be considered a logical positivist but wanting the rest as well.
Being a logical positivist manqué is a sorry state to find oneself in, i would have thought.
Contrary to the bollocks narrative you and others have weaved, I and others are both adherents of science and religion.
That's nice for you. For the latter, provided you accept that it'll provide you only with personal, subjective truths - just as the superstitions of others about anything else do for them too - and not objective truths for the rest of us, there's no problem. Knock yourself out. If ever though you want to assert into existence some objective truth derived from it, then you have all your work ahead of you finally to explain how whatever pops into your head (or that you "intuit" if your really want to gussy it up with a fancier term) bridges the gap from the subjective to the objective.
Given your further ducking and diving, here's your scam set out for you again to address:
1. Realise that, despite countless requests for it, you have no method to distinguish the thing you think you intuit from mistake, delusion, false attribution etc.
2. Rather than address that, lay waste instead to any method of establishing probable truths in the hope that the relativism of, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” will somehow help you.
3. To achieve Step 2, misdescribe naturalism as the conviction that the natural is all there ever could be, then keep attacking that straw man.
4. Wait until everyone else gives up in frustration at your dishonesty, evasion and obtuseness.
5. Declare victory.
You never will address it I know, but hey - call ma a cock-eyed optimist if you like but just maybe one day you'll have the honesty at least to give it a try. As before, if not then there's nothing more to say really.
-
Hope,
No, not a logical fallacy anything, bhs.
Yes it is. It would help if you understood what logical fallacies are - there are plenty of lists of them online if you look - so that you could recognise when you and others are using them.
For example:
I am nigh on 60 and over those 6 decades I have had experiences that naturalism has no explanations for and, in my view, will never have explanations for. Therefore, for me to assume that naturalistic science can and will provide the answers to every question to do with 'life, the universe and everything' is illogical. The only logical process is therefore to assume that there is some part of reality that is not within the parameters that define naturalism. After all, that is all anyone is doing as far as naturalism as the sole arbiter is concerned.
Rests on (at least) three logical fallacies. Do you want to have a go at working out what they are?
Incidentally, it's also a logical fallacy to argue that a conclusion is necessarily wrong because the arguments for it are fallacious (called the argument from fallacy). For all I know your pick of the gods, any other gods, unicorns, whatever might be real. That doesn't change though that fact that the only arguments you have are fallacious.
We've been through this process before, bhs- though I can't recall the exact thread but it was earlier this year. Oddly enough, none of the naturalistic options came near to standing up to criticism.
I wonder whether you've invented a brand new informal fallacy of claiming a prior proof but never being able to produce it - Hopeism perhaps?
What criticism do you think there was, and why do you think that none of the myriad possible natural explanations stood up to it? How on earth would you propose to rule them out, except that it unless you resort to yet another fallacy - the argument from personal incredulity?
-
What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?
Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.
How does one gets to know about it? Through documentation.
Documentation relies on eye-witness accounts, human perception and human memory, all of which are demonstrably unreliable.
If you compound that with documentation created in distant isolation from the events in question you have even more opportunities for those system failures to manifest.
Documentation of personal accounts is, of course, evidence, but it is far from a methodology. Accounts bereft of corroboration from individuals who weren't at the events being alleged that are created decades after the events in question are not a reliable form of evidence.
O.
-
If you compound that with documentation created in distant isolation from the events in question you have even more opportunities for those system failures to manifest.
If we were talking about a highly-literate context as we have in the 21st century West, I'd agree with you, but since we are talking about a context that was more reliant on oral transmission of information - and which has been shown to be remarkably efficient - I would have to disagree with your assertion.
Documentation of personal accounts is, of course, evidence, but it is far from a methodology. Accounts bereft of corroboration from individuals who weren't at the events being alleged that are created decades after the events in question are not a reliable form of evidence.
See above. Studies over the years have shown that cultures that are as reliant on the oral tradition as 1st Century Palestine probably was, were able - by means of a variety of devices: mnemonics, parable, allegory, etc. - can pass a single message uncorrupted down a chain for several decades, if not centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition
Interestingly, this means that in almost every other area of history, oral tradition is almost as widely accepted as is literary tradition.
-
Rests on (at least) three logical fallacies. Do you want to have a go at working out what they are?
The first would be that it doesn't fit your logical framework, so can't, by definition, be logical. The second would be that it rather destroys your own neat logical framework. Not sure about the 3rd. ;)
We've been through this process before, bhs- though I can't recall the exact thread but it was earlier this year. Oddly enough, none of the naturalistic options came near to standing up to criticism.
Sorry to disappoint you, but we had a thread back in the spring/early summer on which a number of naturalistic explanations were posited by those who regard the 'supernatural' explanations to be flawed. People like Jim, Alien, and a number of others proceeded to knock them over fairly straightforwardly. As I said, I can't recall the thread title in order to be able to point you towards it.
Done a bit of 'searching'. Whilst I haven't had time to read the whole first 10-12 pages of Thrud's 'Have you tried reading the NT in the right order' thread, I think that might be the thread I had in mind - though I'd forgotten it was that recent.
-
Hope,
If we were talking about a highly-literate context as we have in the 21st century West, I'd agree with you, but since we are talking about a context that was more reliant on oral transmission of information - and which has been shown to be remarkably efficient - I would have to disagree with your assertion....etc
It's "been shown" to be no such thing. Just the opposite in fact.
Have you ever heard of the party game of Chinese whispers? What do you think it tells you about the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time?
Just out of interest, are you as sanguine about the accuracy of the countless oral transmissions of other faiths around the world about their miracle stories, or do you just plead specially for the story you happen as an article of faith to think to be true?
-
Hope,
The first would be that it doesn't fit your logical framework, so can't, by definition, be logical..
It's not "my" logical framework at all. Logical fallacies are logical fallacies, regardless of who uses them. That you commit them routinely doesn't change that.
The second would be that it rather destroys your own neat logical framework.
No it doesn't. You posted an argument that consisted of three logical fallacies - how do you think that to have "destroyed" anything?
Not sure about the 3rd. ;)
You have no idea about any of them - that's the problem Do you want to have another go, or shall I explain them to you?
Sorry to disappoint you, but we had a thread back in the spring/early summer on which a number of naturalistic explanations were posited by those who regard the 'supernatural' explanations to be flawed. People like Jim, Alien, and a number of others proceeded to knock them over fairly straightforwardly. As I said, I can't recall the thread title in order to be able to point you towards it.
The only way they could have tried to "knock them over" at this distance would have been by committing yet another fallacy - the argument from personal incredulity. Even then they'd have had all their work ahead of them to explain why an explanation entirely at odds with everything we know about the way the Universe works is more likely than the myriad possible natural causes.
Done a bit of 'searching'. Whilst I haven't had time to read the whole first 10-12 pages of Thrud's 'Have you tried reading the NT in the right order' thread, I think that might be the thread I had in mind - though I'd forgotten it was that recent.
See above.
So now we know that the known and possible natural causes cannot have been "knocked over" at all, can I assume that your rhetorical cupboard is bare?
-
The problems with oral tradition is that it is not a claim to the original tradition being any more accurate. Rather it is about possible distortion being minimised by specific techniques. Further it is no guarantee that those techniques are used for the transmission.
-
NS,
The problems with oral tradition is that it is not a claim to the original tradition being any more accurate. Rather it is about possible distortion being minimised by specific techniques. Further it is no guarantee that those techniques are used for the transmission.
Quite. Even if person A's mistaken belief that the lady in the box was sawn in half and then restored was to be relayed faithfully many times afterwards, that says nothing to the accuracy or otherwise of person A's interpretation of events.
-
I just read the op and am replying to that. I have experienced speaking in tongues and singing in tongues, the latter was lovely. I suppose I entered into the spirit of the thing at the time but it is definitely an emotional business, the correct term being "glossolalia". People who consider themselves to be 'slain in the spirit' are perfectly capable of stopping the speaking in tongues, just as those who are under hypnosis can stop and walk away at any time. None of it really works.
Nothing wrong with it as long as everyone is happy. I'm not sure I agree with children being presented with people speaking in tongues, could be scary, but for adults it is up to them.
Being prayed over with tongues is not pleasant, rather freaky in fact.
It's OK to pray privately and silently in tongues, if that is your wont. Sometimes things cannot be put into words that everyone understands.
-
It's OK to pray privately and silently in tongues, if that is your wont. Sometimes things cannot be put into words that everyone understands.
Interestingly, that is what Paul and other NT writers generally regard tongues for - private prayer and worship. However, I have no problems with people praying - as a part of a group all worshipping - in tongues.
The best example I've experienced was when I actually interpreted/translated the words that were said in tongues. It was very simple really. This particular person - who has never claimed to have been able to speak anything other than English - spoke in a language that was clearly wasn't English - or Welsh, but as I listened I could understand it perfectly - it was basic Nepali!! We had only arrived home from Nepal 3 weeks earlier!!
-
If we were talking about a highly-literate context as we have in the 21st century West, I'd agree with you, but since we are talking about a context that was more reliant on oral transmission of information - and which has been shown to be remarkably efficient
This is absolutely not the case. We can see just by the way the gospels were modified from one to the next that early Christians didn't place too much store in perfect oral transmission.
Plus the Christians of Paul's period placed more emphasis on knowledge obtained by revelation than on stories of actual events.
Interestingly, this means that in almost every other area of history, oral tradition is almost as widely accepted as is literary tradition.
What oral tradition have you got from first century Palestine?
-
This is absolutely not the case. We can see just by the way the gospels were modified from one to the next that early Christians didn't place too much store in perfect oral transmission.
In what way(s) were the gospels 'modified from one to the next', jeremy? Are you suggesting that, because The Times and The BBC 'modify' a given story to match their respective audiences (often adding different cultural and historical references to make for easier understanding, or incuding different, but legitimate details), neither report is reliable?
Plus the Christians of Paul's period placed more emphasis on knowledge obtained by revelation than on stories of actual events.
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
What oral tradition have you got from first century Palestine?
We know that, for the first 10 or so years of the faith, little or nothing was written down, everything being transmitted orally. Even the New Testament documents acknowledge that. Then, possibly as early as 45 AD, Paul wrote Galations in which he summarised the tenets of the faith. Over the next 50 years, the oral transmisson of the faith occurred in tandem with the development of the written records (of the 26 documents within the New Testamant as we have it now, there are none whose earliest, widely accepted date of composition is more than 60 years after the events, only 4 have a earliest date of composition more than 40 years after the events and 17 have an earliest date of composition within 30 years of the events).
-
We know that, for the first 10 or so years of the faith, little or nothing was written down, everything being transmitted orally.
Good grief! Ten years of oral transmission is the last thing that should inspire any faith!
-
Good grief! Ten years of oral transmission is the last thing that should inspire any faith!
Why, Len? Is it because you, who have lived your whole life in a highly literate society and therefore do not have the devices that cultures that rely on the oral tradition use to remember things for longer than a few weeks, believe that what you are used to is the only form of information transmission? Could it be that, having never had to rely on the oral transmission of long and detailed information you don't actually know how it works?
-
Have you ever heard of the party game of Chinese whispers? What do you think it tells you about the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time?
And do you know the history of the game's name? It has nothing to do with 'the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time'. Rather it has to do with the unreliability of oral tradition between people of different mother tongues - originally the interaction between Europeans and the Chinese in the 1600s.
Historians trace Westerners' use of the word Chinese to denote "confusion" and "incomprehensibility" to the earliest contacts between Europeans and Chinese people in the 1600s, and attribute it to Europeans' inability to understand China's culture and worldview. Using the phrase "Chinese whispers" suggested a belief that the Chinese language itself is not understandable. The more fundamental metonymic use of the name of a foreign language to represent a broader class of situations involving foreign languages or difficulty of understanding a language is also captured in older idioms such as It's all Greek to me!.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
Historically, it has absolutely no connection to an out of context message, passed down by a group of individuals (often young children with little or no experience of life) brought up in a literate society in a game situation - and therefore largely devoid of the knowledge of oral devices used to retain the structure and word order of a far longer piece of transmitted information. Read Walter Ong's 'Orality and Literacy' 1982. See here for a summary - http://bit.ly/1Mr8bQi
Just out of interest, are you as sanguine about the accuracy of the countless oral transmissions of other faiths around the world about their miracle stories, or do you just plead specially for the story you happen as an article of faith to think to be true?
I am perfectly happy to accept said oral transmissons as valid transmissions. That is very different to believing that they are true since there is absolutely no historical evidence for the majority of said stories. I choose to accept the Judeo-Christian ones because there is sufficient historical evidence to corroborate large chunks of the underlying information, even if some of the details are - by definition - unlikely to leave archeological footprints.
-
Good grief! Ten years of oral transmission is the last thing that should inspire any faith!
Why, Len? Is it because you, who have lived your whole life in a highly literate society and therefore do not have the devices that cultures that rely on the oral tradition use to remember things for longer than a few weeks, believe that what you are used to is the only form of information transmission? Could it be that, having never had to rely on the oral transmission of long and detailed information you don't actually know how it works?
Tell me about these devices that enable a person to remember verbatim what he has been told. As an oldie, I would very much welcome such a thing.
-
This is absolutely not the case. We can see just by the way the gospels were modified from one to the next that early Christians didn't place too much store in perfect oral transmission.
In what way(s) were the gospels 'modified from one to the next', jeremy?
Clearly you haven't read them recently.
As an example, look at the stories of the discovery of the empty tomb. They all have variation of detail which means that either the oral tradition was not transmitted perfectly to some of them or (as is probably the case with Matthew and Luke) they didn't copy Mark properly.
Christians were not careful to preserve oral tradition.
Are you suggesting that, because The Times and The BBC 'modify' a given story to match their respective audiences (often adding different cultural and historical references to make for easier understanding, or incuding different, but legitimate details), neither report is reliable?
If this analogy is credible then you are saying that gospel authors modified the story for their chosen audience. I'm not sure why you think knowing the reason why a text is not reliable makes it acceptable.
Plus the Christians of Paul's period placed more emphasis on knowledge obtained by revelation than on stories of actual events.
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
Paul insists his gospel is taught from revelation not word of mouth by Peter et al.
What oral tradition have you got from first century Palestine?
We know that, for the first 10 or so years of the faith, little or nothing was written down, everything being transmitted orally. Even the New Testament documents acknowledge that. Then, possibly as early as 45 AD, Paul wrote Galations in which he summarised the tenets of the faith. Over the next 50 years, the oral transmisson of the faith occurred in tandem with the development of the written records (of the 26 documents within the New Testamant as we have it now, there are none whose earliest, widely accepted date of composition is more than 60 years after the events, only 4 have a earliest date of composition more than 40 years after the events and 17 have an earliest date of composition within 30 years of the events).
But you haven't got any of the oral tradition, which is what I asked for. You only have the documentary tradition. And the writer of the earliest documents received the gospel by revelation, not oral tradition.
Incidentally, most of what you have written about oral tradition is no more than guesswork.
-
Hope.
And do you know the history of the game's name? It has nothing to do with 'the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time'. Rather it has to do with the unreliability of oral tradition between people of different mother tongues - originally the interaction between Europeans and the Chinese in the 1600s.
Historians trace Westerners' use of the word Chinese to denote "confusion" and "incomprehensibility" to the earliest contacts between Europeans and Chinese people in the 1600s, and attribute it to Europeans' inability to understand China's culture and worldview. Using the phrase "Chinese whispers" suggested a belief that the Chinese language itself is not understandable. The more fundamental metonymic use of the name of a foreign language to represent a broader class of situations involving foreign languages or difficulty of understanding a language is also captured in older idioms such as It's all Greek to me!.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
Historically, it has absolutely no connection to an out of context message, passed down by a group of individuals (often young children with little or no experience of life) brought up in a literate society in a game situation - and therefore largely devoid of the knowledge of oral devices used to retain the structure and word order of a far longer piece of transmitted information. Read Walter Ong's 'Orality and Literacy' 1982. See here for a summary - http://bit.ly/1Mr8bQi
Wow! Just wow. Do you think perhaps that we should have a prize for the post that most spectacularly, utterly and hilariously misses the point? I’d say we should, only I think you’ve so claimed it for your own with this effort that no-one could ever wrest it from you.
Genius. Just genius.
The point of course is that the origins of the name of the party game have nothing whatever to do with the phenomenon being described. Put a dozen or so people in a room. Have person A whisper a sentence to person B, B to C etc until the end. The last person then says out loud the message. Much hilarity ensues.
The point is that even people of the same language in the same place and at the same time will get messages (which by the way do not rely on Person A’s accurate interpretation of an event he thinks he saw but that may well have a cause entirely other than the one he attributed to it) utterly wrong after just a few re-tellings.
It gets worse. There’s a cascade of inaccuracy effect that happens (the name for which escapes me just now*) whereby minor mistakes amplify the distortion such that a small change of word or nuance then becomes the baseline for the listener, which in turn has an exaggerated effect on the next re-telling etc. That’s why the Chinese whispers game works – huge differences occur over very short chains of recounting.
Then it gets worse again. People tend to be selective in their re-tellings. They decide which bits to emphasise and which to leave out – sometimes just because they want to make it more interesting, sometimes because they’re working to an agenda: if you want to persuade your audience, you’ll embellish when it suits and leave out inconvenient parts when it doesn’t.
Result? The oral tradition is notoriously the least reliable method of all for the passing on of factual detail. Watching you decide on your faith position a priori and then twisting and bending reality to reach its opposite is fun and all, but really Hope…
…just really.
I am perfectly happy to accept said oral transmissons as valid transmissions. That is very different to believing that they are true since there is absolutely no historical evidence for the majority of said stories. I choose to accept the Judeo-Christian ones because there is sufficient historical evidence to corroborate large chunks of the underlying information, even if some of the details are - by definition - unlikely to leave archeological footprints.
It’s like watching someone dive head first into a black hole of daftness and emerge into the far side of bonkersism. There’s “absolutely no historical evidence” for your preferred miracle story either. All you have is the oral tradition, at least for the first 160 years or so and as we both know that’s the least reliable method of all.
Look, if you really want to set the evidence bar for your own faith so low that it’s practically underground but to insist that it be higher for everyone else’s miracle stories that’s up to you, but you’ll understand I hope why the rest of us just shake our heads in bewilderment at the self-deception it must take to carry it off with a straight face.
* Coda: it's called "cumulative error".
-
Blue: I've just discovered that it's difficult to type while giving a standing ovation.
-
Aw Shakes, stop it now... :-[
-
Just wondering is the 'reliability' of the oral tradition responsible for the repetition of the multitude feeding miracle claim in Matthew and Mark? Or were Jesus's follower so naturally forgetful that after one loaves and fishes miracle, when it was needed to happen again they had fogotten about Jesus' ability to do this?
-
Damn you both Blue and Jeremy! Here I was thinking that my memory problems were going to be solved by these devices that Hope spoke about, and you have completely destroyed the hope. >:(
-
Damn you both Blue and Jeremy! Here I was thinking that my memory problems were going to be solved by these devices that Hope spoke about, and you have completely destroyed the hope. >:(
Why is it one forgets the things one needs to remember, but remembers the things one would sooner forget?
I used to know this... hang on...
O.
-
Damn you both Blue and Jeremy! Here I was thinking that my memory problems were going to be solved by these devices that Hope spoke about, and you have completely destroyed the hope. >:(
Why is it one forgets the things one needs to remember, but remembers the things one would sooner forget?
It's all part of the gift "God" has given you! ;D
-
It's OK to pray privately and silently in tongues, if that is your wont. Sometimes things cannot be put into words that everyone understands.
Interestingly, that is what Paul and other NT writers generally regard tongues for - private prayer and worship. However, I have no problems with people praying - as a part of a group all worshipping - in tongues.
The best example I've experienced was when I actually interpreted/translated the words that were said in tongues. It was very simple really. This particular person - who has never claimed to have been able to speak anything other than English - spoke in a language that was clearly wasn't English - or Welsh, but as I listened I could understand it perfectly - it was basic Nepali!! We had only arrived home from Nepal 3 weeks earlier!!
That is wonderful Hope! :) . I hope you told the person that it was Nepali (I expect they already knew).
A group of people praying quietly in tongues is OK I suppose but I still have the feeling it is a kind of showing off. If I suddenly start babbling I promise I will keep it private!
-
Just wondering is the 'reliability' of the oral tradition responsible for the repetition of the multitude feeding miracle claim in Matthew and Mark? Or were Jesus's follower so naturally forgetful that after one loaves and fishes miracle, when it was needed to happen again they had fogotten about Jesus' ability to do this?
No, it's nothing to do with unreliable oral tradition; rather, the two miracles happen in different regions: Jewish and Gentile-occupied territories respectively. Jesus was demonstrating that he is king of Jew and Gentile, and a king who feeds the people, unlike Herod and the Pharisees (cf Mark 6:34). That the disciples forgot his ability to provide food, the second time round, is explained in the subsequent verses. (Eg .Mark 8:18)
-
No, it's nothing to do with unreliable oral tradition; rather, the two miracles happen in different regions: Jewish and Gentile-occupied territories respectively. Jesus was demonstrating that he is king of Jew and Gentile, and a king who feeds the people, unlike Herod and the Pharisees (cf Mark 6:34). That the disciples forgot his ability to provide food, the second time round, is explained in the subsequent verses. (Eg .Mark 8:18)
Yes but, on the second occasion the disciples said this:
“How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert?”
This was only two chapters after they had witnessed Jesus feeding 5,000. How stupid were they?
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
-
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
They were probably the only ones he could find that were daft enough to give up everything and follow him.
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
Well it certainly is a figurative expression, possibly for being 'of little faith'.
I'm not sure if you and NS were implying that the accounts of the two miracles are different versions of the same one?
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
Not so fast, young sir.
If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
Not so fast, young sir.
If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
The Gospel of Alan we always forget that one. :)
-
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
OK, now I KNOW that's a fabrication - 5000 Norwich fans? Really? And as for the prospect of having 5000 Liverpool fans in the area and still having been able to hold on to five fish and some loaves...
O.
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
Not so fast, young sir.
If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
The Gospel of Alan we always forget that one. :)
So what was wrong with what I wrote? Have you read the passages?
-
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
OK, now I KNOW that's a fabrication - 5000 Norwich fans? Really? And as for the prospect of having 5000 Liverpool fans in the area and still having been able to hold on to five fish and some loaves...
O.
Point taken. The gits nicked my Norwich scarf once when I was a kid. Probably ate it.
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
See Alan's post. Part of the reason they apparently forgot about the feeding of the 5000 may be that their idea of the messianic kingdom was that it was for the Jews only.
-
That is wonderful Hope! :) . I hope you told the person that it was Nepali (I expect they already knew).
Why would they know that it was Nepali already?
A group of people praying quietly in tongues is OK I suppose but I still have the feeling it is a kind of showing off.
Why?
-
I know a bloke who regularly feeds 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. :o
.....he runs a tapas bar! ;D
-
If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
“How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert”
not
“How can one feed these gentiles with bread here in the desert”
-
If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
“How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert”
not
“How can one feed these gentiles with bread here in the desert”
Are you serious?
Assuming your are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.
What do you think?
-
Are you serious?
Of course. The disciples are not questioning the fact that Jesus may be about to perform a miracle for gentiles but the possibility that they can feed the people at all.
You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.
-
Jeremy,
Would Matthew have added Jesus' comments at 16:9 and Mark in 8:19 if they were two versions of the same story?
9Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
-
Jeremy,
Would Matthew have added Jesus' comments at 16:9 and Mark in 8:19 if they were two versions of the same story?
9Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
You've got to give some sort of explanation as to why you have given the disciples almost the same lines on two occasions.
Matthew, by the way, was merely copying Mark.
-
Jeremy,
Would Matthew have added Jesus' comments at 16:9 and Mark in 8:19 if they were two versions of the same story?
9Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
You've got to give some sort of explanation as to why you have given the disciples almost the same lines on two occasions.
Matthew, by the way, was merely copying Mark.
Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').
The common factor in the disciples' words to Jesus in the two feeding miracles is their despair because of the remoteness of the place. Can you think of another remote place where a large crowd of people had nothing to eat, and then were miraculously fed? This crowd consisted of 'the Israelites' and 'many other people'.
-
Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').
Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial. Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.
The common factor in the disciples' words to Jesus in the two feeding miracles
Are because one story is a copy of the other. It symbolises that Jesus came for the gentiles as well as the Jews (but presumably only 80% as good). It's unlikely that the story depicts a historical event.
-
Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').
Spud, the generally-accepted dating of Mark's Gospel is between 60 and 70AD; that of Matthew's Gospel is 70-110AD.
-
Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial. Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.
I'm not sure that there is evidence that Matthew 'copied' Mark (or Luke for that matter); just that he wrote after them.
-
Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial. Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.
I'm not sure that there is evidence that Matthew 'copied' Mark (or Luke for that matter); just that he wrote after them.
The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible. That Mark was the first of the three is the generally accepted consensus of most Biblical scholars, although there are dissenting views.
Incidentally, the dating of Matthew you gave to Spud is partly based on the premise that Matthew copied Mark and hence had to be writing later.
-
Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.
-
Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.
If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.
-
Or said and lied perhaps, though I think it would be incorrect to accuse someone of lying, whenever all you know is a statement from someone else, and have no indication of context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Rosenstock-Huessy
-
The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible.
Sorry, jeremy, there is actually no evidence that Matthew and Luke had to be copying Mark. The evidence could equally be understood to suggest that the authors of said gospels were reporting material that they had heard from one or more of a number of sources - including several of the original disciples. In the case of Matthew, perhaps even Mark, they might conceivably have been reporting things they saw and heard themselves.
-
The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible.
Sorry, jeremy, there is actually no evidence that Matthew and Luke had to be copying Mark. The evidence could equally be understood to suggest that the authors of said gospels were reporting material that they had heard from one or more of a number of sources
No, Hope, the evidence is incontrovertible that two of the three authors copied the other. The language used is almost identical through large passages. There is no way this would be the case if the three writer were independently writing down an oral source.
The case for Markan priority (i.e. Mark being the original) is not quite so strong but is still pretty good.
I suggest you try reading The Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre. It's a very accessible survey of the situation.
Also, the Wikipedia page has quite a good introduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
-
Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.
If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.
Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama. This, I think, is what E. R-H means by 'Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew'.
Likewise, Luke begins where Mark left off, with 'the mission of the ministers of the word' (Mk 16:20, Lk 1:2). And John begins, 'His own did not receive him...we have beheld his glory' (John 1:11) which is exactly where Luke left off at the end of Acts: the Jews will not listen, but the Gentiles will (Acts 28:28).
This connection of ends and beginnings is not an accident, says Eugene R-H. "Laboriously every gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point."
-
Mark explains their problem in 6:52: their heart was hardened, because they haven't understand about the loaves. Even after the feeding of the 4000 they still have this problem.
Is “heart hardening” a figurative expression for “having the memory of a goldfish”?
Why did Jesus choose such a bunch of losers for his disciples?
Not so fast, young sir.
If you look at what has been happening, we see that Jesus feeds 5000+ in Mark 6 in a Jewish area, so presumably the 5000+ were very largely Jewish. Come 7:24 Jesus is in a gentile area and heals a woman's daughter, then he goes to the Decapolis, which is another gentile area, and heals a deaf and mute man. Next he feeds the 4000. It does not mention Jesus going anywhere separate to that prior to that miracle, so he may well still be in a gentile area. As you know the Jews were not particularly fans of gentiles and, I would suggest, the disciples may have been OK with Jesus feeding 5000+ Jewish blokes, but needed it drummed into them that Jesus was interested in gentiles too. Hence, 3 miracles in gentile areas. Maybe they couldn't believe that Jesus would do for a (largely?) gentile crowd what he had done for a Jewish crowd.
Peter: We've run out of food again, Philip. What are we going to do?
Philip: Jesus fed 5000+ a while back. Why not again?
Peter: Yeh, but they were Norwich fans. Surely he wouldn't do it for Liverpool fans. Come on. I mean, think about it it Philip.
The Gospel of Alan we always forget that one. :)
So what was wrong with what I wrote? Have you read the passages?
Nudge for Jakswan.
-
Are you serious?
Of course. The disciples are not questioning the fact that Jesus may be about to perform a miracle for gentiles but the possibility that they can feed the people at all.
That doesn't seem to be the case. If you read the feeding of the 4000 in both Matthew and Mark, it has Jesus taking the initiative. The disciples, who have already seen Jesus feed 5000+ miraculously, ask about getting bread for them. A good place to see these side by side is http://sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-syn.htm.
Does that mean they think he can't produce bread for the crowd or that he won't produce bread for the crowd? It doesn't say.
You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.
That is not what I said, so please don't say that I said that. Naughty boy.
I note you have not responded to that part of my post which said, "Assuming your (sic) are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.
What do you think?"
Any thoughts?
-
Matthew wrote after the death of Stephen, and Mark is quoting from Matthew (see Rosenstock-Huessy, 'Fruit of Lips').
Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial. Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.
Or, to put it another way, most NT scholars believe that Matthew (and Luke) had a copy of Mark to hand and copied much of it, but Matthew usually shortened the bits from Mark that he copied.
The common factor in the disciples' words to Jesus in the two feeding miracles
Are because one story is a copy of the other. It symbolises that Jesus came for the gentiles as well as the Jews (but presumably only 80% as good). It's unlikely that the story depicts a historical event.
Why is it unlikely?
-
Sorry Spud but that Matthew copied Mark is uncontroversial. Almost nobody (Christian or not) who has examined the evidence believes it was the other way around.
I'm not sure that there is evidence that Matthew 'copied' Mark (or Luke for that matter); just that he wrote after them.
The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible. That Mark was the first of the three is the generally accepted consensus of most Biblical scholars, although there are dissenting views.
Incidentally, the dating of Matthew you gave to Spud is partly based on the premise that Matthew copied Mark and hence had to be writing later.
I have to agree with JeremyP on this. A good place to find out more is from Mark Goodacre on his NTPod podcasts where he, teaching at Duke university in the States, has 70 odd short podcasts on Christian origins and a few longer ones, including an early one on the "priority of Mark", i.e. Mark being written first, which is a recording of one of his lessons there. I would not cross every "t" and dot every "i" of what Goodacre says, but he has a heck of a lot of good stuff and it is spoken in a very engaging manner. It is easy listening.
He's also British, another reason for him being easy on the ear.
Try http://podacre.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Mark and listen to NT Pod 24 for a short talk or NT Pod Extended Episode 2: The Synoptic Problem 2.
-
The evidence that two of the three synoptic gospels copied the other is incontrovertible.
Sorry, jeremy, there is actually no evidence that Matthew and Luke had to be copying Mark. The evidence could equally be understood to suggest that the authors of said gospels were reporting material that they had heard from one or more of a number of sources
No, Hope, the evidence is incontrovertible that two of the three authors copied the other. The language used is almost identical through large passages. There is no way this would be the case if the three writer were independently writing down an oral source.
The case for Markan priority (i.e. Mark being the original) is not quite so strong but is still pretty good.
I suggest you try reading The Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre. It's a very accessible survey of the situation.
Also, the Wikipedia page has quite a good introduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
Agreed. Remember that Jesus (almost certainly) spoke in Aramaic, but the gospels report that in Greek. The narrative is also in Greek, but some parts are word for word the same in all three gospels in that Greek. When different people translate longish passages into a new language they don't come up with identical text.
Goodacre really is worth a listen/read, folks.
-
Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama. This, I think, is what E. R-H means by 'Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew'.
“Stating bluntly that he quotes Matthew” means he explicitly cites Matthew in his narrative e.g. “this is what Matthew says...” He does not do that. You may argue that he quotes Matthew (you would be wrong) but he never states that he quotes Matthew.
This connection of ends and beginnings is not an accident, says Eugene R-H. "Laboriously every gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point."
Since Mark was probably written first, we can discount Eugene R-H’s hypothesis.
-
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes it does, unless you are claiming that the words of the disciples that I quoted were mistranslated.
Does that mean they think he can't produce bread for the crowd or that he won't produce bread for the crowd? It doesn't say.
Yes it does, if my quotation from the second story is accurate.
You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.
That is not what I said, so please don't say that I said that. Naughty boy.
Well, somebody said that the second story mirrors the first but for gentiles. Wasn’t it you? If that is the case, then it seems too artfully constructed to be an account of actual events.
I note you have not responded to that part of my post which said, "Assuming your (sic) are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.
I didn't want to repeat myself. The words of the disciples do not imply that they were concerned about gentiles so much as feeding people.
-
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes it does, unless you are claiming that the words of the disciples that I quoted were mistranslated.
Does that mean they think he can't produce bread for the crowd or that he won't produce bread for the crowd? It doesn't say.
Yes it does, if my quotation from the second story is accurate.
You may, however, be right that Mark invented the story to mirror the similar story for the Jews and that would explain why he put two version of the same story in his gospel.
That is not what I said, so please don't say that I said that. Naughty boy.
Well, somebody said that the second story mirrors the first but for gentiles. Wasn’t it you? If that is the case, then it seems too artfully constructed to be an account of actual events.
I note you have not responded to that part of my post which said, "Assuming your (sic) are, remember that people get hungry, but that the disciples may have thought that Jesus would not want to feed them because they were gentiles. This is the third of three pericopes about Jesus including gentiles in his work, so it seems, to me at least, likely that it involved stuff happening because they were gentiles.
I didn't want to repeat myself. The words of the disciples do not imply that they were concerned about gentiles so much as feeding people.
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
-
Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama. This, I think, is what E. R-H means by 'Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew'.
“Stating bluntly that he quotes Matthew” means he explicitly cites Matthew in his narrative e.g. “this is what Matthew says...” He does not do that. You may argue that he quotes Matthew (you would be wrong) but he never states that he quotes Matthew.
Well yesterday you said, "If he 'states bluntly', it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is." and now you want an explicit statement. Fair enough, I agree that he doesn't give one.
However, a reasonable question would be: supposing you were reading Mark and you knew that Matthew had already written his gospel. Would you notice the link (suggested by Eugene R-H) between the beginning of Mark and the end of Matthew?
This connection of ends and beginnings is not an accident, says Eugene R-H. "Laboriously every gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point."
Since Mark was probably written first, we can discount Eugene R-H’s hypothesis.
Just like that?
-
Alien,
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Just to not that, in the 21st century, we have someone apparently possessed of at least a modicum of rationality and reasoning power, able to drive a car and work an iPhone, who is apparently in all seriousness and with a straight face discussing a fable about a miracle as if it actually happened.
For once, words fail me...
-
Alien,
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Just to not that, in the 21st century, we have someone apparently possessed of at least a modicum of rationality and reasoning power, able to drive a car and work an iPhone, who is apparently in all seriousness and with a straight face discussing a fable about a miracle as if it actually happened.
For once, words fail me...
Posh words, usual guff. I'm an Android man.
-
Alien,
I'm an Android man.
Was the "man" required there?
-
Alien,
I'm an Android man.
Was the "man" required there?
:)
-
Alien,
I'm an Android man.
Was the "man" required there?
He was just trying to be polite, he missed a comma is all: 'I'm an Android, man."
O.
-
Alien,
I'm an Android man.
Was the "man" required there?
He was just trying to be polite, he missed a comma is all: 'I'm an Android, man."
O.
:) as well.
-
Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.
If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.
Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama.
