The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

It's funny how we keep trying to give believers a chance to redeem themselves and explain their beliefs through reason and rationality. I think the reason I do it; probably part of the reason I'm even engaging in this discussion with Jakkass, is becuase religious people can be very intelligent and yet believe in such nonsense. Baffles the mind.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

It's funny how we keep trying to give believers a chance to redeem themselves and explain their beliefs through reason and rationality. I think the reason I do it; probably part of the reason I'm even engaging in this discussion with Jakkass, is becuase religious people can be very intelligent and yet believe in such nonsense. Baffles the mind.

It's also funny how we keep giving the atheists a chance to redeem themselves, and explain their beliefs through reason, and rationality.

I think the reason why I do it, is probably part of the reason I'm even engaging in this discussion with liamw and Sam Vimes, is because atheists can be very intelligent, and yet believe in such nonsense. Baffles the mind :pac:

In all seriousness now though, saying that the others position is nonsense isn't going to bring us along any further as I hold the same view about atheism.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In all seriousness now though, saying that the others position is nonsense isn't going to bring us along any further as I hold the same view about atheism.

Which position would be the first one that you would pick as being nonsense if you had the choice:

1. Believing that one particular guy 2000 years ago was able to wave his hand and turn H20 into C2H5OH (water into wine)
2. Saying that there is most likely another explanation

Honestly, forget that it's your cherished religious beliefs we're talking about and give me an objective appraisal about which of those positions seems the most rational.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which position would be the first one that you would pick as being nonsense if you had the choice:

1. Believing that one particular guy 2000 years ago was able to wave his hand and turn H20 into C2H5OH (water into wine)
2. Saying that there is most likely another explanation

Honestly, forget that it's your cherished religious beliefs we're talking about and give me an objective appraisal about which of those positions seems the most rational.

This depends on whether or not we think that God exists. If God exists, 1 is rational. The problem isn't really the miracle, it's the God.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This depends on whether or not we think that God exists. If God exists, 1 is rational. The problem isn't really the miracle, it's the God.

There are people alive today who claim to be able to turn water into wine and they have thousands of dedicated followers who testify to the truth of their claims. I assume you don't believe them.

So why do such claims become more plausible when place in the context of an unverifiable first century document?

philologos

We're jumping ahead here Sam. There's no point even discussing this unless we are able to situate our assumptions correctly, and determine what one is to consider as evidence.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We're jumping ahead here Sam. There's no point even discussing this unless we are able to situate our assumptions correctly, and determine what one is to consider as evidence.

No I'm not jumping ahead. I keep telling you I have zero interest in arguments that can be applied to entire concept of the supernatural. I want to know why you find it rational to accept a first century unverifiable tale based on the testimony of 12 of the guy's dedicated followers over a guy alive today who has hundreds of thousands of dedicated followers who all give similar testimony.
Both are reasonable by your definition so why is one more reasonable than the other?

Every time you (and pretty much all theists for that matter) refuse to talk about this and try to drag the discussion back to generic "some kind of creator exists" type arguments I think more and more that it's because you've got nothing to say beyond that, that you might have wrestled with the idea of whether or not there is a divine being but once you made the decision that there is one accepting christianity was a moot point

philologos

I've explained already how I find miracles reasonable. You have already explained why you don't.

Such a discussion is fruitless unless we are actually going to make some progress in our understanding rather than just saying that the other is wrong. I'm not interested in the latter.

The discussion is "dragged back" because one requires a belief in God before one can really believe in miracles. Otherwise it's going to be a big ol' traditional "you're irrational" fest without looking to the real problem at hand, and I really don't want to spend my time doing that.

Turtwig

One doesn't necessarily need to believe in God to believe in miracles, any supernatural agent will do.

Ok, so what do you want to discuss, why there's no God, or why many people reject bronze age miracle stories?

philologos

I think before anything we need to find an agreement on what is considered to be evidence. I know this is real going to basics, but I feel this has to be done.

People claim to have "different standards of evidence" and some atheists claim to have a higher standard of evidence, or claim that they can disregard some things as being adequate evidence. So this is what we need to work on.

People are often more interested in dealing with what follows on from the problem (Issues with Jesus walking on water) rather than the root itself (God's existence).

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I think before anything we need to find an agreement on what is considered to be evidence. I know this is real going to basics, but I feel this has to be done.

