Belief versus logic

[royaldiadem]

Cool, I'll just take that whole Genesis "7 day creation" thing and that leviticus "man laying with man" thing as a metaphor. I'll be glad to hear your new interpretation about how 7 days is actually evolution over millions of years (and man is a metaphor for camping too many people in one tent) any time now.

That conclusion demonstrates the Christ-O-Phobic hermaneutic you bring to the text.

If God grants you repentance and renews your mind, you won't make that mistake anymore. In the meantime, consider careful, context driven Grammatic-Historic methodology. Faith may come by hearing the Word of God (should God grant it to you)

Sterling

[A Person]

If I may summarize:
The scriptures assert that they are a revelation from God
The scriptures assert that God created all things
The scriptures assert that humans are created in the image of God and are under his control
After that I lose your point, these bits make no sense:
To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him
Therefore the materialist is inconsistent and denies his own foundational worldview in order to defend his worldview in order to attempt to refute the God of the Scriptures.

Points 1, 2 & 3 represent the Christian world view. The non Christian world view is that one or more of these assertions are unfounded.

Let's examine the statement "To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him". This is completely illogical. If this were true then nothing could be unbelievable and it would be necessary to believe anything and everything. "To deny that giant purple worms eat the sun each night and vomit it back each morning; is to presuppose that they exist in order to deny their existence." "To deny that my car is an alien from the planet Subaru is to presuppose that the planet Subaru exists in order to deny it"

What is my worldview? That the world is understandable and explainable through reason, evidence and experience; without recourse to the supernatural.
I can observe spaghetti by sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. I can see how wheat is grown; I have made wheat flour into spaghetti. At no point to I see a need to invoke the supernatural or any evidence to support it. If I describe my spaghetti experience with others they report similar experiences. So I can enjoy my spaghetti experience entirely within my own worldview.

[royaldiadem]

Let's examine the statement "To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him". This is completely illogical.

All your observations rest on your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness. You are unable to make sense of the statement as your worldview cannot explain the foundation of understanding or intelligibility.

And you are not helping your cause by nonsensical postulation,..

Start a new thread and we can get thru this.

Sterling

[A Person]

We don't need a new thread, this one is just fine.

All your observations rest on your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

My worldview rests on the observation of evidence and testing of hypotheses in order to get closer to the truth. You are not helping your cause by using pejorative terms like unrighteousness.

You are unable to make sense of the statement as your worldview cannot explain the foundation of understanding or intelligibility.

Logic is a construct of animal brains and is a method of drawing valid inferences from knowledge. Since this is predates Christianity and even transcends humanity, claiming this ground for Christians like claiming the Universe for America.

And you are not helping your cause by nonsensical postulation,..

I was thinking that too.

[PitBullferLucifer]

Let's examine the statement "To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him". This is completely illogical.

All your observations rest on your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

Typical RD BS. When he gets told exactly why his statements are gibberish, he falls back on his standrd "Well, you're sinning, so you can't think!" crap.

And you are not helping your cause by nonsensical postulation,..

Says the man who made the first "nonsensical postulation." If RD could actually explain how his nonsense is more reasonable than Person's examples, some people here might be less inclined to laugh at him. But I don't expect him to even try, because he doesn't even understand the nature of his problem.

So come, everyone and join me in laughing at the funny RD!

[BecauseHeLives]

Let's examine the statement "To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him". This is completely illogical.

All your observations rest on your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

Typical RD BS. When he gets told exactly why his statements are gibberish, he falls back on his standrd "Well, you're sinning, so you can't think!" crap.

And you are not helping your cause by nonsensical postulation,..

Says the man who made the first "nonsensical postulation." If RD could actually explain how his nonsense is more reasonable than Person's examples, some people here might be less inclined to laugh at him. But I don't expect him to even try, because he doesn't even understand the nature of his problem.

So come, everyone and join me in laughing at the funny RD!

You are the only one making a fool of himself. You're doing a pretty good job also.

[royaldiadem]

My worldview rests on the observation of evidence and testing of hypotheses in order to get closer to the truth. You are not helping your cause by using pejorative terms like unrighteousness.

