Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 04-16-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Ed:
No, God knows that we would have done the very same thing in the same situation.

This is another one of your gyrations, Ed.
Like all the others ... it simply makes no sense.

If God knows what we would have done in the same situation then why go through with it at all?

Supposedly God also knew that Adam and Eve would have done what they did, so why experiment if you already know the result?

Similarly if in our case God already knew what we would do in any situation and therefore there no need to test us personally then why does that not apply to Adam and Eve?

The only way this can be is if God created mankind and experimented with his prototypes and found them to be faulty.
But then why experiment if God knows everything?
Then why create more fautly copies of the prototype knowing that they will behave in the same way?
God also knows who will be saved so what is he waiting for?

Meaningless nonsense!

You are running around in circles. You seem to think that just because you can put sentences together proves that you have answers and that your faith makes sense. It does not.

Ed · 04-16-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
If we are created in the image of that valuer it would make a difference.

lp: I still don't see the connection; that to me seems like deriving an "ought" from an "is".

Creators and artists generally value what they create, so the value is intrinsic. Since the value comes from outside us, it is objective. For atheists the value of humans is subjective.

Quote:

lp: Also, even if our species was miraculously created, then we were created in the likeness of such species as Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus rather than some cosmic superbeing -- we are absolute wimps by comparison, we have a finite lifespan, we have two sexes, etc.

No, what we reflect of the creator is our personhood, not our physical characteristics. Since the evidence points to homo erectus actually being homo sapiens (see Kow Swamp website that Oolon posted in my E/C thread), homo "erectus" being what possibly Adam and Eve were, they are of course also created in the image of God.

Quote:

Ed: Especially if that valuer is also the creator and sustainer of the universe.

lp: Why does the Universe have to have a sustainer? If this "sustainer" decides to slack off, will the Universe wink out of existence or implode or something?

Ever hear of a law of logic called the Law of Contingency?

Quote:

(Peter Kirby and Richard Carrier)
Ed: A 21 year old college computer geek and a Roman historian??? Yeah those are good biblical scholars, riiiight.

lp: Actually, Richard Carrier is very well-qualified to discuss the New Testament, since it had been written inside of the Roman Empire.

But Jack and I were talking about the Old Testament!!!

Quote:

Ed: Actually though studies have shown that theists still have a majority in the science field.

lp: Maybe, but those working in the history of life on Earth universally accept evolution, whatever their religious beliefs may be. So if they can do it, why can't you, O Ed?

Because I don't think the biological evidence is convincing.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-17-2003, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Ed:
If we are created in the image of that valuer it would make a difference.

lp: I still don't see the connection; that to me seems like deriving an "ought" from an "is".

Creators and artists generally value what they create, so the value is intrinsic. Since the value comes from outside us, it is objective. For atheists the value of humans is subjective.

As I just promised to winstonjen, I am not going to let you get away with that.

You know by now that evolution provides an "objective" element to human morality: certain types of behavior are objectively bad for our species and will be selected against. So you know that your statement "for atheists the value of humans is subjective" is not entirely true.

Moreover, when attempting to argue against evolved morality, you have claimed that a rational explanation of why we have moral values is insufficient: I therefore claim that your "If we are created in the image of that valuer it would make a difference" is similarly insufficient.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I AM created in the image of the valuer. Let's assume that the reason I have an aversion to murder is because the valuer does.

My response is still SO WHAT? God will be upset if I murder. Big deal. Cry me a river, I don't care. Give me a RATIONAL REASON why I should not murder.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-17-2003, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Ed: Actually though studies have shown that theists still have a majority in the science field.

lp: Maybe, but those working in the history of life on Earth universally accept evolution, whatever their religious beliefs may be. So if they can do it, why can't you, O Ed?

Because I don't think the biological evidence is convincing.

Because you believe creationist lies about the supposed nonexistence of all those thousands of embarrassing transitional forms.

Which raises the question of why you think ignorant creationists are telling the truth and the world's biologists are lying?

Jack the Bodiless · 04-17-2003, 08:41 AM

Incidentally:

Quote:

lp: Actually, Richard Carrier is very well-qualified to discuss the New Testament, since it had been written inside of the Roman Empire.

But Jack and I were talking about the Old Testament!!!

...Should I remind you of this the next time you quote Paul when presented with an Old Testament scenario?

Wasn't it YOU who were arguing that the Bible should be taken as a whole, with the New Testament providing a more "detailed revelation" than the Old?

Also, knowledge of "Ancient History" would cover Old Testament times anyhow.

xian · 04-17-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Given that atheists & agnostics generally accept a world driven by materialistic, secular rules, I’d say that quite qualifies as a worldview.

Only a tiny minority of atheists accept such a worldview. The vast majority of atheists in the world accept worldviews that incorporate supernatural ideas. Consider the views of certain Confucians, New Agers, Buddhists, Wiccans, pantheists, psychic believers.....

In any case, atheism is not a world view. It is simply a lack of belief about single aspect of the world. Materialism, or metaphysical naturalism, is not a worldview either; it lacks any direct statements about individual and social values, except that such values, whatever they may be, cannot be derived from supernatural entities or processes. It is merely a philosophical belief about the nature of reality. "Secular" simply refers to the nature of the relationship between government, religion and society, and is not a worldview either. I don't know where you guys get these crazy ideas about worldviews from. Atheists differ on almost everything, except their lack of belief in gods.

And when you think about it, a large number of Christians "accept a world driven by materialistic, secular rules."

Vorkosigan

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

i love how atheists skirt around things like slippery bannana peels.

atheism itself is not a world view.

but atheism results in a predicted world view.

why am I able to identify atheists? Because when someone says "I am an atheist", I already know (with a decent degree of probability), what their world view will be.

Atheism entails a predictable world view, though itself (semantically) is not a world view.

Writer@Large · 04-17-2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xian
Atheism entails a predictable world view, though itself (semantically) is not a world view.

Believe it or not, xian, I agree with you here. Those who realize that theism is flawed and useless often do find themselves, with a huge degree of regularity, drifting towards certain woldviews. It isn't an issue of semantics, though. "Atheism" truly does not contain a worldview beyond a simple statement about the existence of a deity; it's no more a complete worldview than disbeleif in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. But, once one arrives at that one conclusion, they find that a multitude of worldviews are unacceptable to them, and of the few that remain, certain ones hold the most appeal--not because atheism drives them to it, but because, after a wide field of choices has been filtered down, only a few remain, and those few hold the most appeal to the rational and freethinking mind.

Furthermore, it could even be stated that, in order to arrive at atheism as a worldview, an individual must already be predisposed to certain way s of viewing the world (such as skepticism).

So, yes, predictability is expected. Atheism isn't a worldview, but it is oftentimes an indicator of other worldviews.

--W@L

Ed · 04-17-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
Pasteur's experiment is not adequate to produce life from non-life because NO non-living matter is adequate to produce life.

I don't see how one experiment is supposed to be absolute proof that abiogenesis cannot possibly happen.

I am not saying that one experiment is absolute proof, it is but one big piece of a large pile of evidence against it.

Ed · 04-17-2003, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed: No, the primary reason for redating Daniel is philosophical not any real textual evidence.

lp: Except that the textual evidence is more consistent with it being written long after the fact -- Daniel is much more correct about Hellenistic politics than about the Babylonian politics of five centuries earlier.

Evidence?

Quote:

lp: The main counterarguments I have seen have usually been that the words used are imprecise; however, if they are so imprecise, they would have been unusable.

They seem pretty precise to me. And some sections are amazingly precise.

Quote:

Ed: Most biblical scholars like most modern scientists, conduct their studies with the assumption of naturalism thereby automatically ruling out any possibility of supernatural prediction. There is textual evidence that it was written much earlier than 168 BC.

lp: Whatever "evidence" that is.

There are many archaic terms used that point to the 5th century BC.

Quote:

lp: Also, what DIRECT evidence do you have for such an alleged assumption?

Personal experience in the halls of science academia. Also read any good book on the philosophy of science.

Quote:

lp: Imagine a Hellenic pagan was to come to you and point out the historicity of the Iliad and the Odyssey and other documents usually dismissed as "mythology". And also point out how Greece survived the much bigger Persian Empire in ~500 BCE. And also point out how many people relied on oracles for advice and went to temples of Asklepios to get cured. Etc.

And point out how if you show disrespect to the deities of Mt. Olympus, you might end up in the depths of Tartarus when you die.

If you do not immediately make offerings to the deities of Mt. Olympus on account of all this, is it because of "naturalistic presuppositions"?

No, it will be because the literary characteristics of the Iliad and Odyssey point to them being myths. Also, the Greek gods can be eliminated as cause of the universe using logic like the Law of Sufficient Causality.

lpetrich · 04-18-2003, 11:08 AM

Ed on scientists' alleged "naturalistic presuppositions:
Personal experience in the halls of science academia. Also read any good book on the philosophy of science.

What would you want them to do? And are you willing to accept a scientist waving around (say) the writings of medieval philosophers? Or the Koran? Or the Vedas?

No, it will be because the literary characteristics of the Iliad and Odyssey point to them being myths.

Whatever those characteristics are.

Also, the Greek gods can be eliminated as cause of the universe using logic like the Law of Sufficient Causality.

Hesiod never claimed that they were. Read his Theogony.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-18-2003, 11:08 AM	#820
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Ed on scientists' alleged "naturalistic presuppositions: Personal experience in the halls of science academia. Also read any good book on the philosophy of science. What would you want them to do? And are you willing to accept a scientist waving around (say) the writings of medieval philosophers? Or the Koran? Or the Vedas? No, it will be because the literary characteristics of the Iliad and Odyssey point to them being myths. Whatever those characteristics are. Also, the Greek gods can be eliminated as cause of the universe using logic like the Law of Sufficient Causality. Hesiod never claimed that they were. Read his Theogony.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.