Any evidence will suffice, as long as your willing to discuss them. More importantly, be aware that certain kinds of evidence have certain deficiencies. When citing your evidence your going to have explain why these deficiencies can be confidently disregarded. I think that's the best way to go.:)

philologos

Hang on. You're rushing like Sam.

What is evidence? We need to agree what evidence is before we can start talking about it. Infact it probably should have been discussed before people decided to deal with Young Earth Creationism all those 494 pages ago. You'd think knowing what evidence is would be pretty important.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on. You're rushing like Sam.

What is evidence? We need to agree what evidence is before we can start talking about it.

Whatever you want it to be.
(Though it will help if you clarify at the beginning what you want it regarded/defined as.)
I'll examine it from that perspective.

Dang, you keep adding to your original posts .
Creationism makes scientific claims. In that regard it is pretty much a self requisite that the evidence be regarded and treated like scientific evidence. For your argument though, I'm open.:)

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Whatever you want it to be.
I'll examine it from that perspective.

We're not going to get anywhere with that. We need an agreement. I don't think that evidence is "whatever you want it to be" and neither do you surely.

Again, steady the horses Malty we have business to do :pac:

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, steady the horses Malty we have business to do :pac:

Dammit I was looking for a Jack Baeur sound clip
"DAMMIT!! YOU ARE OUT OF TIME!! "

No luck yet though.:(

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained already how I find miracles reasonable. You have already explained why you don't.

Such a discussion is fruitless unless we are actually going to make some progress in our understanding rather than just saying that the other is wrong. I'm not interested in the latter.

The discussion is "dragged back" because one requires a belief in God before one can really believe in miracles. Otherwise it's going to be a big ol' traditional "you're irrational" fest without looking to the real problem at hand, and I really don't want to spend my time doing that.

For the sake of this discussion I am going to operate under the following assumptions:

1. There is more than the material
2. There is an intelligent creator or creators that are interested in its/their creation
3. Miracles are possible

Now that those assumptions have been made, please tell me why you find the claims of an unverifiable first century book written by 12 of a guy's dedicated followers more reasonable than those of the hundreds of thousands of people who follow real live supposed miracle workers that you can walk up to today and talk to if you so choose.

The basic question is: once you decide that miracles are reasonable, how do you decide which ones are more reasonable than the others? Even though you believe in miracles you still reject >99% of the miraculous claims that have ever been made and I'd argue you reject them with far more vigour than I do.

philologos

What would you consider as evidence Sam?

Also, if we're going to argue as to why I regard Christianity above any other faith, we will need to look at the reliability of the Bible also.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

What would you consider as evidence Sam?

I've already told you that. The type of evidence I want is the type of evidence it would take to convince you that Sathya Sai Baba is actually a miracle worker and therefore that Hinduism is true.

By your own definition his claims are reasonable because you assume miracles are possible and yet you don't believe them. What would it take to make you believe them and do you have anything similar to back up christianity?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Also, if we're going to argue as to why I regard Christianity above any other faith, we will need to look at the reliability of the Bible also.

Does anything you have to argue about the reliability of the bible match a man that you can walk up to today and physically touch and actually watch perform supposed miracles?

philologos

We need a definition of evidence. What do you think of this, is it accurate:
an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear" or does your definition of evidence go above or beyond this?

Are we going to agree that evidence is something distinct to proof and that just because you do not agree with what I argue, doesn't mean that this advocates atheism.

Edit: Now that I think about this, comparing it to someone in the current isn't effective, as it is a different form of belief.
I would need to see this miracle person, as his claims are verifiable within this world. Jesus, and God are unverifiable.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We need a definition of evidence. What do you think of this, is it accurate:
an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear" or does your definition of evidence go above or beyond this?

No I wouldn't consider that accurate, you've just put the word in a sentence, not defined it. Can I assume that this is your attempt to replace the word "evidence" with "indication" and start to argue things that support the natural elements of the bible only such as indications that biblical cities may have existed, ie extremely weak evidence that would only be convincing to those who were already convinced?

I already told you that I want the type of evidence it would take to convince you that Sathya Sai Baba is a miracle worker and therefore that Hinduism is ture. What would it take?

philologos

So are we agreeing as the definition suggests, that evidence is something that indicates that something is evident, or that evidence is the same thing as absolute proof?

