Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

Right. Exactly. I'm not going to provide many answers to those hostile to the Christian Faith. I don't have that kind of time or that level of patience.

Then why are you here in this thread if you're just gonna say, "There are answers but I don't want to give them to you!"

So what? That's the case for many things in life. It should be expected that human beings will have to wrestle with the meaning of anything that's ancient and foreign. That's just how it is. Too bad. So sad.

But we don't see that with different sects of mathematics, do we? We don't see different sects of electrical theory, or germ theory.

There's a fallacy for that.

And what fallacy is that?

What????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If there were supernatural influences on the world, then we would see things like the mountain throwing itself into the sea as the Bible claimed, wouldn't we? We would see things that not only had no naturalistic explanation, but contradicted the naturalistic explanations we were aware of.

Of course, if science took whatever was testable, as I've suggested, then it could still only ever encounter the naturalistic stuff, if the antural was all there was and the supernatural wasn't real.

Think of it like this.

Let's say I had a Land Rover, which was built to be able to go off road in a wide variety of rugged terrain. But I only ever drove it on the road. You might suggest that my car is limited and it can only handle sealed roads and has no capacity for offroad terrain at all. That may be true. But it could also be the case that it CAN handle offroad terrain with ease, but there is no such terrain. It's all just sealed roads. There simply isn't the offroad terrain for me to drive in, and that's why I don't.

No. No. You really haven't.

I've clearly showed how the Bible makes claims that are testable by the scientific method.

Your response is to come up with different variations of, "But that's not what the writers meant!" despite the fact that you don't even know who the writers are.

Did you bother to even look at the links I gave you from Berkeley? I bet you didn't.

Then you would lose that bet.

 

[Kylie]

Would it matter to you if we did?

If you didn't squabble over the details but had a single unified interpretation of the Bible, then yes, it would.

Doesn't every Christian ever born, alive today, and will be here tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING GOD?

You point out one similarity and ignore all the differences of opinion in an attempt to make it seem like all Christians are in complete agreement.

The fact that Christians believe in God is not COMPLETE agreement since there are lots of things Christians still DISagree on.

But the fact of the matter is, people couldn't care less if we agree or not.

Always coming up with reasons to explain why people disagree with you.

 

[Kylie]

They would not know what they saw or what caused it. They could not repeat it. Basically we might as well ask a mushroom

If the Bible's claim about prayer being able to make a mountain throw itself into the sea was real, then yes, it could be repeated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, of course.

There is only one objectively true interpretation of the Bible.

That's why there are no disagreements among Christians as to what the Bible means, which parts are literal and which parts are figurative and metaphorical.

Oh really? You don't say? .... go ask your Christian husband and let's see what he says.........

 

[Kylie]

If God allowed them to be near it which is unlikely. More unlikely still is them admitting God did it.

Who are you to speak for what God will and won't allow?

No, it tests the natural only. Give it up. I can do this all day

Repeating a false claim again and again will not make it true.

Yes

How much faith do you have?

No, faith is like water, we can have a cup or we can have a river or we can have a tiny bit of condensation.

I asked you if anyone had even the smallest amount of faith. You said, "No one we know about."

You then told me that I can't conclude that people are "faithless or not faithful."

My story is straight as an arrow. You just keep dancing all over the ballroom floor and can't remember what corner is what

No it's not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why are you here in this thread if you're just gonna say, "There are answers but I don't want to give them to you!"

But we don't see that with different sects of mathematics, do we? We don't see different sects of electrical theory, or germ theory.

And what fallacy is that?

If there were supernatural influences on the world, then we would see things like the mountain throwing itself into the sea as the Bible claimed, wouldn't we? We would see things that not only had no naturalistic explanation, but contradicted the naturalistic explanations we were aware of.

Of course, if science took whatever was testable, as I've suggested, then it could still only ever encounter the naturalistic stuff, if the antural was all there was and the supernatural wasn't real.

