My Igneous Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Angels? How weak.

Indeed.

1 Corinthians 1:27b ... and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[AV1611VET]

It became lava when it erupted. Which would have been almost immediately before it cooled.

I think the question you meant to ask was 'how old was the magma which erupted as lava and cooled to form these rocks?'

Even if we had a way to determine that, there would be no single answer. The constituent parts of that magma would have become magma at a huge range of different times, before being churned together beneath the Earth's surface.

Okay, thank you, Oafman!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Indeed.

1 Corinthians 1:27b But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Have you noticed that what you are presenting are a series of further justifications all based on feeling good about yourself? No sign of any recognition that using faith as a justification for denial of reality might be worrying. No, just expressions of how good it makes you feel.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you please define the term "faith"? I'm not sure any definition I could draw from that context actually works.

Sure.

I define "faith" as:

Believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.

I came up with that definition one day while talking to those who defined "faith" as:

"Believing something you know isn't true."

My definition puts our martyrs back on the pedestal where they belong, instead of making them look like they died for something they "knew wasn't true."

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you noticed that what you are presenting are a series of further justifications all based on feeling good about yourself? No sign of any recognition that using faith as a justification for denial of reality might be worrying. No, just expressions of how good it makes you feel.

As long as you keep thinking I deny reality, you're not going to understand, are you?

Empiricists are the largest group of deniers of reality in the universe.

 

[The Cadet]

Sure.

I define "faith" as:

Believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.

I came up with that definition one day while talking to those who defined "faith" as:

"Believing something you know isn't true."

My definition puts our martyrs back on the pedestal where they belong, instead of making them look like they died for something they "knew wasn't true."

Okay, so here's a question.

Let's say I hold it on faith that what you believe is wrong. That there are no angels there. That the Christian God does not exist. Let's say I apply your epistemology and hold that on faith.

How could you demonstrate that one or the other of these claims is true or false? They cannot both be right, and any good epistemology offers us a way to determine between true and false claims. There is nothing to differentiate your faith from the faith of a Muslim. Why aren't you a Muslim instead of a Christian?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

As long as you keep thinking I deny reality, you're not going to understand, are you?

Your definition of faith states it explicitly. And because it does it ceases to be faith. Not that you really care what it is as long as it fulfils the self-gratification element.

Empiricists are the largest group of deniers of reality in the universe.

I can see why specialists are required to deal with denial. Accusing people who study the real world of denying the real world is a somewhat desperate ploy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's say I hold it on faith that what you believe is wrong. That there are no angels there. That the Christian God does not exist. Let's say I apply your epistemology and hold that on faith.

Then I would assume you are a scientist.

(Am I right, by the way?)

How could you demonstrate that one or the other of these claims is true or false?

Well, for starters, I could show you statuary, paintings, churches, hospitals, organizations, symbols on flags & banners, billboards, demonstrations, legislation, bits of Scripture on buildings, and historical documents that demonstrate there's more to reality than meets the eye.

When you see these things, what do you see?

Beautiful art or more than meets the eye (or both)?

They cannot both be right, and any good epistemology offers us a way to determine between true and false claims. There is nothing to differentiate your faith from the faith of a Muslim.

I beg to differ.

You just said "any good epistemology offers us a way to determine between true and false claims."

Our "good epistemology" does just that.

You see, we claim there were no more prophets since the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96.

Anyone, such as Mohammad or Joseph Smith, claiming they are prophets automatically incurs our denial.

Why aren't you a Muslim instead of a Christian?

Because I believe Mohammad was a false prophet.

Many Christians in his day accused him of just that and paid for it with their lives.

We call those people "martyrs" -- but many here prefer to call them "believers in something they knew was wrong."

 

[AV1611VET]

Accusing people who study the real world of denying the real world is a somewhat desperate ploy.

I accuse them of denying the totality of reality -- that is, not willing to see the whole picture.

The Sadducees, for example, neither believed in a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits.

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

That's why they were sad, you see.

(You'll get that in a minute.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because I'm interested in the age of the lava that created lava rocks, not deep time.

Because AV doesn't believe in time -- age is, quite literally, nothing but a number (which he can make up as he needs)

 

[TLK Valentine]

I accuse them of denying the totality of reality -- that is, not willing to see the whole picture.

The Sadducees, for example, neither believed in a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits.

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

That's why they were sad, you see.

(You'll get that in a minute.)

And they haven't been proven wrong yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because AV doesn't believe in time --

You left an important qualifier out.

On pupose?

After all, some people here already think I believe in flying clams.

 

[AV1611VET]

And they haven't been proven wrong yet.

Not by science anyway.

Science can't prove them wrong.

 

[The Cadet]

Then I would assume you are a scientist.

(Am I right, by the way?)

I'm not sure what you mean by the term; "scientist" is a job description, not a philosophy as far as I am aware.

Well, for starters, I could show you statuary, paintings, churches, hospitals, organizations, symbols on flags & banners, billboards, demonstrations, legislation, bits of Scripture on buildings, and historical documents that demonstrate there's more to reality than meets the eye.

When you see these things, what do you see?

Beautiful art or more than meets the eye (or both)?

But now we're not talking about faith any more. What does any of this have to do with faith? You're not providing faith, you're providing reason. I don't even think you noticed when this happened, because nobody does. You haven't provided any path from reason to faith, nor any reason (whoops!) to take faith seriously as an epistemology.

In this case, it's just (subjectively) beautiful art. Nothing there demonstrates faith or the supernatural.

I beg to differ.

You just said "any good epistemology offers us a way to determine between true and false claims."

Our "good epistemology" does just that.

You see, we claim there were no more prophets since the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96.

Anyone, such as Mohammad or Joseph Smith, claiming they are prophets automatically incurs our denial.

Right, but you take that on faith. Let's say I take on faith that there were prophets after 96 AD. We're both using the same "epistemology" to come to completely contradictory viewpoints. That is a broken epistemology. If two people can apply the same epistemology correctly and come to mutually exclusive positions, then the epistemology is worthless. In this case, I think we've applied it to the letter of your definition. There is evidence that contradicts that there were prophets after 96 AD, and no evidence to support it, and yet somehow I came to the conclusion, based on faith, that there were prophets after 96 AD.

This is what I'm trying to get at. The way you have defined faith means that anyone can apply faith to come to whatever conclusion they want to. It's not an epistemology. It's not a way of knowing anything. It's an excuse to believe something when you have no good reason to believe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what I'm trying to get at. The way you have defined faith means that anyone can apply faith to come to whatever conclusion they want to. It's not an epistemology. It's not a way of knowing anything. It's an excuse to believe something when you have no good reason to believe it.

Suit yourself.

You're the one scratching your head, not I.

Nice chatting with you, and I do hope you stick around.

 

[The Cadet]

Suit yourself.

You're the one scratching your head, not I.

Nice chatting with you, and I do hope you stick around.

I don't think any epistemology can explain this guy.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think any epistemology can explain this guy.

If by 'this guy,' you meant me, may I point out that my INFORMATION fields currently have ten times more information than yours.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure.

I define "faith" as:

Believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.

So how do you differentiate between "faith" and "being wrong"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cadet, just out of curiosity, since I "deny reality so much," can you explain what I mean by EARTH ONE as my location?

It happens to be a major doctrine in the Christian faith.

I would think those who "know reality" so much should be able to easily answer it.