Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Fervent]

Once again, different believers can't agree with each other.

There are essentials, and non-essentials. The essentials have broad agreement, there is variety in the non-essentials.

How do you expect atheists to accept your claims when you guys can't even get your claims straight between you?

I'm not concerned with convincing atheists. My concern is feeding believers, the dead can bury themselves.

First of all, there you go again, a believer who thinks that atheists are just determined to not believe. That just isn't the case, not for the most part.

You seem to misunderstand what I've said, because "atheists" don't play any role in the matter. Skeptics, on the other hand, are very much relevant.

Secondly, why not go with what can be tested and shown to be reliable?

There's an important gap that must be crossed first, worldview issues to sort out. There are hidden assumptions among skeptics that they never turn around and question befoer we get to the stage of hypothesis testing. How do we test whether something is "natural" if our definition of natural can cover any and all observable phenomena? The difference lies in the interpretation, the theist sees a universe and believes universes need an explanation. The "skeptic" sees a universe and assumes there is no need to explain its existence.

I mean, it doesn't matter what your particular interpretation is. If something works, then you can't deny that it works. And if something works reliably, then any interpretation that disagrees with it is likely to be wrong.

There's no reason a Christian can't be pragmatic and take various approaches to learning seriously in their own terms. Science makes for effective research into pseudo-mechanical operations, but when it comes to questions of ontology there isn't much we're able to test. We're stuck with three options, either we take something as being self-evident and build on it, we engage in circulrar reasoning(usually this is secondary...such as invoking the "success" of science to defend science as truth), or we pretend that there is an infinite regress of answers(though of course if we tested this personally we would eventually run out of answers somewhere). So why should we be skeptical of promised immortality that provides a sense of purpose and meaning to our lives? What benefit does religious skepticism provide?

 

[QvQ]

Well, to be fair, you said you are "strict King James only."

Now you are saying you are KJV preferred.

Well, to be fair, I can always find a KJV.
My personal beliefs are strictly KJV
But I will use any translation I have on hand.
There are what may be doctrinal differences inherent in the language of different translations
For instance
KJV Psalm 23: 3 He restoreth my soul He leads me in the path of righteousness
NIV Psalms 23: 3 He refreshed my soul. He guides me along the right path

The concept is the same, basically but in light of other passages, "restore" is the better word than refresh
We could probably have a very long and interesting thread as to whether God refreshes or restores our souls.

But in the end it has to do with the objective reality and the procedures included in the Book.
Not any particular word choice by the translator, such as spanner and wrench mean the same things, actually.
I do prefer wrench because spanner slows me down, just as "refreshed my soul" does.
But I am here to tell you, all I have in my tool box are wrenches, not a spanner in the lot.
So I am strictly a wrench person.
And I am strictly KJV

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't debate it because I accept it.

"There are people who believe in God, Jesus and that the Bible is a record of historical events, with interpretations ranging from a combination of literal and metaphorical to strictly literal" is a claim I am perfectly happy to accept.

I don't debate it for the same reason that I won't debate the claim that the Earth is a Sphere. I accept that it's true.

Then why are you an atheist?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're welcome. I'd like to get a feel for how much you understand about what you posted. Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?

It's too bad that neither has anything to do with orbital motion. No fictitious forces are needed for orbital motion. The relevant force is a centripital force directed toward the center of motion. In this case, gravity provides the centripital force.

 

[Yttrium]

There's an important gap that must be crossed first, worldview issues to sort out. There are hidden assumptions among skeptics that they never turn around and question befoer we get to the stage of hypothesis testing. How do we test whether something is "natural" if our definition of natural can cover any and all observable phenomena? The difference lies in the interpretation, the theist sees a universe and believes universes need an explanation. The "skeptic" sees a universe and assumes there is no need to explain its existence.

Hey. Being a skeptic, I feel an irresistible urge to interject here. Now, I'm not going to speak for all skeptics, but at the very least you seem to be overgeneralizing.

I see a need to explain the existence of the universe. I allow for the possibility of the supernatural. I'm very open to the idea of an intelligent creator, and in fact I think that it would be awesome if God exists. Open-mindedness and skepticism go hand-in-hand. They're practically the same thing. An open-minded person honestly considers the possibilities, but if that person becomes convinced of one, then that person isn't open-minded about that topic anymore. The other possibilities still have to be considered. Thus, the open-minded person remains skeptical.

Although I want to know the answers and think that this weirdo universe needs lots of explaining, I don't jump to conclusions.

