Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    The existence of a supernatural realm is a faith-belief only, it's not supported by any substantive evidence.
    Doesn't matter. The possibility of a supernatural realm influencing this natural world is dependent on it's reality and relationship to the natural world, not our ability to confirm it's reality scientifically.

    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Sorry. That is an arbitrary assumption that is completely out of place evaluating the claims of scripture. To make that assumption is to assume a fixed conclusion. An invalid scientific approach by any standard. That is, if miracles do not occur, then the story of the Resurrection is concluded to be a fiction independently of any evidence, and it doesn't matter what evidence exists for it.
      It’s the only scientific approach. Science is the systematic study of material world and works on the assumption that all events (including seeming miracles) have a natural explanation.

      He is entitled to his opinion. He might even be right. But it's just so much conjecture as far as I'm concerned.
      No offence but Raymond E Brown is more likely to be correct than you. “He is the author of some 40 books in his long career, he was regarded as occupying the centre ground in the field of biblical studies and developed a reputation for being rigorous in his writings. He was best known for his work on St John's Gospel, writing the groundbreaking The Gospel According to John, published in two volumes in 1966 and 1970 as part of the interdenominational Anchor Bible series”.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...n-1172611.html

      Ehrman, in addition to being a great scholar, is a man on a mission. And that mission appears to be to make sure everyone has the same very low view of scripture he has come to hold.
      Ehrman is a reputable biblical scholar utilising standard historical-critical methodology. It is not in order to ascribe dubious motives to his scholarship.

      Thanks - I've greatly enjoyed the privilege of performing the work over the years. But it is also wonderful to just sit back and enjoy it (or other works). There are far to few people in the world that can appreciate good music, good art - and I think we have finally found something we have in common and could correspond amicably about :)
      Certainly! I'm a avid supporter of serious music and the performing arts.

      Likewise nothing is believable to those who are determined not to believe.

      So is there any middle ground?
      Only when there is the possibility of obtaining verifiable evidence and there isn’t when it comes to supernatural claims. It can only be believed or not believed.

      And it might be right, and it might be wrong. The point is there are a large number of possibilities, and your points all go to trying to say these stories are made up fiction.
      My points don’t “all go to say these stories are made up fiction”. The stories just don’t provide anything like sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are historically true.

      You also say over and over again these works were written 40+ years after and THEREFORE are not eyewitness accounts. And there is no logical connection there
      Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that because of the time factor plus other things enumerated in my link, the gospels do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. “This assessment of the Gospels derives from the New Oxford Annotated Bible edited by Michael D. Coogan (pg. 1744). And it is the consensus. Open up any academic Study Bible or college level text book on the New Testament, and you’ll find the same idea: the Gospels are historical sources that lack historicity”.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbo...ospels-part-1/

      That is an overreaching statement. These extra-Biblical statements do not exist in a vacuum. They exist along side historical Christian documents that also record information about the Church's early history that do give us that information. And I have no valid reason to dismiss that information, nor do I think you do.
      I repeat: the likes of Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius do NOT confirm the alleged events of the Jesus story. They merely confirm the existence of Christians. Their martyrdoms don’t prove any more about the truth of their beliefs than the “martyrdoms” of ISIS suicide bombers do about Islam.

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Doesn't matter. The possibility of a supernatural realm influencing this natural world is dependent on it's reality and relationship to the natural world, not our ability to confirm it's reality scientifically.
      We have no way of knowing about the existence of the supernatural either way. But there’s no credible evidence that it does exist. .
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • This is likely my last post with you in this conversation. It's been overall a good back and forth, but it's quickly moving towards "yes it is", "no it's not", and I'm not a new testament scholar and while I enjoy debates that force me to learn, at some point I have to just admit we are at the limit of what I'm qualified - even marginally - to debate.

        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        It’s the only scientific approach. Science is the systematic study of material world and works on the assumption that all events (including seeming miracles) have a natural explanation.
        Not exactly. It searches for a natural explanation for natural events. But it can't answer if an event for which no natural explanation is found is or is not miraculous. There is a subtle but important difference. And that difference is the difference between 'is not' and 'might not be'.

        in this case you are trying to use science as proof in matters of faith outside its capacity to address. It's the wrong tool for the job. The kind of evidence that exists simply isn't strong enough to push a sure conclusion one way or the other without adding in an a priori assumption about the possibility of certain claims - e.g. The Resurrection or the Miracles of Jesus. To be fair, it can't even really answer to any realistic surety the questions of authorship. The reasoning used might push for a 60 or 70% probability of correctness. In Physics the requirement for any sort of surety is 3 sigma, and 5 sigma is preferred.


