Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Ignorance Is A Weak Excuse

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ignorance Is A Weak Excuse

    What should you know before arguing a position?Should you know what the other side says? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I have been going through Raymond Bradley's book God's Gravediggers and I plan to do a fuller look chapter by chapter, but I saw one quote that I wanted to highlight. It is about Christian philosophers who hold to inerrancy.

    ""Are these guys serious? What would be their line when confronted by 2 Chronicles 4:2, which gives a false value for the mathematical constant pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter)? What would they say about countless inconsistencies the Bible contains? For example, between 2 Samuel 24:1, which says the Lord commanded King David to “number the people of Israel”, and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which says it was Satan, not the Lord, who issued the command. What account would they give of scientific absurdities such as that of a six-day creation, the fixity of species, and the world-wide flood, an event that some biblical genealogists calculate as occurring on the 27 February 2267 BCE, an event that, as Australian geologist Ian Plimer points out, was "spitefully" ignored by the Egyptians of the time? I simply don't know what answers these notable theistic philosophers would give. They proclaim inerrancy as a general doctrine without considering its specific applications. They preach it from their pulpits yet ignore it in their philosophical writings. Yet where inconsistencies abound, so does falsity; for at least one of each inconsistent pair must be false."

    There's one part in here worth highlighting.

    "I simply don't know what answers these notable theistic philosophers would give."

    Anyone should really know at this point to not take Bradley seriously.
    Unfortunately, Bradley is not in the minority. Normally when I speak to atheists, I ask them if they have read such and such that disagrees with them and I am told that they have not. Most usually make some excuse and it really is presuppositional atheism. After all, everyone knows science is the only way to truth and anything that disagrees is automatically stupid. Why bother looking into a case for a miracle if it's just so obvious they never happen?
    Getting back to Bradley, he is talking about Old Testament questions. No one is saying that these questions shouldn't be asked, but these are not new. The early church often debated passages that seemed to contradict and tried to work out apparent discrepancies.

    The problem is that Bradley has no idea what would be said and this is too often something that can happen. A person can come up with what they think is an objection to a position and say to themselves, "I can't think of any possible counter to this, therefore there isn't one." Consider what happens with the problem of evil. "Why would God allow this evil?" If no answer can be found immediately, well then there just obviously isn't an answer. Right?

    By the way, this is not to say that Christians don't do the same thing. Christians absolutely do and that's a travesty on our side. The mindset of Bradley is one that no one should really have.

    Also, I would encourage Bradley to instead go to some Old Testament scholars instead of philosophers. Go to people like Walton or Longman or Christopher Wright or others. Go to a seminary and ask to see the library and read some commentaries on the passages in question.

    When it comes to the age of the Earth, even the rabbis had been debating the interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Rudimentary forms of evolution were even discussed in those times. The information we can have is new, but the debates are really old. While it looks like Bradley grew up with young-Earth creationism, even the most ardent YEC would know other Christians have other interpretations and while they don't agree, I hope they would say they understand these people are trying to be faithful to Scripture who disagree.

    Something I often say about skeptics I encounter is they are not true skeptics. They believe what agrees with them 100%. They only question what disagrees with them. This also applies to politics also where it's easy to go in with a bias and find something that supports your side and ignore the rejoinders to it.

    Bradley is not a skeptic. He honors it with his lips, but his head is far from it. He has simply abandoned one loyalty to a position and replaced it with the same loyalty to another position.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)

    -----

    Should you know what the other side says? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. I have been going through Raymond Bradley’s book God’s Gravediggers and I plan to do a fuller look chapter by chapter, but I saw one quote that I wanted to highlight. It is about Christian philosophers who hold to … Continue reading Ignorance Is A Weak Excuse

  • #2
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    What should you know before arguing a position?Should you know what the other side says? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I have been going through Raymond Bradley's book God's Gravediggers and I plan to do a fuller look chapter by chapter, but I saw one quote that I wanted to highlight. It is about Christian philosophers who hold to inerrancy.

