International creationism

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.



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.

ha ha ha

you can't seriously mean that can you?

I can think (And there are people who have thought stuff of this level) that the Bible tells me that red-green monsters will some day roam the earth

did you miss my point? infallibility can not be an interpretation because we are involved an interpretation and we are fallable

assuming that standard Chirstian theology was correct, Jesus was infallible right? and in the Bible it describes him being completely misunderstood, right? it is because the people chose to misunderstand

so can you or I, misunderstand the Bible (in fact, since we can freely interpret it, I am sure that we both misinterpret the Bible)

if God forced us to all interpret the Bible one way, there would be no power of choice right? we would all understand and follow Him

He gives us our free will, and with our free will comes the ability to make interpretations of what we observe (including the Bible)

therefore the notion that infallibility means that we must interpret it the right way is ludicrous

using oyur definition of infallibility (that we all must interpret the Bible the same) of course it is not infallible, since obviously we do not interpret it all the same

please, if you wish to discuss important questions, be serious

you waste mine and everyone else's time

do you fail to see interpretation as an integral part of free will?

I am wondering what your hang up is and why you get such stupid notions as your notion of infallibility

this is in fact a problem I see with a lot of atheists, they definie god to not be true, and then they take great pleasure in saying he is not true

it is just foolish, it is like saying, "look, what I have defined as false is false, that means that what you are talking about (which is different), must also be false because I called what I defnined as false the same thing"

please don't waste any more of mine or others time, if you can't be serious, don't discuss

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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)

What strong statement were you referring to, then, when you said that you were making a strong statement because I was unreasonable?

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

"**** you too" is an attack responding to an attack, otherwise the too is out of place and the statement must be revised to "**** you." [Jon Miller Mode]You must be brain-dead if you can't understand this.[/Jon Miller Mode]

please, if you wish to discuss important questions, be serious

you waste mine and everyone else's time
...
I am wondering what your hang up is and why you get such stupid notions as your notion of infallibility

this is in fact a problem I see with a lot of atheists, they definie god to not be true, and then they take great pleasure in saying he is not true

And not too surprisingly, you again resort to hurling insults around. If you're interested in debating, then by all means give it a try. If you're only interested in hurling insults, then grow up.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
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?

I've never claimed that there isn't a God or that there can't be a God or whatever. All I've claimed is that somebody must either assume that God does not directly manipulate the world (i.e. assume that evolution, heliocentrism, oblate earth, etc. are correct until tangible evidence suggests otherwise), or that they must assume that all physical laws/theories/hypotheses are bunkus (since there's absolutely no way to tell how God is going to manipulate the system next). Somebody can do one or the other, but if they do both then they're behaving inconsistently.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
therefore I was saying (and am still saying), that infallability and interpretation is a false dichotomy

so there is no logical inconsistency

If we can (and must) interpret the Bible in order to glean meaning from it, then our interpretations of the Bible are fallible (since we're fallible), and as such we cannot treat the Bible as an infallible source of Truth. Even if the Bible is infallible, as you say, it doesn't matter since we are not -- it is practically (though not spiritually) equivalent to claim that the Bible is fallible and to claim that our interpretations of the Bible are fallible, because either way we don't have the Truth.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


What strong statement were you referring to, then, when you said that you were making a strong statement because I was unreasonable?



"**** you too" is an attack responding to an attack, otherwise the too is out of place and the statement must be revised to "**** you." [Jon Miller Mode]You must be brain-dead if you can't understand this.[/Jon Miller Mode]



And not too surprisingly, you again resort to hurling insults around. If you're interested in debating, then by all means give it a try. If you're only interested in hurling insults, then grow up.

what I mean by strong statement is that I presented my statement without a clear argument backing it up like your original statement)

how did I insult him there?

there are obviously different interpretations of the Bible, he said that for the Bible to be infallible that only one interpretation of the Bible would exist

using that definition of infallible any discussion is meanless because you can just point out that oyu interpret it differently than I

so I told him that by using that definition he made all conversation with him about the infallibility of the Bible meaningless and so pointless for everyone else

boy do you like misinterpreting me

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger

If we can (and must) interpret the Bible in order to glean meaning from it, then our interpretations of the Bible are fallible (since we're fallible), and as such we cannot treat the Bible as an infallible source of Truth. Even if the Bible is infallible, as you say, it doesn't matter since we are not -- it is practically (though not spiritually) equivalent to claim that the Bible is fallible and to claim that our interpretations of the Bible are fallible, because either way we don't have the Truth.

