Faith and Reason. My thoughts on God, science and the world

[Dr. Zaus]

Because there is nothing to support this opinion...just you trying to find a philosophical explanation for something you clearly want to believe.

Actually i'm using first rate biblical hermeneutics and apologetics.

You are 'standing' for ideas that didn't exist UNTIL United States Protestantism invented them in the in the middle of the nineteenth century.

How lucky! You were born in the right part of the world, in the right day and age, to the one right way of interpreting the world!

That or, as is typical across human identity groups, you are just defining who you are by who you are not "we are not evolutionists". And thus you defend your identity group, a group that by your own definitions of "good" fail in the face of the superior Mormon church.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But, we're not talking about you.

No, we're talking about something (allegedly) said by Jesus, and what inferences are warranted. My counter-example shows that your inference is unfounded.

Please pay attention and keep up..

That's fucking rich, coming from the likes of you.

Cherry-picking fallacy,

No, it isn't. It isn't a secret that many people believed there was a literal Adam. The existence of their beliefs are not compelling evidence for the veracity of their beliefs.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Nope. You need to study the meanings of the fallacies you cite (and occasionally invent).

When are you going to attack the source and not me?

I'm attacking your reasoning, which is terrible.

The fact that Adam is mentioned throughout the Greek text means he wasn't some metaphor.

No, it doesn't. Usages depend on their own individual context.

So, it was more than just Paul and Jesus who mentioned Adam.

So?

It does a disservice to Christians who supposedly hang their faith on the Greek Bible, to ignore these texts, and assume these aren't factual, literal claims. Add Jude and Luke (the writer of Acts).

So we have at minimum, 6 different Bible references of Adam and Eve, not including the Genesis account itself, which would give us 7.

Great. None of those mean that Adam existed as described in a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, we're talking about something (allegedly) said by Jesus, and what inferences are warranted. My counter-example shows that your inference is unfounded.

No, it doesn't. You voiced an opinion, and an uneducated one at that.

No, it isn't. It isn't a secret that many people believed there was a literal Adam. The existence of their beliefs are not compelling evidence for the veracity of their beliefs.

Right, and I didn't say it was. I was simply pointing out the evidence that they believed in a literal Adam...whether or not there is any truth to that was irrelevant to the point I was making.

I'm attacking your reasoning, which is terrible.

You didn't state why Paul's words don't merit attention, you just criticized the fact I mentioned his writings, and me as being "Paulist" something you pulled out of your rear-end.

That's not discussing, something you can't seem to do well.

Great. None of those mean that Adam existed as described in a literal reading of Genesis.

I didn't say it did -- I was establishing the fact that the Bible speaks of Adam as a real person, more pointedly, Jesus.

Are you going to actually defend your "metaphorical usage" of Adam and stop with this red herring?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yes, if Jesus' words were the only reference to Adam and Eve, then I would be inclined to believe they are metaphorically being mentioned. But we have 7 other places that mentions them...none of which imply evolution, and to top it off, Jesus died as a Ransom.

If Adam wasn't real, then for what reason was Christ dying for...and what was he "buying back"?

Christ was a Ransom for our sins. Buying us back from the lord of the air, allowing the spirit that dwells in us to be saved though we do not do what we want to do and we do that which we do not want to do.

I didn't say it did -- I was establishing the fact that the Bible speaks of Adam as a real person, more pointedly, Jesus.

It also speaks of Behemoth and Leviathan as real; but they aren't.

The spiritual truth of the story of Adam and Eve is not lost just because these are not physically-real facts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, it doesn't. You voiced an opinion, and an uneducated one at that.

Gainsaying is not an argument. It's the intellectual equivalent of shutting your eyes and clamping your hands over your ears and singing "I'm not listening to yoooooooouuuuuuuu...."

Right, and I didn't say it was. I was simply pointing out the evidence that they believed in a literal Adam...whether or not there is any truth to that was irrelevant to the point I was making.

But who cares what they believed?

You didn't state why Paul's words don't merit attention, you just criticized the fact I mentioned his writings, and me as being "Paulist" something you pulled out of your rear-end.

You haven't established why Paul's words should have any significance.

That's not discussing, something you can't seem to do well.

Wanna talk about all the questions you've left hanging? You do not get to criticize anyone about the quality of discussion.

I didn't say it did -- I was establishing the fact that the Bible speaks of Adam as a real person, more pointedly, Jesus.

As I showed, Jesus did not do what you claim.

Are you going to actually defend your "metaphorical usage" of Adam and stop with this red herring?

I already did. You, as always, simply pretend that argument doesn't exist.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I already did. You, as always, simply pretend that argument doesn't exist.

