|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 128 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-10-10
 | | OhioChessFan: The March 31 don't refer to cosmology at all. I will grant the April 5 as referencing creation as part of the cosmology reference. |
|
Apr-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <NakoSonorense: <YouRang> <I have never ruled out the possibility that a miracle could happen!>
Why not? >
<YouRang: 1. Simply because miracles can't be proved or disproved. I can't even disprove YouRangism! > Jesus thought miracles proved he was genuinely sent by God to man. John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. John 14:10-11 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: soul spirit body he made us at His image and ressemblance and who was man? __ .....tks |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I'm still not seeing your point about which day is under discussion.> I'm not sure what you're missing. John says the last supper was not a passover feast, the other gospels clearly disagree. <I don't take every word of the Bible to be a literal truth> Interesting - then how do you distinguish which are the literal truths? <We need to examine them with as much objectivity as is possible.> Right, but here's the problem: they are all totally unfalsifiable, just like YouRangism. There is no way to test any of these mythologies. By the same token, there is nothing you can do to refute my claim that God told me Moses was lying. <If you think I "seem" to want to accept the Bible as scientific evidence when I suggest they should consider that which is **<"not">** scientific evidence> Okay, but you need to clarify how exactly you expect scientists to do that. Scientists already have a well-defined method (statistics) for combining the results of physical experiments to assess the likelihood of different results being true. Tell me precisely how you want scientists to incorporate the Bible say, into a scientific test, and similarly, all other mythologies. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: <<<whathefat>>hi have a good day...<if there's a # in chess we see it, if there's a tactic we play it, if there's a positional advantage we realise it and if there's a valuable strategy we follow that "spirit" because it's winning>; but it's no game, althou <<<delices and joys of Easter in everyday's life are real>, we know a sentence like;> ex: <don't build a house on sand, i beleive it it's a fact speacilly in that era 30-33 ad, so if it's true ok i love it and do(follow) the thruth....that's all i accept that in my heart> .....tks> |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan: The March 31 don't refer to cosmology at all. I will grant the April 5 as referencing creation as part of the cosmology reference.> A curious point, but even so, I beg to differ. Let's take that March 31 post in context: ----------
<You keep trying to make this analogy that relates <<natural science>> with the case of the 3AM visitor to your neighbor's wife, where you include several non-scientist <<eyewitnesses>>.Since you insist on this analogy, allow me to at least put it in the proper context: ~~~~
<<There were NO eyewitnesses at all.>>
>
----------
Note that the context of my "NO eyewitnesses" remark was with with respect to natural science, which includes cosmology. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><Jesus thought miracles proved he was genuinely sent by God to man.> You may have noticed that I haven't disputed that point. But allow me to be more explicit about why: Lets suppose that it really is an absolute truth that Christ performed miracles, and that God miraculously created the earth in 6 days, and Adam in one day, and the universe is just 10,000 years old... Even then, it would be wrong to accuse scientists of dishonesty. Why? Because scientists are strictly trying to explain the universe as they see it in natural terms. Those are the rules of the game they are playing. You approach them and insist that they make (or even consider) a move that is illegal according to their rules. You have no basis for doing that. Let them play by their rules, and see where they go with it. And respect the fact that they've done pretty well so far without your "help". |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: But later, as the Eleven were at table, he appeared to them
and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart
because they had not believed those
who saw him after he had been raised.
