Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[FreeGrace]

23 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I put FreeGrace on "ignore" long ago, as he is obsessed with one single word(!) that "proves" his personal doctrine.  There is no point discussing the issue with him as he will never admit that he is mistaken.

How sad.  I've never been obsessed with any "single word".  There are a number of words in Gen 1:2 that need to be better studied.  

And as to that very FALSE claim that I "will never admit' that I am mistaken, just ask Tristen about that.  I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED my error in quoting numbers from biblehub.  

Need to be much more careful when throwing out baseless accusations like that.

But that's about typical.  Not reading posts very well or at all, and yet being very critical of what they don't even know.  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

The author of the book In the Beginnings, by Steven E Dill, wrote another book in 2018 entitled Nobody Wrote This Book: The Philosophy,Theology,  and Science of Creation and Evolution. I've just started reading it, but I suspect I'll be recommending it before too long.

just a quick question: Does anyone here use commentaries besides me while they're reading scriptures? 

[Tristen]

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Substance is ALWAYS more important than technique

I disagree. Quite often people I agree with will make their point in an obstinate, unreasonable or irrational manner. I've yet to see this convince anyone of anything or have any positive outcome. Being right in a debate is a waste of time if one is right, but in the wrong way.

Most commonly, such conversations stall, or worse, descend into vindictive antagonism. In a debate context, where both parties presumably have an interest in finding the truth, how a point is argued is at-least as important being right.

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But you are rather focused on what has ALREADY been dealt with.

Most recently, I have rather been "focused" on how the issue had "been dealt with".

 

23 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since you don't want to discuss substance, thanks for the info on the verb.

Again, I think this is disingenuous. I happily discussed "substance" - until you decided to employ improper and technically irrational argument strategies. At that point, the conversation became about how you were arguing your case - since there was little rational substance in your arguments for me to respond to.

It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me. For example, here you needed to falsely claim that I have no interest in debating "substance". That is an obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

I disagree. Quite often people I agree with will make their point in an obstinate, unreasonable or irrational manner. I've yet to see this convince anyone of anything or have any positive outcome. Being right in a debate is a waste of time if one is right, but in the wrong way.

Most commonly, such conversations stall, or worse, descend into vindictive antagonism. In a debate context, where both parties presumably have an interest in finding the truth, how a point is argued is at-least as important being right.

 

Most recently, I have rather been "focused" on how the issue had "been dealt with".

 

Again, I think this is disingenuous. I happily discussed "substance" - until you decided to employ improper and technically irrational argument strategies. At that point, the conversation became about how you were arguing your case - since there was little rational substance in your arguments for me to respond to.

It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me. For example, here you needed to falsely claim that I have no interest in debating "substance". That is an obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote.

 

What do you think this is a high school debate? If you two people believe this is a debate and not a search for truth, you two should continue the "the debate" on the special debate topic.

[Tristen]

53 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

What do you think this is a high school debate? 

Presumably, the reason we had debates in "school" was to teach us that there is a proper way to reason through a disagreement.

 

55 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

If you two people believe this is a debate and not a search for truth, you two should continue the "the debate" on the special debate topic.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Why "debate" if we have no interest in "truth"? When I engage in discussion with someone I disagree with, I assume we are both trying to find the "truth" - by presenting our arguments for consideration by the opposing perspective.

I have zero interest in trying to win some non-existent trophy - simply because I was able to out-clever an opponent by whatever means necessary. Such a discussion is a massive waste of everyone's time.

Moreso, as Christians, whose primary goal in "debate" should be to seek and establish God's "truth", we (of all people) should be able to have a disagreement without forsaking the conventions of rational and mannerly conversation. The fleshly instinct to 'need to be right' can (and too often does) get in the way of appropriate disagreement conduct.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

3 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Presumably, the reason we had debates in "school" was to teach us that there is a proper way to reason through a disagreement.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Why "debate" if we have no interest in "truth"? When I engage in discussion with someone I disagree with, I assume we are both trying to find the "truth" - by presenting our arguments for consideration by the opposing perspective.