All interpretation of evidence rest on the fundamental presupposition of the observer. Just like putting a gel on a theatre light. The presupposition taints everything that it observes. With the presup. of the Christ-O-Phobe, all evidence supports its own foundational presuppositions. Kind of like the child covering its eyes and denying that anyone can see him. But then God....

The other trouble is that the atheist, humanist worldview cannot account for the intelligibility of not only the interpretation of the evidence but the foundational consistency of knowing anything at all.

If we are all matter in motion, there is no correlation between one spinning top and another. Or to use a fine example, we're both cans of soda, one fizzes Dr. Pepper and another Mountain Dew with no foundation to be correct, correct the other or even to communicate.

Logic is a construct of animal brains

Did your puppy tell you that? And how do you know it is right? you still cannot account for intelligibility of the facts. And while I am at it, can you show me the concept of Logic? Is it green, Fat, Heavy or light and if it is immaterial, the atheist cannot accept transcendent things.

and is a method of drawing valid inferences from knowledge. Since this is predates Christianity and even transcends humanity, claiming this ground for Christians like claiming the Universe for America.

And you are not helping your cause by nonsensical postulation,..

I was thinking that too.

That, my friend is the same old Romans 1 issue. You have a fallen mind and you are suppressing the truth of the existence of God in Sin*

Sterling

* sin, because you didnt like unrighteousness. As a Christ-O-Phobe, you dont like God and you dont care for my exhortation to you to honestly examine Him as exposed in His Revelation, the Bible.

[royaldiadem]

Logic is a construct of animal brains and is a method of drawing valid inferences from knowledge.

You're kidding right?

Are you really sure that you want to acknowledge that consistency with the evolutionary extension into your everyday life. What is next Eugenics? Cyberhumans? TransHuman? A rebound of Nazi Germany with a little dose of Friedrich Nietzsche?

C'mon man (or woman) can you rest well at night with that epistemological extension?

Sterling

[A Person]

All interpretation of evidence rest on the fundamental presupposition of the observer. Just like putting a gel on a theatre light. The presupposition taints everything that it observes. With the presup. of the Christ-O-Phobe, all evidence supports its own foundational presuppositions. Kind of like the child covering its eyes and denying that anyone can see him. But then God....

Do not judge the naturalist by your biases. While observational and interpretational bias exists, to suggest that because of that all interpretations are equally valid is a fallacy. There can be no greater bias and eye-covering than that contained in statements of faith such as Answers in Genesis "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." Given that your premise is that the universe is God's creation, denying the evidence of the creation in favour of a book written by men, inspired men perhaps, but men with a limited understanding of the world around them, seems to me to be denying your God in favour of the Bible. You have made the Bible your God and worship it at the expense of the actual creation.

The other trouble is that the atheist, humanist worldview cannot account for the intelligibility of not only the interpretation of the evidence but the foundational consistency of knowing anything at all.

If we are all matter in motion, there is no correlation between one spinning top and another. Or to use a fine example, we're both cans of soda, one fizzes Dr. Pepper and another Mountain Dew with no foundation to be correct, correct the other or even to communicate.

We have the fact of our existence and ability to think. It is not necessary to be able to explain every step in the development of the Universe leading to the development of that intellect, in order to use it to observe the universe and understand it.

Logic is a construct of animal brains

Did your puppy tell you that? And how do you know it is right? you still cannot account for intelligibility of the facts. And while I am at it, can you show me the concept of Logic? Is it green, Fat, Heavy or light and if it is immaterial, the atheist cannot accept transcendent things.

We observe animals using logical processes to solve problems so clearly they have some understanding of it. Atheists can indeed accept immaterial things - provided they produce some material effect.

Are you really sure that you want to acknowledge that consistency with the evolutionary extension into your everyday life. What is next Eugenics? Cyberhumans? TransHuman? A rebound of Nazi Germany with a little dose of Friedrich Nietzsche?

You will need to explain this extrapolation. It makes no sense to me and just seems to be using scary names to help bolster your non-position. Especially given the success of the Nazis in using Christian religious authority to pursue their objectives.

