Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Fervent]

Yes. All people agree on the speed of light in a vacuum, and when that value has been adjusted (which it has, several times), it is based on testable and repeatable evidence.

That is quite a limited point of agreement, and not really analogous to what we are discussing.

There is, so far as I'm aware, not a single person who claims otherwise who has been able to produce any evidence to support their differing claim.

Facts are demonstrated by producing evidence, not arrived at by means of having discussions. You make it sound like a conference, a council, or something.

You're building a case on a rather weak analogue, because we're not talking about facts we're talking about worldviews and belief-systems not singular beliefs.

The fact that they seek more than just a claim before they'll accept something as being true.

So what do they base their ontology on?

You seem to be describing contrarians, not skeptics.

Nope, philosophical skeptics. People who are consistent in their skepticism not only applying it to worldviews they don't believe in.

Given that you've already demonstrated that you don't actually know what a skeptic really is, I don't think you are justified in making those kinds of assumptions.

I know quite well what a skeptic really is, you simply take skeptic half-heartedly and include only religious skeptics rather than philosophical skeptics. The philosophical skeptic doubts the ability to gain knowledge, even doubting whether we can establish sufficient cause for doubt. And just as no two believers believe the same thing, neither do two skeptics take their skepticism to the same extent.

I mean, I'd describe myself as a skeptic, and I'd be happy to accept the existence of the supernatural providing that it can be shown in some testable way.

Seems a rather arbitrary restriction. What makes you think reality is always testable and amenable to human reasoning? How do we test that belief?

If it is testable in a repeatable way. If other people who have tested it get the same results as me. If it acts in a predictable and consistent manner.

So you've confined what is true to what is accessible to science, what is your basis for this restriction? What test did you run to determine that?

Perhaps something that exists outside our universe but is able to interact with our universe. After all, that's basically what Christians say God is, don't they? And isn't God an example of something supernatural?

Yes, but God is a panentheistic being. What we move, and breathe, and have our being in. The underpinning existence of all that exists.

I fear you have misunderstood the point I was making...

No, I just decided to kick it up a level. You were highlighting the problem of universals, I shifted it to ontological primacy.

If a person is a Platonic realist, but then decides that they find conceptualism to be the most plausible worldview, how does their actual life change?

Such pragmatic considerations don't really matter in the theism vs atheism debate. If the God of the Bible is real, there is a lot that changes in how we understand reality. Though being a Christian doesn't mean we can't be pragmatic, but it does mean that our happiness and our well being are not the greatest ends we can pursue.

Please tell me how the life of a Platonic realist is different to a Physicalist.

Considering the contention is not purely about one metaphysical reality vs another, the pragmatic concerns don't matter much. But the epistemics and subsequent plausibility of various beliefs certainly changes depending on the metaphysical conception.

 

[Fervent]

13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?

Which are we not supposed to let ourselves stray from? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? Because they appear to be two different orders of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which are we not supposed to let ourselves stray from? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? Because they appear to be two different orders of creation.

12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

(I'll answer this in my next post.)

 

[Kylie]

Define what you mean by "evidence", as this could go on and on with you dismissing QvQ's evidence and sources as not fitting your definition of "evidence"

Something that is testable and repeatable and verifiable and indicates one particular interpretation of reality is correct.

So, in this case, something that points to the Corinthian creed being written in 30-33AD instead of 40 or 45 AD.

 

[Kylie]

That is like someone saying they don't like to eat steak but keep eating steak. Or someone who say they don't believe in horoscope but read horoscope every day. A real atheist wouldn't be answering questions high and low almost daily here.

That's like saying a creationist would waste time talking about evolution, yet have you seen the likes of Ray Comfort? Kent Hovind? Ken Ham?

I honestly do not see how you don't understand my statement. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in Satan. I have no anger towards any of them. I can not feel anger towards a character I hold to be fictitious.

 

[Kylie]

A real atheist would disregard folks like us and go about their life on their own; to continue here is to ipso facto seek God

And a real creationist would disregard scientists and go about their life on their own instead of trying to disprove evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Genesis 1 and 2 comprise what is known as a frame narrative:

A framework story, also known as a frame narrative, is a literary device that uses an overarching story to provide context for a set of inner stories. It's a common technique in literature, film, and television.

Source: AI Overview

In other words, it's a story within a story.

Here are the two chapters, in chronological order:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27a So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, you may need to document and link the source(s) you use supporting your view of what "evidence" is and how it is to be interpreted in each instance where you're wanting any of us to produce truly relevant evidence.

Otherwise, some of us may be simply shooting blindfolded in the dark, trying to hit a moving conceptual target.

Thank you!

In this case, I am asking for the EVIDENCE that shows that the Corinthian Creed was around in 30-33AD.

QvQ just provided a quote from a person making the claim, and a website making the claim.

Does someone claiming something make the claim evidence? If I claim I can turn into a dragon and fly around, does that claim count as evidence? Of course not. So why should I accept QvQ's sources which consist of nothing but claims to be evidence?

