International creationism

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
And yet it still did not pertain to loins post...

Come on, Jon, you have to realize that it is insulting to answer a post with a non-sequiteur, and then end with 'if you don't get this you are an idiot'.

I don't see a non-sequiteur in my post

I will admit however that I should have known better, I have had years of people having trouble following my thinking (I tend to be quick and fairly jumpy and this makes me hard to follow)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Damn, I'm getting slow... Should always hit 'reload' before typing a reply, shouldn;t I?

did any of my posts make my ealier post clearer?

or do I need to post again

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you said "**** you too." first, which was the first attack

It was an attack if yours was an attack, hence the reason it was "**** you too" -- I treated your post on a point-by-point basis, responding reasonably where you were reasonable and responding harshly where you'd appeared to be using an ad hominem. I was making it clear that your post at the very least could be interpreted to be quite offensive, and yet you neither retracted nor clarified it, but instead seemed to be attempting to justify it by saying that I was unreasonable. You also said that you'd intentionally used strong words or strong language or something along those lines, which further pointed to the conclusion that you had intended the statement as an ad hominem. You didn't question my literacy until several posts later, so there was no possible way for me to know that your insult was directed at my "**** you too" post.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Damn, I'm getting slow... Should always hit 'reload' before typing a reply, shouldn;t I?

I'll usually quote the post to which I'm replying, and then edit my post and erase the quote if nobody's posted in the meantime.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


It was an attack if yours was an attack, hence the reason it was "**** you too" -- I treated your post on a point-by-point basis, responding reasonably where you were reasonable and responding harshly where you'd appeared to be using an ad hominem. I was making it clear that your post at the very least could be interpreted to be quite offensive, and yet you neither retracted nor clarified it, but instead seemed to be attempting to justify it by saying that I was unreasonable. You also said that you'd intentionally used strong words or strong language or something along those lines, which further pointed to the conclusion that you had intended the statement as an ad hominem. You didn't question my literacy until several posts later, so there was no possible way for me to know that your insult was directed at my "**** you too" post.

I said strong statement

(basically I said I am right that communication may be interpreted different ways, I did not back up my statement by an argument)

I still do not see how my post could be interpreted as an attack (you interpreting it that way is why I called you unreasonable)

I always use and have seen **** you too used as an attack, not a attack only if my statement was an attack

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

the whole recent part of this thread can be seen as an arguement for my original statement relating to Loinburger's psot

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

I'll usually quote the post to which I'm replying, and then edit my post and erase the quote if nobody's posted in the meantime.

Huh, I do it the opposite way... I usually quote what I'm replying to, unless I'm replying to the last post of the thread, in which case I use the 'quick reply' window.

Can't stand the endless loading of new windows '

[CyberGnu]

Jon, if I understood Loins original post (and I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth here, Loin), he made the case that assuming some parts of the bible to be infalliable while treating other parts as interpretations is a logical inconsistency.

If someone is going to make the case that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts Genesis, to be logically consistent that person must also insist that pi ==3. (Which comes from the OT somewhere, where a fountain is dug 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around.)

Now, whether Genesis is an interpretation of the word of God or just plain wrong doesn;t matter. The point is the logical inconsistency, and this is why your answer was a non sequiteur. You see?

[Jon Miller]

I still don't think that my answer was a nonsequiter

my point is that communication is always interpreted

and so while the Bible is infallable

our interpretations of it are not

anything that is communicated, is interpreted by those who 'observe' the communication

therefore I was saying (and am still saying), that infallability and interpretation is a false dichotomy

so there is no logical inconsistency

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Rather odd for you to choose that one given that science suggests that paradox occurs.

If you don't like that one, you can substitute it with a figure that is both a circle and a square at the same time.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

If you don't like contradictions, how about some dilemmas? Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy that he can't lift?

"Logic dictates 1 != 2, but if God is omnipotent surely he can make 1=2. By doing so He would defy the laws of nature and make the whole universe a rather strange place. Just because it is a strange place does not mean it cannot be made a 'real' place.

