The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

liamw wrote: »

This is why you said you believed some of the Bible stories. But you can't use that argument just for Bible stories. You could apply it to any supernatural claim. If a person claimed that he didn't actually kill his wife but the knife flew up in the air by itself, and there were 12 people who attested to this, and all the other parts of the story fit together, would you say 'hmmm ye we should look at this... he may be telling the truth' ?

It isn't exactly why. Holding the view that God exists, certainly makes it more possible to perceive miracles to have occurred however. It's only really recently and with other reading that I have done on the issue of apologetics that I have found that most of what a Christian apologist has to do is test the assumptions. It's really all one can do on a message board with people who are particularly strong in their opposition to Christian belief.

After we have established the existence at the very least of a Creator God. The next stage is to examine Biblical claims, and work through them. We aren't really at that stage yet. Other Christians may disagree with me, but the consensus in writing seems to be establish a Creator, and establish the claims then.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Creationism also relies on ignoring the fact that even if an organism has come to rely on a particular biological mechanism today, that does not mean that all of its ancestors throughout its history also relied on the same mechanism.

A leopard needs to hunt its prey, without that ability it will die and a rabbit uses its long ears to hear predators, without that ability it will die. But both evolved from a common ancestor that was similar to a shrew. The shrew had neither the hunting ability of the leopard nor the hearing ability of the rabbit but it survived anyway because this particular ancestor did not require either of these adaptations for survival

...it is 'getting there' that is the problem ... and using non-intelligently directed systems it is IMPOSSIBLE ... because there are an effective infinity of non-functional permutions ... and often only one functional permutation!!!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

What qualifies as evidence?

Try to think of what it would take to convince you that Sathya Sai Baba is actually a miracle worker and therefore that Hinduism is true. That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

The reliability of the Bible as a text also has to be considered in any argument concerning it. Pointers to the accuracy of the Bible on certain issues, helps to establish it's reliability. It would be a gratuitous dismissal not to allow such considerations.

It's not gratuitous dismissal, I've heard your arguments and the arguments of many others and they all centre around three unconvincing points:

1. Trying to find evidence for the natural elements of the bible but that's irrelevant for the same reason that proving that L. Ron Hubbard existed does not indicate the truth of scientology.
2. Extremely weak evidence that could only ever be accepted by someone who already believed such as evidence that a city named in the bible may have existed. The "preaching to the choir" kind of evidence
3. Assuming certain parts of the bible are true and using this assumption to try to support other parts, eg using the "fact" that the tomb was empty and the "fact" that nobody could have taken the body to try to infer that the resurrection took place. Neither of those things are facts, they're elements of the same unproven story

Jakkass wrote: »

We have actually made quite a bit of progress though. I've recognised, if I regard the world as being material I would absolutely believe what you were telling me.

I'm afraid you haven't recognised anything because I have pointed out to you repeatedly in previous threads and in this thread that making that assumption is completely unnecessary and that I do not make that assumption. In my last post I explicitly said that that assumption would not make my argument more plausible because it is an irrational assumption to make and again, that I do not make. Please do not mention that assumption again. I do not hold that assumption and your repeated implication that I do only adds weight to my theory that you're just reading posts to pick out keywords to give a stock response and not actually listening to anything I'm saying. I don't have to assume that everything is material in order to reject christianity any more than a muslim does

I DO NOT ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING IS MATERIAL

Jakkass wrote: »

You know full well how I establish how God exists. It's from Creation. That's why we have always started there. It appears we have a bit of groundwork to do before we even discuss God, or Creation though.
.....
We have a lot to do first before we can even argue about miracles. The issue isn't with the miracle, it's with the God. You know this, I know this.

You've recognised, if you believe there is a God, there is no inherent problem with miracles. That's quite a leap for me anyway. We need to establish certain underlying issues first.

You keep on talking about god god god god god as if the choice is between the christian god described in the bible or the universe popping out of nothing but that is a false dichotomy. An argument from creation could be applied to anything from Allah to Vishnu to Thor to Zeus to Jupiter to the flying spaghetti monster to a divine toasted cheese sandwich. The point that I am trying and apparently failing to get across to you is that it's not about "god", it's about the specific god of christianity as opposed to any other supernatural entity. If I believe in a supernatural entity there is no inherent problem with miracles, that is true, but then there is no inherent problem with any of the miracles described in any religion and superstition throughout history. Even if you totally assume that there is a supernatural creator entity, it is still a fact that >99% of supernatural claims that have ever been made are false so you still need a way to to discern which of the millions of mutually exclusive supernatural claims are true. Your logic does not work if you assume that there is some kind of supernatural creator, it only works if you assume that the creator is the specific one described in the bible and I want to hear your reasoning for that. I have no interest in arguments that can be applied to any supernatural entity equally such as creation arguments

And please don't tell me that the bible convinced you because you already said that you your logic for finding it reasonable to accept the miracle stories in the bible was that you had already assumed the existence of that specific god. The belief came before any "evidence" from the bible and accepting the "evidence" of the bible was contingent on this pre-existing belief.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the modern literature on mathematical biology will know that your claim that modern biologists and mathematicians have no common ground is complete nonsense. Just google "mathematical biology" and you will find any number of journals and degree programmes in top univiersities on this subject. Your claim betrays your ignorance of contemporary research.