Think of it like this.

Let's say I had a Land Rover, which was built to be able to go off road in a wide variety of rugged terrain. But I only ever drove it on the road. You might suggest that my car is limited and it can only handle sealed roads and has no capacity for offroad terrain at all. That may be true. But it could also be the case that it CAN handle offroad terrain with ease, but there is no such terrain. It's all just sealed roads. There simply isn't the offroad terrain for me to drive in, and that's why I don't.

I've clearly showed how the Bible makes claims that are testable by the scientific method.

Your response is to come up with different variations of, "But that's not what the writers meant!" despite the fact that you don't even know who the writers are.

Then you would lose that bet.

 

[Kylie]

@2PhiloVoid you keep posting quotes of my posts and don't respond to them.

 

[Kylie]

Oh really? You don't say? .... go ask your Christian husband and let's see what he says.........

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you didn't squabble over the details but had a single unified interpretation of the Bible, then yes, it would.

I disagree.

You point out one similarity and ignore all the differences of opinion in an attempt to make it seem like all Christians are in complete agreement.

That's because they are in complete agreement.

The fact that Christians believe in God is not COMPLETE agreement since there are lots of things Christians still DISagree on.

What's your point?

Christians disagree on things -- welcome to Earth.

Always coming up with reasons to explain why people disagree with you.

In any event, I believe that, if our disagreements are enough to make some people sit up and take notice, why don't they sit up and take notice at our agreements?

The fact of the matter is, I don't think it matters at all, since their minds are already made up.

 

[Kylie]

I disagree.

You disagree about what matters to me?

What in the world makes you think you are in a position to know what matters to me?

That's because they are in complete agreement.

Your profile says you are a Baptist. Tell me, why aren't you a member of a denomination that does not hold that baptism is required? Tell me, why are there Protestants and Roman Catholics? Why are there Methodists and Presbyterians? Are all these different denominations in complete agreement?

What's your point?

Christians disagree on things -- welcome to Earth.

We don't see that in other fields, do we?

Do we see Star Trek fans arguing over whether the Enterprise is a part of Starfleet?

My point is that we don't see such disagreements when there is a single objective truth about the issue.

In any event, I believe that, if our disagreements are enough to make some people sit up and take notice, why don't they sit up and take notice at our agreements?

Because the disagreements prove that at least some of them have stuff wrong.

And if they can be wrong about one part of their faith, then they can be wrong about any part of their faith.

The fact of the matter is, I don't think it matters at all, since their minds are already made up.

I'd be perfectly happy to change my mind if provided with evidence.

 

[River Jordan]

If a person prays for the mountain to move, and as a result of the prayer it does move, how is that NOT supernatural?

I mean, there's no rational natural explanation, is there? The process of elimination leaves only the supernatural, right?

Not really. You don't conclude the supernatural just because there currently isn't another explanation.

However, I would say that yes if someone were to pray in front of a mountain and it actually lifted up and moved to a different location, well that would really be amazing, wouldn't it? I guess if that happened I would totally understand why people would figure it was supernatural. I probably would too.

EDIT: Sorry to do this late, but the more I think about it the more I think the above is more a demonstration of the supernatural than an actual test of it. A negative outcome is not a comment on the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, because of the reasons I mentioned before (God can manipulate reality and our perceptions of it for example).

And that was my main point. Because there's no outcome that's inconsistent with supernatural causation, there can't be a scientific test for it. Not matter the outcome it can always be said "that's how God did it".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.

And you seem to be all too familiar with the concept of ambiguity.

 

[BCP1928]

It can't. Anyone thinking it could would be hooped

How, exactly? Would the investigator be struck by lightening? Turned into a pillar of salt?

 

[BCP1928]

And I'm saying that if we apply fuller applications of reading and interpreting----------like your and my English teachers taught us in English class in high school------------no one would think that when Jesus says "faith can move mountains" that He was actually referring to geological upheavals.

