Solitary Man

But you're the one defining mistake - what if you're wrong?

How would you be able to tell when is figurative language used?

Are you even going to bother? I showed how it wasn't consistent, and you go on and on saying "yes it is! yes it is!" Reminds me of mountainman or praxeus in your avoidance. Deal the with fucking evidence.

Take a poll and find what that really means. Ask Riverwind, Roger Pearse, Stephen Carlson, Ben Smith, Dr. Jim West, Dr. Chris Higgaion, Tyler Williams, Dr. Michael Bird, Dr. NT Wright, or even Billy Graham what it means to be a Bible Believer and if that means that one is an inerrantist and if that means that the text must be read literally unless "clearly" figurative language is used, and moreover, what it means to be using figurative language.

So far you're just asserting, and backed up nothing with no evidence. A lot of hot air.

Sauron

I wouldn't think so. Since rigorous proofs exist for each mathematical principle, I don't see a role for faith.

In fact, mathematics can be absolutely, 100% proven. No other science can be. In fact, this unusual property of mathematics is often quoted back to creationists who ask for "proof", or who complain that science can't "prove" that the earth is older than 6,000 years. The answer? Nothing in science can ever be proven beyond all doubt; only mathematics can do that. However, that does not mean that we cannot be abundantly certain of some things in science. Recall Stephen Jay Gould's definition of "fact":

Second, evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth's revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we can call evolution a "fact." (Science does not deal in certainty, so “fact” can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.)

It means that we can still draw some very broad circles around what is, or is not, possible within the available evidence.

People need to be careful to observe how such findings are communicated. There is a difference between saying:

1. Kenyon found no evidence supporting the idea of walls at Jericho during the designated timeframe
vs.
2. Kenyon work disproved the existence of any walls at Jericho during the designated timeframe.

Version #1 is precisely correct. However, Version #2 is what christians often read into it. This imprecision is similar to what happens in archaeology, when two reports surface about the same event:

1. Carbon dating of the items indicates that the site was at least 20,000 years old
vs.
2. Carbon dating gave an age of 20,000 years.

Again, #1 is precisely correct, but #2 often finds its way into the popular media.

Over time, when you get enough instances of #1 - type evidence, you reach a point where the claim cannot be supported. For example, the claim of an Exodus. There is not only a missing mountain of affirmative evidence, but there is also some contradictory evidence -- evidence which should not exist, if the Exodus happened as described. This is described as the "elephant in the basement" problem: you say you have an elephant in the basement? Fine.

• I don't hear any trumpeting.
• The walls, floors and ceiling are just fine - no cracks or damage.
• No broken furniture
• No elephant poop on the floor.
• No elephant smell.
• No dump truck full of elephant food appearing each day at your address.

But you say you have an elephant? Well, I can't prove a negative here. However, in order for you to have an elephant, all the above *ought* to be happening. Yet it isn't. The logical explanation is that you do not, in fact, have an elephant after all.

And so it is with the Exodus, and several other claims.

Sauron

No shift. Burden always lies with the claimant. You claimed it was illogical. Prove it.


No, you did. I've tried to point it out several times. You're apparently not interested.
My argument - which you duck and dodge - is focused on a subset.

Fourth time - did you get it?


Appeal to authority? Yawn.

Sauron

No I'm not.

Well it's a question for the bible believers. But their position is that figurative language involves simile or metaphor, or prophetic typology. None of that applies.

No, you propped up a strawman and tried to knock it down. Don't get confused, or we'll have to send in the rescue dogs to untangle you from your own argument.

Unnecessary. The term is already defined - if you had any intellectual initiative, you could Google it.

If.

Nonsense. I just know the material, while you're focused on a strawman. Enjoy your solitary dance partner.

judge

Yes I understand how it might work in theory, but it seems unrealistic to expect it in real life.
We are talking about millions of people throughout history, so it becomes unrealistic to compare it to UFO's in that respect, and unrealistic to expect people to consider to be untrue what they know to be true by their own investigation.