There's no reason a Christian can't be pragmatic and take various approaches to learning seriously in their own terms. Science makes for effective research into pseudo-mechanical operations, but when it comes to questions of ontology there isn't much we're able to test. We're stuck with three options, either we take something as being self-evident and build on it, we engage in circulrar reasoning(usually this is secondary...such as invoking the "success" of science to defend science as truth), or we pretend that there is an infinite regress of answers(though of course if we tested this personally we would eventually run out of answers somewhere). So why should we be skeptical of promised immortality that provides a sense of purpose and meaning to our lives? What benefit does religious skepticism provide?

I would rather not know an answer than believe something that is false. If I believe something that is false, I'm wasting my time and possibly even harming myself by following misinformation. Now, I definitely would like to know that answer but again, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

A promise of immortality is sweet, if truly offered, and I'll gladly accept the offer. If there's a requirement of faith, though, then I'm out of luck, since my brain doesn't work that way.

 

[Fervent]

Hey. Being a skeptic, I feel an irresistible urge to interject here. Now, I'm not going to speak for all skeptics, but at the very least you seem to be overgeneralizing.

Skepticism is a broad enough term it can capture numerous views, but I'm speaking specifically about naturalist skeptics who look to science exclusively to answer their questions.

I see a need to explain the existence of the universe. I allow for the possibility of the supernatural. I'm very open to the idea of an intelligent creator, and in fact I think that it would be awesome if God exists. Open-mindedness and skepticism go hand-in-hand. They're practically the same thing. An open-minded person honestly considers the possibilities, but if that person becomes convinced of one, then that person isn't open-minded about that topic anymore. The other possibilities still have to be considered. Thus, the open-minded person remains skeptical.

There's a difficulty in remaining open minded, as we often are subject to hidden biases and assumptions that we don't explicitly state. Skepticism takes work, and eventually IMO anyone who is truly skeptical will end up either throwing in the towel and desperately grasping whatever hope for truth there is, or fall into a nihilistic despair. True skepticism will ultimately bring us to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilemma where it appears there is no satisfactory way of justifying what we believe to be true.

Although I want to know the answers and think that this weirdo universe needs lots of explaining, I don't jump to conclusions.

Fair enough, but I don't see taking Christ as God incarnate being the best possible source for Truth as jumping to conclusions. It still leaves a lot to discover and unpack.

I would rather not know an answer rather than believe something that is false. If I believe something that is false, I'm wasting my time and possibly even harming myself by following misinformation. Now, I definitely would like to know that answer but again, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

Seems to me it's more likely that we'll believe something that is false if we rely on being led by other blind people as we come to a consensus agreement on what's going on. Describing the shadows dancing on the wall doesn't get us closer to the light, it just gives definition to the darkness.

A promise of immortality is sweet, if truly offered, and I'll gladly accept the offer. If there's a requirement of faith, though, then I'm out of luck, since my brain doesn't work that way.

Seems to me that faith is required no matter how we slice it. It's just a question of where we place that faith, in God or in human beings. God be true, and every man a liar.

 

[Yttrium]

Skepticism is a broad enough term it can capture numerous views, but I'm speaking specifically about naturalist skeptics who look to science exclusively to answer their questions.

How does that... even work...

A naturalist "skeptic" who looks to science exclusively?

That's, like, an oxymoron. Reminds me of the "skeptic" flat Earther I saw on YouTube once.

(Note: I am definitely not a naturalist.)

There's a difficulty in remaining open minded, as we often are subject to hidden biases and assumptions that we don't explicitly state. Skepticism takes work, and eventually IMO anyone who is truly skeptical will end up either throwing in the towel and desperately grasping whatever hope for truth there is, or fall into a nihilistic despair. True skepticism will ultimately bring us to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilemma where it appears there is no satisfactory way of justifying what we believe to be true.

My only belief is that I exist, and I can justify that to myself quite satisfactorily. And your personal opinion of what happens to skeptics is quite unfounded.

Seems to me it's more likely that we'll believe something that is false if we rely on being led by other blind people as we come to a consensus agreement on what's going on. Describing the shadows dancing on the wall doesn't get us closer to the light, it just gives definition to the darkness.

Right... thus skepticism. Don't be led. Question everything.

Seems to me that faith is required no matter how we slice it. It's just a question of where we place that faith, in God or in human beings. God be true, and every man a liar.

I'd have to say that you're projecting. You have faith, so you think that faith is required.