The attempt to make a developing Christology from the synoptics in this way is very flawed, though. Mark may open his gospel indicating that he believes Jesus to be "The Son of God" (and maybe this opening verse's authenticity has been questioned, along with the 'Long Ending') - but in his account of Peter's affirmation of Jesus' true identity, he simply uses the words 'The Christ'. That would seem to be a back-tracking on Matthew, who adds "the Son of the living God". And Luke has only the words "The Christ" also.
No doubt, by the time the synoptic authors wrote, they had all come to consider Christ to be a divine personage in some sense, but the implication is much weaker in Mark. And Matthew's addition of theatrical effects rather obviously suggests that he is tarting up the plainer narrative of Mark to heighten the drama - to the extent that during the crucifixion story, his chronology is all over the place.
-
Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't). These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'
-
Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't). These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'
What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"
-
Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't). These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'
What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"
Alien, his evidence is Ehrman. In this respect, Ehrman is in the minority.
-
Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't). These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'
What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"
I am not really going to present the complex arguments for this position! It's not my evidence, in any case, as I am not a scholar of this material.
Unfortunately, Ehrman's blog has a pay-wall, but he does release some chunks:
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/300245117/how-jesus-became-god-the-exaltation-of-a-jewish-preacher-from-galilee?tab=excerpt#excerpt
-
Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't). These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'
What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"
Alien, his evidence is Ehrman. In this respect, Ehrman is in the minority.
He doesn't claim Ehrman is the evidence, he says Ehrman summarises the arguments. Why are you misrepresenting the position? And also why the pointless use of the ad populum fallacy while you are at it?
-
No doubt, by the time the synoptic authors wrote, they had all come to consider Christ to be a divine personage in some sense, but the implication is much weaker in Mark.
Dicky, many scholars regard Mark's implication as being much stronger than Matthew's. Remember that the Greek word 'Christ' is a "translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriac ܡܫܝܚܐ (M'shiha), the Messiah" (wikipedia). For the Jewish leaders of the time, this referred to a military, political Saviour who would rid the nation of the invaders. The word had possibly gained this meaning in the 4th century as a result of the Seleucid Kingdom that came into being in 332 BC, but it was the actions of the Hasmonian dynasty (110-63 BC) and the Romans that really underlined the idea. However, the first mention of the term is probably in the Prophets - such as Isaiah, which was probably written during the 6th and 7th centuries BC. I appreciate that many Jewish scholars are at pains to state that the idea of the messiah as a spiritual saviour is a purely Christian concept, yet they then go on to express the view that there was a less physical/political/military concept prior to the Seleucids.
-
He doesn't claim Ehrman is the evidence, he says Ehrman summarises the arguments. Why are you misrepresenting the position? And also why the pointless use of the ad populum fallacy while you are at it?
But by referencing Ehrman as his source, wigs is putting his work forward as evidence.
-
Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't). These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'
What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"
I am not really going to present the complex arguments for this position! It's not my evidence, in any case, as I am not a scholar of this material.
Unfortunately, Ehrman's blog has a pay-wall, but he does release some chunks:
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/300245117/how-jesus-became-god-the-exaltation-of-a-jewish-preacher-from-galilee?tab=excerpt#excerpt
I've not read either, but the publishers also published "How God became Jesus" on the same date. Both "sides" did some interaction prior to the publications. There's an "Unbelievable?" podcast from Premier Christian Radio with Gathermole and Ehrman discussing stuff (Gathermole being one of the authors of the other book).
-
He doesn't claim Ehrman is the evidence, he says Ehrman summarises the arguments. Why are you misrepresenting the position? And also why the pointless use of the ad populum fallacy while you are at it?
But by referencing Ehrman as his source, wigs is putting his work forward as evidence.
No, he specifically says summarises the arguments. Further you seem entirely confused linguistically and historically about the method here. Arguments are not evidence.
-
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?
-
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
-
However, a reasonable question would be: supposing you were reading Mark and you knew that Matthew had already written his gospel. Would you notice the link (suggested by Eugene R-H) between the beginning of Mark and the end of Matthew?
The problem is that I am reasonably sure that Mark was writing first.
Since Mark was probably written first, we can discount Eugene R-H’s hypothesis.
Just like that?
Yep.
-
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?
I'm not using a private language, so I suppose my answer to you as to why it seems to you that I am doing so is that you have not understood what is going on. Perhaps you are reading into the text something that is not there. Maybe you are right and I am wrong, but you don't seem to be providing any evidence or argument for what you are claiming.
-
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
So, why do you think that he has grouped in three items about the gentiles receiving some sort of blessing? Why do you think it is evidence that it is a literary construct rather than grouping three actual events together? What evidence do you have for that?
-
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?
I'm not using a private language.
Your interpretation of “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert” is at odds with the obvious meaning of the words in context.
-
So, why do you think that he has grouped in three items about the gentiles receiving some sort of blessing? Why do you think it is evidence that it is a literary construct rather than grouping three actual events together? What evidence do you have for that?
A lot of things come in threes as far as Mark is concerned.
There are the so called Sea Narratives of Mark 4 to 8. There are three cycles consisting of three phases separated by two inland intervals consisting of three phases.
He also invents three women who appear three times at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Mark loves his threes. And these are not the only literary artifice in the gospel. There are other patterns too.
-
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
Its his way of making a point.
-
Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?
A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.
Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?
A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?
I'm not using a private language.
Your interpretation of “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert” is at odds with the obvious meaning of the words in context.
Nope. You have yourself brought up that Mark likes to group things in threes. Thus you and I seem to agree that the pericope about the feeding of the 4000 is there because it relates to feeding gentiles. However, you then come up with this weird idea that it is part of a grouping of three this means it was made up. You might well have a point if you had said that it being part of a group of three means Mark has grouped these things thematically rather than chronologically, but you've given no reason for us to think that it thereby means it did not happen.
-
So, why do you think that he has grouped in three items about the gentiles receiving some sort of blessing? Why do you think it is evidence that it is a literary construct rather than grouping three actual events together? What evidence do you have for that?
A lot of things come in threes as far as Mark is concerned.
There are the so called Sea Narratives of Mark 4 to 8. There are three cycles consisting of three phases separated by two inland intervals consisting of three phases.
He also invents three women who appear three times at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
There you go again. Because he records three things rather than, perhaps, all of the things he knows about, this does not thereby mean they did not happen. You seem to be getting horribly confused.
Mark loves his threes. And these are not the only literary artifice in the gospel. There are other patterns too.
Yes, and? This says nothing about whether they happened or not. Surely you are able to see that. It's simple enough. Sometimes authors group things in ways that make them easier to remember. It neither adds nor subtracts from whether they happened or not.
-
Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.
If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.
Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama.
The attempt to make a developing Christology from the synoptics in this way is very flawed, though. Mark may open his gospel indicating that he believes Jesus to be "The Son of God" (and maybe this opening verse's authenticity has been questioned, along with the 'Long Ending') - but in his account of Peter's affirmation of Jesus' true identity, he simply uses the words 'The Christ'. That would seem to be a back-tracking on Matthew, who adds "the Son of the living God". And Luke has only the words "The Christ" also.
From the commentaries I've read, a key point Mark wants to get across is that the disciples didn't understand Jesus' divinity at that point. The first half of the book, up to then, is devoted to proving Jesus' identity as the Christ. The second half proves that he is the Son of God (see also where Paul says that Jesus is demonstrated to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead- can't recall the reference at the moment). The disciples cannot accept that the Christ should actually be put to death- they think he is going to defeat the Romans and rule in Jerusalem- and it is not until the final verses of the gospel, having met the risen Lord, that they understand and go out and preach everywhere. Mark 1:1(b) is therefore a summary of the whole book (The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ (chapters 1-8), the Son of God(chapters 8-16).)
No doubt, by the time the synoptic authors wrote, they had all come to consider Christ to be a divine personage in some sense, but the implication is much weaker in Mark.
Mark wants to demonstrate how the disciples' understanding of Jesus' identity unfolded.
And Matthew's addition of theatrical effects rather obviously suggests that he is tarting up the plainer narrative of Mark to heighten the drama - to the extent that during the crucifixion story, his chronology is all over the place.
Yes, it is interesting that Matthew adds a lot of theatrical effects. It may be to do with it being written for Jewish converts.
-
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
Its his way of making a point.
I agree. He's making a point, not recording historical events.
-
Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
Its his way of making a point.
I agree. He's making a point, not recording historical events.
Why do you think making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive? After all, you are making a point so should we assume that what you are saying is not true?
-
Why do you think making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive? After all, you are making a point so should we assume that what you are saying is not true?
Why don't you read my post and then tell me why your premise misrepresents it?
-
Why do you think making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive? After all, you are making a point so should we assume that what you are saying is not true?
Why don't you read my post and then tell me why your premise misrepresents it?
I don't see that it does. You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive. If I've misunderstood you and misrepresented you, then I apologise. Please show me where I have got it wrong. Make it nice and simple for me.
-
Jeremy, mark selectsthree miracles performed in gentile territory in order to make his point, that there will soon be no distinction between jew and gentile. In the previous passage jesus has just declared all food clean, thus ending
the ritual purity laws.
-
Alien,
I don't see that it does. You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive.
No he wasn't. He was merely saying that author was making a point rather than recounting factual truths, but there was no suggestion that making a point necessarily excludes the possibility of recording factual truths. I can as equally make a point by reference to myth, analogy, parable etc as I can by reference to facts. Thinking them to be mutually exclusive is just a construction you placed on Jeremy's words.
-
Jeremy, mark selectsthree miracles performed in gentile territory in order to make his point, that there will soon be no distinction between jew and gentile. In the previous passage jesus has just declared all food clean, thus ending
the ritual purity laws.
Spud, your post gives the impression that you're referring to actual events that really did happen?
ippy
-
Spud, your post gives the impression that you're referring to actual events that really did happen?
ippy
Whilst your's suggests that you have evidence to show that they didn't, ippy. Perhaps you will be come the first person in history to provide such evidence.
-
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
Do you have any literary evidence to show that work that includes groups of three is necessarily a literary construct, jermey? Do you have evidence to show that he wasn't describing real events. Do you have any evidence that, as you say in a later post, that Mark invented 3 women?
-
Alien,
I don't see that it does. You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive.
No he wasn't. He was merely saying that author was making a point rather than recounting factual truths, but there was no suggestion that making a point necessarily excludes the possibility of recording factual truths. I can as equally make a point by reference to myth, analogy, parable etc as I can by reference to facts. Thinking them to be mutually exclusive is just a construction you placed on Jeremy's words.
OK, maybe I was being a bit thick or he was being sloppy when he wrote, "Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events." It still looks to me like he is contrasting literary constructs with descriptions of real events, but hey ho, life goes on.
-
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
Do you have any literary evidence to show that work that includes groups of three is necessarily a literary construct, jermey? Do you have evidence to show that he wasn't describing real events. Do you have any evidence that, as you say in a later post, that Mark invented 3 women?
You have it backwards as usual.
The person making the claim has the burden of proof. I do not have to provide evidence to the contrary.
They have to substantiate their claim.
Something of course no Christian (or follower of any other deity) has ever done.
-
Spud, your post gives the impression that you're referring to actual events that really did happen?
ippy
Whilst your's suggests that you have evidence to show that they didn't, ippy. Perhaps you will be come the first person in history to provide such evidence.
I knew it wouldn't be long!
-
Whilst your's suggests that you have evidence to show that they didn't, ippy. Perhaps you will be come the first person in history to provide such evidence.
Anyone up for a game of Hoppity logical fallacy top trumps?
-
The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
Precisely, which is why I asked jeremy to provide the evidence for his assertion/claim.
-
Alien,
OK, maybe I was being a bit thick or he was being sloppy when he wrote, "Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events." It still looks to me like he is contrasting literary constructs with descriptions of real events, but hey ho, life goes on.
No, he was merely suggesting that it provided evidence in favour of one explanation rather than another. Your assumption that he was also claiming mutual exclusivity was overreaching.
-
Hoppity,
Precisely, which is why I asked jeremy to provide the evidence for his assertion/claim.
What "assertion/claim"?
-
The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
Precisely, which is why I asked jeremy to provide the evidence for his assertion/claim.
No.
By default nothing that is claimed in the Bible ACTUALLY happened.
It's all an unsubstantiated claim.
By default you should believe NONE of it.
Only when a claim made in the Bible can be backed up should you believe.
No one has to show that the claims are false, they are AUTOMATICALLY false, until shown to be true.
-
Whilst your's suggests that you have evidence to show that they didn't, ippy. Perhaps you will be come the first person in history to provide such evidence.
Anyone up for a game of Hoppity logical fallacy top trumps?
I'm in, but I think I should make you aware that I have a head start of several months of collecting them.
-
The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
Precisely, which is why I asked jeremy to provide the evidence for his assertion/claim.
No.
By default nothing that is claimed in the Bible ACTUALLY happened.
It's all an unsubstantiated claim.
By default you should believe NONE of it.
Only when a claim made in the Bible can be backed up should you believe.
No one has to show that the claims are false, they are AUTOMATICALLY false, until shown to be true.
Do you realise that while this is the logical and rational way to proceed, it's the exact opposite of the way that Hoppity "works"?
-
Shakes,
I'm in, but I think I should make you aware that I have a head start of several months of collecting them.
Cool. Even so you'll need to keep your wits about you - they come thick and fast once he gets his motor running. Eyes down!
-
No.
By default nothing that is claimed in the Bible ACTUALLY happened.
And your evidence for that claim, BR, is what?
-
Shakes,
And your evidence for that claim, BR, is what?
Top trumps!
Told you you you'd need to keep your wits about you.
OK, round 2....
-
No.
By default nothing that is claimed in the Bible ACTUALLY happened.
And your evidence for that claim, BR, is what?
No evidence is required, it's default skepticism. Until sufficient evidence for a claim is provided, it's not accepted by default.
O.
-
Jeremy, mark selectsthree miracles performed in gentile territory in order to make his point, that there will soon be no distinction between jew and gentile. In the previous passage jesus has just declared all food clean, thus ending
the ritual purity laws.
Which amazingly had been totally forgotten by Peter ("The Rock on which I will build my Church") a short while later, and had to be reminded of this teaching by his famous visionary dream, recorded in Acts.
-
Dicky. That is because it takes time for something like that to sink in. The ritual purity laws were meant to symbolize the need for purity of heart. At least, that is what mark 7:14-23 seems to teach.
-
Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.
Do you have any literary evidence to show that work that includes groups of three is necessarily a literary construct, jermey? Do you have evidence to show that he wasn't describing real events. Do you have any evidence that, as you say in a later post, that Mark invented 3 women?
You have it backwards as usual.
The person making the claim has the burden of proof. I do not have to provide evidence to the contrary.
They have to substantiate their claim.
Something of course no Christian (or follower of any other deity) has ever done.
Except that it is JeremyP claiming something.
-
Alien,
OK, maybe I was being a bit thick or he was being sloppy when he wrote, "Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events." It still looks to me like he is contrasting literary constructs with descriptions of real events, but hey ho, life goes on.
No, he was merely suggesting that it provided evidence in favour of one explanation rather than another. Your assumption that he was also claiming mutual exclusivity was overreaching.
OK, but why is it in favour of it being a literary construct rather than a description of real events? Why not a literary construct and a description of real events?
-
The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
Precisely, which is why I asked jeremy to provide the evidence for his assertion/claim.
No.
By default nothing that is claimed in the Bible ACTUALLY happened.
It's all an unsubstantiated claim.
By default you should believe NONE of it.
Only when a claim made in the Bible can be backed up should you believe.
No one has to show that the claims are false, they are AUTOMATICALLY false, until shown to be true.
Did you read the post that Hope was replying to? If not, please do; if you did, please read it until you understand it. JeremyP was claiming that, the event being part of a group of three similar events, it meant it was more likely to be a literary construct and not a description of real events.
-
Shakes,
And your evidence for that claim, BR, is what?
Top trumps!
Told you you you'd need to keep your wits about you.
OK, round 2....
No, BR is claiming that something should be a default. He has not provided a reason for that being the default, at least not here.
-
Alien,
OK, but why is it in favour of it being a literary construct rather than a description of real events?
It's "in favour" of it because it's a known rhetorical device used for making a point. That doesn't necessarily mean that, on this occasion, the author wasn't just writing down three factual events, but it does mean that the structure fits a context that does not necessitate factual events.
Why not a literary construct and a description of real events?
You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.
-
Alien,
No, BR is claiming that something should be a default. He has not provided a reason for that being the default, at least not here.
It should be the default for the same reason that the same treatment of any other book should be the default. A Harry Potter and a Physics text book both make claims, but only one of them comes with a method to test those claims. If nonetheless you think the default should be to take the factual claims of your "holy" text as prima facie true, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other holy book - and indeed to Harry Potter books too.
-
If nonetheless you think the default should be to take the factual claims of your "holy" text as prima facie true ...
I know somebody like that.
-
Alien,
OK, but why is it in favour of it being a literary construct rather than a description of real events?
It's "in favour" of it because it's a known rhetorical device used for making a point. That doesn't necessarily mean that, on this occasion, the author wasn't just writing down three factual events, but it does mean that the structure fits a context that does not necessitate factual events.
Why not a literary construct and a description of real events?
You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.
So, you are saying that it being the last of 3 items related by the events recounted being the blessing of gentiles does not tell us one way or the other whether this one was factual or not? As you say, "There's no reason that it couldn't be both" (factual and a literary construct). I agree that determining whether Jesus actually fed 4000+ (or the 5000+ etc.) needs to be determined some other way.
-
Alien,
So, you are saying that it being the last of 3 items related by the events recounted being the blessing of gentiles does not tell us one way or the other whether this one was factual or not? As you say, "There's no reason that it couldn't be both" (factual and a literary construct). I agree that determining whether Jesus actually fed 4000+ (or the 5000+ etc.) needs to be determined some other way.
I'm saying that Jeremy never claimed that the use of the "rule of three" trope necessarily excluded the possibility of three factual reports, just that it added weight to the case for it being just a rhetorical device.
-
Alien,
No, BR is claiming that something should be a default. He has not provided a reason for that being the default, at least not here.
It should be the default for the same reason that the same treatment of any other book should be the default. A Harry Potter and a Physics text book both make claims, but only one of them comes with a method to test those claims. If nonetheless you think the default should be to take the factual claims of your "holy" text as prima facie true, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other holy book - and indeed to Harry Potter books too.
Nope. That is not correct. We are on the Christian Topic board and we are discussing Christian stuff and some of us have looked at both the Christian claims and other claims, e.g. those of Islam and its holy book, in some depth and come to the conclusion that the Islamic holy book is based on the assertions of one man whose word we need to trust (despite him having sex with a 9 year old, killing a man and having sex with his wife the same day and robbing caravans, etc.), while the bible is the assertions of lots of people over the years, some of who claimed to have been eyewitnesses or spoken with eyewitnesses to a man who was flogged, killed and met on a dozen or so occasions over a period of 40 days afterwards. So, in one sense, we are giving the bible the same treatment as any other holy book, i.e. we have looked at the Quran and found it distinctly wanting.
-
Alien,
Nope. That is not correct. We are on the Christian Topic board and we are discussing Christian stuff and some of us have looked at both the Christian claims and other claims, e.g. those of Islam and its holy book, in some depth and come to the conclusion that the Islamic holy book is based on the assertions of one man whose word we need to trust (despite him having sex with a 9 year old, killing a man and having sex with his wife the same day and robbing caravans, etc.), while the bible is the assertions of lots of people over the years, some of who claimed to have been eyewitnesses or spoken with eyewitnesses to a man who was flogged, killed and met on a dozen or so occasions over a period of 40 days afterwards. So, in one sense, we are giving the bible the same treatment as any other holy book, i.e. we have looked at the Quran and found it distinctly wanting.
Yes it is correct.
First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified. That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.
Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.
Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.
-
Spud, your post gives the impression that you're referring to actual events that really did happen?
ippy
Whilst your's suggests that you have evidence to show that they didn't, ippy. Perhaps you will be come the first person in history to provide such evidence.
Show me yours that they did first Hope.
ippy
-
I don't see that it does.
There is clearly much you are unable to see.
You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive.
No I'm not.
I'm saying that in this case Mark is telling a story to make a point and there is no evidence in this case that he cares about the historicity of his story.
Trying to generalise that to "Jeremy thinks making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive" is dishonest.
It would be unfair to Mark to criticise him for telling a story since he never makes any claim that his story really is historically factual. I think Mark's Gospel is great literature, but it is literature.
-
Yes it is correct.
First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified. That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.
Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.
Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.
Alien has conceded to having confirmation bias with regards to the Bible. Confirmation bias is the mechanism for people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, other religions that allow them to believe what they want to believe.
-
Hi Jakswan,
Alien has conceded to having confirmation bias with regards to the Bible. Confirmation bias is the mechanism for people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, other religions that allow them to believe what they want to believe.
Well, to be fair we all have biases to various degrees. That’s why we have the methods of science and reason and so on to try as best we can to remove their effect on the way we understand the world. Alien though (and others) do seem to set the evidence bar quite astonishingly low when it comes to their literal readings of the various bible stories.
He tries the “how come Jesus was seen to be dead and then alive again 40 days later?” line a lot for example. There are countless ways that could have happened which require no miracle of any kind, and it’s not the job of the sceptic to identify beyond doubt which of them was most likely to be the actual one. All that is necessary though is to show that there are lots of them – a trivially easy thing to do – and then to invite the Alien’s of this world to explain why none of them (and none of the real world possibilities we haven’t thought of either) could even have been possible, such that the only possible explanation left standing is his supernatural one.
It’s ludicrous – evidently many non-miraculous explanations could have happened, though how he’d ever manage to establish a probability scale for them to set against his supernatural alternative (how would you use a naturalistic idea like probability to assess the likelihood of a non-naturalistic event like a miracle?) is anyone’s guess. When asked he tends to a basic fallacy – “what are the chances of that then?”, ie the argument from personal incredulity – apparently unaware that, even if you could calculate the odds against the naturalistic possibilities, you’d also need a means to calculate the odds against his miracle alternative to set against them.
And even if he could somehow do that, still all he’d have is odds. And odds are just probability indicators – the only way he could enjoy the certainty he claims for a real miracle would be to show that the odds on all the possible naturalistic explanations are zero.
Like I said, ludicrous.
It gets worse though. All he has to go on is stories - accounts from non-contemporaneous witnesses whose picture of the world was routinely populated with miracles, ghosts, spookiness of all kinds and so whose scepticism bar was considerably lower than ours would be. A contemporary David Blaine performing street magic would have performed every bit as credible a miracle to them as would have been a resurrection.
At best – at very best – a modern day court of law for example would rule these stories as hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence, and yet Alien blithely builds his whole structure of belief on such a flimsy foundation.
Then if you look at context it gets even worse still. Why would a god of the omnis wanting to make a point and we’re told sacrificing his “only son” (albeit only for a bit) do it at a time and place pretty much calculated to be the least effective way possible to convey the message? Picking a backwater province with highly credulous citizens, low literacy and everyday occurrences that were routinely thought to be miracles is about the most incompetent way of doing it I’d have thought, not least because it would identically match the memetics of any manner of other stories of supernatural derring-do. Surely the least this god could have done would have been to have provided some sort of credible evidence - a giant TV screen perpetually replaying the events of the day for example.
Then it gets worse still…
...as Christopher Hitchens used to point out, why would an omni-benevolent God pick such a morally depraved method to make his point? I might for example pay a fine you’d incurred if you were down on your luck, or I might even go to jail on your behalf if I was exceptionally generous-minded. At no time though would I be able to take way your responsibility for your actions. That – rightly – would be yours and yours alone.
What kind of contemptible moral universe would it be if people thought they could behave as disgustingly as they wished because their responsibility for their actions would be taken away provided they just “atoned” – said the right prayers, made the right propitiations etc?
It stinks, and yet that’s what we’re asked to belief about a supposedly morally good god by the Aliens of this world.
Pah!
…and another thing (shuffles off into the night mumbling, occasionally waving arms in the air etc).
-
Alien,
Nope. That is not correct. We are on the Christian Topic board and we are discussing Christian stuff and some of us have looked at both the Christian claims and other claims, e.g. those of Islam and its holy book, in some depth and come to the conclusion that the Islamic holy book is based on the assertions of one man whose word we need to trust (despite him having sex with a 9 year old, killing a man and having sex with his wife the same day and robbing caravans, etc.), while the bible is the assertions of lots of people over the years, some of who claimed to have been eyewitnesses or spoken with eyewitnesses to a man who was flogged, killed and met on a dozen or so occasions over a period of 40 days afterwards. So, in one sense, we are giving the bible the same treatment as any other holy book, i.e. we have looked at the Quran and found it distinctly wanting.
Yes it is correct.
First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified.
As should all claims, including yours? That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.
Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.
So what?
Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness.
Nope. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.
I've not claimed that my approval says that. What I am claiming is that I have (long ago) looked at Islam in great depth and found it wanting. As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day who asked the churchwardens, "Is there anyone who can tell us more about Jesus?" One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends. Alleluiah! God is good.
We are seeing them down in London in October. Shall I pass on your regards?
-
I don't see that it does.
There is clearly much you are unable to see.
Or that might be the case for you instead.
Your turn now.
You seem to be saying that making a point and historical truth are mutually exclusive.
No I'm not.
I'm saying that in this case Mark is telling a story to make a point and there is no evidence in this case that he cares about the historicity of his story.
Trying to generalise that to "Jeremy thinks making a point and telling the truth are mutually exclusive" is dishonest.
It would be unfair to Mark to criticise him for telling a story since he never makes any claim that his story really is historically factual. I think Mark's Gospel is great literature, but it is literature.
What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?
-
Yes it is correct.
First, you're missing the point. The argument is that any book of factual claims should be treated sceptically until and unless those claims can be verified. That you think you have verified them for one book in particular is a secondary issue we can discuss if you want to, but it's not relevant to the basic argument.
Second, you make in any case extraordinary claims both about your ability to verify the claims of one book, and about the inability of others to verify the claims of their book. They presumably would say the same thing mutatis mutandis.
Third, you confuse desirability with truthfulness. Whether or not you approve of the stories from a rival faith says nothing to whether they are more or less likely to be true than the claims of your faith.
Alien has conceded to having confirmation bias with regards to the Bible. Confirmation bias is the mechanism for people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, other religions that allow them to believe what they want to believe.
Since you seem to be a decent chap, that is highly unlikely to be deliberate deceit on your part. What, though, is the reason for such an inaccurate statement of my position, please?
-
Alien,
As should all claims, including yours?
Of course. I try to make arguments rather than assert claims, but yes - treat then sceptically until you've tested the logic, and then respond accordingly.
So what?
So everything. What unique set of forensic tools is it that you think christians possess, but those of other faiths with equally involved academic traditions do not?
Nope.
Yep.
I've not claimed that my approval says that.
Then why bring lurid stories of sleeping with a 9-year-old into it?
What I am claiming is that I have (long ago) looked at Islam in great depth and found it wanting.
And doubtless many muslims have looked at christianity and found it wanting too. Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong? You seem to think after all that you're possessed of investigatory tools that they lack - just pass them on, and you'll convert the world of Islam overnight!
Or could it just be instead that what's actually happening here is that you're more comfortable with your faith beliefs, just as they're more comfortable with their faith beliefs?
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
Are you sure it wasn't the bus that brought them?
...who asked the churchwardens, "Is there anyone who can tell us more about Jesus?" One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends. Alleluiah!
Ah, the old "I'll use an anecdote as if that it some way conveyed a larger truth" schtick. You're Alan Burns and I claim my £5!
God is good.
Not for countless of his creatures that live in terror and die in pain he isn't. Or how about the baby with brain cancer? Is this god of yours "good" only when he feels like it or something?
Sounds pretty scummy to me I'm afraid.
We are seeing them down in London in October. Shall I pass on your regards?
You could do, though you'd be doing more for them if instead you tried sharing some of the tools of reason and scepticism that would show them - and you - to be barking up the wrong tree.
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
-
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?
One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends.
They were lovely before their conversion, right?
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Yes, indeed. That's why I fell in love with him. (Don't be jealous, I love you both. :) )
-
Shakes, Len...
...aw boys. Should we get a room or something? (I'll bring the twiglets.)
-
Shakes, Len...
...aw boys. Should we get a room or something? (I'll bring the twiglets.)
OK! I'll try to provide something a tad more substantial. ;)
-
You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.
For starters, there are two other accounts of the same miracle, of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Secondly, the account draws on a similar miracle, the feeding of the Israelites and many non-Israelites who had left Egypt and had been fed miraculously in the desert. The Jewish theocracy, born out of this event, was testimony to it, and its messianic prophecies (eg Ezekiel 37:24) anticipated miracles such as the feeding of the multitudes by which the messiah would be identified.
-
You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.
For starters, there are two other accounts of the same miracle, of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Secondly, the account draws on a similar miracle, the feeding of the Israelites and many non-Israelites who had left Egypt and had been fed miraculously in the desert. The Jewish theocracy, born out of this event, was testimony to it, and its messianic prophecies (eg Ezekiel 37:24) anticipated miracles such as the feeding of the multitudes by which the messiah would be identified.
Why do you think you can use a book that has no evidence that would support any of the mythical, magic or superstition elements it contains as proof of anything about myths, magic or superstition?
ippy
-
What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?
Greek mythology
-
You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.
For starters, there are two other accounts of the same miracle,
Both of which are copies of the Markan account.
of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Have you read "The Eagle has Landed"? It claims to be factual, but it isn't.
Secondly, the account draws on a similar miracle, the feeding of the Israelites and many non-Israelites who had left Egypt and had been fed miraculously in the desert.
OK so this account is not factual, it is based on an Old Testament myth. Super.
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Yeh and if you want a turd polished, Elvis is yer man.
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Yeh and if you want a turd polished, Elvis is yer man.
.....and if you want a turd produced, to order, call Vlad. ;)
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Yeh and if you want a turd polished, Elvis is yer man.
.....and if you want a turd produced, to order, call Vlad. ;)
Well, there must be some truth in that......BECAUSE YOU'VE SHOWN UP ;)
-
You're shifting ground now. You asked why the two were mutually exclusive (not something Jeremy claimed), and there's no reason that it couldn't be both. Whether the stories it describes are factually true though would require some method of verification other than the claims themselves.
For starters, there are two other accounts of the same miracle,
Both of which are copies of the Markan account.
...and affirm that what Mark (well, Matthew, imo) said is true. Three witnesses.
of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Have you read "The Eagle has Landed"? It claims to be factual, but it isn't.
Did the author have a gun to his head when he said it was factual?
Secondly, the account draws on a similar miracle, the feeding of the Israelites and many non-Israelites who had left Egypt and had been fed miraculously in the desert.
OK so this account is not factual, it is based on an Old Testament myth. Super.
Where does Mark say he thinks the manna story is a myth?
-
...and affirm that what Mark (well, Matthew, imo) said is true. Three witnesses.
Sorry but copying somebody else does not provide independent verification of what they wrote.
I can't believe I'm having to tell you this. Christianity seems to have fried your brain.
of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Have you read "The Eagle has Landed"? It claims to be factual, but it isn't.
Did the author have a gun to his head when he said it was factual?
Did any of the gospel writers? Nope.
Where does Mark say he thinks the manna story is a myth?
Spud, have you ever read anything apart from the Bible ever? People frequently write things that are not true without explicitly saying so.
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Yeh and if you want a turd polished, Elvis is yer man.
.....and if you want a turd produced, to order, call Vlad. ;)
Well, there must be some truth in that......BECAUSE YOU'VE SHOWN UP ;)
..you missed a 'ME' in between 'SHOWN' and 'UP'. ::)
-
I bet what is describe and what is actually factual are poles apart.
Floo, is this one of your off-the-wall opinions, or do you have any evidence to show that what you arew suggesting might have some legs?
Regarding "Why are some people so willing to believe it just because the Bible says so!", again, do you have any evidence that they believe it "just because the Bible says so!". Could there be other reasons for their belief, such as a feeling that science doesn't ask questions of every aspect of life?
-
Regarding "Why are some people so willing to believe it just because the Bible says so!", again, do you have any evidence that they believe it "just because the Bible says so!". Could there be other reasons for their belief, such as a feeling that science doesn't ask questions of every aspect of life?
I wonder why it would be that some people, faced with a current blank from the field of human endeavour with more testable, shareable, self-policing, self-correcting rigour and more proven success than any other, instead of saying "I don't know - we'll have to leave it until we have more data" immediately think that the most risibly absurd fairy tales without even any methodology to assess its preposterous claims will give them the "answers" they so desperately need?
-
Regarding "Why are some people so willing to believe it just because the Bible says so!", again, do you have any evidence that they believe it "just because the Bible says so!". Could there be other reasons for their belief, such as a feeling that science doesn't ask questions of every aspect of life?
I wonder why it would be that some people, faced with a current blank from the field of human endeavour with more testable, shareable, self-policing, self-correcting rigour and more proven success than any other, instead of saying "I don't know - we'll have to leave it until we have more data" immediately think that the most risibly absurd fairy tales without even any methodology to assess its preposterous claims will give them the "answers" they so desperately need?
I think it is partly because they can't accept the "we don't know yet", and partly because they think their lives have little meaning without "God".
-
I wonder why it would be that some people, faced with a current blank from the field of human endeavour with more testable, shareable, self-policing, self-correcting rigour and more proven success than any other, instead of saying "I don't know - we'll have to leave it until we have more data" immediately think that the most risibly absurd fairy tales without even any methodology to assess its preposterous claims will give them the "answers" they so desperately need?
Yet - as we know - what is taught in science today may well be found to be erroneous tomorrow. Why put so much reliance on ideas and 'truths' when your suggestion that "the field of human endeavour with more testable, shareable, self-policing, self-correcting rigour and more proven success than any other" has been shown to be so unreliable over the last 50 years?
-
I think it is partly because they can't accept the "we don't know yet", and partly because they think their lives have little meaning without "God".
If that's your view, it's clear you don't know what makes religious people tick, Len.
-
Yet - as we know - what is taught in science today may well be found to be erroneous tomorrow.
Unlikely. Most of what is taught in science today will still be thought of as true in 100 years. For instance, the Earth will still be orbiting the Sun, the chemical formula of water will still be H2O, Newton's Theory of gravity will still be a good approximation and so on.
-
Unlikely. Most of what is taught in science today will still be thought of as true in 100 years. For instance, the Earth will still be orbiting the Sun, the chemical formula of water will still be H2O, Newton's Theory of gravity will still be a good approximation and so on.
Yet some of the stuff I was taught in Physics 'A'-level 35 years ago, has been consigned to the bin. I wasn't talking about the obvious stuff, jeremy, which, despite being 'a good approximation', is often regarded as passe.
-
Yet some of the stuff I was taught in Physics 'A'-level 35 years ago, has been consigned to the bin.
I seriously doubt that. What did you have in mind?
I wasn't talking about the obvious stuff, jeremy, which, despite being 'a good approximation', is often regarded as passe.
But the point you were making that
"the field of human endeavour with more testable, shareable, self-policing, self-correcting rigour and more proven success than any other" has been shown to be so unreliable over the last 50 years"
Is complete nonsense if it's only the non obvious stuff that is shown to be wrong.
-
...and affirm that what Mark (well, Matthew, imo) said is true. Three witnesses.
Sorry but copying somebody else does not provide independent verification of what they wrote.
I can't believe I'm having to tell you this. Christianity seems to have fried your brain.
