Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:57:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1152 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> God always keeps his promises. Are we agreeing again? :-)
Dunno, are we? Are you actually saying that God needs to be fair? I
certainly hope so-- but my personal interpretation from your side would be
that God IS fair, not in a descriptive sense but in an equating sense. Part
of what defines your God is that He's fair in this regard. And as such, God
CAN'T *NOT* be fair or else He wouldn't be God. If that's what you're
arguing, then we're definitely agreeing at this level-- not to say I won't
take it a step beyond that...
> You said you wanted me to correct your assumptions; Here's a
> biggie - perhaps your most fundamental. The Bible was penned
> by men, but the author is God. Your assumption to the contrary
> makes all the other aspects of this "debate" difficult if not pointless,
> as we lack a common reference standard.
Ah, but I'll also point out your assumption which *I* think is wrong-- that
God IS the author of the Bible. You can't prove such, you only think it to
be correct based on your own judgement. And I think the reverse. And let me
just note that this isn't the point at which we can agree to disagree just
yet-- I won't let you off the hook on this one until you can agree to the
fact that you MAY be wrong, being the fallible human you posit yourself as
being. Doesn't mean you ARE wrong, but that you concede that you MAY be
wrong, just as I shall concede the same thing.
> > Anyway, that was more of a minor rant-- You're free to disagree with
> > both those assumptions. However, I really never expected you to
> > disagree with the 2nd one at all...
>
> I guess it's more of a definition thing again - realizing, perception,
> self-benefiting...
Alright, I guess my question is then, why do you disagree with the fact that
humans learn as they develop what things they do and don't like?
> > ...What I'd like from this discussion (regarding my moral theory)
> > A. What objections my theory will rise, and are these objections
> > EXACTLY what I'd predict the objections are?
> > B. Can anyone convince ME that I've made a mistake? Might I have
> > logical flaws which might convince me to re-think or abandon my theory?
> > C. Can I convince other people that my theory has value or that it's
> > actually right?
>
> A. Don't know if I can address that one.
Well, really only insofar as making specific objections... so far greatly
appreciated, and I *think* they're what I've predicted, but then again, I
don't think we've hit the fundamental layer yet so as I can tell.
> B. Convince you? Probably not. Logical flaws? Again I say
> it's more a matter of starting points and assumptions.
And that's probably true. I don't think I've made any logical errors, but
I'm not about to say that I definitely haven't. To say so in itself would
probably be a logical error :) But if you CAN find a logical flaw with the
theory (there may be LOTS of flaws with the wording, which we can hopefully
get around) then I could be all turned around on the subject. Obviously if
my conclusions do not follow from my assumptions, I did SOMETHING wrong.
> C. It has value and is reasonable within the scope you have defined.
Well, that's a step in the right direction :)
> I'm not saying those feelings aren't there - I'm saying my
> motivation (your term IIRC) is my love for my fellow man
> referred to in the Bible as Agape. (The original Greek uses
> five different words for the different "kinds" of love.)
And HERE is a level at which we can agree to disagree. I say I think I know
your motivation, you say you think you know it better (as you should, I
suppose.)
> > Wow! That was an unexpected opening you left for me. At what point is such
> > a fundamental error readily apparent? Was it apparent at phase 1 of my
> > example? Maybe to YOU it was, but that's because you already know that
> > feathers DO come from brids. In the example, you wouldn't know that at phase
> > 1. What if we're only at phase 1 of showing evolution over Darwinism? Do you
> > KNOW that there are no such fundamental errors in the Bible?
>
> Yes. Do you have a verse or two you would quibble with? :-)
No, but I will ask you how you KNOW that there aren't such errors :)
> > As I'm told they say in Law School-- Interpretation is EVERYTHING. Right? :)
> > The question now is, what would you think if there WERE such a change? Can
> > you fathom something which would actually go so far as to invalidate the
> > Bible? Basically, is the Bible falsifiable? What would it take?
>
> Good question - Nothing's occurring to me.
Ah, and there shall I find further fault a la the scientific method/logic.
I'll argue that you use your personal experiences and your judgement to
arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is right. And as such that you used
the scientific method-- you just used it on your personal metaphysical
experiences, perhaps (and most likely) in addition to your physical
experiences. And thus, in the lack of your experience, or in the existence
of contrary evidence (Say, towards the Kor-an (sp?) or something), your
conclusions WOULD be falsifiable. But if you argue that your knowledge of
God just kinda 'popped in there' via faith or what have you, then I simply
disagree with both your interpretation of your method (I.E. we're back to
knowing our intents), and/or disagree with the method's validity.
