Evolution is refuted by Evolutionists.
Also, here is a case built against Evolution:
December 15, 2008
Evolution(ists) gets OWNED!!!
Evolution is refuted by Evolutionists.
Also, here is a case built against Evolution:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dani,
ReplyDeleteI'll admit I was enthralled as a kid with the centaurs, witches, wizards etc. The Messianic allegory, I'm afraid was entirely lost on this 5 year old.
It started a lifelong fascination with Greek myth :)
Cheers C.S.
However the Screwtape Letters... meh.
As for that awful space trilogy :s
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"Largely misguided. Arguing evolution with an evolutionist, is granting him/her that which evolution cannot give them, namely: truth, knowledge, and reason."
Once again, agreed - but that assumes evolution is the search for "ultimate Truth", as apposed to pragmatic truth. In other words, evolution works as a theory, (for now), creationism doesn't. Or at least hasn't led to anything in the area of "objective" discovery; but now we're talking about something different....
Sye wrote C) You haven't answered it.
ReplyDeleteLet me redirect you to the following post in this thread:
---
Sye asked: "How do you know that your reasoning about this is reliable?"
Whateverman answered: I don't know that it is. I have hesitant faith that it is - which means that I'm willing to consider the alternative if information calls this faith into doubt.
No absolute standard or knowledge needed.
Reality and my perception of it are conditionally acceptable.
---
In short, let me respond in the only way appropriate:
Fuck you, douchebag.
Abortion.
ReplyDeleteWhen two people have consensual sex, they are in effect acknowledging the chance that a baby might occur.
When a woman becomes pregnant, she runs the risk of death (however small). For this reason I believe that rape can be a death penalty for a woman who has not agreed to the risks. This woman must strive to take remedial post-coital contaception, before the embryo implants into the uterus - should she decide that she doesn't want to run the possible risk of death.
I was raped when I was sixteen, and decided to keep the baby. I miscarried 8 weeks later. But I speak from experience at least.
And Whateverman hits the mat!
ReplyDeleteOne down Sye. ;-)
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteGood for you on keeping your child, even despite the circumstances. I'm saddened to hear that it happened to you.
But you agreed that over 95% of abortions are pure murder as birth control.
Would you support "forcing laws through the system" to stop this?
Are you contemptuous of those who fight for the "right" to do so?
As you are for Christians who fight for the the death penalty?
Sye,
ReplyDelete" Sye TenB said...
Froggie said: "Are the Ten Commandments absolute truths/ morals?"
Yes
-----------------------
Then is it absolute truth that we should keep the sabbath holy?
Dan’ El said: ” I smell another long thread coming!”
ReplyDeleteWhateverman said: ” Wont happen - or at least, I wont contribute to it.”
3 posts later Whateverman said: ” Let me redirect you to the following post in this thread Sye asked: "How do you know that your reasoning about this is reliable?"
Whateverman answered: I don't know that it is. I have hesitant faith that it is - which means that I'm willing to consider the alternative if information calls this faith into doubt.”
Actually, the first time I asked the question it was regarding your statement: “”As such, believing it is not entirely faith-based.” The next time, it was regarding your statement about “Christian presupposition.” You did not answer regarding your second statement. Unless, of course, you are prepared to concede that you do not know anything, then, if you cease to make knowledge claims, I will cease to ask the question.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteThat's just Wem using his freewill again.
Mmmmmmph....lol!
Sorry WEM. ;-)
Those 98% of abortions (social abortions) are, in my view, wrong.
ReplyDeleteI would be happier if they were outlawed. If you don't want to get pregnant, use birth control.
Or.... maybe just don't have sex.
Perhaps men would treat women with more respect if they didn't think there was such a "quick fix" in place. Abortions do not support feminism.
Also, death penalty?
ReplyDeleteNo, never, not ever.
Sye TenB wrote:
ReplyDelete"What is it then Dave..."
Thought.
"...and how do you know this?"
Because it's nothing like faith.
Froggie said: "Then is it absolute truth that we should keep the sabbath holy?"
ReplyDeleteYes, since Christ is now our Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:9-11).
Dave W. said: "Because it's nothing like faith."
ReplyDeleteIs it anything like knowledge Dave, and how do you know this?
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteExcept for that 2%?
You are one rare bird, girl.
They'd tear you to pieces here in Sodom for your "heresy" about abortion.
Then hold a parade for your death penalty views.
Sye, what if your parents tell you to worship a graven idol?
ReplyDeleteHappens all the time, I promise.
Dani, I know that every man I've dated has been incredibly wary of unprotected sex, given my (incredibly vocal) stance on abortion.
ReplyDeleteYou'd be suprised how much restraint a gent will show when his paycheck is threatened, lol.
As a side effect... no horrible STDs!
Codeword Conduit said: "Sye, what if your parents tell you to worship a graven idol?"
ReplyDeleteI would honour them by refusing. Remember, it is from God's perspective that the commandments should be interpreted.
I imagine family meals would be slightly awkward afterwards.
ReplyDeleteSye, how do you explain the flood discrepancies?
ReplyDeleteJust curious.
Codeword Conduit said: "Those 98% of abortions (social abortions) are, in my view, wrong."
ReplyDeleteCould you break down the 2% that make it right?
Codeword Conduit said: "Sye, how do you explain the flood discrepancies?"
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't know of any.
Codeword Conduit said: "I imagine family meals would be slightly awkward afterwards."
ReplyDeleteHave I mentioned that I like you? :-)
Actually you're right... it's pretty much rape that I would consider to be a justifiable reason. Rape, or the mother will die should the pregnancy continue (e.g. ectopic pregnancy would nearly always kill the mother). At the end of the day, a non-viable fetus cannot survive if its mother is dead.
ReplyDelete"Have I mentioned that I like you? :-)"
ReplyDeleteIs this absolutely true? :p
Same sentiment, reversed.
Codewordconduit said: "Actually you're right... it's pretty much rape that I would consider to be a justifiable reason."
ReplyDeleteHow long should the mother be allowed the provision to 'terminate' her child in the case of rape, and why should this provision not be carried after birth?
As soon as is possible. Before the embryo can feel pain. After birth is just stupid, the whole point is that pregnancy and the act of birth can kill a woman.
ReplyDeleteCodeword Conduit said: ” As soon as is possible. Before the embryo can feel pain.”
ReplyDeleteWhat if it can be done painlessly?
” After birth is just stupid, the whole point is that pregnancy and the act of birth can kill a woman.”
So, rape really has nothing to do with it then?
The rape was non-consensual. The woman has not consented to pregnancy as a whole. Therefore emergency measures should be made available.
ReplyDeleteWhen a woman agrees to sex, she agrees to a possible pregnancy. Therefore, abortion should only be performed as a life saving measure.
Is this not clear enough?
Sye TenB wrote:
ReplyDelete"Is it anything like knowledge Dave, and how do you know this?"
I just explained it to you again, yet here you are asking me to explain it a dozenth time. I was charitable, and again gave you my basis for knowledge, and still you ask the same question, over and over and over again.
Despite your claims to wanting to know, you clearly do not. You can't cope with it, as I've already noted, and so you dismiss it with extraordinary prejudice.
Codeword Conduit said: ”The rape was non-consensual. The woman has not consented to pregnancy as a whole. Therefore emergency measures should be made available.”
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying, that is why I asked how long this provision should apply. You said “before the embryo can feel pain.” Why would this trump the provision? Should it trump the provision in the case of ectopic pregnancies?
I don't want to sound rude, but is there any reason why we can't stick to the topic at hand?
ReplyDeletewasn't this a conversation about creationism vs. evolution?
Sye,
You feel arguing evolution is misguided; perhaps you'd like to venture an opinion on creationism.
Dave W. said: "I was charitable, and again gave you my basis for knowledge, and still you ask the same question, over and over and over again."
ReplyDeleteNo, you gave me your basis for what you CALL knowledge, not knowledge. Perhaps it would be better if we gave our respective definitions. Knowledge = justified, true, belief.
Andrew said: "You feel arguing evolution is misguided; perhaps you'd like to venture an opinion on creationism."
ReplyDeleteI'll give you more than my opinion, I'll give you fact. It is true.
Sye, Great! And thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by creationism? What does it entail from your point of view?
Andrew said: "What does it entail from your point of view?"
ReplyDeleteMy point of view has nothing to do with it. The Bible teaches that God created everything ex-nihilo (and that is my point of view :-).
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus would not survive if the mother died. So the abortion would be necessary to save one life, in the face of losing two.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the splitting of conjoined twins when one is parasitic, and will eventually kill the other.
The reason that I find it acceptable to perform a speedy termination on a rape pregnancy is that the woman has not consented to the future risk down the line (say mother and child die in birth).
Sye,
ReplyDeleteright, point taken.
So then, is it correct for me to take from this that God created everything as is?
Codeword Conduit said: ”The reason that I find it acceptable to perform a speedy termination on a rape pregnancy is that the woman has not consented to the future risk down the line (say mother and child die in birth).”