Riverwind

I'm afraid Sauron is too stuck in the role of non-introspective Christian basher to deal with my questions as honestly as I would like to see them dealt with...

He says that Mathematics can be 100% proven. Can it? Is mathematics a firm foundation in which to place our faith? Quantum mechanics among other things is something that, for me at least, throws a monkey wrench into the works.

There are simply too many variables upon which we, as fallible humans, could have goofed up in order to say with any serious confidence that we know for a fact that the Exodus did not occur, that Jericho had walls that fell, that Jesus said and did the things attributed to him. Perhaps this is why many highly intelligent people still find room to believe in the Bible and in God.

Sauron

So because I don't reach the conclusions you're hoping for, that means I'm "non-introspective".
How shallow.

Yes, it can. It's one of the properties of mathematics.
Can matter be demonstrated to have mass? Yes, it's one of the properties of matter.

Assuming the conclusion - why do we need faith? Or a foundation for it?

And what precisely do you think QM says about mathematics - or anything else - that gives you hope for a window of wiggle room for faith in walls at Jericho?

Yet if we were discussing the claims of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster, we would have no problem in dismissing them based upon the evidence available. Anyone attempting an appeal to quantum mechanics as a way to create a window of wiggle room for a belief in Sasquatch would be laughed to scorn for their attempt.

And if we were discussing the claims of Herodotus about gods, goddesses, and mythical beasts, we would reject them out of hand. There wouldn't be any of this cautionary hand-wringing that you exhibit; we'd just jettison the entire lot overboard, confident that old Herodotus was wrong when he was writing about Greek gods and flying serpents.

But when that same rigor is applied to the OT stories, suddenly we have to back off. For some reason, we can't be so sure anymore. Without apparent reason, we are cautioned against coming too quickly to conclusions.

Why is the Exodus treated any different from the Loch Ness Monster? Or Herodotus?

Answer: because you have a religious stake in the Exodus story. And you've also answered the question that started this thread; i.e., why people of faith cannot be relied upon to conduct good science. Answer? Because when it comes to conclusions that threaten those beliefs, they carve out exemptions for themselves; they countenance double standards that they wouldn't tolerate in any other area of study.

You also ignore - deliberately - the fact that I'm talking about large circles (statements) that provide boundaries on what can, or cannot, be reasonably said about these events.

And finally, you dodged the example I provided about the elephant in the basement. Why?

But the God they believe in almost always turns out to be a Deist kind of God - not an OT / 10 commandments / parting the Red Sea type of God.

Sauron

Why?

1. Not really. The question doesn't pivot on how many people have experienced (a) christianity or (b) UFOs. Your question was:

How, does a person who has a real experience of Christ in honesty consider for example that Christ did not even exist.

I gave the answer: they have to be willing to consider that they are wrong in their experience. Whether that is 10 people, or 10 million, is irrelevant. If the person is not willing to consider possible error in what is clearly a highly subjective and non-repeatable experience, then they can't objectively do research.

2. Moreover, the experience of millions of christians (group A) *differs* from the experience of millions of other christians (group B), in important and mutually exclusive ways. Someone has to be wrong.

3. But if you insist on trying to rely on numbers, then what about the millions of Buddhist or Muslims through history? If appeal to large numbers works for christianity, then it has to work for other religions. Either that, or it's a busted argument for all religions.

That's just a re-wording of your original claim, and as such is not a new argument, just a recycled old one.

In light of that sad fact, the rebuttal is the same: if they cannot tolerate the idea that their experience might be wrong, then they aren't suitable for doing objective research.

judge

Maybe, but good luck trying to have them removed from the "table".

That is whay I say it is unrealistic.

judge

I dont know too much about the claims of Muslims, but if Buddhists claim to have such and usch experience through some aspect of Buddhism then who I am I to argue with that?