YECs: What would convince you?

[wattsr1]

In what follows I am not making comment on any particular persons view point as to which is the correct interpretation of Biblical verses. It is just a very general comment I wish to make.

Glenn, you wrote:-

That is why there is such a disagreement on various passages of the Bible which lead to different denominations.

I often wonder if this is why, at any given time, religious believers tend to split and splinter into many difference churches and sects where as scientific beleivers tend to coalesce around only one or two ideas.

Religious ideas tend not to address physical evidence but rather cater for metaphysical, phsychological needs of the believer. Scientific ideas tend to address real physical evidence.

By having to keep within the bounds of physical evidence, science adheres to only a few ideas, which will change as new evidence comes to light.

By not relying on physical evidence (generally), religion operates within the realm of the speculative with the result that it splinters over time – unless it has a very powerful central organization which maintains control over orthodox belief e.g. the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

Comments anyone?

Regards, Roland

[Socratism]

In what follows I am not making comment on any particular persons view point as to which is the correct interpretation of Biblical verses. It is just a very general comment I wish to make.

Glenn, you wrote:-

That is why there is such a disagreement on various passages of the Bible which lead to different denominations.

I often wonder if this is why, at any given time, religious believers tend to split and splinter into many difference churches and sects where as scientific beleivers tend to coalesce around only one or two ideas.

Religious ideas tend not to address physical evidence but rather cater for metaphysical, phsychological needs of the believer. Scientific ideas tend to address real physical evidence.

By having to keep within the bounds of physical evidence, science adheres to only a few ideas, which will change as new evidence comes to light.

By not relying on physical evidence (generally), religion operates within the realm of the speculative with the result that it splinters over time – unless it has a very powerful central organization which maintains control over orthodox belief e.g. the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

Comments anyone?

Regards, Roland

That is a reasonably fair assessment when talking about science in general.

The field of Origins appears somewhat similar to religion in that views are held dogmatically and it is difficult to test ideas experimentally like is done more readily in operational science in the here and now.

[rogero]

... The field of Origins appears somewhat similar to religion in that views are held dogmatically and it is difficult to test ideas experimentally like is done more readily in operational science in the here and now.

Are you up to your old tricks again? Apparently you didn't understand what wattsr1 wrote (quote below) since you intimate that you agree with him, yet come to the opposite conclusion. If "Origins Science" (using your false distinction with "Operational Science") were like a religion in which views were held dogmatically, then by the logic you're agreeing to, Origins Science should NOT be monolithic, but instead splintered into many factions or "denominations."

Oh, unless it's that massive naturalist conspiracy you YECs are always fretting about. Hey. maybes it's about time for another lecture from Jorge. Naturalist conspiracies are his favorite topic.

...

I often wonder if this is why, at any given time, religious believers tend to split and splinter into many difference churches and sects where as scientific beleivers tend to coalesce around only one or two ideas.

Religious ideas tend not to address physical evidence but rather cater for metaphysical, phsychological needs of the believer. Scientific ideas tend to address real physical evidence.

By having to keep within the bounds of physical evidence, science adheres to only a few ideas, which will change as new evidence comes to light.


...

[Socratism]

Are you up to your old tricks again? Apparently you didn't understand what wattsr1 wrote (quote below) since you intimate that you agree with him, yet come to the opposite conclusion. If "Origins Science" (using your false distinction with "Operational Science") were like a religion in which views were held dogmatically, then by the logic you're agreeing to, Origins Science should NOT be monolithic, but instead splintered into many factions or "denominations."

But haven't you noticed that evolutionists are splintered into many factions and denominations?

But like Christian denominations, all are united in believing in the Creator (in your case "evolution" of course).

[George Murphy]

I think you are saying that a wide range of interpretations can be placed on the Scripture. I would phrase it as "Meaning must be interpreted." That is why there is such a disagreement on various passages of the Bible which lead to different denominations. So,I am not sure I would agree that one can't say it means something different. It seems everyone is saying it means something different. The claim has been made often that the Scripture can only be interpreted in the YEC fashion. I don't buy that and I know you don't either because you don't interpret it in a YEC fashion. Now I am a bit confused when you say we can't go say it means something different. I can point you to a couple of times on ASA where you have said my interpretation was possible, although you would correct me when I woudl say the Bible teaches evolution, preferring instead that I say it is certainly possible that the Bible teaches evolution. My views are a 'bit different'. So were Kurtz's views saying the Bible meant something different when he published them in 1857 I beleive. Can you clarify your statement above in light of my comments?

