Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:14:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1160 times
|
| |
|
|
> > 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.
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.
> Alright... ...then, why do you disagree with the fact...
Can we try being just a BIT more objective? 8-)
As you said, my main objection was with the first point.
> > > 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 :)
We're back to your base assumption again.
> > > 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.
I have looked at "other religions" - I found them all severely lacking.
> > 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 :)
lol I've always said it's your premise not your methodology. ;-)
> > 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 :)
Ah yes - The whole existence of Brazil bit - I'm with you and JamesB. :-)
> > 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...
I think we've found another erroneous assumption. ;-) I don't know that
anyone could have 100% faith in anything. You would have to have 100%
knowledge (I guess only God can have 100% faith in Himself.) wouldn't
you? Isn't it more a case again of "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
> > ...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...
Good point - Perhaps it's the time and effort involved to find the
book and read it - especially if it's a textbook and not a novel.
SRC
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Oh? So Nostradamus was God? His prophecies have been as accurate or more accurate. It's all in the interpretation. The more vague the prophecy, the easier it is to link to actual events. Nostr even predicted Bush becoming president ;-) (...) (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ah-- so (once again I'll try) your logic goes something like this: 1. There were predictions made 2. These predictions prove true in the Bible 3. No human is likely to have been able to accurately make these predictions 4. Therefore something (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
