What should Christian apologists say?

[katerinah1947]

OK, understood.
That would be an issue for elsewhere, then.
Too long and too off-topic for here.

Hi,

Are you saying that you actually understood?

You actually understood the science behind the work?

Are you saying, that you understand, but are unwilling to do that much work?

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi,

My work, that resulted in finding out that The Bible is Real is not at issue here.

If you want to make it an issue, you'll have to stay in science, as that was were the work was carried out.

The rough method used was.

1.) Attempt to find a provable error, in the Bible.

If it's man made there should be one.

And, if you find a provable error, that stands up in science and in peer review with the religious folks, you are done.

Alternately, If someone else has done that, you are done.

If that fails, run a series of controlled experiments, to see if they show you anything.

If that fails, quit.

LOVE,

A provable error: oh, let me count the ways: insects as identical to birds in taxonomy, Pi limited to 3, hares chewing their cud, the proposed existence of unicorns...

 

[Chris B]

Hi,

Are you saying that you actually understood?

You actually understood the science behind the work?

Are you saying, that you understand, but are unwilling to do that much work?

LOVE,

No, I'm saying my work came to a different conclusion.
(I'd suspect due to a different hermenutic framework being brought to the study.)

 

[katerinah1947]

No, I'm saying my work came to a different conclusion.
(I'd suspect due to a different hermenutic framework being brought to the study.)

A provable error: oh, let me count the ways: insects as identical to birds in taxonomy, Pi limited to 3, hares chewing their cud, the proposed existence of unicorns...

Hi,

So, you have proven that to yourself?

You have submitted that proof to your scientific peers?

And, they agree with you that your findings are correct?

So since your proof stood up, then you have proved that the Bible is false?

Thus, you are now famous?

No one has proved that book false yet, in science.

I have looked.

Have you sent your work out for peer review yet?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

No, I'm saying my work came to a different conclusion.
(I'd suspect due to a different hermenutic framework being brought to the study.)

Hi,

So what does 'I understood' mean then on the subject of the steps used to prove the Bible is Real scientifically?

Does that mean, no you don't understand that work?

What method did you use, to prove the Bible is false to yourself, thus causing yourself to honestly leave God, as presented in The Christian Faith?

Which line of Apologetics did you employ?

LOVE,

 

[Chris B]

Hi,

So, you have proven that to yourself?

You have submitted that proof to your scientific peers?

And, they agree with you that your findings are correct?

So since your proof stood up, then you have proved that the Bible is false?

Thus, you are now famous?

No one has proved that book false yet, in science.

I have looked.

Have you sent your work out for peer review yet?

LOVE,

I refer you to post #115.

 

[katerinah1947]

There is an interesting article that was written three days ago that you might enjoy:

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors​

Hi,

I have read the highlights of that article.

8. Beauty

All scientists see that.

It seems that article is 100%, correct.

In fact, the word honesty as used there, is not only a predictor, if there was one, of scientific accuracy, it is tha main tool that caused me to solve problems in science that others could not solve.

Even Richard Feynman is filled with that personal honesty. And, he is not a Christian per se.

When, I was as honest as I could be then with God in seventh grade, I hoped that I would not be punished for telling Him the truth.

It turns out, that instead of burning me to a crisp, sending me to hell, all which He could have done, for the question put to me back then, instead He showed me how to prove That God Is Real.

That work is in my posts here many times. It is straight cookie-cutter science.

I refused to believe in God, without proof, and it turns out, I actually told that to God, The Holy Spirit. At least that is Who I think was talking to back then, and in January of 2006 and again in Late January or early February of 2006.

And it seems the needed tool to find God, is just honesty at the highest levels we can achieve as humans.

I love that article.

Thank-you,

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi,

So, you have proven that to yourself?

You have submitted that proof to your scientific peers?

And, they agree with you that your findings are correct?

So since your proof stood up, then you have proved that the Bible is false?

Thus, you are now famous?

No one has proved that book false yet, in science.

I have looked.

Have you sent your work out for peer review yet?