Yes, there is variation in the way people interpret scripture. Often that arises
because of the different ways they understand a verse in the light of other parts of scripture, & sometimes its because of the extra-biblical assumptions they bring to scripture.

What I was referring to here was just the "literal meaning" of a small part of scripture, & the example I had in mind - since it's been discussed here & Dee Dee quoted you about it on the "Deep TE" thread - is Gen.1:11. There seems to be no real doubt that something like "And God said, 'Let the earth put forth vegetation'" accurately translates the meaning of the Hebrew. All the English translations I've looked at, & a couple of non-English ones, render it that way. Given that all expert translators - with different theological views - agree on that, it seems unlikely that those who are not quite so expert are going to come up with another valid rendering.

But of course this does not settle the larger question of whether to understand this & its fulfillment as a literal statement about earth history, as a theological statement about God's mode of activity, or what.

The meaning of individual words & sentences in a work of fiction may be exactly the same as those in a work of straight history. Grammar, syntax & the meanings of words don't in themselves determine the genre of the text in which they're embedded.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

But haven't you noticed that evolutionists are splintered into many factions and denominations?

But like Christian denominations, all are united in believing in the Creator (in your case "evolution" of course).

Wrong again. Your statement is typical of the denial and misinformation you promulgate. The point of the previous post is that science is remarkably NOT splintered into factions, and when differing hypotheses come up, they are submitted for peer scrutiny in an orderly process -- and science is an ongoing system where ideas are tested as new information arises, as opposed to the pseudoscience you seem to accept, where you start with an axiom and fit all data to it -- or even worse, ignore data that doesn't fit.

By the way, I believe in the same Creator, the Logos of John 1, that you do. "Evolution" is a process, not a cause nor a god. • Edited by a Moderator •

R

[wattsr1]

That is a reasonably fair assessment when talking about science in general.

The field of Origins appears somewhat similar to religion in that views are held dogmatically and it is difficult to test ideas experimentally like is done more readily in operational science in the here and now.

Gidday Socratism,

You write that the field of origins ”appears” different in that views are held dogmatically. Are you arguing that this is an appearance only in that in operations science views are also held dogmatically? Or did you not mean to use the word “appears” because you consider that only in origins science views are held dogmatically? If the latter, does this dogmatism apply to all origins science?

Perhaps the more important question is the following:-

In what sense do “operational scientists” perform tests/experiments in the here and now that “origin scientists” do not?

Regards, Roland.

[kendal]

Not all christians are YEC's. I am,but it just makes more logic to me.
All christian's are different in the views and their faith today,more
than they ever have been.
Believers in God are here to stay,that won't ever change.
What is changing however,is the fact that many people are having
serious doubts about "Jesus Christ",and to me thats a very sad thing!
YEC's believe the earth is much younger and that it had a creator.
I believe it,and I have heard the arguments that come up against it,and
to my logic,those arguments are very biased and based on secular thinking,
and not on christian Science or christian understanding.
I am a christian,so I naturally cannot accept things against my faith based
on secular mans way of thinking. The two will naturally oppose one another
as they are suppose to,if not,something is terribly wrong!
There are many times that I have been told by those who do not accept
God,or those that do not believe in any god/gods that if the God of the
Holy Bible did exist and they knew for a fact that he did,that they would
not serve or accept this God,so that opens up a whole new way of seeing
all of this to me.
If God was a proven fact to the minds of atheists and agnostics,would
they accept this God?
The majority I have talked to tell me,"NO" they would not!
So,would they be inclined to listen to those who could show that there
is reasonable proof that the God of the Holy Bible does indeed exist?
of course not! If Satan were against himself,his kingdom would have
fallen by now.
Like wise,if you believe a certain way,and you live by that belief and
you tell others how you believe and you try to show other people why
you believe this way,and why your faith is strong in it,but then you
hear those that oppose your views,would you easily drop your opinions?
Many upon many atheists say that if God were a proven fact,they still
would not accept him,so what does this tell us as Christians?
If You won't accept God even if you knew for a fact he is real and does
exist,where is your argument?
This has more to do with faith in God or the lack thereof to me.

