Columbo

As I said way back there somewhere - it is a matter of belief. And yes, I believe the events of the Gospel did happen.

Why didn't you guys just ask? *Sheesh*.

Columbo

This is my last post as this has become a pester the Luietenant session, when it's usually the other way around.

I enjoyed the debate, and apprently you think I must be a YEC or an atheist.

Craigart14

Columbo, if you haven't yet departed, tell me

What were the last words of Jesus?

Craig

PoodleLovinPessimist

There's no a priori reason to think that science could not do so. Science does not apply, however to metaphysics.

Science says there are no unnatural events.

Depends. The Bible reads to me like it makes statements of fact, and is not merely a metaphysical system. There are some forms of Christianity that are entirely metaphysical, but those systems do not take the Bible as scripture, as establishing true statements of fact.

I've heard time and again that the literal, factual truth of the resurrection is central to Christianity. That's Josh McDowell's position. And anyone who takes the Bible as scripture--that is as establishing factual truth--is certainly going conclude that the resurrection, as well as any number of events described as fact, actually happened.

I say it because I disagree with your statement that the literal meaning of Genesis does not rule out an old Earth. All of Genesis establishes an unbroken geneology between Adam, created on day 5, and Abraham, whose dates can be established historically. I don't see any other way to read Genesis literally.

My motive in saying that no one cares what you specifically believe is try to pull the discussion into philosophy, and not just witnessing. Declarations of one's own metaphysics are not really that interesting; the point of a philosophical conversation is to critically examine those metaphysics.

I'm neither trying to bait you nor tell you what your theology should be. I'm trying to have a philosophical conversation with you. You made a statement of fact: A literal interpretation of the Bible does not rule out an old earth. I disagree your statement of fact: I think a literal interpretation of the Bible does indeed rule out an old Earth. I'm not interested in defending my position more strongly; I've already said that if you don't want to defend your own position, I'm willing to just drop that specific matter.

What's more interesting to me is the metaphysical basis of the interpretation of the Bible: A scriptural interpretation (where the Bible establishes fact) versus some other, more naturalistic interpretation. My position is that you can't have both a scriptural interpretation of the Bible and consider science to be epistemically meaningful, and I'm willing to argue the position logically. Again, if you simply want to agree to disagree, I'm fine with that too.

Anything you care to believe is "okay" with me; I don't care even if you want to believe that the world goes away when you close your eyes. Do you want to have a logical, philosophical conversation about whether a scriptural interpretation of the Bible is or is not compatible with science? If so, bring it on. If not, fine with me.

I don't disagree with that view. However, I do disagree that you are then considering the Bible as scripture. Do you want to know whether people who have been dead for three days can get up and walk around? Medical science has one definite answer; the Bible has a definite answer as well. The two answers inescapably contradict each other. Believe the Bible and you disbelieve medical science; believe medical science and you disbelieve the Bible's fact claims.

Indeed. The point is the choice: Man's knowledge or God's factual behavior as described in the Bible. I don't think you can have both.

Sven

As I said: Go to BC&H. We're in the wrong forum.


It's the work of professional archeologists. To you want to claim a huge conspiracy or what?

(BTW: I hate the movie character "Columbo"; I hope this does not influence my posts towards you :Cheeky: )

Pointing out facts is not an ad hominem. Please look up what an ad hominem actually entails.

I said where to look (BC&H) and gave one source (see up) which you both dismissed without even taking a short look. If you want to discuss details, see you in BC&H - I will be more than willing to discuss these topics there.

And I gave this as evidence, which you simply snipped:
Do you disagree that there's a dating problem in the gospels?

Umm, what about the sun standing still? Please explain why there are no records of this outside the bible.
BTW, if I remmeber correctly, we were talking about miracles, not specifically about Christ's miracles. But if you prefer the latter, let's discuss the dating of Jesus' birth and the details of his resurrection.
Apart from this, it's not on me to disprove miracles (although this can and was done repeatedly), it's on you to prove them.


I never asked you to accept the claims there without investigating them. But as you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, it seems to be a good idea to get accustomed with our arguments and our sources. This can be asked from anyone who wants to participate in a sensible discussion.

I did exactly this. The sun standing still. And the dating of Jesus' birth. Where's your answer?

All I said is that you behave like other creationists. Which was demonstrated quite well in this thread. Mainstream scholarship in theology and history agrees that some of the history of the bible was made up, you refuse to accept this.

I nowhere talked about YECs.

No, you don't. See up. Hint: The authors of "The bible unearthed" are scientists.
Another example of this: You denied that the evidence shows that homo sapiens sapiens are more than 6000 years old.

[snipped more misunderstandings]

Are you joking? Just read the statement of faith at Answers in Genesis.

Columbo

No Sven - YOU claimed that Mathew invented prophecies and that that the bible has been un-earthed. I'll ask again - can you show me what kind of evidence would rule out a bible event? Also, please provide the evidence that Matthew invented prophecies. Is this infact evidence (IF it exists) - or is it unsubstantiated poppycock/speculation?

With the example of the sun - you'll have to quote what the bible specifically said.

What is? Can you provide a source. If they have shown that something in the bible didn't happen - what is it exactly? What is the specific evidence that would rule out any event?

The fallacy of no evidence or proof meaning you can conclude it didn't happen - is just that - a fallacy.

Here is why I said you commited the add hominem;

I said;

To which you replied;

Now let's look at the add hominem structure;

You say;

I know exactly what I'm talking about - and have said.

If you want to show me anything which indicates I don't know what I'm talking about fine. But first - what is the subject I don't know what I'm talking about? - I believe I have only asked you to back up your claims about the bible. ANd I knew exactly what I was talking about. Please stop using add hominem attacks (attacking the person), as I have politely refrained from attacking you personally. I would like the same treatment.

1. I have shown that the undistributed middle term is not applicable, I share nothing with other creationists, which you have a). Failed to prove they are guilty of "behaviour", and b). failed to show how I have commited any behaviour. Indeed - what is this illusive "behaviour"?

2. Please back up your assertion that (IF)"mainstream scholarship agrees some bible was made up" THEN show how and why I should accept that someone's opinion is relevant to the facts/evidence. Are you saying that mainstream scientists agreeing about God existing should mean something? Because it seems to be the equivalent of what you're saying.

Otherwise - I'll need evidence to show how specifically, bible claims are wrong.



Please stop making unwarranted assertions without proving them. If I am guilty - use a quote to show how I am guilty of this "behaviour" - which might aswell be called "umpalumpa" or "cake" - because at the moment it equals zero, and doesn't mean anything.



Infact - my point was that no evidence doesn't evidence something, and that saying that there is no bible evidence for Jesus's resurrection - or the Exodus, for examples, cannot mean that they absolutely and conclusively didn't happen. But you still haven't provided any archaeological quotes or sources, which decidedly say that the bible is wrong.

I don't believe you. Show me an example of what would constitute or evidence that this consensus is the correct speculation to believe.

It's not, because I am not claiming that they are proved and/or evidenced, my only claim is to believe in them. So - I haven't made any claim which requires proof. in this thread. As for other topics - we are dealing with the information of me specifically, so any remarks or assertions about this being repeatedly achieved are remarks of off-topic, irrelevant information.

In logic, we deal with the information provided, premises. And I have not claimed that I can prove miracles or that they are agreed upon to be true - or even that people agreeing they happen means anything to you.

If they are scientists - why would their mainstream opinion about the bible being wrong, mean anything to me? Einstein also believed in God - does that prove God exists? Why ofcourse not.

PoodleLovinPessimist

What's your standard of proof? Do you personally have had to have been there and personally witness something not happening? This is the metaphysical question you're dodging. Do you have a different standard of proof about Bible claims than you do about ordinary scientific claims?

It's only a fallacy when the evidence is unavailable by reason of non-investigation. The argument from "lack" of evidence is non-fallacious when you've looked where it's supposed to be and you see nothing. That's evidence of absence.

The Exodus story is contradicted by the fact that there's absolutely no archeological evidence of a shitload of Hewbrews running around in the Sinai desert for forty years. We've looked, and there's no campfires, no trash, no remains, no footprints, nothing. To accept the Exodus story, we have to believe that all these Hebrews wandered around for forty years and didn't drop anything.

The source has been provided to you: The Bible Unearthed. If you don't want to check this source, that's fine, but it's unjustified to say that no one has provided an archeological source.

You are entitled to believe what you want. No one cares what you believe. If you're not interested in supporting your beliefs and discussing them rationally, the only response is to condescendingly pat your head and say, "Whatever makes you happy."

Nope, you haven't. You haven't made any arguments at all; you've insisted only on the right to believe as you please, which is trivially granted.

This is an example of your state of being factually misinformed. Einstein did not believe in a god:

I am sure that, as an ethical person, you will now refrain from repeating what Einstein himself directly labeled a lie.

Columbo

PLP.

Do you expect to now defend Sven - aswell as me responding to your posts - his posts, and your post for him?

Why this demand from me?

You make out like I am the touter of trivial things - but I was quite clearly pointing out that I have not mentioned anything, and if I have - then I've explained that I personally only believe in miracles.

The only reason I am saying I believe is to inform the recipient, so he can end his self-induced confusion. If I have said I believe - it's to state my correct position, that I don't need evidence to believe - in response to Sven and in defence of myself.

Well, this is only a problem when we look at what you precedingly said concerning evidence, which is extremely important, and I will highlight it;

Where what is supposed to be?

THAT's the key - and you said it. YOU say there should be footprints - I assume you have tested this with experimentation through creating Exoduses of your own?

YOU say there's no remains - yet I've seen programs on discovery - showing remains, and ancient stones etc. You see - it all depends on what YOU think you should find - and if you don't then you say it didn't happen. But are you then saying that if a murder takes place - there MUST be a murder weapon found, or there MUST be DNA at the scene?

Indeed, this is hardly going to convince me now is it, as we know through real events - and testable means, - that murders may have DNA evidence/weapons at the scene - and may not. But who are you to insist upon there being evidence absolutely certainly at YOUR route of the Exodus - or at the mountain YOU consider Sinai, etc....? So - we can see that there is a problem of premises immediately PLP. One might have a premise that the Exodus went through the red sea - another might say the sea of reeds. One might say that God used a volcano to part the waters - another might say it happened via God directly.

So - these are a few of the things I am talking about. How about thinking before immediately assuming you must attack the believer - in a neverending off-topic discourse, when my actual intentions were about YEC silliness.

I have merely defended myself against off-topic endeavours by you and Sven. I feel I'm not obliged to carry this on at this stage. Especially when you say;

Now what exactly has this got to do with this topic? When you said that " No one cares what you believe ". .....Please make your mind up - shall I support them or not? And why should I be defending my beliefs or support them in a topic which has nothing to do with that?

As for Einstein - you assume I meant a personal God, an illogical error. As I simply said God, but as you say - here's what Einstein said;

" I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. "

And so - he said he doesn't believe in a personal God - yet seems to believe in an orderly one - whom made a predictable universe (not probabilistic) - nor one who involves himself with individual peoples.

Lol, Infact - you're right - I won't lie - Einstein believed in God, but then - I never stated that he believed in a personal one.

I do this a lot at forums with atheists - I plant a statement about Einstein in order to extrapolate what kind of people I'm dealing with. If they immediately protest at the idea that Einstein - greatest thinker of the recent, could believe in God, then I know they just want a battle with a believer.

Remember my name please.

Also - you assume I am ethical - in order to force me into a course you want me to take, you said, "I am sure that, as an ethical person, you will now refrain ", What has my ethics got to do with the debate? May I remind you of the following;

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

Gliptic

Einstein's god surely existed because it's more or less the universe he's talking about. You make the impression of equivocating his god with your god when you utter things like "Einstein also believed in God - does that prove God exists? Why ofcourse not.". That is, you look dishonest.
BTW. If you want to use the Bible as evidence for anything (I might be wrong since I haven't followed this thread that closely), the burden of proof is on you. It's not our job to disprove miracles and such. I'd suggest you visit BC&H.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Columbo: I have no idea what your position is, what your arguments are, or what you're trying to say.