But by all means, continue trying to muddy the waters. When I ask for actual evidence (and from someone else, mind you), you come in and start quibbling over the definition of evidence. It's a childish tactic.

 

[AV1611VET]

I honestly do not see how you don't understand my statement. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in Satan. I have no anger towards any of them. I can not feel anger towards a character I hold to be fictitious.

Thus your anger is directed where?

 

[AV1611VET]

And a real creationist would disregard scientists and go about their life on their own instead of trying to disprove evolution.

-- solid aurum.

 

[Kylie]

Stop trying to present evidence to @Kylie because she is determined to believe that God does not exist and the Bible is totally false.

Oh, look at you telling me what I believe.

Despite the fact I've repeatedly stated that the opposite is true, that I will accept ANY position provided that it has valid evidence to support it.

So tell me, which one of us is rejecting evidence to the contrary of their beliefs?

Even although scholars have proved that the Bible is credible, she will ask for more proof, like she knows better than many specialists in different fields that have evaluated the Bible for more than 100 years.

If you'd bothered to actually do your research, the actual scholars will tell you that the only thing they would claim to actually know is that there was a person named Jesus who was baptised and was then crucified. Anything other than that, they'll tell you, can't be claimed with any certainty.

But again, you go on believing whatever you want.

She acts like she has proof for everything she believe (which is not realistic, we know)...

Such as what?

...and she will keep asking you for proof, but the truth is she does not want to be convinced. So stop wasting your time.

You don't know jack about me, so your claim you know the truth about what I secretly believe is laughable.

But it sounds exactly like what some religious person would tell you to make you feel that atheists are blind, so that way you can feel happy knowing that you alone have the secret truth of all things.

Christians believe in God based on personal experience...

Which is notoriously unreliable, not to mention all the different Christians that have had wildly different experiences even though they all follow the same religion.

...sufficient material evidence...

There is precious little evidence for any of the events in Jesus' life. All you have are the claims made in the Bible.

and faith.

Faith does not determine truth. There are over a billion Hindus who have faith, yet you don't find their faith convincing, do you?

We should not pretend to have 100% evidence for everything. Our personal experience also provide a real basis for continuing to have faith in God. Let her use clever words to claim that our faith is blind, and on judgment day, she will realize how wrong she is.

Ah, the old, "One day you'll find out" chestnut.

Usually trotted out when there's no actual evidence to provide.

 

[Fervent]

View attachment 360024

In this case, I am asking for the EVIDENCE that shows that the Corinthian Creed was around in 30-33AD.

QvQ just provided a quote from a person making the claim, and a website making the claim.

Does someone claiming something make the claim evidence? If I claim I can turn into a dragon and fly around, does that claim count as evidence? Of course not. So why should I accept QvQ's sources which consist of nothing but claims to be evidence?

But by all means, continue trying to muddy the waters. When I ask for actual evidence (and from someone else, mind you), you come in and start quibbling over the definition of evidence. It's a childish tactic.

When discussing history, there is often a lack of physical evidence so the history must be reconstructed and argued for. So when someone speaks of the antiquity of creedal statements in 1 Cor, they aren't simply making a claim but are forwarding an argument. How we define evidence is very much relevant to this discussion, especially when we're discussing historical arguments.

 

[dlamberth]

So much for what "God's one creation is showing us" then.

It's actually quite interesting to see how the earth has moved and changed over time.

 

[Fervent]

By this logic, we'd have to assume Islam is true as well.

There's a marked difference between the origin of Islam and the origin of Christianity. Explaining how a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all vs explaining how a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword are two very different challenges.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

View attachment 360024

In this case, I am asking for the EVIDENCE that shows that the Corinthian Creed was around in 30-33AD.

QvQ just provided a quote from a person making the claim, and a website making the claim.

Does someone claiming something make the claim evidence? If I claim I can turn into a dragon and fly around, does that claim count as evidence? Of course not. So why should I accept QvQ's sources which consist of nothing but claims to be evidence?

But by all means, continue trying to muddy the waters. When I ask for actual evidence (and from someone else, mind you), you come in and start quibbling over the definition of evidence. It's a childish tactic.

Actually, I was hoping you would link us to an academic source from a scholar (or two) whom YOU trust and think definitively describes what you think is a solid operative definition of evidence.

As it is, you've instead given us a standard dictionary definition clearly saying that evidence is essentially ........... "ANYTHING" seen, experienced, read or told, but then you go on to state that ANYTHING doesn't really mean anything.

Additionally, you resort to gaslighting me by implying that my asking for a definition of evidence is "muddying the waters" and a "childish tactic."

You do realize that no one, even others who are atheists, agree with you on this, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's actually quite interesting to see how the earth has moved and changed over time.

Even moreso is how it was moved and was changed over time.

 

[Kylie]

That is quite a limited point of agreement, and not really analogous to what we are discussing.

Are we not discussing objective truths about reality?

I mean, good luck trying to argue that the speed of light in a vacuum is not an objective truth. If you want to claim that what we're discussing here is fundamentally different, you'd have to be saying that the existence of God is not objectively true.

