Oolon Colluphid

Hmm. Do I detect a certain reluctance on Theo’s part to back up his ludicrous assertions about evolution? Given his absence from the thread I started for him... by George I think I do!

Come on Theo. You don’t want us to conclude you were talking through your lower alimentary canal, do you? The thread is located here.

TTFN, DT

Jack the Bodiless

Theo:
And yet Chrisitanity fails these three tests. That's the problem: you don't actually APPLY these tests!

For instance: as has already been pointed out, God lies and changes his mind.

...Which is where the SAB comes in. It is an annotated Bible: a Bible (the KJV) with notes that allow easy reference to what the Bible actually says on various issues. If you had bothered to consult it, you would KNOW that God lies and changes his mind in the Bible.

Fiach

Days One Through Six, Etc.

You keep on asking me that-
"Which day was the hardest?"
Blockheads! They were all hard.
And of course, since I'm omnipotent,
they were all easy.
It was Chaos, to begin with. Can you imagine
Primeval Chaos? Of course you can't.
How long had it been swirling around out there?
Forever.
How long had I been there?
Longer than that.
It was a mess, that's what it was. Chaos is
rocky. Fuzzy. Slippery. Prickly.
As scraggly and obstreperous as the endless behind
of an infinite jackass. Shove on it anywhere,
it gives, then slips in behind you,
like smog, like lava, like slag.
I'm telling you, chaos is--chaotic.
You see what I was up against. Who
could make a world out of that muck?
I could, that's who--land
from water, light from dark, and so on.
It might seem like a piece of cake
now that it's done, but
back then, without a blueprint,
without a set of instructions, without a committee,
could you have created a firmament?

Of course there were bugs in the process,
grit in the gears, blips, bloopers--
bringing forth grass and trees on Day Three
and not making sunlight until Day Four, that,
I must say, wasn't my best move.
And making the animals and vegetables before
there was any rain whatsoever--well,
anyone can have a bad day.
Even Adam, as it turned out, wasn't such a great
idea--those shifty eyes, the alibis,
blaming things on his wife--I mean,
it set a bad example. How could he
expect that lttle toddler, Cain,
to learn correct family values
with a role model like him?
And then there was the nasty squabble
over the beasts and birds.
OK, I admit I told Adam
to name them, but--Platypus?
Aardvark? Hippopotamus?
Let me make one thing perfectly clear--
he didn't get that gibberish from Me.
No, I don't need a planet to fall on Me,
I know something about subtext.
He did it to irritate Me, just plain
spite--and did I need the aggravation?
Well, as you know, things went from bad
to worse, from begat to begat,
father to son, the evil fruit
of all that early bile. So next
there was narcissism, then bigotry,
then jealousy, rage, vengeance!
And finally I realized, the spawn of Adam
had become exactly like--Me.

No Deity with any self-respect
would tolerate that kind
of competition, so what could I do?
I killed them all, that's what!
Just as the Good Book says,
I drowned man, woman and child, like
so many cats. Oh, I saved a few
for restocking, Noah and his crew,
the best of the lot, I thought. But
now you're all back to your old tricks again,
just about due for another good ducking,
or maybe a giant barbecue.
And I'm warning you, if I have to do it again,
there won't be any survivors, not even
a cockroach! Then,
for the first time since it was Primeval
Chaos, the world will be perfect--
nobody in it but Me.

By Philip Appleman
New and Selected Poems, 1956-1996
University of Arkansas Press
Fayetteville, Arkansas

(Moderator: sorry I have no website for this, and to post it in parts would be ludicrous. I have copied it from Philip's book to advertise his excellent book for others here to read.)

Fiach, I believe this constitutes fair use. I will also add a link for purchasing his book. J. http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product929.html

phillip millar

Hello phillip, welcome to Internet Infidels.

Thanks for the response and the welcome JOBAR. I hope to respond in due course (things are a little busy here at the moment).

Best

Fiach

Thanks,

Fiach

HRG

Of course, whether a worldview is internally consistent should be evaluated by objective criteria - such which do not depend on having already chosen an worldview.
What is "sufficient" is a highly subjective judgment. I suspect that everyone of us might tend to regard his own worldview as just a bit more sufficient than the others ...
Since no authority can be self-validating, wouldn't this make the Christian worldview incoherent ?
I wonder where you get the impression that atheists are basing their belief on some "natural order" of things. As has been pointed out many times to you, the basic assumption just says that the impressions of our senses are a good approximation of reality.

This assumption is even self-consistent because evolution favors organisms with a good internal model of reality, with predictive powers.

In any case, all that I argue is that theistic presuppositionalism has no advantages over naturalism, if objective criteria are applied even-handedly. If I have made an impression beyond this stance, I apologize.

Regards,
HRG.

theophilus

No, you should conclude that you, like many here, were not paying attention.
I had no interest in discussing evolution. As I explained several times, the discussion developed as part of a rebuttal to the assertion that science provides "objective" evidence.
I did not initiate the debate and don't recall exactly how it started.
So, you can continue to occupy yourself with it if it makes you feel better, but I won't be taking part.

theophilus

And since you are a sincere seeker after the truth, I'm sure that you have searched to see if there are plausible explanations for these "apparent" inconsistencies.

Hawkingfan

Oh, I see. "Plausible explanations". You mean excuses. No, I do not excuse God for lying or changing his mind. And yes, I've looked at the reasons for his lying and changing his mind and I find them disgusting.

theophilus

I am amazed that you do not yet understand the presuppositional challenge. I can only assume that is because you do not yet understand the nature of presuppositions.

You continue to post as though "presuppositions" are the exclusive pervue of theists. Well, here it is one more time for those of you who were asleep in class:

All systems of thought (epistemologies) are based on some underlying, untestable assumptions. These are called - pay attention now - PRESUPPOSITIONS.

Presuppositions cannot be tested directly - you keep insisting that I must "prove" my presupposition by your's - but are tested indirectly by how well they explain human experience.

So, the "presuppositional challenge" is , whether atheistic naturalism can account for the possibility of knowledge, immaterial entities such as logic, the laws of science and morality.

The Christian worldview can account for all these.

In order to explain human experience from a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, you must first destroy it; logic is "conventional" and, therefore, there is no compulsion in adhering to it in argument. Morality is just societal "preferences" or utilitarianism, which deprives it of any obligation and means that what is "wrong" today could be "right" tomorrow.

Since the ultimate nature of reality is not/cannot be known, science is impossible.

However, atheists do not live this way. They live as though these things really do have meaning. In so doing, they acknowledge that they "know" God and must borrow the Christian worldview to give meaning and purpose to their lives.