As for the rest of your post, I will make a couple of observations. Sticking the word "applied" in front of mathematics does not allow you to get away with non sequiturs and just plain nonsense.

Also, your confusion of Russell's paradox with Russell's Principia Mathematica (in which he proves various elementary facts of arithmetic such as the one you mentioned) is comical. Russell's paradox has nothing to with the truth of the statement 2+2=4 at all. Please don't try to cover your ignorance of this topic with bluster. (At least you should be a bit more careful with your googling before you post)

You second last paragraph makes no sense at all.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...it is 'getting there' that is the problem ... using non-intelligently directed systems ... and it is IMPOSSIBLE ... because there is an effective infinity of non-functional permutions ... and often only one functional permutation!!!

That's just a rephrasing of the first post I responded to, you just changed:

J C wrote:

the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity AT EACH POINT on the cascade

to

J C wrote:

there is an effective infinity of non-functional permutions ... and often only one functional permutation

So I'm just going to repost my original response:

In order to show irreducible complexity you must show that none of the components parts of any particular mechanism can perform any function whatsoever independently of each other. Pointing out that they cannot perform the specific function that is performed by all of the components working together is meaningless. It's not even in dispute. The ideas of irreducible complexity, complex specified information and creationism as a whole rely on the mistaken idea that not being able to perform one specific function is the same as not being able to perform any function at all

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And please don't tell me that the bible convinced you because you already said that you your logic for finding it reasonable to accept the miracle stories in the bible was that you had already assumed the existence of that specific god. The belief came before any "evidence" from the bible and accepting the "evidence" of the bible was contingent on this pre-existing belief.

You don't know my personal experiences prior to accepting faith.

How could I have believed in God already if I didn't know anything about who He really was, and if I lived a life that was repugnant to Him and that is now repugnant to me by extension?

If we are going to discuss this, we are also going to have to challenge such assumptions?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You don't know my personal experiences prior to accepting faith.

You told me just the other day. This is what you said:

Jakkass wrote: »

In order to regard the Resurrection as viable, I would have to hold the following:
1) Not everything has to be material
2) There is a Creator God, and a universal meaning to life.

So you said yourself that you made those assumptions before you accepted the resurrection. Your belief is not based on the bible, your acceptance of the bible is based on your prior belief

And please tell me why those assumptions make it more reasonable to accept the resurrection than to accept any other supernatural claim made by any other religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

How could I have believed in God already if I didn't know anything about who He really was, and if I lived a life that was repugnant to Him and that is now repugnant to me by extension?

If we are going to discuss this, we are also going to have to challenge such assumptions?

You don't have to know every fine detail of him and his commandments to believe in him

philologos

Based on personal experience, I cannot regard your assumption in this case as anything more than nonsense.

You don't have to know every fine detail of him and his commandments to believe in him

How much does one have to know to be sure that they are believing in the God of Israel, the God of the Bible rather than a god of their own construction?

Sam Vimes wrote:

And please tell me why those assumptions make it more reasonable to accept the resurrection than to accept any other supernatural claim made by any other religion.

I'm not ready to take that big a leap yet. We have a lot of groundwork to do. It would be a waste of my time and yours to do that now.

Sam Vimes wrote:

So you said yourself that you made those assumptions before you accepted the resurrection. Your belief is not based on the bible, your acceptance of the bible is based on your prior belief

I said with those assumptions it seems reasonable. Bear in mind, the Bible makes a logical progression too. It doesn't introduce Jesus until the New Testament. I read from Genesis to Revelation the first time. This doesn't mean that I believed in Jesus when I was an agnostic.

Rather I believed, that it wasn't very likely that God existed in a world of pain, and that I was the master of myself. I wasn't accountable to anyone really for my actions. That didn't bear much fruit however.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

How much does one have to know to be sure that they are believing in the God of Israel, the God of the Bible rather than a god of their own construction?