I have zero interest in trying to win some non-existent trophy - simply because I was able to out-clever an opponent by whatever means necessary. Such a discussion is a massive waste of everyone's time.

Moreso, as Christians, whose primary goal in "debate" should be to seek and establish God's "truth", we (of all people) should be able to have a disagreement without forsaking the conventions of rational and mannerly conversation. The fleshly instinct to 'need to be right' can (and too often does) get in the way of appropriate disagreement conduct.

 

People debate because they like to argue. No one benefits from these arguments. Do you need your ego stroked?

[Tristen]

29 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

People debate because they like to argue.

I can't speak to the intent of others.

The Bible tells me the following:

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

I'd rather test and refine the quality of my arguments before Christians first. I want to know firstly if I'm wrong, and secondly if there is a better argument to be made (for both my benefit, and the benefit of those I'm speaking with).

 

36 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

No one benefits from these arguments.

That is because the people involved depart from the conventions of basic logic. At its core, that is an active choice to move the conversation away from the topic being discussed.

 

39 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

Do you need your ego stroked?

Lol. For example, the departure from logic when, instead of dealing with what the opponent has actually said, one tries to insinuate a nefarious motivation on their opponent.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

18 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I can't speak to the intent of others.

The Bible tells me the following:

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

I'd rather test and refine the quality of my arguments before Christians first. I want to know firstly if I'm wrong, and secondly if there is a better argument to be made (for both my benefit, and the benefit of those I'm speaking with).

 

That is because the people involved depart from the conventions of basic logic. At its core, that is an active choice to move the conversation away from the topic being discussed.

 

Lol. For example, the departure from logic when, instead of dealing with what the opponent has actually said, one tries to insinuate a nefarious motivation on their opponent.

 

So being well-defined in the science of logic is a prerequisite to having a discussion with your brother and sister Christians? So science is only useful when you use it since you balk anytime anyone else does.

[Tristen]

14 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

So being well-defined in the science of logic is a prerequisite to having a discussion with your brother and sister Christians? So science is only useful when you use it since you balk anytime anyone else does.

"Science" is a subset of "logic". "Science" works because it follows logical tenets; namely, those associated with Critical Reasoning.

If all parties in a disagreement both understand and apply "logic" to the debate, then such discussions have a very high chance of an amicable resolution.

 

17 minutes ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

So science is only useful when you use it since you balk anytime anyone else does.

By contrast, when one or more of the conversationalists decides to breach the rules of logic (for example, by insinuating something personal about their opponent which is not relevant to the topic being discussed), then the probability of an amicable outcome reduces significantly.

 

[FreeGrace]

On 8/25/2023 at 9:11 AM, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said: 

Substance is ALWAYS more important than technique

I disagree.

Obviously.  Substance = facts.  

On 8/25/2023 at 9:11 AM, Tristen said:

Quite often people I agree with will make their point in an obstinate, unreasonable or irrational manner. I've yet to see this convince anyone of anything or have any positive outcome. Being right in a debate is a waste of time if one is right, but in the wrong way.

Wanna discuss the meaning of "tohu wabohu"?

On 8/25/2023 at 9:11 AM, Tristen said:

Most recently, I have rather been "focused" on how the issue had "been dealt with".

Yes, my point.

On 8/25/2023 at 9:11 AM, Tristen said:

Again, I think this is disingenuous. I happily discussed "substance" - until you decided to employ improper and technically irrational argument strategies.

And became overly "focused" on technique.  Wanna discuss the meaning of "tohu wabohu", which is the real issue in Gen 1:2?

On 8/25/2023 at 9:11 AM, Tristen said:

It is seemingly very difficult for you to comment without trying to find some way to turn the conversation around on me.

I have no idea what you mean here.

On 8/25/2023 at 9:11 AM, Tristen said:

For example, here you needed to falsely claim that I have no interest in debating "substance". That is an obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote.

You yourself admitted that.  No, not obvious.  Maybe preview before posting, in order to ensure what you mean is just what you have typed.

The substance of Gen 1:2 is about the meaning of "tohu wabohu" but you'd rather keep focused on the verb.  

Maybe for obvious reasons.