Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:01:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1274 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > 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.
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 non-human and most likely perfect made these predictions
5. Therefore, seeing as these are within the Bible, this perfect being must
have created both the predictions (albeit maybe indirectly) and the Bible
itself (again, albeit maybe indirectly)
And honestly, I can't really comment too much here, because I simply haven't
seen the evidence, and I think I'd most likely find fault with the evidence
if I saw it. And even beyond that, I'd probably dispute the conclusions as
not being far enough beyond reasonable doubt for me...
But like I said in my original post, it's not really this 'factual' side of
the Bible that I disagree with-- it's the moral theory. My reasoning (trying
to accept Christianity) would be:
1. The Bible is correct.
2. The Bible dictates a specific universal moral code
3. I arrive at a hypothetical situation in which I judge someone to be moral
where the Bible would say otherwise
4. Either I'm wrong, or the Bible's wrong.
And my strength of confidence in the Bible's validity is obviously less than
my confidence in my own metaphysical experiment. Hence, I take my judgement
over the Bible's.
> > Alright... ...then, why do you disagree with the fact...
>
> Can we try being just a BIT more objective? 8-)
Doh doh doh... And I've been trying to catch myself on those too!
> > No, but I will ask you how you KNOW that there aren't such errors :)
>
> We're back to your base assumption again.
Excellent, then! (I'm assuming that you're saying that you don't KNOW that
there aren't such errors, and that you concede that you may be wrong? And
potentially that I may even be right? Even if only a 0.000001% chance?
That's what I'm after! :) Well, that and getting to the actual points of
judgemental differences...
> I have looked at "other religions" - I found them all severely lacking.
Again, great! I'm just looking for examples of where you used your own
personal judgement (which I'll try and get you to agree is possibly
fallible, if only in the most minor of possibilities) to derive a conclusion.
> > 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. :-)
Ach! I'm on the Christian team! How'd that happen!? :)
> 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"?
And of course, here you're saying it again.. cool... You're indeed correct
that I was assuming that you were adamant that you were absoloutely correct
in your belief in Christianity.
> 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.
Most likely... That and the fact that books are notoriously longer than
articles online... Picking up a 500 page book on something you know in
advance you're probably going to disagree with just doesn't often inspire
one to read... oh well... :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