ReplyDeleteAnd I asked how long this provision should apply, and you said ”before the embryo can feel pain.” I asked you why this would trump the provision, since obvioulsy you feel that it should not in the case of ectopic pregnancies.
Andrew said: ”So then, is it correct for me to take from this that God created everything as is?”
ReplyDeleteNo, God created everything “good.”
So, Dan, do you know of any honest christians with whom I may speak? Are there any honest christians at all? Obviously, anyone saying "way to go, Sye" is not honest as he is embracing a deception.
ReplyDeleteIf you are raped, and have no intention of putting yourself through pregnancy, do everyone a favour and terminate before the embryo can feel pain.
ReplyDeleteTo wait until the nervous system is suitably developed to feel pain is an unnecessary cruelty, as termination at this point does not serve to save the mother's life.
The only time pain (horribly, and unfortunately) can be administered is if the pregnancy will kill the mother, and the embryo/fetus by proxy.
I'm really not sure where this is unclear Sye. Genuinely. If I'm missing something, please point it out.
Sye said:
ReplyDelete"Arguing evolution with an evolutionist, is granting him/her that which evolution cannot give them, namely: truth, knowledge, and reason."
How is it that you have the power to grant something that you claim has already been granted to the "evolutionists" by your God?
If you actually believe your previously stated worldview (that God is the source of all logic and reason), should you not then stop denying said logic and reason and actually address these people's arguments? By denying their God given logic and reason and claiming that you now have the power to grant truth, knowledge and reason, are you not then placing yourself above your God?
Codeword Conduit said: ”To wait until the nervous system is suitably developed to feel pain is an unnecessary cruelty, as termination at this point does not serve to save the mother's life.”
ReplyDeleteEither does termination prior to that. But to be clear, pain of the embryo trumps the mother’s choice, correct? Why? Who gets to determine the degree, or necessity of the 'cruelty?'
Sye TenB wrote:
ReplyDelete"Knowledge = justified, true, belief."
Yup, that's knowledge, alrighty. Same stuff I'm talking about.
UCT said: ” How is it that you have the power to grant something that you claim has already been granted to the "evolutionists" by your God?”
ReplyDeleteIt hasn’t that’s my point. I do not want to grant them, that which God has not. The evolutionist must borrow from my worldview to attain truth, knowledge, and reason, they have no right to it from their position.
The termination prior to that is with the understanding that the mother never "signed up" for the pregnancy, or the potential danger to herself. She should not be forced to face even potential danger, as she is unwillingly in this state.
ReplyDeleteImmediately following the rape, she should make the decision. Anyone saying that this takes longer then three days, in my mind is being idiotic.
Imagine if women were allowed to change their minds constantly about commitments. I play blackjack. I don't place a bet, then when the cards are dealt, decide I don't like them and run away from the table with my money.
A woman decides to play or she doesn't.
Physical pain should not be imparted onto a fetus just because a woman can't make up her damn mind.
As far as I'm concerned, a raped woman has to make her choice about being pregnant after the event.
If rape-terminations were made illegal, the father should serve a life sentence if the girl dies; compensation if she develops medical problems from said pregnancy; compensation for mental trauma suffered; and regardless of outcome financially compensate for future earnings for the rest of the woman's life.
Somehow I can't imagine this happening.
Dave W. said: ” Yup, that's knowledge, alrighty. Same stuff I'm talking about.”
ReplyDeleteAlright, so we agree, knowledge is ‘justified, true, belief.’ How do you get THAT from THIS?:
”It's not faith, Sye, when it's impossible to know any differently than one does. At that point, whether one is sane or insane becomes irrelevant. The only other option is becoming so overwhelmed by doubt that it would be impossible to function at all.”
The evolutionist must borrow from my worldview to attain truth, knowledge, and reason, they have no right to it from their position.
ReplyDelete1. Evolution has nothing to do with Theism, or Atheism...
2. ...so why don't you address the topic at hand rather than attempting to hijack another thread?
3. Trolling and thread-jacking constitute behavior commonly undertaken by douchebags. Are you a douchebag?
--
Stan
Codeword Conduit said: ”Physical pain should not be imparted onto a fetus just because a woman can't make up her damn mind.”
ReplyDeleteWhy not? You have a nasty habit of avoiding my questions. Who gets to determine the degree, or necessity of the 'cruelty?'
Stan said: ”Evolution has nothing to do with Theism, or Atheism...”
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true evolutionist.
Alright Stan, how does one derive 'truth' from evolution?
UCT said: ” How is it that you have the power to grant something that you claim has already been granted to the "evolutionists" by your God?”
ReplyDeleteSye replied: "It hasn’t that’s my point. I DO NOT WANT TO GRANT THEM (my emphasis), that which God has not. The evolutionist must borrow from my worldview to attain truth, knowledge, and reason, they have no right to it from their position."
There you go, placing yourself above your God, again. I doesn't really matter what you want, does it? According to your professed worldview, God is the source of all logic and reason. Therefore, if a non believer demonstrates a capacity for logic and reason (even if it's flawed)you must accept it as originating from God. To do otherwise is to deny your own worldview.
Please demonstrate that your God has not granted non believers logic and reason. What else has your God not granted? The ability to breathe? Bipedalism? I assume your worldview holds they would not be able to do that without your God, either (Correct me, if I'm wrong).
"It" *sigh*
ReplyDeleteYou have to weigh up the physical pain/risk of mortality whenever a decision regarding physical pain is made.
ReplyDeleteFor instance:- Meningitis vaccination.
If administered = small amount of physical pain, protection from meningitis.
If not administered = zero physical pain, possibility of death.
In the case of termination prior to the development of an embryonic nervous system (in rape case):
Administered = zero physical pain to fetus, zero possibility of death due to pregnancy for woman.
Not administered = zero physical pain to fetus, chance of death due to pregnancy for woman.
Because the woman never agreed to sex, she never agreed to this possibility.
In the case of termination occuring after the embryonic nervous system has been developed, unnecessary (fetal) physical pain has been added to the equation.
Bear in mind that these are my personal beliefs, please. I am discussing personal opinion. I am not calling on some kind of higher power, or absolute. Just advocating prevention of unecessary suffering.
UCT said: ”There you go, placing yourself above your God, again.”
ReplyDeleteUm no. That’s my point, it is those who deny God as the source of truth, knowledge, and reason, who do this. Let me give you an example: Suppose you go up to a father with a baby, and you ask if it is alright if you murder that baby. The father says, “Go ahead, I wasn’t much fond of it anyways.” The father would be granting you a right, which is not his to grant. Similarly, if I said, “You have every right to reason, without God as the foundation,” I would be granting something, which I have no right to grant.
Alright Stan, how does one derive 'truth' from evolution?
ReplyDeleteI'll take that as a resounding affirmative regarding item #3.
Dear Dan,
I'm sorry your otherwise entertaining, if not thought-provoking, post was so publicly molested by Sye. I wish it were not the case, but alas, there seems to be no semblance of sanity with regard to staying on-topic. He's like an old LP -- it's intriguing at first, but the more it plays, the more we hear the imperfections, and it doesn't take much before it's scratched to the point that it skips. Maybe we need to tape a penny to Sye's head...
Seriously Dan, I'm sorry Sye has done this to your thread. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that it isn't about the existence of god at all.
Love, Stan.
Sye are you saying that only people who accept God have the right to reason?
ReplyDeleteBe very clear here.
Say either:
"People who do not accept God don't have the right to reason."
or
"Everybody has the right to reason"
or elaborate as to who has the right to reason.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteYou know where we disagree, but I must say.
You are one brave young lady.
I got hopes for you and am praying for you and your daughter constantly.
Shalom,
Dani' El
gotta eat sometime-
Psa 102:4 My heart is smitten, and withered like grass; so that I forget to eat my bread.
And by reason I mean the definition that you are using in it's absoluteness.
ReplyDeleteLater Dani
ReplyDeletexxx
Codeword Conduit said: ”
ReplyDeleteSay either:
"People who do not accept God don't have the right to reason."
or
"Everybody has the right to reason"
or elaborate as to who has the right to reason."
No one has the right to autonomous reason.
Everyone has the duty to reason with God as the foundation. (Isaiah 1:18).
Could you explain "autonomous reason" please?
ReplyDeleteNot so good with the ol' vocab.
Sye said, after some kind of child killing thought exercise:
ReplyDelete"...if I said, “You have every right to reason, without God as the foundation,” I would be granting something, which I have no right to grant."
Exactly. You have no right to grant the "powers" of logic and reason, nor do you have the right to deny them. Yet you do.
Your professed worldview is that these things originate from God. If someone displays the capacity for logic and reason, your own worldview demands that said logic and reason came from God. So stop asking people where their logic and reason come from when you, apparently, already know. Stop denying your God.
I must now retire for the night. Peace be upon all.
PS: Word verification....fixiness
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"No, God created everything “good.”"