There are at least 33,820 denominations of christianity. I would argue that even if the christian god does exist, every single christian in the world believes in a god of their own construction to some extent. Even if there was only 1 denomination you still couldn't be sure that it was right

That's kind of the whole point I'm making btw, that even if you assume that there is a creator god there is still no way to be sure that it's the christian god and certainly no way to be sure that it's one particular interpretation of the christian god such as the Church of Ireland interpretation

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not ready to take that big a leap yet. We have a lot of groundwork to do. It would be a waste of my time and yours to do that now.

Please for the love of your god skip the groundwork. All theists ever talk about is the groundwork despite my repeated objections that the groundwork such as teleological arguments and creation arguments are irrelevant because they bring me no closer to christianity than to pastafarianism. I want to know: once you have assumed that there is some kind of supernatural creator, how do you make the leap from that to accepting that the supernatural creator is the being that is described by the Church of Ireland interpretation of the god of the christian bible?

Jakkass wrote: »

My prior belief in agnosticism, and in that a God didn't seem incredibly likely to me given the amount of pain that exists in the world, and that I was the master of everything I did. It didn't bear much fruit.

Your assumption is inaccurate.

It's not an assumption, you explicitly stated it. Again:

Jakkass wrote: »

In order to regard the Resurrection as viable, I would have to hold the following:
1) Not everything has to be material
2) There is a Creator God, and a universal meaning to life.

You said that you approached the bible with the assumption that a creator god exists. Do you now wish to correct that statement?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...one could argue that the reverse was actually what happened!!!!

If by that you meann she rallied additional support among Republicans upon her appointment as McCain's running mate, then yes that is technically true. However, once she started talking people soon realised that she was stupid/insane. This led to the McCain campaign going from a strong position to being comprehensively beaten by the Obama campaign. Were it not for Palin's 'assistance' we could be looking at President McCain right now.

monosharp

equivariant wrote: »

You second last paragraph makes no sense at all.

Thats generally the case with the majority of his paragraphs.

Mjollnir

Jakkass wrote: »

I said with those assumptions it seems reasonable. Bear in mind, the Bible makes a logical progression too. It doesn't introduce Jesus until the New Testament. I read from Genesis to Revelation the first time. This doesn't mean that I believed in Jesus when I was an agnostic.

I'm sorry, but it would be accurate to say, 'the bible makes a progression', but logic has zero to do with it, given the history and nature of the bible.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

I said with those assumptions it seems reasonable. Bear in mind, the Bible makes a logical progression too. It doesn't introduce Jesus until the New Testament. I read from Genesis to Revelation the first time. This doesn't mean that I believed in Jesus when I was an agnostic.

I'm sorry, but it would be accurate to say, 'the bible makes a progression', but logic has zero to do with it, given the history and nature of the bible.

Personally, I find the bible to be quite logical in terms of metanarrative. Perhaps you probably need to unpack that statement a little. Pleased feel free to start a new thread on the topic.

Morbert

equivariant wrote: »

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the modern literature on mathematical biology will know that your claim that modern biologists and mathematicians have no common ground is complete nonsense. Just google "mathematical biology" and you will find any number of journals and degree programmes in top univiersities on this subject. Your claim betrays your ignorance of contemporary research.

As for the rest of your post, I will make a couple of observations. Sticking the word "applied" in front of mathematics does not allow you to get away with non sequiturs and just plain nonsense.

Also, your confusion of Russell's paradox with Russell's Principia Mathematica (in which he proves various elementary facts of arithmetic such as the one you mentioned) is comical. Russell's paradox has nothing to with the truth of the statement 2+2=4 at all. Please don't try to cover your ignorance of this topic with bluster. (At least you should be a bit more careful with your googling before you post)

You second last paragraph makes no sense at all.

Just so you know, JC actually accepts evolution, and is only trolling. The only other explanation is he actually believes that he is making valid points, which is on par with believing I am a duck that speaks english and knows how to submit posts on the internet.

equivariant

Morbert wrote: »

Just so you know, JC actually accepts evolution, and is only trolling. The only other explanation is he actually believes that he is making valid points, which is on par with believing I am a duck that speaks english and knows how to submit posts on the internet.

If he is trolling, he must be the most persistent troll in the history of internet forums.

I occasionally check this thread. While I don't have the energy of people like Sam Vimes to keep pointing out basic errors, I do think that it is important not to let people like J C get away with their dishonesty without being challenged. Real science (not the pseudo science that people like J C advocate) must be defended against this dishonesty. I only wanted to point out some obvious falsehoods of J C. It is a disgrace that he claims to be a "qualified mathematician" while posting things that I wouldn't expect from a decent leaving cert student. His dishonesty in this thread says a lot about that type of person who propagates this 'creation science' nonsense. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe about the origins of the universe. It is the attempt to pass it off as science that in the words of Dawkins (I think) is a 'disgrace to humanity'.

