Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Hammster]

It appears that Authority doesn't 'run' the freedom to choose part of the universe though(?)

Mkay.

 

[Hammster]

Possible speculative options precede the formulation of objectively testable hypotheses, in science.

Mkay.

 

[Hammster]

So you should see how the the scripture attributed to Paul that you quoted is mistaken - people that don't believe in the Abrahamic God no more deny it because they are 'suppressing that truth because of unrighteousness' than you deny other gods because you are 'suppressing that truth because of unrighteousness'.

The scripture isn’t mistaken. It’s the truth. Relativism plays no part in it.

 

[Hammster]

The same can be said of the religious view involving a god or gods.

Was that in the OP?

 

[Allandavid]

That’s not the point. As I pointed out earlier, this contains my marching orders.


Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
— Matthew 28:19-20

So while your authority has you do things, my Authority does as well. And my Authority runs the universe.

This is exactly the same mode of thinking that had people convinced they should fly aircraft into skyscrapers...

 

[Allandavid]

And you think fantasy was intended?

Included...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The scripture isn’t mistaken. It’s the truth. Relativism plays no part in it.

"They all say that"; believers in all scripturally supported gods will assert the same.

Consider the probabilities: given the hundreds or thousands of conflicting god claims asserting exclusive supernatural truth that have been made throughout history, what is more likely: that all are simply human fictions, or that one of those hundreds or thousands happens to be correct? If the latter, what are the chances I just happen to be in the right time and place in all of history to be talking to its believers?

Multiplying the two tiny probabilities together suggests that the chances your claim is correct are negligible - and that's before we've even considered the plausibility of, and evidence for, such supernatural claims in themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is exactly the same mode of thinking that had people convinced they should fly aircraft into skyscrapers...

Not if Jesus is our pilot.

 

[Hammster]

This is exactly the same mode of thinking that had people convinced they should fly aircraft into skyscrapers...

I’m just curious. If you don’t believe in the God of the Bible, why do you care what I have to say? I honestly don’t understand.

 

[Hammster]

Included...

Then pixies could be an explanation.

 

[Hammster]

"They all say that"; believers in all scripturally supported gods will assert the same.

Consider the probabilities: given the hundreds or thousands of conflicting god claims asserting exclusive supernatural truth that have been made throughout history, what is more likely: that all are simply human fictions, or that one of those hundreds or thousands happens to be correct? If the latter, what are the chances I just happen to be in the right time and place in all of history to be talking to its believers?

Multiplying the two tiny probabilities together suggests that the chances your claim is correct are negligible - and that's before we've even considered the plausibility of, and evidence for, such supernatural claims in themselves.

Do you believe in evolution?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you believe in evolution?

What does one mean when one says "believe in"?

When I was a Christian, I would say I believe in Jesus which carried with it the connotation of a commitment.

So, no, I don't believe in evolution. I accept that evolution is the theory that best explains the data.

 

[Hammster]

What does one mean when one says "believe in"?

When I was a Christian, I would say I believe in Jesus which carried with it the connotation of a commitment.

So, no, I don't believe in evolution. I accept that evolution is the theory that best explains the data.

Merriam-Webster

• 1a: to consider to be true or honest
  believe the reports
  you wouldn't believe how long it took
  b: to accept the word or evidence of I believe you
  couldn't believe my ears

 

[Tinker Grey]

Merriam-Webster

• 1a: to consider to be true or honest
  believe the reports
  you wouldn't believe how long it took
  b: to accept the word or evidence of I believe you
  couldn't believe my ears

Words mean what people mean them to mean. When a believer(*) says "believe in", they don't mean just "consider as true". Or, if they do, it still carries with it a connotation of commitment.

I do not live as if evolution is true or false the way a believer commits to live when they "believe in" Jesus.

I accept that evolution is the best explanation.

 

[Hammster]

Words mean what people mean them to mean. When a believer(*) says "believe in", they don't mean just "consider as true". Or, if they do, it still carries with it a connotation of commitment.

I do not live as if evolution is true or false the way a believer commits to live when they "believe in" Jesus.

I accept that evolution is the best explanation.

That’s a difference without a distinction. But regardless, the question wasn’t right you, so I’m not sure why we are discussing this.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I was a Christian,

Did you get all these benefits?

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If so, what made you give them up?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you believe in evolution?

Not if by 'belief' you mean accepting something as true without conclusive evidence; evolution has been observed repeatedly, both in the lab and in the wild, so I take its occurrence as a fact.

 

[Hammster]

Not if by 'belief' you mean accepting something as true without conclusive evidence; evolution has been observed repeatedly, both in the lab and in the wild, so I take its occurrence as a fact.

How did it all start?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Following on from the earlier version of my Pool Challenge, found HERE...

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

***

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and read the document. Alfred says the document says the balls were placed manually, and that settles it. Bruce says that he has examined the table and found evidence the balls rolled into their current position, consistent with a regular break. Alfred disagrees, saying that evidence could have been caused by lots of things, and besides, it might not even be real. And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Who should Joe listen to?

You need a better analogy than that if you are looking at disproving Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I for one would not have a problem with both things and could believe them simultaneously. That the pool break, little break, I suppose a microcosm of the big break, aka Big Bang happened as you say. But that there was a kind of "guiding force" if you will to the process and especially when it comes to origins of Life if that is the ultimate point you are getting at.

 

[Speedwell]

How did it all start?

Good question. Theists believe that God "started it" in some fashion. Scientists are working on it with some energy, as it is an interesting question.