So creationism simply means that God created eveything ex-nihilo, and it was good?
So was man created as a man (as we see man today) ex-nihilo, or did man become a man via processes that God set in motion ex-nihilo. Or is was it something else?
Codeword Conduit said: ”Just advocating prevention of unecessary suffering.”
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us nicely back to the question I actually asked: Who gets to determine the degree, or necessity of the 'cruelty?'
Codeword Conduit said” ”Could you explain "autonomous reason" please?”
ReplyDeleteIndependent (i.e. Not dependent on God)
"autonomous reasoning"
ReplyDeleteDefinition... still pending
As for who gets to decide? Wait for it... I don't know. For it was a hypothetical discussion based purely on my own opinions - bearing no relation to the reality of the world, attitude, politics and laws surrounding me.
My, but that felt good.
Sorry about the definition re-request.
ReplyDeleteAndrew said: ”So creationism simply means that God created eveything ex-nihilo, and it was good?”
ReplyDeleteYip, that’s what the Bible teaches.
“So was man created as a man (as we see man today) ex-nihilo”
No, as a good man.
Sorry,
ReplyDeletedoes "independent reasoning" mean
"reasoning not dependent on God"?
So far you have stated that people do not have the right to independent reasoning.
I'm sure you can't mean that.
Codeword Conduit said:
ReplyDelete”As for who gets to decide? Wait for it... I don't know. For it was a hypothetical discussion based purely on my own opinions - bearing no relation to the reality of the world, attitude, politics and laws surrounding me.”
Fair enough, and that goes for capital punishment, abortion, et al? Correct?
”My, but that felt good.”
Feels better to actually know though ;-)
Codeword Conduit said: ”I'm sure you can't mean that.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s exactly what I mean.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteso then, God created man as a "good man" ex-nihilo? I think I have that right.
Now, I have no problem with that sentiment. However, do you consider it scientific? And that isn't to suggest that it has anything to do with it, or should.
Yes, my opinion on all of those things is my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo,
If nobody has the right to independent reasoning,
People only have the right to reason if their reason is dependent on God?
Bear with me here, just answer patiently.
Andrew said: ”Now, I have no problem with that sentiment. However, do you consider it scientific?”
ReplyDeleteIt’s not a scientific statement, and science could not disprove it either. Keep in mind though, that science itself is based on the inductive principle which cannot be made sense of outside of God.
Codeword Conduit said: ” People only have the right to reason if their reason is dependent on God?”
ReplyDeleteAs I said, it is actually a command to reason(Isaiah 1:18).
It’s not that people do not have the right to reason apart from God as the foundation, it’s that it is impossible to do so. Even your reasoning has God as the foundation, but you deny this, and therefore your reasoning is corrupted. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ~ (Romans 1 21,22)
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyes, it isn't a sientific statement, agreed. God said of his creation that it was "GOOD", he created Quality.
I don't mean to get into disproof here, as there's no need to go there.
What I really want to understand about your position is, is man's existence static?In other words you say God created man ex-nihilo "GOODS", from nothing; relative to time, did anything in Gods creation exist before man?
This might seem incredibly, incredibly obtuse - but why are bible verses proof of what you're saying?
ReplyDeleteI mean, outside of what you think... Like why would they prove anything to me?
Andrew said: ”In other words you say God created man ex-nihilo "GOODS", from nothing; relative to time, did anything in Gods creation exist before man?”
ReplyDeleteI did not say that God created man from nothing. The Bible teaches that God created man from “the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7). Just read Genesis Andrew, it’s all there.
Codeword Conduit said: ”This might seem incredibly, incredibly obtuse - but why are bible verses proof of what you're saying?
ReplyDeleteI mean, outside of what you think... Like why would they prove anything to me?”
Proof does not equal persuasion. They are proof, because there is no higher authority than the Word of God. The very concept of ‘proof’ is meaningless without God. These proofs however, do not go without the corroborating evidence that you and your friends have been kind enough to supply ;-)
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"The Bible teaches that God created everything ex-nihilo."
With emphesis on ex-nihilo.
Now you state:
"I did not say that God created man from nothing. The Bible teaches that God created man from “the dust of the ground"
Now this appears to contradict, but I'm sure you did not mean it, so let me refine my question a bit:
Would it be your position then, that the first man was not "born" of anything (in other words he didn't have a belly button or parents) but was supernaturally called into being as "good" from the earth.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteThat's amazing!
Praise Yah!
This thread finally went where the 1000 comments did not go.
And I think that's due to Sarah and Andrew honestly answering good questions.
Rare.
I guess I can finally draw a breath?
And asking good questions-
ReplyDeleteRight, OK there is no higher authority than the Word of God. As I understand it, believing that the bible is the true, unadulterated Word of God requires faith... and faith only unless there is some sort of proof other than your thought process that you could show me.
ReplyDelete(Proof would be something that impacted directly on my life with no possible explanation other than God did it)
See, being able to reason is one thing. But saying that reason comes from God is sort of another thing entirely... unless of course there is proof of this apart from the bible (as belief in the bible requires faith etc).
I have no problem with faith per se, just with the notion that something that you have faith in controls my thought patterns and gives me the right to think.
See, I don't have faith in any of it. And if faith alone is reason to presuppose then I can equally say:
God does not exist
We have certain absolutes
Therefore we have certain absolutes because God does not exist
In fact if faith alone works as a founding block for any rhetoric, I can say anything I damn well please and then tell you that you just don't get it because you don't have faith.
Andrew said: "Would it be your position then, that the first man was not "born" of anything (in other words he didn't have a belly button or parents) but was supernaturally called into being as "good" from the earth."
ReplyDeleteHe was created by God, and created 'good.' (No parents, don't know about the bb). (and ultimately, everything WAS created from nothing, just not directly).
Again, I take the Biblical position.
Sye TenB wrote:
ReplyDelete"Alright, so we agree, knowledge is ‘justified, true, belief.’ How do you get THAT from THIS?:"
Because as soon as you get to the point where you doubt that you exist, you can be sure you've got a falsehood. The converse is justifiably true (though not necessarily so). You work your way back through the minutae until you realize it's all irrelevant, because if what your senses or reason tells you on that low a level isn't justifiably true, you realize that you'll never be able to form a justifiably true belief about its falsehood. Doubting at such a level serves no purpose whatsoever because the doubts can't possibly lead you to knowledge.
Knowledge only exists in the other direction of thought, and not because you take it on faith, but because the alternative is a dead end. Only as soon as you escape the solipsism does "faith" take on meaning, anyway. Before then, you've got no reason to have faith in your faith.
Codeword Conduit said: ”Right, OK there is no higher authority than the Word of God. As I understand it, believing that the bible is the true, unadulterated Word of God requires faith... and faith only unless there is some sort of proof other than your thought process that you could show me.”
ReplyDeleteAll reasoning requires faith (as we have established), the question becomes, whose faith is consistent with his presuppositions, and comports with reality.
”(Proof would be something that impacted directly on my life with no possible explanation other than God did it)”
What is you explanation for the concept of ‘proof?’
”See, being able to reason is one thing. But saying that reason comes from God is sort of another thing entirely... unless of course there is proof of this apart from the bible (as belief in the bible requires faith etc).”
If you are asking for proof without faith, you won’t get it, as your very standard of proof rests on faith. Problem is, your faith cannot account for ‘proof’ whereas mine can, and does.
”I have no problem with faith per se, just with the notion that something that you have faith in controls my thought patterns and gives me the right to think.”
God’s sovereignty, and our responsibility is a divine mystery, but the Bible teaches that both are true.
”See, I don't have faith in any of it.”
You do, you just ‘suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18)
” And if faith alone is reason to presuppose then I can equally say:
God does not exist
We have certain absolutes
Therefore we have certain absolutes because God does not exist”
Sure, you can say it, but can you support your statements. How do you know anything to be ‘absolute?’ How do you know anything according to your worldview?
”In fact if faith alone works as a founding block for any rhetoric, I can say anything I damn well please and then tell you that you just don't get it because you don't have faith.”
Right, but that is where we compare our claims, and examine them for inconsistency and arbitrariness, the death knell of reason.
Dave W. said: ” Because as soon as you get to the point where you doubt that you exist, you can be sure you've got a falsehood.”
ReplyDeleteWhy? “I doubt, therefore I am, is question begging.”
Let's make this simple. Please tell me one thing that you know for certain, and how you know it.
Anyhow, it’s late in my neck of the woods. I’ll check back tomorrow.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteso let me get this strait;
Man was not created directly from nothing, he was created DIRECTLY from the dust of the earth?
Sye TenB wrote:
ReplyDelete"Why? “I doubt, therefore I am, is question begging.”"
Baloney. If "I do not exist" were a justifiably true belief, then I could not possibly have such knowledge, because I wouldn't exist.
to be continued......
