I may give evolution a shot.

[lucaspa]

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm

Nothing more needs to be said.

A lot more needs to be said. Like how Winace's criteria destroy science.

Eru, if you want to go into this in detail, why don't you start a thread on it?

Basically, Winace wants to do the impossible: falsify what he doesn't have the data to falsify. To do this he does two basic things:

1. Alters (and destroys) science so it can address the questions.
2. Does what creationists do -- illogically links the untestable to the testable. Then he can say that the testable is falsified, so the untestable is also.

Eru, the fact is that science properly falsifies. In the theism vs atheism debate, science should be able to falsify the existence of deity. If science were used properly. But science can't. There is no scientific paper you can point to that shows deity does not exist.

So Winace is compelled to "prove" his belief by other means. He is just as dangerous to science, or more dangerous, than any creationist. And he is just as dogmatic as any creationist. His whole thesis is that his belief isn't a belief.

Yes, atheism is a belief or faith. That doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. Just that it is a faith. I'll accept that atheists have reasons for their faith. But theists also have reasons for theirs. What neither has is objective, intersubjective evidence to back their belief and show the other belief to be wrong.

 

[Svt4Him]

It is referring to one day. Your example also refers to one day.

We'll have to take it elsewhere, since we're hijacking the thread. Maybe start a new thread about the one day cleaning that takes a week?

 

[Eru]

Eru, the fact is that science properly falsifies. In the theism vs atheism debate, science should be able to falsify the existence of deity. If science were used properly. But science can't. There is no scientific paper you can point to that shows deity does not exist.

There are many obviously false things that science cannot falsify. Leprachauns, unicorns, and vampires are a few examples. To disprove these you go more into the realm of critical thinking and logic.

I suggest you read Allen's entire article before remarking, it is a great read.

 

[lucaspa]

They cannot be tested scientifically and could be more accurately termed placebo and hallucinations.

I didn't say it could be tested scientifically. But science is a very limited form of knowing. So saying something is not scientific isn't saying it is wrong.

Eru, all evidence is personal experience. Science works with a subset of personal experience called "intersubjective". That means that anyone will have the same experience in approximately the same circumstances. But that doesn't mean that personal experiences are either placebo or hallucinations. In fact, they can be incorporated into science.

2. N Honkamp, A Amendola, S Hurwitz, CL Saltzman, Retrospective review of eighteen patients who underwent transtibial amputation for intractable pain. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A 1479-1483, Oct. 2001.

This paper deals with the personal experiences of 18 people who underwent amputation of their foot. The experience contradicts those of people who have had traumatic amputations in that these did not have phantom limb pain. Now, are their experiences placebo or hallucination?

Right now in The Hague there is a trial going on where Bosnian women are accusing that their Serbian prison guards repeatedly raped them. There is no scientific evidence to back the accounts of their personal experience. According to you, we have to dismiss the case as placebo and hallucination.

Oh yes it is, Scientifically speaking. Leprachauns have as much evidence going for them as God, so are you going to start believing in them and chase for the end of the rainbow?

I wasn't speaking of science. Actually, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow has been falsified. People have been at the ends of rainbows and there was no pot of gold. So what has happened is that most of us believe there are no leprechauns.

They are feasibly possible under a reasonable version of m theory, but until they are proven I remain skeptical.

Actually, tachyons are possible under Relativity. You shouldn't try to make up science to me. I'll catch you every time! And it doesn't help your case to be caught in falsehoods.

Ah, you are only skeptical? But there is no evidence for them. No scientific evidence. So, to be consistent wouldn't you say you don't believe in tachyons?

If you are using only science, then you are agnostic. You are with holding judgement and say neither that God exists nor that God does not exist. Anything else and you are misusing science.

 

[lucaspa]

There are many obviously false things that science cannot falsify. Leprachauns, unicorns, and vampires are a few examples. To disprove these you go more into the realm of critical thinking and logic.

I suggest you read Allen's entire article before remarking, it is a great read.

I did read it. And I've argued WinAce here before.

Unicorns are falsified because we have searched the entire search space where they can be.

However, in science, logic isn't enough to disprove anything (and "critical thinking" here is just a part of logic, or either rationalization). Aristotle and other Greek scientists thought they could figure out what existed or not with logic. That's why Greek science died stillborn.