That's a lot of questions, Kylie? They can be answered by those who study both History and Hermeneutics. Differences of interpretation infest almost EVERY field of human life, and Christianity is no exception. For the life of me, I'm not sure why anyone would expect Christianity to be easily amenable to agreement among every person who either hears or reads about the Gospel Message.


Ok........................ Well. I apologize for my apparent patronizing. But I think the Bible is a more complex book historically and culturally than what you've been told.

Also, please note, Kylie, that hardly anyone here on CF, even among your fellow atheists, think that Methodological Naturalism is optional.

May I suggest you expand your academic horizons? Wouldn't the folks at Starfleet Academy suggest that you do the same?

It doesn't matter what Kylie, or you or I think about the Bible. In this forum the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuus and self-interpreting product of divine plenary verbal inspiration or go straight to Hell without passing GO or collecting $200, otherwise Jesus died for nothing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah, of course.

There is only one objectively true interpretation of the Bible.

That's why there are no disagreements among Christians as to what the Bible means, which parts are literal and which parts are figurative and metaphorical.

This "faith to move mountains" business has been going on for a while and I was not certain where it came from. It seemed vaguely familiar. I traced it back over a week and a few hundred posts to (finally) a biblical coordinate: Matt 21:21 (which traces back to Mark 11:23). It occurs after the cleansing of the temple and immediately after the fig tree is cursed for not bearing fruit out of season (and the disciples being amazed at the feat. I thought the mountain thing was some sort of metaphor, and the next verse (22) seems to confirm that: "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." (the footnote confers) The pretty clear implication of the mountain metaphor and the next line is that prayer is powerful if you have faith. (not a sentiment I agree with, but a familiar one nonetheless.)

I see no mention or implication of demons in the text or the footnotes, nor that this should be obivious if it indeed is. (I was never any good at literary interpretation.)

 

[truthpls]

If the Bible's claim about prayer being able to make a mountain throw itself into the sea was real, then yes, it could be repeated.

You thought it wouldn't be? Our faith is growing and does not stop growing when we die. You seem to think that because we can't move a mountain now, Jesus is a liar. Sorry. The point there was that we need more faith, not that science could test it if God moved a mountain today

 

[truthpls]

Who are you to speak for what God will and won't allow?

His friend

Repeating a false claim again and again will not make it true.

If you knew the dif we could talk

How much faith do you have?

Enough to have everlasting life

I asked you if anyone had even the smallest amount of faith. You said, "No one we know about."

I haven't met anyone that could waft Everest around the planet, have you?

You then told me that I can't conclude that people are "faithless or not faithful."

No it's not.

Being faithful means doing your best faithfully. Having great faith is another matter

 

[truthpls]

How, exactly? Would the investigator be struck by lightening? Turned into a pillar of salt?

They would be like a hamster on a wheel. Going nowhere fast

 

[BCP1928]

They would be like a hamster on a wheel. Going nowhere fast

You mean like Zeno's paradox--no mater how close the object you got you could never quite get all the way there? What about tests and examinations which can be carried out remotely?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This "faith to move mountains" business has been going on for a while and I was not certain where it came from. It seemed vaguely familiar. I traced it back over a week and a few hundred posts to (finally) a biblical coordinate: Matt 21:21 (which traces back to Mark 11:23). It occurs after the cleansing of the temple and immediately after the fig tree is cursed for not bearing fruit out of season (and the disciples being amazed at the feat. I thought the mountain thing was some sort of metaphor, and the next verse (22) seems to confirm that: "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." (the footnote confers) The pretty clear implication of the mountain metaphor and the next line is that prayer is powerful if you have faith. (not a sentiment I agree with, but a familiar one nonetheless.)

I see no mention or implication of demons in the text or the footnotes, nor that this should be obivious if it indeed is. (I was never any good at literary interpretation.)

Wow, Hans! See? You actually can give a decent hand to the plow of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis.

Keep going, though. You're almost there!