ReplyDeleteTell you what Sye, here's the story of Bob. Tell me why I shouldn't believe any of it, and then talk to me about absolute standards of proof:
ReplyDelete"Bob lives next door but one to me. Bob is capable of extraordinary feats of supernatural wonder. He can heal the sick. I know this because his dad told me, and his dad cannot lie. His dad cannot lie because Bob said so in this text message that I have, right here – this is my proof.
You can’t speak to anyone that Bob healed because he healed them all in the year 587BC, and they were an indigenous people with no writing skills, he travelled back in his time machine, which he eventually sacrificed for our sins. But you should definitely believe that Bob did it, he wrote it in this email; right here.
Bob works in mysterious ways."
Busy busy people!
ReplyDeleteOK forgive me if I do not address everything. I want to but its hard so squeaky wheels gets my grease. So keep squeaking if you need my attention.
Wem,
I sent you an email I think let me know if you get it.
Pvblivs,
" So, Dan, do you know of any honest christians with whom I may speak?"
I will let you know when I find one but that might take a while :=)
So I am dishonest, Sye is also and lets not forget about Ray too.
So PV, have you ever told a lie?
Also, as an ode to Sye, How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?
Frodo,
Sorry Dan, it'll be a hobbit wedding, you have to leave your scripture at the door.
Only if I can be the ring bearer, and I even dress as Golam, Deal?
still reading ...
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteSye, what are you anyway, just curious?
OK OK I will post it, just for you, on a new post.
Wem
ReplyDeleteWont happen - or at least, I wont contribute to it.
And the addict says I will stop drinking honey, I swear.
Stop being a weenie and get into the fight, and also pick a side deist. ;)
CwC,
ReplyDeleteWith the most tender heart I can give you, I'm sorry and I love you. Also, with kid gloves, in this universe God will deal with that person and will punish the wicked. No one gets "away with it" ever. God made this a just and righteous Universe and we can only praise God for that. People like that, could get away with it, they will just go on with their lives doing it over and over again to unsuspecting victims just reeking havoc and possibly may never get caught. My point is at least you can be rest assured that no one can ever hide from God. Whether that is comforting for you or not is up to you but it makes me want to worship that God for eternity. Evil will lose in this universe. Hooray for that! Thanks for sharing brave one.
(Possibly inappropriate rhetorical question) How does evolution treat that scenario?
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteThen is it absolute truth that we should keep the sabbath holy?
Absolutely! Do you know why? Because Jesus is the Sabbath. Resting for a day to honor the Sabbath is one of those shadowy prophecies pointing towards Christ.
We don't have to keep a certain day of rest anymore (Colossians 2:16) because Jesus is our Sabbath Rest. Every single day now is a Sabbath Day because Christ died for all of our sins, Amen! Keep it(Him) Holy!
CwC
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to get pregnant, use birth control.
Psst, that is abortion also. Chemically or physically they are all forms of abortion. God's plan is the soundest.
maybe just don't have sex.
Just keep a good calendar with your husband. ;)
CwC: "Sye, what if your parents tell you to worship a graven idol?"
ReplyDeleteI would honour them by refusing.
Spot on your game again Sye. I was going to answer then I read your response but since I was headed down that path I will merely add something I had from the past.
In this regard, it is helpful to recognize two categories or kinds (not "levels") of absolutes with regard to the locus of authority. Some absolutes require obedience directly to God, without human intermediaries, while other absolutes involve obedience to human beings whose authority has been delegated to them by God. Examples of the first category include prohibitions against lying, murder, adultery, and the commands to be patient and kind to others. The second category includes such matters as obedience to parents, governmental officials, and local church leaders. Moral dilemmas often arise when an absolute from one category appears to clash with an absolute from the other category. When a child is told by her father to lie on the telephone, or, far worse, to submit to his advances, the resulting sense of conflict can be intense. In such cases the human authority must be disobeyed, but this is not an exception or an exemption to an absolute, for the absolute is defined in such a way that obedience is to be rendered only when human commands do not violate clear scriptural prohibitions and instructions.
God's moral absolutes never truly conflict, and that all of them are binding in any given situation, with the power of God present for their fulfillment.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI don't want to sound rude, but is there any reason why we can't stick to the topic at hand?
wasn't this a conversation about creationism vs. evolution?
Stop being a nanny
Besides rape indeed is related to evolution. Seals are raped daily and is very beneficial for "strongest" genes to survive.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteBesides rape indeed is related to evolution. Seals are raped daily and is very beneficial for "strongest" genes to survive.
I'll assume you're being sarcastic and find seal rape distasteful and undesirable. If that's the case, you're arguing from the conclusion and misunderstand the place of evolution. It's not a prescriptive theory. Dawkins himself says he believes it is man's purpose to combat the forces of natural selection, but the need to do so doesn't mean the theory is false.
PS - Gollum is still a touchy subject amongst hobbits. I would suggest donning a dwarf or perhaps elf costume.
Oh Dan, I wouldn't worry. The guy who "done it without permission", lol, actually apologized a few months ago - I forgave him anyway, even before that.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, rape goes on right throughout the animal kingdom.
Psssst...
Birth control ain't abortion, fella. By that account every time you practice coiutus interruptus or are the recipient of fellatio, you are commiting an abortion.
Sorry dude.
CwC,
ReplyDeleteBob works in mysterious ways.
You live next to J.R. "Bob" Dobbs? Wow!
Sye- you are a one-trick pony: you repeat over and over that God is necessary for reason, because God told you so. And then rather than answer questions about your evidence for God's existence, or what exactly He told you, and how, you simply ask us, over and over, how we can be certain of anything.
ReplyDeleteYou say:
If evolution were true, there would be no reason to believe it to be true, since the evolved person would be subject to the bio-chemical processes of their brains, not rational thought, in order to determine ‘truth.’
This is assuming what you've continually asserted, but have yet to prove (sorry, I don't accept "God told me" as proof): that there exists a kind of "rational thought" or "truth" that is independent of biochemical (so far, on this planet) processes. As I've said, there's no evidence that rational thought, or truth, is anything other than a physical manifestation: a description or model of the world, running in wetware (or, increasingly, in software). Can you demonstrate the existence of truth or rational thought that transcends material existence? If not, then this implicit, but unspoken, assumption of yours, has no support, and your statement is meaningless.
The evolutionist must borrow from my worldview to attain truth, knowledge, and reason, they have no right to it from their position.
Arrogance some? Sorry, I don't want any of the "truth, knowledge, and reason" that you're peddling, and I don't need it. And luckily, you're not in a position to dispense rights. I'll stick with the truth, knowledge, and reason that I have, thank you: truth as an admittedly imperfect model of the world, knowledge as what I've learned, and enough reason to see through wordplay as a childish trick.
Now, if you could demonstrate that your God-given truth, knowledge, and reason were capable of things than my godless truth, knowledge, and reason were incapable of, and unable to explain, we'd at least have a starting point. But so far, all you've shown is that you are arrogant, smug, and evasive; and you can't even compose a limerick that scans correctly. If that's what your God does for you, no thanks.
But again: no hard feelings- the lunch is still on me if we get together. Cheers.
Sarah: good on you. I agree with your opinion about C.S. Lewis. If you're interested, you might check out the review I mentioned in the long thread here. What I especially liked about the Narnia series, in contrast with the Lord of the Ring, was that I found the protagonists warm and believable. Don't get me wrong- I loved the LotR, but a lot of the time the characters seemed like they were a bit flat, simply acting out their appointed role in the epic. The most interesting characters were those few who had convincing internal conflicts: Galadriel, Saruman, and especially Gollum.
cheers from Vienna, and happy Winter Solstice, zilch
Wow I have honestly never seen that.
ReplyDeleteWhat a Bob-ordained miracle!
Shalom
:)
P.S. Dan, you suggest, presumably as a method of birth control:
ReplyDeleteJust keep a good calendar with your husband. ;)
You do know what they call people who practice the rhythm method, don't you? Parents. I can corroborate that.
Sorry- P.P.S. Yes, as promisers of afterlife go, Bob Dobbs is definitely worth consideration. After all, there's no evidence that Christianity is more true than the Church of the SubGenius, and if you have the choice between harps and clouds, or eternal sex on Planet X, well....
ReplyDeleteZilch,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say it was a perfect science and Yes I have 4 to prove that also.
CwC,
By that account every time you practice coiutus interruptus or are the recipient of fellatio, you are commiting an abortion.
So, by that logic, any abstaining is millions of abortions? No any manipulation of the potential baby is indeed abortion. The Birth Control pill or the morning after pill is a fine example.
I will add also that it is sinful to masturbate. Leviticus 15:32
Oh please.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I would hate to think like you.
You do realize don't you, that for every successful implantation in utero, an average of 5 fertillized cells "never make it"?
If a spirit is granted at conception, Heaven is over 5/6 miscarriages/abortions/stillbirths/deceased infants.