Isn't 'copy' a generalisation? Four newspapers might describe the same event using similar wording, and they may at times use the same phrases, but there are differences which reflect the different reporters and sometimes different eyewitnesses. If you read the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, you should notice these differences, which do provide independent verification. Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
of which Luke's explicitly claims to be factual.
Have you read "The Eagle has Landed"? It claims to be factual, but it isn't.
Did the author have a gun to his head when he said it was factual?
Did any of the gospel writers? Nope.
As good as- find out how each of them is reported to have died. Only one died a natural death, but he died in exile.
Where does Mark say he thinks the manna story is a myth?
Spud, have you ever read anything apart from the Bible ever? People frequently write things that are not true without explicitly saying so.
That doesn't automatically mean the gospel writers did.
-
Yet - as we know - what is taught in science today may well be found to be erroneous tomorrow. Why put so much reliance on ideas and 'truths' when your suggestion that "the field of human endeavour with more testable, shareable, self-policing, self-correcting rigour and more proven success than any other" has been shown to be so unreliable over the last 50 years?
Firstly, that science revises and corrects itself in the light of new data is possibly its single greatest strength. Of what else can you say that? Definitely not religion, that's for sure since there are few if any data, new or otherwise, to work with. Being able to self-correct when new data come along is one of the hallmarks of rationality.
Massive Kuhnian paradigm shifts are also incredibly rare. Typically science is a cumulative process, where knowledge is additive. Contrary to popular belief Einsteinian physics a hundred years ago didn't show classical physics to be "wrong": it demonstrated it to be incomplete (which is a different animal altogether) in situations of enormous mass and very high velocities.
Secondly, there's no other method we have - absolutely nne whatsoever - which is even remotely as accurate and successful at sorting out what's true. That's why.
ETA: I see JeremyP has asked has some of the pertinent questions and made some of the pertinent points I was going to.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
-
Firstly, that science revises and corrects itself in the light of new data is possibly its single greatest strength. Of what else can you say that? Definitely not religion, that's for sure since there are few if any data, new or otherwise, to work with. Being able to self-correct when new data come along is one of the hallmarks of rationality.
Whilst there is truth in that, Shaker, one has to think of the huge number of people who are mis-treated or mis-informed whilst the 'wrong' understanding is current. I think back to the way in which 2 of those who were regarded as 'experts' in the child development and educational fields when I was traing as a teacher - Piaget and Birt - have had their findings questioned and altered; or what about Kinsey, whose research into sexuality was shown to have been seriously skewed by the limited groups he used for his research.
Massive Kuhnian paradigm shifts are also incredibly rare. Typically science is a cumulative process, where knowledge is additive. Contrary to popular belief Einsteinian physics a hundred years ago didn't show classical physics to be "wrong": it demonstrated it to be incomplete (which is a different animal altogether) in situations of enormous mass and very high velocities.
But it would also be true to say that the last 50 years have seen shifts in fundamental understandings in science that match the scale of changes in the previous 500.
Secondly, there's no other method we have - absolutely nne whatsoever - which is even remotely as accurate and successful at sorting out what's true. That's why.
Yet what is true today - as I originally pointed out - may be found not to be true tomorrow. That isn't to say that that discovery occurs out of the blue, but the actual process of discovery may culminate in new information coming to light tomorrow.
ETA: I see JeremyP has asked has some of the pertinent questions and made some of the pertinent points I was going to.
Pertinent, in which ways?
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
-
But it would also be true to say that the last 50 years have seen shifts in fundamental understandings in science that match the scale of changes in the previous 500.
As Jeremy said, such as? Don't just wave your hands, it's too cold for a fan: be specific.
Yet what is true today - as I originally pointed out - may be found not to be true tomorrow. That isn't to say that that discovery occurs out of the blue, but the actual process of discovery may culminate in new information coming to light tomorrow.
Yep, that's right. We can do best by working with the best information we have available at any time.
Pertinent, in which ways?
Pertinent in asking you to be specific about which bits of the physics you learned in 1980 have subsequently been junked.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Or that Luke and John existed and write two Gospels that bear their names?
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
[/quote]
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
[/quote]
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
[/quote]
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
[/quote]
Hit the nail on the head with likely, the historical method deals in probability, Strawboy doesn't get it.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
Hit the nail on the head with likely, the historical method deals in probability, Strawboy doesn't get it.
[/quote]
I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind.
So saying that historical study is and has been a kind of science is flat wrong.
That doesn't mean to say there aren't obvious rules in history which you, Len and the others are ignoring.......The main being that if you are going to accept a history on certain grounds or reject it on certain grounds, those grounds must apply to all documents.
Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.
-
Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.
You haven't pissed on anything except the squib you were trying to light, Vladdyboy.
-
Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.
You haven't pissed on anything except the squib you were trying to light, Vladdyboy.
You still hold to the ridiculous notion that only things written by those at an event could be relied upon as history, thus rejecting almost 100% of history? Use your loaf Man,
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.
In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
[/quote]
Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.
Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.
Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.
[/quote]
Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.
On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.
But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.
To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.
I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.
-
I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind.
I do not accept their accounts as fact, straw-man.
So saying that historical study is and has been a kind of science is flat wrong.
Never said it was, straw-man.
That doesn't mean to say there aren't obvious rules in history which you, Len and the others are ignoring.......The main being that if you are going to accept a history on certain grounds or reject it on certain grounds, those grounds must apply to all documents.
Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.
Sorry to comprehensively piss on your bonfire.
Strawboy you barely managed a drip.
-
Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.
Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........
Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.
-
Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.
Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........
Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.
And in English?
What's that mate?
-
Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.
Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........
Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.
Strawboy,
If you don't understand my position on something just ask. I would treat all historical accounts with a level of sceptism, refuting your assertion 'I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind'.
Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?
If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
-
Wrong I treat all accounts with the same level of sceptism.
Well that just means that central to everything for you is YOUR scepticism.........
Since that is then the only show in town for you...........why are you implying that your scepticism is better than anybody elses......particularly when there has been no evidence that it is'nt the one thing you aren't sceptical of.
Strawboy,
If you don't understand my position on something just ask. I would treat all historical accounts with a level of sceptism, refuting your assertion 'I doubt that many of the Roman Historians were trained in statistical analysis Swan, and after all their accounts are rarely questioned by your kind'.
Yes but what level of scepticism Swan....equal scepticism? level based on what?
-
Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?
If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
As far as I know it was doing the rounds and it's orthodoxy was debated by Eusabius and Serapion who may have been big wheels in church circles at the time. Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon.
You seem to accuse me of the mistake I have accused Len of. Historical works are as good as their sources, the assembly of those and the value of the whole thing in a wider context.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.
In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.
I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with God, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for God to act to enable it. If so how would God do that and does the Bible make sense? This does rely upon the existence of God, so if you don't believe in God how do you know he doesn't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to him and so suppress the knowledge of him?
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.
In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.
I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?
Makes equally as much sense as the former version.
ippy
-
What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it.
We always knew that you were a closet Unicornist, ippy. Or should that be 'Unicornian'?
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.
In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.
I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?
Makes equally as much sense as the former version.
ippy
I thought a unicorn was a horse with one horn.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.
In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.
I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?
Makes equally as much sense as the former version.
ippy
I thought a unicorn was a horse with one horn.
Exactly Vladicus, you've got it in one.
ippy
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
Firstly you have to decide if it contains reportage and whether the message of personal sin and salvation is true.
Ok - there are two components then; the first is whether the events described are factually true and the second is whether the story involved is allegory of some sort. The latter can be the case even if the former isn't factually true.
In the case the claim of feeding thousands from minimal rations this clearly isn't true, so we can reasonably conclude this story is fiction for the purposes of allegory/propaganda.
I think Vlad's first point is easily answerable- yes it claims to be true reportage. What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it. If so how would a Unicorn do that and does the history of Unicorns make sense? This does rely upon the existence of Unicorns, so if you don't believe in Unicorns how do you know they don't exist and could the problem be that we don't want to be accountable to Unicorns and so suppress the knowledge of Unicorns?
Makes equally as much sense as the former version.
ippy
I thought a unicorn was a horse with one horn.
Exactly Vladicus, you've got it in one.
ippy
Got what you strange man?
-
Isn't 'copy' a generalisation?
Not in the case of the gospels.
Four newspapers might describe the same event using similar wording, and they may at times use the same phrases, but there are differences which reflect the different reporters and sometimes different eyewitnesses. If you read the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, you should notice these differences, which do provide independent verification.
If that described the gospels, you would have a point, but Matthew and Luke (and probably John) had the text of Mark in front of them and literally copied it, making a few changes.
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
The first chapter of "The Eagle Has Landed" frames the story as a historical event. The writer even names at least one eye witness source, but the story itself is still fictional.
As good as- find out how each of them is reported to have died. Only one died a natural death, but he died in exile.
You don't even know who any of them were.
That doesn't automatically mean the gospel writers did.
No we've been over the reasons why the gospels cannot be seriously considered as history but you just can't accept it.
-
Whilst there is truth in that, Shaker, one has to think of the huge number of people who are mis-treated or mis-informed whilst the 'wrong' understanding is current.
Who has been mistreated or misinformed by Newtonian physics? Or the atomic theory of matter?
I think back to the way in which 2 of those who were regarded as 'experts' in the child development and educational fields when I was traing as a teacher - Piaget and Birt - have had their findings questioned and altered; or what about Kinsey, whose research into sexuality was shown to have been seriously skewed by the limited groups he used for his research.
Because of these two cases, science is unreliable is it? You really are stretching.
But it would also be true to say that the last 50 years have seen shifts in fundamental understandings in science that match the scale of changes in the previous 500.
It would be useful if you listed some examples.
Yet what is true today - as I originally pointed out - may be found not to be true tomorrow.
In the vast majority of cases it won't.
Pertinent, in which ways?
Pertinent in that your avoidance of answering shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.
Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.
Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.
On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.
But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.
To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.
I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.
[/quote]
Ok, let's ignore the game of hide n seek your brain is doing with logic for a moment.
Care to answer the point about context?
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.
Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.
Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.
On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.
But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.
To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.
I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.
Ok, let's ignore the game of hide n seek your brain is doing with logic for a moment.
[/quote]
No Rhi.....you can't refute anything of mine you've included here.
You don't know what you are claiming to know instead I've demonstrated that you believe it instead..........I'd be as pissed as you if my arrogance had been exposed.
-
So that's a no I won't then.
-
I'd be as pissed as you if my arrogance had been exposed.
Your arrogance was exposed years ago. Be pissed.
-
So that's a no I won't then.
''no I won't'' what?
-
What his second point means is, is there a need in every human for a relationship with a Unicorn, has that relationship been broken, and is a man able to restore that relationship on his own, by good deeds for example, and would it be necessary for the Unicorn to act to enable it.
We always knew that you were a closet Unicornist, ippy. Or should that be 'Unicornian'?
I'm not proud Hope, you can call me whatever you like, but, be careful what you say about my Unicorns, I might become unstable.
ippy
-
I'd be as pissed as you if my arrogance had been exposed.
Your arrogance was exposed years ago. Be pissed.
My arrogance maybe. My incorrectness in the matter in hand is not because I am correct.
Also if we are to insist on aspects of the Gospel being highly unlikely we find that they are never mentioned in the New testament as anything other. The problems therefore lie in claiming impossibility.
-
So that's a no I won't then.
''no I won't'' what?
Look at the 'facts' in context.
-
My incorrectness in the matter in hand is not because I am correct.
No, your incorrectness in the matter at hand is because you are wrong - frequently.
Also if we are to insist on aspects of the Gospel being highly unlikely we find that they are never mentioned in the New testament as anything other. The problems therefore lie in claiming impossibility.
Sorry, you'll have to put that in English.
-
My incorrectness in the matter in hand is not because I am correct.
No, your incorrectness in the matter at hand is because you are wrong - frequently.
Also if we are to insist on aspects of the Gospel being highly unlikely we find that they are never mentioned in the New testament as anything other. The problems therefore lie in claiming impossibility.
Sorry, you'll have to put that in English.
Don't you mean Dumbassese, Jeremy?
Please demonstrate where I am wrong in what Rhiannon quotes in her post.
-
[
Please demonstrate where I am wrong in what Rhiannon quotes in her post.
Why? You are the one who claimed you were incorrect.
-
[
Please demonstrate where I am wrong in what Rhiannon quotes in her post.
Why? You are the one who claimed you were incorrect.
I think you might be on the wrong thread but don't worry .....accidents will happen.
-
Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?
If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
As far as I know it was doing the rounds and it's orthodoxy was debated by Eusabius and Serapion who may have been big wheels in church circles at the time. Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon.
So you judge something to be true on the basis that it agrees with your theology. Good man nice to see you admit it!
-
I'm not proud Hope, you can call me whatever you like, but, be careful what you say about my Unicorns, I might become unstable.
ippy
'might' 'become', ippy?
-
Isn't 'copy' a generalisation?
Not in the case of the gospels.
Four newspapers might describe the same event using similar wording, and they may at times use the same phrases, but there are differences which reflect the different reporters and sometimes different eyewitnesses. If you read the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, you should notice these differences, which do provide independent verification.
If that described the gospels, you would have a point, but Matthew and Luke (and probably John) had the text of Mark in front of them and literally copied it, making a few changes.
You have made two assertions here, jeremy, which I believe the majoity of Biblical scholars - whether or not they are believers - would like to see the evidence for.
No we've been over the reasons why the gospels cannot be seriously considered as history but you just can't accept it.
And this is, in part, because scholars don't necessarily believe with you - including non-religious scholars.
-
Do you accept the Gospel of Peter as fact, if not why not? If no and you cite that it was later and therefore less likely to be reliable, then is the Gospel of John less reliable than the Gospel of Mark as this was later?
If not then doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
As far as I know it was doing the rounds and it's orthodoxy was debated by Eusabius and Serapion who may have been big wheels in church circles at the time. Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon.
So you judge something to be true on the basis that it agrees with your theology. Good man nice to see you admit it!
A) a person who repents in the definition and understanding of the New Testament writers has in fact accepted a truth that went against their existent belief. So it is not Christians who are wanting in the 'can you change your mind'' stakes.
B) You are being plainly silly. If you seek to produce a book on orthodox Christianity you are no more going to have heterodox views in it than Christopher Hitchens is going to let the Dalai lama, The pope or the chief Rabbi have a chapter in ''God is not Great''
Your post is completely non sequitur to what I wrote and makes you look like a completely unreasonable bigot.
-
Moreover, Luke and John state that their gospels are factual.
How do you know that they are telling the truth?
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
They aren't! For their writings to be factual they would have to have been present at every scene they depict, which of course they couldn't have been. Much of the stuff they wrote can only be hearsay.
If you insist on writings to have been written by people who were present in order for them to be factual, you are invalidating almost 100% of history.
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
An account of what Henry V111 wore when dancing with Anne Boleyn is likely to be more accurate than one where a dead man comes back to life.
I doubt it because the former is more trivial.
Firstly we know dead men don't come back to life but we do know people dance.
Secondly, context. One story features in a heroic myth around a supernatural god figure. The other is an account of two provable historical figures dancing after the death of the former wife of the husband.
Actually we believe dead men don't come back to life.
That should primarily be because we have not experienced it in our own lives and have faith that it won't happen. Then secondarily we accept scientific non observation and base our belief in it's impossibility on that.
On that though, even science states that although the same things happen time and time again a different result is not to be discounted.
But here in the Gospels and epistles are accounts of it happening.
To disbelieve in them requires a counter belief that there is no God and /or he could not or would not do this.
I think you will see that nowhere in this is any ''Knowing'' that these things can't, don't or haven't happened.
[/quote]
No, we know dead men don't come back to life. It isn't something we need to experience one way or another, just like we don't need to experience unicorns to know they aren't real. Unicorn it's have faith that unicorns exist. Christians hVe faith that resurrection exists.
You really should stop treating 'faith' like a dirty word you know.
Anyway, belief or not in resurrection says nothing about belief or otherwise in God. Not all Christians believe in it. Nor do all theists.
Now let's look at context (I know you want to). Here's some stuff on resurrection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection
We also know that there are stories of resurrected saints (eg Winifred) and saints who resurrect. These are generally stories about real people. What these have in common is the need to prove something special about the person -divinity or divine choosing, for example.
Either Jesus isn't the only person resurrected, or his story is right and all the others are made up, or they are all myth and allegory.
there's nothing wrong with having faith, Vlad. Better to accept that than keep on with this 'evidence' and 'proof' stuff - it's a much more peaceful existence.
-
You have made two assertions here, jeremy, which I believe the majoity of Biblical scholars - whether or not they are believers - would like to see the evidence for.
Hope, you need to read what actual scholars say.
It is virtually certain that, two of the three synoptic authors copied the other one, by which I mean had the text and literally copied it making minor changes. This is not at all controversial, you can take it as established fact.
It is also the majority opinion that the earliest gospel is Mark and either Matthew and Luke copied Mark and some other hypothetical document (we call Q) or Matthew copied Mark and Luke copied Matthew.
There is a growing opinion that the author of John's gospel also knew at least Luke's gospel although he obviously didn't copy it out as with the synoptics. John's gospel, by the way is not the original document. It has been edited and rearranged by at least one person other than the author.
And this is, in part, because scholars don't necessarily believe with you - including non-religious scholars.
I don't think any historian would assess the gospels of having any real historicity. As soon as you get to "anonymous author and unknown source" it's game over.
-
A) a person who repents in the definition and understanding of the New Testament writers has in fact accepted a truth that went against their existent belief. So it is not Christians who are wanting in the 'can you change your mind'' stakes.
Come on now Strawboy you said 'Eusabius states that much was orthodox but there was some stuff which could support Docetism so I can see why it might not have made the canon', you've shot your load on this one.
B) You are being plainly silly. If you seek to produce a book on orthodox Christianity you are no more going to have heterodox views in it than Christopher Hitchens is going to let the Dalai lama, The pope or the chief Rabbi have a chapter in ''God is not Great''
You are confirming what I already accused you of, I don't have any beliefs in magic, the Pope can write in any book that takes his fancy for all I care.
Your post is completely non sequitur to what I wrote and makes you look like a completely unreasonable bigot.
I suspect you don't actually know what the words mean that sentence. Explain the logic why, if proven, a non-sequitur would make me a bigot?
-
Post later in the day when you have woken up, Len.
I have no intention of prolonging this sterile exchange. It is a complete waste of time and energy on my part, and will achieve no improvement in your potty views.
I see others are more than ready to put you right.
-
Matthew and Luke (and probably John) had the text of Mark in front of them and literally copied it, making a few changes.
OK, I accept that much of Matthew's and Mark's accounts (in this case, with the feeding of the 5000) appear to be the same. However, Mark mentions something that Matthew and Luke don't. He says the disciples comment that it would take eight months' wages to buy food for the people. John tells us it was Phillip who said this.
If you think Matthew was copying Mark and simply left this detail out, how do you account for another difference in the detail: they both say "when Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them..."
Matthew then says, "...and healed their sick"
Mark says, "...because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things".
So, whoever copied the other, they still have access to different eyewitnesses, one who remembers Jesus healing the sick, the other who remembers Jesus teaching the people. So my point still stands. The four gospels verify each other because they add details to the others, apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses.
(For another example of this, Mark records the people sitting down in groups of hundreds and fifties)
-
Alien,
As should all claims, including yours?
Of course. I try to make arguments rather than assert claims, but yes - treat then sceptically until you've tested the logic, and then respond accordingly.
Spiffing. Me too.
So what?
So everything. What unique set of forensic tools is it that you think christians possess, but those of other faiths with equally involved academic traditions do not?
None that I know of. What I would say is that I have looked in depth at Islam and found its claims wanting. As I have explained elsewhere, its veracity depends solely on one person, Mohammed, who claimed to have heard from Gabriel stuff he had to learn off by heart.
What have you found during your own in-depth study of Islam?
Nope.
Yep.
I've not claimed that my approval says that.
Then why bring lurid stories of sleeping with a 9-year-old into it?
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9. Have a look at what Islam accepts that Mohammed did and tell me whether you would think him a reliable witness for passing on God's commands to mankind.
What I am claiming is that I have (long ago) looked at Islam in great depth and found it wanting.
And doubtless many muslims have looked at christianity and found it wanting too. Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?
I did with a couple and they are now Christians (though they were not overly keen on Islam when I met them, in all fairness). You seem to think after all that you're possessed of investigatory tools that they lack - just pass them on, and you'll convert the world of Islam overnight!
I'll do it after you have passed on your own method of reasoning to us Christians. You'll convert the world of Christianity overnight.[/quote]
Or could it just be instead that what's actually happening here is that you're more comfortable with your faith beliefs, just as they're more comfortable with their faith beliefs? [/quote]And you are more comfortable being an athiest?
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
Are you sure it wasn't the bus that brought them?
Yes, they had walked.
...who asked the churchwardens, "Is there anyone who can tell us more about Jesus?" One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends. Alleluiah!
Ah, the old "I'll use an anecdote as if that it some way conveyed a larger truth" schtick. You're Alan Burns and I claim my £5!
Nope. You seemed to be saying that Muslims are impervious to the sort of argument that I (and many others) try to use. The above was one happy example of where that was not the case.[/quote]
God is good.
Not for countless of his creatures that live in terror and die in pain he isn't. Or how about the baby with brain cancer? Is this god of yours "good" only when he feels like it or something?
Sounds pretty scummy to me I'm afraid. [/quote]The problem of pain and evil is a heart-rending one for everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike. However, the existence of real evil is not a problem, philosophically-wise. It is possible to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a good God. Physical pain hurts as much whether you are a Christian or not. However, the Christian knows that there is a point to it all.
We are seeing them down in London in October. Shall I pass on your regards?
You could do, though you'd be doing more for them if instead you tried sharing some of the tools of reason and scepticism that would show them - and you - to be barking up the wrong tree.
In your opinion, old fruit, in your opinion.
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Get a room.
-
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?
Long story.
One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends.
They were lovely before their conversion, right?
Why do you ask?
-
What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?
Greek mythology
Why? What other books of Greek mythology speak of stuff going on in Palestine? Which Greek gods are involved in Mark's gospel?
-
What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?
Greek mythology
Why?
It's written in Greek and it is mythology. I thought that much would be obvious even if you don't agree that it is myth.
What other books of Greek mythology speak of stuff going on in Palestine? Which Greek gods are involved in Mark's gospel?
You're not seriously going to try to build an argument for historicity based on my genre attribution are you? You must be desperate.
-
What genre would you say Mark's gospel is?
Greek mythology
Why?
It's written in Greek and it is mythology. I thought that much would be obvious even if you don't agree that it is myth.
What other books of Greek mythology speak of stuff going on in Palestine? Which Greek gods are involved in Mark's gospel?
You're not seriously going to try to build an argument for historicity based on my genre attribution are you? You must be desperate.
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
Have a nice evening. Off to watch the Spooks film.
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
-
bluehillside: laying down the smack since ... whenever he first signed up to the forum.
Get a room.
Jealousy is a terrible thing! :)
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
Oh right, I understand: religious propaganda.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
Oh right, I understand: religious propaganda.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
I think Alien would agree that the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Egyptians, loads of them around all making contradictory claims are not historically accurate. To resolve the contradictions there is the Gospel of Alien. :)
-
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?
Long story.
Evasion noted.
One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends.
They were lovely before their conversion, right?
Why do you ask?
I'm just checking they were considered lovely before their conversion.
-
Alien,
Of course. I try to make arguments rather than assert claims, but yes - treat then sceptically until you've tested the logic, and then respond accordingly.
Spiffing. Me too.
Do you actually believe that? To be fair, you’re less prone to just throwing out unargued assertions than the Alan Burns’s, Sassys etc of the parish and less prone to just posting strings of logical fallacies than is Hope (and for that matter less given to using personal insult when you’re stumped as Vlad does), but l’m still surprised that you think your position to be argument-based. Faith-based for sure, but your arguments still tend to descend fairly quickly to personal incredulity (the resurrection), assertion (objective morality) and anecdote (converted muslims). And that’s before we even get to the disconnect of trying to demonstrate a supernatural god with the naturalistic tools of reason and evidence.
So everything. What unique set of forensic tools is it that you think christians possess, but those of other faiths with equally involved academic traditions do not?
None that I know of. What I would say is that I have looked in depth at Islam and found its claims wanting. As I have explained elsewhere, its veracity depends solely on one person, Mohammed, who claimed to have heard from Gabriel stuff he had to learn off by heart.
Think about what you just said there. On the one hand you say you have no forensic tools that scholars of other faiths don’t have, and on the other you’ve also said that somehow you’ve figured out that they’re wrong and you’re right.
Both of those statements can’t be true. If you don’t know something they don’t know, what makes you think that you’re right and they’re wrong?
What have you found during your own in-depth study of Islam?
What have you found during your in-depth study of the 100,000 or more other god narratives that are available to you?
Surely the point is to look at the foundational premises that underpin all god stories, none of which are coherent or robust and all of which are explicable as aspects of human psychology.
Then why bring lurid stories of sleeping with a 9-year-old into it?
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9. Have a look at what Islam accepts that Mohammed did and tell me whether you would think him a reliable witness for passing on God's commands to mankind.
First, these are all stories – there’s no way of knowing which if any of them actually happened.
Second, you’re applying 21st century morality to 14th century behaviours. These days Romeo would be on a register for his dalliance with 14-year-old Juliet. Does that make him a paedophile too?
Third, as I understand it christianity is full of stories of divine visitations to “wretched sinners” and the like. Should we discount all of them too because of the sinfulness of the visited who reported them, or do you apply special pleading in those cases?
Fourth, ad hominem is a basic logical mistake.
Apart from that though…
And doubtless many muslims have looked at christianity and found it wanting too. Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?
I did with a couple and they are now Christians (though they were not overly keen on Islam when I met them, in all fairness).
And some christians have converted to Islam too. Claiming that “god is good” when they go one way and that people are gullible and persuadable when they go the other way is just special pleading. Lots of people can be persuaded to believe lots of things with no need for there to be a word of truth to any of it.
You seem to think after all that you're possessed of investigatory tools that they lack - just pass them on, and you'll convert the world of Islam overnight!
I'll do it after you have passed on your own method of reasoning to us Christians. You'll convert the world of Christianity overnight.
How would you propose someone be reasoned out of a position they haven’t reasoned their way into?
The minute the theist descends into logical fallacy for his position, there’s no arguing him out of it. The best some of us can do is to point out that they are relying on fallacious reasoning but, as you’ll have seen from my exchanges with Alan Burns, the effort tends to fall on deaf ears nonetheless.
Or could it just be instead that what's actually happening here is that you're more comfortable with your faith beliefs, just as they're more comfortable with their faith beliefs?
And you are more comfortable being an athiest?
Yes, but that’s neither a faith nor a belief. (Cue Vlad going completely off the rails with his naturalistic philosophy schtick again…)
Are you sure it wasn't the bus that brought them?
Yes, they had walked.
So not “God” then?
Ah, the old "I'll use an anecdote as if that it some way conveyed a larger truth" schtick. You're Alan Burns and I claim my £5!
Nope. You seemed to be saying that Muslims are impervious to the sort of argument that I (and many others) try to use. The above was one happy example of where that was not the case.
I’m saying no such thing. What I am saying though is that you’re fond of using anecdote as if it were in some way illustrative of a larger principle or truth – a bit like telling me that your 100-year-old granny smoked 20 a day all her life, therefore cigarettes are good for you.
Not for countless of his creatures that live in terror and die in pain he isn't. Or how about the baby with brain cancer? Is this god of yours "good" only when he feels like it or something?[
Sounds pretty scummy to me I'm afraid.
The problem of pain and evil is a heart-rending one for everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike. However, the existence of real evil is not a problem, philosophically-wise. It is possible to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a good God. Physical pain hurts as much whether you are a Christian or not. However, the Christian knows that there is a point to it all.
Such casuistry! Of course it’s a problem – if you want to claim an omnibenevolent god, then bad things happening to good people contradicts that. Just falling back on “it’s a mystery”, “He has a plan nonetheless” etc is a cop out. As the observable facts are just as you’d expect them to be with no god at all, you can’t just claim a benevolent god and then shrug your shoulders with a “dunno” when the facts say otherwise.
You could do, though you'd be doing more for them if instead you tried sharing some of the tools of reason and scepticism that would show them - and you - to be barking up the wrong tree.
In your opinion, old fruit, in your opinion.
No, “opinion” unsupported by reason or evidence would be “faith”. When the position is supported by reason and evidence though, then that opinion stands until and unless better reasoning changes it.
-
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9.
And the god you believe in allowed him to rob caravans, kill another man and sleep with his wife the same day and rape a 9 year old. But of course...
...the Christian knows that there is a point to it all.
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
Oh right, I understand: religious propaganda.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
Why are you pretty sure of that. Let us in on the secret, eh?
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
Oh right, I understand: religious propaganda.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
I think Alien would agree that the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Egyptians, loads of them around all making contradictory claims are not historically accurate. To resolve the contradictions there is the Gospel of Alien. :)
You seem to be struggling to say anything sensible these last few days, jakswan. Do you have a particular problem?
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
Oh right, I understand: religious propaganda.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
Why are you pretty sure of that. Let us in on the secret, eh?
I have been doing on this thread already. I suggest you go back and reread my earlier posts.
While you are doing that, perhaps you'd like to tell us about the evidence that leads you to believe the Gospel of Mark to be historical. As far as I can see, there isn't any.
-
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?
Long story.
Evasion noted.
Let me clarify my previous statement. To accept that God had brought them to our church would require you to accept that God exists. That would be a necessary requirement (though not sufficient). Do you want to start yet another discussion on whether God exists? I don't, at least not here.
One specifically designed Alpha course later we had two lovely Christian ex-Muslim friends.
They were lovely before their conversion, right?
Why do you ask?
I'm just checking they were considered lovely before their conversion.
By whom?
-
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
What do you mean by 'historically accurate', jeremy? Are you referring to a chronological accuracy, or to an event accuracy? If you're referring to the former, then I doubt whether many mainstream Christians would disagree with you. In fact, I don't think that any of the Gospel writers claim that their record is chronologically accurate. If the latter, do you have any evidence that the events didn't happen, or is this just another of your pretty irrelevant personal opinions?
-
I have been doing on this thread already. I suggest you go back and reread my earlier posts.
While you are doing that, perhaps you'd like to tell us about the evidence that leads you to believe the Gospel of Mark to be historical. As far as I can see, there isn't any.
And you have yet to show that any of your arguments on this hold water.
-
Hope,
I think Jeremy is referring to the latter: event accuracy. To be honest I understand his viewpoint and agree that the things Jesus is reported to have done don't warrent belief, apart from an understanding of why he did them. (I don't agree that the gospels are religious propaganda though. As well as setting down what happened, they also explain why it happened). Maybe that's why the Holy spirit convicts people of sin- because without that, Jesus won't mean much.
-
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
What do you mean by 'historically accurate', jeremy? Are you referring to a chronological accuracy, or to an event accuracy? If you're referring to the former, then I doubt whether many mainstream Christians would disagree with you. In fact, I don't think that any of the Gospel writers claim that their record is chronologically accurate. If the latter, do you have any evidence that the events didn't happen, or is this just another of your pretty irrelevant personal opinions?
I have evidence the events didn't happen, the other Gospels since, they are contradictory.
I didn't realise that many mainstream Christians didn't think the Gospels were chronologically accurate!
So the events are just in random order? Was Jesus born after he died... what am I thinking that would be silly, there again he did magic and shit so maybe not.
-
Alien,
Of course. I try to make arguments rather than assert claims, but yes - treat then sceptically until you've tested the logic, and then respond accordingly.
Spiffing. Me too.
Do you actually believe that? To be fair, you’re less prone to just throwing out unargued assertions than the Alan Burns’s, Sassys etc of the parish and less prone to just posting strings of logical fallacies than is Hope (and for that matter less given to using personal insult when you’re stumped as Vlad does), but l’m still surprised that you think your position to be argument-based. Faith-based for sure, but your arguments still tend to descend fairly quickly to personal incredulity (the resurrection), assertion (objective morality) and anecdote (converted muslims). And that’s before we even get to the disconnect of trying to demonstrate a supernatural god with the naturalistic tools of reason and evidence.
Your statement demonstrates some of the problems in your approach. Thank you for the (sort of) compliment, but my arguments for the Resurrection are not based on personal incredulity, my arguments about objective morality are not based on mere assertion (but demonstrate the choice of either there being no objective morality and hence nothing has a moral obligation on you and me or that there is objective morality and there needing to be a basis for it) and my account of two Muslims becoming Christians is not meant to demonstrate the existence of God, but was an aside in a post where I was responding to the claim that I was unable to differentiate between claims in the Bible and other holy books.
So everything. What unique set of forensic tools is it that you think christians possess, but those of other faiths with equally involved academic traditions do not?
None that I know of. What I would say is that I have looked in depth at Islam and found its claims wanting. As I have explained elsewhere, its veracity depends solely on one person, Mohammed, who claimed to have heard from Gabriel stuff he had to learn off by heart.
Think about what you just said there. On the one hand you say you have no forensic tools that scholars of other faiths don’t have, and on the other you’ve also said that somehow you’ve figured out that they’re wrong and you’re right.
Both of those statements can’t be true. If you don’t know something they don’t know, what makes you think that you’re right and they’re wrong?
You seem to misunderstand me (or are otherwise confused). Having the same tools does not mean that people will necessarily come to the same conclusion. Surely you understand that, don't you. People can misuse the evidence they have. That is what some Global Flooders do. They claim to have scientific evidence of a global flood, yet are incorrect in their conclusions. Similarly economists can come to different conclusions. Have you ever studied Islam in depth? I have, but have you? Please answer me on this, because if you have not then I would suggest you need to do so before telling me that I am not capable of determining whether the claims of Islam are indistinguishable from those of Christianity, particularly in what their holy books claim.
What have you found during your own in-depth study of Islam?
What have you found during your in-depth study of the 100,000 or more other god narratives that are available to you?
Surely the point is to look at the foundational premises that underpin all god stories, none of which are coherent or robust and all of which are explicable as aspects of human psychology.
Not here. It is not necessary to have read all 100,000 or more other god narratives to:
i) come to the reasonable conclusion that Islam is fundamentally wrong.
ii) come to the reasonable conclusion that Christianity is fundamentally right.
For i), I have already given some basic info, which you have not actually interacted with yet. Until you do that I will not waste my time supplying more info.
For ii), you and I disagree fundamentally about Christianity, but if something demonstrated Christianity (or some other world view) is correct, then it does not need anyone to look at all the rest to know that that world view is correct. For example, if, for the sake of argument, it can be demonstrated that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and what he says is true, then if he says A and another religion claims something incompatible with A, then the other religion must be false (at least on that point).
Then why bring lurid stories of sleeping with a 9-year-old into it?
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9. Have a look at what Islam accepts that Mohammed did and tell me whether you would think him a reliable witness for passing on God's commands to mankind.
First, these are all stories – there’s no way of knowing which if any of them actually happened.
<sigh/>It does not need to have happened. Islam holds Mohammed to be the supreme example of how to live. Some years ago I spent many hours discussing with a Muslim online (an Osama Bin Laden fan) who said that Mohammed never sinned (and that you should wipe your bum with an odd number of stones rather than use toilet paper!). If that is mainstream Muslim view then, if having sex with a 9 year old is morally wrong, then we have an example of a so-called sinless person sinning. If he did really have sex with the 9 year old then he actually sinned; if it never actually happened, we still have a religion holding up as the prime example of living who is depicted as a sinner. That is all. This is not complicated.