That, my friend is the same old Romans 1 issue. You have a fallen mind and you are suppressing the truth of the existence of God in Sin*

Your mind may be fallen by your philosophy. Mine is not by mine. If I see evidence of God impinging on this world then I will examine the evidence and reconsider my conclusions. As a child I tried praying to God but it had no effect, the Christian Scout leader continued to try to abuse me, God took no action so I left the Holy Trinity Church scout group. Writing to Santa had more effect since adults are more enthusiastic about promoting that myth, but I quickly realised that Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, touching wood, crossing one's fingers, throwing salt over one's shoulder and God all fall into the same set of superstitius myths.

As a Christ-O-Phobe, you dont like God and you dont care for my exhortation to you to honestly examine Him as exposed in His Revelation, the Bible.

I can honestly say that I have examined the Bible. I was brought up in an educational system that had compulsory hymns, prayers and religious instruction (Caltholics, Jews and Muslims were excused but not atheists). I have also examined the 'creation' and can with certainty say that the 'creation' contradicts the 'revelation'. So I exhort you to examine Him as exposed in His creation - the world. Since that contradicts the Bible (written by men, translated by men and interpreted by men) then perhaps you need to ask why you should continue to idolise it.

[PitBullferLucifer]

Are you really sure that you want to acknowledge that consistency with the evolutionary extension into your everyday life. What is next Eugenics? Cyberhumans? TransHuman? A rebound of Nazi Germany with a little dose of Friedrich Nietzsche?

You will need to explain this extrapolation. It makes no sense to me and just seems to be using scary names to help bolster your non-position.

RD has been "studying" humanists for years, and has built up an insane "vision" of them that no amount of actual interaction with real life humanists can dispel. He seems to actually believe that any rationality from them is a thin veneer covering a ravening set of monsterous thoughts, just waiting to come out with a little prodding from him. He thinks that all atheists worship Nietzsche the way he worships the Bible.

He'll never consider anything that is said by an object that his God intends to destroy.

[ssnape]

I hope the most radical transhumanists are right. On the mellow side we all get to live indefinitely long healthy lives of unimaginable prosperity and increasing intelligence, appreciation and understanding. On the less mellow side we get replaced by way smarter than human machines. In any case this poor world gets beyond the general low brow monkey feces flinging I generally see here and most places these days.

- just another monkey dreaming of more

[ssnape]

I have no problem with most of your analogy. But, I think you are forgetting some of the requirments for faith. Evidence is not a requirement for faith. The Word of God is a requirement for faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is all you need.

There are many sacred books and many religions all claiming to be The One or The Word of God. Did you choose the one you believe? Or did you just happen to be born into a household and culture that indoctrinated you in it? How do you then know that it is correct or the one that is correct? They can't all be since they have substantial disagreements. How will you choose? Or will you be lazy and just assume the one you were taught is the actual factual last Word of the Creator of the entire Friggin Universe hand delivered so you don't have to overwork your little brain?

Do you even know how the Bible came into being? Do you know it was patched together by the Church (Catholic) over 15 centuries of torturous politics, intrigue, scholarship, stupidities of various kinds and sewn together from a selection of old texts picked more for supporting the power of the Church and doctrinal cohesion than for any Truth per se? Yet many act as if the result was delivered on high by God Himself.

Is this what you believe ends the need for inquiry?

[Questioner]

I have no problem with most of your analogy. But, I think you are forgetting some of the requirments for faith. Evidence is not a requirement for faith. The Word of God is a requirement for faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is all you need. You know, God came to this earth in the form of a man and was still rejected and murdered even though He did no wrong. All because his ideas didn't jive with the world view of the Jewish leaders of that day. People still deny he was God that actually met Him.

To take this more to your point I think that you think that creationists believe that all science and religion don't mix. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Creationists simply believe that they are more open minded that science is quite occasionally wrong. Especially when it conflicts with the Word of God.