What WinAce does is not disprove. What he does is show reasons he believes the way he does.

Ironically, WinAce also shows a bit of the critical thinking that theists have used over the millenia. Remember, Eru, that theists have discarded hundreds of versions of deity. How did they do that? Well, they used many of the techniques WinAce outlines and the hypothetico-deductivd method of science to decide that a particular version of deity didn't work.

However, they never discarded the basic idea of deity because they couldn't dismiss the evidence they had.

I like the way Kitty Ferguson writes, so I'm going to use quotes from her so she gets the credit. First, on what science is. Notice the bolded parts.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but useless [to science]. One-time, private experience is not acceptable [to science]." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Now, as to your attitude that personal experience of deity is "placebo" and "hallucination"

"Where have we arrived at the end of seven chapters? Joseph Ford has said: 'More than most, [scientists] are content to live with unanswered questions.' (3). One of the questions science hasn't answered and may never be able to answer - let none of us assume otherwise - is whether there is a God. We have not been able to say that it requires double-think or other intellectual dishonesty to have great faith in science as we know it at the end of the twentieth century and also to believe in God - even a personal and intervening God.

But why should anyone think such a combination of faiths might be necessary, or indispensable on a quest for fundamental truth? There are two reasons for thinking it might be. One would be to have first-hand, experiential evidence of God which was personally convincing. The second is because to dismiss belief in God summarily is to pass premature and unwarranted judgement on the sanity, honesty, and intelligence of a vast number of our fellow human beings who claim to have such experiential evidence, many of them the same persons we do trust implicitly when it comes to other matters. It ill becomes any of us to take the attitude that all evidence for God is false evidence, beneath consideration, simply by virtue of its being evidence for God, or even by virtue of its being outside the purview of science. Such attitudes are taken, sometimes in the name of science, but in truth this sort of attitude is intellectual dishonesty. Our most reputable scientists, whatever sins of arrogance that may occasionally commit, do not really declare that what they don't know isn't knowledge or that what they haven't experienced isn't experience."
Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp. 281-282.

Now, some of those with personal experience of deity in history are Theodosius Dobzhansky, Asa Gray, Francisco Ayala, Isaac Newton, and Francis Bacon. All of these are prominent scientists, giants in my profession. Critical thinkers extraordinaire. I don't know about you, but I really have a problem saying that their faith was only "placebo effect" or "hallucinations".

 

[lucaspa]

We'll have to take it elsewhere, since we're hijacking the thread. Maybe start a new thread about the one day cleaning that takes a week?

Except there are two cleanings. One "in the day" presented to a priest, and the second at the end of the waiting period. The text is very clear. All you need is a "plain reading".

 

[Eru]

I didn't say it could be tested scientifically. But science is a very limited form of knowing. So saying something is not scientific isn't saying it is wrong.

Perhaps, but that does not change the lack of evidence for God except for personal experience that cannot be tested or properly observed.

Eru, all evidence is personal experience. Science works with a subset of personal experience called "intersubjective". That means that anyone will have the same experience in approximately the same circumstances. But that doesn't mean that personal experiences are either placebo or hallucinations. In fact, they can be incorporated into science.

Science also depends on a specific process, evidence for you claims, validation of your theories, and the ability to replicate the results of your experiment. Such "personal experiences" do not have those things.

Actually, tachyons are possible under Relativity. You shouldn't try to make up science to me. I'll catch you every time! And it doesn't help your case to be caught in falsehoods.

Haha, you think I'm making up science? The modified version of m (the one with 26 dimensions, not 10) theory is one of the most important theories supporting tachyon existence.

Right now in The Hague there is a trial going on where Bosnian women are accusing that their Serbian prison guards repeatedly raped them. There is no scientific evidence to back the accounts of their personal experience. According to you, we have to dismiss the case as placebo and hallucination.

If there is no forensic evidence (a form of scientific evidence) supporting her claim she will most likely lose the trial.

This paper deals with the personal experiences of 18 people who underwent amputation of their foot. The experience contradicts those of people who have had traumatic amputations in that these did not have phantom limb pain. Now, are their experiences placebo or hallucination?

Yes, the mind is a powerful thing.

I did read it. And I've argued WinAce here before.

WinAce posts here? He is one of the greatest atheists I know of, now I'm happy.