Second, you’re applying 21st century morality to 14th century behaviours. These days Romeo would be on a register for his dalliance with 14-year-old Juliet. Does that make him a paedophile too?
I don't know. However, Romeo is not being held up as an example for us to follow by a religion and she was 5 years old so, on two accounts, that is not a very good analogy.
Third, as I understand it christianity is full of stories of divine visitations to “wretched sinners” and the like. Should we discount all of them too because of the sinfulness of the visited who reported them, or do you apply special pleading in those cases?
Again, this is not relevant and you would understand better if you had a better understanding of Christianity and at least a basic understanding of Islam. Hence my question to you about whether you have ever looked at Islam in depth.
Yes, in the Bible God is involved with lots of "wretched sinners", but their behaviour is not held up as the behaviour we should imitate. Come on, BHS, this is dead simple stuff.
Fourth, ad hominem is a basic logical mistake.
Yet again, you have misunderstood and would, hopefully, not do so if you had a basic understanding of Islam, the religion you tell me I am unable to compare properly with Christianity.
Look, as I have said above and which I will repeat now in the hope that you will see that you do not yet have the understanding of Islam to make the claims above, Mohammed is held up as the example for Muslims to follow in everything (except the number of wives, apparently). Islam relies totally on whether Mohammed was used by God to give his final revelation to mankind. If Mohammed was not a suitable person to do that, e.g. if he was a liar, mentally unstable, was a rapist, was a paedophile or whatever, then that means there is no good reason to accept the Quran as God's word. It is that simple. Islam relies totally on Mohammed.
Apart from that though…
And doubtless many muslims have looked at christianity and found it wanting too. Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?
I did with a couple and they are now Christians (though they were not overly keen on Islam when I met them, in all fairness).
And some christians have converted to Islam too. Claiming that “god is good” when they go one way and that people are gullible and persuadable when they go the other way is just special pleading. Lots of people can be persuaded to believe lots of things with no need for there to be a word of truth to any of it.
Yes, some Christians become atheists and think they are following reason.
My point was not that the those two becoming Christians demonstrates that Christianity is correct. You said, "Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?" I gave an example where I did just that (except that they themselves came calling). If you didn't actually mean anything by your, "Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?", why write it?
You seem to think after all that you're possessed of investigatory tools that they lack - just pass them on, and you'll convert the world of Islam overnight!
I'll do it after you have passed on your own method of reasoning to us Christians. You'll convert the world of Christianity overnight.
How would you propose someone be reasoned out of a position they haven’t reasoned their way into?
Oh look, BHS claims that Christians have not come to Christianity by following reason. Certainly some (many?) have not, but plenty have. It was a large part of my conversion and of some people with bigger brains than I have.
The minute the theist descends into logical fallacy for his position, there’s no arguing him out of it. The best some of us can do is to point out that they are relying on fallacious reasoning but, as you’ll have seen from my exchanges with Alan Burns, the effort tends to fall on deaf ears nonetheless.
There you go again. Straw man. Of course, if a person (theist, atheist or whatever) "descends into logical fallacy" there is a problem. You assume that this is what all Christians do, yet cannot see the logical fallacies of your own position.
Or could it just be instead that what's actually happening here is that you're more comfortable with your faith beliefs, just as they're more comfortable with their faith beliefs?
And you are more comfortable being an athiest?
Yes, but that’s neither a faith nor a belief. (Cue Vlad going completely off the rails with his naturalistic philosophy schtick again…)
Yes, it is a belief. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God/god. Weak atheism (your position I gather) is that there is insufficient evidence to believe that there is a God/god.
Are you sure it wasn't the bus that brought them?
Yes, they had walked.
So not “God” then?
God got them to walk there. :)
Ah, the old "I'll use an anecdote as if that it some way conveyed a larger truth" schtick. You're Alan Burns and I claim my £5!
Nope. You seemed to be saying that Muslims are impervious to the sort of argument that I (and many others) try to use. The above was one happy example of where that was not the case.
I’m saying no such thing. What I am saying though is that you’re fond of using anecdote as if it were in some way illustrative of a larger principle or truth – a bit like telling me that your 100-year-old granny smoked 20 a day all her life, therefore cigarettes are good for you.
You might be correct. Which other anecdotes have I used, bearing in mind I am "fond of using anecdote as if it were in some way illustrative of a larger principle or truth"?
Not for countless of his creatures that live in terror and die in pain he isn't. Or how about the baby with brain cancer? Is this god of yours "good" only when he feels like it or something?[
Sounds pretty scummy to me I'm afraid.
The problem of pain and evil is a heart-rending one for everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike. However, the existence of real evil is not a problem, philosophically-wise. It is possible to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a good God. Physical pain hurts as much whether you are a Christian or not. However, the Christian knows that there is a point to it all.
Such casuistry! Of course it’s a problem – if you want to claim an omnibenevolent god, then bad things happening to good people contradicts that. Just falling back on “it’s a mystery”, “He has a plan nonetheless” etc is a cop out. As the observable facts are just as you’d expect them to be with no god at all, you can’t just claim a benevolent god and then shrug your shoulders with a “dunno” when the facts say otherwise.
Oh look, another straw man. I am not shrugging my shoulders. For starters, the existence of evil does not demonstrate the non-existence of loving God.Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks to me like you are relying on "personal incredulity". You say, "As the observable facts are just as you’d expect them to be with no god at all." You will surely be aware that this does not itself imply that there is no God (loving or not). You need to demonstrate that the observable facts show there is not god at all, not just that it is compatible with there being no god at all. You were speaking earlier of Christians and logical fallacies. You've got into one yourself here. I realise that some of your atheist friends here won't understand the difference, but surely you yourself do.
You could do, though you'd be doing more for them if instead you tried sharing some of the tools of reason and scepticism that would show them - and you - to be barking up the wrong tree.
In your opinion, old fruit, in your opinion.
No, “opinion” unsupported by reason or evidence would be “faith”. When the position is supported by reason and evidence though, then that opinion stands until and unless better reasoning changes it.
OK, support your claim with reason or evidence.
-
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9.
And the god you believe in allowed him to rob caravans, kill another man and sleep with his wife the same day and rape a 9 year old. But of course...
What is the point you are trying to make?
-
No, just pointing out that Mark's gospel doesn't fit at all into that genre (assuming you were serious, which I don't think you were).
How about religious fiction then?
Nope. Try again. What did Mark intend it to be?
Oh right, I understand: religious propaganda.
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
Why are you pretty sure of that. Let us in on the secret, eh?
I have been doing on this thread already. I suggest you go back and reread my earlier posts.
I have read your earlier posts, but all I can see is that you think Mark grouping things in threes (a literary device) implies that they are not to be taken as actual fact. Even there you waffled.
While you are doing that, perhaps you'd like to tell us about the evidence that leads you to believe the Gospel of Mark to be historical. As far as I can see, there isn't any.
That is not what I am actually claiming. What I claimed is that Mark intended us to take it as actual fact. That leaves aside whether he was correct in his statements.
In response to my request in #740 to tell us what genre you think Mark's gospel is, you have said, "Greek mythology" (#750), then showed your ignorance of what Greek mythology is in #827 ("It's written in Greek and it is mythology.") then "Religious fiction" (#829) then "Religious propaganda" (#832).
The Synoptic Gospels (at least) are closest in genre to "Greco-Roman biographies". Dicky Underpants might like to chip in here as I don't think he agrees, but from the comparisons I have seen in "Four Gospels, One Christ" by Richard Burridge that would seem to be the most sensible conclusion. If that is correct then Mark intended us to believe that he was writing fact. As I say, that does not, per se, mean that Mark was accurate in his account, but it does tell us how to read the gospel.
Do you disagree? If so, please explain why. Ta.
-
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?
Long story.
Evasion noted.
Let me clarify my previous statement. To accept that God had brought them to our church would require you to accept that God exists. That would be a necessary requirement (though not sufficient). Do you want to start yet another discussion on whether God exists? I don't, at least not here.
It doesn't matter. I could be a deist, heck I could even be a theist who believes a god intervenes in the world but just doesn't know how to determine when, and still ask.
I'm just checking they were considered lovely before their conversion.
By whom?
Well you said it so I'm asking you and not Margaret or whoever sits next to you in church.
-
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9.
And the god you believe in allowed him to rob caravans, kill another man and sleep with his wife the same day and rape a 9 year old. But of course...
What is the point you are trying to make?
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
-
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
What do you mean by 'historically accurate', jeremy? Are you referring to a chronological accuracy, or to an event accuracy? If you're referring to the former, then I doubt whether many mainstream Christians would disagree with you. In fact, I don't think that any of the Gospel writers claim that their record is chronologically accurate. If the latter, do you have any evidence that the events didn't happen, or is this just another of your pretty irrelevant personal opinions?
I have evidence the events didn't happen, the other Gospels since, they are contradictory.
Would you be OK with me starting a new thread and quoting you there to this efffect?
I didn't realise that many mainstream Christians didn't think the Gospels were chronologically accurate!
So the events are just in random order? Was Jesus born after he died... what am I thinking that would be silly, there again he did magic and shit so maybe not.
Grow up. Some stuff is arranged thematically. If you didn't realise that, perhaps it would not be a good idea to brag about your ignorance.
-
Hope,
I think Jeremy is referring to the latter: event accuracy. To be honest I understand his viewpoint and agree that the things Jesus is reported to have done don't warrent belief, apart from an understanding of why he did them. (I don't agree that the gospels are religious propaganda though. As well as setting down what happened, they also explain why it happened).
You seem confused, Spud: on one hand you say that you understand the view that some NT events don't 'warrant belief', which seems like an acknowledgement that the NT may not be wholly reliable, and then you suggest you have an 'understanding' that assumes these events did occur.
There is also the question of the range of claims surrounding events. Take the feeding of thousands miracle that has been mentioned here recently, and in relation to this event I'd say there seem to be two aspects to consider.
1. That there was a real person on which the character of Jesus is based, and that this person was a charismatic preacher who attracted audiences. This may be true in a trivial sense, in that there were such people routinely doing this sort of thing, so that even if the precise details aren't known this NT story may have a basis in actual events.
2. The audience numbered thousands and they were all fed from meagre rations. This aspect isn't trivial since there are the two specific elements:the size of the estimated audience and the miracle claims, where both of these are susceptible to propaganda to the extent that there is a clear risk that these aspects of this story may be fictitious embellishment.
On what basis have you eliminated the known risk of human artifice being a factor in this case?
-
Would you be OK with me starting a new thread and quoting you there to this efffect?
What again?
Grow up. Some stuff is arranged thematically. If you didn't realise that, perhaps it would not be a good idea to brag about your ignorance.
No you grow up silly billy, lighten up Alien twas tongue in cheek.
Hoppity seemed to suggest that many mainstream Christians think the Gospels are not chronologically accurate.
You agree with this statement?
-
but from the comparisons I have seen in "Four Gospels, One Christ" by Richard Burridge that would seem to be the most sensible conclusion. If that is correct then Mark intended us to believe that he was writing fact. As I say, that does not, per se, mean that Mark was accurate in his account, but it does tell us how to read the gospel.
The Gospels are unique, which is still widespread among biblical scholars.
-
You seem confused, Spud: on one hand you say that you understand the view that some NT events don't 'warrant belief', which seems like an acknowledgement that the NT may not be wholly reliable,
It is an acknowledgement that the default position on miracles is skepticism.
and then you suggest you have an 'understanding' that assumes these events did occur.
My understanding of what, according to Mark, happened and why, according to Mark, it happened, confirms, rather than assumes, that these events did occur.
-
You seem confused, Spud: on one hand you say that you understand the view that some NT events don't 'warrant belief', which seems like an acknowledgement that the NT may not be wholly reliable,
It is an acknowledgement that the default position on miracles is skepticism.
and then you suggest you have an 'understanding' that assumes these events did occur.
My understanding of what, according to Mark, happened and why, according to Mark, it happened, confirms, rather than assumes, that these events did occur.
How do you know, as opposed to accept on a personal basis, that those involved in the writing of Mark weren't fabricating bits of it?
-
As it happened that was just before God brought two Muslims into our church one day...
How do you determine that it was a god who brought them?
Long story.
Evasion noted.
Let me clarify my previous statement. To accept that God had brought them to our church would require you to accept that God exists. That would be a necessary requirement (though not sufficient). Do you want to start yet another discussion on whether God exists? I don't, at least not here.
It doesn't matter. I could be a deist, heck I could even be a theist who believes a god intervenes in the world but just doesn't know how to determine when, and still ask.
2 Chronicles 7:14 says, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 1 Timothy 2:4 says, "(God) who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Stuff like that seems to indicate that when they asked God to guide he did.
I'm just checking they were considered lovely before their conversion.
By whom?
Well you said it so I'm asking you and not Margaret or whoever sits next to you in church.
I hardly knew them before they became Christians. They certainly seemed nice. Why are you so interested? In my post I said that they were/are lovely Christians.
-
It was part of attempting to show that the person on whom Islam depends entirely was a caravan-robbing man who killed another man and slept with the dead man's wife that same day and who also got engaged to a 6 year old, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9.
And the god you believe in allowed him to rob caravans, kill another man and sleep with his wife the same day and rape a 9 year old. But of course...
What is the point you are trying to make?
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
-
Would you be OK with me starting a new thread and quoting you there to this efffect?
What again?
Yes, in the past you have spoken about the gospels having discrepancies. I'm encouraged that have cut out the waffle and are making a worthwhile claim about contradictions. If you think there are contradictions, please specify some.
Grow up. Some stuff is arranged thematically. If you didn't realise that, perhaps it would not be a good idea to brag about your ignorance.
No you grow up silly billy, lighten up Alien twas tongue in cheek.
Some light stuff is very welcome, but you seem to be doing mostly that these days. In the past you used to hold some serious discussions.
Hoppity seemed to suggest that many mainstream Christians think the Gospels are not chronologically accurate.
You agree with this statement?
No, I do not agree that he was claiming that. What I think he was claiming (and Hope can confirm or deny) that some stuff in the gospels is arranged thematically rather than all chronologically. For example, Mark starts with Jesus' baptism and ends with his death and resurrection. Some of the stuff is arranged thematically.
To complain about it not being "chronologically accurate" is as sensible as claiming that http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php#c2 is not chronologically accurate.
-
but from the comparisons I have seen in "Four Gospels, One Christ" by Richard Burridge that would seem to be the most sensible conclusion. If that is correct then Mark intended us to believe that he was writing fact. As I say, that does not, per se, mean that Mark was accurate in his account, but it does tell us how to read the gospel.
The Gospels are unique, which is still widespread among biblical scholars.
Please quote your sources.
-
It doesn't matter. I could be a deist, heck I could even be a theist who believes a god intervenes in the world but just doesn't know how to determine when, and still ask.
2 Chronicles 7:14 says, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 1 Timothy 2:4 says, "(God) who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Stuff like that seems to indicate that when they asked God to guide he did.
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
I hardly knew them before they became Christians. They certainly seemed nice. Why are you so interested? In my post I said that they were/are lovely Christians.
I'm just buffering my belief that you consider people to be lovely regardless of whether they are Christian or not. Sometimes you're very "us and them", so it needs a nudge.
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
-
It doesn't matter. I could be a deist, heck I could even be a theist who believes a god intervenes in the world but just doesn't know how to determine when, and still ask.
2 Chronicles 7:14 says, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 1 Timothy 2:4 says, "(God) who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Stuff like that seems to indicate that when they asked God to guide he did.
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story"). Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?
I hardly knew them before they became Christians. They certainly seemed nice. Why are you so interested? In my post I said that they were/are lovely Christians.
I'm just buffering my belief that you consider people to be lovely regardless of whether they are Christian or not. Sometimes you're very "us and them", so it needs a nudge.
OK, buffer away.
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
-
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story"). Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?
I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
-
Yes, in the past you have spoken about the gospels having discrepancies. I'm encouraged that have cut out the waffle and are making a worthwhile claim about contradictions. If you think there are contradictions, please specify some.
We discussed this some time back looked at the definition, e.g. something that is inconsistent is contradictory, and it was left there as I recall. I don't think there is much point in going over things again.
Some light stuff is very welcome, but you seem to be doing mostly that these days. In the past you used to hold some serious discussions.
Quite happy to discuss objective morality, fine tuning, kalam, old boy, you seem to have parked those. You seem to focus on the Bible which in turn ends up being about theology.
No, I do not agree that he was claiming that. What I think he was claiming (and Hope can confirm or deny) that some stuff in the gospels is arranged thematically rather than all chronologically. For example, Mark starts with Jesus' baptism and ends with his death and resurrection. Some of the stuff is arranged thematically.
To complain about it not being "chronologically accurate" is as sensible as claiming that http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php#c2 is not chronologically accurate.
I agree perhaps Hop will clarify his statement.
-
How do you know, as opposed to accept on a personal basis, that those involved in the writing of Mark weren't fabricating bits of it?
By the way the three other evangelists verify Mark, by adding details apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses. See #821.
-
How do you know, as opposed to accept on a personal basis, that those involved in the writing of Mark weren't fabricating bits of it?
By the way the three other evangelists verify Mark, by adding details apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses. See #821.
Same question: how do you know that there isn't fabrication involved?
-
Alien,
Your statement demonstrates some of the problems in your approach. Thank you for the (sort of) compliment, but my arguments for the Resurrection are not based on personal incredulity…
On the contrary. When it's pointed out that there is any number of possible naturalistic explanations for the story, your response is, “what are the chances of that then?”. That’s what the argument from personal incredulity is.
…my arguments about objective morality are not based on mere assertion (but demonstrate the choice of either there being no objective morality and hence nothing has a moral obligation on you and me or that there is objective morality and there needing to be a basis for it)
“Moral obligation” (ie, why we behave as we do) is readily explicable without inventing OM, and you precisely assert OM into existence in any case by insisting that (in some so far unexplained way) lots of people sharing a specific moral opinion means it must also be objectively true.
That’s what argument by assertion is.
…and my account of two Muslims becoming Christians is not meant to demonstrate the existence of God, but was an aside in a post where I was responding to the claim that I was unable to differentiate between claims in the Bible and other holy books.
Yet after the anecdote you added a “God is good!” to imply that a god did it.
That’s what generalising from the anecdotal is.
Apart from that though….
You seem to misunderstand me (or are otherwise confused). Having the same tools does not mean that people will necessarily come to the same conclusion. Surely you understand that, don't you. People can misuse the evidence they have. That is what some Global Flooders do. They claim to have scientific evidence of a global flood, yet are incorrect in their conclusions. Similarly economists can come to different conclusions.
Doesn’t wash. You claim to have reasoned your way to Islam being wrong and the faith with which you happen to be most familiar being right. I merely ask what tools or method you have to do that that have escaped the attention of countless muslim scholars over the centuries to give you such remarkable confidence in your finding.
Have you ever studied Islam in depth? I have, but have you? Please answer me on this, because if you have not then I would suggest you need to do so before telling me that I am not capable of determining whether the claims of Islam are indistinguishable from those of Christianity, particularly in what their holy books claim.
I didn’t say that the claims of Islam are indistinguishable from those of Christianity – of course they’re not. The content of their medieval superstitions are clearly different from the content of your iron age superstitions. The foundational premises though are the same: deciding that a god is necessary to explain the otherwise inexplicable; the absence of a coherent definition of the deities, and the absence too of cogent arguments for their existence; dogma rather than developing understanding through testing and falsification; various miracle stories to convince the credulous; carrot and stick threats and promises to keep the cowed and gullible in thrall to the clerics etc.
Not here. It is not necessary to have read all 100,000 or more other god narratives to:
i) come to the reasonable conclusion that Islam is fundamentally wrong.
ii) come to the reasonable conclusion that Christianity is fundamentally right.
i) might well be a reasonable conclusion, but ii) is not. The point though is that you attempt to take me to task for not having an in-depth understanding of the window dressing of one faith rather than another. If you really think that to be relevant, then you have no choice but to apply the same “logic” to the window dressing of the countless other faiths – who’s to say that you wouldn’t find one or more of them to be more persuasive than the one you happen to have picked (and, by a remarkable co-incidence, are most enculturated to)?
Are you seriously suggesting that if you Alien, hadn’t been brought up in, say, Peshawar, you wouldn’t be making exactly the same claims about the truth/falseness of the two faiths mutatis mutandis?
Seriously?
For i), I have already given some basic info, which you have not actually interacted with yet. Until you do that I will not waste my time supplying more info.
You don’t need to provide info (let alone the ad hominem you actually provided). I can already reason my way to the finding that the truths of Islam are rationally unsupportable.
For ii), you and I disagree fundamentally about Christianity, but if something demonstrated Christianity (or some other world view) is correct, then it does not need anyone to look at all the rest to know that that world view is correct. For example, if, for the sake of argument, it can be demonstrated that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and what he says is true, then if he says A and another religion claims something incompatible with A, then the other religion must be false (at least on that point).
Sort of. First, you have no means of demonstrating such a thing. Second though, you’d also need to demonstrate that this “god” had somehow managed to eliminate the possibility of any other gods. Who’s to say that the Melanesian Tree Frog God hasn’t just made the christian god think he’s the only game in town?
<sigh/>It does not need to have happened. Islam holds Mohammed to be the supreme example of how to live. Some years ago I spent many hours discussing with a Muslim online (an Osama Bin Laden fan) who said that Mohammed never sinned (and that you should wipe your bum with an odd number of stones rather than use toilet paper!). If that is mainstream Muslim view then, if having sex with a 9 year old is morally wrong, then we have an example of a so-called sinless person sinning. If he did really have sex with the 9 year old then he actually sinned; if it never actually happened, we still have a religion holding up as the prime example of living who is depicted as a sinner. That is all. This is not complicated.
Bigger sigh. The point you’ve missed is that you attempted a character assassination on the basis of stories. Whether those stories lead to internal contradictions in the claims of muslims is a separate issue. I find the claims of Islam to be as bonkers as the claims of your faith, but bonkers or not you cannot dismiss one faith instead of another on the basis that its stories are all true.
I don't know. However, Romeo is not being held up as an example for us to follow by a religion and she was 5 years old so, on two accounts, that is not a very good analogy.
Of course it’s a good analogy – you tried your ad hominem by applying contemporary moral standards to a 14th century narrative. The use people then made of the players involved in those stories is a separate matter – all that’s being said here is that applying morality anachronistically is just bad thinking.
Again, this is not relevant and you would understand better if you had a better understanding of Christianity and at least a basic understanding of Islam. Hence my question to you about whether you have ever looked at Islam in depth.
Yes, in the Bible God is involved with lots of "wretched sinners", but their behaviour is not held up as the behaviour we should imitate. Come on, BHS, this is dead simple stuff.
Yet again, you miss the point. You invited us to dismiss Mohammed as a witness because of his (supposed) character traits in other areas of his life. That’s just bad reasoning for reasons I explained, and moreover it would rule out the credibility of various “sinners” from your faith who you do think to be reliable witnesses. Whether any of these people is being “held up as the behaviour we should imitate” is neither here nor there: the point you were attempting was that the witness credibility of one of them (but only one of them) fails because of his other character traits. And that point fails.
Come on Alien, this is dead simple stuff.
Yet again, you have misunderstood and would, hopefully, not do so if you had a basic understanding of Islam, the religion you tell me I am unable to compare properly with Christianity.
Yet again, no I haven’t but you have. You introduced lurid stories about a figure from Islam in an attempt to discredit that figure in other areas of his life. That’s what ad hominem is, and it’s just more bad thinking on your part.
Look, as I have said above and which I will repeat now in the hope that you will see that you do not yet have the understanding of Islam to make the claims above, Mohammed is held up as the example for Muslims to follow in everything (except the number of wives, apparently). Islam relies totally on whether Mohammed was used by God to give his final revelation to mankind. If Mohammed was not a suitable person to do that, e.g. if he was a liar, mentally unstable, was a rapist, was a paedophile or whatever, then that means there is no good reason to accept the Quran as God's word. It is that simple. Islam relies totally on Mohammed.
And still you’re completely missing the point. Mohammed may well be held up by muslims as an exemplar of moral rectitude, but even if you accept wholesale the stories about him, even if you apply anachronistically morality you happen to approve of, and even if you successfully discredit him with irrelevancies and casually indulge in a character assassination to boot, all of that would still have nothing whatever to say to whether or not his pronouncements were morally good or bad.
If a murderer says “murder is wrong” is “murder is wrong” thereby incorrect, or has he merely failed to adhere to his own moral opinion?
By all means critique Islam (or any other faith) if you wish, but playing the man rather than the ball really isn’t he way to do it.
Really.
Yes, some Christians become atheists and think they are following reason.
So Allah is good then, or will you treat us to more special pleading to get you off that hook?
My point was not that the those two becoming Christians demonstrates that Christianity is correct. You said, "Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?" I gave an example where I did just that (except that they themselves came calling). If you didn't actually mean anything by your, "Why not just give them a call to explain where they've gone wrong?", why write it?
Because you followed the anecdote with, “God is good!” Why did you do that if you didn’t think that the anecdote lead to that conclusion?
Oh look, BHS claims that Christians have not come to Christianity by following reason. Certainly some (many?) have not, but plenty have. It was a large part of my conversion and of some people with bigger brains than I have.
Yet that reason collapses into faith when you examine it. That’s why your and other faith claims are not taught as facts in schools (except some odd ones) but instead are taught only as, “these are the things that some people believe”. Funny that don’t you think, given the “reason” you think underpins your faith beliefs? Why would anyone treat your “reason” so radically differently from the reason used to support physics or maths or chemistry or geography or….
There you go again. Straw man. Of course, if a person (theist, atheist or whatever) "descends into logical fallacy" there is a problem. You assume that this is what all Christians do, yet cannot see the logical fallacies of your own position.
You find one and I’ll see it.
Good luck with that!
Yes, it is a belief. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God/god. Weak atheism (your position I gather) is that there is insufficient evidence to believe that there is a God/god.
First, as we’ve discussed before I don’t recognise the two types – so far as I know no-one says “there categorically can be no gods” and the “strong atheism” schtick sounds to me like an attempt by the religious to shift the burden of proof.
Second, what you (wrongly} describe as “weak” atheism is in fact the finding that all arguments made so far for an objectively true god are fallacious.
God got them to walk there.
Amazing innit the stuff you can casuistically retrofit to any observable fact at all. Besides, you’re clearly wrong about that – it was deffo the Nigerian Ant God who made them do it.
You might be correct. Which other anecdotes have I used, bearing in mind I am "fond of using anecdote as if it were in some way illustrative of a larger principle or truth"?
Resurrection stories? Lots of (though not all) people thinking that TACTDJFF is morally wrong?
Oh look, another straw man.
Let’s see shall we…
I am not shrugging my shoulders. For starters, the existence of evil does not demonstrate the non-existence of loving God.
It does if you think there to be an omnibenevolent and omniscient and omnipotent god, and the “it’s a mystery”, “He has a plan” etc schtick is precisely shrugging your shoulders.
Why not address the problem instead?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks to me like you are relying on "personal incredulity".
You’re corrected. It’s no such thing.
You say, "As the observable facts are just as you’d expect them to be with no god at all." You will surely be aware that this does not itself imply that there is no God (loving or not).
Yes I am, which is why I didn’t say that it does imply that there is no god. What I did imply though was, well, "As the observable facts are just as you’d expect them to be with no god at all" and that’s all. You know, the thing I actually said rather than your straw man version of it.
What it does do though is to give a pretty big logical problem for those who claim a god of the omnis – the problem you ducked.
You need to demonstrate that the observable facts show there is not god at all, not just that it is compatible with there being no god at all.
I need to do such thing. All I need to do is to show that the world is just as you’d expect it to be with no god at all, for example that bad things happen to good people and vice versa.
You were speaking earlier of Christians and logical fallacies. You've got into one yourself here. I realise that some of your atheist friends here won't understand the difference, but surely you yourself do.
Oh dear – you’re very confused. There’s no logical fallacy, just an observable truth. The contradiction at least though that there is is yours: claim a god of the omnis if you wish, but you have then to deal with the observable facts that contradict that claim.
So…
…no straw man at all then, except that is your your misdescription of what I had said.
Ah well.
OK, support your claim with reason or evidence.
A bit rich from you of all people, but OK – which “claim” do you want me to support exactly?
-
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story"). Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?
I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.
I agree, you do not need to see the Bible as authoritative if you are a theist or deist.
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question. To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
-
Yes, in the past you have spoken about the gospels having discrepancies. I'm encouraged that have cut out the waffle and are making a worthwhile claim about contradictions. If you think there are contradictions, please specify some.
We discussed this some time back looked at the definition, e.g. something that is inconsistent is contradictory, and it was left there as I recall. I don't think there is much point in going over things again.
OK.
Some light stuff is very welcome, but you seem to be doing mostly that these days. In the past you used to hold some serious discussions.
Quite happy to discuss objective morality, fine tuning, kalam, old boy, you seem to have parked those. You seem to focus on the Bible which in turn ends up being about theology.
I'm unable to discuss too many things at once, despite being 21000+ posts to the good.
No, I do not agree that he was claiming that. What I think he was claiming (and Hope can confirm or deny) that some stuff in the gospels is arranged thematically rather than all chronologically. For example, Mark starts with Jesus' baptism and ends with his death and resurrection. Some of the stuff is arranged thematically.
To complain about it not being "chronologically accurate" is as sensible as claiming that http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php#c2 is not chronologically accurate.
I agree perhaps Hop will clarify his statement.
OK with that.
-
How do you know, as opposed to accept on a personal basis, that those involved in the writing of Mark weren't fabricating bits of it?
By the way the three other evangelists verify Mark, by adding details apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses. See #821.
Same question: how do you know that there isn't fabrication involved?
How do we know you are not a robot stuck on asking the same thing each time? An updated version of the Floo robot, perhaps?
-
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story"). Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?
I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.
I agree, you do not need to see the Bible as authoritative if you are a theist or deist.
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
If you can demonstrate it I should only have to ask the once.
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question.
Are you going to answer it now?
-
How do you know, as opposed to accept on a personal basis, that those involved in the writing of Mark weren't fabricating bits of it?
By the way the three other evangelists verify Mark, by adding details apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses. See #821.
Same question: how do you know that there isn't fabrication involved?
How do we know you are not a robot stuck on asking the same thing each time? An updated version of the Floo robot, perhaps?
Evasion noted.
Why not answer my question: how have you assessed the risks of fabrication and propaganda in the NT content?
It is a reasonable question after all.
-
Alien,
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
Maybe just throw in the odd, "it's my personal faith belief that the bible (or the bits of it that suit me at least) is authoritative" from time-to-time for the avoidance of any confusion?
-
Alien,
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
Maybe just throw in the odd, "it's my personal faith belief that the bible (or the bits of it that suit me at least) is authoritative" from time-to-time for the avoidance of any confusion?
O he ho ho he de ho diddi do rumpy dump rumpy dump it's Caricature time again.
I think you'll find the important bit, the call to repentence and letting Jesus in doesn't initially ''suit'' a lot of people. vis St Paul, the writer of Isiaih, St Augustine, John Bunyan and many more.
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question. To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Oh dear he still doesn't get it.
-
Vlad,
I think you'll find the important bit, the call to repentence and letting Jesus in...
How does Jesus feel about the people who have let him in throwing obscenities at the people whose arguments and opinions they don't like?
-
Vlad,
I think you'll find the important bit, the call to repentence and letting Jesus in...
How does Jesus feel about the people who have let him in throwing obscenities at the people whose arguments and opinions they don't like?
Why don't you ask him yourself.
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
-
Vlad,
Why don't you ask him yourself.
Because he's dead.
Apology accepted though...
...oh no, hang on a minute. You didn't apologise did you.
How very Christian of you.
-
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story"). Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?
I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.
I agree, you do not need to see the Bible as authoritative if you are a theist or deist.
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
If you can demonstrate it I should only have to ask the once.
If you could understand it or were prepared to accept it having understood it I should only have to demonstrate it once.
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question.
Are you going to answer it now?
I did. See #873.
-
Alien,
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
Maybe just throw in the odd, "it's my personal faith belief that the bible (or the bits of it that suit me at least) is authoritative" from time-to-time for the avoidance of any confusion?
When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism and my inaccurate analysis of my ability to correctly understand logic."
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question. To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Oh dear he still doesn't get it.
In what way?
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?
-
1. That wasn't a long story after all (yet still made me snooze).
2. Why should I care what the Bible says in order to consider it authoritative on such matters?
You have missed the point. I said that in order to demonstrate it was God, it would be necessary for you to believe that God exists (plus some other stuff). You then claimed stuff about what a theist would think, so I took that to mean you were, for the sake of this particular point, i.e. "for the sake of argument", accepting God's existence. I then quoted from the bible and you then ask why you (as an atheist?) should care about what the bible says. Are you, for the sake of argument, accepting God's existence or not? If so then do you expect me to demonstrate the reliability of the bible? If you do, then it would be a long discussion ("long story"). Please explain what your position is. Do you need me to demonstrate that God exists and that the God that exists is the Christian God and that the bible is reliable or what?
I'm still saying I can be a deist/theist and ask these questions. As you know, Christianity does not equal theism. If you quote the Bible as if it's authoritative on such matters, then it follows, quite simply, to ask why I should believe it to be the case.
I agree, you do not need to see the Bible as authoritative if you are a theist or deist.
Are you asking me to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative each time I make a claim about something Christian?
If you can demonstrate it I should only have to ask the once.
If you could understand it or were prepared to accept it having understood it I should only have to demonstrate it once.
So are you going to?
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question.
Are you going to answer it now?
I did. See #873.
No, you made an "analogy". Please answer the question.
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?
No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.
So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?
-
Alien,
When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism…
That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.
…and my inaccurate analysis of my ability to correctly understand logic."
My analysis of logic may of course be inaccurate, but so far at least you’ve never managed to demonstrate that. Just asserting it to be the case only makes you look foolish – try instead to find an example of that inaccuracy, and attempt to argue the point.
-
Alien,
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.
What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.
You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.
-
Alien,
When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism…
That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.
Complete claptrap Hillside, the clue is in the word philosophical. You are trying to make a philosophical proposition into a scientific proposition and therefore God into a scientific proposition.
I any case your statement about it being probabilistic is based in a totally philosophical naturalist context.
-
Vlad,
Complete claptrap Hillside, the clue is in the word philosophical. You are trying to make a philosophical proposition into a scientific proposition and therefore God into a scientific proposition.
I any case your statement about it being probabilistic is based in a totally philosophical naturalist context.
Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?
If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?
-
To highlight your hypocrisy brought about through theodicy.
How?
Well to start off, do you believe god can do something that is not good?
No.
Right, so it follows that everything god does is good.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
That is a simplistic question.
Are you going to answer it now?
I did. See #873.
No, you made an "analogy". Please answer the question.
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?
No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.
No analogy fits entirely. Yes, God knows all the circumstances, but unless you can demonstrate that God's omniscience means that he can make everyone act only morally correctly and achieve whatever other aims he has, then you have not demonstrated that the existence of moral evil means that a good God cannot exist.
Remember, I am not trying to prove that a good God exists here, but rather trying to demonstrate that the accusation that moral evil demonstrates that a good God cannot exist is fallacious.
So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?
Sit back?
-
Alien,
When you start throwing in the odd, "I don't accept any of this stuff because of my assumptions of philosophical naturalism…
That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.