Every back-and-forth we have with rob can be represented symbolically:

Rob:
A -> B
B -> C
A Therefore C

CT/Dixy/Everyone
Proof: B -> C is FALSE

Rob:
You have failed to address A -> B, therefore I continue to believe C.

CT/Dixy/Everyone

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Oh man, so true.

 

[PowerEngineer]

.....who is the pope?

Just because the majority accepts something, that means I do too? (isn't this what you were critisizing me earlier for, now you're saying its ok?) Perhaps billions of Catholics believe they're drinking and eating the literal blood and body of Jesus, sheer superstition.

So I guess I should be accepting all that too. After all, its acceptable to 'billions' and the pope as well.

The 😀 should have alerted you to the tongue-in-cheek nature of that suggestion. I suppose this might be progress if you now recognize how unconvincing your "billions" argument sounds when turned around to put you on the receiving end.

I also find it interesting that you can so readily dismiss transubstantiation as "sheer superstition". Does this mean you have thoroughly studied catholic doctrine and related materials on this subject? If not, why aren't you deserving of the same type of criticism you level against unknowledgeable skeptics of the bible. Are you calling Catholics "liars"? 😀

Just to be perfectly clear, this is another of your assertions coming back at you. As others have suggested, the burden of proof for supernatural claims is on the believers. It's not my (or your) responsibility to thoroughly study every claim made by religious sects around the world before being allowed to form an opinion about their worth. IMHO it makes sense to treat all supernatural claims (Christian and otherwise) as "sheer superstition" until convincing evidence is provided.

 

[spittledip]

I have been reading through this thread as it has progressed, and I have a question for those involved in the present discussion out of sheer curiosity. What would "convincing evidence" of the supernatural/spiritual look like? Give examples of what would convince you that there is a God and/or spiritual realm and/or true "spiritual experience " (i.e., religious experience).

 

[sandorski]

I have been reading through this thread as it has progressed, and I have a question for those involved in the present discussion out of sheer curiosity. What would "convincing evidence" of the supernatural/spiritual look like? Give examples of what would convince you that there is a God and/or spiritual realm and/or true "spiritual experience " (i.e., religious experience).

Difficult question to answer. However, if there were something like Yahweh in existence, technically it would know what that is. If one accepts all the "Omni-" claims about it, many of which the Bible casts doubt on.

 

[shira]

This is my first post in what I hope to be a series of posts based on my views of the world. I am not educated nor professional. I am however looking for input or civilized debate on the topic at hand.

My first thought is that either God exists or He doesn't. I don't believe you can study the issue and not agree. This brings me to the main difference I see in myself versus others. I believe that truth is absolute. The truth cannot change. No matter what the question, there is always an answer that gets to the absolute truth. Too often people dance around the fact that there has to be truth in order for anything to make sense. Without truth we are simply guessing at the subject at hand.

Let's take a look at a simple question: does God exist? If we follow my thought that question is the same as "is there water in the ocean? " There is only one answer that is the truth. The answer to either question is not my point. Only that there can only be one answer.

Or am I wrong? Is truth not absolute? Does every question have one answer that is the truth, even if we don't yet know what that answer is?

----------------------------------------------------
Running update:
This thread has gotten rather large, so I will post the questions I have asked here for easier reference.

Does every question have one answer that is the truth, even if we don't yet know what that answer is?
Has science disproved anything that is said in the Bible?
Is the Bible infallible? And if it is not, can it be believed?

Even if an absolute truth exists, it may be unknowable.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

supernatural/spiritual look like? Give examples of what would convince you that there is a God and/or spiritual realm and/or true "spiritual experience " (i.e., religious experience).

My parents were once coke addicts. They turned their lives over to Christ, and by faith are clean, taking care of their children.

To me, this is all the evidence I need to believe in Christ. I don't expect it to convince anyone else though.

Further, if you can't articulate what would be enough to disprove your ideas then you are being intellectually dishonest. Rational scientific reasoning means having things that would disprove our ideas if they were found and having alternative ideas to which we are willing to subscribe.

I think that people turning their life around because of faith in Christ is evidence in support of the hypothesis that faith in Christ can be good. I think that the hypothesis is reasonably derived form Christianity; thus in support of it.

I acknowledge that there are other theories that may account for the outcome; But my experience has updated my prior belief about the existence of God to a point where I believe. There's an alternate theory to which I give less belief but which is also reasonable: humans in-born mechanisms to 'feel' faith and thus drastically change their psychological makeup for the better is something that evolved to improve pack cohesion.

If we found, for example, that for the majority of folks following the teachings of Christ in faith leads to a shitty life, then that would reduce my belief. If we found that Dogs or Apes also have these cerebral faith-mechanisms then that would improve my belief in the alternative theory. Lack of such evidence, though, does not reduce my belief in the alternative theory because any number of causes of faith-brain-structures could be limited to the evolution of humans.