Sam Vimes

J C, here is a diagrammatic summary of the exchange we just had. It pretty much sums up all conversations with creationists:

philologos

How many YEC's (as opposed to other forms of Creationists) have you spoken to? Just curious?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

How many YEC's (as opposed to other forms of Creationists) have you spoken to? Just curious?

Personally I've only spoken to J C and wolfsbane and woflsbane doesn't actually know any of the pseudo-science, he just accepts it because they're saying what he wants to hear. But I've seen many a debate and video and argument on the interwebs

Take a look at VenomFangX, commonly known as the poster boy for creationist stupidity. Some of his more laughable comments are that he believes the earth's orbit is a perfect circle and that the earth is the centre of the universe and the sun revolves around us. Yes he's a geocentrist.

He also accepted loads of donations and then spent the money on himself.

And he filed a fraudulent DMCA claim against a user called Thunderf00t and had to make a hasty retraction and a temporary hiatus from youtube when he was informed it was a felony. Take a look at thunderf00t's series "why people laugh at creationists"

philologos

So you've not spoken with YEC's face to face? It becomes a whole different kettle of fish when you actually know, and are friends with people of this persuasion. I'd guess your tone would change if someone you really got on well with held these views.

It's probably best that we leave discussion about Youtube to a minimum, although I know about the situation you describe as I subscribe to many of these people.

Turtwig

Because Sam was too lazy.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

So you've not spoken with YEC's face to face?

No I haven't. Do you think that if I speak to them face to face their modus operandi will be vastly different to the way it was the many times I have seen them engage with others? Do you think they will have new and devastating arguments that were not given by any of the many other top creationists I have seen try to pass nonsense off as science?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's probably best that we leave discussion about Youtube to a minimum, although I know about the situation you describe as I subscribe to many of these people.

Which people? Creationists? What is your opinion of VenomFangX? Honest believer or devious liar with an agenda?

philologos

I know about the VenomFangX, Thunderfoot DMCA issue, and the newer VenomFangX, dprjones DMCA issue. He has lied numerous times, which is a shame as he seems to be intelligent.

I subscribe to a lot of Christian users on youtube, including philos71, christoferL, jezuzfreek777, YokedtoJesus, and Veritas48. Some of these users I am more subscribed to out of intrigue, others I am subscribed to out of agreement.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I know about the VenomFangX, Thunderfoot DMCA issue, and the newer VenomFangX, dprjones DMCA issue. He has lied numerous times, which is a shame as he seems to be intelligent.

Oh he's intelligent alright, not in any way knowledgeable but certainly intelligent. You have to be intelligent to be as devious as him.

Jakkass wrote: »

I subscribe to a lot of Christian users on youtube, including philos71, christoferL, jezuzfreek777, YokedtoJesus, and Veritas48. Some of these users I am more subscribed to out of intrigue, others I am subscribed to out of agreement.

I've heard of jezuzfreek777 but not the rest. I'm going to take a look at some of their videos in a desperate attempt to find a new and valid reason for belief. My hopes are not high

philologos

I've suggested that I am not in full agreement with all of the users I've listed. Some are out of intrigue, rather than out of agreement. I'd say Veritas48 and philos71 are among the best I have come across.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've suggested that I am not in full agreement with all of the users I've listed. Some are out of intrigue, rather than out of agreement. I'd say Veritas48 and philos71 are among the best I have come across.

Any specific videos you think feature an especially compelling argument? Preferably one you don't think I would have heard before and already dismissed

edit: one that specifically argues for christianity, not for a generic creator being that could be applied to any religion or superstition

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I know about the VenomFangX, Thunderfoot DMCA issue, and the newer VenomFangX, dprjones DMCA issue. He has lied numerous times, which is a shame as he seems to be intelligent.

I subscribe to a lot of Christian users on youtube, including philos71, christoferL, jezuzfreek777, YokedtoJesus, and Veritas48. Some of these users I am more subscribed to out of intrigue, others I am subscribed to out of agreement.

Here are three more theists that I can think of offhand that I like.
Allsaintsmonastery epydemic2020 and legodesi.

DonExodus2 would one have been one too, but he since saw the light...er darkness.:D

Turtwig

Philos71 makes some pretty good artistic (correct term?) videos.

Unfortunately those that argue theology are pretty poor. Sam you may remember him as the video that we tore apart asking atheists 5 intelligent questions for intelligent atheists.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Unfortunately those that argue theology are pretty poor. Sam you may remember him as the video that we tore apart asking atheists 5 intelligent questions for intelligent atheists.

Ah yes that one. Poor indeed.

philologos

I didn't know he did Paisley? :eek: