 |
| |
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No. It doesn't matter what the definition is. If one has an omnipotent diety who can manipulate the universe any way he likes (otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent), then none of the evidence for evolution as the origin of species is 100% trustworthy. |
But it makes no sense to believe in the Bible (or the Koran or whatever) over science when they conflict at one point, and then believe in science when they conflict at another point -- it's completely inconsistent. F'rinstance, if somebody believes that the Bible is infallible and as a result they believe in creationism, geocentrism, flat earth, pi == 3, etc., then I'll disagree with their beliefs (why the Bible and not the Sutras or the Vedas or the Koran? Why one translation and not another? How do you explain this Biblical inconsistency or contradiction [insert passages here]? etc.), but I'll admit that their beliefs are consistent -- they consistently reject science in favor of the Bible. However, if somebody says "Well, I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't mesh with the Bible, but I still believe in heliocentrism and an oblate earth," then they're being blatantly inconsistent with their beliefs. When they say "I'm a fallible human being just like everybody else, but I don't believe in evolution just because," then they're again being inconsistent. It's perfectly consistent, however, to say "I believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and there is no opposing theory that better fits the current evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or "I don't believe in evolution because [X] theory better fits the available evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or even "The experts in the field of biology are almost unanimously in favor of evolution as the most viable theory that explains the origin of the species currently on our planet."
If there is an omnipotent God, then He could certainly have made a flat earth, geocentric, pi == 3, creationist world. However, the evidence before us suggests otherwise, so we need to either reject all evidence as meaningless or accept all evidence as viable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No. It doesn't matter what the definition is. If one has an omnipotent diety who can manipulate the universe any way he likes (otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent), then none of the evidence for evolution as the origin of species is 100% trustworthy. In other words, God could have put the fossils in the ground for us to find. He could have set up the DNA structures of living beings to make it look like they evolved from common ancestors. He could have made up every peice of evidence for evolution as a test of faith for us. |
Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions. So, at this point, you can:
1. Throw logic out the window
2. Say logic doesn't apply to the Judeo-Christianity god
3. Concede that your god isn't omnipotent
4. Decide that there is no god
You can see choices all choices are problematic for you. [1] clearly is not acceptable. [2] is arbitrary, and ends up with even more questions that you can't answer. [3] runs contradictory to mainstream Christian tenents, but is probably the least painful choice. [4] is the most logical given that there is no evidence for said god.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I don't actually believe this - I am playing the role of 'Devil's Advocate'. I am not even saying that this is a reasonable thing to believe on a scientific level (since it is non-predicitive), but it could be true. Furthermore, since one can never prove whether it is true or not, it is a religious belief. |
If you put it in the "religious belief" category, will you oppose efforts to try to get "Scientifc Creationism" to be taught as if it is some sort of science, alongside with evolution?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions. |
Did I and everyone else somehow miss this?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
well as fez needs to learn
just because you say something does not make it logical
just because you say what you say is logical does not make what you say logical
a fair majority of western civilization does not find your proof logical
now I agree that it might be logical, but I don't see it as such, and the fact that most agree with me should make you suspicious of your own logic
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
But it makes no sense to believe in the Bible (or the Koran or whatever) over science when they conflict at one point, and then believe in science when they conflict at another point -- it's completely inconsistent. F'rinstance, if somebody believes that the Bible is infallible and as a result they believe in creationism, geocentrism, flat earth, pi == 3, etc., then I'll disagree with their beliefs (why the Bible and not the Sutras or the Vedas or the Koran? Why one translation and not another? How do you explain this Biblical inconsistency or contradiction [insert passages here]? etc.), but I'll admit that their beliefs are consistent -- they consistently reject science in favor of the Bible. However, if somebody says "Well, I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't mesh with the Bible, but I still believe in heliocentrism and an oblate earth," then they're being blatantly inconsistent with their beliefs. When they say "I'm a fallible human being just like everybody else, but I don't believe in evolution just because," then they're again being inconsistent. It's perfectly consistent, however, to say "I believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and there is no opposing theory that better fits the current evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or "I don't believe in evolution because [X] theory better fits the available evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or even "The experts in the field of biology are almost unanimously in favor of evolution as the most viable theory that explains the origin of the species currently on our planet."