Again, this is not an argument that you, or anyone else, should believe: just an explanation.

 

[shira]

My parents were once coke addicts. They turned their lives over to Christ, and by faith are clean, taking care of their children.

To me, this is all the evidence I need to believe in Christ. I don't expect it to convince anyone else though.

Further, if you can't articulate what would be enough to disprove your ideas then you are being intellectually dishonest. Rational scientific reasoning means having things that would disprove our ideas if they were found and having alternative ideas to which we are willing to subscribe.

I think that people turning their life around because of faith in Christ is evidence in support of the hypothesis that faith in Christ can be good. I think that the hypothesis is reasonably derived form Christianity; thus in support of it.

I acknowledge that there are other theories that may account for the outcome; But my experience has updated my prior belief about the existence of God to a point where I believe. There's an alternate theory to which I give less belief but which is also reasonable: humans in-born mechanisms to 'feel' faith and thus drastically change their psychological makeup for the better is something that evolved to improve pack cohesion.

If we found, for example, that for the majority of folks following the teachings of Christ in faith leads to a shitty life, then that would reduce my belief. If we found that Dogs or Apes also have these cerebral faith-mechanisms then that would improve my belief in the alternative theory. Lack of such evidence, though, does not reduce my belief in the alternative theory because any number of causes of faith-brain-structures could be limited to the evolution of humans.

Again, this is not an argument that you, or anyone else, should believe: just an explanation.

But the fact is that people of all religious faiths "turn their lives around." And I'm sure that if you asked adherents to all the world's major religions if their lives were better because of their faith, a large majority in each religions would say yes. And I think if you asked atheists if their belief enriches their lives, I would be a clear majority would say yes. Same for Wiccans or pretty much any other belief system.

I believe this is an argument is favor of the claim "A strong belief in something that gives meaning to one's life" is a good thing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have been reading through this thread as it has progressed, and I have a question for those involved in the present discussion out of sheer curiosity. What would "convincing evidence" of the supernatural/spiritual look like? Give examples of what would convince you that there is a God and/or spiritual realm and/or true "spiritual experience " (i.e., religious experience).

1 million digits of pi at the beginning of Genesis and a 256-bit check sum at the end of Revelation would be pretty persuasive.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But the fact is that people of all religious faiths "turn their lives around." And I'm sure that if you asked adherents to all the world's major religions if their lives were better because of their faith, a large majority in each religions would say yes. And I think if you asked atheists if their belief enriches their lives, I would be a clear majority would say yes. Same for Wiccans or pretty much any other belief system.

I believe this is an argument is favor of the claim "A strong belief in something that gives meaning to one's life" is a good thing.

Maybe. This isn't my experience, and thus I leave it to others to speak to their own experience with faith.

I know what I've seen work, so I speak to that alone.

 

[Paul98]

Rob M.

You say you have studied the bible and found it to be true. You use this to try and disprove evolution, yet you don't understand evolution and haven't studied it. If you were to study evolution and find it to be true would you change your beliefs in the bible? Or would you just discount reality and keep your beliefs that have been shown to be incorrect?

This is the opposite of how science works.

 

[sandorski]

Rob M.

You say you have studied the bible and found it to be true. You use this to try and disprove evolution, yet you don't understand evolution and haven't studied it. If you were to study evolution and find it to be true would you change your beliefs in the bible? Or would you just discount reality and keep your beliefs that have been shown to be incorrect?

This is the opposite of how science works.

As you are likely aware, there are actually a few Scientists who use Evolution in their day to day work, but believe in YEC in their private lives. Shocking but true. There have even been a few Christian Apologists who have outright stated that regardless of evidence to the contrary, they will Believe in YEC, cause to them, it is simply they must Believe or else(something happens, apparently).

Both are ridiculous, but such is Indoctrination and Blind Acceptance. Reality doesn't matter when one has the "Truth".

 

[woolfe9998]

I have been reading through this thread as it has progressed, and I have a question for those involved in the present discussion out of sheer curiosity. What would "convincing evidence" of the supernatural/spiritual look like? Give examples of what would convince you that there is a God and/or spiritual realm and/or true "spiritual experience " (i.e., religious experience).

For starters, empirical proof of supernatural occurrences which satisfies the same evidentiary standards as anything used to support actual scientific theories. This then would suggest the existence of a realm beyond our understanding of nature. If you want to get to "God," as in the Bible, then evidence of uncanny accuracy of the Bible on things to which its human authors could not possibly have known would help. Also, empirical proof of "miracles" meeting the same standards I describe above.

