nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 157:
Line 157: + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally? (view source)
Revision as of 02:21, November 22, 2007
, 02:21, November 22, 2007→Flawed First Premise: Opinions based on worldviews.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
== But What is really important here? ==
== But What is really important here? ==