Bonky

On 6/8/2018 at 3:34 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Just when physics has everything figured out, God throws them a curve ball.

That same thought process is what led people to think various illnesses were the work of evil spirits.  You don't solve mysteries by appealing to bigger mysteries.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You were claiming that we don't have enough information to consider anything to be settled to the point where anyone can be dogmatic. But that is only necessarily true if you assume the agnostic premise. The agnostic paradigm makes no logical provision for that degree of confidence. However, Christian arguments are not formulated under the agnostic paradigm. Christian arguments are formulated on the premise of a supernatural God who personally interacts with His creation. So our arguments cannot be objectively judged by the agnostic premise.

Except that you may be forgetting that I came out of Christianity given my upbringing.  I didn't know any better but to believe.  It wasn't forced on me in an abusive way but it's what I was taught since I was around 5 or so.  I'm only responding to the claims I see the in the Bible and I hear Christians regularly make.   So let's say someone has a faith paradigm that they can't be wrong about X.   You think that's logical merely because they believe it is within their worldview?  People can believe what they want, but when those people ask others to believe the same then I have every reason to press them for more details and give me confidence that they're on the right track.  It makes no sense for me to promote something I can't defend.

Do you also deny that the Bible states that I am w/o excuse?  This isn't misguided Christians it's their scripture telling them that people are horrible and you can't trust them etc.  I've spent too much time in the Bible and in church I know the talking points. 

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Aren't we talking about something above and beyond confidence though?”

I don't think so. Given the empirically unverifiable nature of the claims, no one can ever be logically obligated to change their mind. So if someone has been convinced that a particular faith premise is true, it is reasonable for them to assume that arguments that can't obligate a change of mind, won't actually change their mind. It's only unreasonable if they refuse to consider the arguments.

Right so given the unverifiable claims in the past how did we get this confidence again?  I guess we'll answer that below.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

But you are not considering the premise that God can reveal Himself to believers in a manner providing absolute confidence. That level of confidence is only impossible (i.e. can't be logically reconciled) under the secular paradigm. But Biblical theism makes logical provision for such confidence. If the God of the Bible is as real to you as the person standing beside you, then it stands to reason that you won't be convinced otherwise by 'maybe' arguments about His non-existence (or the divine nature of scripture).

That's nice for those special chosen ones but what about the rest of us lol.  If I want a relationship with someone I don't play games.   Relationships aren't hard...and considering what's at stake?  

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Except the person saying this has concluded that their initial assessment or guidance in these matters is spot on and is infallible”

Everyone thinks that what they believe is correct (otherwise they wouldn't believe it). The person saying “that they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture” is merely claiming confidence in their current beliefs – which I have no problem with.

Aren't we talking about something above and beyond confidence though?   It's not like any of this is settled, far from it.  We're talking about things that happened way in the past and much is relied on "eye witness" which you stated requires another level of faith.  Doesn't sound like something people should hold dogmatic views on but that's just me.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

However, I do have a problem with people who aren't prepared to give rational consideration to alternative arguments. When it comes to claims which are unverifiable, there is no risk to considering arguments. No one is ever logically obligated to change their mind. At worse, if we can't reconcile some claim, we always have the option of saying “I don't know” - without intellectually compromising our position. So even if we don't think we can be convinced, there is no risk in considering and understanding a different point of view.

I agree.  I feel that I have grown a lot in this area since 12 years ago when I started getting involved in these discussions.  I used to be more dismissive of things but I realized that wasn't wise.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'd also suggest that the inflexibility you describe is common to all beliefs (including secular beliefs). I am often accused of being anti-science, or being scientifically ignorant, or ignoring facts, or somehow otherwise intellectually bereft - based, not on hearing my arguments, but by virtue of me being a creationist. Christians recognise that we have faith in an inerrant authority, but many secularists consider their position to be equally unequivocal.

I agree here too.   Keep in mind now, I have often [and I mean often] heard from Christians that being a non believer must mean "I'm willfully ignorant", "too prideful", and that when this is all over I deserve to be tortured forever.  It goes both ways.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Glenn Morton didn't leave Christianity. He just stated that he could no longer accept young earth creationism based on his field work. I was just meaning to provide a real life example of someone who went through a fairly major change in religious views/interpretations due to what they viewed solid evidence for an opposing view.”