 

[lucaspa]

That's not what it looks like to me. Read the Bible, look at all that wrath. God slaughters people time and time again.

This is taking the same literalist reading as creationists. Arikay has already noted many similarities to militant atheism (you) and Biblical literalist creationists. This is another one: both of you take a literal Bible.

Eru, the Flood never happened. So there goes one slaughter.

Many of the deeds are not God, but God is being used as a scapegoat for the human faction that won the fight. For instance, there is an incident where Moses and his allies lure their opponents into a tent and set fire to it. The text says this was done at God's command? Was it really? Or was it convenient for the authors to say it was God's command?

So, if you are going to accept the simplistic theology of literalists, of course you can find troubles for theism. This is the danger of literalism that many Chrsitians have pointed out again and again.

Of course, knocking down a strawman doesn't affect the real thing. Creationists have found this out time and again with their strawmen about evolution.

I would expect "critical thinkers" to be better at recognizing strawmen and not make them.

 

[Eru]

I would expect "critical thinkers" to be better at recognizing strawmen and not make them.

Do not worry, I have discovered that the most effective argument against fundies is using the Bible's shady and strange passages against them. Since they believe everything in the Bible is true, they find it difficult to answer these passages.

Everything you said I agree with.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps, but that does not change the lack of evidence for God except for personal experience that cannot be tested or properly observed.

But that "except" means the statement "lack of evidence" is false. There is evidence. You don't accept it, but that doesn't make it go away.

Science also depends on a specific process, evidence for you claims, validation of your theories, and the ability to replicate the results of your experiment. Such "personal experiences" do not have those things.

This is such an inaccurate view of science.

1.Try this paper:
Lucas, P.A. Chemotactic response of osteoblast-like cells to TGF-beta. Bone, 10: 459-463, 1990.

That's my personal experience. To the best of my knowledge no one else has done this experiment. Yet there it is in the scientific literature. As I said, all evidence is personal experience. Science limits itself to personal experiences that are the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. However, that does not invalidate other personal experience. It makes science very reliable within its limits, but it does not say what is outside of science is wrong.

2. "Validation of your theories" is inaccurate. You're back to logical positivism again. What you have instead is a failure to falsify the theory even though you tried very hard to falsify. Taken to the atheism vs theism debate, it means that even atheists have been unable to scientifically falsify deity. And they have tried, haven't they?

Haha, you think I'm making up science? The modified version of m (the one with 26 dimensions, not 10) theory is one of the most important theories supporting tachyon existence.

Yes, you are making it up. It was Special Relativity that said tachyons were possible. Now, a theory cannot support the existence of an entity. To do that you need data. Anyone ever observe a tachyon? C'mon, what "evidence" do you have? And, what supports M theory as being correct? Any observations that only M Theory can explain?

If there is no forensic evidence (a form of scientific evidence) supporting her claim she will most likely lose the trial.

I hope you are wrong, because there is no forensic evidence for these women (plural). According to you they can never get justice for what was done to them.

Yes, the mind is a powerful thing.

The authors of the paper don't agree. Neither did the reveiewers or the editors of Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (the premier journal in orthopaedic surgery). They recommend foot amputations for this class of patients! So, scientists don't agree that your version of science is correct! Orthopaedic surgeons are today amputating feet based on the personal experiences of these 18 people.

Boy, I'm glad science doesn't work like you think.

WinAce posts here? He is one of the greatest atheists I know of, now I'm happy.

He has in the past. I haven't seen him posting on atheism in this forum for a while.

 

[lucaspa]

Do not worry, I have discovered that the most effective argument against fundies is using the Bible's shady and strange passages against them. Since they believe everything in the Bible is true, they find it difficult to answer these passages.

Everything you said I agree with.

Since I criticized you for making strawmen versions of Christianity and theism, I conclude this means you will stop. Am I correct?

 

[Eru]

But that "except" means the statement "lack of evidence" is false. There is evidence. You don't accept it, but that doesn't make it go away.

I don't except that "evidence" because it cannot be validated or properly observed, get that?

This is such an inaccurate view of science.

It pretty much fits the bill. Bottom line is that if you don't use the scientific process (such as in the personal experiences claim) it is not science.

