Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I would have thought it would have been a relief.

At what age?

About 12.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Actor

About 12.

That teacher did you a favor.

Although you would have soon figured it out for yourself.

Critical thinkers aren’t easily fooled.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Critical thinkers aren’t easily fooled.

Oh really?

There are plenty of self-proclaimed critical thinkers here who NEVER think to question certain, obvious and troubling things in this world of ours.

It's kinda scary.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Oh really?

There are plenty of self-proclaimed critical thinkers here who NEVER think to question certain, obvious and troubling things in this world of ours.

It's kinda scary.

Well, don’t keep it to yourself. Tell us all about them.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Because the supernatural does not work. The natural, i.e., science, does work.

Germs cause disease, not pissing off God.

Airplanes fly because of aerodynamics and internal combustion. They are not levitated by the supernatural.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000.

Scripture says "Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God.," with good reason. He fails the test.

All based on circular reasoning. Your prejudices blind you. And besides, all beg the question, as well. Of course, germs [secondarily] cause disease for example, but what caused the germs? And when you come up with a cause for germs, what caused that? And when you come for a secondary cause for that, what caused it, etc., etc., ad infinitum. As discussed often, ultimately atheistic naturalism is reduced to saying science doesn't know the ultimate cause for anything that exists. Almighty Science is exposed for the naked emperor it is when it comes to origins, for ultimately it must resort to infinite regress as the final answer, which is a non-answer.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

All based on circular reasoning. Your prejudices blind you. And besides, all beg the question, as well. Of course, germs [secondarily] cause disease for example, but what caused the germs? And when you come up with a cause for germs, what caused that? And when you come for a secondary cause for that, what caused it, etc., etc., ad infinitum. As discussed often, ultimately atheistic naturalism is reduced to saying science doesn't know the ultimate cause for anything that exists. Almighty Science is exposed for the naked emperor it is when it comes to origins, for ultimately it must resort to infinite regress as the final answer, which is a non-answer.

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on, so be ready for that to happen if that's how you want to come at the problem. That system is a God of the Gaps argument. It's been around forever." -- Niel deGrasse Tyson

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on, so be ready for that to happen if that's how you want to come at the problem. That system is a God of the Gaps argument. It's been around forever." -- Niel deGrasse Tyson

No, I'm evoking evidence for science's ignorance. Science right now has ZERO answers to the universe's ultimate cause. Conversely, Creationism answers this question without violating any Laws of Logic.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, I'm evoking evidence for science's ignorance. Science right now has ZERO answers to the universe's ultimate cause. Conversely, Creationism answers this question without violating any Laws of Logic.

So...ANY answer is more "logical" than no answer at all.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, I'm evoking evidence for science's ignorance. Science right now ...

"right now!" The key words in Dr. Tyson's statement. Just because we don't have the answer "right now" does not mean we will not have the answer in 10 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years. But we are working on it "right now" and have been since Aristarchus, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, et al.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... has ZERO answers to the universe's ultimate cause.

Wrong! Science has multiple possible answers to the universe's ultimate cause. Even if none of these prove to be correct science will continue the search. That's how science works. If you don't understand that then re-read Dr. Tyson's statement.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Conversely, Creationism answers this question without violating any Laws of Logic.

Leaving unanswered the question of whether that answer is correct.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by TJDave

That teacher did you a favor.

That's one way of looking at it I guess.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"right now!" The key words in Dr. Tyson's statement. Just because we don't have the answer "right now" does not mean we will not have the answer in 10 years, or 100 years, or 1000 years. But we are working on it "right now" and have been since Aristarchus, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, et al.

Wrong! Science has multiple possible answers to the universe's ultimate cause. Even if none of these prove to be correct science will continue the search. That's how science works. If you don't understand that then re-read Dr. Tyson's statement.

Leaving unanswered the question of whether that answer is correct.

I'll take what I know right now now over what science "promises" to reveal in the future. You know the ol' sayin' -- "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"? Right now I have in my hands God's complete revelation to mankind and there's nothing in the bible that violate any laws of logic. Not only this but the answers make sense and satisfy my soul.

And whatever "answers" science thinks it has for the origins of the universe -- whether that would be the theory of an eternal universe or a temporal one, in either case it the model would violate the Laws of Logic. Therefore, atheistic naturalism is D.O.A.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'll take what I know right now now ...

Which is nothing.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... over what science "promises" to reveal in the future. You know the ol' sayin' -- "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?

But you don't have a bird in the hand. Better start working on catching one of those in the bush.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Right now I have in my hands God's complete revelation to mankind and there's nothing in the bible that violate any laws of logic.

The Bible has at least one violation of logic and it's a big one! You know what it is, don't you!

However, if something does not violate logic that does not necessarily make it true. For instance, if your house were to burn down the idea that you set the fire to collect the insurance would not violate any laws of logic. But that would not make it true.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not only this but the answers make sense and satisfy my soul.

You have low standards.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And whatever "answers" science thinks it has for the origins of the universe -- whether that would be the theory of an eternal universe or a temporal one, in either case it the model would violate the Laws of Logic.

You keep saying that. You have made a claim. The burden of proof is yours. Prove it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Which is nothing.

But you don't have a bird in the hand. Better start working on catching one of those in the bush.

The Bible has at least one violation of logic and it's a big one! You know what it is, don't you!

However, if something does not violate logic that does not necessarily make it true. For instance, if your house were to burn down the idea that you set the fire to collect the insurance would not violate any laws of logic. But that would not make it true.

You have low standards.

You keep saying that. You have made a claim. The burden of proof is yours. Prove it.

I have proved it many times.

And the bible has no violation of any laws of logic. You claim it does? Burden of proof is yours.

P.S. Stay away from analogies. You're really bad at them. If I were to say I burnt my house down to collect the insurance and also say that I didn't burn my house down to collect on insurance, those two claims would be contradictory, thereby violating the Law of Noncontradiction.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have proved it many times.

That's a lie and you know it. You have proven nothing. You simply declare that you have proven it and move on. E.g., the Riddle of Epicurus.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And the bible has no violation of any laws of logic. You claim it does? Burden of proof is yours.

Worng! The original claim is that someone rose from the dead. That goes back centuries, possibly and far back as the sixth century B.C.E. You champion that claim, ergo, the burden of proof is still yours. You don't get to foist it off on someone else. To do so is an argument from ignorance.

Originally Posted by boxcar

P.S. Stay away from analogies. You're really bad at them. If I were to say I burnt my house down to collect the insurance and also say that I didn't burn my house down to collect on insurance, those two claims would be contradictory, thereby violating the Law of Noncontradiction.

Straw Man. I made no such claim either way.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's a lie and you know it. You have proven nothing. You simply declare that you have proven it and move on. E.g., the Riddle of Epicurus.

Of course, I have. No matter what kind of universe your theorize -- an eternal one or a temporal -- either theory violates a law of logic.

Worng! [sic] The original claim is that someone rose from the dead. That goes back centuries, possibly and far back as the sixth century B.C.E. You champion that claim, ergo, the burden of proof is still yours. You don't get to foist it off on someone else. To do so is an argument from ignorance.

So, which law of logic does the resurrection violate...and HOW?

Straw Man. I made no such claim either way.

I know. That's why your analogy was so bad.