LOVE,

No need to peer review a book that was never considered a science textbook until about 50~ years ago by fundamentalists like yourself. It's like we don't take Alice in Wonderland as descriptive of some other world because it's demonstrably not true. The Bible doesn't purport to speak scientifically, because the very concept of science was as foreign to them as indoor plumbing

 

[katerinah1947]

I refer you to post #115.

Hi,

I did not understand that post of yours.

LOVE,

 

[cloudyday2]

Possibly because these can be found with the conclusion being the discovery of ... almost any religion or position of faith.
It is rather special pleading to be struck by the personal stories of one religion but dismissive of those of another.
Unless one knows in advance which one is true, the others being of the Devil or at least of human folly.
But if that is already known then whatever the testimonies may be they cannot be *convincing*, because that issue needs to have already been settled.

Unless we hypothesize that each religion is based on an incomplete understanding of God. Moses only claimed to see God's back side.

 

[zippy2006]

Hi,

I have read the highlights of that article.

8. Beauty

All scientists see that.

It seems that article is 100%, correct.

In fact, the word honesty as used there, is not only a predictor, if there was one, of scientific accuracy, it is tha main tool that caused me to solve problems in science that others could not solve.

Even Richard Feynman is filled with that personal honesty. And, he is not a Christian per se.

When, I was as honest as I could be then with God in seventh grade, I hoped that I would not be punished for telling Him the truth.

It turns out, that instead of burning me to a crisp, sending me to hell, all which He could have done, for the question put to be back then, instead He showed me how to prove That God Is Real.

That work is in my posts here many times. It is straight cookie-cutter science.

I refused to believe in God, without proof, and it turns out, I actually told that to God, The Holy Spirit. At least that is Who I think was talking to he then, and in January of 2006 and again in Late January or early February of 2006.

And it seems the needed tool to find God, is just honesty at the highest levels we can achieve as humans.

I love that article.

Thank-you,

LOVE,

I agree completely, especially when you say, "And it seems the needed tool to find God, is just honesty at the highest levels we can achieve as humans." Thanks for the response, it is filled with beauty.

 

[cloudyday2]

There is an interesting article that was written three days ago that you might enjoy:

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors​

Thanks, I read the link. To be honest, I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I don't agree with any of the reasoning that those former atheists found so persuasive. This doesn't mean that their reasoning was necessarily bad though. It is hard for me to follow some of the philosophical arguments, and I always suspect there was a hidden error somewhere in the reasoning so the arguments don't persuade me. Those might be very good arguments if I could understand them.

 

[katerinah1947]

No need to peer review a book that was never considered a science textbook until about 50~ years ago by fundamentalists like yourself. It's like we don't take Alice in Wonderland as descriptive of some other world because it's demonstrably not true. The Bible doesn't purport to speak scientifically, because the very concept of science was as foreign to them as indoor plumbing

Hi,

Oh yes there is need for peer review.

And your jumping to conclusions, would invalidate you to them.

You are no scientist, correct?

If you are no scientist, and do not have at least a scientific mind, or way of doing things, you are incompetent to talk about the results of science, and your interpretations of science, will all be similarly flawed.

If you still want to pose, as an authority in some area of science, then you will be expected to understand what scientists do.

Your lack of understanding, the steps I used, which are taught by all scientists as one accurate way to do the work I did, shows clearly that you are not a scientist.

As an example of what scientists do, off their projects, a new and particularly perfect scientist had been working for us, and I wanted to know how he did something. He writes equations seemingly out of his imagination, but they all work.

So I asked him: "Ariel! You write equations that actually work. I see you do this. How do you do that?"

He responds: "You take a guess and try and prove it wrong."

And it turns out without all the details, such as study, observation, calibrations, and taking another guess if your first guess was wrong, that is precisely how all Equations Are written, and it is also how, all scientific knowledge is derived experimentally. Experimental things happen, before equations, experiments happen to test an observation.

This stuff is not intellectually great, nor does it require a high I Q.

It requires hard work, boring painful hard work.

And it requires honesty.

