To be clear, you don't assert that the bible is inerrant?
You do assert that the bible is inerrant but can't demonstrate the correctness of the claim?
Or other, in which case what?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?
- Thread starter blü 2
- Start date
You do assert that the bible is inerrant but can't demonstrate the correctness of the claim?
Or other, in which case what?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He was using the same sort of "logic" that those who say the Bible is inerrant to prove that he was inerrant. He clearly is not a biblical literalist.
We know that chemistry produced active biochemistry at least once, very likely on earth (though we presently don't know a clear path for the process). We also know that once self-reproducing cells were out there, so was evolution; and here we are. So while things don't make themselves, natural processes make them. And given natural selection, the environments from time to time on earth, and 3.5 bn years or more to play with, the existence of H sap sap is far far more explicable that you appear to think.
Which is perhaps another way of saying that I think your engineering argument suits my case better than yours ─ not that I expect you'll agree, of course.
You doubt, then, that we could agree on what our senses tell us about objective reality? I would have thought testing statements for their agreement with reality would allow us to form substantially similar views of reality. Am I right in thinking you regard that test as restrictive? If so, what test would you rather use?
https://www.slideshare.net/MichaelScaman/nahum-the-other-city-whos-walls-fell
Martin Gardner once remarked that any statistical proof of ESP was overwhelming statistical proof of fraud. I have an analogous reaction when biblical prophecy is cited as evidence of anything.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
This is what it is about, imo. Namely, that each determines for themselves what their truth is. Unfortunately, in some cases, that truth comes back to bite us, in other cases, it matters little and is just an exercise in philosophical dreams of wet matter that thinks itself aware, conscious.
I am not sure that is the problem. It seems that while we might have the same data to judge, to work with, somehow reaching the same conclusions is at times impossible.
This might be going astray, but it has to do with judging data. I recently watched some videos about Egypt and other such old places, the engineering skills needed to make some of the items we still have, the water marks, and so forth. It seems that though there is plenty of data with clear data that only permits one conclusion on what kind of technology was used to create some of these items, many archaeologists, and other professional teachers of history, refuse to take such engineering evidence into consideration. Also, the water erosion e.g. of the Sphinx suggests a nearly 12000 year old structure of most of this item; yet, this is denied by mainline historians and archaeologists, it seems. So, having data that corresponds to clear evidence where other such phenomena is encountered is not enough for us to change our viewpoints.
If clear evidence of high technology having been needed to create some of the items investigated is ignored, and in a non-religious setting, where only facts should matter, but obviously don't - doesn't this say something about our abilities to be rational, logical, and beyond being biased where it shouldn't matter religiously speaking at all, but only matters as to the history being claimed.
It is my conclusion that objective truth escapes us in many many cases. We think we are rational, logical and unbiased, but really we aren't. We get blinded by our own desires, and other things also such as pride, or national pride where if we make a change, our prestige suffers, and so forth.
If it is a matter of being blinded, how can you test for it! I don't think you can since it would be a chosen form of blindness.
Last edited:
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
You may react as you will but one's reactions do not make for truth
Nahum - The other city who's walls fell
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? What is this evidence for if anything?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Atheists believe in all sorts of different things. They simply do not believe in a god. Your question is rather poorly formed.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Apologies, the same goes for believers in a variety of things. Some reasons for anchoring your faith in somethings are better than others.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Faith is not a very valid tool for having a true belief. One could just as easily have "faith" in Allah, the Hindu Gods, or even the Norse Aesir. There should be a better road to discovery.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One normally writes a response when one quotes someone else.
Most atheists do not rely on faith.
Most atheists do not rely on faith.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
faith in general is very broad I can have misplaced faith and misplaced values in lots of things
By faith I mean 'saving faith' I think one can come to a point where they can 'last and see that the Lord is good'
By faith I mean 'saving faith' I think one can come to a point where they can 'last and see that the Lord is good'
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
depends what you mean by faith.... a leap in the dark is wishful thinking not 'faith'...
assurance of things hoped for is not a leap in the dark or wishful thinking
it's the difference between an empty tomb and 'the goodness of man'
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Most atheists have a great deal of faith in the presuppositions they take axiomatically
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It all looks the same to me. What makes you think that your faith is any better than any other?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Name one.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The "empty tomb" may very well be a fairy tale. It looks like all you have is a leap in the dark.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
depends on what you mean by faith
The people of Jericho had a form of faith that God was powerful and were afraid, but they mostly did;t trust in Him and they mainly opposed him down to the end
The people of Nineveh, Babylon and Jericho 'trusted' in their walls... and that is more like trusting in themselves
The people of Jericho had a form of faith that God was powerful and were afraid, but they mostly did;t trust in Him and they mainly opposed him down to the end
The people of Nineveh, Babylon and Jericho 'trusted' in their walls... and that is more like trusting in themselves
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. [Emphasis in original.]
would you like more?
The atheistt professor of Harard is admitting in his own words ' our a priori adherence to material causes'