So most of the spirits in Heaven never accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI will add also that it is sinful to masturbate. Leviticus 15:32
Oh come on Dan, you're really asking for it now. What about nocturnal emissions? What about the millions and millions of potential sperm that are released but don't beat the hastiest path to the egg? What about every time a woman gets her period and the unfertilized ovum returns to nature, from whence it came? What about radiation from my laptop, which reduces my sperm count? What about E numbers which do the same? What about vasectomies? And hysterectomies? Miscarriages too?
I could use some guidance on this one Dan, because I'm only just becoming aware of the extent of my sin.
I didn't say it was a perfect science and Yes I have 4 to prove that also.
ReplyDeleteYou're getting the spirit of science, Dan.
So, by that logic, any abstaining is millions of abortions? No any manipulation of the potential baby is indeed abortion. The Birth Control pill or the morning after pill is a fine example.
Maybe we should do an abortion thread, just to get the issues straight. My position is, in addition to what Sarah and Frodo just said, that there is no hard line you can draw between a "good" abortion and a "bad" abortion; and indeed, there is no line you can draw between "abortion" and "not abortion". What there are, is hard decisions, and no one holds a position that can be "rationally" defended without doubt.
For instance: Dan, is coitus interruptus abortion? Is strenuous exercise abortion? Is moderate consumption of pennyroyal abortion? Is wishing, or praying, that you will get your period abortion?
Earlier, you said that as soon as the egg is fertilized, interference with it is abortion. First of all: does that mean that if the man consumes lots of gossypol (cotton oil, which lowers the sperm count) is that not abortion? Second of all: conception does not happen at a point in time, but over a period of an hour or two, during which it is still uncertain if the sperm will be accepted by the egg. There is no time when you can say "this is the point of conception".
And about when abortion is "allowed". What if a girl is raped by her father, the baby is anencephalic (doesn't have enough brain to survive), and the mother will die at birth? It could happen. What if the chances of the mother's death are fifty/fifty? What if the baby has a fifty/fifty chance of surviving one week, but the mother will almost certainly die? No matter what your position on abortion, there will be some plausible scenario which will force difficult decisions.
At least I hope so. Presumably, there might be people who maintain that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, even if mother and baby will both die, if the baby is carried to term. All I can say is that I hope such people, like mass murderers, are never in a position to make such decisions for other people.
From my last post:
ReplyDelete"Sye said, after some kind of child killing thought exercise:
'...if I said, “You have every right to reason, without God as the foundation,” I would be granting something, which I have no right to grant.'
Exactly. You have no right to grant the "powers" of logic and reason, nor do you have the right to deny them. Yet you do.
Your professed worldview is that these things originate from God. If someone displays the capacity for logic and reason, your own worldview demands that said logic and reason came from God. So stop asking people where their logic and reason come from when you, apparently, already know. Stop denying your God."
Good morning.
Yet again Sye is spinning around in circles of logic......
ReplyDeleteNobody should pay any attention to his repeated questioning on the reliability of reasoning until he can justify his own.
Lets recap...he is sure that his reasoning is trustworthy
"I know that my reasoning is trustworthy based on God’s revelation"
Now in order to have received this revelation it would have been either
a) sensory
b) extrasensory
So if it was a) then by his own standards how can he be sure his senses were reliable at time of the revelation?
If it was b) then he has no more credibility than a fortune-teller or a clairvoyant. And anyway, how can he be sure his extrasensory perception was reliable at the time of the revelation?
So he is stuck with the same problem he continues to pose about everyone else on this forum. Unless he can justify how his reasoning was reliable prior to the revelation, he cannot be sure that his revelation was reliable. He seems to be oblivious to this glaring problem and yet continues to demand that everyone else explain the reliability of their reasoning...
Did someone say double-standards??
All the best,
Rhiggs
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSye,
ReplyDeleteOk, so where did we leave off?
You were saying that:
1.) Man was created good
2.) He was created from the dust of the earth
3.) He didn’t have any parents, although you’re not sure about the belly button.
A.) Now I find this a bit of an odd statement from you. Why would there be a belly button if the first man had no parents.
Let me note a couple things:
i.) The bible does not state explicitly that man was created “DIRECTLY” from the dust of the earth. Only that he was formed of it.
ii.) After the earth and the heavens were made, there were no shrubs plants or trees as God had not caused it to rain – in other words there was no water.
iii.) Then of course, he “caused” the trees and the shrubs to grow; in other words it’s explicit that he didn’t create the plants and the shrubs, but that he caused them to grow – NOT DIRECTLY.
Before I get to my point, suppose I make the following claim:
There is a car that I’m building in my garage from the ground up, you ask, “How did you do it?” That’s a big question, so I answer, “I formed it of the dust of the earth.” Which is not by itself an incorrect answer, however it does avoid all the transitional forms that took place in between, and really avoids answering the question – in other words that wasn’t what you were really after. Or suppose I said, “I caused the car to be built.” This would also be an adequate response, however you’re not 6.
Ok then, so what’s my point:
My point is this, have your God and have what is stated above; there is nothing necessarily wrong with it. In the case of evolution however, we’re not talking about God, we’re talking about what happened between “The Dust” and “The Man” – we’re talking about what happened between “The earth being formed”, and “things being caused to grow”. Whether or not we say that it’s caused or not, that’s not the answer that evolution is trying to solve; it’s trying to solve and reveal the process by which life is “FORMED” and “CAUSED TO GROW”. It’s trying to solve these problems not to reveal the face of God so to speak, but to solve problems in life in the here and now – how does evolutionary biology lead to better medicines? How does it lead to understanding the gene structure so that we can improve quality of life? So on and so on.
It’s just science Sye.
UCT, Rhiggs: exactly. Sye wants to eat his cake, and have it too; and also take our cake, which is his cake. Sorry, Sye, even God can't make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up, and you are not God, or even a minor demiurge. How do I know? Peter Pan told me. You'll just have to take my word for it.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Andrew: yes. But the fact that science works doesn't cut the mustard with Sye: what counts is whether or not it delivers Biblical "truth".
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteyes, all I'm trying to say is, creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution in much the same way cosmology has nothing to do with Newtonian physics.
Creationism and cosmology deal in first causes - Newtonian physics and evolution deal with, now that we have what we have, how does everything work, how does it tie together.
If this point is missed on Sye so be it. If we were talking about fishing (my real hobby) it doesn't make any sense at all to suggest that God created the fish, that idea doesn't help me catch em'. In the same way, the idea of creationism doesn't help science solve human problems as they exist in todays world.
So Andrew: your hobby is fishing. We have something in common: my hobby is not fishing.
ReplyDeleteDan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I will add also that it is sinful to masturbate. Leviticus 15:32"
Interesting to see that you reject the New Covenant, Dan. Do you sacrifice for your sins (Lev 4:27-35), refuse to eat fat (Lev 7:23-25), refuse to eat pork (Lev 11:7), did your wife take sin offerings to the priest after bearing your children, and were your male children circumsized on the eighth day (Lev 12), do you refuse to cut your beard (Lev 19:27), do you kill homosexuals (Lev 20:13), stone blasphemers (Lev 24:16) and are you okay with buying the children of strangers (Lev 25:45)?
Dave,
ReplyDeletewhere as Dan's quote was from the OT (and you make a valid point), Jesus did state in Matthew 5 27-30.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
What do you think he was talking about there when he mention your right hand?
Now of course the atheist rejects this, however it does make Dan's comment consistent with his beliefs.
...of course, James Dobson states, in Preparing for Adolescence, that masturbation is quite acceptable, provided you refrain from lustful thoughts in the process.
ReplyDeleteNow, don't ask me how to masturbate without having lustful thoughts (premarital masturbation, that is), but if I read Dan's statement correctly, he's not talking about the sin of adultery-by-thought, but about self-pleasure. They are apparently separable, and if successful at this separation, as Dobson says, wanking is just fine.
--
Stan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteif your back itches, give her a scratch; there's no reason to let it fester.
And what if you use your left hand, and think about flowers?
ReplyDeleteAndrew wrote:
ReplyDelete"What do you think he was talking about there when he mention your right hand?
Now of course the atheist rejects this, however it does make Dan's comment consistent with his beliefs."
Interesting idea, but then Lefties get off for free (pun intended).
Of course elsewhere Jesus undoes almost all of the OT law, except for the Ten Commandments. And (also of course) Lev 15:32 wasn't speaking of only masturbation, but of any release of semen. Witness Lev 15:16-18 - "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even."
It amused me to think of Dan trying to avoid touching anything his wife sits or lies on while she's on her period, though.
Oh, and as far as sins so, those described in Leviticus 15 are pretty mild (for men, at least). It clearly says that if you experience a release of semen, you are to bathe and then consider yourself unclean until that same evening. Big whoop.
ReplyDeleteYou guys,
ReplyDeleteI'm not against cleaning the pipes from time to time, I was just supporting Dan relative to his beliefs.
Left hand and flowers, hey, whatever works for you. With the dawn of the age of the internet I'm sure many people had to learn to be skilled lefties - gotta control the mouse with the right, right.
