 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Yes, in the same sense that the model of the Earth orbitting the Sun is, being good science, open to better theories. Yours is an empty statement.
|
In the same sense, one does not reject the evidence of the precession of Mercury for not fitting into Newtonian mechanics.
Just because you have evidence of something that does not fit with the established theories, is not enough to reject the Gospel accounts.
You may find that an empty statement, but it was a very important point for me. 
quote:
Do you honestly think them falsifiable or provable?
|
Indeed I do.
quote:
That's rather like saying that somewhere out there, in the deepest oceans, there may be found a goldfish called Nemo . Individual and abstract interpretation of the bible has literalism by the balls here, since it can sidestep the pressure placed on literalists to critically assert their claims.
|
Now you prefer a faith that is not falsifiable to a faith that is?
Considering that I am the one who trusts in the accounts, and you do not, I think my interpretation to be more reliable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
In the same sense, one does not reject the evidence of the precession of Mercury for not fitting into Newtonian mechanics.
|
I assume you are familiar with General Relativity? Consistent with Newton, as in it doesn't refute it, it adds more variables to put it simplistically.
quote:
Just because you have evidence of something that does not fit with the established theories, is not enough to reject the Gospel accounts.
You may find that an empty statement, but it was a very important point for me.
|
But the burden of proof is on you since you would propose it. The scientific evidence that refutes it is plain to see, you must back that up. It's ridiculous to assume it true and then ask for it to be rejected, when it fails to counter the scientific arguments!
Where is the critical and consistent evidence for the Gospels accounts?
Why?
quote:
Now you prefer a faith that is not falsifiable to a faith that is?
|
I never inferred my preference. My preference is for a rational attitude. As for faith, I have it as subjective and incommunicable. By definition it is unfalsifiable in it's subjectivity (to falsify something you need to objectively refer it) but by that, it is not an objective theory.
quote:
Considering that I am the one who trusts in the accounts, and you do not, I think my interpretation to be more reliable.
|
Ad hominem. Are you saying that other interpretations of the bible are going to be less valid? Would you say that your interpretation is more valid than an abstract interpretation, or perhaps the Jewish one? Upon what basis?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
I assume you are familiar with General Relativity? Consistent with Newton, as in it doesn't refute it, it adds more variables to put it simplistically.
|
Neither then does resurrection contradict physical laws, as it operates on entirely different principles.
quote:
But the burden of proof is on you since you would propose it. The scientific evidence that refutes it is plain to see, you must back that up.
|
The scientific evidence says that these men claimed something to have happen outside of our normal circumstances. True, the burden is on them to show why such thing can happen, but given the evidence, their explanation makes the most sense, over all the competing theories.
It's like Sherlock Holmes. After one has eliminated all the other causes, whatever remains, however implausible must be true.
Deductive reasoning does not permit one to reject something just becuase it is improbable.
quote:
Where is the critical and consistent evidence for the Gospels accounts?
|
There is a massive amount of literature on this one subject, in a critical analysis of the Resurrection. And still, the testimony of the disciples stands to scrutiny better than any other theory.
Why do I believe this claim is falsifiable? For the reasons I have stated in the thread. The disciples are making real claims on history, that Christ did die, that he did rise, and that all this really happened. They are not giving an allegorical account, but rather a historical one.
All I can say is read the accounts. Are they not restrained?
quote:
I never inferred my preference. My preference is for a rational attitude. As for faith, I have it as subjective and incommunicable. By definition it is unfalsifiable in it's subjectivity (to falsify something you need to objectively refer it) but by that, it is not an objective theory.
|
Thank you for confirming my beliefs, that even though you ridicule faith for not being falsifiable, you prefer such a soft and yielding faith.
Perhaps it is I who have a point, that you ought to base your religion on something more substantial than fairies.
quote:
Ad hominem. Are you saying that other interpretations of the bible are going to be less valid? Would you say that your interpretation is more valid than an abstract interpretation, or perhaps the Jewish one? Upon what basis?
|
Considering that I believe in the Gospels, and their account yes. I am not saying that my interpretation is the best one, just that the one who rejects the claims of the Gospels has no say as to their proper interpretation.
Interpretation implies that there is some value in the text which can be gleaned and trusted. You trust the bible for nothing.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2004 11:19
. Individual and abstract interpretation of the bible has literalism by the balls here, since it can sidestep the pressure placed on literalists to critically assert their claims.
. The question of abiogenesis, micro and macro evolution is important here too, which affects the question. One could believe that God or the giant pixie created all life, whereupon it evolved.
|