nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 167:
Line 167: + + + + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 08:42, November 22, 2007
, 08:42, November 22, 2007→Flawed First Premise: Thanks for the debate.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)
== But What is really important here? ==
== But What is really important here? ==