[wattsr1]

Not all christians are YEC's. I am,but it just makes more logic to me.
All christian's are different in the views and their faith today,more
than they ever have been.
Believers in God are here to stay,that won't ever change.
What is changing however,is the fact that many people are having
serious doubts about "Jesus Christ",and to me thats a very sad thing!
YEC's believe the earth is much younger and that it had a creator.
I believe it,and I have heard the arguments that come up against it,and
to my logic,those arguments are very biased and based on secular thinking,
and not on christian Science or christian understanding.
I am a christian,so I naturally cannot accept things against my faith based
on secular mans way of thinking. The two will naturally oppose one another
as they are suppose to,if not,something is terribly wrong!
There are many times that I have been told by those who do not accept
God,or those that do not believe in any god/gods that if the God of the
Holy Bible did exist and they knew for a fact that he did,that they would
not serve or accept this God,so that opens up a whole new way of seeing
all of this to me.
If God was a proven fact to the minds of atheists and agnostics,would
they accept this God?
The majority I have talked to tell me,"NO" they would not!
So,would they be inclined to listen to those who could show that there
is reasonable proof that the God of the Holy Bible does indeed exist?
of course not! If Satan were against himself,his kingdom would have
fallen by now.
Like wise,if you believe a certain way,and you live by that belief and
you tell others how you believe and you try to show other people why
you believe this way,and why your faith is strong in it,but then you
hear those that oppose your views,would you easily drop your opinions?
Many upon many atheists say that if God were a proven fact,they still
would not accept him,so what does this tell us as Christians?
If You won't accept God even if you knew for a fact he is real and does
exist,where is your argument?
This has more to do with faith in God or the lack thereof to me.

Gidday Kendal,

There are many times that I have been told by those who do not accept
God,or those that do not believe in any god/gods that if the God of the
Holy Bible did exist and they knew for a fact that he did,that they would
not serve or accept this God,so that opens up a whole new way of seeing
all of this to me.
If God was a proven fact to the minds of atheists and agnostics,would
they accept this God?
The majority I have talked to tell me,"NO" they would not!


[snip]

Many upon many atheists say that if God were a proven fact,they still
would not accept him,so what does this tell us as Christians?
If You won't accept God even if you knew for a fact he is real and does
exist,where is your argument?

I find comments like the above very hard to get my head around.

By the word "prove" you presumably mean "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist". That is, "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist that God really does exist".

Allow me to presume what I understand would be the general fundamentalist conception of what it means to "accept God" and what it means to "reject God". To accept God means to go to heaven and live for eternity in bliss. To reject God means to go to hell and spend eternity in torment.

Now if an atheist accepted that God really, really did exist, then exactly why would the atheist not serve God?

Do you honestly believe that most atheists are stupid, and/or that most are masochists.

(I am quite entitled to believe that I can stand on the road with my back turned to potential oncoming traffic. And I am entitled to do just that. But if someone told me that a cement mixer is heading towards me and I turned my head and saw it, you are suggesting that I would still stand there. You are saying that the majority of atheists tell you that they would do the equivalent of remaing standing in the road. This makes no sense.)


Regards, Roland

[kendal]

[QUOTE=wattsr1]Gidday Kendal,




I find comments like the above very hard to get my head around.

By the word "prove" you presumably mean "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist". That is, "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist that God really does exist".



Well Roland, What I am saying is that if God himself (the one in the Holy Bible)
showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was real,would you still
choose not to believe him? Would you still believe he's unfair,or whatever it
is you believe about him?
is it a matter of pride with you?
I still believe you have the right to believe as you wish. I am just telling you
what I have been told many times,and times again.
Christians are not suppose to get into foolish discussions.
What is it to the christian to hear what atheists and agnostics have to say
against the God we believe in? Saying he's not real is just looking for a fight
in my opinion. You know that offends many christians.
Yet,when you say things against our faith,do you still feel you have the right
to somehow be treated better than we do?
I don't think thats right at all.
Play fair or just don't play!