we interpret everything we observe

that is a fundamental part of observing

any time that we use our brains, we are interpreting

any time we communicate we are interpreting

I see you now agree with me that there is no dichotomy between the infallibility of the Bible and the fact that we interpret it

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
boy do you like misinterpreting me

It would sure help me to stop "misinterpreting" your posts if you stopped going around saying that somebody's ideas were stupid or ludicrous or silly or whatever other kind of demeaning word you want to arbitrarily assign to somebody's argument. "Your ideas are incorrect because [insert reasoning here]" is what people use in debates, whereas you've been using "Your ideas are stupid, ha ha ha" which is more appropriate for a flame war.

I see you now agree with me that there is no dichotomy between the infallibility of the Bible and the fact that we interpret it

If we're not capable of infallibly interpreting the Bible, then it doesn't help us at all for the Bible to be infallible. It makes no sense to reject science (or whatever) in favor of the Bible when our interpretations of the Bible are so incredibly subjective, i.e. it makes no practical difference whether the Bible is fallible or infallible when our own prejudices and predilections cause our interpretations of it to be faulty.

If the Bible is infallible, then so what? How does that help us any more than a fallible Bible, if our interpretations are flawed regardless?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
I've never claimed that there isn't a God or that there can't be a God or whatever. All I've claimed is that somebody must either assume that God does not directly manipulate the world (i.e. assume that evolution, heliocentrism, oblate earth, etc. are correct until tangible evidence suggests otherwise), or that they must assume that all physical laws/theories/hypotheses are bunkus (since there's absolutely no way to tell how God is going to manipulate the system next). Somebody can do one or the other, but if they do both then they're behaving inconsistently.

That is almost what I was saying (or trying to say ) in my previous post, so I would agree. I would not put it quite so black and white though, because one could still allow manipulation of the universe in certain spheres of influence without throwing away the ability to use predictive science in another. Specifically I am thinking of the concept of free-will, which I would be very surprised to find was predictive.

Also, although you may never have claimed that there is no God or that there can't be a God, several other people on this thread have. I was not necessarily aiming my comments at you alone.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
That is almost what I was saying (or trying to say ) in my previous post, so I would agree. I would not put it quite so black and white though, because one could still allow manipulation of the universe in certain spheres of influence without throwing away the ability to use predictive science in another. Specifically I am thinking of the concept of free-will, which I would be very surprised to find was predictive.

I agree (with the bolded part). I'd say that there could still be a God in the gaps somewhere -- not the "God used to explain this phenomenon but now Science explains it, God is so inferior roflmao" God of the gaps with which we're more familiar, but a "Human knowledge cannot be perfect, so it is quite conceivable that there is a permanent gap in which God resides" God of the gaps. I don't consider it inconsistent for somebody to use God to explain a phenomenon that Science has not (perhaps cannot) explain (due to the second version of the God of the gaps), though I do not consider the existence of such phenomena to be proof of God (due in part to the first version of the God of the gaps).

Also, although you may never have claimed that there is no God or that there can't be a God, several other people on this thread have. I was not necessarily aiming my comments at you alone.

I realize that, I just wanted to clarify my position (or lack thereof) on the matter.

[Japher]

Infallible...

Assuming there is a god and that this god created man, and addressing the fact that I am perfect, then god must be too. Right?

Anyway...

Assume there is a god (as good as any assumption of scientific note pertaining to the orgins of the universe) and assuming that this god appeared to mankind and delivered his message...

When was the bible written? I don't know. I think it was written in totality several hundred years after the death of christ, apart from whatever those apostles wrote in the new testament, though they could of been hopped up on goofballs, but lets say the weren't.

Knowing this, and taking Jon's reason to heart in that the word of god is infallible, yet the interpretation of the word by a "man" is fallible, would it not be safe to assume that there was a time between the occurances and the actuall writing of the scripture in which the stories and the words were passed through a oral seive of misinterpriations? Meaning that it was told from generation to generation.

I think so.