Yes, you are making it up. It was Special Relativity that said tachyons were possible. Now, a theory cannot support the existence of an entity. To do that you need data. Anyone ever observe a tachyon? C'mon, what "evidence" do you have? And, what supports M theory as being correct? Any observations that only M Theory can explain?

m theory helps bring rise to tachyons.

However, I told you that I am both skeptical of m theory and tachyons. I don't believe unreasonably that they are true.

I hope you are wrong, because there is no forensic evidence for these women (plural). According to you they can never get justice for what was done to them.

If there is no forensic evidence, is there any other proof? Video footage, inconsistency in the gaurds' story, or any other thing supporting her claims? If it is just conjecture, it will be tossed out.

The authors of the paper don't agree. Neither did the reveiewers or the editors of Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (the premier journal in orthopaedic surgery). They recommend foot amputations for this class of patients! So, scientists don't agree that your version of science is correct! Orthopaedic surgeons are today amputating feet based on the personal experiences of these 18 people.

Boy, I'm glad science doesn't work like you think.

The personal experiences of these people was based on something we know to exist, foot amputation. Your argument neither supports personal experiences of people who saw God or shows to me why these arguments should be considered science.

 

[Eru]

Since I criticized you for making strawmen versions of Christianity and theism, I conclude this means you will stop. Am I correct?

They are not really strawmen. It says in the scripture that that is what happened.

 

[lucaspa]

They are not really strawmen. It says in the scripture that that is what happened.

But to say this you have to be reading the Bible literally. But no Christian does this entirely. No Christian takes Luke 2:1 literally, for instance. And no Christian takes the parables as literal history.

When we argue against Biblical literalists, the argument is not really that the Bible should not be read literally. It's whether the literalist should be reading the particular verses literally.

So, if you are arguing the atheism vs theism debate, it is invalid for you to portray Christianity as requiring or reading every passage literally.

 

[Eru]

But to say this you have to be reading the Bible literally. But no Christian does this entirely.

Hovind comes close.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't except that "evidence" because it cannot be validated or properly observed, get that?

I get it. As I said, you don't accept the evidence. But that is a far cry from saying the evidence doesn't exist! However, all of us, you included, live our lives based on evidence that "cannot be validated or properly observed". Your criteria doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. And the evidence has to be wrong for atheism to be valid. Or rather, for atheism to be other than a faith.

It pretty much fits the bill. Bottom line is that if you don't use the scientific process (such as in the personal experiences claim) it is not science.

Nothing like ignoring all the evidence I posted! The problem is that your "scientific process" isn't the scientific process. You never addressed my falsification of your description of the scientific process. You are sounding more like a creationist all the time. They ignore evidence, too.

m theory helps bring rise to tachyons.

Special Relativity already did that. Also, M Theory doesn't tell you they exist, does it? Only observation will do that.

However, I told you that I am both skeptical of m theory and tachyons. I don't believe unreasonably that they are true.

But you don't disbelieve, do you? Yet according to your criteria "I don't except that "evidence" because it cannot be validated or properly observed, get that" you should disbelieve in tachyons. There is no evidence that can be validated or properly observed of the existence of tachyons.

What I am getting at, Eru, is that your position is hypocrisy. In terms of God you have to have validated or properly observed. You are not "skeptical"; you believe God does not exist. In the case of M Theory and tachyons, you are only skeptical.

In terms of science, Eru, tachyons and God are completely equivalent. Both are entities allowed by theory but without scientific observations. Whatever is your attitude toward one should be your attitude toward the other. The difference is that tachyons have no observations of any kind. God, OTOH, does have non-scientific observations. So now you are faced with the problem of denying observations. More hypocrisy.

If there is no forensic evidence, is there any other proof? Video footage, inconsistency in the gaurds' story, or any other thing supporting her claims? If it is just conjecture, it will be tossed out.

Their claims. Of course there is no video footage. The guards didn't videotape the rapes. By the time the women could report the rapes to proper authority, there was no forensic evidence. Now, whether the guards will break under cross-examination has to be determined. However, consider this, the prosecutors believed the personal experience of the women enough to bring the matter to trial to begin with! According to you, they should not have because there was no scientific evidence.

We are not dealing with "conjecture". We are dealing with the personal experience of the victims of rape. If personal experience is not evidence, then this trial cannot take place nor can the women gain justice. What this says is that your claim that all personal experience is "placebo" and "hallucination" is simply not true. We don't operate that way. We do believe eyewitness experience.