I don't accept that evidence means absolute proof as there are a number of examples where this isn't the case.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Now that I think about this, comparing it to someone in the current isn't effective, as it is a different form of belief.
I would need to see this miracle person, as his claims are verifiable within this world. Jesus, and God are unverifiable.

So you're telling me that even though you could get on a plane tomorrow and see this guys miracles for yourself, even though you can visit his website and see him on youtube, even though you can hear the testimony of his >1 million living dedicated followers, even though you can physically see the effect he has on their lives, you still don't believe but when stories of such events are presented to you in a completely unverifiable first century collection of books suddenly you find them convincing? Please explain

Turtwig

Aww..fup I got carried away in my favourite 24 moments. Em..where were we?

Oh yeah what constitutes evidence. Anything that can help me distinguish reality.
I'll accept Personal experience (I believe toilet ahem Willaim Craig, calls this existential or something), testimonys (written accounts, painting etc) and scientific evidence (if you have any ).

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

So are we agreeing as the definition suggests, that evidence is something that indicates that something is evident,

I just said that I don't agree to that

Jakkass wrote: »

or that evidence is the same thing as absolute proof?

Evidence is not the same as absolute proof but nor is it:

1. Arguments ad populum such as how far christianity has spread/how many people believe
2. Arguments ad ignorantiam such as declarations that you don't know how christianity could have spread if it wasn't true. Sathya Sai Baba shows exactly how that can happen
3. Extremely weak and meaningless "evidence" such as evidence of the possible existence of biblical cities. Proving that a city existed does not indicate that god destoryed it. Also showing that there was most likely a man called Jesus does not indicate that he was a miracle worker. Sathya Sai Baba is alive today and you still don't believe in him

Absolute proof is pretty much impossible to obtain in any area of human endeavour even if you have physical access to it. Just think of the one thing that you consider to be the most compelling evidence specifically for christianity over other religions and throw it out there.

philologos

This is an important issue then. What is evidence then Sam? I don't see how on earth we can even discuss about God, and now I am starting to realize why it was so difficult in the past.

Unless we can come to a definition that we can agree to, we cannot even discuss anything that involves it properly.

I would regard evidence as some piece of information that indicates that something may be true.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

It's also funny how we keep giving the atheists a chance to redeem themselves, and explain their beliefs through reason, and rationality.

I think the reason why I do it, is probably part of the reason I'm even engaging in this discussion with liamw and Sam Vimes, is because atheists can be very intelligent, and yet believe in such nonsense. Baffles the mind :pac:

In all seriousness now though, saying that the others position is nonsense isn't going to bring us along any further as I hold the same view about atheism.

I'd love to know what it is that atheists believe that's nonsense? However, your right, this won't get us anywhere, please continue your conversation with Sam.

Actually I'd like to also know why you believe the miracles in the Bible and not those of Sathya Sai Baba

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an important issue then. What is evidence then Sam? I don't see how on earth we can even discuss about God, and now I am starting to realize why it was so difficult in the past.

Unless we can come to a definition that we can agree to, we cannot even discuss anything that involves it properly.

I would regard evidence as some piece of information that indicates that something may be true.

Technically it is but, as I said, I'm seeing that as your attempt to replace the word evidence with the much weaker term indication. I don't want absolute proof but I do want something that cannot be equally applied to any number of other supposed miracle workers throughout history and alive today, something that singles out the claims of christianity as true, meaning all others are false. Something so compelling that even a real live miracle worker in our midst with over a million followers cannot shake your acceptance of this evidence

philologos

I'm not intending to "weaken" it. I'm intending to define it. If you disagree provide a different definition so that we can establish what on earth we are talking about when we say evidence.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not intending to "weaken" it. I'm intending to define it. If you disagree provide a different definition so that we can establish what on earth we are talking about when we say evidence.

Without knowing what you're going to provide it's pretty much impossible to define it exactly. Your definition of "an indication that something is evident" is essentially meaningless because you have used the word itself in the definition. You've effectively just restated the word.

Let's use wikipedia's definition: Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth.


Can I assume that your reluctance to tell me what it would take to convince you of the truth of Sathya Sai Baba's claims is due to the fact that it would take absolute proof to convince you (and even it would be in doubt) whereas you don't demand nearly as strong evidence for the claims of christianity, even though both claims are reasonable by your definition?