The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

It is so that you were most unresponsive, as noted.
And you still wont deal with it, the string of extraordinarily
improbable dog-ate-homework details. Less than 5 seconds.

Dont risk looking at it in any depth.
Like all these islanders standing in the rain, accurately
identifying a snake such as they'd never even seen
before, as someone thrashes it about.. The snake
behaving in a unnatural way. I particularly like it that
"Paul" could go about gathering
sticks and not even notice one was a snake.

Lets scatter some sticks on the courtroom floor and
put a live snake there too. Let the story teller show
the jury how easy it is to make that mistake.

But never mind, your mind was already made up.
(You'd be terrif on a jury)

Less than five seconds is all the thought I'd expect
you to give it.


And no matter how much you say you used to have
this "evolutionist" pov, however shallow or informed,
you have clearly stated that you are fine with believing the
unbelievable.

The writer of the narrative was (perhaps) a physician, regardless, a narrator who traveled with Paul for decades through many lands, wrote well in Greek, wrote the gospel and the Acts, and said they were both an eyewitness and interviewed other eyewitnesses to set in order a chronological, orderly, accurate narrative. I've thought about it for more than five seconds, yes, and your objection is strengthening my case.

Some foreigners who are not herpatologists--indeed, have never seen a viper, really, see some little stowaway bite Paul (or didn't and they think it bit him), who ignores it, tosses it into the fire, and they assume the guy must be a Greek god of some kind, especially since he seems like he's preaching a resurrection--and his Roman captors are holding him in awe, too. Luke merely reported what he saw, like any careful reporter. I don't think for five seconds, however, that Luke is like, "Look, Paul is a Greek god and has powers!" He gives tons of Paul's exegesis to show he's a brilliant OT commentator who justifies to people looking for a Christ that Jesus is that Messiah.

One reason I became a Christian is I found the Bible narratives honest. One reason I remained a Christian is the longer I closely scrutinize a passage--even when skeptics ask me to address some real concerns, the more I see its depth of wisdom.

One reason it was hard to become a Christian was my rationalist mindset. One reason I remained a Christian is I see amazing things happen, enough that they tend to seem routine and you realize they are for spiritual children, not adults. You're missing out and I want and believe the best for you.

By the way, so you understand my mindset better--I've served on two juries (which you alluded to in your last post, that I'd be a lousy juror) to judge felonies, both time as foreperson, and both times I held the juries over and deadlocked them until we took extra time to go over a case IN DEPTH. On the most recent case, we went into the night, the judge ordered dinner, told us from the bench we were going several hours longer than would be typical for this type of case, then told me in person over dinner we made the absolutely correct and fair decisions in the three statutes/charges and that he found our jury was particularly circumspect. I have no doubt you are grasping to prove you are right--"You never think about the Bible, do you, Billiards?" but in fact I draw tons of questions here from skeptics daily because I certainly do think about it, and always try to give you better than the typical Christian stock answers.

It's not about you or me being right, Audie, it's really about people like you, who with high IQs and high logic, make the best apologists. You could be another Paul following a possible conversion IMHO. I'm here for you to help if I can, particularly if you keep your comments respectful (of both of us) by also thinking about the issues for more than a minute.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When all else fails, we just resort to magic, I guess.

Redacted to: "When people fail, God comes through."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then it's not self-evident to anyone but yourself. So in this case, saying this is self-evident is rather pointless if you can't demonstrate it.


Why do you want to throw more unsubstantiated claims into the mix?

Oh, try to focus, 007. It's not unsubstantiated--you agree--that your odds of death are 1:1. What are you going to do?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Redacted to: "When people fail, God comes through."

I'm sorry but that claim is rather silly to me, given that bad people do bad things all the time without God bothering to come through for the victims of those bad people. Apparently God can only show up for trivial things like helping jog a person's memory or helping their sports team win. He must be too busy to help the millions of parents praying that their starving children will live another day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, try to focus, 007. It's not unsubstantiated--you agree--that your odds of death are 1:1. What are you going to do?

Of course it is, because you've failed to substantiate that, "God will be self-evident to everyone after death."

The odds of my dying have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the specific God you believe in exists. Maybe Allah is waiting to show himself to me when I'm dead, or Thor, or Buddha or Steve - but I doubt it.

And as far as I can tell, nobody does anything after death, never mind becoming corporeally reassembled (because to see something you need eyes, right?) and viewing some God who only wants to make himself self-evident to me after I've finished living my life.

Yes, I am going to die. As are you and everyone else. But that fact says nothing whatsoever about what is going to become "self-evident" to me after I cease living. I'm not really sure how that could make sense to begin with, or how anything could be evident to me once my brain has ceased functioning and my body is dead.