Says who? You?
You do use flowery language. Very pretty, but it doesn't add (or subtract) from the logic (or not) of your reasoning.
…and my inaccurate analysis of my ability to correctly understand logic."
My analysis of logic may of course be inaccurate, but so far at least you’ve never managed to demonstrate that.
To whose satisfaction?Just asserting it to be the case only makes you look foolish – try instead to find an example of that inaccuracy, and attempt to argue the point.
Ditto for your claim about me.
Yawn.
-
Alien,
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.
What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.
You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.
Oh, I see. You mean that Gordon's actual problem is that he misunderstand what Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent. Thanks. I see your point.
-
Vlad,
Complete claptrap Hillside, the clue is in the word philosophical. You are trying to make a philosophical proposition into a scientific proposition and therefore God into a scientific proposition.
I any case your statement about it being probabilistic is based in a totally philosophical naturalist context.
Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?
If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?
philosophical naturalism is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one. You are on the wrong track talking about the probability of it.
To even suggest a probability of it suggests the circularity of the argument.
If it is probabilistic what is the probability of it? Show your working.
-
Alien,
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.
What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.
You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.
Oh, I see. You mean that Gordon's actual problem is that he misunderstand what Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent. Thanks. I see your point.
Given your previous reliance on TACTDJFF as an example of something that could never be morally acceptable, and I agree with you on that, I'm amazed that you so easily excuse your God from acting to prevent something that is on a par with the awfullness of TACTDJFF in moral terms.
Looks like you've got double standards on the go here, where your God has a free pass - mind you, given the amount of bad things that incessantly happen your God is hopelessly ineffective in meaningful terms to the extent it may as well not exist at all!
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?
No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.
No analogy fits entirely. Yes, God knows all the circumstances, but unless you can demonstrate that God's omniscience means that he can make everyone act only morally correctly and achieve whatever other aims he has, then you have not demonstrated that the existence of moral evil means that a good God cannot exist.
Remember, I am not trying to prove that a good God exists here, but rather trying to demonstrate that the accusation that moral evil demonstrates that a good God cannot exist is fallacious.
So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?
Sit back?
So allowing the rape of a 9 year old must be a morally good?
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
-
Alien,
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.
What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.
You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.
Oh, I see. You mean that Gordon's actual problem is that he misunderstand what Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent. Thanks. I see your point.
Given your previous reliance on TACTDJFF as an example of something that could never be morally acceptable, and I agree with you on that,
Excellent. You have agreed that there exists something which is an example of objective morality. Great. To be discussed further at some point, I hope. I'm amazed that you so easily excuse your God from acting to prevent something that is on a par with the awfullness of TACTDJFF in moral terms.
Why? Ah, you don't understand the argument. I see.
Looks like you've got double standards on the go here, where your God has a free pass - mind you, given the amount of bad things that incessantly happen your God is hopelessly ineffective in meaningful terms to the extent it may as well not exist at all!
So what is actually wrong with my argument? Is there a logical inconsistency? Something else? Please be specific.
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?
No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.
No analogy fits entirely. Yes, God knows all the circumstances, but unless you can demonstrate that God's omniscience means that he can make everyone act only morally correctly and achieve whatever other aims he has, then you have not demonstrated that the existence of moral evil means that a good God cannot exist.
Remember, I am not trying to prove that a good God exists here, but rather trying to demonstrate that the accusation that moral evil demonstrates that a good God cannot exist is fallacious.
So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?
Sit back?
So allowing the rape of a 9 year old must be a morally good?
No. If you like, it might be necessary to allow one particular evil in order to assure a greater good overall.
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
So how do you judge if something is right or wrong.
You say its too complex so how do you know that God is not evil?
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
Are you a politician? Still waiting for an answer to a straightforward question. You managed it with the first question...
-
Given your previous reliance on TACTDJFF as an example of something that could never be morally acceptable, and I agree with you on that, I'm amazed that you so easily excuse your God from acting to prevent something that is on a par with the awfullness of TACTDJFF in moral terms.
Just as a heads up, but Alan has previously agreed to drop the "just" from this scenario.
-
I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
-
Excellent. You have agreed that there exists something which is an example of objective morality. Great. To be discussed further at some point, I hope.
Nope - I'm simply stating my opinion, as I've often done in previous threads, that TACTDFF is always morally wrong since I can see no circumstances of there being a different human consensus that implies otherwise - but you already know that.
So what is actually wrong with my argument? Is there a logical inconsistency? Something else? Please be specific.
You have argued that the rape of a 9 year-old child is immoral, and you have also cited this as something that in your view reduces Islam to being of a lesser status compared to Christianity. You also noted that you would see yourself intervening to prevent the rape happening, so I'm assuming that you regard raping 9 year old girls as being of a similar moral status to TACTDFF.
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
So, you leave open the prospect that your omniscient God that presumably knows the predicament of the girl, and has the omnipotence to act to prevent the rape, and by failing to prevent this it does not mean that it has acted immorally.
This seems like double standards since, as I recall, you see your God as the source of the objective morality that you claim is the basis of TCTDFF always being wrong, and being wrong even if nobody thought otherwise - but here you now suggest that there may be a situation where God permits this rape (and presumably TACTFF too) for some 'greater good' (or similar sentiment) and I'm struggling to see how your source of moral good can really be so perverse and that you still defend it.
In situations such as this the so-called 'problem of evil' argument exposes the weakness of those who claim the God of the 'omni's', so that God gets given a 'get out of jail free card' to be played whenever there are awkward questions to answer. The very idea that the rape of 9-year old girls might have some 'benefits' in some divine 'big picture' scenario is truly reprehensible no matter how you try to spin it.
Having seen Andy's recent post I've edited this to remove the 'J's' - so now reads TCTDFF.
-
I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
Doesn't matter. Just pick an instance where child rape has happened.
-
I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
Doesn't matter. Just pick an instance where child rape has happened.
Well it kind of does in the context of Alien using it as a primary reason to reject Islam where the topic was first raised.
But in the more general context I agree with you.
-
Alien,
That’s just repeating Vlad’s basic mistake about philosophical naturalism. He wrongly assumes it to be an absolute position rather than a probabilistic one, and you’ve just fallen into the same hole of incomprehension.
Says who? You?
No, says the logic. If you think the logic is wrong, try to argue against it. 2 + 2 isn’t 4 because I say so, it’s 4 because of the arguments that support it.
You do use flowery language. Very pretty, but it doesn't add (or subtract) from the logic (or not) of your reasoning.
What are you even trying to say here? The language I use is as plainly put as I can make it – I’ve never though argued that the “prettiness” or otherwise of the language used has anything to do with the force of the point being made.
Weird.
My analysis of logic may of course be inaccurate, but so far at least you’ve never managed to demonstrate that.
To whose satisfaction?
To the “satisfaction” of anyone capable of understanding the arguments. Your irrationalism is hopeless for the task you set yourself of falsifying those arguments. You’d be better advised not to overreach and instead to stick just to a personal belief in a god if that satisfies you, though I doubt you will as it seems to be important to you for other people to think you somehow have lighted on an objective truth about that.
Sadly it’s when you attempt to show this god as an objective fact for the rest of us too that it all goes wrong.
Just asserting it to be the case only makes you look foolish – try instead to find an example of that inaccuracy, and attempt to argue the point.
Ditto for your claim about me.
Yawn.
Odd. Our exchanges are characterised by my regularly dismantling the reasoning you attempt to show it to be broken. In particular the arguments of WLC to which you’re so in thrall can readily be undone, yet you return to them ad nauseam like a dog retuning to its vomit (see what I did there?)
That you can’t or won’t see that is frustrating, but not untypical I find of theists and theism. The desire for the claims to be true is so strong that no amount of having the case for it taken apart and thrown at your feet can challenge that. If only you set the credulity bar so low in other aspects of your life – you’d be a terrific customer for this bridge I have for sale…
That’s not what the argument from personal incredulity fallacy entails. What it does entail would be someone saying, for example, “I cannot imagine how complex life came to be without a divine designer, therefore there must be a divine designer”.
What Gordon was doing on the other hand was pointing out a logical inconsistency in the argument of the theist who believes in a god of the omnis, which is a different matter.
You’ll find that there are plenty of books and websites that explain what the various logical fallacies actually mean.
Oh, I see. You mean that Gordon's actual problem is that he misunderstand what Christians mean when they say God is omnipotent. Thanks. I see your point.
No you don’t. You accused Gordon of attempting the fallacious argument from personal incredulity when he did no such thing. What he actually did was to point to the contradiction caused by real world observations – bad things happening for good people for example – when applied to beliefs about a god of the omnis.
We can talk about whether he understands what “Christians” (by which presumably you mean the sub-set of christians who agree with your views on the matter) mean if you like, but that has nothing to do with your mis-applied accusation of using the argument from personal incredulity.
Moreover the dishonesty and childishness of your reply does you no credit. Why not instead just say something like, “OK, I see where I went wrong there. Thanks for explaining it to me” and move on?
If you carry on this way you’ll make the baby Jesus cry you know.
-
To use an analogy that I have used a number of times before, the responsibility of an ordinary soldier might be to try to stop the enemy advancing at all costs. However, the general, knowing the bigger picture (with God, the whole picture), may decide it is best to allow the enemy to succeed in certain situations. Thus what is the duty of an ordinary soldier may not be the duty of the general. Similarly, your and my duty (to try to stop someone raping a 9 year old girl) may not be what God ought to do.
Now, before anyone starts, I am not claiming that this demonstrates that God exists or thereby is morally perfect or whatever. I am, however, claiming that, him knowing the whole picture, his correct course of action may be different to what you and I should do.
To continue your analogy: if you were in a position to prevent a 9-year girl being raped I expect you would, as would all of us here I'm sure, and I'm also sure you'd agree that this would be the morally correct action for you to take if you could (and we are in TACTDJFF territory here), So, in these circumstances do you think your God, who you say knows the 'whole picture' so it must know about your potential to intervene, deliberately act to prevent you intervening so as to allow the girl to be raped in order to suit the 'whole picture'?
I don't know if he would or not, since I don't know the whole picture like he does.
This doesn't sound much like an all-loving God unless it thinks that there is aaany good whatsoever to be had in the rape of a 9-year old girl - by the way my grand-daughter will be 9 in December so I'm interested to see how you'd justify your God allowing this if it were her.
Ah, the old "personal incredulity" argument again.
"To continue the analogy", would you say that each ordinary soldier would be expected to understand the entire plan of a battle in the way that the general might and, if he doesn't, to withdraw their obedience from the general until the general explains it all to them?
No - but then the general isn't necessarily aware of all the details and couldn't intervene in all circumstances whereas, as far as I can see, you guys say your God is omniscient and therefore could act - more powerfully than any general could.
No analogy fits entirely. Yes, God knows all the circumstances, but unless you can demonstrate that God's omniscience means that he can make everyone act only morally correctly and achieve whatever other aims he has, then you have not demonstrated that the existence of moral evil means that a good God cannot exist.
Remember, I am not trying to prove that a good God exists here, but rather trying to demonstrate that the accusation that moral evil demonstrates that a good God cannot exist is fallacious.
So, does God sit back so as to allow the girl to be raped? If so, is that morally acceptable to you?
Sit back?
So allowing the rape of a 9 year old must be a morally good?
No. If you like, it might be necessary to allow one particular evil in order to assure a greater good overall.
How do you know the rape the rape of a 9 year old isn't 'objectively' morally good?
Hint: don't ask me me I can only give you a subjective answer.
-
Vlad
Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?
If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?
philosophical naturalism is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one. You are on the wrong track talking about the probability of it.
To even suggest a probability of it suggests the circularity of the argument.
If it is probabilistic what is the probability of it? Show your working.
What would be the point of explaining it to you again? You’ll no more understand and respond to it now than you have any of the countless times it’s been explained to you in the past. Instead you’ll just resort to one or several of the panoply of avoidance techniques you always us – ignore it, misrepresent it, throw abuse at your interlocutor, distract with irrelevancies etc in the hope that no-one notices.
Trouble is, people do notice – which is why you have the reputation you have here.
In the sure and certain knowledge that you’ll never, ever respond to what’s actually being said here for the very last time it is though:
1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.
3. So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.
4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.
5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.
6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.
Now we both know that you won’t understand any of this, or if you do that you’ll ignore it, misrepresent it, hurls abuse at it etc as is your way but there it is nonetheless. Engage with it or not as you wish, it’s up to you.
-
How do you know, as opposed to accept on a personal basis, that those involved in the writing of Mark weren't fabricating bits of it?
By the way the three other evangelists verify Mark, by adding details apparently supplied by different eyewitnesses. See #821.
Same question: how do you know that there isn't fabrication involved?
Paul verifies the four evangelists... no seriously though I think Hope is right when he says that this is not something that is verifiable because Jesus' earthly ministry was a one-off event, in which he made a once-for-all sacrifice. We can't ask him to come back and do it all again for us. That's what I mean by needing to understand the purpose of the events. And it ultimately means that our belief relies on someone else's eyewitness, and on a person being conscious of their need for Jesus in the first place. Obviously the eyewitnesses will need to have been subjected to a reliable form of lie-detector, and there seems to be ample evidence that their honesty was severely tested.
-
Paul verifies the four evangelists... no seriously though I think Hope is right when he says that this is not something that is verifiable because Jesus' earthly ministry was a one-off event, in which he made a once-for-all sacrifice. We can't ask him to come back and do it all again for us. That's what I mean by needing to understand the purpose of the events. And it ultimately means that our belief relies on someone else's eyewitness, and on a person being conscious of their need for Jesus in the first place.
Your last point sounds like flagrant confirmation bias, making it even more important that you mitigate against the risks of exaggeration or lies in the NT content: how have you dealt with these risks?
-
Mitigate against: To take measures to moderate or alleviate (something).
Flagrant: glaring, notorious, outrageous, monstrous
Supposing I got hold of a copy of Mark's gospel in Rome, a few years after it was published. Who would I go to to verify that such events did happen, or if it was a false document. Who would be the best people to talk to to make sure I got the facts straight?
A) A member of the church, preferably someone who had met Jesus.
B) A scholar from Rome Library who can analyze what Mark wrote.
Then fast forward to 2015AD.
-
Mitigate against: To take measures to moderate or alleviate (something).
Flagrant: glaring, notorious, outrageous, monstrous
Supposing I got hold of a copy of Mark's gospel in Rome, a few years after it was published. Who would I go to to verify that such events did happen, or if it was a false document. Who would be the best people to talk to to make sure I got the facts straight?
A) A member of the church, preferably someone who had met Jesus.
B) A scholar from Rome Library who can analyze what Mark wrote.
Then fast forward to 2015AD.
Since it is 2015, and you know a lot more about how the world normally works than they did 2,000 years ago, and bearing in mind some of what is claimed in the NT then I'd imagine that you might be sceptical about what interested parties recorded at the time - you'd worry about the risks of bias and propaganda: both of which are known human behaviours, and especially so when what is claimed is naturally impossible.
That these elements of the NT are possibly a mix of exaggeration and lies are, I'd imagine, risks that you'd want to consider carefully before accepting miracle claims - so how did you do this?
-
Vlad
Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?
If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?
philosophical naturalism is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one. You are on the wrong track talking about the probability of it.
To even suggest a probability of it suggests the circularity of the argument.
If it is probabilistic what is the probability of it? Show your working.
What would be the point of explaining it to you again? You’ll no more understand and respond to it now than you have any of the countless times it’s been explained to you in the past. Instead you’ll just resort to one or several of the panoply of avoidance techniques you always us – ignore it, misrepresent it, throw abuse at your interlocutor, distract with irrelevancies etc in the hope that no-one notices.
No working then Hillside......I accept your surrender.
-
... and bearing in mind some of what is claimed in the NT then I'd imagine that you might be sceptical about what interested parties recorded at the time - you'd worry about the risks of bias and propaganda: both of which are known human behaviours, and especially so when what is claimed is naturally impossible.
I'd probably be more sceptical if what was claimed was naturally possible, but unlikely.
-
One thing I am pretty sure of is that Mark did not think he was writing a historically accurate account of Jesus' life.
What do you mean by 'historically accurate', jeremy?
Are you seriously trying to tell us you don't understand the meaning of that phrase?
What do you think it means?
-
I have been doing on this thread already. I suggest you go back and reread my earlier posts.
While you are doing that, perhaps you'd like to tell us about the evidence that leads you to believe the Gospel of Mark to be historical. As far as I can see, there isn't any.
And you have yet to show that any of your arguments on this hold water.
Actually, I don't. What we have is an ancient manuscript that tells a story. The claim is that this manuscript describes historical events. Can you substantiate the claim?
-
philosophical naturalism is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one.
Do you know what? Nobody else gives a fuck. Stop banging on about it.
-
... and bearing in mind some of what is claimed in the NT then I'd imagine that you might be sceptical about what interested parties recorded at the time - you'd worry about the risks of bias and propaganda: both of which are known human behaviours, and especially so when what is claimed is naturally impossible.
I'd probably be more sceptical if what was claimed was naturally possible, but unlikely.
I wouldn't.
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I may be sceptical about stories claiming highly unlikely possibilities, but that they are possible (however unlikely) is a different matter entirely.
If I said to you that I had a pet camel I kept in the garage this isn't impossible but it is highly unlikely, and of course you could easily check it out (in any event my motorbike lives in the garage). However, if I told you I could walk on liquid water unaided I'd be telling lies and I wouldn't expect you to take my claim seriously - some things can just be dismissed out of hand.
-
Vlad,
No working then Hillside......I accept your surrender.
You’re going to have to speak up a little pal – when you’ve been smashed that far out of the park, it’s almost impossible to hear you.
What’s that you say – “I see now where I’ve been going wrong all this time bluehillside, thanks for explaining it to me in a meaningful answer to my meaningless question. Would you mind posting your clear demolition of my mistake again so I can keep it close for future reference”?
No problem old son, here it is again. Can I suggest that you print and laminate it for future reference in case you’re ever tempted to go off the rails on this issue again?
1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.
3. So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.
4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.
5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.
6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.
Ooh, here’s a spooky thing by the way. You’ll recall that I also said:
In the sure and certain knowledge that you’ll never, ever respond to what’s actually being said here for the very last time it is though:
And…
Now we both know that you won’t understand any of this, or if you do that you’ll ignore it, misrepresent it, hurls abuse at it etc as is your way but there it is nonetheless. Engage with it or not as you wish, it’s up to you.
Wow! It’s like I have the power of foresight or something! Maybe there is something in your iron-age superstitionism after all!
Who’d have thought it eh?
-
That these elements of the NT are possibly a mix of exaggeration and lies are, I'd imagine, risks that you'd want to consider carefully before accepting miracle claims - so how did you do this?
Went to Church, from which the tradition has been passed down (as opposed to secular scholars who are biased). Spoke to people about the Bible, saw how their lives were changed, and found it to be trustworthy and make sense of life.
-
That these elements of the NT are possibly a mix of exaggeration and lies are, I'd imagine, risks that you'd want to consider carefully before accepting miracle claims - so how did you do this?
Went to Church, from which the tradition has been passed down (as opposed to secular scholars who are biased). Spoke to people about the Bible, saw how their lives were changed, and found it to be trustworthy and make sense of life.
So, in addition to confirmation bias it sounds as if you may have been exposed to fallacious arguments from authority and tradition, which may then lead you to the relativist fallacy (its true for me).
That doesn't answer the problem of the risk of fictitious propaganda in the NT text: in fact, if there is fiction and exaggeration involved it has long since been incorporated into religious dogma so it could well be that what you've accepted as being true for you are the cumulative effects of fallacy piled upon fallacy.
For instance, as regards the story of Jesus walking on water, how could you exclude the risk that this particular claim is an instance of fictitious propaganda inserted by his supporters in order to promote the divine Jesus myth?
-
Vlad,
No working then Hillside......I accept your surrender.
You’re going to have to speak up a little pal – when you’ve been smashed that far out of the park, it’s almost impossible to hear you.
What’s that you say – “I see now where I’ve been going wrong all this time bluehillside, thanks for explaining it to me in a meaningful answer to my meaningless question. Would you mind posting your clear demolition of my mistake again so I can keep it close for future reference”?
No problem old son, here it is again. Can I suggest that you print and laminate it for future reference in case you’re ever tempted to go off the rails on this issue again?
1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.
3. So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.
4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.
5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.
6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.
Ooh, here’s a spooky thing by the way. You’ll recall that I also said:
In the sure and certain knowledge that you’ll never, ever respond to what’s actually being said here for the very last time it is though:
And…
Now we both know that you won’t understand any of this, or if you do that you’ll ignore it, misrepresent it, hurls abuse at it etc as is your way but there it is nonetheless. Engage with it or not as you wish, it’s up to you.
Wow! It’s like I have the power of foresight or something! Maybe there is something in your iron-age superstitionism after all!
Who’d have thought it eh?
Once again I accept your surrender. Your capitulation came at your inability to work out the probability of philosophical naturalism....and all that that naturally entails.
We are now therefore in need of discussing the resultant occupation.
I will take charge of the Northern section, Gonnagle will administer the south. The central zone will be run by Bashful Anthony.
All remaining Turdpolishers must be decommissioned within 30 days.
-
Hey Vlad old son, you’re still breathing I see!
Sorry, but there’s no chance of hearing you now you’ve been smashed so far out of the park. Here’s the good news though: one of the ground staff was on his way in earlier and spotted you where you’d landed in a crumpled heap….
…Car Park Z, just next to the wheelie bins apparently. He wrote down your last gasping eructations though, so here we go then: Vlad is finally going to attempt to address an argument. Yay!
Drum roll please…
Here we go then…
Once again I accept your surrender. Your capitulation came at your inability to work out the probability of philosophical naturalism....and all that that naturally entails.
We are now therefore in need of discussing the resultant occupation.
I will take charge of the Northern section, Gonnagle will administer the south. The central zone will be run by Bashful Anthony.
All remaining Turdpolishers must be decommissioned within 30 days.
Aw no, Vladdy Straw Boy (copyright Jakswan) – what happened? It was all tee’d up for you finally to say something relevant, and all we got was yet another, “I’m desperately out of my depth again here bluehillside so I’ll duck the argument that does for me and bullshit instead” schtick.
Let’s be generous here though – maybe you didn’t have time to laminate the argument that buried you, and what with all those used teabags and potato peelings around the ink ran or something? Yeah, that must have been what happened. After all, what kind of transparently mendacious halfwit would just make himself look completely stupid by avoiding the argument yet again?
OK, so as an act of kindness here it is for you finally to read and respond to:
1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.
3. So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.
4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.
5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.
6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.
There you go then. Now you’ve got it, obviously you won’t be so stupid as to ask exactly the odds of, say, babies coming from Mummies' tummies rather than from stork deliveries because all that’s necessary to avoid your nihilistic relativism is to show a method that points to the greater probability of one rather than the other within the constraints of the world as it appears to be. Of course, no-one says that the way the world appears to be is all there is - oh non, no, no. It does though have the signal advantage for probability purposes of providing a method of some kind, something that "whatever pops into my head is thereby factually true for you too" Vladism sadly lacks.
Which is ironic really, given that it was the same Vlad who had the brass neck to start a thread on the burden of proof.
Ah well....
If you’d rather slope off though, we’ll understand completely. After all, you’re pretty much at your bus stop for your ride home and shooting ducks in a barrel is my least favourite sport in any case. Mind that gate behind you though - it swings in the breeze a bit and could whack you on the bum if you're not careful.
-
Hey Vlad old son, you’re still breathing I see!
Sorry not to respond to the latest of your interminable lists. I was saving it as a snack to chew up and shit out when it was convenient...........for me.
Since you want me to 'bite' lets have a little morsel
Exhibit A:
You wrote:
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
But philosophical naturalism is not indifferent to claims of the supernatural. It arbitrarily and definitely rules them out.
What you are describing is methodological naturalism.
Your big problem is you are confused about the two or are trying deliberately to blur the boundary.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
Vlad, everybody knows that you just use "philosophical naturalism" as a smoke screen to hide your intellectual impotence.
-
Vlad, everybody knows that you just use "philosophical naturalism" as a smoke screen to hide your intellectual impotence.
You what?
-
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I
So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.
-
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I
So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.
Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.
-
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I
So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.
Like to tell us how your god suddenly appeared from nothing, Spud, as you seem to accept that concept okay!
-
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism
Show us the pins Material Boy.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy –
Aw no, you missed your bus!
Oh well, let’s see the last dying gasps of your wreck of a reply shall we?
Sorry not to respond to the latest of your interminable lists. I was saving it as a snack to chew up and shit out when it was convenient...........for me.
Yeah, sorry about that. That’s the thing with an actual argument you see – you have to set out premises, establish a chain of logic, reach a well-founded conclusion etc. So much easier I know just to blurt out a “whatever pops into my head and assert it to be factually true” Vladism, but hey – I guess not all of us are made that way.
Since you want me to 'bite' lets have a little morsel
Exhibit A:
You wrote:
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
Yup, so far so good…
But philosophical naturalism is not indifferent to claims of the supernatural. It arbitrarily and definitely rules them out.
Aw bless, and there you career off the rails again. Does architecture arbitrarily and definitely rule out morris dancing? Does knitting arbitrarily and definitely rule out cheese making? How about heavy engineering arbitrarily and definitely ruling out poetry?
You’ve never understood this – all “philosophical naturalism” is is indifferent to the claims of the supernatural, for the reasons I explained and that you fail to comprehend. We assume philosophical naturalism in our working methods to understand the universe, to derive probable truths etc because there’s no other option. There’s nothing in claims of the supernatural with which it can engage, and there’s nothing else that can engage with those claims either.
What you are describing is methodological naturalism.
Perhaps if you tried looking up the meaning of terms like this you wouldn’t keep getting them wrong? Just a thought.
Your big problem is you are confused about the two or are trying deliberately to blur the boundary.
Actually your big problem is that you don’t understand either.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
“Hello? Is that the 99p Store? It is? Good…I don’t suppose you sell trousers do you? You do, great – see this chap Vlad keeps ruining his while mumbling about bonfires, so we’re gonna need a job lot or something.
Colour? Don’t mind really – he sounds like the kind of man who’d wear sticking plaster beige, so let’s go for that.
How many? Ooh, well – let’s see. He has wet himself an awful lot in the past, and he shows no signs of stopping any time soon…let’s go with six dozen pairs for now, and we’ll see how we go.
Thanks everso.”
Incidentally Straw Boy, where do you stand on the Mummies’ tummies vs Stork delivery question?
Naturally you won’t be relying on your version of philosophical naturalism for your answer, so please show your working out for calculating the probabilities.
Oh, and by the way it just popped into my head that – er sorry, I “intuited” that Stan the King of the Storks just makes it look like Mums do it, so that must be true then.
Fun this just making shit up and insisting it to be true for everyone else too innit?
You’ll make a Vladist of me yet!
-
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible.
So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.
Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.
Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself. Something outside the laws of nature must have been operating in order for matter to come into existence. So if you accept that you exist, you should also accept that something exists outside the laws of nature, and possibly, therefore, that those laws can be interrupted, as in the case of miracles.
-
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I
So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.
Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.
Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself. Something outside the laws of nature must have been operating in order for matter to come into existence. So if you believe that you exist, you should also believe that something exists outside the laws of nature, and possibly, therefore, that those laws can be interrupted, as in the case of miracles.
it's logic, Jim but not as we know it
-
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc.
He's done it again.......... tried to blur the boundaries between Philosophical and methodological naturalism.
The latter is independent of the former. You do not have to have the former to use the latter.
Secondly Hillside usually extrapolates the methodology, gussies it up, to become the philosophy. Now he is saying it goes the other way. Again the philosophical naturalism is not necessary for the methodology which is arrived by compartmentalising the material and the non material.
lastly I have no beef with the methodology as Hillside is trying to paint. It does what it says on the tin.....unless you have a tin where the label has been replaced for one saying 'Philosophical naturalism';...........
There....like shooting fish in a barrel.
-
What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?
-
I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible.
So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.
Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.
Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself. Something outside the laws of nature must have been operating in order for matter to come into existence.
Argument from personal incredulity, Spud - you really are racking up your use of fallacies.
So if you accept that you exist, you should also accept that something exists outside the laws of nature, and possibly, therefore, that those laws can be interrupted, as in the case of miracles.
Non sequitur, again.
-
I've explained why there must be a creator. How is what I said arguing from personal incredulity, please?
-
What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
-
What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.
-
What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.
OK then you'll have no problem telling me how wonderful the universe is.......SI units please....
Like Real Madrid against One legged arsekickers FC.
-
What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.
OK then you'll have no problem telling me how wonderful the universe is.......SI units please....
Like Real Madrid against One legged arsekickers FC.
Are you drunk?
-
What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.
OK then you'll have no problem telling me how wonderful the universe is.......SI units please....
Like Real Madrid against One legged arsekickers FC.
Are you drunk?
That's like the pot calling something untouched by fire.....Black.
-
I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.
-
I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.
I have clarified by adding a Dawkinsian question mark.
-
I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.
I have clarified by adding a Dawkinsian question mark.
Then your answer is 'no'.
-
Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself.
What is your evidence for this assertion?
-
I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.
If that's how he feels, I wonder why he doesn't go away and start his own forum run by and for Vlad.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
He's done it again.......... tried to blur the boundaries between Philosophical and methodological naturalism.
“He” has done no such thing. I can only explain things to you so many times – if you insist nonetheless on giving them meanings of your own so as to fit your thesis well, that’s a matter for you I guess.
Oddly – and here’s something I never thought I’d say – conceptually at least you are right about something, albeit fractionally and irrelevantly. Presumably in absence of another term it would be possible for a philosophical naturalist also to think that the natural is all there is or ever could be, though how he’d ever address the burden of proof problem is anyone’s guess. It’s a bit like Alien’s schtick with “atheism” – he jemmies into its meaning of "not believing in gods” a very different meaning of “there are no gods” – which again would run slap bang into the burden of proof problem.
The latter is independent of the former. You do not have to have the former to use the latter.
Oh dear. You do know that there are numerous websites you can consult, books you could read etc that would put you right on this don’t you?
Don’t you?
Secondly…
Any chance of a “firstly” first?
…Hillside usually extrapolates the methodology, gussies it up, to become the philosophy. Now he is saying it goes the other way. Again the philosophical naturalism is not necessary for the methodology which is arrived by compartmentalising the material and the non material.
Needles to say, “Hillside” does no thing. Hillside merely points out that philosophical naturalism does not and cannot entail the refutation of the (supposedly) supernatural, and methodological naturalism just works with the only tools available to it.
This really isn’t that hard Vlad. Really, you could very quickly get it right if you were honest enough to do so.
lastly I have no beef with the methodology as Hillside is trying to paint. It does what it says on the tin.....unless you have a tin where the label has been replaced for one saying 'Philosophical naturalism';...........
You really are that clueless aren’t you. Tell you what, answer the question I asked you then: where are you on the “babies come from mummies’ tummies vs a big stork who just makes it look that way” debate?
Presumably you have a view one way or another don’t you?
How come? Naturally you won’t want to rely on your idiosyncratic version of philosophical naturalism for support, and I’ve already told you that I’ve “intuited” that Stan the Stork does it.
What’s the problem then – it’s Stan right? Naturally if you go with the tummy hypothesis instead you’ll be willing to share your workings out, tell which SI units of probability you employ etc won’t you.
Won’t you?
There....like shooting fish in a barrel.
Bit harsh. I see you more as a rabbit in the headlights than a fish in a barrel, but if you insist…
-
Vlad,
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
In what possible way do these things not "owe their existence to being material"? Beauty etc are just interpretations our material selves place on the phenomena we observe - for all you know a three-headed gargle monster from Alpha Centauri would find a sunset to be hideous, and with no-one - human or alien - to interpret them, beauty, wonder etc cease to exist in any case.
0/10 See me
-
Vlad,
Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.
In what possible way do these things not "owe their existence to being material"?
0/10 See me
Exactly, How beautiful are they?.....SI units please.
How beautiful is the mathematical equation for something that does not exist in the physical world eg. The equations for states in a simulated universe?
-
Vlad,
Exactly, How beautiful are they?.....SI units please.
How beautiful is the mathematical equation for something that does not exist in the physical world eg. The equations for states in a simulated universe?
You are drunk aren’t you.
Aren’t you?
Go on, you can tell us – just a quick tipple over the cornflakes maybe? A snifter or three in your morning coffee perhaps?
You presumably find some things to be more beautiful than others, your presumably find some things to be more wondrous than others, you presumably think it more likely that babies come from tummies rather than from a stork.
You also presumably do these things without recourse to absolute values of beauty, to calibrated scales of wonder, to SI units of childbirth probability. It’s enough just to decide that, on balance, you think a sunset is more beautiful than a car crash, and that tummies are more probably where babies come from than storks.
How so? Because there are arguments and judgments and reasons we can point to to reach these positions without ever once needing to appeal to absolutes.
And that’s the switcheroo you’re attempting. By redefining “philosophical naturalism” to suit your purpose, by then mis-applying the term to those who find your assertions of fact to be less likely to be true than facts obtained by a method, and by going all quiet when the same “argument” is presented back to you – about babies for example – you hope that no-one notices that you’re all over the floor here.
In other words, if you seriously think that you can just “intuit” an objective fact for me about a god, then you have no choice but to accept that I too can just intuit an objective fact for you about Stan the Stork.
Cheers!
-
In what possible way do these things not "owe their existence to being material"? Beauty etc are just interpretations our material selves place on the phenomena we observe ...
independently of each other - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.
...and with no-one - human or alien - to interpret them, beauty, wonder etc cease to exist in any case.
The fact that beauty is individualistic (see above) suggests that it may exist outside of human existence.
-
The fact that beauty is individualistic (see above) suggests that it may exist outside of human existence.
Are you going to try to explain what you think is the "logic" behind that?
-
Hope,
independently of each other - beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.
No, not "independently of each other" at all. What would "beauty" even mean with no-one to call it that?
The fact that beauty is individualistic (see above) suggests that it may exist outside of human existence.
It "suggests" no such thing. What it does suggest though is that different people often find different things to be beautiful, largely for cultural reasons. None of that implies that beauty or any other aesthetic judgement is just hanging around out there independent of people to decide that something is beautiful.
-
Vlad,
Exactly, How beautiful are they?.....SI units please.
How beautiful is the mathematical equation for something that does not exist in the physical world eg. The equations for states in a simulated universe?
You are drunk aren’t you.
No You are stuck aren't you.
You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.
Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.
Secondly Why are so many finding the mathematics of the multiverse beautiful when these universes apparently have no existence in this universe and whose existence is not provable?
Instead of shouting and cussing like a maniac......try and find solutions........or admit you are wrong.
-
You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.
Things, in themselves, aren't beautiful in that beauty isn't an attribute of anything: it is a value judgment made by people about things.
Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.
Who is arguing it is a property? I don't think anyone is arguing that, so this looks like one of your straw men
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
No You are stuck aren't you.
Hic!
You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.
I'll give you this, you're multi-skilled in your deep obtuseness and stupidity. Making men of straw and clutching at them at the same time. Wow!
"These things" don't independently "exist physically or materially", but people do. And it's people who apply judgments to the phenomena we observe, and sometimes some people find some things cause them to describe those things as "beautiful".
Good grief!
Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.
Stop digging FFS! You cannot reach a "therefore" when your premise is so fundamentally wrongheaded.
