Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interesting serious starting on PT

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

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Welcome back Glennn

    Roy
    Thank you Roy, How are you?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      Got a sticky key?


      It is an old joke. He awarded me an extra n! Thanks Roy.

      Comment



      • Okay, too bad. Your over-reliance (emphasis on "over") on what your senses tell you is the primary source of your error.
        Gee I hate depending on voices in my head and dreams for details of what is true. That doesnt seem to be advisable so I rely on sense data.

        Comment


        • Only barely know you, but good to hear you're still kicking.

          Comment


          • Glad to see that you're still defying the odds.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              I can 100.00% guarantee that you are mistaken and I will succinctly tell you why: God would not have us based on "blind faith". Several times in Scripture God states that point in different ways. For instance, He says, "Come and let us reason together."

              I will admit to you that faith (i.e., faith in Truth) is, for me, always greater than what evidence is able to prove. That comes as no surprise to me since I learned decades ago that this was logically proven over 80 years ago. But evidence is indeed very important for it strengthens our faith...
              Your recent disclosure of exegetical method, as logically fallacious and inconsistent as it was in the use of evidence to support a pre-chosen interpretation of scripture, and your bolded words above show that you do preferentially follow fideism, at least one of the subsets:

              Source: Belief Policies by Paul Helm, Cambridge University Press, 1994 (p 194)


              'Fideism' is now seen to be the name of a family of philosophical positions, some at least of which can be called rational and evidential in character in that the fideist may be moved by evidential considerations at the second-order level in defending his fideism. 'Fideism' is not synonymous with an unreasoning act of the will in blindly accepting the truth of a proposition, though there are fideisms of this kind.

              © Copyright Original Source

              Last edited by Omega Red; 06-10-2014, 05:08 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Omega Red View Post
                Your recent disclosure of exegetical method, as logically fallacious and inconsistent as it was in the use of evidence to support a pre-chosen interpretation of scripture, and your bolded words above show that you do preferentially follow fideism, at least one of the subsets:

                Source: Belief Policies by Paul Helm, Cambridge University Press, 1994 (p 194)


                'Fideism' is now seen to be the name of a family of philosophical positions, some at least of which can be called rational and evidential in character in that the fideist may be moved by evidential considerations at the second-order level in defending his fideism. 'Fideism' is not synonymous with an unreasoning act of the will in blindly accepting the truth of a proposition, though there are fideisms of this kind.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Please try to refrain from commenting on that which you have little if any factual knowledge of.

                My posts contained examples to help clarify / illustrate my position. Last comment: if you wish to insist that I am a "Fideist" then so is essentially everyone else. Why? Simple: because everyone is ultimately based on the object of their faith. Their faith is what they recur to when their epistemology fails them.

                Do try harder, Omega Red.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  I can 100.00% guarantee that you are mistaken and I will succinctly tell you why: God would not have us based on "blind faith". Several times in Scripture God states that point in different ways. For instance, He says, "Come and let us reason together."

                  I will admit to you that faith (i.e., faith in Truth) is, for me, always greater than what evidence is able to prove. That comes as no surprise to me since I learned decades ago that this was logically proven over 80 years ago. But evidence is indeed very important for it strengthens our faith...
                  Originally posted by Omega red
                  Your recent disclosure of exegetical method, as logically fallacious and inconsistent as it was, and your bolded words above show that you do follow fideism closely, at least one of the subsets:

                  Source: Belief Policies by Paul Helm, Cambridge University Press, 1994 (p 194)


                  'Fideism' is now seen to be the name of a family of philosophical positions, some at least of which can be called rational and evidential in character in that the fideist may be moved by evidential considerations at the second-order level in defending his fideism. 'Fideism' is not synonymous with an unreasoning act of the will in blindly accepting the truth of a proposition, though there are fideisms of this kind.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Please try to refrain from commenting on that which you have little if any factual knowledge of.