Honesty is enforced in science. So, is hard work.

LOVE,

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks, I read the link. To be honest, I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I don't agree with any of the reasoning that those former atheists found so persuasive. This doesn't mean that their reasoning was necessarily bad though. It is hard for me to follow some of the philosophical arguments, and I always suspect there was a hidden error somewhere in the reasoning so the arguments don't persuade me. Those might be very good arguments if I could understand them.

What strikes me is that the majority of the points were not syllogistic arguments at all. For example, "Good Literature and Reasonable Writing." So when you say, "I don't agree with that reasoning," I am left wondering whether you have experienced good (Christian) literature and reasonable writing and have found it unpersuasive, or whether you simply haven't experienced such literature and reasonable writing. Since good literature and reasonable writing are persuasive by definition, I assume it's the latter.

Lewis' quote from Surprised by Joy is instructive:

"In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for… A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."​

So is Edward Feser's:

"When I was an undergrad I came across the saying that learning a little philosophy leads you away from God, but learning a lot of philosophy leads you back. As a young man who had learned a little philosophy, I scoffed. But in later years and at least in my own case, I would come to see that it’s true."​

What is the commonality? God is found when one's guard is let down. When one is receptive and open they are susceptible to truth, to God. Encounter with God and conversion are almost always unexpected, and this is part of the reason why. One cannot be influenced unless they open themselves up to something, and the atheist will only open themselves up as they mature, and often only when they believe it to be safe, when they believe it to be free of God's hand.

This is why apologetics, especially in a place like CF, is generally so unsuccessful. The atheists coming here are often immature, they are often looking for a fight. They are in a combative mindset and often in an offensive stance. They have some chip on their shoulder that involves religion, and their primary aim is not openness to truth but rather combat with the religious. Or, at the very least, theirs is a "Convince me!" mindset rather than a neutral, vulnerable search for truth. Inevitably the Christians respond in kind, adopting a posture that is similarly unfocused on truth as primary, and open inquirers are liable to meet a hostile environment on either side of the fence. CF is better than many forums, but the basic model holds here as well.

For these reasons I think limiting oneself to syllogistic arguments in an apologetic environment ignores the most fertile soil of conversion.

 

[katerinah1947]

Thanks, I read the link. To be honest, I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I don't agree with any of the reasoning that those former atheists found so persuasive. This doesn't mean that their reasoning was necessarily bad though. It is hard for me to follow some of the philosophical arguments, and I always suspect there was a hidden error somewhere in the reasoning so the arguments don't persuade me. Those might be very good arguments if I could understand them.

Hi,

It looks like the reference point for that article, was from someone who Believes in God on a Faith plus God proving to that person, that He is Real somehow or another.

As a result, that is from someone who is A 'gnostic theist' really.

That is not an article, perhaps to convince or show.

Many of the things in there, after I was Treated to God, I understand looking back.

And, Philosophy although used by some to do what you would call: 'Find God', it was not used by me, nor by most people that I know of.

Actually, there is no one method historically, that is used to "Find God"

And "Find God" is actually just a perception. It is what some people think they did.

"Find God" is really the Way, in which God, had you learn about Him, as God calls us to Him, not the reverse.

All humans resist God's telling us to look for Him.

Honesty though, will cause a person to look for God, I think.

For instance, if your honesty is high enough, then you will not find any plausible explanation for God not existing to be true, while.

While at the same time finding no plausible explanation for The Existence Of God to be true either.

You are in the middle. Honesty, a high degree of it, forces you to stay there, as long as, both of those conditions are still true.

If you are looking for the concept of God, to be proven to you one way or another, and by your own efforts if possible, then we, who do know God exists, know you are being called, by God, to find Him.

You will normally not be aware of that.

If you are to "Find God", the Way God has you do that, is The Way, that He determines.