Andrew wrote:
ReplyDelete"You guys,
I'm not against cleaning the pipes from time to time, I was just supporting Dan relative to his beliefs."
Oh, I understood that, I was mostly joking around.
The funniest parts of these threads are when Dan picks the worst possible support for his beliefs. Support which is undermined by the Bible itself (at least in part). Like picking Leviticus 15 as prohibiting masturbation when it does no such thing. Dan was either being lazy or ignorant by not citing Matthew 5.
(I find myself LOLing the most when Dan talks about evil as if God didn't create it. That slays me.)
Speaking of which, Andrew, Dave, and Stan: I don't suppose any of you have missed out on this classic, but just in case...
ReplyDeleteZilch,
ReplyDeletehaven't seen that one, hillarious.
So I'm home from work today, the wife is in bed, the girl is at school, the boy is the other room watching cartoons - hm, I'm starting to feel vary vulnerable right about now.
See you guys in a bit....
Froggie said...
ReplyDeleteFroggie said: "Are the Ten Commandments absolute truths/ morals?"
Sye said:
"Yes."
How do you know this?
Oh come on Froggie. You know the answer to that. Let me do Sye:
ReplyDeleteThe Ten Commandments are absolute truths because they are from God. We know they are from God because they are in the Bible. We know the Bible is from God because God told us so. How do we know God told us so? How do you know he didn't? Can you prove absolutely validly that God didn't tell us this? No? That proves that God told us that the Ten Commandments are absolute truths, and since we know that God doesn't lie, then they are absolute truths. QED.
Z,
ReplyDeleteOh, I see! Well said!
Sye, Please explain the absolute truth of the second commandment. What is it instructing, absolutely?
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"even if mother and baby will both die,"
Do you understand the ratio between at risk mothers and not at rist mothers? I believe there are only a handful of mothers that actually have died because of birthing complications. Only a very few (under 100) compared to the 7.4 million since the start of Iraq war.
You are right though this should be another thread. Meh, conversations flow at this arena.
Amen Dan,
ReplyDeleteIn the abortion debate, talk of rape victims and birthing complications are really red herrings.
They are a micro fraction of the 4000 abortions that happen every day.
And I also agree, another thread's a good idea.
No doubt it would be another long one.
Dan- The current rate of maternal death in the U.S. is about 11 in 100,000 births. The world total of maternal deaths in 2005 was about 536,000. Of course, a lot of these could have been prevented by simple measures: having enough to eat, clean water, and access to basic health care. If we weren't spending so much money on war, much of this could be taken care of pretty easily.
ReplyDeleteThe number of deaths in the developing world are of course a small part of this: 960 for 2005. Whether this is a "handful" I'll leave for you to decide. But that makes no difference to the moral question of when an abortion should be allowed or not: just one case would be enough, wouldn't it?
Dans
ReplyDeleteWould you be willing to give up your life if your baby and wife died in childbirth?
It's funny how men can speak in terms of such detatchment. After all, your lives are never at risk.
Isn't it useful that you adhere to such a patriarchal religious system?
Makes placing death sentences on women A-OK. And you can invoke God to agree.
Your beliefs disgust me. As individuals you do not.
Dave,
ReplyDelete"Interesting to see that you reject the New Covenant, Dan."
I just knew that would start a fire storm. Remember I was merely pointing out that fact. In Jewish religion it is even worse then sleeping with your mother. Its the law and who was the Law for?
(1 Timothy 1:9-10,Romans 3:19) So yes masturbation and lying are still wrong and renders you unclean to be in the presence of God. Without Christ you cannot be with the father being so unclean. You would burst into flames. (Genesis 32:30,1 Timothy 2:5)
Reject the New Covenant? hardly, my only hope is in Christ but that doesn't mean that gives me license to continue to sin (Romans 6:1-2)
If you are burning with lust, I suggest a wife. (2 Timothy 2:22, 1 Corinthians 7:2-5)
Andrew,
ReplyDelete"I'm not against cleaning the pipes from time to time"
That is because you are a slave to sin and enjoy sinning.
In the abortion debate, talk of rape victims and birthing complications are really red herrings.
ReplyDeleteThey are a micro fraction of the 4000 abortions that happen every day.
Heh. And in the seat-belt debate, talk of automobile accidents is really a red herring. The number of automobile deaths are a micro fraction of the number of cars that don't wreck every day...
CodewordConduit's point is valid -- during consenting sex, a woman accepts a certain amount of danger to herself, even if that danger is in fact minuscule (thanks only to modern medicine), it is nonetheless the woman's right to choose whether or not she should be subjected to that possible danger. In the case of rape, that right has been savagely taken from her, and as such an abortion under those circumstances should be considered an exception -- open to debate, of course.
I'll await an actual thread on the topic before I discuss my own feelings on the subject (which I've said in other threads), assuming Sye doesn't show up and threadjack again.
--
Stan
(Word verification: duckscut -- I don't know what it is, but it sounds disgusting)
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"In Jewish religion it is even worse then sleeping with your mother."
Lev 18 says that unlawful sex should be punished with ostracization.
Lev 15 doesn't say anything about masturbation, it only says that if you ejaculate, you've got to bathe and then you're unclean until evening. That's worse than being ostracized?
Your sense of proportion seems to be off-kilter.
Sarah- Would you be willing to give up your life if your baby and wife died in childbirth?
ReplyDeleteI would gladly lay down my life for my wife and baby. Without hesitation. Or for a perfect stranger's wife and baby as well.
I had a girlfriend who had an abortion. She went off birth control without telling me.
I was totally against the abortion but had no choice in the matter.
Is that fair?
I still confess my responsiblity for my sin in the matter as we were living in sin, but I had zero choice in the murder of my child.
So I am far from detached with my opinions concerning abortion.
And I still like you too.
Maybe you Christians should have a private meeting somewhere so you can get your stories straight...
ReplyDeleteYou (Dan) say masturbation is wrong due to several verses, whereas James Dobson is on record as saying masturbation is quite acceptable. You both read the same bible, yes? I suppose that, due to his Ph.D., we should consider Dobson more of an expert? Perhaps the fact that he rigorously researched that and many other facets of "coming of age" will earn him some additional respect in this matter... Do you have some credentials to toss off here, Dan?
What of Dani'El? Or Sye? Do they agree with your interpretation, Dobson's, or have they had some magical revelation which says something else entirely?
Rhythm method, eh? You're sounding more Catholic every day... I thought Protestants were allowed to use condoms (French ticklers, even)...
Cum to think of it, I heard something about that somewhere... Oh, yes:
Let the heathens spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay
For each sperm that can't be found...
--
Stan
(Word verification: jujmi)
Dave,
ReplyDeleteDan: "In Jewish religion it is even worse then sleeping with your mother."
Your sense of proportion seems to be off-kilter.
I brought this up since I listened to something MG linked to.
Maybe this will help you understand the Hebrew Tanakh better.
Sye, I tried to catch you on this earlier with CWC (a note on your perpetual question about one’s certainty and justification as it keeps popping up, even in this thread to Dave above)
ReplyDeleteThe real issue at hand here (or so it seems) is that you suffer from an the old form of Cartesian dualism that says epistemological certainty and justification of ones beliefs is somehow the end of inquiry; but this notion is outdated, not useful, and if you really believed it there would be no reason for you to listen to anything anyone said who couldn’t proclaim to have justifications for their beliefs.
Consider the example I already gave:
If we were both standing next to a stove and you were about to put your hand down, at which point I shouted, “STOP, the stove is hot!” If you honestly followed that which you claim to believe you would consider my statement to be complete nonsense; after all, if I cannot profess to you certainty of my own beliefs, then what reason is there for you to listen to me? As a result, you should put your hand down on the stove.
The fact remains, however, that you would in fact listen to me, justification or not. There is no need for me to justify my claim as we (people) naturally attribute to others mostly correct beliefs about the world, again, justified or not. You yourself are the test to the accuracy of the claims I make, you yourself can set them up.
In the same way, there’s no need for me or anyone to justify their use of logic; you, me, and everyone else stand as introspective observers and are the test of accuracy and cohesiveness of a given claim completely outside of individual certainty.
Ultimately your actions relative to your speech make you seem hypocritical – as such, if you followed what you believed you wouldn’t participate in a conversation full of individuals who have no certainty; your continued conversation and dialogue pre-supposes in one manner or another that you attribute to them a certain degree of certainty without them even needing to proclaim it.
Your own proclamation of internal certainty (on the other hand) is itself suspect as a result of the same Cartesian philosophy alluded to in the beginning. The only proof in the matter of your own certainty lies in privileged access, and since I don’t know what’s in your mind and you don’t know what’s in my mind, then your statement of certainty is meaningless by itself and is furthermore lost on your audience – that is, we simply don’t care, it doesn’t pertain. How then, can your empty proclamation contain any evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God.
I said: “I doubt, therefore I am, is question begging.”
ReplyDeleteDave W. replied: Baloney. If "I do not exist" were a justifiably true belief, then I could not possibly have such knowledge, because I wouldn't exist.