    ""Are these guys serious? What would be their line when confronted by 2 Chronicles 4:2, which gives a false value for the mathematical constant pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter)? What would they say about countless inconsistencies the Bible contains? For example, between 2 Samuel 24:1, which says the Lord commanded King David to “number the people of Israel”, and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which says it was Satan, not the Lord, who issued the command. What account would they give of scientific absurdities such as that of a six-day creation, the fixity of species, and the world-wide flood, an event that some biblical genealogists calculate as occurring on the 27 February 2267 BCE, an event that, as Australian geologist Ian Plimer points out, was "spitefully" ignored by the Egyptians of the time? I simply don't know what answers these notable theistic philosophers would give. They proclaim inerrancy as a general doctrine without considering its specific applications. They preach it from their pulpits yet ignore it in their philosophical writings. Yet where inconsistencies abound, so does falsity; for at least one of each inconsistent pair must be false."

    There's one part in here worth highlighting.

    "I simply don't know what answers these notable theistic philosophers would give."

    Anyone should really know at this point to not take Bradley seriously.
    Unfortunately, Bradley is not in the minority. Normally when I speak to atheists, I ask them if they have read such and such that disagrees with them and I am told that they have not. Most usually make some excuse and it really is presuppositional atheism. After all, everyone knows science is the only way to truth and anything that disagrees is automatically stupid. Why bother looking into a case for a miracle if it's just so obvious they never happen?
    Getting back to Bradley, he is talking about Old Testament questions. No one is saying that these questions shouldn't be asked, but these are not new. The early church often debated passages that seemed to contradict and tried to work out apparent discrepancies.

    The problem is that Bradley has no idea what would be said and this is too often something that can happen. A person can come up with what they think is an objection to a position and say to themselves, "I can't think of any possible counter to this, therefore there isn't one." Consider what happens with the problem of evil. "Why would God allow this evil?" If no answer can be found immediately, well then there just obviously isn't an answer. Right?

    By the way, this is not to say that Christians don't do the same thing. Christians absolutely do and that's a travesty on our side. The mindset of Bradley is one that no one should really have.

    Also, I would encourage Bradley to instead go to some Old Testament scholars instead of philosophers. Go to people like Walton or Longman or Christopher Wright or others. Go to a seminary and ask to see the library and read some commentaries on the passages in question.

    When it comes to the age of the Earth, even the rabbis had been debating the interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Rudimentary forms of evolution were even discussed in those times. The information we can have is new, but the debates are really old. While it looks like Bradley grew up with young-Earth creationism, even the most ardent YEC would know other Christians have other interpretations and while they don't agree, I hope they would say they understand these people are trying to be faithful to Scripture who disagree.

    Something I often say about skeptics I encounter is they are not true skeptics. They believe what agrees with them 100%. They only question what disagrees with them. This also applies to politics also where it's easy to go in with a bias and find something that supports your side and ignore the rejoinders to it.

    Bradley is not a skeptic. He honors it with his lips, but his head is far from it. He has simply abandoned one loyalty to a position and replaced it with the same loyalty to another position.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)

    -----
    One might opine that Bradley will now have his answer, as he died in January this year at the age of 91.

    https://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/events...d-bradley.html
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      What should you know before arguing a position?Should you know what the other side says? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

      I have been going through Raymond Bradley's book God's Gravediggers and I plan to do a fuller look chapter by chapter, but I saw one quote that I wanted to highlight. It is about Christian philosophers who hold to inerrancy.

      ""Are these guys serious? What would be their line when confronted by 2 Chronicles 4:2, which gives a false value for the mathematical constant pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter)?
      The Bible doesn't give a false value for pi (not in that passage anyway). The solution to the problem is provided only a little later, where the brim of the sea is said to be flared outwards. The measuring line run around the exterior of the sea, and the measuring line for the diameter, brim to brim (interior), would otherwise have the sea bigger on the inside.