        No offence but Raymond E Brown is more likely to be correct than you. “He is the author of some 40 books in his long career, he was regarded as occupying the centre ground in the field of biblical studies and developed a reputation for being rigorous in his writings. He was best known for his work on St John's Gospel, writing the groundbreaking The Gospel According to John, published in two volumes in 1966 and 1970 as part of the interdenominational Anchor Bible series”.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...n-1172611.html
        Raymond E Brown's probability of correctness lies with the methods and reasoning used, not his expertise in the field or his intelligence relative to my own. It is the unsurety of those methods and the reasoning, the probability they are wrong, that drives my response, not any lack of respect for his accomplishments.




        Ehrman is a reputable biblical scholar utilising standard historical-critical methodology. It is not in order to ascribe dubious motives to his scholarship.
        Again - I hope you are listening - I am not 'ascribing dubious motives to his scholarship'. I'm simply reading his own words from his popular books and drawing a logical conclusion from them. He is the one telling the story of being raised fundamentalist with a false view of what the scripture is and having that belief devastated as he learned what he learned. He didn't write those popular books to further his scholarship but rather to get his message to the public (and make a bit of money in the process). And I hope with that you can avoid further ascribing dubious motives or conclusions to my words.

        Certainly! I'm a avid supporter of serious music and the performing arts.
        Yay! Me too! So in the real world away from this specific debate we could probably get along - at least at a good concert :) I've always wanted to go to the Opera at the wonderful house in Sydney. If I ever plan a trip there I'll let you (and others on this site) know.


        Only when there is the possibility of obtaining verifiable evidence and there isn’t when it comes to supernatural claims. It can only be believed or not believed.



        My points don’t “all go to say these stories are made up fiction”. The stories just don’t provide anything like sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are historically true.
        And as I said earlier - I understand that there is not sufficient objective proof to directly convince a skeptic. My rebuttals here have been against overreaching, against saying there is sufficient evidence to prove the gospels and new testament are false, mere fictional works. There is sufficient evidence for those that believe or that want to believe. The reality is there is no potential objective evidence I know of that can prove a miracle that was reported 2000 years ago. Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ will ALWAYS be faith. It was Faith even for those that saw the empty tomb and that saw him before the ascension. The closest anyone ever came to following Christ without faith would be the classic case of Thomas.


        Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that because of the time factor plus other things enumerated in my link, the gospels do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. “This assessment of the Gospels derives from the New Oxford Annotated Bible edited by Michael D. Coogan (pg. 1744). And it is the consensus. Open up any academic Study Bible or college level text book on the New Testament, and you’ll find the same idea: the Gospels are historical sources that lack historicity”.

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbo...ospels-part-1/
        And we disagree, and so does most of the Christian church with the conclusions of these scholars. I see no objective reason to conclude the stories in the gospels were not what the people at the time saw and heard from Jesus.


        I repeat: the likes of Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius do NOT confirm the alleged events of the Jesus story. They merely confirm the existence of Christians. Their martyrdoms don’t prove any more about the truth of their beliefs than the “martyrdoms” of ISIS suicide bombers do about Islam.
        I would agree as regards the martyrdom of any non-eyewitness of the events. But the fact is the disciples and many first generation Christians in and around where Jesus lived were eyewitnesses. The fact they followed Christ and His teachings to their deaths says a good deal more than that of a non-eyewitness. It says they observed the actual events and believed what they saw supported such an act. And for the disciples, it says that those in the inner circle, those that would have been privy to the behind the scenes truth of the goings on of Jesus actions and ministry, also believed to the point of death that what they witnessed was true. I don't know why you can't see that difference, but there it is.


        We have no way of knowing about the existence of the supernatural either way. But there’s no credible evidence that it does exist. .
        How credible the evidence is would be subjective. That there is no scientifically substantial evidence we would agree. But Faith isn't required if there is scientifically substantial evidence - is it ...

        But I would disagree there is 'no evidence' for it. There is the evidence that causes people to continue to believe in God, the evidence that causes new people every day to decide to follow Christ. The witness of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual, and the witness of the lives of those that follow Christ

        Thanks Tassman - in the end this was a good round of posts, a good back and forth. I'm sure we will have additional discussions in the days that come.

