2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 795:
Line 795: + + + + + + +
→Legitimate views
: I'm not suggesting that Augustine's warning applies to you, because he was talking about Christians (do you consider yourself one?). I maintain that it doesn't apply to me (on this issue) for two reasons, although they likely boil down to the same reason: One, that he is talking about observations in the ''present'', not accounts of events in the past as we are discussing, and the other because he is talking about "nonsense", contrasted with things that non-Christians know to be "certain from reason and experience". You don't know that the secular view of origins is true ''from experience'', nor from formal logic (which is what, I suggest, he is referring to by "reason"). Instead, the secular view that you hold to is based on (materialistic/naturalistic) ''ideology''.
: I'm not suggesting that Augustine's warning applies to you, because he was talking about Christians (do you consider yourself one?). I maintain that it doesn't apply to me (on this issue) for two reasons, although they likely boil down to the same reason: One, that he is talking about observations in the ''present'', not accounts of events in the past as we are discussing, and the other because he is talking about "nonsense", contrasted with things that non-Christians know to be "certain from reason and experience". You don't know that the secular view of origins is true ''from experience'', nor from formal logic (which is what, I suggest, he is referring to by "reason"). Instead, the secular view that you hold to is based on (materialistic/naturalistic) ''ideology''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)
My point always was that there are apologist who are able to argue either way. From the very beginning I was hammering that it might be right under your interpretation.
So, if you can only read the scripture in the present, how do make any statement about the past, e.g. when the scripture was written. Or should I say allegedly written, because you seem to claim that you cannot say nothing certian about the past.
When it come to theories about the present, you discount quite a few theories about the present, most notably that selection is random. Or that purpose implies randomess, for which you haven't even found a single instance, let alone a convincing argument for the general claim. Or that you cannot make falsifiable claims about the past. And we know that you think that you are right, and you are indeed of the hook, if you are right about all of your various scientific statements that you made.
Not sure why you keep arguing against my alledged position. As said before, I asked you to defend your position, not make up a position that I might have and attack it. And with your thight eyewitness standard, and insistence that you can only make falsifiable claims about the present, you kind of got rid of all possible evience you might have to support you claims, just because you hoped it would undermine my position that you don't know. But to shed some light on my view on the matter, this litlle anecdote. Earlier today I read an article explaining that the scientific explanation for the origin of the moon might have to be changed due to new evidence. Especially the time when the moon formed. I read the article, and once I was done I thought to myself, that it is interesting to know, but that this probably not the last word on the subject. And I ammended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs. See I got no problem with the fact that scientific theories can be wrong or change. That they are wrong doesn't make your explanation right. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)
===Motivations===
===Motivations===