If there is an omnipotent God, then He could certainly have made a flat earth, geocentric, pi == 3, creationist world. However, the evidence before us suggests otherwise, so we need to either reject all evidence as meaningless or accept all evidence as viable. |
nowhere in the Bible does it claim what you say it claims
the Bible is a written, as such it uses language
I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion)
if you don't understand this from your years of life, than you are an idiot
the best way to read the Bible is to use it as it's own interpreter, such that everything is internally consisten
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I always find it funny how modern athiests use proofs that are as bad as medieval theologians
a funny proof of medeival theologians is this
0 mulitplied by infinitiy is one
so therefore there is a god
since god would make something from nothing
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
nowhere in the Bible does it claim what you say it claims |
Flat earth: four corners of the world, among other things. Geocentrism: the fixed stars, among other things. Pi == 3: some passage about a bowl or something. Creationism: Genesis, twice. I can't be arsed to look up the passages, just run a Google for "geocentrism" and find the most stark raving mad webpage of the lot, it'll be sure to have plenty of biblical passages to back up the claim that the earth is the center of the universe. Also run a search for the flat earth society, they're sure to have plenty of biblical passages as well.
quote:
the Bible is a written, as such it uses language
I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion) |
Great, then you're not arguing in favor of the Bible being infallible (since human language is fallible thus the Bible is necessarily fallible), so I don't know why you're bothering to address your post to me since we're apparently not in disagreement.
quote:
if you don't understand this from your years of life, than you are an idiot |
**** you too.
quote:
the best way to read the Bible is to use it as it's own interpreter, such that everything is internally consisten[t] |
Do you mean "use the Bible as a self-referential system"? Obviously that's problematic. Do you mean "read the Bible such that you take the context of the passages into account"? Fine, but then you wouldn't be arguing in favor of an infallible Bible, and again I'm not sure why you're addressing me with your post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Flat earth: four corners of the world, among other things. Geocentrism: the fixed stars, among other things. Pi == 3: some passage about a bowl or something. Creationism: Genesis, twice. I can't be arsed to look up the passages, just run a Google for "geocentrism" and find the most stark raving mad webpage of the lot, it'll be sure to have plenty of biblical passages to back up the claim that the earth is the center of the universe. Also run a search for the flat earth society, they're sure to have plenty of biblical passages as well.
Great, then you're not arguing in favor of the Bible being infallible (since human language is fallible thus the Bible is necessarily fallible), so I don't know why you're bothering to address your post to me since we're apparently not in disagreement.
**** you too.
Do you mean "use the Bible as a self-referential system"? Obviously that's problematic. Do you mean "read the Bible such that you take the context of the passages into account"? Fine, but then you wouldn't be arguing in favor of an infallible Bible, and again I'm not sure why you're addressing me with your post. |
I am arguing for an infallable Bible
I am sayign however, that the Bible being infallable, does not mean that we (who are fallen) cannot misinterpret it
as with any communication made between men, there is the possibility for miscommunication
the Bible communicates exactly what God wants it to, if we are open to it (is me beleif)
if oyu try to use the Bible for your own ends, you can get it to say anything you want it to (As you can with any written document)
my statement was strong because your statement was strong and you were being unreasonable
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Which is all fine and dandy, if even a single sentence of it actually applied to the post you quoted... You might want to read loinburgers post again. |
I did
if you are too dense to follow me, I can try again and write more clearer
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
It would be ten times funnier if you had a cite or a quote to provide an example of what you're referring to. Otherwise you're just trolling, and there's been enough of that on this thread that it's no longer particulalry amusing. |
I am implying that Urban's was
I follow these threads, and I know there was nothing like a proof in any of them (that was logical)
if he could reference his 'proof' without linking it, so can I
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
here, maybe this will help you some Gnu
false dichotomy
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
(I will admit that sometimes I am hard to follow, so I guess I am wrong for calling you dense for you failing to follow me, I apologise for that and will try to make it clearer if oyu will point out what you are not following)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
You know exactly what his proof was without even seeing it? That's funnier yet. |
I follow these sort of threads
and have seen 'proofs' of his and others in the past
I am not sure exactly which one he was referencing
but my statement is true for all I have seen
and so it is true for the one he posted
I see you have a hard time reading what I post
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-11-2002 02:30
).
Then I'd hate to see your idea of being "reasonable."
|