                  My posts contained examples to help clarify / illustrate my position. Last comment: if you wish to insist that I am a "Fideist" then so is essentially everyone else. Why? Simple: because everyone is ultimately based on the object of their faith. Their faith is what they recur to when their epistemology fails them.

                  Do try harder, Omega Red.

                  Jorge

                  I can use your posts to understand you. I did not take any of your words out of context. If my understanding of your position is incorrect, then you need to highlight where the shortfalls are, which I know you cannot or perhaps are simply unable to do.

                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  I do not allow science-falsely-so-called -- the speculations and vain, agenda-loaded imaginations of men -- to dictate how to read God's Word. I constantly remind myself of the difference between operational science and historical science just as I always keep in mind that, when there is conflict or doubt, the vote is cast for God's Word, not for theories and worldly philosophies.
                  You have written clearly that you have a pre-chosen interpretation and will select only that science which harmonises with your interpretation. Where there is conflict between evidence and your interpretation, you will go for the interpretation. Apart from everything else I already pointed out, this does smack of fideism with some level of evidential consideration. Only, you seem stuck with an archaic definition of fideism, as per your response to gmorton, thinking that fideism in only “blind faith”. Perhaps you disagree with Paul Helm? Perhaps you will now correct your deficiencies in your exegetical methodology?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Omega Red View Post
                    I can use your posts to understand you. I did not take any of your words out of context. If my understanding of your position is incorrect, then you need to highlight where the shortfalls are, which I know you cannot or perhaps are simply unable to do.



                    You have written clearly that you have a pre-chosen interpretation and will select only that science which harmonises with your interpretation.
                    So, do you really believe that I was BORN with that "pre-chosen interpretation"?
                    If that is what you believe then allow me to inform you of your error.
                    I wasn't BORN with my present position, in fact, I once held the contemporary 'Evolution/Scientism' position. Thank God that this stage didn't last very long but there I was.

                    It was AFTER a great deal of study, reflection and research that I realized that I had been totally W-R-O-N-G.
                    You people really need to back off, at least until you gain some understanding of these things.


                    Where there is conflict between evidence and your interpretation, you will go for the interpretation. Apart from everything else I already pointed out, this does smack of fideism with some level of evidential consideration. Only, you seem stuck with an archaic definition of fideism, as per your response to gmorton, thinking that fideism in only “blind faith”. Perhaps you disagree with Paul Helm? Perhaps you will now correct your deficiencies in your exegetical methodology?
                    Everything you wrote just above is answered by my previous words (this post and others).
                    As I said before, you really must try harder, Omega Red.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post





                      So, do you really believe that I was BORN with that "pre-chosen interpretation"?
                      If that is what you believe then allow me to inform you of your error.
                      I wasn't BORN with my present position, in fact, I once held the contemporary 'Evolution/Scientism' position. Thank God that this stage didn't last very long but there I was.

                      It was AFTER a great deal of study, reflection and research that I realized that I had been totally W-R-O-N-G.
                      Oh I got that. You've posted this many times before. But like the atheist, theist, deist, whatever, that have all claimed the same "great deal of study, reflection and research", there has to be something deeper. That's why in the beginning I had many questions for you. But it has taken a great deal of time to unearth what your study and reflection actually amount to. You finally started to discuss your exegetical method and all there were was circular reasoning and inconsistent application/approach when dealing with evidence in interpreting scripture, which you listed as "proper" exegetical methodology. gmorton mentioned fideism and that struck a chord with what you wrote previously. Your response to gmorton also contained reference to your archaic understanding of the term and your response to me a refusal to accept what your own words amount to.


                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      You people really need to back off, at least until you gain some understanding of these things.
                      I quoted you in context and your responses have been vacuous and evasive. I even highlighted your archaic understanding of philosophical terms. So really, who needs to gain some understanding here? I doubt it is me in this instance. I am willing to believe that you did not explain yourself well enough, which would be easily resolved if your heart was in it and accuracy mattered.


                      Originally posted by Jorge

                      Everything you wrote just above is answered by my previous words (this post and others).
                      As I said before, you really must try harder, Omega Red.