He said to them, “Go into the whole world
and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.” |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: proclaim the good-news(gospel) of the Kingdom of God(Love) ..... tks |
|
Apr-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whathtefat> I have the Cyrus and Passover on the backburner. <OCF: I don't take every word of the Bible to be a literal truth> <whathtefat: Interesting - then how do you distinguish which are the literal truths? > I understand the Bible literally unless I have some good reason not to. <whatthefat: Right, but here's the problem: they are all totally unfalsifiable, just like YouRangism. There is no way to test any of these mythologies. By the same token, there is nothing you can do to refute my claim that God told me Moses was lying.> Do we have any way to test the reliability of any historical writings? If you do a miracle or two for me, I'll be a lot more inclined to take your claim seriously. <Scientists already have a well-defined method (statistics) for combining the results of physical experiments to assess the likelihood of different results being true.> What % of experiments conducted have suggested life comes from nonlife? I would understand it to be 0, yet that is the starting point for Darwinian evolution. |
|
Apr-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Note that the context of my "NO eyewitnesses" remark was with with respect to natural science, which includes cosmology.> Note my introduction of the witnesses was not to the creation but as a counter example of scientific evidence, ie, I was showing there are other ways to determine truth. You went ahead with that, which is fine. I didn't realize at first you were applying that to the creation. <Let them play by their rules, and see where they go with it. > Their rules are their claims must be testable and repeatable. I see them going to an Opening move (life came from nonlife) that is immediately illegal, since they admit life doesn't come from nonlife. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: <OCF>> life can come from non-life but only if God make a miracle.....tks |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: According to the Bible, immortality isn't something that is inherent in us - we must seek it from God (Romans 2:7). Eternal life is a gift to those He has called - it is not something we are born with (John 17:2). Christ strongly rebuked the Sadducees for not believing in the resurrection. He said - "You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:23, 29-32). Resurrecting Lazarus from the grave four days after he died aptly demonstrated the power of God. Anyone whose teaching negates the need for a resurrection deserves the same rebuke. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: I understand the Bible literally unless I have some good reason not to.> Can you give an example?
<Do we have any way to test the reliability of any historical writings?> Yes, via archeology. We've been through this already, and I don't see us making much progress at this rate. <What % of experiments conducted have suggested life comes from nonlife? I would understand it to be 0, yet that is the starting point for Darwinian evolution.> It pains me to read this. You didn't attempt to answer my central question (<Tell me precisely how you want scientists to incorporate the Bible say, into a scientific test, and similarly, all other mythologies>) - I'll give you a hint: it can't be done without abandoning the scientific method altogether. And sadly, this comment also shows that you haven't taken on board several points that both myself and <YouRang> have been repeating from the beginning. In brief: - The theory of evolution describes how life evolves. It says nothing, nada, zip, and zero about how life first began. - The present absence of scientific evidence to support or refute any particular theory of how life began does not preclude the existence of a natural explanation. - Under no circumstances are miracles able to be incorporated into any scientific theory. A miracle is by its very nature untestable and unfalsifiable. At this point, I've said all there is to say, and it now seems most of my posts require me to repeat myself. For whatever reason, you seem unwilling to attempt to understand what the scientific method actually involves. That being the case, this discussion can make no further progress. Nonetheless, I've learned some interesting things along the way, so thank you for hosting it. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: the answer is the Sound(Word) .....tks |
|
Apr-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OCF: I understand the Bible literally unless I have some good reason not to.> <whatthefat: Can you give an example?> John 15:5
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. I have a good reason to believe Jesus doesn't mean that literally. <OCF: Do we have any way to test the reliability of any historical writings?> <whatthefat: Yes, via archeology. We've been through this already, and I don't see us making much progress at this rate.> Only archeology? I am reasonably certain you don't reject out of hand all historical writings that aren't provable by archeology. And yes, if you're going to be that inconsistent, I agree we won't make progress. |
|
Apr-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: It pains me to read this. You didn't attempt to answer my central question (<Tell me precisely how you want scientists to incorporate the Bible say, into a scientific test, and similarly, all other mythologies>) - > I don't want scientists to do that. You have repeatedly tried to infer I think historical evidence must be accepted as scientific evidence. Just as the CSI team must give some creedence to the 100 witnesses (an admission that science may not be able to obtain an answer some other discipline can), I think the scientists should give some creedence to the Bible witnesses. |
|
Apr-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: The theory of evolution describes how life evolves. It says nothing, nada, zip, and zero about how life first began. > Translation: We can't get out of the starting gate using the scientific method, so we will assume in a foundational point bereft of any evidence, any testing, any repeatability, all violations of the scientific method, no problem, we'll call it a scientific miracle on demand, and NOW we have all the answers. Reminds me of the old Far Side cartoon where in the middle of a long equation on a chalkboard, a scientist writes "Then a miracle occurs". <The present absence of scientific evidence to support or refute any particular theory of how life began does not preclude the existence of a natural explanation. > The present absence of scientific evidence to support or refute any particular theory of how life began does not preclude the existence of a <Biblical> explanation. <Under no circumstances are miracles able to be incorporated into any scientific theory. A miracle is by its very nature untestable and unfalsifiable.> Sort of like your incorporation of the assumption of life coming from nonlife? If that happened, it is a miracle. Untestable, unfalsifiable. Only someone with lots of endoctrination can fail to see the incredible inconsistency here. <At this point, I've said all there is to say, and it now seems most of my posts require me to repeat myself. For whatever reason, you seem unwilling to attempt to understand what the scientific method actually involves. > You're right. The scientific method is dependent on testable, repeatable, observable, etc etc etc. Except when you need a miracle, like life coming from nonlife, or something coming from nothing, or uncaused motion existing, or a big bang producing order. Then you can just assume it in. I admit I don't understand it, but I don't have your level of endoctrination. <That being the case, this discussion can make no further progress.> I agree.