 

[ecco]

I didn't say Matthew memorized the Sermon on the Mount while it was spoken--like me, He was probably processing Christ's words instead of disdaining them.

I have no problem with God helping ensure a person's memory.

I also have no problem with different persons, honestly remembering or emphasizing different events--were the four gospels identical or four jurors in a court case--you would cry collusion. You can't have it both ways.

Like other Christians, I see that the four gospels were written for four audiences with four different emphases. There are movies that have been remade three times, and I enjoyed all four viewings. Will you continue to bother me with trivialities or can we just cut to the chase:

1. If I prove Matthew was able to recount the Sermon on the Mount accurately, would you trust Jesus for salvation?

2. What evidence would you need, to prove that Jesus exists as the Savior of the world?

I think I "get" what you're trying to say:

1. Only a fool would trust anything in a book they didn't personally experience (don't drink sulfuric acid, brother)

I do understand your attempt at sarcasm.

However, I don't trust anything in a book that includes virgin births, resurrections, extensive quotes by people who have no way of knowing the source, stories that are written to read like first person accounts but obviously aren't.

Not being a fool, I can distinguish between fact and fable.

2. The differences in the gospels are so major, they don't disagree (but all four say trust in Jesus or perish, brother)

All the writings of Heavens Gate say, trust me, it is necessary to die to live again in paradise.

3. The gospel attributed to Matthew has no value, since no anonymous written book has any value (you know, like when leaders put things out anonymously to avoid persecution, even in modern times)

So now you are saying that the Gospel writers tried to keep anonymous because they were afraid of persecution. Do you have anything to support that allegation?

4. God never would allow two individuals to have different memories of events (even though we can prove that any non-colluding testimony has variants)

Which does nothing to support the notion that God dictated the Gospels to the writers.

 

[ecco]

That's a pretty extreme position. I tend to have problems with extreme positions, regardless of which end of the spectrum they are.

Pointing out there is indoctrination of infants is not extreme.
Pointing out that indoctrination of infants is horrible is not extreme.

Many would consider some Mormon beliefs to be extreme and without foundation.

You also seem to have an inordinate degree of contempt for Christians. You know we're far more varied in our beliefs and attitudes than you give us credit for. I genuinely wish you could see that and that you'd at least try not to be so hateful towards us. You might be surprised at the results.

You got all that from my saying the indoctrination is children is horrible.

[sarcasm]Wow, how perceptive of you.[/sarcasm]

For the record I do not have "an inordinate degree of contempt for Christians" or Jews or Gays or Blacks or any other group of people. I am married to a Christian and I have a daughter who is a Christian.

I am disdainful of religious people who make comments about me based on ignorance.

That might have been your comment, but it didn't have anything to do with what we were talking about. Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in the "Great Flood" as described in the Bible. I believe there may have been a localized flood but I doubt very much that it was anywhere close to worldwide, and I certainly don't think Noah managed to round up male and female penguins or kangaroos or rattlesnakes for the voyage.

Do you believe anything in the Bible? If so, how do you pick and choose and decide which is God's Word and which is allegory?

 

[Katzpur]

Pointing out there is indoctrination of infants is not extreme.
Pointing out that indoctrination of infants is horrible is not extreme.

Indoctrination is "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." That does not even come close to describing how my parents raised me. I described my religious upbringing to you and you said that what my parents did to me was a horrible thing to do to a child. I can come to no other conclusion than that you would find the mere mention of a Higher Power in the home (other than to teach a child that there is no such thing) to be indoctrination. The last thing in the world my parents did to me was indoctrinate me. They taught me what they believed to be true, and encouraged me to decide for myself what path I wanted to follow. There were no threats if I were to choose differently from them. As a matter of fact, my sister, who was raised in the same household by the same parents chose not to remain LDS. She also chose not to raise her own children in a religious household. (She is agnostic but leaning towards theism and her husband is an atheist.) Until the day my parents died, she had an excellent relationship with them. I raised my two adult kids to be LDS. Neither one of them is LDS today, and I am 100% supportive of them following their own path -- which includes a belief in God but the absence of religion in their lives.

Many would consider some Mormon beliefs to be extreme and without foundation.

Well, that's their problem. Any time someone doesn't understand something, they insist that it's "without foundation." Personally, I find Mormon doctrine to make a great deal more sense than the doctrines of mainstream Christianity. I have, however, on numerous occasions spoken out against certain Mormon policies that I find to be extreme, and have come under attack by members of my own church for doing so. (My church's current stance on same-sex marriage, etc. and the labeling of such couples as "apostate" is just one example.)

You got all that from my saying the indoctrination is children is horrible.

No, I did not. I agree that the indoctrination of children is horrible, but I don't agree that it is horrible for parents to raise a child in a religious household. I don't know what about my upbringing you could possibly have found to be "horrible" unless it was the simple fact that my parents believed in God and taught me what they believed.