Also, I don't think this god wrote the bible. So even if it god spoke to these ppl and then they wrote it down, there is still room for this misinterpretation, seeing as it was written by the hand of man.

Thus,

Man wrote the bible based of the infallible word of god many years after those word were uttered. This time gap could have lead to a misinterpretation, seeing as those who wrote it were not the ones who heard it. Leading to the bible itself being an interpretation which is fallible, ergo, the bible itself is fallible.

I think that is some good logic. The word of god is infallible, like Jon said, yet to some extent the bible is not, or may not be the word of that god due to man's interpretation, like Jon said.

To some extent I feel that bible is just a bunch of good stories, and presents good moral grounds by which to live by. If interpreted the way I interpret it. Yet, I don't necessarily "believe" everything I read.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

But the point is if something can be both dead and alive, in energy state one and energy state two, why can't something also be a square and circle at the same time? Or immovable and movable by a god at the same time.

It is illogical only because it is a concept that does not fit in with our limited experience and perceptions.

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.

Its conjecture, not proof, just as you irresistable force/immovable object is a conjecture.

What I'm saying is that if the way that mathematic worked was different a different set of logical conclusions may be made. Is there any reason that the axioms of mathematics work? They are self-consistent, but are they like that because of the nature of the universe, or would they be like that if taken outside of the universe? Is that even a logical question? Is mathematics only existant due to the existance of the universe?

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

Is there inconsistency in a cat being dead and alive at the same time?

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.

What's wrong with being inconsistent. We only work on the assumption that consistency is in the way the laws of nature work.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Is there inconsistency in a cat being dead and alive at the same time?

I feel duty bound to point out that Schroedinger came up with his cat thought experiment in order to point out how illogical and ridiculous Quantum Mechanics is.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
What's wrong with being inconsistent. We only work on the assumption that consistency is in the way the laws of nature work.

Not the laws of nature, but the laws of logic. A == A. IF A == B AND B == C, THEN A == C. IF A == B THEN B == A. Etc. It doesn't particularly matter whether these axioms are "natural," completely man-made, or a mixture of the two (I'm not too familiar with Godel's proof, but I'm quite sure that he's sufficiently proven that logic is not "natural"), what matters is that we haven't got a better system of logic -- I've yet to encounter an internally inconsistent system of logic that is still functional. We work on the assumption that nature is consistent because the contrary assumption is non-functional (we won't know from one moment to the next whether an apple is going to fall up or fall down, or even whether the apple is going to grow a mouth and eat us), just as we ourselves must behave consistently or else we'll behave irrationally (we will not be capable of functioning).

[Lincoln]

1. Throw logic out the window
2. Say logic doesn't apply to the Judeo-Christianity god
3. Concede that your god isn't omnipotent
4. Decide that there is no god

Choice #2 is not too far off but I would word it to say that "man's" logic does not apply to the Judeo-Chrisitan God.

The solution is simple and the "Judeo-Chrisitan God" spells it out so even an atheist should be able to understand it

"My ways are not your ways, neither are your thoughts my thoughts sayeth the Lord." and "The things of God are spiritually discerned, they are foolishness to the natural man".

In other words, God's logic is hidden. His ways are discerned through the faith that is given to his followers. It is kind of like breathing under water. If you were a fish you wouldn't have to worry about it.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by loinburger
(I'm not too familiar with Godel's proof, but I'm quite sure that he's sufficiently proven that logic is not "natural"),

He is part of the natural world, and so is his theory, therefore it cannot be proven that logic is not natural, surely? If it can, I'd be interested to know how nature can be removed from the equation when nature is the very fabric of existing.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
He is part of the natural world, and so is his theory, therefore it cannot be proven that logic is not natural, surely? If it can, I'd be interested to know how nature can be removed from the equation when nature is the very fabric of existing.

The proof shows that logic is necessarily self-referential -- it is entirely man-made in that it is impossible to ground it outside of human language/reason. There is no tangible thing that mankind can point to and say "See, here, this proves that our system of logic is perfect and exists independently of mankind" without being self-referential, hence logic isn't "natural." It's similar to the argument I use against "natural" rights -- there is no concept of property (or liberty or whatever have you) that is independent of language/society (how can property/liberty/etc. exist if there is only one person in the world?), just as there is no concept of logic that is independent of language/human reason.