 

[Fervent]

How does that... even work...

A naturalist "skeptic" who looks to science exclusively?

That's, like, an oxymoron. Reminds me of the "skeptic" flat Earther I saw on YouTube once.

(Note: I am definitely not a naturalist.)

Generally speaking, "skeptic" in conversations such as these are religious skeptics. And such skeptics tend to view the naturalist methodologies as the exclusive vehicle for finding truth.

My only belief is that I exist, and I can justify that to myself quite satisfactorily. And your personal opinion of what happens to skeptics is quite unfounded.

That's not skepticism, that's solipsism. And I doubt you are genuinely a solipsist, since I am willing to bet you eat when your tummy grumbles and you network with other people. Reduction to Munchaussen's trilemma isn't my personal opinion, it's the center point of philosophical skepticism. The options are either to despair that any knowledge can be had(in your case entertaining the silliness of solipsism) or accepting some source to cling to to lead us to truth.

Right... thus skepticism. Don't be led. Question everything.

There are different levels of skepticism, and given that you're engaging in what is in some ways a debate on the internet I assume you don't follow your own advice and truly believe what you claim to believe about your own existence.

I'd have to say that you're projecting. You have faith, so you think that faith is required.

Nope, I'm stating a fact. If we hope to arrive at any kind of truth, we have to place our faith somewhere. You make a pretense of solipsism, but I'm sure that pretense fades pretty quickly when tax season comes around.

 

[QvQ]

Have you got a source that says it was specifically dated to within five years of Jesus' death? My understanding is that 1 Corinthians was written around 50-60 AD.

1 Corinthian 15: 3-8 is a Creed.
IF you didn't notice, what defines a Christian on this site is The Nicene Creed,
That is what all the Calvinist, Evangelical Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, have in common
We are all Christians who believe the Creed, whatever our doctinal difference between denomination.

The Corinthian Creed
It predates Paul's conversion.
Paul was persecuting Christians
How were Christians identified?
By the Corinthian Creed.
Paul "received" that either in writing or verbally.

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• 
  
• Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

 

[roman2819]

If they refuse to talk about it, how do you know they are atheists.

I was giving a summary of their attitude, how do you infer wrongly I didn't talk to them? I know them and try to evangelize from time to time, but their response is 'Not Interested' and 'There is no God' ,which couldn't be more different than a wannabe-atheist like you, who keep answering and asking questions as if you have an axe to grind with God.

I would be happy to, but there isn't really a place on this site to post such a thread.

You often claim that others' opinions are invalid because they are not based scientific proof or concrete evidence the way you want it (your way to discredit others) yet your own claim that 'most atheists are looking for evidence of God' is not based on science or concrete evidence either. You contradict yourself.

 

[David Lamb]

I think it was the Epistle of Barnabas which was meant. Mid 2nd century, authorship uncertain. It's a favorite of YECs.

Is it really? I have never read or heard a young earth creationist even refer to the Epistle of Barnabas, let alone call it their favourite. Do you have any examples of YECs viewing the Epistle of Barnabas as their favourite?

 

[Kylie]

There are essentials, and non-essentials. The essentials have broad agreement, there is variety in the non-essentials.

And, of course, if they agree on some point, then you can claim that it's an essential. And if they don't agree, you can claim that it's non-essential. How very convenient.

I'm not concerned with convincing atheists. My concern is feeding believers, the dead can bury themselves.

I suspect you'll have similar luck with other believers who don't share your interpretation.

You seem to misunderstand what I've said, because "atheists" don't play any role in the matter. Skeptics, on the other hand, are very much relevant.

The same point applies to skeptics, I think.

There's an important gap that must be crossed first, worldview issues to sort out. There are hidden assumptions among skeptics that they never turn around and question befoer we get to the stage of hypothesis testing. How do we test whether something is "natural" if our definition of natural can cover any and all observable phenomena? The difference lies in the interpretation, the theist sees a universe and believes universes need an explanation. The "skeptic" sees a universe and assumes there is no need to explain its existence.

Who said anything about natural?

I'm talking about what is REAL.

If something supernatural is real, then I'm happy to accept it, even if it isn't natural. Just as long as it is testable.