You're building a case on a rather weak analogue, because we're not talking about facts we're talking about worldviews and belief-systems not singular beliefs.

Now you are trying to shift the goalposts.

We are discussing whether a particular religious belief and the claims it makes are objectively true.

But hey, if you want to admit that some religious belief is not factual, then we can stop right now, because I'll happily agree that any religious belief you can name is not factual.

So what do they base their ontology on?

Lots of different things, you'd have to ask each individual skeptic, and it would be different for each one.

Do you think skepticism is a unified worldview like it's a religion or something? It's not.

Nope, philosophical skeptics. People who are consistent in their skepticism not only applying it to worldviews they don't believe in.

Ah, so now, finally, you decide to limit your definition of "skeptic" to one particular kind of skeptic.

Would have been nice if you were clear about that from the start. You were not. You just said, "no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical."

In any case, what I said still holds. I claimed that the skeptics you were describing were contrarians who would reject any knowledge statment. And indeed, there are sources that describe "philosophical skepticism" as "radical doubt." SOURCE

I know quite well what a skeptic really is

Really? From my point of view it looks like you are taking one narrow subset of skepticism and using that to describe ANYONE who claims to be a skeptic.

I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a philosophical skeptic, more a "common sense skeptic." THIS is what best describes me, yet you are determined to portray all skeptics as THIS.

you simply take skeptic half-heartedly and include only religious skeptics rather than philosophical skeptics. The philosophical skeptic doubts the ability to gain knowledge, even doubting whether we can establish sufficient cause for doubt.

Do they also doubt that philosophical skepticism is valid?

And just as no two believers believe the same thing, neither do two skeptics take their skepticism to the same extent.

Yet that doesn't stop you from trying to portray all skeptics as holding a rather extreme version of skepticism.

Seems a rather arbitrary restriction. What makes you think reality is always testable and amenable to human reasoning? How do we test that belief?

It's worked just fine so far. Witness the device you are currently reading this reply on, which relies on reality working in a consistent way.

So you've confined what is true to what is accessible to science, what is your basis for this restriction? What test did you run to determine that?

No.

I've confined what I'll accept as true to that which can be tested in a repeatable way.

Can you give me any good reason why I should accept something as true if it is NOT testable in a repeatable way?

Yes, but God is a panentheistic being. What we move, and breathe, and have our being in. The underpinning existence of all that exists.

So you claim. But other people have made different claims about the nature of God.

How do I know which to believe? Is your claim correct, or is the correct claim one of the countless others made about the nature of God?

Gee, sure would be good if there was some system of investigation which we could use to TEST the validity of claims, wouldn't it?

Such pragmatic considerations don't really matter in the theism vs atheism debate. If the God of the Bible is real, there is a lot that changes in how we understand reality. Though being a Christian doesn't mean we can't be pragmatic, but it does mean that our happiness and our well being are not the greatest ends we can pursue.

Okay, so an atheist has a completely different view of how reality works than a Christian.

Tell me, how does this difference manifest? I mean, does a Christian who is investigating reality use their religious beliefs instead of the scientific method? Do they get a different set of results? Do their different results work in a consistent way?

Considering the contention is not purely about one metaphysical reality vs another, the pragmatic concerns don't matter much. But the epistemics and subsequent plausibility of various beliefs certainly changes depending on the metaphysical conception.

So, when it comes to the sensible and realistic results of these different viewpoints, they don't matter.

Then what difference does it actually make?

It's like the guy who thinks that all of reality is a computer simulation but he continues to live his life as though it's real, and NOT a simulation.

 

[Kylie]

When discussing history, there is often a lack of physical evidence so the history must be reconstructed and argued for. So when someone speaks of the antiquity of creedal statements in 1 Cor, they aren't simply making a claim but are forwarding an argument. How we define evidence is very much relevant to this discussion, especially when we're discussing historical arguments.

No argument was presented. It was nothing more than a claim. "Such and such dates from this particular time." No argument, evidence, or reason was given as to HOW this determination was made, it was simply presented as a statement of fact.

 

[Kylie]

There's a marked difference between the origin of Islam and the origin of Christianity. Explaining how a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all vs explaining how a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword are two very different challenges.

Plenty of people have shown that they are willing to die for Islamic beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, I was hoping you would link us to an academic source from a scholar (or two) whom YOU trust and think definitively describes what you think is a solid operative definition of evidence.

As it is, you've instead given us a standard dictionary definition clearly saying that evidence is essentially ........... "ANYTHING" seen, experienced, read or told, but then you go on to state that ANYTHING doesn't really mean anything.

Additionally, you resort to gaslighting me by implying that my asking for a definition of evidence is "muddying the waters" and a "childish tactic."

You do realize that no one, even others who are atheists, agree with you on this, right?

Are you not trying to shift the burden onto my shoulders?

QvQ made a claim, they must support it. You're efforts to wriggle out of it on their behalf are indeed a childish tactic.