You (presumably) describe some things as "beautiful". How so without a book of look up tables or some such according to your latest wreckage of a thought on the subject?
Secondly...
Am I right in assuming that you're never actually going to trouble us with a firstly? Ah well.
Why are so many finding the mathematics of the multiverse beautiful when these universes apparently have no existence in this universe and whose existence is not provable?
Groan. False premise, failure to understand "multiverse" and the reification fallacy all in one sentence. Full house!
Why on earth wouldn't some people find some mathematical formulae to be beautiful regardless of what they concern?
Instead of shouting and cussing like a maniac......
You seem to forget that the only person "shouting and cussing like a maniac" here is you. That's why you're the one the mods have make tone down the abuse remember?
try and find solutions.......
I have - many times. That I've explained them to you endlessly only for you variously to ignore them, misrepresent them, throw abuse at them or me, respond with logical fallacies or just flat out lie is the behaviour of a disordered mind entirely unwilling or unable to offer arguments of any kind of his own.
...or admit you are wrong.
Readily, the moment you finally attempt a counter-argument of your own - preferably one that's coherent, rational and unanswerable.
Here, I'll show you again. Your hopeless schtick of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you and here's my misdescription of philosophical naturalism that I'll mis-apply to you all the while completely ignoring the problem of my "just-popped-into-my-head-ism" offering no method of any kind probabilistically to sort the true from not true" is easily shown to be the crock it is when I turn it back on you and you go all quiet. So here it is for the fourth time now:
Do you think that babies more probably come from tummies or from a stork who just makes it look that way?
How do you pick whichever you choose without recourse to (you're misunderstanding of) philosophical naturalism?
What units of probability do you use? Show your workings out.
Oh, and it just popped into my head (or, as you would have it, "intuited") that Stan the Stork does it - so that's an objective truth for you then.
Here's your choice - finally attempt an answer, or retire bruised and battered and never darken our door with you "philosophical naturalism" eructation again.
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
So how do you judge if something is right or wrong.
Bible, common sense, working it through with others.You say its too complex so how do you know that God is not evil?
No, that is not what I said. I said it would be right for us to try to stop it (all other things being equal). Whether God should stop it, I don't know.
How do I know that that God is evil? As in know, 100% certain? I can't be. We might be in The Truman Show.
How do you know that it is evil?
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
Are you a politician? Still waiting for an answer to a straightforward question. You managed it with the first question...
I did answer. The answer I gave is that I do not know if it is right that God should stop it. Please read the post that you quoted.
-
Given your previous reliance on TACTDJFF as an example of something that could never be morally acceptable, and I agree with you on that, I'm amazed that you so easily excuse your God from acting to prevent something that is on a par with the awfullness of TACTDJFF in moral terms.
Just as a heads up, but Alan has previously agreed to drop the "just" from this scenario.
I'd be happy to drop the "to death" as well.
-
I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
As far as I am aware the claim that Mohammed consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old is orthodox Muslim belief, both for Sunni and Shia. It is there in the hadith (at the place the commentator quotes in the Guardian article). Some liberal Muslims may claim it to be incorrect in what it states. Fair enough, but that does not make their claim part of orthodox Muslim belief. If we reject this Hadith, should we disregard the rest of them? If so, on what grounds? Try arguing for that in your local mosque.
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
Are you a politician? Still waiting for an answer to a straightforward question. You managed it with the first question...
I did answer. The answer I gave is that I do not know if it is right that God should stop it. Please read the post that you quoted.
I asked what you believed.
-
Excellent. You have agreed that there exists something which is an example of objective morality. Great. To be discussed further at some point, I hope.
Nope - I'm simply stating my opinion, as I've often done in previous threads, that TACTDFF is always morally wrong since I can see no circumstances of there being a different human consensus that implies otherwise - but you already know that.
Are you sure you meant to say that. You seem to be arguing that TACTDJFF depends on human consensus. Stuff human consensus.So what is actually wrong with my argument? Is there a logical inconsistency? Something else? Please be specific.
You have argued that the rape of a 9 year-old child is immoral, and you have also cited this as something that in your view reduces Islam to being of a lesser status compared to Christianity. You also noted that you would see yourself intervening to prevent the rape happening, so I'm assuming that you regard raping 9 year old girls as being of a similar moral status to TACTDFF.
No. I have said that Mohammed, effectively, raping Aisha when she was 9 was immoral and suggests he is not to be trusted as the bearer of the final revelation from God (as Muslims claim). There are plenty of other reasons not to trust him as well.
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
So, you leave open the prospect that your omniscient God that presumably knows the predicament of the girl, and has the omnipotence to act to prevent the rape, and by failing to prevent this it does not mean that it has acted immorally.
This seems like double standards since, as I recall, you see your God as the source of the objective morality that you claim is the basis of TCTDFF always being wrong, and being wrong even if nobody thought otherwise - but here you now suggest that there may be a situation where God permits this rape (and presumably TACTFF too) for some 'greater good' (or similar sentiment) and I'm struggling to see how your source of moral good can really be so perverse and that you still defend it.
In situations such as this the so-called 'problem of evil' argument exposes the weakness of those who claim the God of the 'omni's', so that God gets given a 'get out of jail free card' to be played whenever there are awkward questions to answer. The very idea that the rape of 9-year old girls might have some 'benefits' in some divine 'big picture' scenario is truly reprehensible no matter how you try to spin it.
Having seen Andy's recent post I've edited this to remove the 'J's' - so now reads TCTDFF.
That is not joined up thinking. That someone does something morally wrong does not thereby mean that someone else, even omnipotent and omniscient, is morally obliged to stop it. I've used the example of an ordinary soldier and a general in the recent past so shall not repeat that. However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.
Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.
Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?
Yes, of course it is contrived, but my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture. The claim is that God does and acts for the overall best (whatever that is). No, this does not demonstrate that God exists or that God is good, but it does show that the existence of evil, even horrible evil, contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving, etc. God. That is the point I am trying to make. The existence of evil does not demonstrate that a good God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil.
Emotionally we may react against the idea, but let's stick to the logic of the argument, eh?
-
I thought that it might be worthwhile pointing out that there does not seem to be any hard evidence to back up the 9 yo 'rape' claim.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
full text;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
Doesn't matter. Just pick an instance where child rape has happened.
Well it kind of does in the context of Alien using it as a primary reason to reject Islam where the topic was first raised.
But in the more general context I agree with you.
Agreed. Let me clarify though. This action of Mohammed was just an example. There are plenty of other reasons to not trust him as the messenger of God bringing God's final revelation to us (even assuming the existence of God in the first place).
-
OK. We are like the ordinary soldiers. God is like the general (but omniscient). God knows the whole picture and therefore what he does may not be what we would do. We have our tasks (with our incomplete knowledge), but God has complete knowledge so may see that the success of our intended actions may not lead to the best result.
Do you believe that if it's good to stop Mohammed raping a 9 year old, then god would stop him?
Still patiently waiting for an answer...
It would be right for us to try to stop Mohammed doing it (all other things being equal, e.g. him not causing two other 9 year-olds to be raped if we tried to stop him raping one 9 year-old). Would it be morally right for God to allow it? Only someone hugely more knowledgeable than we are, e.g. God himself, would now all the ramifications and be able to decide.
So why should we try to stop Mo, if your god knows the rape of a 9 year old is morally right why go against gods will?
-
However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.
Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.
If I were God, I'd make sure that Mr X would fail. Perhaps a phone call to the police would do it. In the worst case scenario I would have no qualms about depriving Mr X of some of his free will. I might install a phobia of killing and torturing, for instance.
Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?
If I were God, the nuclear button would mysteriously develop a fault that prevents it from working.
my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture.
Hitler was responsible for the deaths of maybe 20 million people. How big do you want the picture to be?
Given that we humans are the ones who have to put up with all the murder and torture, don't you think we have a right to know why God keeps throwing us under the bus?
If a doctor came up to you and said "I'm just going to cut your leg off" wouldn't you want to know why? If he said "it's part of my secret plan, trust me" would you trust him? If he said "it's gangrenous" wouldn't you be a bit more accepting?
-
Alien,
Are you sure you meant to say that. You seem to be arguing that TACTDJFF depends on human consensus. Stuff human consensus.
Why? All morality is what we decide and intuit it to be, and when we need collective morality as societies then the consensus carries the day (at least it does in democracies).
What else would it "depend on" - a slab of granite with all the rules written on it somewhere on Alpha Centauri maybe?
No. I have said that Mohammed, effectively, raping Aisha when she was 9 was immoral and suggests he is not to be trusted as the bearer of the final revelation from God (as Muslims claim).
Again, first you have no idea what morality applied in that society and at that time - whether or not the story (and it is a story) is true says nothing to contemporary moral standards, so anachronistically applying 21st century mores to a 14th century event is bad reasoning. Who's to say what moral behaviour of your own someone 700 years hence wouldn't find to be disgusting too?
Second, a murderer saying "murder is wrong" doesn't mean he's wrong about that. Your ad hominem fails - what possible relationship do you think there to be between his (supposed) behaviour in one area of his life and his reliability or otherwise as a "witness"? What if records emerged that show Jesus as a kid to have nicked some sweets from the Bethlehem branch of Woolworth's - would that mean that you'd automatically discount anything else he had to say later on too?
There are plenty of other reasons not to trust him as well.
There may be "plenty of other reasons", but the "as well" fails a priori.
That is not joined up thinking. That someone does something morally wrong does not thereby mean that someone else, even omnipotent and omniscient, is morally obliged to stop it.
It does if that "someone" is a god of all three omnis. How could an omnibenevolent god who knows about it and can prevent it not intervene? That's why you need your get out of jail free card of "it's a mystery" to square the circle.
I've used the example of an ordinary soldier and a general in the recent past so shall not repeat that. However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.
Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.
Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?
And there it comes now....what if, what if, what if...
It's simple enough - a god of the omnis wouldn't be constrained not to prevent the rape because he'd then be forced to stand idly by while the rest of the events you describe played out. He'd just fix the whole thing whichever way he wanted so that no-one got hurt.
Yes, of course it is contrived, but my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture. The claim is that God does and acts for the overall best (whatever that is). No, this does not demonstrate that God exists or that God is good, but it does show that the existence of evil, even horrible evil, contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving, etc. God. That is the point I am trying to make. The existence of evil does not demonstrate that a good God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil.
Emotionally we may react against the idea, but let's stick to the logic of the argument, eh?
Logic? Seriously? Logic???!!!???
You have no logic. You assert into existence a god of the omnis, and when the problem of bad things happening to good people is raised you throw your hands up with a "maybe it's all for the best in the bigger picture" special pleading. Holocaust? Not a problem - maybe god could only save six million and one jews from being killed by allowing "just" six million of them to be killed instead eh?
The problem here is that you can permit anything you like that contradicts your god of the omnis notion this way - and that's not joined up thinking at all; it's cheating.
-
Are you sure you meant to say that. You seem to be arguing that TACTDJFF depends on human consensus. Stuff human consensus.
That sounds like an emotional response, Alan, and an odd one too since I'd imagine that you'd be in agreement with the consensus that TACTJFF was wrong.
That someone does something morally wrong does not thereby mean that someone else, even omnipotent and omniscient, is morally obliged to stop it.
It does if they are capable of doing so but fail to act.
I've used the example of an ordinary soldier and a general in the recent past so shall not repeat that. However, please tell me what God should do in the following situation.
Mr X is about to rape a 9 year old / kill a 3 year old / torture child (in each case for his fun). If Mr X doesn't get to do that he will tomorrow do it to two such children.
Do we say, God should kill Mr X? What if Mr Y will not stand for parliament if Mr X dies at this point? What if Mr Y is the only politician who will not push the nuclear button. Does God kill Mr X and allow nuclear war?
Simple - if God can see all of this then it should act to prevent all the morally bad elements and in doing so resolve all the potential conflicts along the way. You have been very quick in the past tell to say to people like me, when we say that resurrection of the dead is impossible, that it is naturally impossible - but, apparently, not for God!
You now seem to be saying that your God can't save both one girl from rape and the other two or find a way to ensure that Mr Y gets elected without either killing Mr X or risking nuclear war (btw your ott analogy here fits nicely with Stephen Laws 'Going Nuclear' article).
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
Yes, of course it is contrived, but my point has been that you and I and everyone else on this board do not know the bigger picture.
Here you are simply assuming there is a bigger picture: you could be wrong.
The existence of evil does not demonstrate that a good God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil.
It does if the degree of evil is disproportionate to any claimed resulting good where there is no reasonable basis to demonstrate the balance between the two: there isn't, so when you say your God has 'a morally sufficient reason for allowing such evil' this is just special pleading pure and simple - the get out of jail card for your God.
Emotionally we may react against the idea, but let's stick to the logic of the argument, eh?
Agreed - so give it a try.
-
So floo, you think Vlad has nothing better to do? How about Brother Doli? What about him?
-
Floo,
Having nothing better to do, that's what it's got to do with it. The Brother Doli poltergeist hoax for example.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
No You are stuck aren't you.
Hic!
You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.
I'll give you this, you're multi-skilled in your deep obtuseness and stupidity. Making men of straw and clutching at them at the same time. Wow!
"These things" don't independently "exist physically or materially", but people do. And it's people who apply judgments to the phenomena we observe, and sometimes some people find some things cause them to describe those things as "beautiful".
Good grief!
Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.
Stop digging FFS! You cannot reach a "therefore" when your premise is so fundamentally wrongheaded.
You (presumably) describe some things as "beautiful". How so without a book of look up tables or some such according to your latest wreckage of a thought on the subject?
Secondly...
Am I right in assuming that you're never actually going to trouble us with a firstly? Ah well.
Why are so many finding the mathematics of the multiverse beautiful when these universes apparently have no existence in this universe and whose existence is not provable?
Groan. False premise, failure to understand "multiverse" and the reification fallacy all in one sentence. Full house!
Why on earth wouldn't some people find some mathematical formulae to be beautiful regardless of what they concern?
Instead of shouting and cussing like a maniac......
You seem to forget that the only person "shouting and cussing like a maniac" here is you. That's why you're the one the mods have make tone down the abuse remember?
try and find solutions.......
I have - many times. That I've explained them to you endlessly only for you variously to ignore them, misrepresent them, throw abuse at them or me, respond with logical fallacies or just flat out lie is the behaviour of a disordered mind entirely unwilling or unable to offer arguments of any kind of his own.
...or admit you are wrong.
Readily, the moment you finally attempt a counter-argument of your own - preferably one that's coherent, rational and unanswerable.
Here, I'll show you again. Your hopeless schtick of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you and here's my misdescription of philosophical naturalism that I'll mis-apply to you all the while completely ignoring the problem of my "just-popped-into-my-head-ism" offering no method of any kind probabilistically to sort the true from not true" is easily shown to be the crock it is when I turn it back on you and you go all quiet. So here it is for the fourth time now:
Do you think that babies more probably come from tummies or from a stork who just makes it look that way?
How do you pick whichever you choose without recourse to (you're misunderstanding of) philosophical naturalism?
What units of probability do you use? Show your workings out.
Oh, and it just popped into my head (or, as you would have it, "intuited") that Stan the Stork does it - so that's an objective truth for you then.
Here's your choice - finally attempt an answer, or retire bruised and battered and never darken our door with you "philosophical naturalism" eructation again.
No you are now speaking like an intellectual fascist with his fingers in his ears going la;la;la;
I know the depth of questioning you can endure and it is extremely shallow.
You are mister philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
Is beauty a property of nature or not?
If it is How beautiful are the stars?......SI units please.
If it isn't that sort of property then what is it?
How probable is philosophical naturalism if it is as you say probabilistic?
I'm enjoying watching you floundering in the face of these questions and watching you throwing things out of a pram.
I know I am not going to get suitable answers from you because as they say Antitheism is the carbon monoxide of reasonable debate.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
Oh blimey - he's back, the suppository of all wisdom. Let's see what addled incoherence you're going to attempt this time in the absence of an argument of any kind then shall we?
No you are now speaking like an intellectual fascist with his fingers in his ears going la;la;la;
"Intellectual fascist" eh? Here's the real problem - there's nothing to stick my fingers in my ears for. if you finally attempted an argument rather than your endless diet of evasion, distortion, running away, ad hominem etc then maybe there would be, though my preference would be to argue a rebuttal if it's all the same to you.
I know the depth of questioning you can endure and it is extremely shallow.
You "know" no such thing because even though the questions you attempt are incoherent I always do my best to guess what you're trying to say and answer them anyway, and that's a bit rich in any case isn't it from someone who never, ever, ever, answers questions that are put to him? What would you say the score is of answered questions - 10,000 to 0 in my favour maybe?
You could always prove me wrong and stop running from the tums vs stork question though.
Something?
Anything?
Thought not.
You are mister philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
Is beauty a property of nature or not?
If it is How beautiful are the stars?......SI units please.
If it isn't that sort of property then what is it?
How probable is philosophical naturalism if it is as you say probabilistic?
You know that old one about leading a horse to water and all that? I've corrected you maybe half a dozen times now, only for you endlessly to repeat your same mistakes in response. What would be the point of doing it again do you suppose?
I'm enjoying watching you floundering in the face of these questions and watching you throwing things out of a pram.
Of course Vlad, just keep comforting yourself with that notion. Nursey will be around with your Horlicks soon no doubt...
I know I am not going to get suitable answers from you because as they say Antitheism is the carbon monoxide of reasonable debate.
You really, really must try looking up "irony" some time. You're given reasonable debate all the time but - as someone else said - it's a bit like playing chess with a pigeon: you just knock the pieces over, crap all over the board and then fly off to claim your victory. On your way now - your schtick has been well and truly taken apart and I have no further use for your ramblings.
Disordered mind? Go and fuck yourself with something rusty.
Thanks for the correction - I should of course have said badly disordered mind.
Just to be clear here by the way - it was you accusing me of "shouting and cussing like a maniac" a while back wasn't it?
Priceless!
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
Oh blimey - he's back, the suppository of all wisdom. Let's see what addled incoherence you're going to attempt this time in the absence of an argument of any kind then shall we?
No you are now speaking like an intellectual fascist with his fingers in his ears going la;la;la;
"Intellectual fascist" eh? Here's the real problem - there's nothing to stick my fingers in my ears for.!
OK, so what is the probability of philosophical naturalism if it is, as you say, probabilistic?............show your working.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy.
OK, so what is the probability of philosophical naturalism if it is, as you say, probabilistic?............show your working.
Your misunderstanding of it or the actual one? (I can do either by the way)
-
Vladdy Straw Boy.
OK, so what is the probability of philosophical naturalism if it is, as you say, probabilistic?............show your working.
Your misunderstanding of it or the actual one? (I can do either by the way)
At last. If you can do either why didn't you.
Go on then hot shot.
PS sorry about the typo on the last word.
-
For instance, as regards the story of Jesus walking on water, how could you exclude the risk that this particular claim is an instance of fictitious propaganda inserted by his supporters in order to promote the divine Jesus myth?
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
The book of Job tells us that God treads the waves of the sea (9:8 ). Ask yourself, if Mark wanted to convince us that Jesus was divine, could he by common sense, chance or scriptural knowledge come up with the story of Jesus walking accross the sea of Galilee and intending to walk on past the disciples as they strained at the oars? Whereas the reader of Mark who knows the OT can locate several passages from it which Mark uses in the story, it would take a genius to invent it to begin with. Job 9:8 is one of these passages. "Passing by" (Mark 6:48) alludes to Moses on the mountain (Exodus 33-34) where Moses was not permitted to see God's face as God's glory passed by him. "Don't be afraid, it is I (I am)" (Mark 6:50) alludes to the name God gave Moses as a guarantee that he would rescue the people of Israel. Then there is the disciples' amazement at Jesus walking on the water 'because they hadn't understood about the loaves'; this makes us look at the context, in which Jesus has just fed Israel in the wilderness as God did (Exodus 16). Would Mark really tell us all the way through the book that nobody recognized Jesus' divinity? Lastly, the subtle inclusion of the sentence "they thought he was a ghost, because they all saw him" indicates eyewitness evidence, and again, none of the disciples could be forced to confess they had invented this and other reports about Jesus, according to the book of Acts.
We have then a new Exodus in which God, in Jesus, has finally come to rescue his people.
In the case of the feeding of the 5000, this fulfills God's promise in Ezekiel 34:23 that there will be a great king (cryptically called 'David') who will be shepherd over the sheep of Israel. Mark 6 has several allusions to this in his narrative which show he is claiming that Jesus is that shepherd. One allusion is where Jesus sees that the people are 'like sheep without a shepherd', a quote that comes from the OT; so when Jesus begins to 'teach the people many things', Mark is claiming that Jesus is the one whom the prophet Ezekiel said would be shepherd over Israel.
These are just a few of the hundreds of OT stories and prophecies that Jesus fulfilled - unless you think the NT authors made up the New Testament stories.
-
Hi Floor,
I did offer some proof. Say you lived in the west end and were told that the houses of parliament would be blown up within 40 years, as well as the entire city, and you weren't sure whether to trust that person, but decided to move away just in case. Then a few years later it happened. Would you listen to what that person who warned you, said in future?
This is the way people could discern whether the old testament prophets were speaking the word of God or not. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and Romans, both times advance warning was given. Now if Mark had been written well after the destruction of Jerusalem, it wouldn't have been a very useful warning, would it? Would Christians have continued to confess Jesus as Lord if they knew this was written after the event?
-
The book of Job tells us that God treads the waves of the sea (9:8 ). Ask yourself, if Mark wanted to convince us that Jesus was divine, could he by common sense, chance or scriptural knowledge come up with the story of Jesus walking accross the sea of Galilee and intending to walk on past the disciples as they strained at the oars? Whereas the reader of Mark who knows the OT can locate several passages from it which Mark uses in the story,
So you are saying that he invented the story using a passage from Job. Seems a reasonable hypothesis.
In the case of the feeding of the 5000, this fulfills God's promise in Ezekiel 34:23 that there will be a great king (cryptically called 'David') who will be shepherd over the sheep of Israel. Mark 6 has several allusions to this in his narrative which show he is claiming that Jesus is that shepherd. One allusion is where Jesus sees that the people are 'like sheep without a shepherd', a quote that comes from the OT; so when Jesus begins to 'teach the people many things', Mark is claiming that Jesus is the one whom the prophet Ezekiel said would be shepherd over Israel.
It seems to me that you are claiming that Mark invented most of his gospel by using passages for the Old Testament.
These are just a few of the hundreds of OT stories and prophecies that Jesus fulfilled - unless you think the NT authors made up the New Testament stories.
Yep, by lifting and changing material from the Old Testament, as you yourself are claiming.
-
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.
As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!
Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.
Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?
-
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.
As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!
Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.
Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?
Please cite sources for your assertions.
-
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.
As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!
Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.
Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?
Also Gordon you forget {Very Convenient} the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified.
~TW~
-
TW,
...scientifically verified.
Say what now?
-
For instance, as regards the story of Jesus walking on water, how could you exclude the risk that this particular claim is an instance of fictitious propaganda inserted by his supporters in order to promote the divine Jesus myth?
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
The book of Job tells us that God treads the waves of the sea (9:8 ). Ask yourself, if Mark wanted to convince us that Jesus was divine, could he by common sense, chance or scriptural knowledge come up with the story of Jesus walking accross the sea of Galilee and intending to walk on past the disciples as they strained at the oars? Whereas the reader of Mark who knows the OT can locate several passages from it which Mark uses in the story, it would take a genius to invent it to begin with. Job 9:8 is one of these passages. "Passing by" (Mark 6:48) alludes to Moses on the mountain (Exodus 33-34) where Moses was not permitted to see God's face as God's glory passed by him. "Don't be afraid, it is I (I am)" (Mark 6:50) alludes to the name God gave Moses as a guarantee that he would rescue the people of Israel. Then there is the disciples' amazement at Jesus walking on the water 'because they hadn't understood about the loaves'; this makes us look at the context, in which Jesus has just fed Israel in the wilderness as God did (Exodus 16). Would Mark really tell us all the way through the book that nobody recognized Jesus' divinity? Lastly, the subtle inclusion of the sentence "they thought he was a ghost, because they all saw him" indicates eyewitness evidence, and again, none of the disciples could be forced to confess they had invented this and other reports about Jesus, according to the book of Acts.
We have then a new Exodus in which God, in Jesus, has finally come to rescue his people.
In the case of the feeding of the 5000, this fulfills God's promise in Ezekiel 34:23 that there will be a great king (cryptically called 'David') who will be shepherd over the sheep of Israel. Mark 6 has several allusions to this in his narrative which show he is claiming that Jesus is that shepherd. One allusion is where Jesus sees that the people are 'like sheep without a shepherd', a quote that comes from the OT; so when Jesus begins to 'teach the people many things', Mark is claiming that Jesus is the one whom the prophet Ezekiel said would be shepherd over Israel.
These are just a few of the hundreds of OT stories and prophecies that Jesus fulfilled - unless you think the NT authors made up the New Testament stories.
I can't help but feel that using some of the Bible's extraordinary claims to validate other of the Bible's extraordinary claims in order that we can accept the extraordinary Biblical claims is more than a little circular.
O.
-
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.
As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!
Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.
Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?
Also Gordon you forget {Very Convenient} the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified.
~TW~
Oh dear! ::)
I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.
~TW~
-
TW,
I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.
Do you not think that the person who declared first that "science confirms" his religious faith should demonstrate that remarkable claim to be true?
I'm not saying that it isn't true you understand - maybe I missed that edition of Scientific American, or possibly the neighbour's dog snaffled my copy of Nature before I could read it, so if you wouldn't mind awfully could you perhaps cite your source for the claim?
Ta everso.
-
TW,
I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.
Do you not think that the person who declared first that "science confirms" his religious faith should demonstrate that remarkable claim to be true?
I'm not saying that it isn't true you understand - maybe I missed that edition of Scientific American, or possibly the neighbour's dog snaffled my copy of Nature before I could read it, so if you wouldn't mind awfully could you perhaps cite your source for the claim?
Ta everso.
You want it done again and then again are you like floo a trolling time waster,Tell me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.
~TW~
-
TW makes statements which he can't support!
I see the parrot is back and bhs has gone into hiding that says it all ::)
~TW~
-
TW,
I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.
Do you not think that the person who declared first that "science confirms" his religious faith should demonstrate that remarkable claim to be true?
I'm not saying that it isn't true you understand - maybe I missed that edition of Scientific American, or possibly the neighbour's dog snaffled my copy of Nature before I could read it, so if you wouldn't mind awfully could you perhaps cite your source for the claim?
Ta everso.
You want it done again and then again are you like floo a trolling time waster,Tell me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.
~TW~
BHS is probably away having a life. Whilst he is, it wouldn't hurt for you to at least suggest where we can go and find this scientific proof you're alleging is out there.
O.
-
TW,
You want it done again and then again...
No, just once would be fine thanks.
... are you like floo a trolling time waster
How very Christian of you.
Tell me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.
Oh I see, so when you said "scientifically proven" what you actually meant was an argument from personal incredulity: you don't understand the science that explains why the earth isn't "burnt to a cinder" so, um, a god must have done it then.
Shame - I had the Nobel prize committee on hold on the other line ready for your groundbreaking finding, and it turned out to be gibberish after all.
Ah well.
-
TW,
You want it done again and then again...
No, just once would be fine thanks.
... are you like floo a trolling time waster
How very Christian of you.
Tell me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.
Oh I see, so when you said "scientifically proven" what you actually meant was a argument from personal incredulity: you don't understand the science that explains why the earth isn't "burnt to a cinder" so, um, a god must have done it then.
Shame - I had the Nobel prize committee on hold on the other line ready for your groundbreaking finding, and it turned out to be gibberish after all.
Ah well.
I have not mentioned God and you have not answered what is a very easy question so we need go no further you have a small mind as with floo lots of bark but no teeth. :D so subject done and ---------------dusted.
~TW~
-
TW,
I have not mentioned God and you have not answered what is a very easy question so we need go no further you have a small mind as with floo lots of bark but no teeth. :D so subject done and ---------------dusted.
You wish. As you seem to have forgotten it, here's your claim again: "...the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified."
When I asked you for this scientific verification you replied with an argument from personal incredulity - a basic logical fallacy. That you don't understand the science that explains why the earth doesn't burn up does not mean that science does not explain why the earth doesn't burn up (it's because we have an atmosphere by the way).
As you seem to have left the world of science (and its prize committees) entirely untroubled with your - well, let's be charitable and call it a mistake shall we? - I'll leave you to your private ramblings I think.
-
atmosphere by the way). :) ::) :P :-X :-* :( Brilliant and science confirms the movement of the stars and science agrees with scripture that as we see the Sun in position on the 4th day because the maker tells us earth had no atmosphere in the opening days also we can add the testimony of Johaan Kepler. When you have evidence to the counter it, get back to me.
https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll try page 261 educate your self
~TW~
-
TW,
atmosphere by the way). :) ::) :P :-X :-* :( Brilliant and science confirms the movement of the stars and science agrees with scripture that as we see the Sun in position on the 4th day because the maker tells us earth had no atmosphere in the opening days also we can add the testimony of Johaan Kepler. When you have evidence to the counter it, get back to me.
https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll try page 261 educate your self
What on earth are you talking about? Genesis is full of mistakes as literal explanation - if you want to read it as an early and crude creation myth that's fine, but claiming that science has verified it is mistaken at best and flat out dishonest at worst.
Moreover though, your understanding of what scientific verification means is hopelessly wrong. For the methods of science to verify anything you need an hypothesis, some evidence, testing, formulation of a theory with predictive power and a falsification test, peer review and publication. What you had on the other hand is just your personal incredulity and ignorance about why the earth doesn't "burn up".
This is so desperately poor I wonder if you aren't just trolling here. Sadly though, I suspect that you actually believe the lies you've been fed.
How very sad.
-
TW,
atmosphere by the way). :) ::) :P :-X :-* :( Brilliant and science confirms the movement of the stars and science agrees with scripture that as we see the Sun in position on the 4th day because the maker tells us earth had no atmosphere in the opening days also we can add the testimony of Johaan Kepler. When you have evidence to the counter it, get back to me.
https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll try page 261 educate your self
What on earth are you talking about? Genesis is full of mistakes as literal explanation - if you want to read it as an early and crude creation myth that's fine, but claiming that science has verified it is mistaken at best and flat out dishonest at worst.
Moreover though, your understanding of what scientific verification means is hopelessly wrong. For the methods of science to verify anything you need an hypothesis, some evidence, testing, formulation of a theory with predictive power and a falsification test, peer review and publication. What you had on the other hand is just your personal incredulity and ignorance about why the earth doesn't "burn up".
This is so desperately poor I wonder if you aren't just trolling here. Sadly though, I suspect that you actually believe the lies you've been fed.
How very sad.
Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.
~TW~
-
TW,
Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.
No doubt relying on the good Revd. Collett's 1909 pronouncements to rebut what current science actually does have to say.
I just feel sorry for you. Really.
I suppose if this nonsense makes you happy and you're never allowed near the vulnerable minds of the young to spout it you're harmless enough, but even so - how on earth can someone alive at the time of iPhones and gene therapy actually genuinely believe this stuff?
Wow. Just wow.
-
TW,
Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.
No doubt relying on the good Revd. Collett's 1909 pronouncements to rebut what current science actually does have to say.
I just feel sorry for you. Really.
I suppose if this nonsense makes you happy and you're never allowed near the vulnerable minds of the young to spout it you're harmless enough, but even so - how on earth can someone alive at the time of iPhones and gene therapy actually genuinely believe this stuff?
Wow. Just wow.
So how long have you been throwing away the bananas and keeping the skins.Another fact is I knew you could not post the mistakes in Genesis are you floo in disguise.
~YTW@ I cant be bothered with your mt promises.
-
https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll try page 261 educate your self
~TW~
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."
No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.
That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.
O.
-
TW,
So how long have you been throwing away the bananas and keeping the skins.Another fact is I knew you could not post the mistakes in Genesis are you floo in disguise.
~YTW@ I cant be bothered with your mt promises.
I wish you well in your efforts to prove all of modern science to be wrong armed with your trusty 1909 religious text and your personal incredulity. Really I do. Given your previous effort of "the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible" you'll understand I hope if decline the offer of educating you on the ground that you are in fact entirely uneducable.
In the meantime, stay away from sharp objects and keep wrapped up well this winter won't you.
-
Outy,
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."
No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.
That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.
But but but..
... hang on a mo - what about the Revd. Collett back in 1909? You know, the one who prefaces his book by telling us that the world is 6,000 years old?
Are you saying that he got stuff wrong?
That modern science has long-since worked this stuff out?
That poor TW has been duped?
Aw no, say it ain't so - I guess you can't trust anyone these days eh?
-
TW,
Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.
No doubt relying on the good Revd. Collett's 1909 pronouncements to rebut what current science actually does have to say.
I just feel sorry for you. Really.
I suppose if this nonsense makes you happy and you're never allowed near the vulnerable minds of the young to spout it you're harmless enough, but even so - how on earth can someone alive at the time of iPhones and gene therapy actually genuinely believe this stuff?
Wow. Just wow.
SARCASM alive and well, I see... :o
-
Outy,
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."
No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.
That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.
But but but..
... hang on a mo - what about the Revd. Collett back in 1909? You know, the one who prefaces his book by telling us that the world is 6,000 years old?
Are you saying that he got stuff wrong?
That modern science has long-since worked this stuff out?
That poor TW has been duped?
Aw no, say it ain't so - I guess you can't trust anyone these days eh?
So BHS you failed as floo fails you could not put anything up .I notice JP may have done and as of yet I have not looked.As regards what the book says you were told to read one page 261 and that is in total harmony with science and the bible which was stated a bit before your science.
So next bhs learn back up your statments with action. Don't get like floo the complete drip.
~TW
-
Outy,
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"...the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but wlien it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun."
No, the autumnal (and vernal) equinoxes occur when the axis of the Earth's rotation when viewed from above the solar plane is aligned with the direction of motion of the Earth's orbit. The rest of the time the angular offset of orbital rotation and incident sunlight results in differentiation between night and day.
That's why the precession and antecession of the orbital perihelion, which shifts slightly according to the position of all of the planets at the time, doesn't have a significant impact on the length of days.
But but but..
... hang on a mo - what about the Revd. Collett back in 1909? You know, the one who prefaces his book by telling us that the world is 6,000 years old?
Are you saying that he got stuff wrong?
That modern science has long-since worked this stuff out?
That poor TW has been duped?
Aw no, say it ain't so - I guess you can't trust anyone these days eh?
So BHS you failed as floo fails you could not put anything up .I notice JP may have done and as of yet I have not looked.As regards what the book says you were told to read one page 261 and that is in total harmony with science and the bible which was stated a bit before your science.
So next bhs learn back up your statments with action. Don't get like floo the complete drip.
~TW
Uh... perhaps you missed my rebuttal of the blatant errors of p261?
O.
-
It seems to me that you are claiming that Mark invented most of his gospel by using passages from the Old Testament.
Yes and no. Look at Mark in depth and it is obvious that Old Testament stories form the basis of his stories. But what is the purpose of it? To create a work of fiction? No, (NB: jargon approaching) Mark wants us to believe that a real man called Jesus has, by dying and rising again, accomplished a real rescue, like the Exodus but of a spiritual nature, to bring people from all nations out of slavery to sin and into fellowship with God. The miracles he did vindicated his claim to be the Son of God, the Old Testament God who did similar miracles for Israel to bring them into fellowship with Him.