 

[Moonbeam]

But the fact is that people of all religious faiths "turn their lives around." And I'm sure that if you asked adherents to all the world's major religions if their lives were better because of their faith, a large majority in each religions would say yes. And I think if you asked atheists if their belief enriches their lives, I would be a clear majority would say yes. Same for Wiccans or pretty much any other belief system.

I believe this is an argument is favor of the claim "A strong belief in something that gives meaning to one's life" is a good thing.

I believe the fact that religion and or other things can cause people to turn around their lives means that there are things that take people off some less desirable course, desirable in the sense that people who undergo that change find it in it more life satisfaction in the new one. This would imply to me a built in gage of some kind that prefers one mental attitude over another when both have been lived via experience. This would mean, I think, that a wide variety of experiences in living would bring with it deeper wisdom, and that those who have suffered deeply and found joy might be called truly wise. We would have, however, to suspect that sometimes folk in a state of denial may wish to project a state on happiness, out there, simply for egotistical reasons, and may actually, or even unconsciously, be miserable. This kind of confusion can arise, I think, when there are cultural expectations that one be happy if one believes this or that idea as opposed to actually knowing how you feel.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This kind of confusion can arise, I think, when there are cultural expectations that one be happy if one believes this or that idea as opposed to actually knowing how you feel.

The courage to reject this sort of hypocrisy is likely why I tend to find more respectable atheists than I do church goers.

 

[fskimospy]

For starters, empirical proof of supernatural occurrences which satisfies the same evidentiary standards as anything used to support actual scientific theories. This then would suggest the existence of a realm beyond our understanding of nature. If you want to get to "God," as in the Bible, then evidence of uncanny accuracy of the Bible on things to which its human authors could not possibly have known would help. Also, empirical proof of "miracles" meeting the same standards I describe above.

Yes, I don't get why this question always comes up. There are zillions of things that could happen that would strongly imply supernatural forces at play. Prophecy, people coming back from the dead, water into wine, walking on water, etc. All of those things would be truly supernatural if they could be replicated honestly.

It has always seemed awfully odd to me how people so rarely question why miracles stopped right around the time people would have been able to disprove them.

 

[Moonbeam]

The courage to reject this sort of hypocrisy is likely why I tend to find more respectable atheists than I do church goers.

Well I can appreciate that but one problem I do have with them is that when they have experienced no deep course correction themselves of any kind in any direction, they assume that the change some experience from religion is simply a product of self delusion. In short, I believe that man is capable of a deep and fundamental alteration in his conscious state that produces a state of emotional certainty that puts one in the batter's box on home plate, a state beyond faith or doubt, a place inexpressible by words, but is often called love and or being. This place, it's existence, is the origin of religion and it's realization, the real function.

And because it is the right place to be as the result of the certainty on has who experiences it and because it can be had by anybody since it is our natural and proper state, there will always be religion or something pointing to this place as long as there are human beings. There will always be those who feel empty with anything less and will feel a need and longing for it.

May all conscious beings find this state.
----------
There is no place like home. But watch out for the field of poppies that will put you to sleep on the yellow brick road. Look for a wizard who can unite your mind and heart and body. His appearance may be deceiving. He can help you find a magical transport devise you can click three times.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There is no place like home. But watch out for the field of poppies that will put you to sleep on the yellow brick road. Look for a wizard who can unite your mind and heart and body. His appearance may be deceiving. He can help you find a magical transport devise you can click three times.

And realize that fevered delusions of a lifeworld filled with beauty and deep personal truth are more real, experientially, than any black and white small town in Kansas.

But yea, too many walk off the path of black and white only to insist on their own new definition of sepia tones.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

1 million digits of pi at the beginning of Genesis and a 256-bit check sum at the end of Revelation would be pretty persuasive.

Wouldn't even have to be that complicated.

I've often joked that if there was a truly omnibenevolent god who loved his people and wanted them to be healthy and happy, he would have replaced one of three he reserved for his own ego with "Thou shalt wash thy hands with soap and water before every meal and whenever they are soiled". To be fair, there are quite a few things in the OT about cleanliness, but most of them are oriented around ritual cleanliness. There's very little indication in there that the writers knew even the fundamentals of health science or any other type of science.

 

[busydude]

Wouldn't even have to be that complicated.

I've often joked that if there was a truly omnibenevolent god who loved his people and wanted them to be healthy and happy, he would have replaced one of three he reserved for his own ego with "Thou shalt wash thy hands with soap and water before every meal and whenever they are soiled". To be fair, there are quite a few things in the OT about cleanliness, but most of them are oriented around ritual cleanliness. There's very little indication in there that the writers knew even the fundamentals of health science or any other type of science.

Not to mention Bible's ignorance when it comes to menstruation and women in general.