Jesus certainly did do something wrong in His own political time--and according to the political right wing, our's too. Jesus actually thought for himself and did not blindly follow the political authorities of the time. He openly and actively opposed the religious leaders of the time who allowed the temple to be used as a marketplace. And he allowed his followers to call him King of the Jews. That was an open threat to the Jewish leadership and to the power of Rome. That is why they killed him. Given that, I always find it interesting when right wingers squall and bleat about how "unpatriotic" and "anti-American" and "morally wrong" are those of us who disagree with George Bush's imperialism and his willingness to commit atrocities. (Torture is defined as an atrocity in every civilized country.) The most moral, patriotic, and loyal thing any American can do is to not only refuse to support but also to openly (and peacefully) oppose the government when that American thinks it is behaving in a wrongful way.

As to creationists, I disagree with your statement about them being more open minded, and especially with your statement that science conflicts with the Word of God. It doesn't. It is just the opinion of fundamentalists who have completely misinterpreted the bible who have decided that the bible conflicts with science.

[Questioner]

The "Word of God" says that the Sun moves around an immobile Earth, that bats are birds, and that the whole universe is around 7000 years old. Since all evidence points to different facts, your only choices (so far as I can tell) are to believe that which is false or to accept that "the Word of God" isn't all you believe it to be.

This is not completely correct, SFI. Nowhere in the bible does it say the universe or the earth are around 7000 years old. That age was a really goofy calculation made by some guy who counted up all the begats in the bible, multilplied them by what he thought a generation would be, and came up with that figure. He totally ignored the fact that there are many gaps in the "begats" listings, and that in Genesis, the meaning of the word, "day" is not defined as a 24 hour day. In fact, the word just as well could have meant "eon" or "era", neither of which is a specific time period. Nor do either words imply equivalent time periods for one eon versus another or one era versus another.

Another error of the fundies is their interpretation of the whole development of the bible. They take the position that it is the written word of God. Most moderate Christians recognize it, and especially the old testament as primarily the oral history of the Jews that was ultimately written down. We recognize that it was inspired by God, but "inspired by" in no way implies "written by". Thus, many human errors crept in, and it was written in the context of the knowledge and science of the people who wrote it several thousand years ago. And they wrote down what had been passed down orally to them. Finally, it is well known that even specially trained oral historians will, over time, make mistakes in memory and given the power of the leaders in those tribes, deliberate distortions and changes inevitably took place.

That is why we moderates do NOT recognize the bible as a history book, a science text, or anything other than a marvelous oral history of an ancient people, and a set of moral guidelines that obviously evolved over time. Finally, we recognize that while at one point Jesus said he didn't come to change one bit of the bible, He also later said that the bible says an eye for an eye, "But I say, turn the other cheek". Jesus changed a huge amount of the rules that were followed in the OT. Otherwise we would all still be keeping kosier, having separate mens and womens sections of the church, and stoning people to death for a variety of transgressions that today are not even crimes. Jesus DID change the law. Not the 10 commandments as we know them today, but most of the rest of the OT He ended up rejecting because His teachings conflicted with the OT.

So remember, when you talk about how Christians view the bible, recognize that moderate Christians don't agree with very much of what the fundamentalists say. In fact, many of us are moving more and more toward the position that they are not even Christians anymore because they don't follow Christ. In our opinion, they are "Old Testamentists" more than anything else.

[Questioner]

You have no facts to stand on in your above statements as I have discounted all of them. That must mean the Word of God is correct. LOL

I sense a DOS coming up real fast....

You are correct about "discounting" all the facts and evidence of science. But discounting (which means disregarding) is not the same thing at all as disproving. You have no evidence for your positions. The bible is not evidence, it is belief. You cannot disprove evolution or the age of the earth or any other scientific truths you think the bible disagrees with. The scientists have the evidence and enough of it for a proof in most cases. Certainly the amount of evidence for evolution amounts to the truth of the fact that living animals have evolved from earlier (now extinct) life forms. You may choose not to believe that truth, but you cannot disprove it because you have no evidence.

You sense a "Disk Operating System" coming up.....???

[A Person]

He means "Denial of Service' i.e. being asked difficult questions he can't answer.