It seems God interfaces with each person the way they actually are, and not the way anyone else is.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

What strikes me is that the majority of the points were not syllogistic arguments at all. For example, "Good Literature and Reasonable Writing." So when you say, "I don't agree with that reasoning," I am left wondering whether you have experienced good (Christian) literature and reasonable writing and have found it unpersuasive, or whether you simply haven't experienced such literature and reasonable writing. Since good literature and reasonable writing are persuasive by definition, I assume it's the latter.

Lewis' quote from Surprised by Joy is instructive:

"In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for… A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."​

So is Edward Feser's:

"When I was an undergrad I came across the saying that learning a little philosophy leads you away from God, but learning a lot of philosophy leads you back. As a young man who had learned a little philosophy, I scoffed. But in later years and at least in my own case, I would come to see that it’s true."​

What is the commonality? God is found when one's guard is let down. When one is receptive and open they are susceptible to truth, to God. Encounter with God and conversion are almost always unexpected, and this is part of the reason why. One cannot be influenced unless they open themselves up to something, and the atheist will only open themselves up as they mature, and often only when they believe it to be safe, when they believe it to be free of God's hand.

This is why apologetics, especially in a place like CF, is generally so unsuccessful. The atheists coming here are often immature, they are often looking for a fight. They are in a combative mindset and often in an offensive stance. They have some chip on their shoulder that involves religion, and their primary aim is not openness to truth but rather combat with the religious. Or, at the very least, theirs is a "Convince me!" mindset rather than a neutral, vulnerable search for truth. Inevitably the Christians respond in kind, adopting a posture that is similarly unfocused on truth as primary, and open inquirers are liable to meet a hostile environment on either side of the fence. CF is better than many forums, but the basic model holds here as well.

For these reasons I think limiting oneself to syllogistic arguments in an apologetic environment ignores the most fertile soil of conversion.

Hi,

Dear.

In the way that I am, it is only a researcher.,

Thus without thinking, that is perhaps the only way I have ever been. Meaning that is how God Designed, Created and Made me, from your perspective.

Once, before having that proof for The Bible, hence the proof for God, a research scientist was very anti-God to the point that he became agitated in normal social situations, when we other scientists would bring that subject up., So, we all learned to not discuss The Theory of God, when he was around.

However, his position was so strong, and every person is calibrated for accuracy in science, that he scared me, and I thought maybe I might have to check all of his work for errors.,

I could no longer be certain of his scientific accuracy anymore.

Why?

Without proof, none of us even in social situations with other science types are allowed to talk about items as existing, if we do not personally have the proof for that. (Experiments and data called results, which prove what we say is true actually is true.)

So, I went to find out. "Can you actually say there is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responsible for all of this?"

No. He responds. "Then what gives?" My mother he says. She is horrible. She is Catholic.

Great. I walked out of there, that perfect scientist in every way, just has been viciously hurt by his mother, and he therefore hates religion and God.,

About ten years later, I had enough others of the strong Atheist types (the commonly used definition, not the technical esoteric definition), to find what you have said about normal atheists, being upset by religion from an injury done to them or others by a person in a religion, or by that type of religion as totally true, and the issue has never been about God so far.

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi,

Oh yes there is need for peer review.

And your jumping to conclusions, would invalidate you to them.

You are no scientist, correct?

If you are no scientist, and do not have at least a scientific mind, or way of doing things, you are incompetent to talk about the results of science, and your interpretations of science, will all be similarly flawed.

If you still want to pose, as an authority in some area of science, then you will be expected to understand what scientists do.

Your lack of understanding, the steps I used, which are taught by all scientists as one accurate way to do the work I did, shows clearly that you are not a scientist.

As an example of what scientists do, off their projects, a new and particularly perfect scientist had been working for us, and I wanted to know how he did something. He writes equations seemingly out of his imagination, but they all work.

So I asked him: "Ariel! You write equations that actually work. I see you do this. How do you do that?"

He responds: "You take a guess and try and prove it wrong."

And it turns out without all the details, such as study, observation, calibrations, and taking another guess if your first guess was wrong, that is precisely how all Equations Are written, and it is also how, all scientific knowledge is derived experimentally. Experimental things happen, before equations, experiments happen to test an observation.