        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-23-2017, 09:04 AM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          This is likely my last post with you in this conversation. It's been overall a good back and forth, but it's quickly moving towards "yes it is", "no it's not", and I'm not a new testament scholar and while I enjoy debates that force me to learn, at some point I have to just admit we are at the limit of what I'm qualified - even marginally - to debate.



          Not exactly. It searches for a natural explanation for natural events. But it can't answer if an event for which no natural explanation is found is or is not miraculous. There is a subtle but important difference. And that difference is the difference between 'is not' and 'might not be'.

          in this case you are trying to use science as proof in matters of faith outside its capacity to address. It's the wrong tool for the job. The kind of evidence that exists simply isn't strong enough to push a sure conclusion one way or the other without adding in an a priori assumption about the possibility of certain claims - e.g. The Resurrection or the Miracles of Jesus. To be fair, it can't even really answer to any realistic surety the questions of authorship. The reasoning used might push for a 60 or 70% probability of correctness. In Physics the requirement for any sort of surety is 3 sigma, and 5 sigma is preferred.




          Raymond E Brown's probability of correctness lies with the methods and reasoning used, not his expertise in the field or his intelligence relative to my own. It is the unsurety of those methods and the reasoning, the probability they are wrong, that drives my response, not any lack of respect for his accomplishments.






          Again - I hope you are listening - I am not 'ascribing dubious motives to his scholarship'. I'm simply reading his own words from his popular books and drawing a logical conclusion from them. He is the one telling the story of being raised fundamentalist with a false view of what the scripture is and having that belief devastated as he learned what he learned. He didn't write those popular books to further his scholarship but rather to get his message to the public (and make a bit of money in the process). And I hope with that you can avoid further ascribing dubious motives or conclusions to my words.



          Yay! Me too! So in the real world away from this specific debate we could probably get along - at least at a good concert :) I've always wanted to go to the Opera at the wonderful house in Sydney. If I ever plan a trip there I'll let you (and others on this site) know.




          And as I said earlier - I understand that there is not sufficient objective proof to directly convince a skeptic. My rebuttals here have been against overreaching, against saying there is sufficient evidence to prove the gospels and new testament are false, mere fictional works. There is sufficient evidence for those that believe or that want to believe. The reality is there is no potential objective evidence I know of that can prove a miracle that was reported 2000 years ago. Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ will ALWAYS be faith. It was Faith even for those that saw the empty tomb and that saw him before the ascension. The closest anyone ever came to following Christ without faith would be the classic case of Thomas.




          And we disagree, and so does most of the Christian church with the conclusions of these scholars. I see no objective reason to conclude the stories in the gospels were not what the people at the time saw and heard from Jesus.




          I would agree as regards the martyrdom of any non-eyewitness of the events. But the fact is the disciples and many first generation Christians in and around where Jesus lived were eyewitnesses. The fact they followed Christ and His teachings to their deaths says a good deal more than that of a non-eyewitness. It says they observed the actual events and believed what they saw supported such an act. And for the disciples, it says that those in the inner circle, those that would have been privy to the behind the scenes truth of the goings on of Jesus actions and ministry, also believed to the point of death that what they witnessed was true. I don't know why you can't see that difference, but there it is.




          How credible the evidence is would be subjective. That there is no scientifically substantial evidence we would agree. But Faith isn't required if there is scientifically substantial evidence - is it ...

          But I would disagree there is 'no evidence' for it. There is the evidence that causes people to continue to believe in God, the evidence that causes new people every day to decide to follow Christ. The witness of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual, and the witness of the lives of those that follow Christ

          Thanks Tassman - in the end this was a good round of posts, a good back and forth. I'm sure we will have additional discussions in the days that come.

          Jim
          At least, unlike many others here, you admit that the evidence, the so called evidence, isn't sufficient to convince the skeptic. So why should the skeptics, morally speaking, be punished for their non-belief?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            That’s a big “IF”. There is no scientifically verified knowledge of the supernatural having the ability to act in the natural world...or that it even exists. To believe that it does exist and can affect the natural laws and constants of the universe is an act of faith, not verified knowledge.
            which is why we were talking hypotheticals. YOU made the claim that you would believe scientifically verifiable evidence. So I asked you like what? and as we have seen you said nothing would convince you and now you claim there can be no scientific way to verify the supernatural. making your initial claim a lie.

            but I say that IF God were to do a miracle today like bringing a long dead person back to life, it could be scientifically verifiable. Yet you would still not believe would you?


            Science is the systematic study of the physical or material world and works on the assumption that all events (including seeming miracles) have a natural explanation. Science does not resolve mysterious phenomena by attributing it to a miracle; this would be to abdicate the scientific method.
            science make no such assumption. It seeks the truth whatever it is.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              It is the scholarly consensus that there are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story. The only two events subject to almost universal agreement are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is widely disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus and the miracles...including the resurrection and the fanciful details surrounding it.
              That would depend on the scholars. You believe those who happen to support what you'd prefer be true. The most negative take possible.
              Tassman is being very dishonest here (standard practice). We've personally have had this conversation so many time that I've lost count. He keeps repeating it, though, in the hopes that one day he'll get away with it. What he's repeating comes from a quote from Raymond Brown. Brown was not at all intending to make a complete list of everything scholars know about Jesus, in fact, he points out elsewhere that scholars know quite a bit about Jesus. Here is a link to my 4th rebuttal to this claim (which links back to previous rebuttals): http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...cle#post422029

              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Raymond E Brown's probability of correctness lies with the methods and reasoning used, not his expertise in the field or his intelligence relative to my own. It is the unsurety of those methods and the reasoning, the probability they are wrong, that drives my response, not any lack of respect for his accomplishments.
              While Raymond Brown does not believe that John himself wrote the Gospel named after him, he, like many other scholars believe that John was written by a community of his disciples who remembered his teachings. So then, authorship is often given to a Johannine community.

              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              And we disagree, and so does most of the Christian church with the conclusions of these scholars. I see no objective reason to conclude the stories in the gospels were not what the people at the time saw and heard from Jesus.
              I feel I'm relatively familiar with the major names in New Testament studies, and I have NEVER heard of this David Bokovoy that Tassman is citing. After a little digging, it appears he's a Mormon scholar! No wonder I had never heard of him. He's totally wrong about what the majority of scholar think about on the historicity of the New Testament. Below is what Tassman's other favorite scholar says about the historicity of the Gospels,

              Source: An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Edward Brown

              CREATIVITY AND THE GOSPELS. How much ingenuity was required to construct a full gospel narrative about Jesus? The answer depends on the historicity of the narrative: largely fiction, or largely fact? Scholars differ considerably in this matter. On the one hand, various scholars see much of Mark, which most likely was the earliest, as being fiction. Some regard the narrative as creative reflection on the OT; some see Jesus as a wisdom teacher and judge the stories of miracles and resurrection as propaganda to make Jesus competitive as a wonder-worker; and others contend that Jesus was a magician who healed by various means and that the role of wisdom teaching was crafted to make him respectable. Were any of this true, much creativity would have been required to move from what some say Jesus was in fact to the very different picture of him painted in the Gospels. On the other hand, an even larger number of scholars would judge much of what Mark narrates as factual. Jesus himself would have supplied the kinds of material that ultimately went into the Gospels, no matter how much the material developed over the decades that separated him from the evangelists.

              © Copyright Original Source



              See, the problem is, Tassman hasn't actually read much New Testament scholarship, which is precisely why he picks up talking points from the blogs of skeptical scholars or those that no one has ever heard of. He likes to talk a big game, but ultimately he's full of hot air.

              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I would agree as regards the martyrdom of any non-eyewitness of the events. But the fact is the disciples and many first generation Christians in and around where Jesus lived were eyewitnesses. The fact they followed Christ and His teachings to their deaths says a good deal more than that of a non-eyewitness. It says they observed the actual events and believed what they saw supported such an act. And for the disciples, it says that those in the inner circle, those that would have been privy to the behind the scenes truth of the goings on of Jesus actions and ministry, also believed to the point of death that what they witnessed was true. I don't know why you can't see that difference, but there it is.
              It's the difference between dying for a lie and dying for something you KNOW to be a lie. People don't generally die for things they know to be a lie. Tassman knows this, because we've repeated it to him for YEARS, but it's easier to pretend ignorant in order to push his agenda.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Tassman is being very dishonest here (standard practice). We've personally have had this conversation so many time that I've lost count. He keeps repeating it, though, in the hopes that one day he'll get away with it. What he's repeating comes from a quote from Raymond Brown. Brown was not at all intending to make a complete list of everything scholars know about Jesus, in fact, he points out elsewhere that scholars know quite a bit about Jesus. Here is a link to my 4th rebuttal to this claim (which links back to previous rebuttals): http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...cle#post422029



                While Raymond Brown does not believe that John himself wrote the Gospel named after him, he, like many other scholars believe that John was written by a community of his disciples who remembered his teachings. So then, authorship is often given to a Johannine community.



                I feel I'm relatively familiar with the major names in New Testament studies, and I have NEVER heard of this David Bokovoy that Tassman is citing. After a little digging, it appears he's a Mormon scholar! No wonder I had never heard of him. He's totally wrong about what the majority of scholar think about on the historicity of the New Testament. Below is what Tassman's other favorite scholar says about the historicity of the Gospels,

                Source: An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Edward Brown

                CREATIVITY AND THE GOSPELS. How much ingenuity was required to construct a full gospel narrative about Jesus? The answer depends on the historicity of the narrative: largely fiction, or largely fact? Scholars differ considerably in this matter. On the one hand, various scholars see much of Mark, which most likely was the earliest, as being fiction. Some regard the narrative as creative reflection on the OT; some see Jesus as a wisdom teacher and judge the stories of miracles and resurrection as propaganda to make Jesus competitive as a wonder-worker; and others contend that Jesus was a magician who healed by various means and that the role of wisdom teaching was crafted to make him respectable. Were any of this true, much creativity would have been required to move from what some say Jesus was in fact to the very different picture of him painted in the Gospels. On the other hand, an even larger number of scholars would judge much of what Mark narrates as factual. Jesus himself would have supplied the kinds of material that ultimately went into the Gospels, no matter how much the material developed over the decades that separated him from the evangelists.

                © Copyright Original Source



                See, the problem is, Tassman hasn't actually read much New Testament scholarship, which is precisely why he picks up talking points from the blogs of skeptical scholars or those that no one has ever heard of. He likes to talk a big game, but ultimately he's full of hot air.



                It's the difference between dying for a lie and dying for something you KNOW to be a lie. People don't generally die for things they know to be a lie. Tassman knows this, because we've repeated it to him for YEARS, but it's easier to pretend ignorant in order to push his agenda.
                What you're saying is in accord with what I remember from Brown's massive 2 volume The Gospel According to John that I need to dig out again.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  There is nothing about the 12 apostles in any secular source that I know of, which is rather odd don't you think? Kinda makes you think they must be fictional characters, no?
                  Okay, let's apply this protocol to other documentary evidence of the 1st Century AD. The result would be to discount absolutely all of the historic documents - all of them. First off, 'secular' is a modern construction - the idea of strict separation of secular and sectarian is absent in the ancient world. There are no 'secular' sources - none. There are non-Biblical sources but none would qualify as 'secular'. Honestly, the vast bulk of documentary evidence up until the late 1800's would fail such a test.

                  Second, assuming you mean 'secondary' instead of 'secular' few documents of the period would meet that criteria. There aren't that many extant documents or copies of documents - they cover a broad range of topics - the combination makes finding mentions of same events/people rare. Scripture is one of the few documents that can survive this test.

                  There's actually nothing odd about not finding the Apostles mentioned in other works given the period and technology (and the relatively few documents) - it's actually much more surprising that, as Jim points out, there ARE outside mentions of known Apostles. That makes the idea that they are fictional characters extremely unlikely. There is considerable outside documentary evidence from the period of the existence of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity - which makes the notion that the Apostles are fictional utterly untenable as a rational proposition.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    At least, unlike many others here, you admit that the evidence, the so called evidence, isn't sufficient to convince the skeptic. So why should the skeptics, morally speaking, be punished for their non-belief?
                    I don't believe God punishes people for what they could not know and/or did not know. But we are required to act in faith in response to the preaching of the Gospel itself. Personally I believe that is because when God calls to a person, that is something real and the person hearing the call knows on some level that is what is happening. I don't know how that works, and I don't pass judgement on anyone over it as I have no idea when, if, or how God calls to a specific person. But I do believe that when we stand before God, those that are judged will be judged absolutely fairly and justly, and each person will know that they have been judged fairly and justly. Christ offers the opportunity to bypass that judgement for any that will receive His life for their own.

                    But yes, I do believe that the evidence, from a scientific standpoint, is insufficient to justify objectively the choice to follow Christ. That is, has been, and likely always will be an act of Faith born out of a recognition of one's own sinfulness and the singular desire to be set from from the consequences of that sin by His finished work.