Right – And I didn't know creationism really existed until I was forced to consider it after converting to Christianity as a young adult. Given my secular upbringing, I was astonished to find that there were sincere creationists. So I had the same kind of paradigm-shifting experience – but arriving at a different conclusion to Morton. What's important is arguments – i.e. the reasons why Morton doesn't think the geological facts can be reconciled to Biblical creationism. The mere fact that someone changed their mind is less meaningful than the reasons behind the change.

I haven't read his conversion article in years but if you search "Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism" by Glenn Morton he writes about it there.

Deleted post.

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hey Bonky,

I don't have any problem with someone claiming “they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture” because conclusions incorporate a culmination of, not only objective elements (such as facts), but also subjective elements (e.g. premises, biases, presuppositions, interpretations etc.).

Except the person saying this has concluded that their initial assessment or guidance in these matters is spot on and is infallible. 

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think one example of someone changing from creationism to the secular view is any more meaningful than the many geologist (or scientists in other disciplines) who started out secular, but are now creationists. Innuendo about any of them not holding onto their former positions is less relevant than the arguments they use to support their new positions (or denounce their former positions).

That wasn't the reason why I mentioned it.   As a matter of fact, Glenn Morton didn't leave Christianity.  He just stated that he could no longer accept young earth creationism based on his field work.  I was just meaning to provide a real life example of someone who went through a fairly major change in religious views/interpretations due to what they viewed solid evidence for an opposing view.  Some people would have kept their views in tact because they aren't open to such modifications in their theism.   

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, I suppose you could look at it that way if you are interested in committing intellectual suicide.

People such as William Lane Craig etc are able to see it that way.  I lean towards the stardust idea.  The building blocks of life are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.   Using spectroscopy a lot of data has been captured about the abundance of life building elements and they are more concentrated in the center of our galaxy than the outer regions.   I don't think that's conclusive at all but it's certainly interesting.

On 5/11/2018 at 5:38 AM, thomas t said:

Evolution, ok.

But I think, Genesis 1&2 and the Theory of Evolution cannot be combined.

As an exaple, the ToE claims that man evolved from another animal. But Bible says man was made of dust.

 

And that little word "dust" will be used in whatever way is convenient for the user.  Without any hard work someone could propose that dust means the elements that we are composed of [created ex nihilo by God] and a theistic evolutionist could say it's referring to "star dust" which is what many scientists would say all earthly matter [source material for our bodies etc] came from.  

10 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

God told me this. 

Humans don't know what faith is, and humans don't know what science is.

Basically, faith is the only way which humans have to rely on to reach a truth of any kind. (Surprised?)

Science is all about a very much specific kind of truth. Science is never equivalent to "all kinds of truth" as today's humans perceive. Science is exclusively about a phenomenon which is repeatable. Most truth however are not repeatable thus science is futile about them. An example, do you still remember what you yourself did today but a year ago? Most of us humans can't remember unless there was something truly special happened that day. We 7 billion humans on earth. We thus have 70 billion cases on a single day where humans are futile about what could have possibly happened!!!!!!!!!

 

In the end, humans don't even know what humans themselves are. Humans are basically futile both the past (such as what you yourself just did today but a year ago), and they are futile about the future. However humans can rely on one thing to reach these both ends, that is, past and future by employing the power of faith.

You started out ok but pulled a fast one at the end.  Your first point sounds acceptable to me...

1. Humans are so feeble in their attempt to navigate reality with any kind of certainty, faith is ultimately deployed for the gaps we are missing.

The 2nd not so much...

2. How has "faith" enabled humans to navigate territory that we couldn't navigate otherwise?  If 10 people employ "faith" but believe things that are ultimately incompatible, who's "faith" is right?  

I guess it depends what you mean by "faith".  There are some folks who have told me that they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture.  That's not a scientific principle, but they don't care about that, they care about what scripture says as they believe it's inspired by God [and that their interpretation is spot on].  There are plenty of people who have modified their view of scripture based on evidence.  One example is a geologist by the name of Glenn Morton I think [last name not sure] who was a young earth creationist but after he spend some time in the field he said he couldn't hold onto that view anymore.   His philosophical framework appears to be compatible with opposing views based on evidence.