Well, lets look at your argument.
P1 I doubt
P2 To doubt, I must exist
C Therefore I exist.
Problem is, your conclusion is assumed in P1. To avoid question begging, P1 should be: “Doubting is going on somewhere in the universe.” How do you get from THAT to existence? Besides, I wanted to make this simple so I asked: “Please tell me one thing that you know for certain, and how you know it.”
Well?
Codeword Conduit said: ”Tell you what Sye, here's the story of Bob. Tell me why I shouldn't believe any of it, and then talk to me about absolute standards of proof”
ReplyDeleteI don’t have the time to refute worldviews that neither of us hold. If this is something you actually believe, let me know, and I will address it.
Dan said: ” And the addict says I will stop drinking honey, I swear.”
ReplyDeleteLay off of Winnie :-D
Zilch said: ” Can you demonstrate the existence of truth or rational thought that transcends material existence?”
ReplyDeleteThe laws of logic, are universal, abstract, and invariant. None of those characteristics can be made sense of in a materialistic universe. If you deny any of those characterisitcs of logic, let me know, and we’ll go from there.
Unethical Sum Thin said:
ReplyDelete”Your professed worldview is that these things originate from God. If someone displays the capacity for logic and reason, your own worldview demands that said logic and reason came from God. So stop asking people where their logic and reason come from when you, apparently, already know. Stop denying your God."
I know where they come from according to my worldview, I’m simply asking where they come from according to yours.
Rhiggs said: ” So he is stuck with the same problem he continues to pose about everyone else on this forum.”
ReplyDeleteWell, I’m glad that you acknowledge that you have a problem. I believe that is the first step on the road to recovery :-)
Let me ask you this: Would it be possible for an omnipotent, omniscient being (God), to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain? If not, why not?
Zilch said: ” Andrew: yes. But the fact that science works doesn't cut the mustard with Sye: what counts is whether or not it delivers Biblical "truth".
ReplyDeleteThat science ‘works’ is also proof that God exists. The inductive principle (the backbone of science) cannot be made sense of outside of God.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteHow about explaining the absolute meaning of the second commandment.
There are quite a few interpretations of it.
Froggie said: ” Sye, Please explain the absolute truth of the second commandment. What is it instructing, absolutely?”
ReplyDeleteWhat part are you having trouble with?
Andrew Louis said: ” Ultimately your actions relative to your speech make you seem hypocritical – as such, if you followed what you believed you wouldn’t participate in a conversation full of individuals who have no certainty”
ReplyDeleteYou miss the point entirely Andrew, I do not say that atheists cannot know things. I have mentioned many times that I believe that athesits DO in fact know things, it is just that they cannot account for ‘knowing.’ “Knowledge” itself does not comport with atheism. When they claim to know things they are living in contradiction to their professed worldviews. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency, and arbitrariness of their positions.
Alrighty, I think I've caught up. If I missed any serious points, please re-post.
ReplyDeleteSye,
ReplyDeletein this case you're missing my point. You stated:
"it is just that they cannot account for ‘knowing."
This is merely a restatement that one must have a claim to certainty and justification.
I'm merely stating that this necessity is empty - if I claim to know something there isn't any need for eternal justification. Blah blah, refer to my post..... I don't want to belabor.
At any rate, sye, I tried to pick back up where we left off yesterday this morning, my post above begins:
“Sye,
Ok, so where did we leave off?”
Would you care to continue?
Andrew Louis said: ” I'm merely stating that this necessity is empty - if I claim to know something there isn't any need for eternal justification.”
ReplyDeleteSo are all knowledge claims equally valid? If not, why not, and how do you know?
"What part are you having trouble with?"
ReplyDeleteAll of it.
Please. I am sincere about this. Please, what is the absolute meaning of it.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"So are all knowledge claims equally valid? If not, why not, and how do you know?"
Never said or implied that:
I would merely stay away from the sort of rhetoric that states, knowledge claims require the sort of validation that can only be derived via privileged access.
The bottom line is simply that the validity of ones claims are not contingent upon their certainty – certainly not from another’s viewpoint, and certainly not from an inter-subjective view point. I find that it doesn’t matter and it isn’t useful.
Froggie said: ”Please. I am sincere about this. Please, what is the absolute meaning of it.”
ReplyDeleteDo not worship idols.
This quote from G.K. Chesterton might help clarify: For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWell, if you find any, let me know.
Yes, I consider you dishonest. And your response was more of what I already stated was why I found you dishonest. All worldviews assume logic and reasoning. It is therefore dishonest when you call on me to account for same. If this is the way that you "serve Jesus," you are identifying Jesus as a liar. (Of course, you could be serving a fake Jesus, one you made up in your own mind.)
I have not forgotten Ray. His "good person test" is a complete sham; and I have said so. That you would borrow from it says much about your character.
Now, I recognize that people change. Just because you are dishonest now does not mean that you will be forever dishonest. One can stop being a liar. I hope you do so. "Lying for Jesus" will only impress the slow-witted and those sharing the deliberate deception.
Andrew Louis said: ” The bottom line is simply that the validity of ones claims are not contingent upon their certainty”
ReplyDeleteSo, the truth of one’s claims are not contingent upon their truth???
What are they contingent upon then?
Sye.
ReplyDeleteI believe it. I have been converted, after realizing the error of my ways.
Bob, and his father the Blessed Green Giraffe are now the foundation for my faith.
If you refuse to show that my faith is erroneous I can only assume that you lack the weaponry required to take it down.
Also your fear of hypothetical discussion reveals what is obviously a giant flaw in your argument.
Please demonstrate that I do not have faith in Bob and his dad.
Pvblivs said: ” All worldviews assume logic and reasoning. It is therefore dishonest when you call on me to account for same.”
ReplyDeleteSays who?
Sye (let me state further),
ReplyDeleteI would say that knowledge claims are equally valid, however they are not necessarily equally useful.
let me explain:
In other words, I can't judge (if I find somebody wrong about something) whether or not I’m simply misinterpreting them or whether or not someone (or something) has given them a globally false belief about the world. Again, privileged access; so as a result, in what way can I call something invalid.
All I can surmise is whether or not his claim is useful.
Your comment here:
"So, the truth of one’s claims are not contingent upon their truth???"
This comment from you simply reflects back to the idea of privileged access - I don't know what's inside that persons head, and he mine, so it's a fruitless avenue of discussion.
CodewordConduit said: ” I believe it. I have been converted, after realizing the error of my ways.”
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you have renounced atheism. I suppose that’s a start.
”Bob, and his father the Blessed Green Giraffe are now the foundation for my faith.”
How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the inductive principle according to your new faith?
”If you refuse to show that my faith is erroneous I can only assume that you lack the weaponry required to take it down.”
Baby steps ;-)
”Also your fear of hypothetical discussion reveals what is obviously a giant flaw in your argument.”
I don’t fear it, I just don’t have time to defeat every hypothetical. Are you now renouncing your faith in Bob?
”Please demonstrate that I do not have faith in Bob and his dad.”
Huh? You just said you did. I don’t deny that people have faith in other things.
Andrew said: ”This comment from you simply reflects back to the idea of privileged access - I don't know what's inside that persons head, and he mine, so it's a fruitless avenue of discussion.”
ReplyDeleteOnly if you believe that “truth” is in a person’s head.
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDelete"How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the inductive principle according to your new faith?"
Er hello? Those laws only exist because Bob's dad created the universe and everything in it (morals, ethics, absolutes etc ad infinitum). Without Bob's dad none of these laws can make sense.
Please explain how you can account for these laws without acknowledging the ultimate divinity of Bob and his dad.
"Are you now renouncing your faith in Bob?"
I would respectfully ask you to not be so rude and blasphemous. Now that I know Bob I could never renounce him. My place in the Eternally Interesting Part of the Zoo is secure. If you fail to repent you will be sequestered forever in the Eternally Boring Part of the Zoo; where every animal is asleep and it's always raining a bit
I have accounted for all absolutes. Please demonstrate that my faith is in any way fallacious or illogical.
Sye said.. "Arguing evolution with an evolutionist, is granting him/her that which evolution cannot give them, namely: truth, knowledge, and reason.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a scientific theory. Science works from induction, which is the only observable thing that for all intents and purposes is considered "truth".
Sye,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"This quote from G.K. Chesterton might help clarify: For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything."
From where does Chestererton derive his absolute knowledge, and how can you be sure that he does, in fact posess absolute knowledge?
CodewordConduit said: ” Er hello? Those laws only exist because Bob's dad created the universe and everything in it (morals, ethics, absolutes etc ad infinitum). Without Bob's dad none of these laws can make sense.”
ReplyDeleteHow do you know this? How do you know about Bob’s dad, what do you know about Bob’s dad, and how do these laws make sense with Bob’s dad?
”Please explain how you can account for these laws without acknowledging the ultimate divinity of Bob and his dad.”
I am not defending my worldview, I am evaluating yours.
”I have accounted for all absolutes. Please demonstrate that my faith is in any way fallacious or illogical.”
Baby steps. :-)
Vagon said: ” Science works from induction, which is the only observable thing that for all intents and purposes is considered "truth".”
ReplyDeleteWhere did you observe ‘induction?’ I’d like to have a look myself.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"Only if you believe that “truth” is in a person’s head."
Sye, your reflections upon Cartesian dualism are spent as a philosophy.
I could tell you that I believe truth to be in peoples heads, or I could tell you I don't, but what sense is there in that? It simply doesn't pertain, it doesn't matter, there's no use to it.
I'm not a neo-dualist as you seem to be Sye (you won't find many around these days if at all), I'm more of a neo-pragmatist. As such, I find your stance here empty and fruitless. I don't consider truth from a subject/object perspective.
In other words, so what?
"How do you know this? How do you know about Bob’s dad, what do you know about Bob’s dad, and how do these laws make sense with Bob’s dad?"
ReplyDeleteBob's dad is explained more thouroughly on my latest blog entry. Bob's dad is constantly giving me personal revelation, and as explained in my entry - he personally revealed to me that the bible is a mere distortion of his word - and that the men who wrote it claimed infallibility in order to keep unruly factions at bay.
Bob's dad will speak to you constantly, like a sort of "esp direct link" except it's spiritual so it won't show up on any man-made devices. All that Bob's dad asks is that you have faith in him (his existence and ultimate divinity), and he will provide all the proof you need.
Until you accept Bob and his dad; your heart will block his truth. Bob told me this, just before he departed on his final mission back into time. He is with his dad on Europa now.
The laws make sense because Bob's dad is the law.
ReplyDeleteWhere did you observe ‘induction?’ I’d like to have a look myself.
ReplyDeleteDo you think you can jump 3 metres unassisted?
CodewordConduit said: ”Bob's dad is explained more thouroughly on my latest blog entry. Bob's dad is constantly giving me personal revelation, and as explained in my entry - he personally revealed to me that the bible is a mere distortion of his word - and that the men who wrote it claimed infallibility in order to keep unruly factions at bay.”
ReplyDeleteOh, so this was only revealed to you personally. Nevermind then. If I wanted to spend time refuting so-called 'personal revelations,' I’d go to the local mental hospital.
Vagon said: ”Do you think you can jump 3 metres unassisted?”
ReplyDeleteDepends what you mean by unassisted, but if you mean without human or mechanical assistance, yes. I’ve done it many times in fact. Down.
Now, back to my question, where did you observe ‘induction?’
"Oh, so this was only revealed to you personally. Nevermind then. If I wanted to spend time refuting so-called 'personal revelations,' I’d go to the local mental hospital."
ReplyDeleteRead the story of Noah much?
Andrew Louis said: ”I don't consider truth from a subject/object perspective.”
ReplyDeleteMe neither.
CodewordConduit said: ” Read the story of Noah much?”
ReplyDeleteYou mean the one that was revealed to to millions upon millions of people in God’s Word? Now and then.
"Now, back to my question, where did you observe ‘induction?’
ReplyDeleteLook at your own post, you can observe induction.
Vagon said: ” Look at your own post, you can observe induction.”
ReplyDeleteCool, I can see that the future will be like the past, in my post? Show me where!!
"You mean the one that was revealed to to millions upon millions of people in God’s Word? Now and then."
ReplyDeleteWas it revealed to millions of people via the word
a) before the rain started to fall
b) after the flood
I'm curious, only because I was under the impression that knowledge of the flood was personally revealed to Noah.
Perhaps I am mistaken, Sye.
That should say
ReplyDelete"knowledge of the impending flood"
"Cool, I can see that the future will be like the past, in my post? Show me where!!"
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. You cant see the future, but you can conclude somethings will be extreme probable.
In this case you have informed me that you can jump down 3 metres, based on the fact you had "done it many times".
CodewordConduit said: ”I'm curious, only because I was under the impression that knowledge of the flood was personally revealed to Noah.”
ReplyDeleteOh, I’m not talking about how Biblical people received revelations silly, I’m talking about how we get them.
Please clarify your stance on personal revelation.
ReplyDeleteSye: "Oh, so this was only revealed to you personally. Nevermind then. If I wanted to spend time refuting so-called 'personal revelations,' I’d go to the local mental hospital."
Sye: "Oh, I’m not talking about how Biblical people received revelations silly, I’m talking about how we get them."
Explain, if you would, whether the Biblical prophets received personal revelation. Yes or no will suffice.
Explain also how "we get them", if it is in any way different from how biblical figures received them.
Vagon said: ” Not exactly. You cant see the future, but you can conclude somethings will be extreme probable.”
ReplyDeleteGreat, show me how!!!
”In this case you have informed me that you can jump down 3 metres, based on the fact you had "done it many times".
That’s me using induction, that isn’t induction. Please, show me induction, I had gotten my hopes up :-)
Sye wrote:
ReplyDelete"Problem is, your conclusion is assumed in P1. To avoid question begging, P1 should be: “Doubting is going on somewhere in the universe.”"
But I know that I can doubt, and you do, too (your questions about the reliability of my reason imply that you agree that I can doubt, otherwise you wouldn't have asked). But I can't say anything about "the universe" yet because I've got no indication that there is any such entity (or any "entities" at all) at this low a level in your solipsism, Sye. We haven't reached a point yet where words like "somewhere" and "universe" have any meaning. You're skipping over gigantic swaths of metaphysics in your leaps to your ridiculous conclusions.
"How do you get from THAT to existence?"
Apparently you, Sye, have to assume their existence before you can agree to your own. I don't have any such luxury.
"Besides, I wanted to make this simple so I asked: “Please tell me one thing that you know for certain, and how you know it.”"
Well, that's your problem, Sye: you've oversimplified to the point of absurdity. You've never given this any thought (how could you?), which is why you have denied my reasonable answers to your questions.
You've learned one basic question that makes lots of people stop and think, but you won't bother. You've got an answer already, and you're not going to let anyone shake your faith in it, no matter how illogical it is. So you're forced to engage in every nasty rhetorical trick in the book to avoid thinking about it.
CodewordConduit said: ”Explain, if you would, whether the Biblical prophets received personal revelation. Yes or no will suffice.”
ReplyDeleteYes
”Explain also how "we get them", if it is in any way different from how biblical figures received them.”
In the Bible, which has been revealed to millions, upon millions, dare I say billions?
Sye,
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that you are avoiding most of my questions.
Once again,
"From where does Chestererton derive his absolute knowledge, and how can you be sure that he does, in fact posess absolute knowledge?"
And please explain how you can know and judge the intent of another person's mind.
"That’s me using induction, that isn’t induction. Please, show me induction, I had gotten my hopes up"
ReplyDeleteI don't need to show you. You have observed your own induction. You have shown yourself induction.
CWC: ”Explain also how "we get them", if it is in any way different from how biblical figures received them.”
ReplyDeleteSye: "In the Bible, which has been revealed to millions, upon millions, dare I say billions?"
So you admit that personal revelation in the age we live in now is through the Bible, not through direct communication from God himself as in the case of Noah?
Sye Tenb:
ReplyDeleteThe bible was written by people who supposedly got the "information" as personal revelation. If you are not interested in personal revelation, you must discount (nearly) the entire bible.
Everyone:
That is Sye's double standard, on display for all to see. I'm sure Dan and Daniel will apply the same double-standard.
Dave W. said: ”But I know that I can doubt”
ReplyDeleteHow do you know you exist, and not that there is just some random doubting going on in the universe?
” (your questions about the reliability of my reason imply that you agree that I can doubt, otherwise you wouldn't have asked)”
I believe that you exist, and that you can doubt, I’m asking how YOU know you exist. You have told me that you can have certainty without God. I ask you for one thing that you know for certain, and how you know it, and this is what I get:
”Well, that's your problem, Sye: you've oversimplified to the point of absurdity. You've never given this any thought (how could you?), which is why you have denied my reasonable answers to your questions.”
I have shown how ‘Dubito ergo sum’ is question begging, but tell me, is there anything else you are claiming to know other than that you exist? If so, what is it, and how do you know it?
CodewordConduit said: ” So you admit that personal revelation in the age we live in now is through the Bible, not through direct communication from God himself as in the case of Noah?”
ReplyDeleteIn our age, I am highly skeptical of claims of direct communication (such as yours).
Pvblivs said: ” The bible was written by people who supposedly got the "information" as personal revelation. If you are not interested in personal revelation, you must discount (nearly) the entire bible.”
ReplyDeleteAllow me to clarify. I’m not interested in personal revelation which does not comport with the Bible.
Sye: "In our age, I am highly skeptical of claims of direct communication (such as yours)."
ReplyDeletePlease be specific. Would you contest that direct communication from God cannot occur in this age?
I would also ask for your definition of "prophecy" for the sake of posterity.