Evidence of miracles.

[AV1611VET]

...and thus is new exegesis created ex nihilo!

-- What?

 

[Opdrey]

-- What?

Well, you seem to be an expert exegete and clearly this was a topic you had not yet found the proper verses to interpolate from. I thought maybe we were going to see a new exegesis crafted from the Bible telling us which aquatic plant life died in the Flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you seem to be an expert exegete and clearly this was a topic you had not yet found the proper verses to interpolate from. I thought maybe we were going to see a new exegesis crafted from the Bible telling us which aquatic plant life died in the Flood.

Sorry I can't help you.

Here are my standards ...

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I can only speculate (see #5).

 

[Mountainmike]

...and thus is new exegesis created ex nihilo!

Everyone assumes an exegesis ex nihilo.

They argue only about where, how, when and indeed how many times it has happened! And which book they are exegeting from!

 

[AV1611VET]

Everyone assumes an exegesis ex nihilo.

They argue only about where, how, when and indeed how many times it has happened! And which book they are exegeting from!

I'm more interested in olive leaves, than I am aquatic plants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I can't help you.

Here are my standards ...

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I can only speculate (see #5).

And you cannot support those standards at all. Your standards are as poor as a Muslims that substitutes "Quran" for "Bible" or a Hindu that substitutes "Vedas" for "Bible". Why are your beliefs any better than theirs?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you cannot support those standards at all.

What do you mean I can't support them? I've only been doing that for going on sixteen years now.

Your standards are as poor as a Muslims that substitutes "Quran" for "Bible" or a Hindu that substitutes "Vedas" for "Bible".

Then I'll let God judge them, how's that?

Why are your beliefs any better than theirs?

Because they are based on the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean I can't support them? I've only been doing that for going on sixteen years now.Then I'll let God judge them, how's that?Because they are based on the Bible.

No. To support them you would need actual evidence. To date none has been provided. Here is a helpful reminder, confirmation bias is not evidence. If an observation cannot possibly cut both ways it does not count as evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

To support them you would need actual evidence.

Then give me something and I'll run it through my standards and show you how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then give me something and I'll run it through my standards and show you how it works.

Why on Earth would I do that? Your standards have been shown to have no merit. You need to be able to support them and you have as yet to have done so. Once you do that then we can talk.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then give me something and I'll run it through my standards and show you how it works.

Run anything through mud and it gets ruined.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why on Earth would I do that?

So I can prove you wrong.

Your standards have been shown to have no merit.

I don't want your merit. As I said, I'll let God decide if my standards have merit or not.

You need to be able to support them and you have as yet to have done so.

Then give me something, and I will.

Once you do that then we can talk.

No thanks. You're not interested in seeing me put my standards to use, and I'm not interested in talking.

 

[AV1611VET]

Run anything through mud and it gets ruined.

Good.

At least give me a chance to put mud on an example.

Don't just yak about it -- test it.

Or can the scientific method take a hike?

Give me something, I'll run it through my standards and let you know the result, and you can take it from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I can prove you wrong.

How would you do that?

I don't want your merit. As I said, I'll let God decide if my standards have merit or not.

It is not "my merit". Try again. So far you have not even been able to justify your beliefs. It is rather hard to refute anything when one bases one's argument on nothing.

Then give me something, and I will.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is upon you when you make certain claims.

No thanks. You're not interested in seeing me put my standards to use, and I'm not interested in talking.

No, your standards have been demonstrated to be failed standards. You cannot justify their use. Once again the burden of proof is upon you when you make certain claims. When I make claims about evolution or the scientific method then you can put the burden of proof upon me. How can you demonstrate that your standards have any merit at all? "Works for me" applies to all religions. Do you really want to say that your beliefs are not better than those of other religions? If that is the case all that you have for your beliefs is a fading plurality, not even a majority viewpoint and that is apt to change in about 20 years or so.

 

[Opdrey]

Then I'll let God judge them, how's that?

Philosophically does it ever seem interesting to you that other people's faiths which differ from yours are held exactly as strongly as yours?

I find this concept to be the most amazing part of religion. We are a single species on the planet and somehow we have come up with hundreds or thousands of sometimes mutually-exclusive versions of PERFECTED ULTIMATE TRUTH.

It seems like there's something in our brains that feels the need for "religion", but I wonder if, in fact, it is just a need for some sense of "surety". To face the unknown and realize that maybe within our lifetimes there are things that will NEVER be known is actually kind of scary at times.

I realize there are many people of faith who work in the sciences. But they tend to compartmentalize the quotidian tasks of being a scientist (ie they don't invoke miracles as explanations in the lab), but in some ways this is the point where science and religion are the most distant from each other.

Science operates with the EXPLICIT assumption that our knowledge can never be 100% correct (even when they feel really, really confident). Religion insists that its knowledge is ALWAYS 100% correct (even when shown to be directly in opposition to reality).

 

[AV1611VET]

Philosophically does it ever seem interesting to you that other people's faiths which differ from yours are held exactly as strongly as yours?

Like I demonstrated here:

It depends on who the object of your faith is.

Ever heard of Shoko Asahara? his faith was in Shakti, and look what happened.

I don't take faith flippantly.

Unlike academia, which prefers Mark Twain's definition of faith, I take it quite seriously.

 

[Opdrey]

Like I demonstrated here:
I don't take faith flippantly.

Unlike academia, which prefers Mark Twain's definition of faith, I take it quite seriously.

Do you mean you take all faith seriously or just your own faith seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems like there's something in our brains that feels the need for "religion", but I wonder if, in fact, it is just a need for some sense of "surety".

It's Jesus convicting you to get saved, seeker.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Don't be like most ...

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you mean you take all faith seriously or just your own faith seriously?

I take ALL faiths seriously.

 

[Opdrey]

It's Jesus convicting you to get saved, seeker.

You are amazingly obsessed with my "seeker" status. Does it threaten you that someone can wonder about the nature of the universe and the supernatural? That one might have a different faith journey than you do?

The reason I find religion so fascinating is because it offers nearly limitless opportunities to be curious. Not everyone is comfortable with that. Some people even fear it in others because they worry that that "curiosity", that "possible doubt" might be infectious.

Don't worry. I have no desire to see your faith removed from you. As I've said before. Your faith is yours and that's great.

But do be aware that when you jump all over science as if you have any standing in it, you will be met by someone who actually DOES.