The personal experiences of these people was based on something we know to exist, foot amputation. Your argument neither supports personal experiences of people who saw God or shows to me why these arguments should be considered science.

I never claimed the experiences of people who say they saw God should be considered science. You are confusing claims. Let's try to get this clear:

1. There is evidence for the existence of God. It's not scientific, but then science is not all of evidence and never claimed to be. To say that the only evidence is scientific evidence is to abuse science and epistemology.

2. You can't dismiss personal evidence simply because it is personal evidence. After all, scientific evidence is also personal experience. To make the claims you do means we have to toss out all of science.

3. We accept personal experience as valid in other areas of our lives and even science accepts personal experience in some situations. The amount of pain experienced after surgical amputation of a foot is one example. That is very personal experience and we don't experimentally recreate it for obvious ethical reasons. Yet this personal experience is considered valid enough for orthopedic surgeons to recommend the procedure and think that they will be doing good for their patients by cutting off a foot!

4. You can't dismiss evidence for God simply because it is evidence for God and is personal experience. Over the years, many scientists have had such personal experience. These are, according to you, critical thinkers and would certainly have considered the "placebo effect" and "hallucination" as possible explanations. The scientists rejected these alternative explanations and accepted that their experience was indeed of deity.

 

[lucaspa]

Hovind comes close.

Yes, he does. He argues with other Christians over verses that almost no one else takes literally. However, push comes to shove, you notice that the verses that earlier Christians took literally to mean the earth was flat and immovable Hovind no longer reads literally. Nor does he claim that Japaneses, Sioux, and Zulus were enrolled in Caesar's census!

But Hovind is not all of Christianity, either. And it is invalid in arguing theism vs atheism for you to make Hovind be all of Christianity.

 

[Eru]

I get it. As I said, you don't accept the evidence. But that is a far cry from saying the evidence doesn't exist! However, all of us, you included, live our lives based on evidence that "cannot be validated or properly observed". Your criteria doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. And the evidence has to be wrong for atheism to be valid. Or rather, for atheism to be other than a faith.

I don't except the evidence because it is the same type of evidence the Greeks used to "prove" Zeus or any other faith uses to prove itself. Untestable personal experiences do not validate a religion or any other claim.

Nothing like ignoring all the evidence I posted! The problem is that your "scientific process" isn't the scientific process. You never addressed my falsification of your description of the scientific process. You are sounding more like a creationist all the time. They ignore evidence, too.

Nothing like twisting science to include untestable claims.

Special Relativity already did that. Also, M Theory doesn't tell you they exist, does it? Only observation will do that.

Unless I'm mistaken, two theories can support a single idea.

But you don't disbelieve, do you? Yet according to your criteria "I don't except that "evidence" because it cannot be validated or properly observed, get that" you should disbelieve in tachyons. There is no evidence that can be validated or properly observed of the existence of tachyons.

The difference between tachyons and God is that tachyons are a hypothesis, and God is just an unevidenced guess.

What I am getting at, Eru, is that your position is hypocrisy. In terms of God you have to have validated or properly observed. You are not "skeptical"; you believe God does not exist. In the case of M Theory and tachyons, you are only skeptical.

The reason I believe God does not exist is because a. There is no evidence for God and b. He does not appear to be neccesary for the existence of the universe to carry on. The reason I am only skeptical of tachyons is because there are unexplained universal properties that may only be explained by them, but could possibly be explained by something else.

In terms of science, Eru, tachyons and God are completely equivalent. Both are entities allowed by theory but without scientific observations. Whatever is your attitude toward one should be your attitude toward the other. The difference is that tachyons have no observations of any kind. God, OTOH, does have non-scientific observations. So now you are faced with the problem of denying observations. More hypocrisy.

*sigh* Tachyons are different from God because they have not been replaced with a newer, better idea explaining specific properties of the universe, unlike God who was replaced long ago with numerous, highly evedinced theories that suggest the universe existence has arisen on its own and life evolved without a divine force guiding it.

1. There is evidence for the existence of God. It's not scientific, but then science is not all of evidence and never claimed to be. To say that the only evidence is scientific evidence is to abuse science and epistemology.