There's no reason a Christian can't be pragmatic and take various approaches to learning seriously in their own terms. Science makes for effective research into pseudo-mechanical operations, but when it comes to questions of ontology there isn't much we're able to test. We're stuck with three options, either we take something as being self-evident and build on it, we engage in circulrar reasoning(usually this is secondary...such as invoking the "success" of science to defend science as truth), or we pretend that there is an infinite regress of answers(though of course if we tested this personally we would eventually run out of answers somewhere). So why should we be skeptical of promised immortality that provides a sense of purpose and meaning to our lives? What benefit does religious skepticism provide?

If different ideas can't be tested, then do they really make much of a difference?

I mean, if there's no test that can show the difference between Platonic realism, conceptualism, and nominalism, then the difference does really exist in any practical sense.

 

[Kylie]

Well, to be fair, I can always find a KJV.
My personal beliefs are strictly KJV
But I will use any translation I have on hand.
There are what may be doctrinal differences inherent in the language of different translations
For instance
KJV Psalm 23: 3 He restoreth my soul He leads me in the path of righteousness
NIV Psalms 23: 3 He refreshed my soul. He guides me along the right path

The concept is the same, basically but in light of other passages, "restore" is the better word than refresh
We could probably have a very long and interesting thread as to whether God refreshes or restores our souls.

But in the end it has to do with the objective reality and the procedures included in the Book.
Not any particular word choice by the translator, such as spanner and wrench mean the same things, actually.
I do prefer wrench because spanner slows me down, just as "refreshed my soul" does.
But I am here to tell you, all I have in my tool box are wrenches, not a spanner in the lot.
So I am strictly a wrench person.
And I am strictly KJV

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You say, "But I am here to tell you, all I have in my tool box are wrenches, not a spanner in the lot. So I am strictly a wrench person." The analogy here, clearly, is that the wrench is the KJV. A spanner would be like the NIV you referenced earlier.

But you also said, "But I will use any translation I have on hand."

To continue the analogy, that's saying that you'd use any tool you'd have on hand. But you've already said the only tools you'd ever have are wrenches. So using a spanner--the NIV--just isn't an option for you. A position which is contradicted by your statement that you will use any translation.

 

[Kylie]

Then why are you an atheist?

Because the fact that people hold a belief to be true doesn't mean that the belief is true.

It just means that there are people to believe it.

There's a huge difference between "There are people who believe that God exists," and "God exists."

I thought it was quite clear that this is what I was saying.

 

[Kylie]

1 Corinthian 15: 3-8 is a Creed.
IF you didn't notice, what defines a Christian on this site is The Nicene Creed,
That is what all the Calvinist, Evangelical Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, have in common
We are all Christians who believe the Creed, whatever our doctinal difference between denomination.

The Corinthian Creed
It predates Paul's conversion.
Paul was persecuting Christians
How were Christians identified?
By the Corinthian Creed.
Paul "received" that either in writing or verbally.

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• 
  
• Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

The fact that it is a creed is irrelevant., I'm not asking if it's a creed. I am asking you a question that you have failed to answer.

What source do you have that shows that 1 Corinthians was written between 30-33AD?

I don't want you to show me a webpage that says, "Lots of people say it was written between 30-33AD.

I want you to show me a source that says, "We have determined that 1 Corinthians was written between 30-33AD due to evidence A, evidence B and evidence C."

I want actual evidence, not people repeating the opinions of someone else.

 

[Kylie]

I was giving a summary of their attitude, how do you infer wrongly I didn't talk to them? I know them and try to evangelize from time to time, but their response is 'Not Interested' and 'There is no God' ,which couldn't be more different than a wannabe-atheist like you, who keep answering and asking questions as if you have an axe to grind with God.

Wow, so much to unpack here...

First of all, most people don't like having someone else's religion pushed at them, which is probably why they tell you to go away and that they aren't interested. If I knew you in person and every time I saw you I got preached at, I'd probably tell you to go away every time as well. I don't even like discussing it in person, I only do it online. In person, I find, it gets to the point where people interrupt each other and it just breaks down into a yelling match.

Secondly , you call me a "wanna be atheist?" There's a rule on this site against telling someone that they do not hold the faith they claim to hold (even if it is atheism, which is not a religion at all). You are breaking the rules by saying I am just a wanna-be atheist. I'm happy to believe you were unaware of this rule, but if you do it again, I will report you.

Thirdly, for me to have an axe to grind with God, it would require that I believe in God. I do not. I don't believe in God, Jesus, Satan or any other character from the Bible.

You often claim that others' opinions are invalid because they are not based scientific proof or concrete evidence the way you want it (your way to discredit others) yet your own claim that 'most atheists are looking for evidence of God' is not based on science or concrete evidence either. You contradict yourself.