For the record I do not have "an inordinate degree of contempt for Christians" or Jews or Gays or Blacks or any other group of people.

Well, I'm only going by how you come across in your posts. It's entirely possible that if we were to meet in person, you would strike me as a genuinely nice guy. The anonymity of the internet does seem to encourage some folks to express their true feelings a lot more freely than they would do in person.

I am married to a Christian and I have a daughter who is a Christian.

Did your wife indoctrinate your daughter or did you manage to protect her from all religious influences in your home? At what age did she convert to Christianity?

I am disdainful of religious people who make comments about me based on ignorance.

Are you equally disdainful of non-religious people who do the same thing?

Do you believe anything in the Bible? If so, how do you pick and choose and decide which is God's Word and which is allegory?

Jesus taught us to love one another. That's God's word. Talking snakes are allegory. In other words, if it makes absolutely no sense to me to understand something literally, I generally don't interpret it that way. Actually, my beliefs are based only partially on scripture study and what I have heard taught in church.

 

[Skwim]

Indoctrination is "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." That does not even come close to describing how my parents raised me.

Out of curiosity, did your parents ever tell you not to uncritically accept the beliefs they were teaching you, but to be critical of them?

.

 

[allfoak]

Lotta facts not in evidence, bud.

AKA just makin' things up!

Just because one does not understand what is being said does not mean it is without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because one does not understand what is being said does not mean it is without evidence.

What reasonable test could show you to be wrong if you are wrong? Without such a test you do not have evidence.

 

[Audie]

Just because one does not understand what is being said does not mean it is without evidence.

That will be a great defense if you are
charged with perjury.

 

[allfoak]

What reasonable test could show you to be wrong if you are wrong? Without such a test you do not have evidence.

I test What I know everyday and everyday I change according to what I learn.
If we just have the same routine everyday and think the same things every day then we will never change on any day.
Testing one's self is not rocket science but it is indeed science.
I test my beliefs every day and change them accordingly.
We all know how to do it but few ever take the time to even consider it.
Not enough time in the day for such a luxury.
Contemplation of self is the biggest wasted gift we have.

 

[allfoak]

That will be a great defense if you are
charged with perjury.

Unnecessary banter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I test What I know everyday and everyday I change according to what I learn.
If we just have the same routine everyday and think the same things every day then we will never change on any day.
Testing one's self is not rocket science but it is indeed science.
I test my beliefs every day and change them accordingly.
We all know how to do it but few ever take the time to even consider it.
Not enough time in the day for such a luxury.
Contemplation of self is the biggest wasted gift we have.

I doubt if your tests would pass the bar of being reasonable. Be specific, how could your tests refute your beliefs?

If your supposed tests could not refute your beliefs you still do not have evidence. Only confirmation bias.

 

[allfoak]

I doubt if your tests would pass the bar of being reasonable. Be specific, how could your tests refute your beliefs?

There are many ways to test one's self.
I can do it mentally, physically and spiritually.
To list all of the ways to do this would be exhausting.
One simple example would be how an athlete tests themselves mentally and physically in order to over come any doubt of what they are capable of accomplishing.
One must overcome many limiting and conflicting beliefs to ultimately be who they want to be.
If we do not test ourselves then who will?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many ways to test one's self.
I can do it mentally, physically and spiritually.
To list all of the ways to do this would be exhausting.
One simple example would be how an athlete tests themselves mentally and physically in order to over come any doubt of what they are capable of accomplishing.
One must overcome many limiting and conflicting beliefs to ultimately be who they want to be.
If we do not test ourselves then who will?

It appears that I was correct in my assessment . All you have is confirmation bias and not evidence.

 

[allfoak]

It appears that I was correct in my assessment . All you have is confirmation bias and not evidence.

Think what you please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Think what you please.

You could show that I am wrong. As you mentioned, athletes test themselves all of the time. But their tests are quantifiable and verifiable. So far it looks like all you have is wishful thinking. If you really believe then you should have no problem supporting your claims. I have found that many people have beliefs that they only pay lip service to, but when it comes to showing proper evidence for their beliefs they have nothing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm sorry but that claim is rather silly to me, given that bad people do bad things all the time without God bothering to come through for the victims of those bad people. Apparently God can only show up for trivial things like helping jog a person's memory or helping their sports team win. He must be too busy to help the millions of parents praying that their starving children will live another day.

Let's formalize your complaint:

1. An omnipotent/loving God would not allow X to happen.
2. X happens.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent/loving God does not exist.

"X" her is anything a skeptic feels like complaining about today.

Ah, but if there is no God, why does it matter that children starve? (I mean, think about this "problem" strictly from an evolutionist's/materialist's perspective.)

Using a moral argument against theism undermines your argument.