It is not scientific, logical, or supported indirectly with science. Also, better explanations, such as hallucinations and placebo, exist to explain those situations.

2. You can't dismiss personal evidence simply because it is personal evidence. After all, scientific evidence is also personal experience. To make the claims you do means we have to toss out all of science.

Science is personal experience, but it is supported with evidence and reviewed by the scientific community, not to mention the fact that experiments are tested over and over again.

 

[dctalkexp]

Hi Mike, thanks for responding to my posts. To cut down the length of this post, I will respond to what I feel are the essential points of our conversation.

[/font]

But we do know. We know exactly what the spiritual consequences of sin are in the scriptures. Its what happens to those who do not submit themselves to humble servants of God's will and poisin their lives with sin. Thats the whole point of the OT destruction accounts that you don't get from the literal reading.

Genesis is a history book. Early Christians took it as that, Paul took it as that, and even Christ took it as that, and it is written in historical narrative. I would rather agree with people who have no outside influence on them to compromise Scripture, as you seem to have. When no secular ideas are invoked, Genesis is always taken literally. It's too bad that you don't see this, but let's just agree to disagree then, because going in circles isn't real helpful.

And this is part of my point. The Noah account tells us something about salvation...the same kind of salvation Jesus talks about.

I agree with that. But it doesn't mean it wasn't literal just because it "Tells us something about salvation."

I am aware of that. Offering your live in the humble service of the Lord is the key. The Lord does good works in us and through us. Why is this relevant here?

Ok, good. You put something about Noah and Abraham earning eternal life. But apparently you didn't mean it as I took it.

But you are assuming that every detail of the account was intended by God to read as literal history. Why are your assumptions any more valid than mine?

Because there is no reason not to take it literally, unless you bring in outside influences. Your assumption of "only parts of Genesis are literal" are nonsensical, because you are working with ideas other than the Bible.

When we look at creation, the data there clearly indicates that creation is incredibly complex, and God has worked His wonders in incredibly complex ways. Given this truth, do you really believe that God could have given a literal account in the scriptures.

Of course, and He did. It is a simple account that doesn't go into hard detail, but that's not necessary. He created man from dirt, seperate from beast. We can look at the intricacies of life, and marvel and God's design, and look at how complex He created things, but that does absolutely no damage to the Genesis account.

IOW, if science is right, do you really believe that God would have given a pre-science society a complete literal account?

Yes, but not a hard detailed one.

By repeating the same argument several times does it suddenly become valid? I have addressed this point several times and you have yet to even acknowledge my argument.

1. physical death is not real death as Jesus tells us.
2. many people come to christ through pain, suffering, and death...showing us that they are not bad things...its what we do with them that makes them good or bad.

Interesting views, but not completely consistent with Scripture. Jesus says that though we die, we will also live because of His redemption. If Adam would never of rebelled against God, then Christ's redemption wouldn't have been necessary. Sin is responsible for our death, if evolution is true, then at what point did man start to sin, and at what point was killing not good? As humans slowly transformed from ape-things, what point did God give them rules to live by? Problem after problem occurs when you believe man over God. Is God a liar, or is man?

Good health and wealth are bad things when you become obsessed with them. Sorry, dctalkexp, you have not demonstrated your argument about 'very good' at all. Those cartoons are products of narrow-mindedness and a misrepresentation of true biblical theology.

That is a sad thing to hear a Christian say.

In fact Jesus reverses your ideology. What many call 'good things' here on earth (riches, good health, wanting for nothing, etc), actually distract us from real eternal life.

Well, my theology doesn't say riches, etc. are good things. But biblical theology says that Jesus died because of our sin. And because of our sin is why the world is a disaster, and why there is death in the first place. What God has done is given humanity a chance to be redeemed and never die. Jesus came because Adam sinned.

I have never said you weren't a Christian, nor did I imply such. I hope you don't get that from me. But I do feel that you are taking man's erroneous words that are contrary to Scripture, and believing that those words are infallible, and thus you feel obligated to harmonize them with the Word.

God bless.

 

[Mike Flynn]

They are not really strawmen. It says in the scripture that that is what happened.

But Biblical theology does not come from one piece here and one piece there. It is no different than arguing against quantum theory by looking one narrow piece of it and ignoring the rest.

IOW, you are arguing against a misrepresentation of the theology...a strawman of it.