I do not say that those opinions are invalid, I say those opinions can't be shown to be valid. The difference is subtle but important.

It's just like how I can say, "I do not think there is a cat sitting outside my front door," but I can't say "I think there is no cat sitting outside my front door."

One is saying that there is a lack of sufficient evidence for the presence of something, and the other is saying there is sufficient evidence for the absence of something.

By the way, a quick Google search got me a lot of results about atheists asking for evidence of God. So it's a pretty common thing.

 

[BCP1928]

1 Corinthian 15: 3-8 is a Creed.
IF you didn't notice, what defines a Christian on this site is The Nicene Creed,
That is what all the Calvinist, Evangelical Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, have in common
We are all Christians who believe the Creed, whatever our doctinal difference between denomination.

The Corinthian Creed
It predates Paul's conversion.
Paul was persecuting Christians
How were Christians identified?
By the Corinthian Creed.
Paul "received" that either in writing or verbally.

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• 
  
• Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

Your original assertion was that the Epistle itself was written in the thirties. That is what Kylie is asking evidence for.

 

[BCP1928]

Is it really? I have never read or heard a young earth creationist even refer to the Epistle of Barnabas, let alone call it their favourite. Do you have any examples of YECs viewing the Epistle of Barnabas as their favourite?

Well, QvQ just brought it up and it struck me that I haven't actually heard of it in a while. I don't know how long you have been fighting the good fight for literal inerrancy in these chatrooms and are familiar with the usual suspects, but the last I had heard of it before that was from a guy named Karl Crawford who used to be very active under a series of monickers "YEC" "trilobite" and "57" which is what he was using when he moved over here and was active for several years after Beliefnet shut down their forums. Not all YECs were into it--it used to be a clue that you could determine which creationist web ministry's stuff they were pushing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of Plato's Dialogues is dated 400 AD, centuries after his death.
Yet you claim as absolute fact the document is a true account of Socrates written by Plato before or shortly after Socrate's death.

The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of the NT, written within 5 years of Jesus death, is the 1 Corinthian 15: 3-7 creed. It contains all the essential elements of Christianity. It is close enough and clear enough to qualify as an accurate and factual history of that time frame.

This is simply not true. The oldest "scraps" (as you put it) of a NT manuscript date from the 2nd century, not w/in 5 years of the Death of Jesus (assuming a traditional date in the early 30s of the common era).

The creed Paul quotes in 1 cor, may be the oldest bit of text about Jesus that exists (and to my understanding most NT scholars accept it as something Paul heard, borrowed, and modified to put in his letter), but the specific year to which it originates can not be determined. It might be within 5 years of the death of Jesus as you posted (sourced from some scholars), or 5 years or less from when Paul used it.

Putting a date on it only demonstrates that people believed that creed at that particular time, not that any of the claims in the creed are true.

 

[Yttrium]

Generally speaking, "skeptic" in conversations such as these are religious skeptics. And such skeptics tend to view the naturalist methodologies as the exclusive vehicle for finding truth.

Doesn't sound very skeptical to me.

That's not skepticism, that's solipsism. And I doubt you are genuinely a solipsist, since I am willing to bet you eat when your tummy grumbles and you network with other people. Reduction to Munchaussen's trilemma isn't my personal opinion, it's the center point of philosophical skepticism. The options are either to despair that any knowledge can be had(in your case entertaining the silliness of solipsism) or accepting some source to cling to to lead us to truth.

No, that's not solipsism. That's my current condition, which, as far as I know, could change. I don't do philosophy. I can work with the evidence I have available (not just from science) and get closer to truths over time.

Nope, I'm stating a fact. If we hope to arrive at any kind of truth, we have to place our faith somewhere. You make a pretense of solipsism, but I'm sure that pretense fades pretty quickly when tax season comes around.

Again, not a solipsist. And I'm not looking forward to my taxes this year, they're going to be more complicated than usual this time.

Let's take AV's embedded age thing for example. I see a lot of evidence that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Now, that evidence could be false, or I could be misinterpreting it. I don't have faith that any of it is true. But I'll work with what I've got and consider for now that it's very likely that our world and universe are billions of years old. AV comes around and says that it was all created relatively recently and made to look like a mature planet and universe. I have no problem with that idea, but I'm not going to consider it likely without some support. I'm not going to reject it. I'll keep it under consideration. On the other hand, if it was made to look billions of years old, then I might as well consider it to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes.