Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I can't test your statement, so I would likely take your word for it.Hey hey
Lets continue and move on to another example. Lets say you and i are enjoying each others company while we gaze at a starry sky. I see a comet blaze in the sky and you do not.
I state that i just saw a comet - which you did not.
How do you test my statement?
Cheers
I didn't say to use reasoning alone, but you use it on the evidence. Such as when you see effects, you reason to the cause even if the cause may not yet be empirically observed, like the examples I gave you.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Fraid so, it is called reasoning. Without reasoning science is impossible.
ken: Reasoning alone is not good enough; there has to be evidence.
First, some scholars believe the million part of the numbers is a copying error. Hebrew numbers are very easily miscopied. But even if it is not, they never built any permanent structures and did not have to prepare food since they were eating manna. So there is unlikely to be anything left after all these years. Most things such as shoes and clothes and bodies would have decayed away in 3500 years or they may have carried their relatives bodies with them to the Promised land so no burials would have been out in the desert.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I never argued that the bible should be part of science, I just said that there is scientific evidence of its divine origin.
ken: Most Bible scholars estimate Moses lead 2.5 to 3 million people out of Egypt and they wondered in the Desert for 40 years. Yet there are no evidence of millions of people wondering in any of the deserts of that area for that long. That lack of evidence is evidence against the claims of the Bible.
It is the only religious book whose teachings about the three main characteristics of the universe have been confirmed by science. That the universe had a definite beginning out of nothing detectable by humans, that the universe is expanding, and that the universe is energetically winding down.ken: What scientific evidence do you have that the Bible is divine?
In some ways they were and in some ways they were not. They definitely did a better job of teaching reading and writing, with a 98% literacy rate and no mass cheating and killings at schools. No schools in the US are doing that well now in those areas.Ed1wolf said: ↑
So what? People are people. What is your point? Having slavery doesn't affect good educational principles, they are valid whether the students are segregated or integrated.
ken: You act as if people back then were better than we are now. I'm just pointing out that they weren't.
Just like reasoning to God's existence, those discoveries were made just knowing the effects caused by them without being able to empirically observe the causes but coming to the right conclusion about the cause only by reasoning.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Black holes, dark matter, eclipses, and many other things.
ken: Those are not the result of a leap of logic, there was evidence that lead to those things.
I can't believe you would make such an absurd claim. Go back to the post when you asked that question and you will see not only did I answer your question, but I did so in detail; giving examples.
So..... Why does Ken believe one book is true, and the other false? That's the question that needs to be answered.
Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around. IOW your argument fails.
You have yet to prove we are subjective beings, and you have yet to prove we lack the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity. That’s where you need to start.
You said I would say christians are wrong to believe what the Bible says without explaining WHY the bible is wrong. First of all, I don’t go around telling religious people not to believe in God; (I’ve seen some people so messed up they need a religion to keep them in line) I tell them why I don’t believe in God; and I gave examples remember?)What “absurd claim” did I make?
(Ken)So..... Why does Ken believe one book is true, and the other false? That's the question that needs to be answered.
No straw man, I’m just exposing the absurdity of your example. You said I read a book and call it real, then another person reads a book he calls real and I call it false; and you act as if I have no justification to call his book false. You need to look into why I called the other book false.(your reply)This is a clear attempt at a straw man by you; you are changing the topic.
(Ken) Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around. IOW your argument fails.
No I’ve never said it is wrong to try to convince others what to believe. Care to try again?(your reply)Sadly, here too, is yet another contradiction in your position. It seems that it is totally lost on you that you are attempting to impose your values on others. Aren’t you in fact trying to convince others that it is wrong to convince others what to believe? The answer is a clear and unambiguous yes.
No, On post #1962 you said:Apart from the fact that I have proven that we are subjective beings and that I have proven that we cannot differentiate between objectivity.
I responded to that point on post #1958. Now return the favor and answer mine.(You utterly failed to address my “chemical reactions” point.
No, function is whether it fulfills its purpose. If an eye is blind, it's purpose is still to see, but it is not functioning, ie fulfilling its purpose.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, legs are for walking, and etc.
dgw: Those are functions.
To make them "purposes" you have to have an intending-consciousness, which for now at least, is entirely a matter of faith.
Function is what a thing does.No, function is whether it fulfills its purpose. If an eye is blind, it's purpose is still to see, but it is not functioning, ie fulfilling its purpose.
You said I would say christians are wrong to believe what the Bible says without explaining WHY the bible is wrong. First of all, I don’t go around telling religious people not to believe in God; (I’ve seen some people so messed up they need a religion to keep them in line) I tell them why I don’t believe in God; and I gave examples remember?
No straw man, I’m just exposing the absurdity of your example. You said I read a book and call it real, then another person reads a book he calls real and I call it false; and you act as if I have no justification to call his book false. You need to look into why I called the other book false.
No I’ve never said it is wrong to try to convince others what to believe. Care to try again?
No, On post #1962 you said:
This is a very fair question and I promise that we can go into this, but doesn’t it make sense to complete the first order of the debate before moving onto this? Again, I will absolutely debate this with you.
those were your exact words. Needless to say you never answered my question, now you are claiming you actually answered them. Priceless!!!
I responded to that point on post #1958. Now return the favor and answer mine.
There are other things God cant do that are not logical contradictions, at least that we know of. Such as He can't remove the consequences of sin, ie death. Either you are going to die physically and spiritually or your substitute (Christ) will. And apparently He cannot make another type of universe that is primarily natural law with free will beings existing within it than the one He has.Because it doesn't contain a logical contradiction. You can say that it's something that God wouldn't do, but not something He can't do.
I belong to a reformed denomination. I dont know exactly what they are saying, I haven't had time to go the theology forums to see. But God did not create us to be cursed. He created us to glorify Him and enjoy His presence forever. But we rebelled against Him and then became cursed because of the consequences of our sin. But He provided a way out, thru the gift of His son who will be cursed in our place if we let Him. It sounds like whoever these people are, they are somewhat biblically illiterate.How do you justify the views of some of the christians here, especially those who are of the radical reformed denominations? Their views are the most despicable, irrational, and lunatic views i've ever seen.
I just don't get how dense you can be to think that a God who created us to be cursed and to worship him or die is somehow a loving/righteous God who is evident in morality? It makes no sense. and whenever you show how irrational that is they just go "well, we are finite in minds" or "well, you just don't know christ that's why".
Just because my conclusions and interpretation of the scientific data differ from the Establishment conclusions and interpretation of the data, does not mean that my view is unscientific. Many times in the history of science, the majority view has turned out to be wrong.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Abductive reasoning is "inference to the best explanation for an observation." That is exactly what I did. I observe an effect, ie the universe, and I reason to the existence of the Christian God as the simplest and best explanation for all the characteristics of the universe.
ken: That's find and dandy and all, but let's not pretend that your reasoning has anything to do with science.
Yes, it does, if the claim that humans are not evolving any more is a way to avoid the falsification of evolution, then it has a great deal to do with it and that is what we were talking about when you came up with that rationalization of the facts.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, my point was that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable and you confirmed it by coming up with another explanation to keep it unfalsified. Which is what all hardcore evolutionists do every time some evidence comes up that does not fit the theory.
ken: Just because humans are no longer evolving does not mean evolution is unfalsifiable. One has nothing to do with the other.
(You)
You write “You said I would say christians are wrong to believe what the Bible says without explaining WHY the bible is wrong,” but this is:
1 Irrelevant.
1 It is irrelevant because the topic is whether or not you are
proselytize or not.
(Ken)
As I said before, I do not.
(You)
The quality of the proselytizing is irrelevant
* To the atheist this should be even more so. If an atheist is convinced that there is no God, then why would they care if a Christian, or anyone else, proselytizes?
(Ken)
As I said before, I do not.
(you)
*You are either confused or obfuscating.
*“Why” is irrelevant to whether or not you perform the same action you criticize others for.
(Ken)
But in the context of the point you made, it was revenant.
(You)
Refuting your original point.
*You seem to miss that you are moralizing when you attempt to justify the reasons that you perform the action that you criticize others for. (Justifying is to show reasons why one is right)
(Ken)
I have not criticized anyone for doing anything I have done myself.
(You)
On what basis would (why) a Christian proselytizing be “wrong?”
(Ken)
I never said it was wrong to proselytize, that’s just some stuff you keep making up.
(You)
Your original point is that objective morality is unknowable, why then do you moralize?
(Ken)
No; my original point is that objective morality does not exist; morality is subjective.
(You)
*If you cannot demonstrate (your standard) that it is truly morally wrong to proselytize, then you’ve contradicted yourself, again.
(Ken)
No, I do not demonstrate it is morally wrong to proselytize because I don’t believe it is morally wrong to proselytize. Of course had you been listening to what I actually say rather than make assumptions about me, you would have known that by now.
(You)
*It is irrelevant as to whether or not what a person is proselytizing about is “truth” or not.
*Say, for the sake of the argument and even though you have not even come close to demonstrating this, the Bible was false. What makes that “wrong” to attempt to make others believe that it is true?
*You can only answer this by a moral statement that you expect others to believe and live by.