[Mentalist]

Gidday Kendal,

I find comments like the above very hard to get my head around.

By the word "prove" you presumably mean "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist". That is, "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist that God really does exist".

Well Roland, What I am saying is that if God himself (the one in the Holy Bible)
showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was real,would you still
choose not to believe him? Would you still believe he's unfair,or whatever it
is you believe about him?
is it a matter of pride with you?
I still believe you have the right to believe as you wish. I am just telling you
what I have been told many times,and times again.
Christians are not suppose to get into foolish discussions.
What is it to the christian to hear what atheists and agnostics have to say
against the God we believe in? Saying he's not real is just looking for a fight
in my opinion. You know that offends many christians.
Yet,when you say things against our faith,do you still feel you have the right
to somehow be treated better than we do?
I don't think thats right at all.
Play fair or just don't play!

Though I do not want to speak for roland or anyone else I think it likely that (almost) all the atheists and agnostics on this forum would, if your god was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was real, would believe your god existed.

I also think it likely that, given that your god was proved to exist, whether they thought your god was unfair or not would depend upon it's actions. There are many conflicting views as to the nature of the Christian god so it's almost impossible to decide whether such an entity might be fair or not without clarification as to it's actual nature.

What Christians are or aren't suppose to do is not clear, again there are many conflicting views as to their duties/obligations. Regardless of what they ought to be doing, Christians do get into foolish discussions, I would guess just as often as any other person might, though I have no statistics to demonstrate this.

Some people are capable of discussing issues without fighting over them, if people talking about your god not existing offends you or others, it is not a wise descision to come to an apologetics discussion forum wich encourages discussion between Christians and non-Christians. Partaking in an entirely optional discussion if you know you are going to be offended by the content and then complaining about it is plainly rediculous. It is also the case that Christians often broadcast their sometimes offensive opinions to those outside the Christian cult. Avoiding everyone's sensibilities is ultimately a futile task as there is such a broad range as to what people find offensive.

I'm not aware of roland saying that he thinks atheists/agnostics should be treated better than Christians, and I would be very suprised if he did subscribe to this view. I think you are projecting your own prejudices and are putting words into his mouth.

[bandecoot]

Gidday Kendal,




I find comments like the above very hard to get my head around.

By the word "prove" you presumably mean "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist". That is, "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist that God really does exist".

Well Roland, What I am saying is that if God himself (the one in the Holy Bible)
showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was real,would you still
choose not to believe him? Would you still believe he's unfair,or whatever it
is you believe about him?
is it a matter of pride with you?

I think Roland covered that, when he said if God were proven he would believe. I could be wrong, its happened once or twice in my life, but thats what I read in his post.

I still believe you have the right to believe as you wish. I am just telling you
what I have been told many times,and times again.
Christians are not suppose to get into foolish discussions.

I know how you feel, yet here you are, posting. Why is that?

What is it to the christian to hear what atheists and agnostics have to say against the God we believe in? Saying he's not real is just looking for a fight in my opinion. You know that offends many christians.

You seem to forget that most of us were specifically invited to join these boards. It seems that the owners of Tweb value our input. Whats your problem again? Oh thats right you get offended. I really cant help you with that. If the fact that people exist and do not believe in a god offends you, then there is not much I can do about that as I am not about to top myself just to make you happy.

If it is the fact that we have the unmitigated gall to actually say that we dont believe in a god that offends you, then you had best start a campaign to change the constitutions of most of the worlds govts. I dont think any of us are about to give up our rights to free speech anytime soon.

Yet,when you say things against our faith,do you still feel you have the right to somehow be treated better than we do? I don't think thats right at all. Play fair or just don't play!

This bit i just dont understand. You and I and Roland and almost everyone on these boards are subject to much the same laws, we have much the same rights and responsibilities. How is it you think We are asking to be treated better? I really just dont get that bit.

[wattsr1]

[QUOTE=kendal]

Gidday Kendal,




I find comments like the above very hard to get my head around.