      What would they say about countless inconsistencies the Bible contains?
      There are enough inconsistencies to demonstrate that the Bible does in fact have flaws; their number is a long way short of countless. Further note: the identification of most of the flaws, real or imagined, originates with theologians.

      For example, between 2 Samuel 24:1, which says the Lord commanded King David to “number the people of Israel”, and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which says it was Satan, not the Lord, who issued the command.
      I have reservations about the interpretation of 2 Samuel 24:1 but without knowing Hebrew, can't be sure whether those reservations are justified. At this stage, the LXX isn't helping.

      What account would they give of scientific absurdities such as that of a six-day creation,
      Reconciliations between science and scripture on this point can be achieved, but demonstrating that reconciliation to be valid can't be achieved. That the universe was not created in six days is a certainty, a fact that must be acknowledged.

      the fixity of species,
      He thought perhaps that when two cats mate, they might randomly produce gerbils, or dogs, or wedge-tailed eagles? No - when two cats mate, any offspring will be feline kittens.

      and the world-wide flood, an event that some biblical genealogists calculate as occurring on the 27 February 2267 BCE, an event that, as Australian geologist Ian Plimer points out, was "spitefully" ignored by the Egyptians of the time?
      Even if the flood could be positively identified as being local rather than global, the problem remains that it is described as a near extinction event ... that would put the flood very close in time to the emergence of genus homo. Whether spiteful or not, the Egyptians were onto something.

      Bradley is not a skeptic. He honors it with his lips, but his head is far from it. He has simply abandoned one loyalty to a position and replaced it with the same loyalty to another position.
      Plenty of scoffers self identify as sceptics. The traditional definition of sceptic implies a willingness to be proven wrong, even if that willingness is grudging. And an honest sceptic will be willing to admit to having been wrong; even if it is done so grudgingly, it won't be done with excuses or other dodges.
      Last edited by tabibito; 05-20-2022, 05:55 AM.
      1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
      "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        What should you know before arguing a position?Should you know what the other side says? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

        I have been going through Raymond Bradley's book God's Gravediggers and I plan to do a fuller look chapter by chapter, but I saw one quote that I wanted to highlight. It is about Christian philosophers who hold to inerrancy.

        ""Are these guys serious? What would be their line when confronted by 2 Chronicles 4:2, which gives a false value for the mathematical constant pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter)? What would they say about countless inconsistencies the Bible contains? For example, between 2 Samuel 24:1, which says the Lord commanded King David to “number the people of Israel”, and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which says it was Satan, not the Lord, who issued the command. What account would they give of scientific absurdities such as that of a six-day creation, the fixity of species, and the world-wide flood, an event that some biblical genealogists calculate as occurring on the 27 February 2267 BCE, an event that, as Australian geologist Ian Plimer points out, was "spitefully" ignored by the Egyptians of the time? I simply don't know what answers these notable theistic philosophers would give. They proclaim inerrancy as a general doctrine without considering its specific applications. They preach it from their pulpits yet ignore it in their philosophical writings. Yet where inconsistencies abound, so does falsity; for at least one of each inconsistent pair must be false."

        There's one part in here worth highlighting.

        "I simply don't know what answers these notable theistic philosophers would give."

        Anyone should really know at this point to not take Bradley seriously.
        Unfortunately, Bradley is not in the minority. Normally when I speak to atheists, I ask them if they have read such and such that disagrees with them and I am told that they have not. Most usually make some excuse and it really is presuppositional atheism. After all, everyone knows science is the only way to truth and anything that disagrees is automatically stupid. Why bother looking into a case for a miracle if it's just so obvious they never happen?
        Getting back to Bradley, he is talking about Old Testament questions. No one is saying that these questions shouldn't be asked, but these are not new. The early church often debated passages that seemed to contradict and tried to work out apparent discrepancies.

        The problem is that Bradley has no idea what would be said and this is too often something that can happen. A person can come up with what they think is an objection to a position and say to themselves, "I can't think of any possible counter to this, therefore there isn't one." Consider what happens with the problem of evil. "Why would God allow this evil?" If no answer can be found immediately, well then there just obviously isn't an answer. Right?