                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      At least, unlike many others here, you admit that the evidence, the so called evidence, isn't sufficient to convince the skeptic. So why should the skeptics, morally speaking, be punished for their non-belief?
                      The answer - one of them - lies in the source of that non-belief. Rejecting valid evidence without consideration merely because it does not satisfy you (general) personally is valid for your own purposes - but is not valid to make a legitimate case for actual ignorance. Especially so when that ignorance is willful - when the person is committed to skepticism regardless of the evidence.

                      You can lie to a cop and say you didn't see the stop sign. You can even become so self deluded that you honestly believe you didn't see the stop sign. But you can't fool an omniscient God into believing you really, honestly didn't notice the stop sign.

                      There's a big difference between really not knowing something and willfully deciding something isn't real.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Not exactly. It searches for a natural explanation for natural events. But it can't answer if an event for which no natural explanation is found is or is not miraculous. There is a subtle but important difference. And that difference is the difference between 'is not' and 'might not be'.

                        in this case you are trying to use science as proof in matters of faith outside its capacity to address. It's the wrong tool for the job. The kind of evidence that exists simply isn't strong enough to push a sure conclusion one way or the other without adding in an a priori assumption about the possibility of certain claims - e.g. The Resurrection or the Miracles of Jesus. To be fair, it can't even really answer to any realistic surety the questions of authorship. The reasoning used might push for a 60 or 70% probability of correctness. In Physics the requirement for any sort of surety is 3 sigma, and 5 sigma is preferred.
                        I have argued this many times. Seeking scientific evidence for God is akin to seeking a potter in the pot he made.

                        It makes no rational sense. Science can have no a priori conditions set upon it. Once you set such conditions you have left the scientific realm.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          I have argued this many times. Seeking scientific evidence for God is akin to seeking a potter in the pot he made.

                          It makes no rational sense. Science can have no a priori conditions set upon it. Once you set such conditions you have left the scientific realm.
                          Gotta remember that.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            I have argued this many times. Seeking scientific evidence for God is akin to seeking a potter in the pot he made.

                            It makes no rational sense. Science can have no a priori conditions set upon it. Once you set such conditions you have left the scientific realm.
                            I think, in a sense, it does make rational sense. We see the effect of some sort of potter in the pot's design, which is precisely what teleological or cosmological arguments for God also demonstrate. I'm a little wary of arguments that say that there is no scientific evidence for God, but maybe it comes down to what we consider to be "science". If we regard, say, metaphysics or history as, in some sense, science, then it may be possible to say that there is "scientific" evidence for God. Typically what people mean by "scientific evidence", though, is evidence that withstands the scientific method of experimentation and reproducibility in the hard sciences. But then, there are many things that we accept as true that cannot be proven by the scientific method, such as logical and mathematical truths, ethics, aesthetic judgement, and even science itself, which rests on assumptions that cannot be proven through the scientific method.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              I don't believe God punishes people for what they could not know and/or did not know. But we are required to act in faith in response to the preaching of the Gospel itself. Personally I believe that is because when God calls to a person, that is something real and the person hearing the call knows on some level that is what is happening. I don't know how that works, and I don't pass judgement on anyone over it as I have no idea when, if, or how God calls to a specific person. But I do believe that when we stand before God, those that are judged will be judged absolutely fairly and justly, and each person will know that they have been judged fairly and justly. Christ offers the opportunity to bypass that judgement for any that will receive His life for their own.

                              But yes, I do believe that the evidence, from a scientific standpoint, is insufficient to justify objectively the choice to follow Christ. That is, has been, and likely always will be an act of Faith born out of a recognition of one's own sinfulness and the singular desire to be set from from the consequences of that sin by His finished work.

                              Jim
                              So, you don't believe that in order to be saved, one has to believe in the existence of god/Jesus?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                I don't believe God punishes people for what they could not know and/or did not know. But we are required to act in faith in response to the preaching of the Gospel itself. Personally I believe that is because when God calls to a person, that is something real and the person hearing the call knows on some level that is what is happening. I don't know how that works, and I don't pass judgement on anyone over it as I have no idea when, if, or how God calls to a specific person. But I do believe that when we stand before God, those that are judged will be judged absolutely fairly and justly, and each person will know that they have been judged fairly and justly. Christ offers the opportunity to bypass that judgement for any that will receive His life for their own.

                                But yes, I do believe that the evidence, from a scientific standpoint, is insufficient to justify objectively the choice to follow Christ. That is, has been, and likely always will be an act of Faith born out of a recognition of one's own sinfulness and the singular desire to be set from from the consequences of that sin by His finished work.
                                Why would one "act in faith” in response to anything in which one does not believe?
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X