-
An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.
Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.
As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!
Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.
Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?
We will have to look at Isaiah and Jeremiah and their predictions of the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah 42:9 says, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."
-
We will have to look at Isaiah and Jeremiah and their predictions of the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah 42:9 says, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."
So, with what degree of precision are these prophecies clear and unequivocal?
-
I notice JP may have done and as of yet I have not looked.
No, JP has done and would certainly appreciate your thoughts. Several scientific inaccuracies in Genesis have already been cited and so far your responses are conspicuous only by their absence.
-
It seems to me that you are claiming that Mark invented most of his gospel by using passages from the Old Testament.
Yes and no. Look at Mark in depth and it is obvious that Old Testament stories form the basis of his stories.
I agree, so how can people call it history?
But what is the purpose of it? To create a work of fiction? No, (NB: jargon approaching) Mark wants us to believe that a real man called Jesus has, by dying and rising again, accomplished a real rescue, like the Exodus but of a spiritual nature, to bring people from all nations out of slavery to sin and into fellowship with God.
Yes he does but is it legitimate to persuade people by inventing a story based on older scriptures? I'd say it is dishonest.
The miracles he did vindicated his claim to be the Son of God
Yes if he actually did them, but we are agreeing that the gospels are (at least partly) made up based on the OT.
-
Jeremy, it wouldn't be dishonest if that is what he also believed. He's using the old testament to make his point, about God rescuing people.
-
Jeremy, it wouldn't be dishonest if that is what he also believed.
Have you considered that a) he could be mistaken or b) he didn't believe what he said because he was telling lies? Both of these are clear risks.
He's using the old testament to make his point, about God rescuing people.
Perhaps so, but that also includes the possibility of using the OT to bolster fictitious propaganda.
You seem to have a problem in even considering that the Bible may be flawed in some respects.
-
We will have to look at Isaiah and Jeremiah and their predictions of the fall of Jerusalem. Isaiah 42:9 says, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."
So, with what degree of precision are these prophecies clear and unequivocal?
Hi Gordon,
Whereas Isaiah's prediction of Cyrus allowing the captives to return home is explained by skeptics as being written down after the event by someone other than Isaiah, Jeremiah's prophecy of the captivity lasting 70 years (Jer. 25:11-12) cannot be post-dated, because Jeremiah died, in Egypt, long before the captivity ended.
Jeremiah was an old man when he proclaimed this prophecy. He lived to experience the destruction of Jerusalem, the fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy. However he died shortly after that in Egypt. There is no way this prophecy can be post-dated. The Jewish scribes who lived seventy years later were aware of the prophecy, attributed it to Jeremiah, and regarded it as being fulfilled in their time. Only an anti-supernaturalist would dare to post-date this prophecy.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_price/proph-response.html
-
See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.
-
Jeremy, it wouldn't be dishonest if that is what he also believed.
I'll concede that point on the grounds that Mark never makes the claim that his story is meant to be accurately biographical.
-
See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.
The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.
-
See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.
The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.
Why bother to post that? An body could have copied it from Google themselves!
-
See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.
The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.
Why bother to post that?
Spud made a post that was in error. Are you saying we should just let mistakes stand?
An body could have copied it from Google themselves!
Clearly Spud would have benefited from a bit of Googling, so as to avoid basic mistakes.
-
Spud made a post that was in error. Are you saying we should just let mistakes stand?
You are not allowed to find fault with Christians ... it's not cricket!
-
If you were referring to Daniel 11:36-45, we've discussed this before. Have a squiz at http://tinyurl.com/cbpfr6t
Here is an interesting bit, concerning Daniel 11:35:
Beginning with Mattathias' leadership of the rebellion against Antiochus IV, the rule of the Hasmoneans (named after Mattathias' grandfather, Asmoneus) lasted from 168 until 37 BCE. The words "until the time of the end" refer to the end of this second period of Jewish sovereignty. The "appointed time" refers to the 70 weeks of years that Gabriel had earlier told Daniel about (Dan. 9:24-27), which led to the appearance of the Messiah.
If you scroll down to the above paragraph and read on, the link explains how 'the king' in verse 36 is Herod the Great. "...the king of the South is Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra (the last monarch to occupy the Egyptian throne). The king of the North is Octavius, who as the official representative of Rome, was ruler of the former Syrian empire of the Seleucids."
If you still think that these verses refer to Antiochus IV, can you explain what you think is meant by 'the time of the end'?
-
See also Daniel's prophecy of the second destruction of Jerusalem, Dan 9:27, which was fulfilled in AD70. The book of Daniel is known to have been written a long time before this.
The book of Daniel is known to have been written in the second century BCE. The prophecies are pretty accurate up to the 160's and then go off the rails, failing to predict the circumstances of the death of Antiochus IV correctly. The prophecies were written somewhere between 167 and 164 BCE.
Why bother to post that? An body could have copied it from Google themselves!
My own view on Daniel 11 is that the section dealing with Antiochus IV ends at verse 35 and the circumstances of his death are not dealt with. An important clue is given in verse 36. "The king will do as he pleases". By this stage of his rule Antiochus IV was not able to do as he pleased. The Romans had become far to powerful for that, as witnessed by the way they foiled his plans in Egypt (the ships of Kittim). From verse 36 on Daniel has moved on to describe a new and far more powerful individual than Antiochus.
-
If you were referring to Daniel 11:36-45, we've discussed this before. Have a squiz at http://tinyurl.com/cbpfr6t
Here is an interesting bit, concerning Daniel 11:35:
Beginning with Mattathias' leadership of the rebellion against Antiochus IV, the rule of the Hasmoneans (named after Mattathias' grandfather, Asmoneus) lasted from 168 until 37 BCE. The words "until the time of the end" refer to the end of this second period of Jewish sovereignty. The "appointed time" refers to the 70 weeks of years that Gabriel had earlier told Daniel about (Dan. 9:24-27), which led to the appearance of the Messiah.
If you scroll down to the above paragraph and read on, the link explains how 'the king' in verse 36 is Herod the Great. "...the king of the South is Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra (the last monarch to occupy the Egyptian throne). The king of the North is Octavius, who as the official representative of Rome, was ruler of the former Syrian empire of the Seleucids."
If you still think that these verses refer to Antiochus IV, can you explain what you think is meant by 'the time of the end'?
Your link is wrong. Historians even use Daniel as a primary source for the Maccabean revolt because its author clearly witnessed the events.
-
Spud made a post that was in error. Are you saying we should just let mistakes stand?
You are not allowed to find fault with Christians ... it's not cricket!
But you still do.
-
What the Bible tells us and what the charismatics are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqCMDRBissI
-
Spud made a post that was in error. Are you saying we should just let mistakes stand?
You are not allowed to find fault with Christians ... it's not cricket!
But you still do.
Honesty is the best policy.
-
If you were referring to Daniel 11:36-45, we've discussed this before. Have a squiz at http://tinyurl.com/cbpfr6t
Here is an interesting bit, concerning Daniel 11:35:
Beginning with Mattathias' leadership of the rebellion against Antiochus IV, the rule of the Hasmoneans (named after Mattathias' grandfather, Asmoneus) lasted from 168 until 37 BCE. The words "until the time of the end" refer to the end of this second period of Jewish sovereignty. The "appointed time" refers to the 70 weeks of years that Gabriel had earlier told Daniel about (Dan. 9:24-27), which led to the appearance of the Messiah.
If you scroll down to the above paragraph and read on, the link explains how 'the king' in verse 36 is Herod the Great. "...the king of the South is Mark Antony and his ally Cleopatra (the last monarch to occupy the Egyptian throne). The king of the North is Octavius, who as the official representative of Rome, was ruler of the former Syrian empire of the Seleucids."
If you still think that these verses refer to Antiochus IV, can you explain what you think is meant by 'the time of the end'?
Your link is wrong. Historians even use Daniel as a primary source for the Maccabean revolt because its author clearly witnessed the events.
I accept that it may be wrong about Herod etc. But it is interesting to read about Antiochus IV's campaign against Egypt and about what happened in Judea and Persia. Assuming Daniel is talkingg about Antiochus in Ch 11 and 12, the prophecy doesn't seem far off.
Then as you say, one can decide whether it is written after the events or before them as true prophecy.
-
I accept that it may be wrong about Herod etc. But it is interesting to read about Antiochus IV's campaign against Egypt and about what happened in Judea and Persia. Assuming Daniel is talking about Antiochus in Ch 11 and 12, the prophecy doesn't seem far off.
So, you say that what we have 'doesn't seem far off' provided you add in an assumption first: not very convincing, Spud.
-
Your link is wrong. Historians even use Daniel as a primary source for the Maccabean revolt because its author clearly witnessed the events.
I would suggest that a preferred view would be that Daniel 11 simply illustrates in a particularly powerful way that, a) God is in control, b) He knows the end from the beginning and the future course of history and c) when He chooses so to do, He is perfectly capable of revealing the future course of history in fine detail to those who have put their trust in Him.
-
I would suggest that a preferred view would be that Daniel 11 simply illustrates in a particularly powerful way that, a) God is in control, b) He knows the end from the beginning and the future course of history and c) when He chooses so to do, He is perfectly capable of revealing the future course of history in fine detail to those who have put their trust in Him.
That is what the writer of Daniel believed was the case. He was as deluded as all the other writers who claimed "God" really existed.
Sadly, there is not the slightest testable evidence that such was the case.
Conversely there is a load of evidence that the human brain can convince itself of the most extraordinary things even when evidence is lacking.
-
The human brain is certainly capable of the most extraordinary feats, which can be very convincing. I thought I saw Mary in our 'miracle' field in 1997! As she looked like the picture book version, for the second or two I saw her, I realised my mind was playing tricks.
Unfortunately, there are many gullible people that would come to a very different conclusion! :(
-
I would suggest that a preferred view would be that Daniel 11 simply illustrates in a particularly powerful way that, a) God is in control, b) He knows the end from the beginning and the future course of history and c) when He chooses so to do, He is perfectly capable of revealing the future course of history in fine detail to those who have put their trust in Him.
That is what the writer of Daniel believed was the case. He was as deluded as all the other writers who claimed "God" really existed.
Sadly, there is not the slightest testable evidence that such was the case.
Conversely there is a load of evidence that the human brain can convince itself of the most extraordinary things even when evidence is lacking.
The human brain is certainly capable of the most extraordinary feats, which can be very convincing. I thought I saw Mary in our 'miracle' field in 1997! As she looked like the picture book version, for the second or two I saw her, I realised my mind was playing tricks.
You're right Floo, I have two hearing aids and when I first put them on each morning they sound tinny for a few moments, until Mr Brain, what's left of it, turns this tinny twosome into a well rounded natural sound for me, it's all automatic whilst for certain the hearing aids in reality keep putting out the same old tinny sound.
Another one of those every day feats our brains are capable of.
ippy
-
I accept that it may be wrong about Herod etc. But it is interesting to read about Antiochus IV's campaign against Egypt and about what happened in Judea and Persia. Assuming Daniel is talking about Antiochus in Ch 11 and 12, the prophecy doesn't seem far off.
So, you say that what we have 'doesn't seem far off' provided you add in an assumption first: not very convincing, Spud.
I meant that the details given in Daniel 11:36 to the end of Ch 12 seem to fit fairly well with Antiochus IV whether or not you assume they are true prophecy, G. I'd be interested to know if anyone agrees.
-
Spud
I'll predict that someone well-known as an entertainer will die within the next calendar year: I could even specify that it will be a musician. I stand a fair chance of my prophecy coming true. You'll note that the terms 'well-known', 'entertainer' and 'musician' are handily imprecise.
So, when you say 'fit fairly well with Antiochus IV' this still seems to include the risk of imprecision.
-
Spud
I'll predict that someone well-known as an entertainer will die within the next calendar year: I could even specify that it will be a musician. I stand a fair chance of my prophecy coming true. You'll note that the terms 'well-known', 'entertainer' and 'musician' are handily imprecise.
So, when you say 'fit fairly well with Antiochus IV' this still seems to include the risk of imprecision.
Like it; in a nutshell.
ippy
-
Spud
I'll predict that someone well-known as an entertainer will die within the next calendar year: I could even specify that it will be a musician. I stand a fair chance of my prophecy coming true. You'll note that the terms 'well-known', 'entertainer' and 'musician' are handily imprecise.
So, when you say 'fit fairly well with Antiochus IV' this still seems to include the risk of imprecision.
Reminds me of the Prof of Statistics several years ago who took eight prophecies relating to the life of Jesus. All were from OT writings where there is general agreement that they dated back at least 400 years before Christ. He then gave his senior class an exercise to calculate the probability of all eight being fulfilled in one person. They came up with a figure of 1:1017. So perhaps another seven prophecies from you would be in order.
The results were published in a respected journal. So clearly his methodology was considered acceptable.
There were of course over 30 prophecies fulfilled in the last week of Christ's life alone.
But I forget. Floo has it on the highest authority that the Gospels were specially invented and written to ensure that all prophecies were retrospectively accounted for. How fortunate that not one was missing. ::) ::)
-
Reminds me of the Prof of Statistics several years ago who took eight prophecies relating to the life of Jesus. All were from OT writings where there is general agreement that they dated back at least 400 years before Christ. He then gave his senior class an exercise to calculate the probability of all eight being fulfilled in one person. They came up with a figure of 1:1017. So perhaps another seven prophecies from you would be in order.
The results were published in a respected journal. So clearly his methodology was considered acceptable.
That reminds of lordy chiefy winkle dip dopper, first grade of swippers, hopalong brigade who said exactly the opposite.
-
Reminds me of the Prof of Statistics several years ago who took eight prophecies relating to the life of Jesus. All were from OT writings where there is general agreement that they dated back at least 400 years before Christ. He then gave his senior class an exercise to calculate the probability of all eight being fulfilled in one person. They came up with a figure of 1:1017. So perhaps another seven prophecies from you would be in order.
The results were published in a respected journal. So clearly his methodology was considered acceptable.
Then we need a link so as to review the method, Dave.
-
Reminds me of the Prof of Statistics several years ago who took eight prophecies relating to the life of Jesus. All were from OT writings where there is general agreement that they dated back at least 400 years before Christ. He then gave his senior class an exercise to calculate the probability of all eight being fulfilled in one person. They came up with a figure of 1:1017. So perhaps another seven prophecies from you would be in order.
The results were published in a respected journal. So clearly his methodology was considered acceptable.
Then we need a link so as to review the method, Dave.
Sorry but cannot help you there. No idea whether the info is on the web or not. This is information I heard first hand perhaps some 30 years ago at a Christian gathering. The figure of 1:1017 is one that has always stuck in my memory.
-
http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm please check all of them
~TW~
-
http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm please check all of them
~TW~
Can you pick one, so we cab go through it and show that is not a prophecy but just some vague guess.
A prophecy has to be something that you would not normally be able to predict (like it will rain in 2016 somewhere), it must be SPECIFIC, and only happen once.
If I say England will win the next world cup by winning 10 - 0 in the final, and then actually win 9 - 0, then the prophecy FAILS.
There is no close! You either get it EXACTLY correct or it is wrong.
I expect any prophecy you care to mention will not pass the test.
-
DaveM,
Reminds me of the Prof of Statistics several years ago who took eight prophecies relating to the life of Jesus. All were from OT writings where there is general agreement that they dated back at least 400 years before Christ. He then gave his senior class an exercise to calculate the probability of all eight being fulfilled in one person. They came up with a figure of 1:1017. So perhaps another seven prophecies from you would be in order.
The results were published in a respected journal. So clearly his methodology was considered acceptable.
There were of course over 30 prophecies fulfilled in the last week of Christ's life alone.
But I forget. Floo has it on the highest authority that the Gospels were specially invented and written to ensure that all prophecies were retrospectively accounted for. How fortunate that not one was missing.
A “Prof of statistics” eh? “Published in a "respected journal” you say?
Well, it should be easy enough for you find a citation or two then I’d have thought. See, there’s a funny thing about stories like this beloved of religious websites and the like – they very often aren’t true.
I know! Shocking eh?
So if you could just, you know, reference this respected journal that’d help a lot.
Thanks.
Oh, and in the meantime being a professor of statistics and all presumably he’d have been aware of the pitfalls inherent in this kind of thing. What methods did he employ do you think to address the usual ones?
For example:
Authenticity: how did he eliminate the possibility of additions, alterations etc after the prophesied events had actually occurred?
Specificity: it’d be awful wouldn’t it if, say, the prophecy had said something like “a charismatic preacher shall arise” and someone had just retro-fitted the one that suited – say, ooh I dunno, Jesus mabe – and claimed that it had been fulfilled when any other charismatics would have done just as well.
Inevitability: “A great empire shall fall” for example sounds pretty impressive when one does in fact fall, but the problem is that empires (and lots of other things) inevitably come and go all the time.
Silent evidence: if I e-mailed you to tell you whether the FTSE would end the week either up or down and got it right, and then did the same thing a dozen times in a row I’d be a financial genius right? Actually no, if I’d also e-mailed thousands of others and got it wrong your results would just be dumb luck – only persuasive to you if your ignored all the misses.
What other predictions in this remarkable tome were wrong would you say, just to eliminate the dumb luck problem you understand?
Probability weighting: how in any case would you propose to assign a probability weighting to each of these future events? What if the book said there’s be a son of god only his name would be Fred, would that still count? How about Mohammed? Or Josus? Or what if it said there’d be a feeding miracle, only instead of loaves and fish it would involve tapenade and cheesy wotsits? Still a probability of one would you say?
No doubt all will be made clear when we read the article you’re going to cite though won’t it.
Won’t it?
-
The human brain is certainly capable of the most extraordinary feats, which can be very convincing. I thought I saw Mary in our 'miracle' field in 1997! As she looked like the picture book version, for the second or two I saw her, I realised my mind was playing tricks.
Unfortunately, there are many gullible people that would come to a very different conclusion! :(
"I talk to the trees, that's why they put me away." Good old Goons song version. ;D ;D
-
http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm please check all of them
~TW~
Can you pick one, so we cab go through it and show that is not a prophecy but just some vague guess.
A prophecy has to be something that you would not normally be able to predict (like it will rain in 2016 somewhere), it must be SPECIFIC, and only happen once.
If I say England will win the next world cup by winning 10 - 0 in the final, and then actually win 9 - 0, then the prophecy FAILS.
There is no close! You either get it EXACTLY correct or it is wrong.
I expect any prophecy you care to mention will not pass the test.
Put it on your prayer list also add Lord make evolution true.
~TW~
-
http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm please check all of them
~TW~
Can you pick one, so we cab go through it and show that is not a prophecy but just some vague guess.
A prophecy has to be something that you would not normally be able to predict (like it will rain in 2016 somewhere), it must be SPECIFIC, and only happen once.
If I say England will win the next world cup by winning 10 - 0 in the final, and then actually win 9 - 0, then the prophecy FAILS.
There is no close! You either get it EXACTLY correct or it is wrong.
I expect any prophecy you care to mention will not pass the test.
Put it on your prayer list also add Lord make evolution true.
~TW~
So you do not have one.
Can we safely discount this claim of prophecy now?
I do not care if evolution is true or not. The theory certainly seems to hold up the observed evolution that happens.
If evolution was found to be wrong tomorrow, that would not mean that there was a god that did it.
It would just mean we need a new theory that can explain everything that the old theory did, but it can cope with whatever meant the old theory was wrong.
Do you understand that?
-
DaveM,
Sorry but cannot help you there. No idea whether the info is on the web or not. This is information I heard first hand perhaps some 30 years ago at a Christian gathering. The figure of 1:1017 is one that has always stuck in my memory.
Aw no Dave, say it ain't so!
Funny that eh? Shame really - I had the editor of Statistics Monthly on the line ready to clear the front page for your scoop. Would have looked lovely on the Christmas Special edition.
Ah well.
-
Reminds me of the Prof of Statistics several years ago who took eight prophecies relating to the life of Jesus. All were from OT writings where there is general agreement that they dated back at least 400 years before Christ. He then gave his senior class an exercise to calculate the probability of all eight being fulfilled in one person. They came up with a figure of 1:1017. So perhaps another seven prophecies from you would be in order.
The results were published in a respected journal. So clearly his methodology was considered acceptable.
Then we need a link so as to review the method, Dave.
Sorry but cannot help you there. No idea whether the info is on the web or not. This is information I heard first hand perhaps some 30 years ago at a Christian gathering. The figure of 1:1017 is one that has always stuck in my memory.
So, not to be taken seriously then.
Pity - I'd have been interested to see whether the statistical tests used to estimate the likelihood of random chance being a factor were parametric or non-parametric. Of course, words like 'likelihood' or 'probability' are inappropriate/silly when used in relation to supernatural claims.
-
Due to the wonders of search engines, I think that what DaveM is talking about is referred to below
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odds-of-eight-messianic-prophecies-coming-true/
-
Put it on your prayer list also add Lord make evolution true.
~TW~
How many times... Evolution is not in doubt, evolution is not in question, evolution is not 'only a theory'.
Evolution is a demonstrable fact, we have documentary records of it happening in the laboratory and in the wild - every time we get an anti-biotic resistant strain of an infection evolution has happened.
The Theory of Evolution is an incredibly well supported but still technically provisional explanation for HOW evolution happens, but not WHETHER evolution happens.
O.
-
Hi NS,
Due to the wonders of search engines, I think that what DaveM is talking about is referred to below
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odds-of-eight-messianic-prophecies-coming-true/
Well spotted. Due to just the same wonders, it's easy enough too to find various articles that debunk the claims. Here for example:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/08/probability-proves-bible-prophecy-or-not/
-
Outy,
How many times... Evolution is not in doubt, evolution is not in question, evolution is not 'only a theory'.
Oh stop it now. Don’t you know that TW has a book – a real book for Pete’s sake – written back in 1909 by a Reverend (a Reverend mind you!) with no known scientific knowledge of any kind that tells him otherwise?
There you go then – evolution schmevolution!
-
Hi NS,
Due to the wonders of search engines, I think that what DaveM is talking about is referred to below
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odds-of-eight-messianic-prophecies-coming-true/
Well spotted. Due to just the same wonders, it's easy enough too to find various articles that debunk the claims. Here for example:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/08/probability-proves-bible-prophecy-or-not/
I note that the work does not appear to be published in a respected journal (at least based on the supportive article) and that the generally favourable review given by the American Scientific Affiliation does not make clear that it is an Affiliation of Christians.
-
NS,
I note that the work does not appear to be published in a respected journal (at least based on the supportive article) and that the generally favourable review given by the American Scientific Affiliation does not make clear that it is an Affiliation of Christians.
But but - that would be unethical wouldn't it?
Don't Christians do the darndest things eh?
-
The assignment of probability in the first prophecy in the article is frankly bizarre. Why would you take the population of the world at any given time to be something you calculate the likelihood of someone being a rule rule of Israel?
I predict the next Prime Minister of the UK will have attended an English public school (which is a much clearer, more specific prediction than the one being argued for). Would it be sensible to apportion the likelihood of that against the entire population of th world? If not then dear dead Prof Stoner and his classes and the American Science Affiliation were not even within Warp factor 10 to the power of 17 of using a sensible method.
-
Even worse as you look at the method is that the use of multiplication of each set of odds is bad stats. It would be like I took a set of 'prophecies' from the Racing Post, removed any context and then used them about the winner of a specific race. By the simple laws of multiplication, even if each of those had a 1/10 chance (much smaller than any of the calculations in the book) we would be at 1 in a hundred million.
-
The approach used raised questions that immediately ring alarm bells. For instance, from the link that NS quotes we read this:
On page 71 Stoner notes, “I am making use of the well-known principle of probability. If the chance of one thing happening is one in M and the chance of another, and independent thing happening is one in N, then the chance that they both shall happen is one in M times N. …Suppose one man in every ten is bald, and one man in 100 has lost a finger, then one man in every 1,000 ( the product of 10 and 100) is both bald and has lost a finger.”
This raises two immediate questions;
1. How have the estimations of baldness and finger loss been obtained: what were the samples sizes and what sampling methods were used.
2. Since we are asked to accept that one man in every 1000 is both bald and digitally disadvantaged what is the strength of the correlation between these characteristics, how was this calculated and what was value of 'p'.
On first glance it appears incredibly simplistic, which no doubt increases its appeal to the credulous.
-
Despite the fact that it appears that dear dead Stoney the Professor, first came up with his little fagpacketty calculation in 1944 at least, as Gordon has pointed out, the correlation calculation was known back then (note this is ignoring any questions about the clarity of the predictions or indeed their evidence of being true) so why would he and the darling American Science Affiliation (of Christians, but that bit is hidden) ignore a fairly basic bit of stats?
-
NS,
Despite the fact that it appears that dear dead Stoney the Professor, first came up with his little fagpacketty calculation in 1944 at least, as Gordon has pointed out, the correlation calculation was known back then (note this is ignoring any questions about the clarity of the predictions or indeed their evidence of being true) so why would he and the darling American Science Affiliation (of Christians, but that bit is hidden) ignore a fairly basic bit of stats?
I can't imagine. It's almost as if they really wanted the story to be true so - um - well, maybe were a tad less rigorous than we might have hoped for?
It's a crock from start to finish (sorry DaveM) but it's not the first daft religious anecdote masquerading as logic, and doubtless it won't be the last either.
-
Spud
I'll predict that someone well-known as an entertainer will die within the next calendar year: I could even specify that it will be a musician. I stand a fair chance of my prophecy coming true. You'll note that the terms 'well-known', 'entertainer' and 'musician' are handily imprecise.
So, when you say 'fit fairly well with Antiochus IV' this still seems to include the risk of imprecision.
Going with the "Daniel 11:36-12:13 refers to Antiochus IV" hypothesis for now, interesting how 12:11 gives three years as the time during which the daily sacrifice is abolished. This fits what we know about Antiochus' actions between 168-165 BC (see the link I gave earlier). That seems quite precise, especially if, as the book of Daniel claims, the vision occurred during the third year of Cyrus.
-
Incidentally, I have not dismissed the possibility of the last chapter and-a -bit of Daniel as being about a later king, ie Herod.
-
Just looked up this Stoner chap. Turns out he was a co-founder of the American Scientific Affiliation.
So we have an article praising a book of dodgy statistics that was endorsed by an organisation co-founded by the book's author.
-
It is also quite dangerous to peddle this type of simplistic twaddle as serious science since it not only appeals to the already credulous but may also influence those who in all innocence aren't familiar with how numeric data should be presented or that how these data are collected is important (especially so if the method used isn't specified).
The daftness of dear old Stoney's approach is even more obvious if we change the characteristics just for illustration:
Suppose one man in every ten is taller than 6 feet and four inches, and one man in 100 has a fondness for wearing neckties, then one man in every 1,000 ( the product of 10 and 100) is both taller than six feet and four inches and likes neckties.
There are any number of questions about these statistics (in addition to whether or not they are true, which I'm not suggesting they are) - but, for example, what was the age range of the sample was used to assess fondness for neckties? This would be important to know if it was the case that some aspects of dress preference varied across the age spectrum - stuff like that.
That Stoney's stuff is still be referenced by Christian websites reeks of desperation.
-
Spud,
Going with the "Daniel 11:36-12:13 refers to Antiochus IV" hypothesis for now, interesting how 12:11 gives three years as the time during which the daily sacrifice is abolished. This fits what we know about Antiochus' actions between 168-165 BC (see the link I gave earlier). That seems quite precise, especially if, as the book of Daniel claims, the vision occurred during the third year of Cyrus.
Gordon's prediction will seem quite precise too when we get around to retro-fitting whichever entertainer happens to die in an event span even narrower than the one Daniel allows for. Because I'm even better than Gordon at this prediction malarkey though, I'll make it even more precise for you: I hereby predict that this entertainer will known for his TV and for his theatre work, that he will have had many admirers but will also have divided opinion and drawn some criticism over his long career, and that he could occasionally perform more risqué work in private performances.
You'll forgive me I hope if I can't quite get his precise name just now - the mists are closing in a little - but as Daniel didn't bother with names either it seems that shouldn't be a problem I'd have thought.
Watch this space!
-
blueside, everybody agrees [Edit: Daniel 11:21-35] is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
-
Going with the "Daniel 11:36-12:13 refers to Antiochus IV" hypothesis for now, interesting how 12:11 gives three years as the time during which the daily sacrifice is abolished. This fits what we know about Antiochus' actions between 168-165 BC (see the link I gave earlier). That seems quite precise, especially if, as the book of Daniel claims, the vision occurred during the third year of Cyrus.
You are stiil floundering about in imprecision Spud, along with the use of terms like 'interesting how', 'if'. All you seem to be doing here is post-hoc rationalisation so as create a narrative to force these bits of the story together in order to suit what you personally want to be true.
-
Spud,
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.
-
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
I don't ergo your statement is wrong
-
Spud,
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.
In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.
-
Spud,
In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.
How did you get from "most people in Daniel 11:21-35" to "everybody" exactly?
(Most people in the Harry Potter books think Harry can fly a broomstick by the way.)
-
Spud,
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.
In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.
Given your original claim above that everybody agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?
-
And just to note that it's an assertion and an argumentum ad populum and in the case of the everybody,now proven wrong
-
Spud,
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.
In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.
Given your original claim above that everybody agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?
Yes I will back that put me down as a everybody.
~TW~
-
Spud,
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.
In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.
Given your original claim above that everybody agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?
Yes I will back that put me down as a everybody.
~TW~
Mmm, claiming to be legion, tw?
-
Spud,
blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.
No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.
In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.
Given your original claim above that everybody agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?
Yes I will back that put me down as a everybody.
~TW~
Mmm, claiming to be legion, tw?
Yes the Christians on here have decided to agree a lot more in combating errors on the part of atheist and others a sort of united front.
~TW
-
Whoosh!
-
Whoosh!
whoosh indeed can you spot the poster that has been ignored today a sort of sent to coventry.
@~TW~
-
Whoosh!
whoosh indeed can you spot the poster that has been ignored today a sort of sent to coventry.
@~TW~
No. I do spot a poster who doesn't read what is said. I would suggest you go back and reread the threads you have posted on and try and consider what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are, to the extent of not realising you were replying to completely different posters until tomorrow it wax pointed out to you f the third time. Further in the middle of such exchange questioning my sanity.
-
I accept that it may be wrong about Herod etc. But it is interesting to read about Antiochus IV's campaign against Egypt and about what happened in Judea and Persia. Assuming Daniel is talking about Antiochus in Ch 11 and 12, the prophecy doesn't seem far off.
So, you say that what we have 'doesn't seem far off' provided you add in an assumption first: not very convincing, Spud.
Gordon, it is generally accepted (except amongst the more diehard Christians) that Daniel's prophecies refer to historical events leading up to and including the wars between the Jews and Antiochus IV and that the prophecies are pretty accurate right up until a year or two before the death of Antiochus in 164BCE. This even to the point that one historian on the In Our Time programme on the Maccabean revolt cited Daniel as a historical source.
The reason that the prophecies are so accurate is that they were written in the second century BCE and, for the most part, they talk about events that had already happened. The Wikipedia page on Daniel gives a pretty good summary of the evidence that leads us to date Daniel fairly precisely between 167 and 164BCE.
-
I would suggest that a preferred view would be that Daniel 11 simply illustrates in a particularly powerful way that, a) God is in control, b) He knows the end from the beginning and the future course of history and c) when He chooses so to do, He is perfectly capable of revealing the future course of history in fine detail to those who have put their trust in Him.
Only preferred amongst Christians who would prefer not to think that some of their prophecies were actually manufactured after the event.
There's no evidence that the Book of Daniel existed before 200BCE.
-
Whoosh!
whoosh indeed can you spot the poster that has been ignored today a sort of sent to coventry.
@~TW~
No. I do spot a poster who doesn't read what is said. I would suggest you go back and reread the threads you have posted on and try and consider what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are, to the extent of not realising you were replying to completely different posters until tomorrow it wax pointed out to you f the third time. Further in the middle of such exchange questioning my sanity.
Well as it goes I was questioning the sanity of BR and I have said sorry.So what do you want now blood.
And in consideration of the crapp threads we get from you lot like these. More Christian madness./
The Mistakes in Genesis/ Revelation
Show us the evidence /Satan is having an easy time of it!/'The Rapture' alias 'second coming'
I think we Christians deserve medals for putting up with the rubbish you lot post.Maybe we have just woken up.Maybe the tables are turning.
~TW~
-
Perhaps you should apologise to BR then?
Though I will agree with you on one thing, I think there are too many threads started by posters of all views that are simply digs at viewpoints. It happens to Christians, pagans, Muslims, Sriram, and indeed atheists. But simply indulging in the 'they started it' argument is still stuck in the playground.
-
2. Since we are asked to accept that one man in every 1000 is both bald and digitally disadvantaged what is the strength of the correlation between these characteristics, how was this calculated and what was value of 'p'.
If the incidence of bald nine fingered men is 1/1000 and the probability of being bald is 1/10 and the probability of losing a finger is 1/100 then the correlation is none.
This is because the figure of 1/1000 is exactly what we would expect by chance if the two traits are independent.
For example we might observe that 1/5 of people are left handed and 1/10 people wear their watch on their right wrist. We might naively expect the number of people who are both left handed and wear their watch on their right wrist to be 1/50 but I would bet a tenner it turns out to be higher than that because the two traits are not independent.
-
Perhaps you should apologise to BR then?
Though I will agree with you on one thing, I think there are too many threads started by posters of all views that are simply digs at viewpoints. It happens to Christians, pagans, Muslims, Sriram, and indeed atheists. But simply indulging in the 'they started it' argument is still stuck in the playground.
Well sad to say I see you as one of them.
~TW~
-
There's no evidence that the Book of Daniel existed before 200BCE.
Well, not according to the infallible JP. You should really have made that statement three times
-
I found this topic about speaking in tongues and, as the subject is being discussed on the 'Halloween' thread, thought it might be a good idea to continue it on here.
From the most recent posts it does look as though the thread has gone off the topic a bit but earlier on there are some posts relevant to tongues.
Is the phenomena of speaking in tongues connected with the occult? The occult meaning hidden, secret knowledge.
-
Is the phenomena of speaking in tongues connected with the occult? The occult meaning hidden, secret knowledge.
Speaking in tongues certainly isn't connected with the occult, Brownie.
-
I didn't think so either, Hope, but that opinion has been flagged up which is why I thought it was worthwhile reviving this thread.
Perhaps you'd explain how there is no connection between speaking in tongues and occult practices, which was the question.
We said quite a bit earlier on in the thread but there are new posters who may have experience or views on the subject who will have things to say.
-
Perhaps you'd explain how there is no connection between speaking in tongues and occult practices, which was the question.
I've already referred to it in terms of the posistion of the respective issues on the good/bad spectrum.
I would agree that the two concepts are related insofar as they are both supernatural in nature, but as such they are only connected in the same way that apples and peaches are connected.
-
That's food for thought!
-
Wot Hope said. To those who have no experience of the phenomena, the charisma - especially tongues - may well seem to be wierd - heck, I thought as much myself. till I started using the gift in my private prayer time. On the Halloween thread, floo categorised this with the occult, and was unable to substantiate her claim despite repeated opportunities. I realise her experience of what was a rather nasty exclusive church in her childhood were deeply significant for her, but her refusal to see that not all charismatics, or indeed all Pentecostals, are as inhibiting as those of her early aquaintance, clouds her judgement.