*“Explaining WHY the bible is wrong” is another attempt at obfuscation. Your “why” answers have been thoroughly refuted by your own statements. You have already admitted that you could be wrong. How, if you know that you could be wrong do you persist in the self-delusional notion that your possibly wrong answers refute any point?
*The answer is that your faith is strong and, like some Christians, you feel compelled to proselytize.
*What are the reasons that you choose to participate in a Christian debate forum?
*The answer is simple and it is not because you are here to enlighten yourself.
(Ken)
The above rant is another example of you going in the wrong direction, with false information and running with it. You seem to want to believe that because I am Atheist, I’m supposed to hate Christians, and hate it when they spread their beliefs. Sorry but I don’t; I know it’s their job and though I don’t agree with what they say, I defend their right to say it.
Oh yeah’ and BTW You have yet to answer my question; prove we are subjective beings, and you have yet to prove we lack the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity. I’m still waiting for you to respond to that.
I will respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time. In the mean time, try listening to what I actually SAY rather than what you wish I would say.
There are other things God cant do that are not logical contradictions, at least that we know of. Such as He can't remove the consequences of sin, ie death. Either you are going to die physically and spiritually or your substitute (Christ) will. And apparently He cannot make another type of universe that is primarily natural law with free will beings existing within it than the one He has.
I can't test your statement, so I would likely take your word for it.
(LOL) If you want to believe that, “knock yourself out” But don’t expect me to.Just because my conclusions and interpretation of the scientific data differ from the Establishment conclusions and interpretation of the data, does not mean that my view is unscientific. Many times in the history of science, the majority view has turned out to be wrong.
No; humans not evolving anymore is an observation; not some way to avoid falsification.Yes, it does, if the claim that humans are not evolving any more is a way to avoid the falsification of evolution, then it has a great deal to do with it and that is what we were talking about when you came up with that rationalization of the facts.
Personal experience is usually enough to cause me to believe; unless the experience convinces me I'm going crazy....Hello and thank you for all your replies.
Lets go further in my friend. Lets say you experience something that is individual and personal, something that is intangible. Something that many may experience but something that may not be material.
How do you verify this experience to yourself?
Cheers
No, but his thinking and reasoning is very logical. The existence of laws imply a lawgiver. And remember he is considered the most intelligent person who ever lived.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually it does, just like the universe contains natural laws so also there is evidence that the universe contains moral laws, therefore whatever created the universe was a law giver as Einstein said. So since you did not create the universe you could not create the natural and moral laws of the universe either.
ken: Einstein does not make up the rules.
Maybe, but your moral laws are not embedded in the universe like His which have real life consequences if ignored in both in people's physical life and their spiritual life. And millions DO listen to God's commands and try to obey them. Maybe a few besides you listen to your moral rules.ken: But face it; if your God is a moral law giver, then so am I. Nobody listens to me, nor do they listen to your God; so what’s the difference?
See my earlier post where I deal with this.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because much of it has been confirmed by archeology and also the ancient Hebrews like Moses believed in moral absolutes, such as the belief that not lying is a moral absolute and that God would punish them if they lied. Also, there was no such thing as fiction as we know it in the 14th century BC. The stories may be wrong but the writers did not intentionally write something wrong in ancient times, like novelists do today.
ken: Most Bible scholars agree Moses led somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million Israelites into the desert and they wondered around for 40 years. There isn’t a shred of archeological evidence that millions of people wondered around any desert for that amount of time that many years ago; they left no trail. Archeological evidence works against the Bible not for it.
If the Christian God exists then there is an objective moral standard, God's moral character which exists outside human minds thereby existing objectively. I am glad you agree that your moral standard is based on the same thing as Hitler's. So why do you condemn him? He was just making decisions based on his feelings like you. He should not be condemned just because his feelings are different from yours.Ed1wolf said: ↑
You cant say that, you can only say that you FEEL like what they did was wrong. Your morality is only based on feelings not objective standards. Just like Adolf Hitler's morality was based on his feelings about what is right and wrong.
ken: Yes. When I say something is wrong, I am speaking about how I feel about the issue which his based on my subjective moral standard. There is no such a thing as an objective moral standard.
No, God's moral standard exists outside human minds so it objectively exists just like animal instincts exist outside human minds so they objectively exist.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course, you are free to do that because objective Christian morality commands me to allow freedom of conscience. But you cannot rationally say that something is actually wrong, you can only say that you feel it is wrong, but you have no REAL basis for making that judgement since you dont have an objective basis.
ken: You do the same thing, you just erroneously claim what you feel as wrong to be God's objective moral standard. At most it would be God's subjective moral standard.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?