Originally posted by Ytse
Silly me. I actually thought you could muster a counter-argument. Telling me what I would or would not do and what I do or do not care about does not suffice.This is a very weak position to take. And if this is the best you can do to defend your position perhaps you should reconsider it.
Your asking people to believe in a fairy tale.
Originally posted by Ytse
Silly me. I actually thought you could muster a counter-argument. Telling me what I would or would not do and what I do or do not care about does not suffice.This is a very weak position to take. And if this is the best you can do to defend your position perhaps you should reconsider it.
Do you even read what I wrote? I would bet that you do not.
Let me help you, You rationalize here:
Originally posted by Ytse
…Secondly, assuming that a literal interpretation is correct, as far as it's own presuppositions are concerned there is nothing that would prevent god from creating the universe with the appearence of age. It even presents Adam and Eve as being fully grown even though they are mere moments old…
You cannot face the truth about the topic so you rationalize a perhaps. Kepler said perhaps the orbits of the planets are controlled by the Pythagorean Shapes. He spent most of his life trying to prove this. However, Kepler valued the truth over his belief, and discovered that he was wrong. In doing so, he found the three laws of planetary motion.
Is it possible for you to discover that you are wrong?
BTW do not turn the question back on me; this tactic will not work for I will simply ignore it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot face the truth about the topic so you rationalize a perhaps.
I can't face the truth? You haven't even established that your position is the truth in the first place. In fact your last post impled that you don't think science is even capable of proving or disproving god. You said:
"Even if we could prove that the bible and the god of the bible are fiction..."
You haven't done anything in this thread to support your position other than repeatedly make the same claims and then presume you're privy to my inner thoughts by telling me what I do and do not feel.
Originally posted by Ytse
I can't face the truth? You haven't even established that your position is the truth in the first place. In fact your last post impled that you don't think science is even capable of proving or disproving god. You said:"[b]Even if we could
prove that the bible and the god of the bible are fiction..."You haven't done anything in this thread to support your position other than repeatedly make the same claims and then presume you're privy to my inner thoughts by telling me what I do and do not feel. [/B]
You have taken what I said out of context. However, I am not surprised. Also, I have never told you what the truth is.
The “you” that I was talking about on my earlier post was the generic “you”, as in all Christians like you. I think that most other people on this forum would have connected the dots and realized that I was not speaking personally. If you where offended by this slip of the virtual tongue, I apologize. I do not pretend to know how you feel beyond what you write, and what you write speaks loadly.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, I have never told you what the truth is.
It's implied that you know what the truth is since you're telling me I am turning my back on it. It's like earlier when you said I am rationalizing a perhaps. You just claimed it was a "perhaps," you didn't even attempt to prove it was.
Originally posted by Ytse
It's implied that you know what the truth is since you're telling me I am turning my back on it. It's like earlier when you said I am rationalizing a perhaps. You just claimed it was a "perhaps," you didn't even attempt to prove it was.
That is right, I am only trying to show you where your logic and or beliefs are setting you in the wrong direction. It is not important what your truth is to me.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just because you didn't understand does not mean anything.
What was that you said earlier when FeceMan said you just don't get it?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or you do not want to get what I am saying.
Ah yes...that's right.
You just don't want to get what I'm saying.
If you truly know what you're talking about as you claim, then just show me the flaw in my reasoning here:
Originally posted by Ytse
Firstly, it's a matter of debate even between theologans as to what the specific meaning of the language used in Genesis is.Secondly, assuming that a literal interpretation is correct, as far as it's own presuppositions are concerned there is nothing that would prevent god from creating the universe with the appearence of age. It even presents Adam and Eve as being fully grown even though they are mere moments old.
It wouldn't matter because the evidence would presuppose that we live in a naturalistic world rather than one created by god. And thus they would automatically rule out god without dealing directly with any of the claims in scripture.
Originally posted by Ytse
What was that you said earlier when FeceMan said you just don't get it?Ah yes...that's right.
You just don't want to get what I'm saying.
If you truly know what you're talking about as you claim, then just show me the flaw in my reasoning here:
You believe in something that cannot be proved, because you believe it exists. You believe in a supernatural. That is what I gather from your post.
You cannot base any logical argument on the existence of a supernatural. It is not part of logic: let me give you an example: I have a green dragon egg in my hand, prove to me that I am wrong. You cannot prove that I do not have a green dragon egg in my hand, because green dragon eggs are supernatural and cannot be seen by none believers.
You believe what you believe because you believe it, and for no other reason. That is the main point behind blind faith.
Remember I am speaking in the larger sense of the word “you”. I do not know you personally. For all I know you could be just giving me a bad time.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You believe in a supernatural. That is what I gather from your post.
No, I don't believe in a dualistic natural/supernatural metaphysic. I believe reality was created.
You cannot base any logical argument on the existence of a supernatural. It is not part of logic: let me give you an example: I have a green dragon egg in my hand, prove to me that I am wrong. You cannot prove that I do not have a green dragon egg in my hand, because green dragon eggs are supernatural and cannot be seen by none believers.
1) I've never said "the scriptures are true. prove me wrong." What I said was that science cannot prove or disprove such a thing.
2) While I would question the premises of your argument, the conclusion you reach follows logically. If one supposes that there are indeed green dragon eggs, and one supposes that they cannot be seen by anyone who does not believe they exist, then it would follow that I, being a non-believer in green dragon eggs, could not see them.
Originally posted by Ytse
The truth of scripture is presupposed by the Christian theistic worldview. If you'd read the bible you'd see that god doesn't reveal his character to be fickle in such a way you describe. So, while you're correct that it is within god's ability to do such a thing, if the scriptures are true then he will not since he's said he is consistent in this sort of thing.
God's behavior is still subject to the problem of induction, regardless of a theist's faith. God may be CONSISTENTLY good and dandy in the past but that doesnt guarantee that he will remain to be so in the future, logically speaking. He may have allowed the Bible to remain unchanged for these past 2000 years but induction doesnt guarantee that he will not tamper it in the future. Judas Iscariot for a Messiah anyone?
Originally posted by Templares
God's behavior is still subject to the problem of induction, regardless of a theist's faith. God may be CONSISTENTLY good and dandy in the past but that doesnt guarantee that he will remain to be so in the future, logically speaking.
None of those truths were reached via induction yet they're still subject to it's limitations? That makes absolutely no sense.
He may have allowed the Bible to remain unchanged for these past 2000 years but induction doesnt guarantee that he will not tamper it in the future.
Christianity assumes that god tells the truth because he says so. What you're describing is not the same thing Christians claim.
Originally posted by Ytse
None of those truths were reached via induction yet they're still subject to it's limitations? Thatmakes absolutely no sense.
It doesnt matter if these "truths" were reached by induction or not. Im aware that you reached those "truths" by blind faith, thats why i mentioned faith be damned. These "truths" are not exempt to being put to the test however.
You claim that God HAD not show himself to be FICKLE BEFORE and thats your proof as to why the words in the Bible will not rearrange itself into something else in the future. But that claim of yours is subject to the problem of induction. God's behavior in the past doesnt guarantee that his behavior will remain the same in the future.
All this high and mighty BS aside, God's behavior is NOT EXEMPT from the problem of induction. You'll never know when he might go satanic on someone or change the words of the Bible into a Playboy issue.
Originally posted by Ytse
Christianity assumes that god tells the truth because he says so. What you're describing is not the same thing Christians claim.
Christian faith be damned, God's behavior is still going through the rigors of the problem ofinduction. No exemptions.