[Questioner]

...Did your puppy tell you that? And how do you know it is right? you still cannot account for intelligibility of the facts. And while I am at it, can you show me the concept of Logic? Is it green, Fat, Heavy or light and if it is immaterial, the atheist cannot accept transcendent things.

Can you show AP the concept of grace? Is it green, fat, heavy or light? Yet you believe in it. Your statement is very confused. AP just gave you a concept, logic, in which he believes. It is not AP who is denying immaterial things.

Honestly, this stuff sounds like some of my patients when they get off their antipsychotic medications!

[A Person]

RD seems to have given up on engaging in a meaningful discussion. His posts have degenerated into exhortations to "Repent" and cutting and pasting self-serving apologies. Given that his rhetoric is barely coherent, no offense has been given (at least I have taken none). It remains to be seen whether he can engage in sensible discourse.

[royaldidem]

RD seems to have given up on engaging in a meaningful discussion. His posts have degenerated into exhortations to "Repent" and cutting and pasting self-serving apologies. Given that his rhetoric is barely coherent, no offense has been given (at least I have taken none). It remains to be seen whether he can engage in sensible discourse.

still here

[englishdan]

Sam Harris sums it up real well:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/09/religion_as_a_black_market_for.html

[Questioner]

All interpretation of evidence rest on the fundamental presupposition of the observer. Just like putting a gel on a theatre light. The presupposition taints everything that it observes. With the presup. of the Christ-O-Phobe, all evidence supports its own foundational presuppositions. Kind of like the child covering its eyes and denying that anyone can see him. But then God....

You are incorrect, and this post shows you understand nothing of evidentary rules or scientific methods.

Evidence, by its very nature, requires that trained detectives or scientists can all view the same evidence and come to essentially the same conclusion about what that evidence means. Therefore, interpretation must be consensually validated. That is what peer review of scientific papers is all about. Peers (other certified scientists) review the work submitted, and tell the editor that either the work is substantially correct (verified by 3 or 4 other scientists who blind review the paper), or that it is incorrect and should be rejected for publication, or perhaps that it will be correct with some modifications. The author can then either agree to the modifications and make them and resubmit the paper, or explain better the reasoning used and why the changes should not be made. Then the reviewers receive the author's explanation and either accept or reject the explanation (and thus, the paper).

In a courtroom, evidence used in a legal sense is judged not only by the detective or laboratory scientist who has analyzed the evidence and drawn conclusions as to its meaning (that is, interpreted the evidence), but the detective or scientist's conclusions are then reviewed by other members of the law enforcement or forensics team, by the lawyers, and ultimately by the judge and jury.

The whole point here is that evidence interpretation is not a highly personal process. It is a highly reviewed process that requires validation by a team of peers, all of whom have considerable expertise in the analysis and interpretation of evidence.

[Questioner]

To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him.

What kind of logic is this? Wrong headed, that is what. Since I deny the existance of leprechauns, does that mean I really believe in their existence? The fact that one has knowledge of a concept in no way presupposes the truth of the concept. What about the concept, "lie". What you are saying is that nobody can ever deny a belief in anything because the very fact of their being aware of the concept means that they acknowledge the reality and truth of the concept. That is very poor logic indeed.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him.

What kind of logic is this?

I've encountered this sort of statement from a lot of internet yahoos over the years. These are the sort that think logic is a set of rules that can be changed or ignored by God, and that only they know what the Bible REALLY means. Seems to me that when it comes to exchanges about any subject touching on religion is that they actually believe they are "correct" at all times, regardless of what anyone else says. In other words, disconnected from reality.

[Sanjuro]

To deny God is to presuppose Him in order to deny Him.

What kind of logic is this?

I've encountered this sort of statement from a lot of internet yahoos over the years. These are the sort that think logic is a set of rules that can be changed or ignored by God, and that only they know what the Bible REALLY means. Seems to me that when it comes to exchanges about any subject touching on religion is that they actually believe they are "correct" at all times, regardless of what anyone else says. In other words, disconnected from reality.

Or, otherwise known as the very definition of "rose colored glasses".

[Questioner]

Or, otherwise known as the very definition of "rose colored glasses".

Or perhaps arrogance?