Just now, patrick jane said:

INO, dinosaurs never existed and the bones are fake. They were never found before the mid 1800s? Somethings fishy, like a Coelacanth.

 

What do you mean the bones are "fake"?

17 hours ago, Cletus said:

because there are other examples of inaccuracy where something was not living or recently dead where carbon dating said an age thousands of years apart.  how can anyone say thousands of years apart is accurate?  maybe those who want it to be no matter what the data says.  which is indeed very common these days in the scientific community. 

Like One is suggesting often times they use other methods to help verify.  Carbon dating is also but one method there are many using many different radio decay signatures etc.   These methods do indeed work within margins of error and yes there is no time machine to go back and know for 100% sure. 

On 3/21/2018 at 9:49 PM, Cletus said:

sorry man but some dude cut a pigs ear off and burned it with a torch, took it up to a place with a fancy carbon dating doohickey.  the scientist guy said it was thousands of years old.  thise dude walks the pig in and holds the scorched ear up to where it used to reside. 

there is enough info out there if you look into it for yourself to see carbon dating is not accurate.  actually, i dont see any conclusive data that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is accurate.  everyne just jumped on board with it like a lot of stuff the preachers now a days talk about.

You don't carbon date living or recently dead things.   If you purposely don't use tools properly why would you say "ah hah!" when the results are poor?

14 hours ago, Abdicate said:

I heard the last one was 150 years ago.

I'm sure there are some in Congress [in the US] that have seen the last one.

On 1/14/2018 at 10:55 PM, VulcanLogician said:

Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part. LOL.

Wait until you find out what "supernatural" means.

I wanted to get a telescope at some point, the problem is that I live in Pennsylvania....the night skies here aren't exactly clear.  I lived in Arizona for about 12 years, now THAT is a place to own a telescope.

8 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Maybe.  But, as a believer, I hold out hope that things will change.  And, to stay on topic, I don't believe that abiogenesis is possible or logical.  Everything came about at the hand of the Creator.  You can lay a rock in the middle of your dining table and four billion years later....it will still be a rock.

I've found that the truth is stranger than fiction.  We've discovered all kinds of things that would have been considered absurd prior to the discovery.  

2 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

The only thing I came away with, after reading this thread through, was snide, condescending contempt.  It's best not to feed the sharks, Bonky.  Ideally, we all should be able to learn something from discussion boards....but who said life is ideal?

I'm sure Enoch is a good person, but he appears to be defending a faith anchored by a person he seems to have ignored [considering how he deals with people].  

Find someone else to argue with Enoch, that's what you want...not discussion.  

8 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well then, you should have Explicitly SAID SO. 

I mistakenly assumed most would have figured this out w/o me drawing pictures.

9 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes, we do.

Then I'm not sure how I committed a fallacy accurately stating a claim of the Christian faith.  

10 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes it's the FIRST CLUE that you're Contradicting Yourself.

You understand that there are ONLY TWO CHOICES (Ontological Primitives) for How/Why we (Universe/Us) are here??  And that they are Mutually Exclusive??

1.  Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheist.  (Scientifically Falsified)

AND...

2.  Idealism.  (Theist)

You can't be a Supernatural Naturalist .  It violates the Law on Non-Contradiction and would Rival Married Bachelors.

Ok, but given the fact that I don't know which case it is, I'm not dogmatic about naturalism although it is my starting point and an assumption given what I know.  Some people have humility in their beliefs.  

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

WHY??  You said: "Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years."

What "context" will change what your claim simply means? 

One was essentially saying "after a while don't you just give up and concede ground to the opposition".  I don't think this is real hard Enoch.  Based on what ONE was saying, I could say the same kind of thing to theists that keep waiting for Jesus even though he hasn't returned yet.  I do NOT find this a compelling argument which is why I was giving it rhetorically.  

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well the "HALLMARK" of Religion is "Belief without Evidence".  That's why it is Juxtaposed with "Science" because "Science" is based on EVIDENCE (Empirical).

However, Christians are admonished to: 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

This ^^^^^^ is the ANTITHESIS (Polar Opposite) of Religion; Ergo... Christianity is not a Religion. Simple

When I look at the definitions of religion I'm not seeing "belief w/o evidence" as the primary definition [or even secondary]:

On 1/5/2018 at 5:50 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Huh?  ...

(Matthew 24:36) "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Which part of this ^^^^^^^ is particularly confusing?