> Actually, I like fractals. I wouldn't consider them evidence for evolution.
Evidence? I dunno. But Chaos theory in general nullifies the objection that
you have of everything being 'random'. I.E. it explains how we could get a
complex, structured system out of something we might deem 'random'.
> Hiakarumbas - You ain't kidding - I'm busy at work for a few days and
> when I get back there's well over a hundred dots spawned from my post.
Most interesting progression, isn't it? People leap so fast to trod over
plowed ground.... Personally I find the philosophical side much more
intreuging since we can all in essence be experts on the matter. There's so
much on the physical side I just don't feel qualified to judge on-- I mean
sure I have the intuition that creationist evidence is wrong and
evolutionist evidence is right, but that's just my feeling on the matter.
Without going out and getting a degree in natural science, microbiology,
astronomy, etc, I don't feel I can make a definitive point on the matter....
> You're not expecting 100 replies from me are you? :-)
Me? No. I might've expected it from Jon, though... :)
The evidence you've given so far indicates a low volume of posts from you
directed at certain areas, assumedly because you don't have the time to
devote to them, and maybe also because you'd like to have some time to mull
over the issues... Hence, my conclusion via science would be that you're not
likely to spawn 100 replies :)
> While I admit I haven't read the flurry of posts, I doubt any of them
> answers my basic point about Darwinism - Show my ANY solid evidence
> for it OR admit that you follow it on faith. You're free to choose
> Darwinism as your religion - just don't say it's fact instead of faith
> when the evidence for the theory is either non-existent or faked. Doesn't
> the purveyors of a theory faking their evidence for it tell you something?
And I've been arguing with some of the other evolutionists here on that very
matter-- In essence arguing exactly that: anything we say is based on faith
in our judgement and faith in our perceptions. And it is only my personal
belief that religion involves faith to a degree which it should not jump to.
But again, that's just my faith in my judgement telling me that :)
> Way back somewhere in this tree someone asked "What would it take to
> convince you?" (or words to that effect). Sometime in the future (IMO
> the not too distant future) I and millions of others around the world
> will vanish "in the twinkling of an eye". If what we refer to as the
> Rapture doesn't convince you, I can't imagine what would.
Yes, I think John Neal was asking that? Maybe it was someone else... I
forget... anyway, suffice to say that I don't think anything could CONVINCE
me 100%. Although there would be events that could sway me into believing in
Christianity. I just don't think them too likely. The Rapture would be one
of them. Certainly, if your version of religion is true, then I'm condemned
because I don't think I can have 100% faith in ANYTHING. Maybe mathematics.
But that's only 'cause it's a tautology. And maybe that the universe exists
in some form or antoher. I don't think that can't be true. Anything else
I'll have at least some degree of doubt in.
> (It certainly
> fits Larry's definitions). The Bible (written by men under the inspiration
> of the Holy Spirit - not by themselves Tom) predicts this event and many
> others that will take place during what's called the Tribulation - the
> seven years when God judges mankind. I mention this (and was reminded
> of the "What would it take"? question) because this weekend I got to see
> a movie that's to be released in about a week called "Left Behind".
> It is an exciting and entertaining portrayal of how the Tribulation
> prophecies could be fulfilled. I invite you to watch it and LMK what
> you think of it. No doubt it will raise many questions - I'll start
> a separate thread when it opens and do my best (Prophecy is my
> favorite area of Biblical discussion) to answer them.
I haven't heard of it (at least not yet), but if I get a chance to see it, I
will, and I'll get back to you on it...
Odd, isn't it, the way that people will jump right to a website, see a
movie, or read through LOTS of posts at someone's suggestion whom we're
arguing against, but we won't (not that I've seen) go read a book when
suggested to by the opposition...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) A large part of the Bible is fulfilled prophecy. Only God can prophecy because he isn't bounded by time like we are. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt AFAIK. (...) Can we try being just a BIT more objective? 8-) As you said, my main objection (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) God always keeps his promises. Are we agreeing again? :-) (...) You said you wanted me to correct your assumptions; Here's a biggie - perhaps your most fundamental. The Bible was penned by men, but the author is God. Your assumption to the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