-
I suppose it was a gut reaction to something that the grown ups are doing which is beyond a child's understanding. Quite scary, I would imagine.
My first encounter with speaking in tongues was when I was well into adulthood and, at the time, I really liked it.
The singing was amazing.
Now, I am sceptical about it.
-
With me, it was a Church of Scotland weekend exploring prayer. A minister spoke about the use of the gift in private prayer time or prayer groups, not as a prophetic gift, but an aid to personal prayer and worship. I didn't think much more about it - till I quite naturally started using it in my 'quiet time'...and still do. Too many equate it with OTTT stuff such as the Toronto Blessing, which it is not. As I posted at the very start of this thread, I would avoid those who say they have no control over its' use, like the plague. Use of tongues in personal prayer is no substitute for study of Scripture or developing one's re;lationship with God; rather it should be a tool for deepening it.
-
Again, a sweeping statement, floo.
Leaving your childhood experiences aside, have you actually studied the charismatic movement in any depth before coming to your opinion?
I don't know whether Floo has, but I have - I was a member of a charismatic anglican church for 15 years in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, to my undying shame. I left because I could no longer deny the complete lack of results from praying for healing and miracles, and the cliched, vague, self-serving rubbish served up as prophesy, usually in a silly pastiche of 17th-Century English. It is at best an irrelevance and distraction from what Christianity is really about, and is often much worse than that - snake-oil merchants like Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer getting rich by exploiting vulnerable people, and hair-raisingly right-wing politics, including uncritical support for Israel. Thank God I came to my senses in 1992, and got out.
-
You got out of in 1992, I got into it mid-90s. Only for a couple of years.
Going to the annual Catholic charismatic conference in Norfolk in 1998 put me off for life.
Private prayer - praying in the spirit - is different to the sort of charismatic worship that you and I experienced.
It was very seductive though. i'm quite susceptible to heightened atmosphere, or at least I was.
-
I don't know whether Floo has, but I have - I was a member of a charismatic anglican church for 15 years in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, to my undying shame. I left because I could no longer deny the complete lack of results from praying for healing and miracles, and the cliched, vague, self-serving rubbish served up as prophesy, usually in a silly pastiche of 17th-Century English. It is at best an irrelevance and distraction from what Christianity is really about, and is often much worse than that - snake-oil merchants like Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer getting rich by exploiting vulnerable people, and hair-raisingly right-wing politics, including uncritical support for Israel. Thank God I came to my senses in 1992, and got out.
Hi, SteveH; I agree that some of the political baggage attached to the charismatic movement is distressing - and certain elements adherance to the discredited 'prosperity Gospel' drivel a disgrace, but no-one, even in their wildest dreams, could ever accuse the Kirk of being extreme or dangerously out of kilter with the Gospel (well, not in the realms of pursuing the charisma, anyway.....there are a few issues on other matters which bear scrutiny) Whilst I have attended prayer services for healing, and other purposes, these have never been anything less than controlled, disciplined and very moving, with no mass hysteria of any description (After all, this IS the Church of Scotland!) However, like others in the Kirk, from liberal through evangelicals, we have explored personal prayer and worship, and found tounges useful as an aid. As posted, this is an aid, an adjunct to personal devotion, and at no time was I ever out of control, or not conscious of what I was doing. I use the gift not as prophesy, or a declaration of piety to which I am not entitled, but as an assist to my private or small group prayers - and simply would not do so were there others in the room who were uncomfortable with the gift. Do do so would disturb their prayer time, and that is simply bad practice.
-
My first encounter of speaking in tongues was when someone I knew was in the psychiatric ward of a hospital in Scotland.
They telephoned me on a regular basis for prayer and whilst there met a woman who was a believer and had been battling mental illness for years. She did not understand why having had no episodes which required hospitalisation for some years God would let her return. But having met the person I knew she knew why this time. The lady whilst talking to me whom I knew nothing about till that phone call asked could she pray for us. It was then she started praying in tongues and in that instant I knew all about her and what God wanted her to know. When she had finished I told her everything and she started to cry with relief.
Everything I had told her was completely correct and what she had been waiting for God to answer.
So both she and the person in hospital with her received what they needed.
I have never been aware of speaking in tongues whilst awake and I am not a person to fake anything or pretend.
I do not believe in pretending to make noises and calling it tongues.
However, one night I had been talking with God before I must have fell asleep (don't remember doing)about this very matter of speaking in tongues. I was before God and we were talking about what was on my heart and as I awoke I was speaking a strange language and God was calling me by a different name. A name I would have when I was with him. But as I awoke speaking in that strange tongue he told me I would not remember the name because it was for then and not for this life.
When I awoke the name was gone and the language I was speaking I could not do it.
I have had no problem with not speaking in tongues since. But I have had the experience of knowing the things on someone elses heart when they prayed in tongues for me. I had seen that and I had experienced the above.
Speaking in tongues is for Believers not for the World.
-
I don't know whether Floo has, but I have - I was a member of a charismatic anglican church for 15 years in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, to my undying shame. I left because I could no longer deny the complete lack of results from praying for healing and miracles, and the cliched, vague, self-serving rubbish served up as prophesy, usually in a silly pastiche of 17th-Century English. It is at best an irrelevance and distraction from what Christianity is really about, and is often much worse than that - snake-oil merchants like Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer getting rich by exploiting vulnerable people, and hair-raisingly right-wing politics, including uncritical support for Israel. Thank God I came to my senses in 1992, and got out.
It's interesting that you mention Joyce Meyer, Steve. I know a lot of people - many ex-missionaries - who have found her books extremely helpful in the hard task of re-integrating into their own cultures after many years abroad. Most wouldn't even associate her with Pentecostalism, since you can be Charismatic without being Pentecostal. I fully agree with you regarding Kenneth Copeland - but he has nothing to do with Pentecostalism and everything to do with the Prosperity Gospel movement. Cerullo is probably the only 'Pentecostalist' amongst that group.
All that said, I would agree with some of what you say. Historically, Pentecostalists have taught that the exercise of the 'charisma' in public are a necessary indicator of one's faith, something that many charismatics within denominations such as Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, RC, etc. don't.
-
My first encounter of speaking in tongues was when someone I knew was in the psychiatric ward of a hospital in Scotland.
They telephoned me on a regular basis for prayer and whilst there met a woman who was a believer and had been battling mental illness for years. She did not understand why having had no episodes which required hospitalisation for some years God would let her return. But having met the person I knew she knew why this time. The lady whilst talking to me whom I knew nothing about till that phone call asked could she pray for us. It was then she started praying in tongues and in that instant I knew all about her and what God wanted her to know. When she had finished I told her everything and she started to cry with relief.
Everything I had told her was completely correct and what she had been waiting for God to answer.
So both she and the person in hospital with her received what they needed.
I have never been aware of speaking in tongues whilst awake and I am not a person to fake anything or pretend.
I do not believe in pretending to make noises and calling it tongues.
However, one night I had been talking with God before I must have fell asleep (don't remember doing)about this very matter of speaking in tongues. I was before God and we were talking about what was on my heart and as I awoke I was speaking a strange language and God was calling me by a different name. A name I would have when I was with him. But as I awoke speaking in that strange tongue he told me I would not remember the name because it was for then and not for this life.
When I awoke the name was gone and the language I was speaking I could not do it.
I have had no problem with not speaking in tongues since. But I have had the experience of knowing the things on someone elses heart when they prayed in tongues for me. I had seen that and I had experienced the above.
Speaking in tongues is for Believers not for the World.
-
That was a very moving post from Sassy.
-
I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?
It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.
As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.
1 Corinthians 14:22 says that 'tongues' are a sign for unbelievers. If a Chinese person who had no previous knowledge of English, came to you and said, "God loves you floo". How would you react?
It seems that this is what was going on in the first century church when it talks about speaking in tongues. If Acts 2:4-13 is true, then the people present witnessed something miraculous, and it enabled them to believe. Paul talks quite a bit about the importance of interpreting the sounds that come out so that people can understand them. It sounds like Sassy had this experience.
-
I know of an evangelist who, when time was running short, delivered the gospel in fluent Spanish; a language which he does not speak. God still uses this miracle.
-
I know of an evangelist who, when time was running short, delivered the gospel in fluent Spanish; a language which he does not speak. God still uses this miracle.
Did that make it quicker or just ensure that no one could understand him?
-
I would say the evangelist that you spoke of, 2Corrie, probably did speak Spanish, or maybe he learned a bit of Spanish earlier in life and it was in his subconscious - perhaps even a worship song. Presumably other people were there who did speak the language and verified that it was Spanish that he spoke.
The reason I say the above is that we all have bits of knowledge tucked away that will occasionally come to the fore. Like most of us, I learned French and Latin at school and I wasn't very good at either, quite nervous in fact, yet I can understand and read bits of both and at times remember things about the languages, including verse (I also occasionally think and dream in shorthand but that's another tale :-) ). I'm not being cynical about your story because, honestly, I don't know how it happened, just putting forward a possible explanation.
-
Speaking in tongues is for Believers not for the World.
It is for people in LA! LA! land! :o
Funny you should say that. I believe the Greek word translated as 'speaking in tongues' is glossolalia which I understand has an element of incomprehension about it. If I remember correctly, there is another word - glossolego - meaning 'speaking with intelligence' which would be better for communication purposes.
-
Glossolalia can come about, so I understand, by hysteria and situations where there is heightened emotion - rapture even (with small r) - in a group of people. It isn't always a religious phenomenon. It happens, the same way that a group of people can all feel ill with the same symptoms even if there is nothing wrong with them. The former is releasing and pleasant, the latter is horrible. We are complex beings.
-
Indeed, I knew some who subscribed to the 'Toronto' phenomenon - which was brought here, initially to Holy Trinity, Brompton, and spread to other churches. The people I knew quite well, three of them, went to Toronto to have first hand experience and then top ups. It all seems very odd now but they were nice people, intelligent etc, and I just accepted they had experienced something beyond my knowledge.
Which led me to the charismatic wing of the Catholic Church...
-
Well I suppose taking up religion in the first place shows a certain amount of gullibility and there we go, making strange noises connects and makes sense to others, scubi do bee dobi and then you theists wonder why us so called atheists want no part of it?
ippy
-
You have a choice to be part of it, or not. Or do something else entirely. That's one advantage of living here and now.
(Bamalamalamaloo.)
-
I know of an evangelist who, when time was running short, delivered the gospel in fluent Spanish; a language which he does not speak. God still uses this miracle.
What do you think about the "gobbledegook" type of 'tongues'? Is that what Paul is talking about here: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." 1 Cor 14:2 ?
It seems there is both that type, which I have come across only once, and which is said to edify the speaker only (unless he is able to interpret it); as well as the Acts 2 type?
-
So complete GOBBLEDEGOOK
Acts 2 says the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in 'tongues' - languages known not to the speaker but known to foreigners in the crowd - so that they could tell them the gospel. My question is, can the word 'tongue' in the NT also refer to something that is not a known language (you refer to this as gobbledegook)? I don't know if this has been answered earlier in the thread?
-
You have a choice to be part of it, or not. Or do something else entirely. That's one advantage of living here and now.
(Bamalamalamaloo.)
I have to admit I find the fact religion is still around with so many followers fascinating; it's certainly intriguing the ways so many are taken in by such obviously man made nonsense that is completely lacking anything that could be taken as viable evidence that might, if any was found, support it. Yabadoblydo.
ippy
-
My question is, can the word 'tongue' in the NT also refer to something that is not a known language
1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?
-
1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?
Since there is no evidence to say whether this Corinthians bit is fictitious or not, more than likely it's fictitious, so what are you bothering about Sword?
ippy
-
Acts 2 says the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in 'tongues' - languages known not to the speaker but known to foreigners in the crowd - so that they could tell them the gospel. My question is, can the word 'tongue' in the NT also refer to something that is not a known language (you refer to this as gobbledegook)? I don't know if this has been answered earlier in the thread?
What the Bible says and what is factual is probably at odds in many cases!
Spud was wondering if 'tongue' could refer to a language that was not known, ie not known to anyone other than those speaking it.
Communities do develop their own language/patois/dialect, that would be incomprehensible to others but which they would understand.
It's an idea though I'd have thought it would have taken many more years for a dialect to develop. Possible though.
-
Since there is no evidence to say whether this Corinthians bit is fictitious or not, more than likely it's fictitious, so what are you bothering about Sword?
Spud may be interested in the answer. I can't help it if you are not.
Actually, tell you what: I'll stop bothering about it when you can demonstrate that what is said is fictitious.
-
Spud may be interested in the answer. I can't help it if you are not.
Actually, tell you what: I'll stop bothering about it when you can demonstrate that what is said is fictitious.
Sorry Sword I completly forgot that you're into the magical and mystical, so it's become even more important than ever for you all to support your fellow believers since these outmoded ideas are declining at such a rate of knots, oh yes, I'm sure I said "more than likely fictitious", I doubt you'd get very goods on any of it turning out to have any factual base, any of it.
Like I said why bother with it?
ippy
-
1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?
Languages.. I think the bible makes it clear that when the disciples first spoke in tongues it was a language that was universal and all people hearing it understood it. Whatever language people spoke who had angels speak to them, hear it in their own language.
The men from East the wise men probably spoke a different language but always everything from God comes to the person in their own language. There are the fruit and the gifts of the Spirit. The fruit everyone will have but the gifts can be different for each individual. I believe the disciples had all the gifts and I see no reason given what Christ said why believers today should not have all the powerful gifts and abilities Christ has.
-
I think that it should be pointed out that, whilst gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophecy are mentioned on a number of occasions in the Pauline epistles, prophecy is considered to far more of a 'public' gift than tongues. More often than not, the use of tongues is referred to as a personal, individual process - between God and the believer. It may be that a congregation is invited to speak in tongues during a service, as part of the process of worship, but it is still a two-way (God/believer) form of worship. It isn't meant to be between the believer, God and other believers. I have to admit that I do not speak in tongues, but that doesn't make me feel 'second-class' in any way.
Prophecy, on the other hand, is meant to be shared with others and, as such, should be in a comprehensible format. Such a prophecy might be in the form of a verbal picture - which might or might not need interpretation; it might be very clearly directed at a given person (but in my understanding prophecy of that sort ought to be mediated through the pastor or an elder so as not to be misunderstood; it might be a general encouragement or warning to the congregation as a whole, or to certain members of the congregation. That is why a church needs to be careful about their use and their interpretation - be that what is being said or whom it is directed to.
-
Some such prophecies, may be. By no means all.
I can think of one that wasn't passed on to the individual concerned at the time, but which was as clear as you could wish, and proceeded to occur. I won't give all the details, but the individual concerned had recently lost a loved one, and the prophecy was that they would lose a second person very close to them within a week. The pastor felt that passing this on at a time that they were already very fragile would be bad practice, if not unethical. The person lost a second person - not related in any way to the first one - 5 days later.
I can also think of people whose lifes have been changed dramatically as a result of prophecy. A friend of us was a very successful businessman, and - whilst interested in the work of missionaries - had not plans to become one himself. Someone prophesied that the Lord had plans for his life that were different to his then work - and 3 or 4 years later he decided to offer himself for ordination, quoting said prophecy as part of the reason behind the development. It had got him thinking about what God wanted him to do with his life and he is now a pastor in a city centre church that serves several business areas and financial institutions. He was recently asked to become the chaplain to some of these institutions; again, largely on the strength of his business background.
-
Some such prophecies, may be. By no means all.
I can also think of people whose lifes have been changed dramatically as a result of prophecy. A friend of us was a very successful businessman, and - whilst interested in the work of missionaries - had not plans to become one himself. Someone prophesied that the Lord had plans for his life that were different to his then work - and 3 or 4 years later he decided to offer himself for ordination, quoting said prophecy as part of the reason behind the development. It had got him thinking about what God wanted him to do with his life and he is now a pastor in a city centre church that serves several business areas and financial institutions. He was recently asked to become the chaplain to some of these institutions; again, largely on the strength of his business background.
That could be a self fulfilling prophesy brought about by the previously implanted suggestion.
-
If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it.
As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues?
I wonder how well speaking in tongues would hold up to a serious investigation, I feel sure it would fall into an exactly similar position that water divining has when it was put to the test.
ippy
-
If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it.
Evidence to support your claim that people are 'taken in by it', please ippy
As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues?
Using your understanding of life, science is no less ludicrous, ippy. After all, like religion, it is trying to make sense of something that I believe you've suggested has no sense or meaning. (If I've muddled you with one or more other posters, I apologise).
I wonder how well speaking in tongues would hold up to a serious investigation, I feel sure it would fall into an exactly similar position that water divining has when it was put to the test.
You would probably need to compare it with something in a comparable ballpark - such as the special language and tones that lovers will sometimes use to each other. I assume that you have results of research into this kind of thing to compare with.
-
1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?
Hi SotS,
I had a look at a few online commentaries, and admittedly I was looking for one that went with the view that the word 'tongue' in the NT does not refer to something that is not a known language.
Barnes takes such a view, from what I can see. He says,
And of angels - The language of angels; such as they speak. Were I endowed with the faculty of eloquence and persuasion which we attribute to them; and the power of speaking to any of the human family with the power which they have. The language of angels here seems to be used to denote the highest power of using language, or of the most elevated faculty of eloquence and speech.
I think he means that an angel might say something eloquent, like, "Greetings, Sword Of the Spirit..." but he would address you in your own language. I don't think we can deduce from what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 13:1 that glossolalia is the language of angels.
Paul also says in 1 Cor 14:2,
"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries"
Barnes says about this verse,
But unto God - It is as if he spoke to God. No one could understand him but God. This must evidently refer to the addresses "in the church," when Christians only were present, or when those only were present who spoke the same language, and who were unacquainted with foreign tongues. Paul says that "there" that faculty would be valueless compared with the power of speaking in a manner that should edify the church. He did not undervalue the power of speaking foreign languages when foreigners were present, or when they went to preach to foreigners; see 1 Corinthians 14:22. It was only when it was needless, when all present spoke one language, that he speaks of it as of comparatively little value.
For no man understandeth him - That is, no man in the church, since they all spoke the same language, and that language was different from what was spoken by him who was endowed with the gift of tongues. As God only could know the import of what he said, it would be lost upon the church, and would be useless.
One view, which I think I agree with, is that modern glossolalia is not the same as what the New Testament describes, but is something akin to whistling or humming, and it can be done to God's glory but is not a so-called 'gift of the Spirit'.
-
For someone who does not accept His existance, floo, you seem concerned about His feelings.....
-
One view, which I think I agree with, is that modern glossolalia is not the same as what the New Testament describes, but is something akin to whistling or humming, and it can be done to God's glory but is not a so-called 'gift of the Spirit'.
Can't say I've ever heard such a form of glossolalia, but I suppose it may happen.
-
... and the Bible god a laughing stock! ::)
Like your usual characterisation of him, you mean? ;)
-
Hi SotS, I had a look at a few online commentaries, and admittedly I was looking for one that went with the view that the word 'tongue' in the NT does not refer to something that is not a known language. Barnes takes such a view, from what I can see. He says, I think he means that an angel might say something eloquent, like, "Greetings, Sword Of the Spirit..." but he would address you in your own language. I don't think we can deduce from what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 13:1 that glossolalia is the language of angels. Paul also says in 1 Cor 14:2, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" Barnes says about this verse, One view, which I think I agree with, is that modern glossolalia is not the same as what the New Testament describes, but is something akin to whistling or humming, and it can be done to God's glory but is not a so-called 'gift of the Spirit'.
Don't confine your research to Corinthians or Acts, Spud, as there are other NT references in passing - not all Pauline. But remember, Paul wished all could use tongues - but he specifically made no big deal about it - indeed, he burst the bubble of those who thought they wwere something special because they used it. As I posted, it's an adjunct to prayer and personal devotion, and need not be obtrusive or offend other worshippers. Though I've been to a few Pentecostal assemblies, that's not my scene, though I would not deride any who find it useful. We get hung up on the charisma and Pentecostalism sometimes, but the gifts were not intended for one denomination only - or used in only one way. When we think in that way, we limit the Holy Spirit - and we do that at our peril!
-
Can't say I've ever heard such a form of glossolalia, but I suppose it may happen.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I meant that the gobbldegook- type noises are a bit like whistling or humming, in the sense that one can hum or whistle to the glory of God; but they aren't speaking in tongues. That is, specifically, speaking in a language that can be understood by people of a certain tribe or nation. I think it may be correct to say that this miraculous gift occurred at the time when the apostles began to take the gospel to the Gentiles, but then ceased to occur.
-
Evidence to support your claim that people are 'taken in by it', please ippy
Using your understanding of life, science is no less ludicrous, ippy. After all, like religion, it is trying to make sense of something that I believe you've suggested has no sense or meaning. (If I've muddled you with one or more other posters, I apologise).
You would probably need to compare it with something in a comparable ballpark - such as the special language and tones that lovers will sometimes use to each other. I assume that you have results of research into this kind of thing to compare with.
"If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it".
"As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues"?
Find anything involving science to be ludicrous; it's soon rejected.
It would be difficult to find anything much more ludicrous than speaking in tongues.
How about fart reading there must be a message within every fart, it just needs a very sensitive reader that has lost their sense of smell, mind you thinking about it the smell could be a key part of the reading; I'm sure there are many things like fart reading that can be made up, I'm sure good old Blue could come up with some very original ideas in this field, something equally as sensible as speaking in tongues Hope.
Fart reading, I like the idea of that, it certainly makes you smile.
ippy
-
"If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it".
"As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues"?
Find anything involving science to be ludicrous; it's soon rejected.
It would be difficult to find anything much more ludicrous than speaking in tongues.
How about fart reading there must be a message within every fart, it just needs a very sensitive reader that has lost their sense of smell, mind you thinking about it the smell could be a key part of the reading; I'm sure there are many things like fart reading that can be made up, I'm sure good old Blue could come up with some very original ideas in this field, something equally as sensible as speaking in tongues Hope.
Fart reading, I like the idea of that, it certainly makes you smile.
ippy
One of the great fart speakers
https://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=8gym81fY460
-
Hi SotS,
...
One view, which I think I agree with, is that modern glossolalia is not the same as what the New Testament describes, but is something akin to whistling or humming, and it can be done to God's glory but is not a so-called 'gift of the Spirit'.
Thanks for this Spud. I'll have a detailed look.
-
"If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it".
"As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues"?
Find anything involving science to be ludicrous; it's soon rejected.
It would be difficult to find anything much more ludicrous than speaking in tongues.
How about fart reading there must be a message within every fart, it just needs a very sensitive reader that has lost their sense of smell, mind you thinking about it the smell could be a key part of the reading; I'm sure there are many things like fart reading that can be made up, I'm sure good old Blue could come up with some very original ideas in this field, something equally as sensible as speaking in tongues Hope.
Fart reading, I like the idea of that, it certainly makes you smile.
ippy
That's a novel idea, ippy. Counter my questions by posting the very comments that had prompted my questions. Saves one thinking, I suppose.
-
That's a novel idea, ippy. Counter my questions by posting the very comments that had prompted my questions. Saves one thinking, I suppose.
I like to think I've matched the content of your post Hope.
ippy
-
I like to think I've matched the content of your post Hope.
ippy
Perhaps you'll now answer the questions I raised, rather than simply parrotting the post that initiated them.
-
Perhaps you'll now answer the questions I raised, rather than simply parrotting the post that initiated them.
You show me the evidence for first Hope.
Yo can't help yourself Hope, this time you're nibbling around the edges of you N P F; can't let go can you?
ippy
-
You show me the evidence for first Hope.
Yo can't help yourself Hope, this time you're nibbling around the edges of you N P F; can't let go can you?
ippy
Sorry, Ippy, but NPF requires me to ask you for evidence that what I claim is invalid. I have asked you to provide evidence for what you have claimed. Here is the chance for you to do so.
-
Sorry, Ippy, but NPF requires me to ask you for evidence that what I claim is invalid. I have asked you to provide evidence for what you have claimed. Here is the chance for you to do so.
Oh dear, Hope, you really can't se it.
ippy
-
It has been well documented that there is no celestial language which is common to those who speak in tongues. Chinese people speak in a language structured around Chinese language sounds. Russian likewise, English, African, all make sounds based upon their own language.
But noises arising from an ekstasis experience, literally a coming out of oneself, are common across a number of religions including the most primitive. Often accompanied by stimulative substances. Certainly we assume such practices were used in the early church. Look at the Revelations of St John, the site of a Greek pagan oracle which was famed for hallucinogenic flora leading to prophecy, Patmos.
I think we can understand that those who speak in tongues today do so to ape earlier ekstatik practices. Maybe a bit silly, but not as damaging as some other practices favoured by the devout.
-
It has been well documented that there is no celestial language which is common to those who speak in tongues.
Where did you get the above from? Like Southport...Long time...no sea see. :)
-
T8: Look at the Revelations of St John, the site of a Greek pagan oracle which was famed for hallucinogenic flora leading to prophecy, Patmos. [/i
Famed or farmed? Maybe both. Is it exported to this country and can we buy it in garden centres?
Chinese people speak in a language structured around Chinese language sounds. Russian likewise, English, African, all make sounds based upon their own language.
Explains the South London inflection which was evident at the charismatic meetings I attended. It's all in the vowels.
-
T8: Look at the Revelations of St John, the site of a Greek pagan oracle which was famed for hallucinogenic flora leading to prophecy, Patmos. [/i
Famed or farmed? Maybe both. Is it exported to this country and can we buy it in garden centres?
Chinese people speak in a language structured around Chinese language sounds. Russian likewise, English, African, all make sounds based upon their own language.
Explains the South London inflection which was evident at the charismatic meetings I attended. It's all in the vowels.
How about where music is very good at conveying emotions and general human feelings?
I could be that the tonality of the gibberish expressed when speaking in tongues could convey a similar effect to the way music does; having said that people that think that are hearing language, whatever language, when they listen to those speaking in tongues has to be for those with an overactive sense of imagination; mind you religious believers would need a fair old amount of imagination to believe the things they do in the first place.
Maybe for those that already have a religious belief it might not be quite such a stretch of their imaginations.
ippy
-
(Oops, I didn't intend my last sentence of that post to be in italics. That was me talking, not a quote.)
Yes ippy, you could well be right. I do find singing/music stirs my emotions, always have. I lose myself in music and it is the same with others.
The singing in tongues at the place I attended years ago was amazing, almost 'transporting'. So very harmonious and what was quite noticeable was that it happened spontaneously and everyone stopped singing at the same time.
-
(Oops, I didn't intend my last sentence of that post to be in italics. That was me talking, not a quote.)
Yes ippy, you could well be right. I do find singing/music stirs my emotions, always have. I lose myself in music and it is the same with others.
The singing in tongues at the place I attended years ago was amazing, almost 'transporting'. So very harmonious and what was quite noticeable was that it happened spontaneously and everyone stopped singing at the same time.
Was there extra space allowed for the ambulances to park and tea with biscuits laid on, for the speakers in tongues carers?
ippy
-
Well, there was a childrens' hospital (now closed replaced by block of flats) complete with Casualty within spitting distance.
-
I thought I would bump this thread up to see if anyone has anything to add to it.
Yes I've witnessed it
it has the same appeal as the bloke on Britain's Got Talent who could fart tunes from his arse and makes as much sense ,
-
Yes I've witnessed it
it has the same appeal as the bloke on Britain's Got Talent who could fart tunes from his arse and makes as much sense ,
I've done it, to my undying shame, and I agree with your estimation.
-
I've done it, to my undying shame, and I agree with your estimation.
hope you didn't leave any skid marks ::)
-
Yes I've witnessed it
it has the same appeal as the bloke on Britain's Got Talent who could fart tunes from his arse and makes as much sense ,
I saw him. His act was shit....... I think he followed through!
-
This is one heck of a thread floo! I've read the first half dozen pages, don't know if I'll plough through the rest but I love the comments so far. You were humourous.
I think the only Christians who would defend speaking in tongues are those who do it & they may feel tongues need no defence so don't engage in discussion of it. It is for many people a private thing which they call "Praying in the Spirit".
Those who, as you described, do it en masse publicly in church making lots of noise are a different matter.
(It's not something I've ever done nor wanted to and have only seen it on TV.)
-
I use the gift in my private prayer times, and find it an excellent aid to devotion.
I know the concept of a Presbyterian charismatic is a contradiction in terms, but, for me, it works.
There's no need for mass hysteria, or out-of-control nonsense - which is a product of mass hysteria at best, or of great acting skills at worst.
Nor do I even think of contemplating the 'Toronto Blessing' - I have no widh to bark like a dog for Jesus.
However, I take the bit in Romans when Paul say that the Spirit prays for us and in us in groans we cannot fathom as a clue.
Sometimes, whether in stree or in joy, when the words I want to say won't come, I bridge the silence in tongues, and the prayers flow again.
I see nothing dangerous, nor extraordinary in this; nor do I see it as something Christians 'must' or 'must not' have.
The charisma are listed in several places in the Pauline letters - or some of them, because they are simply gifst God uses for His purpose.
It could be healing, or preaching, or admin, or computer skills (I wish....) or whatever - but whatever gift we are given, if we are Christian we are to use it to glorify God, not ourselves.
-
Are you for real ???
-
Are you for real ???
Yep.
The gify came in useful in my personal life when my sight - never anything to write home about - took a serious downturn in my early twenties and I lost all ability to read any kind of print.
I used tongues a lot in prayer then, to vent frustrations - get angry at God - as well as open myself in meditative prayer.
Since then, I've got gadgets which will help the reading thing.
Those who have never really experienced the charisma will naturally scoff - and since the only way to experience them is to accept the Christ who is the Lord you don't believe in, then you sim,ply won't understand any of this.
Not that I'm advocating that every Christian should have them - that's nothing to do with me, but between them and God.
-
I saw him. His act was shit....... I think he followed through!
Think of the performance possible if he went on stage when he was feeling a little funny.
-
Yep.
The gify came in useful in my personal life when my sight - never anything to write home about - took a serious downturn in my early twenties and I lost all ability to read any kind of print.
I used tongues a lot in prayer then, to vent frustrations - get angry at God - as well as open myself in meditative prayer.
Since then, I've got gadgets which will help the reading thing.
Those who have never really experienced the charisma will naturally scoff - and since the only way to experience them is to accept the Christ who is the Lord you don't believe in, then you sim,ply won't understand any of this.
Not that I'm advocating that every Christian should have them - that's nothing to do with me, but between them and God.
why do you pray to and worship the THING that could cure you but doesn't , with such love and passion ?
-
Because He changed my life and gave me a joy beyond description?
-
Because He changed my life and gave me a joy beyond description?
he's very selfish and spiteful then , why doesn't he make us all blind so we can experience the same joy as you .
btw I'm not criticising your blindness just your warped reasoning.
-
he's very selfish and spiteful then , why doesn't he make us all blind so we can experience the same joy as you .
btw I'm not criticising your blindness just your warped reasoning.
You are ignoring what Christianity proposes.
1: God has decreed that he will give the universe agency......He created nature.
2: He only interferes extremely occasionally in the material development of the universe and the agency of the universe.
3: There are to be a new heaven and earth and we are to receive new bodies. So I suppose that means ''old'' eyes.
-
3: There are to be a new heaven and earth and we are to receive new bodies. So I suppose that means ''old'' eyes.
IYO will the new Earth be created within the current ie, physical universe?
Where is the current Heaven?
Will the new one be a straight replacement or will there be a relocation?
-
he's very selfish and spiteful then , why doesn't he make us all blind so we can experience the same joy as you .
btw I'm not criticising your blindness just your warped reasoning.
Eh?
Who said anything about making me blind?
Stuff happens.
-
You are ignoring what Christianity proposes.
1: God has decreed that he will give the universe agency......He created nature.
2: He only interferes extremely occasionally in the material development of the universe and the agency of the universe.
3: There are to be a new heaven and earth and we are to receive new bodies. So I suppose that means ''old'' eyes.
I'm not going to engage with you other than to say PROOVE IT
-
IYO will the new Earth be created within the current ie, physical universe?
Where is the current Heaven?
Will the new one be a straight replacement or will there be a relocation?
1: Location I don't know
2: Current location of Heaven. Night club in London
3: I am not aware of plans to relocate or convert this mainly LGBT club into a ''Straight replacement''
-
I'm not going to engage with you other than to say PROOVE IT
I just said that this is what Christianity proposes.
What is contentious is whether you caricature version of Christianity is what Christianity proposes.
-
I just said that this is what Christianity proposes.
What is contentious is whether you caricature version of Christianity is what Christianity proposes.
I've already said I'm not going to engage with you ,
Simply, come back to me when you've either abandoned your beliefs or you've got some PROOFS
thank you
-
I've already said I'm not going to engage with you ,
Simply, come back to me when you've either abandoned your beliefs or you've got some PROOFS
thank you
Are you confusing what one knows with what one believes?
-
Are you confusing what one knows with what one believes?
That's Alan Burns - I don't think he's signed in yet today.
Might be along later though.
-
1: Location I don't know
2: Current location of Heaven. Night club in London
3: I am not aware of plans to relocate or convert this mainly LGBT club into a ''Straight replacement''
I suppose that is the best one can expect from a black belt turd polisher.
Hey ho.
-
Are you confusing what one knows with what one believes?
as I said earlier, only proofs or abandonment of belief please . Then I'll engage properly . I look forward to that .
-
as I said earlier, only proofs or abandonment of belief please . Then I'll engage properly . I look forward to that .
Prove that the material univese exists, or stop believing in it.
-
Prove that the material univese exists, or stop believing in it.
as I said earlier, only proofs or abandonment of belief please . Then I'll engage properly . I look forward to that .
-
as I said earlier, only proofs or abandonment of belief please . Then I'll engage properly . I look forward to that .
That's precisely what I'm challenging you about Moderator: content removed. Can you prove that the material universe exists? If not, stop believing in it.
-
That's precisely what I'm challenging you about Moderator: content removed. Can you prove that the material universe exists? If not, stop believing in it.
as I said earlier, only proofs or abandonment of belief please . Then I'll engage properly . I look forward to that .
-
I suppose that is the best one can expect from a black belt turd polisher.
Black belt? You mean Brown belt surely?
-
Black belt? You mean Brown belt surely?
No.
-
I have put this thread on a couple of religious forums yesterday, no one has yet defended those who speak in tongues, including Christians.
What is there to defend??
Have you not heard the teaching? "Do not cast your pearls before the swine" Yes they would trample these things underfoot because they are ignorant of value or content. The fact you word the above as you have done, shows you cannot know the purpose or value of these things.
-
What is there to defend??
Have you not heard the teaching? "Do not cast your pearls before the swine" Yes they would trample these things underfoot because they are ignorant of value or content. The fact you word the above as you have done, shows you cannot know the purpose or value of these things.
Sassy Floo strikes me as being one of those who see any religious curiosity as a serious threat to the order of things.
It is worrying though that there has been a movement in that brand of atheism from upset at what the religious do in public to what they do in church and in private.
I'm sure Floo would be the first to make churches public places and glossolalia illegal.
-
What is there to defend??
Have you not heard the teaching? "Do not cast your pearls before the swine" Yes they would trample these things underfoot because they are ignorant of value or content. The fact you word the above as you have done, shows you cannot know the purpose or value of these things.
A stitch in time makes nine Sass, don't put all your eggs in one basket, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, it takes two to tango.
All the above are equally as usefull as your rather daft post Sass.
Regards ippy