What if something didn't happen for 2000 years but then happened in the: 2001st, 2006th, 2022nd, 28,654th ad Nauseam... does that mean it still didn't happen?? 

Can you post the Syllogism Validating your claim here...?

It would help if you looked at the context of WHY I was stating this.  Hint, it was in response to something One Opinion said.  

On 1/5/2018 at 5:50 PM, Enoch2021 said:

How many times does it need to be Illustrated and Explained to you that Christianity isn't a Religion before you stop appealing to this??

Furthermore, It is "YOU" that adhere to "Religion"... Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism).  In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb Scientifically Falsified Religion.  Would you like me to show you step-by-step for the 1687th Time?

Christianity has ALL the hallmarks of religion.  Let me know if you're able to have a view that is different from what the Bible is telling you.  Christianity has a supernatural entity that is worshiped by the adherents of it's sacred scriptures.  Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God.   I find that personally [my opinion] to be one of the grand failures of Christianity [divine hiddenness].  So is Christianity just like all the other religions in what it believes...no.  Is it a religion?  YES.

Also my views on naturalism are not dogmatic.  I am completely open to considering non-natural explanations.  I just don't believe in accepting supernatural explanations because it's convenient.  Isaac Newton went to "God does it" explanations when he couldn't figure out how the planets stayed in orbit, later on a french scholar [LaPlace] provided a natural explanation for why the planets stay in orbit.   I look to the natural world for answers before I look to the supernatural, works pretty good.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he? All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe.”

I am not criticising Carroll, but scrutinising the provided argument. No one is disputing “that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe”. Until verified, these stories (Inflation and String Theory) are nothing more than gap-fillers (in exactly the same way God is sometimes used to fill gaps in knowledge – which you object to). But like the story of God, these stories can never be empirically verified. You are critical of theism for not having “compelling reason(s)”, but you readily jump on an idea premised on equally unverifiable foundations.

I'm not jumping on anything.  I never stated what my confidence level is in string theory.   I'll wager a lot of money I have less confidence in string theory than you do in Christ being the Son of God and I mean a lot less.  I'm not even looking for empirical verification for theistic claims, how about just good reasons to believe it's true?  

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.”

Here's the bottom line for me;

The Bible claims that God has placed evidence of Himself in nature, and that many humans intentionally find ways to explain this evidence away (see Romans 1).

Come on Tristen it says a heck of a lot more than that.  It says the Creator is a personal God that wants a relationship and is able to communicate with humanity.   Given this if you're saying we both have stories that are unverifiable that's embarrassing [or should be] that theism has nothing to offer above and beyond naturalism.  

Quote

“given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise.”

We don't know how or if any life can simply “arise”.

So we're in agreement, saying life CAN'T arise naturally is not a sound statement.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

All the same weaknesses you readily recognise in theistic stories are abundantly evident in the secular story. So naturalism can't be considered an objective or superior default.

Naturalism doesn't provide secular stories, it states that natural laws and forces operate in the Universe and not spiritual or supernatural.  Until there is sufficient evidence to believe there are other forces at play, I stick with the natural ones.  If you want to say string theory is on par with God concepts I won't argue that.   I also don't mind people suggesting supernatural forces but that isn't what theism is, it's presupposing a lot more than that and I don't see how it's warranted....especially with the confidence that theism demands.  

Even you don't show much confidence in supernatural claims as you stated you only view biblical claims as "authoritative".  Well that's convenient considering we can't begin to investigate any of that.  Do you have any doubt that in biblical times epilepsy could easily be "identified" as demon possession?

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Well I'm certainly not questioning it because it hasn't happened yet. Although some early Christians did expect Christ to return quickly, we just plain don't know His timetable.

Religion doesn't deal with falsifiable claims

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

1. Researchers have been working on pre-biotic chemistry since before Urey and Miller (1952), since they were working on hypotheses first presented by Oparin and Haldane. In the roughly 70 years since, very little discovery has been made in this regard. Generally, I tend to shy away from "God of the gaps" arguments, but at some point, there just may be a real gap! At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years.  

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

2. Although it is true that Szostak sought the retractions himself, his own colleagues brought problems to his attention and the retractions were actually made. I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?

Conspiracy theories are what they are.  There are times when they have a good measure of truth but conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.