By the word "prove" you presumably mean "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist". That is, "prove to the satisfaction of the atheist that God really does exist".



Well Roland, What I am saying is that if God himself (the one in the Holy Bible)
showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was real,would you still
choose not to believe him? Would you still believe he's unfair,or whatever it
is you believe about him?
is it a matter of pride with you?
I still believe you have the right to believe as you wish. I am just telling you
what I have been told many times,and times again.
Christians are not suppose to get into foolish discussions.
What is it to the christian to hear what atheists and agnostics have to say
against the God we believe in? Saying he's not real is just looking for a fight
in my opinion. You know that offends many christians.
Yet,when you say things against our faith,do you still feel you have the right
to somehow be treated better than we do?
I don't think thats right at all.
Play fair or just don't play!

Hi Kendal,

Well Roland, What I am saying is that if God himself (the one in the Holy Bible)
showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was real,would you still
choose not to believe him?

If God proved to me that he exists, then how could I “choose not to believe him” Kendal?

I think you are confusing God proving to me with fallible humans claiming they have proved to me. (You’re not trying to make that claim are you?)

Would you still believe he's unfair,or whatever it
is you believe about him?

There are probably many things about God I would consider unfair, even if I did believe.

The only people who can grumble against a deity are those who accept that the deity does exist. I suspect, even on the Christian side, that there are many occasions where believers grumble. I reckon I could find a few instances in the Bible where people who believe in God have grumbled to him about some aspect of him or his behavior.

Am I correct about this?

is it a matter of pride with you?

It is not at the moment because I do not accept that your god exists. Therefore I cannot be labelled “prideful” because I reject him, even though I know he exists – because I do not think he exists.

However, I am led to believe that, amongst believers in your god, “pride” is a sin. Therefore, if God proved himself to me such that I had no option but to accept that he existed (after all that is what “proof” means), then I could still be “prideful”. But I could not be called “prideful” because I rejected his existence, simply because I could only accept his existence because he had proved it to me.

Do you not sometimes commit the sin of pride?

(I am trying to tell you that you need to rephrase your argument Kendal. I do not think it makes much sense. You are trying to say something else, but what?)

I still believe you have the right to believe as you wish. I am just telling you what I have been told many times,and times again.

Christians are not suppose to get into foolish discussions.

Kendal, this begs the question doesn’t it? Either you believe this is a foolish discussion and so why are you here, or you believe that it is not a foolish discussion, so why imply that it is?

However, there are certainly discussions I wonder about, often – simply because I really do understand that I am beating my head against a brick wall.

I do not mind arguing for a long time with a theist, knowing that neither of us is likely to change position, providing I think the theist is being honest and sensible. And if, in the end, either the theist or myself thinks that further discussion is pointless and we can agree to disagree, then that is fine.

What is it to the christian to hear what atheists and agnostics have to say
against the God we believe in? Saying he's not real is just looking for a fight
in my opinion.

So you are saying that you are the only one entitled to express an opinion and if any one has a contrary opinion they must be quiet, lest you Christains be offended?

C’mon Kendal.

Have you ever considered that people express their opinions in debate, argument or discussion, for a variety of reasons, and “looking for a fight” is only one of many possible reasons?

You know that offends many christians.

You do know why God created ear-holes and fingers that more or less fit into ear-holes don’t you?

Yet,when you say things against our faith,do you still feel you have the right
to somehow be treated better than we do?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here Kendal.

I don't think thats right at all.
Play fair or just don't play!

Well Kedal, you are just going to have to explain the rules of debate/argument to me – as far as you understand them. And be explicit please.

And if I do not think your rules are fair (and they appear not to be) then neither of us get to play under your rules. It is that simple.


Regards, Roland

[Socratism]

This thread asks what would convince one that YEC was not true.

Interesting question.

Especially for a person like myself who originally believed in an old Earth and only more recently found himself leaning towards the young Earth position, while still acknowledging some remaining serious difficulties in that position.

[FreezBee]

Especially for a person like myself who originally believed in an old Earth and only more recently found himself leaning towards the young Earth position, while still acknowledging some remaining serious difficulties in that position.

Is that an answer or a question?