<Nonetheless, I've learned some interesting things along the way, so thank you for hosting it. > My pleasure. I shall work on Cyrus and John per the Passover. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: Galatians 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. |
|
| Apr-10-10 | | cormier: I was hard pressed and was falling,
but the LORD helped me.
My strength and my courage is the LORD,
and he has been my savior.
The joyful shout of victory
in the tents of the just:
Give thanks to the Lord for he is good, his love is everlasting. Alleluia.
The stone which the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
By the LORD has this been done;
it is wonderful in our eyes.
This is the day the LORD has made;
let us be glad and rejoice in it.
Give thanks to the Lord for he is good, his love is everlasting. Alleluia. |
|
| Apr-11-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan> <Their rules are their claims must be testable and repeatable. I see them going to an Opening move (life came from nonlife) that is immediately illegal, since they admit life doesn't come from nonlife.> You are arguing with scientists about how they should play their game, even though you've revealed that you don't understand the rules. :-) You have incorrectly presumed that the order of moves relate to the sequence of time. That is, you think that the first move (i.e. life from nonlife) occured at an earlier point in time than the second move (i.e. simpler life to complex life). Actually, the move order relates to the sequence of understanding. That is, the first move may be to understand recent events (i.e. natural selection), and the second move is to extrapolate back in time to understand earlier events (i.e. common descent). The move by which scientists understand how life came forth from nonlife has not been played yet. For some reason, it bothers you that the scientists haven't given up trying to play it. You want scientists to give "creedence" to the miraculous Biblical account -- which is the say that you want them to give creedence to resigning. I'll ask again: Why should they resign? Scientists have made moves before that produced understanding that once seemed impossible. In some of those cases, they were pestered by other religionists (like you) who wanted them to resign. Today, those religionists look foolish, don't they? |
|
| Apr-11-10 | | cormier: 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: [article] |
|
| Apr-11-10 | | cormier: <when science is good it is from heaven, all good things come's from heaven, if one give's but a glass of water(<a prayer = is like a glass of water for the soul>) to another he has given it to Me.....tks> |
|
| Apr-11-10 | | cormier: Jesus came, although the doors were locked,
and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands,
and bring your hand and put it into my side,
and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”
Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?
Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples
that are not written in this book.
But these are written that you may come to believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that through this belief you may have life in his name. |
|
Apr-11-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: You are arguing with scientists about how they should play their game, even though you've revealed that you don't understand the rules. > You're right, I don't understand how they can assume something unobserved, unrepeatable, untestable, all hallmarks of that which is not scientific, and make THAT assumption the foundation of an overreaching position. In fact, you've railed at me for assuming the Creation as recorded in the Bible, yet you give <whathtefat> a free pass for doing what I just described. <You have incorrectly presumed that the order of moves relate to the sequence of time. That is, you think that the first move (i.e. life from nonlife) occured at an earlier point in time than the second move (i.e. simpler life to complex life).Actually, the move order relates to the sequence of understanding. That is, the first move may be to understand recent events (i.e. natural selection), and the second move is to extrapolate back in time to understand earlier events (i.e. common descent).> I see. Assume in a miracle, and then work backwards to it. I lack the scientific mind to understand that brilliance. And you have a problem with my assumption of how it all started? <The move by which scientists understand how life came forth from nonlife has not been played yet. For some reason, it bothers you that the scientists haven't given up trying to play it.> If you seriously believe life can come from nonlife, I think I have been wasting my time. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 128 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...