This stuff is not intellectually great, nor does it require a high I Q.

It requires hard work, boring painful hard work.

And it requires honesty.

Honesty is enforced in science. So, is hard work.

LOVE,

Pretty sure scientists don't use the scientific method to test things that are purportedly transcendental in nature: everything has to be immanent in science or the evidence is specious at best. You're invoking special pleading and goalpost shifting at every turn here and expecting people to just not catch it in the verbiage you spew.

Basic process is hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. You analyze the results of the experiment, which is founded on a hypothesis that uses a singular control (which you aren't doing when you invoke multiple factors, but are trying to generate a new paradigm or model entirely). Your notion of evidence is the most questionable thing here because it's making correlations of particular "experiments" you do and concluding that must be a causative link, when that doesn't follow by necessity. The entity you posit is, I imagine, still outside of space and time, so any attempts to study it are fruitless, because there's no way to verify it exists in a way that could directly connect to it and not some other incomprehensible magical concept.

I never said I was a scientist, but I'm not someone swayed by pretentious pedagogues who want to tell everything what to think instead of how to think in a critical and rational manner, neither of which you're doing except to rationalize your cognitive dissonance.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi,

Dear.

In the way that I am, it is only a researcher.,

Thus without thinking, that is perhaps the only way I have ever been. Meaning that is how God Designed, Created and Made me, from your perspective.

Once, before having that proof for The Bible, hence the proof for God, a research scientist was very anti-God to the point that he became agitated in normal social situations, when we other scientists would bring that subject up., So, we all learned to not discuss The Theory of God, when he was around.

However, his position was so strong, and every person is calibrated for accuracy in science, that he scared me, and I thought maybe I might have to check all of his work for errors.,

I could no longer be certain of his scientific accuracy anymore.

Why?

Without proof, none of us even in social situations with other science types are allowed to talk about items as existing, if we do not personally have the proof for that. (Experiments and data called results, which prove what we say is true actually is true.)

So, I went to find out. "Can you actually say there is no possibility that a God exists out there that is responsible for all of this?"

No. He responds. "Then what gives?" My mother he says. She is horrible. She is Catholic.

Great. I walked out of there, that perfect scientist in every way, just has been viciously hurt by his mother, and he therefore hates religion and God.,

About ten years later, I had enough others of the strong Atheist types (the commonly used definition, not the technical esoteric definition), to find what you have said about normal atheists, being upset by religion from an injury done to them or others by a person in a religion, or by that type of religion as totally true, and the issue has never been about God so far.

LOVE,

Generalizations based on little more than an excuse not to investigate further: what a surprise. Atheists are more complicated than the petty strawman you've created of them from one or two limited experiences.

 

[katerinah1947]

Pretty sure scientists don't use the scientific method to test things that are purportedly transcendental in nature: everything has to be immanent in science or the evidence is specious at best. You're invoking special pleading and goalpost shifting at every turn here and expecting people to just not catch it in the verbiage you spew.

Basic process is hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. You analyze the results of the experiment, which is founded on a hypothesis that uses a singular control (which you aren't doing when you invoke multiple factors, but are trying to generate a new paradigm or model entirely). Your notion of evidence is the most questionable thing here because it's making correlations of particular "experiments" you do and concluding that must be a causative link, when that doesn't follow by necessity. The entity you posit is, I imagine, still outside of space and time, so any attempts to study it are fruitless, because there's no way to verify it exists in a way that could directly connect to it and not some other incomprehensible magical concept.

I never said I was a scientist, but I'm not someone swayed by pretentious pedagogues who want to tell everything what to think instead of how to think in a critical and rational manner, neither of which you're doing except to rationalize your cognitive dissonance.

You are wrong in your "pretty sure" starrnent. You are wrong.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Generalizations based on little more than an excuse not to investigate further: what a surprise. Atheists are more complicated than the petty strawman you've created of them from one or two limited experiences.

Hi,

That was a research experiment. It is something that you know nothing about.

You are incompetent in that field.

Your statements about scientific research, are all wrong so far.

LOVE,