[Controversial Discussion] GOD

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

It's also been scientifically proven that statements in the Bible are correct or possible, people should just accept it's correctness and move on.

Poor logic. If I have a postulate that gets everything correct except for one thing it's incorrect. It has to get everything right if it has a chance of being accepted as truthful.

For example, does someone getting a decent score in one of the prediction leagues mean that they can predict the future?

Of course not!

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Poor logic. If I have a postulate that gets everything correct except for one thing it's incorrect. It has to get everything right if it has a chance of being accepted as truthful.

For example, does someone getting a decent score in one of the prediction leagues mean that they can predict the future?

Of course not!

This argument relies on the necessity of EVERY statement made in the bible needing to be true.

Which is utterly stupid by the way. The Old Testament (or great majority) was written from memory in Babylon as a moral guide for the Jews in captivity, not as a scientific treatise.

On the other hand, I am yet to see one scientific fact/principle making the existence of God an impossibility. Improbability perhaps, but then so have millions of other things.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

This argument relies on the necessity of EVERY statement made in the bible needing to be true.

This is the first example of a circular counter-argument I've ever seen. The argument IS the necessity of every statement made in the bible needing to be true.

Originally Posted by Summanus

On the other hand, I am yet to see one scientific fact/principle making the existence of God an impossibility. Improbability perhaps, but then so have millions of other things.

That's because it's empirically impossible to prove that things don't exist. For example, prove to me that there isn't someone behind you that ducks behind cover when you turn around.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is the first example of a circular counter-argument I've ever seen. The argument IS the necessity of every statement made in the bible needing to be true.

In which case, you have misinterpreted the purpose of the OT and the objectives of its authors. Millions of Christians do the same thing.

That's because it's empirically impossible to prove that things don't exist. For example, prove to me that there isn't someone behind you that ducks behind cover when you turn around.

And so we reach the conclusion that it's all really a matter of personal preference and belief.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Sentience

If you honestly find the bible (or whatever) as a more credible explanation for sentience than evolutionary theory or the latest insights of cognitive science then fair enough but you must concede this is not a universal view.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If you honestly find the bible (or whatever) as a more credible explanation for sentience than evolutionary theory or the latest insights of cognitive science then fair enough but you must concede this is not a universal view.

Where does evolutionary theory address intelligent thought?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Where does evolutionary theory address intelligent thought?

It gives the reason to why intelligence might have developed in large mammals. Much like the Bible gives the reason to why humans might have intelligence ("god gave it to us").

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

In which case, you have misinterpreted the purpose of the OT and the objectives of its authors. Millions of Christians do the same thing.

I haven't misinterpreted it, I've merely demonstrated that the isolated truths inside cannot be used as a justification for the all.

Originally Posted by Summanus

And so we reach the conclusion that it's all really a matter of personal preference and belief.

So has been said throughout the thread. But don't expect people to respect opinions based on no evidence.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It gives the reason to why intelligence might have developed in large mammals. Much like the Bible gives the reason to why humans might have intelligence ("god gave it to us").

The two arguments are not conflicting. Whether got gave it to us through 6 days or millions of years makes little difference really

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I haven't misinterpreted it, I've merely demonstrated that the isolated truths inside cannot be used as a justification for the all.

If you think the OT is actually intended to explain, in detail, physical phenomena and their occurrences, you've misinterpreted it.

Anyone who uses it as a justification for the all is an idiot. But it was not intended as a justification of the all, so it should not be treated as one.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Whether got gave it to us through 6 days or millions of years makes little difference really

Well it makes quite a bit difference if you are interested in truth.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well it makes quite a bit difference if you are interested in truth.

The outcome is the same

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

The outcome is the same

Yes, indeed. And I never claimed the two were necessary contradictory btw.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

If you think the OT is actually intended to explain, in detail, physical phenomena and their occurrences, you've misinterpreted it.

I never said it was supposed to say anything that it didn't say, just that if it says some wrong things, then it cannot be taken as true. Do you see now?