        By the way, this is not to say that Christians don't do the same thing. Christians absolutely do and that's a travesty on our side. The mindset of Bradley is one that no one should really have.

        Also, I would encourage Bradley to instead go to some Old Testament scholars instead of philosophers. Go to people like Walton or Longman or Christopher Wright or others. Go to a seminary and ask to see the library and read some commentaries on the passages in question.

        When it comes to the age of the Earth, even the rabbis had been debating the interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Rudimentary forms of evolution were even discussed in those times. The information we can have is new, but the debates are really old. While it looks like Bradley grew up with young-Earth creationism, even the most ardent YEC would know other Christians have other interpretations and while they don't agree, I hope they would say they understand these people are trying to be faithful to Scripture who disagree.

        Something I often say about skeptics I encounter is they are not true skeptics. They believe what agrees with them 100%. They only question what disagrees with them. This also applies to politics also where it's easy to go in with a bias and find something that supports your side and ignore the rejoinders to it.

        Bradley is not a skeptic. He honors it with his lips, but his head is far from it. He has simply abandoned one loyalty to a position and replaced it with the same loyalty to another position.

        In Christ,
        Nick Peters
        (And I affirm the virgin birth)

        -----
        Bradley appears to be another New Atheist asking many of the same hoary old questions that have been dealt with again and again over the centuries only for them to keep popping up when someone presents them thinking they're a serious challenge. Apparently the concept of PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) is utterly alien to him.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          The Bible doesn't give a false value for pi (not in that passage anyway). The solution to the problem is provided only a little later, where the brim of the sea is said to be flared outwards. The measuring line run around the exterior of the sea, and the measuring line for the diameter, brim to brim (interior), would otherwise have the sea bigger on the inside.
          Like nails on a chalkboard.

          Pi is an exact value that can only be calculated mathematically by assuming a perfectly round figure in an abstract Euclidean plane. Stop trying to push pi into the Bible.

          There is no solution for this because there’s no such thing as a perfectly round structure in the physical universe. Gravity prevents it. Heisenberg uncertainty prevents it. And in this case, manufacturing tolerances prevent it. The sea was not perfectly round. Stop pretending otherwise. This is an apologetic in search of a victim to embarrass.

          Don’t be that victim.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

            Like nails on a chalkboard.

            Pi is an exact value that can only be calculated mathematically by assuming a perfectly round figure in an abstract Euclidean plane. Stop trying to push pi into the Bible.

            There is no solution for this because there’s no such thing as a perfectly round structure in the physical universe. Gravity prevents it. Heisenberg uncertainty prevents it. And in this case, manufacturing tolerances prevent it. The sea was not perfectly round. Stop pretending otherwise. This is an apologetic in search of a victim to embarrass.

            Don’t be that victim.
            The Bible's own answer is good enough for me. Not to mention that the Bible's answer makes the whole issue of the value of pi irrelevant.
            Last edited by tabibito; 05-20-2022, 12:22 PM.
            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
            "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              The Bible's own answer is good enough for me. Not to mention that the Bible's answer makes the whole issue of the value of pi irrelevant.
              Any talk of inside and outside diameters in relation to pi is wrong. Pi can not be measured. Full stop. Don’t blame the Bible on this. It’s got troubles of its own.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                Any talk of inside and outside diameters in relation to pi is wrong. Pi can not be measured. Full stop. Don’t blame the Bible on this. It’s got troubles of its own.
                It is an external circumference and an internal diameter.
                1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by Apologiaphoenix, Today, 09:28 AM
                0 responses
                1 view
                0 likes
                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 10:15 AM
                0 responses
                9 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-25-2022, 09:05 AM
                9 responses
                69 views
                2 likes
                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-24-2022, 09:42 AM
                19 responses
                121 views
                0 likes
                Last Post rogue06
                by rogue06
                 
                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-20-2022, 09:11 AM
                0 responses
                14 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                Working...
                X