You are speaking of notations, not states. The numeral "1" represent a quantity of unity, and the numeral "2" represnt a quantity of twice that. If you want to redefine the numeral "2" to represent also the quantity of unity, fine. If you are asserting an omnipotent being can make something that can be itself and twice itself in terms of quantity at the same time, I like to see the proof, or at least evidence, of that.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
All He need to do is change change the basics of logic. Presumably an omnipotent God can just change the laws of logic to make the dilema go away."

Okay, present this altered state of logic, and we will see if we can make some contradictions out of it.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I don't buy the argument fully, but it is an interesting exit clause. It continues along the lines of asking how and if the laws of nature can change.

Sure, the laws of nature can change, but any changes still involve consistency. You are not going to say this law might change some time and not others without being (a) arbitrary and (b) inconsistent.

[Capt Dizle]

I think that God wants our love.

Because of his nature if he fully revealed himself to us, we could not avoid loving him.

So, he gives us enough to come to him (as a child) freely.

I get a little concerned about the whole damnation to hell business. I don't want anyone to be damned. I would even pardon Hilter from that (after some suitable punishment). So, I hold out hope that the whole concept of hell is a little beyond our understanding.

Anyway, to try to get close to back on topic, none of this scientific stuff means anything to faith based belief. If God proved himself to us we might as well be trees or rocks.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I still don't think that my answer was a nonsequiter

my point is that communication is always interpreted

and so while the Bible is infallable

our interpretations of it are not

Be that as it might, an omniscient being will be able to foresee this and write in no uncertain terms.

Speaking of which, while most people hold "Thou shalt not kill" means just that, some still argue that it means "Thou shalt not murder."

Which goes to show that some people can find interpretation where none exists.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
anything that is communicated, is interpreted by those who 'observe' the communication

therefore I was saying (and am still saying), that infallability and interpretation is a false dichotomy

It is not. Suppose that the bible is infallible. It must be taken in the context of this interpretation stuff. So, when you said the bible is infallible, it had to meant the bible is infallible when interpreted.

Otherwise, saying it is infallible is absolutely meaningless.

[AnnC]

In Christian theology, hell is eternal separation from God. To a true believer, that concept is perfectly understandable.

[Urban Ranger]

The question is, which denomination?

[Rogan Josh]

Well, I have an evening off and look what happens. This thread really got away from me....

I have a number of points (if I can get past all the childish name-calling).

I don't believe the bible (ie. the book in Hotel rooms' bedside table) is infallible. I believe the word of God is infallible, but I have no gaurantee that the particular book I may be looking at is the word of God. If I were to make a translation of the original text which deliberately had flaws in it, then it is obviously not infallible - but I could still call it a bible. So every book you see named 'The Bible' is not necessarily 100% correct.

Scientific method is not infallible. It involves making initial assumptions about how things work. For example, one must assume that the laws of nature are do not change over time and space - ie. the are the same everywhere. Also, there is nothing outside of these laws. They were not created but just are, so all objects must obey these laws.

In other words, science makes the initial assumption that there is no God. (Or to be more correct - science assumes that there is no force (God or whatever) which does change these laws.) Therefore one cannot disprove God using science.

Now this is a perfectly acceptable approach that science takes - even for a Christian. If God (or such a physics manipulating force) does exist and moves the goal posts on us then there is no way that we can make predictions about the world around us. If I were to drop a ball it usually falls down, but next time it might fall up. So to make science useful we have to make this assumption. Fortunately, from observation we see that there is no interference of such an entity in our every day lives, so we can use science. We can deduce the physical laws and use them to predict things that will happen in certain circumstances.

But it could very well happen that tomorrow God (or some other nonpredictive phenomena) does change things, so we shouldn't rule it out. Indeed, it is the mark of a good scientist to keep in mind the assumptions which he has made (though not to be unduly constrained by them).

BTW the same assumption is made (implicity) in the axioms of any logical system.

Did you notice that the two physicists on this thread (myself and Jon) are the ones who are arguing for the existence of God? Don't you think that might be telling you something?


As for UR's 'proof' that God doesn't exist, I will need to see it before I can point out the error.