                      Jorge
                      Oh, I am sure in your mind you have answered it perfectly and concisely and truthfully. So much so that you tripped over a logical fallacy buried deep within your exegetical method. One that you refuse to acknowledge let alone correct. I quoted your approach in context and highlighted your problem. Really, it is down to you to sort it out. But it looks like you cannot be bothered and I can only guess the reasons.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                        I wrote that we should agree to disagree. I got this response

                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        There's little point doing that when it's the main thrust of your arguments.
                        Wow. People don't have the right to disagree with you?
                        That you somehow think that's what I said is a fault on your part. Nothing that I said indicates I believe people don't have the right to disagree with me. The suggestion to "agree to disagree" is a means to stopping a conversation. To "agree to disagree" before the discussion even takes place is to avoid the conversation entirely. That's especially true when the part you wish to avoid is a major underpinning of your claims.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • Why the writer's understanding matters:

                          1) Where the writer is author, the author is the final authority about the meaning of the work.

                          2) Where writer is under inspiration and not absolute author of the work, the writer may not be the final authority but is certainly closest to the work and most likely to understand it correctly. The writer is therefore a significant authority on the meaning of the work.

                          3) Where the writer is author but the subject is scholarly, the author is still final authority on the meaning of the work but he/she may be in error as to the meaning of the supporting material. He/she is still the final authority on what he/she meant when writing the work but may or may not be the final authority on what the supporting materials are actually indicating. The author is still an authority on the matter but not necessarily final authority.

                          4) Where the writer is under inspiration and not the absolute author of the work and the subject is scholarly, the writer is still an authority on the meaning of the work but may or may not be an authority on the subject matter of the work.

                          What the ancient Hebrews thought the work meant matters because they were closest to the source and most likely to have correctly understood the meaning. We do the exact same thing when we go back to the Founding Fathers on constitutional matters - the guys who wrote the thing presumably knew what they meant. However, the Constitution isn't an inspired document so the Founding Fathers have considerably more authority than ancient Hebrew scholars. That DOESN'T make the ancient Hebrew scholars wrong - they just aren't final authority because they aren't the absolute authors.

                          GR is incorrect that it doesn't matter at all - his whole case rests on how Gen 1 is worded so how it was worded in Hebrew matters a lot. That said, there's no indication that the Hebrew text contains anything that would refute GR's case. What the ancient Hebrews thought it meant isn't at issue unless there is a textual issue hidden by the translation. GR's case works perfectly well if the Hebrews had a different understanding based on what they knew then from ours based on what we know now - it only fails if the text really doesn't say what the KJV/NIV/et al indicate - that there is no indication of immediacy.

                          GR's case does have some textual issues to overcome, most notably the six day time frame given. That's where the thing gets sticky - the mention of light and dark seems to point to a 24 hour understanding of the term and modern observational data are not grounds to dismiss that understanding (both, ironically enough, depend on interpretation). It's also the only place where the Hebrew's understanding is going to be significant - but I don't think at this point that the problem is insurmountable.

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            GR is incorrect that it doesn't matter at all - his whole case rests on how Gen 1 is worded so how it was worded in Hebrew matters a lot. That said, there's no indication that the Hebrew text contains anything that would refute GR's case. What the ancient Hebrews thought it meant isn't at issue unless there is a textual issue hidden by the translation. GR's case works perfectly well if the Hebrews had a different understanding based on what they knew then from ours based on what we know now - it only fails if the text really doesn't say what the KJV/NIV/et al indicate - that there is no indication of immediacy.
                            Agreed. The problem, though, is that the Hebrew text doesn't have any part either in support or refutation of GR's case.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                              Thank you Roy, How are you?
                              Enjoying the heightened conversation coincident with your return .

                              Roy
                              Last edited by Roy; 06-10-2014, 02:19 PM.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                                Glad to see that you're still defying the odds.
                                Hi lilpixie. Good to see you're still hanging around.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X