Ignorant from the start

[Tart]

As quoted in another thread
"So this tendency that believers have to look towards the past as a time of knowledge and informed wisdom, is actually an ignorant position."

This is talking about looking at our past for knowledge... Like looking at a source from 2000+ years ago... Saying we would be ignorant to do such things...

Actually this conversation was specifically about Aristotle... For Aristotle was perhaps the first of the scientists, and Aristotle put forth scientific arguments for the existence of God... In his Book "Physics" (where the word comes from), Aristotle tells us that "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

Just the same as Newton... "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe."~Newton


These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist...


Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..


Isnt it just clear... The evidence is all on one side... The claim is that truth has a start, knowledge has a foundation, that we can learn truths from our past.. And this isnt even limited to our human history... Science itself is built upon our past experiences...

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

And where theist say that knowledge and truth has a beginning, from the start with God, and builds upon these things...


I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

[Elijah John]

Tart strikes me as the type of debater ...

Tart you are just being lazy man. You're not listening to anybody..

Moderator Comment

You could make your points without the personal comments. Better yet, just address the content of your opponents post, or simply expound on the OP.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 158 by Tart]

Who decides who is and isn't a legitimate hermeneutic? What makes you more qualified than any of us? What is a rational method of interpretation? Clownboat is asking a very rational question, what is the mechanism involved? Does the writer hear a voice? Is it a vision? Do they simply sense something and put it in their own words? Have they taken hallucinogens?

Is it possible in the thousands of years since the prophecy was written that someone may have rewritten it to more accurately describe events that had already passed? Why not?

All of this assumes that we accept that the prophecy was fulfilled, which we clearly do not, given the repeated destruction of the supposedly indestructible city of Jerusalem.

And that is only ONE prophecy, to accept the bible on the whole we still need to deal with resurrections, seas being parted, people living inside giant fish, home made wooden boats carrying every species for a worldwide flood that covered the earth in over 29,000 feet of water, the list goes on and on and on.

Tart remember where you are, this is the science forum. We like proof. We don't like people saying "the semantics of this don't matter, I interpret that this prophecy is fulfilled, that is proof, case closed".

[Elijah John]

I'm chalking Tart up as a liar, with regards to his claims about his education.

Moderator Warning


You're entitled to your opinion, but you should know by now calling someone a "liar" is way over the line and a personal attack.

You may have your reasons for thinking so, but name calling like that is a clear violation.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 158 by Tart]

Who decides who is and isn't a legitimate hermeneutic? What makes you more qualified than any of us? What is a rational method of interpretation? Clownboat is asking a very rational question, what is the mechanism involved? Does the writer hear a voice? Is it a vision? Do they simply sense something and put it in their own words? Have they taken hallucinogens?

Is it possible in the thousands of years since the prophecy was written that someone may have rewritten it to more accurately describe events that had already passed? Why not?

All of this assumes that we accept that the prophecy was fulfilled, which we clearly do not, given the repeated destruction of the supposedly indestructible city of Jerusalem.

And that is only ONE prophecy, to accept the bible on the whole we still need to deal with resurrections, seas being parted, people living inside giant fish, home made wooden boats carrying every species for a worldwide flood that covered the earth in over 29,000 feet of water, the list goes on and on and on.

Tart remember where you are, this is the science forum. We like proof. We don't like people saying "the semantics of this don't matter, I interpret that this prophecy is fulfilled, that is proof, case closed".

If this is an interpretation problem, maybe you can shed light on the correct interpretation. The prophecy in Jeremiah prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would over take Israel, and that really happened in history.. Is there any evidence of these things being added after the fact? Becuase the scripture claims this prophecy came before the event took place, and i havent seen any evidence to question that claim.

In fact, we have prophecies all over the Bible, that we know for a fact came before their fulfillment...

Jeremiah also prophesied that Jerusalem, after Israel would be led into exile, that this land will be "Holy" to God, and that it wouldn't be "uprooted" or "demolished"... Which is true, ever since Nebuchadnezzar Jerusalem has never again been uprooted or demolished, in all of its history for over 2500 years after the fact, except for the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, which was prophesied by Jesus, which God aloud himself to do it (Jeremiah 18:5-10)...

What is your interpretation of it that differs from mine? It certainly looks like all of these prophecies have been fulfilled, and i see no evidence of forgery, or something like that.

And are you receiving this message with "implicit uncertainty" regarding its truth? Because that looks like a requirement for interpretation.

[Tart]

And that is only ONE prophecy, to accept the bible on the whole we still need to deal with resurrections, seas being parted, people living inside giant fish, home made wooden boats carrying every species for a worldwide flood that covered the earth in over 29,000 feet of water, the list goes on and on and on.

One true prophecy, revealed from an all knowing God of future events, is miraculous.. That would certainly be considered extraordinary evidence... If its true, which I see no reason to raise doubt that the prophecies arent true. Then that is evidence of an All Knowing God, the Alpha and Omega...

"I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe."~Jesus on prophecy...

The scripture tells us it is a revealing of truth, before it happens. And in fact, that is a reason why many people converted in the first century... I read the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin in the records, actually put curses on people who studied some of these prophecies Christ fulfilled, because it was turning flocks of people Christian... They cursed the study of these prophecies (like Daniel 9, their own book), because it was apparently very strong evidence in the first century...

We have people turning to Christian because of prophecy... In fact, even Constantine had visions of prophecy that turned him Christian. Peter had visions of prophecy that opened his eyes to the New Covenant. Paul told us he had visions of prophetic nature. John the evangelist wrote books on visions of prophecy. As did David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, all had experiences of prophetic nature... And that is just scratching the surface...

What good reason or evidence do we have to question this? Prophecy is prevalent in the scripture, and true prophecy at that.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to DeMotts]

The semantic are irrelevant... Given post 114, with the other verse Jeremiah prophecies.

The subject was pretty much dropped after that post... The prophecy seems to be true...

Are you pretending that you have information available to you that the rest of us do not?
If not, please describe the mechanism that is at work that allows humans to tell the future.

Next, will I have to accept your claim uncritically, or will I be able to reproduce it myself?

Reproduce a prophecy? What do you have in mind?

Provide me with the mechanism for telling the future so I can attempt to reproduce it.

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
~Paul

This thread is not about the uselessness of faith.

That is as critical as it gets... If Christianity isnt objectively true, then we shouldn't believe in it, and even the first disciples confessed that.

Agreed. Can you show that Christianity is objectively true?

The claim is that when you seek you will find, and that is exactly what happen to me. I sought out and I found...

Former born again, spirit filled, street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades here!
Losing my beliefs was the hardest thing I have ever done.
If there was any truth to 'seek and you will find', I would still be a Christian. Countless tear filled prayers took place where I begged my god to make itself real in my life.

Christianity is a foundation for truth.

Please explain what you mean by this. For example, if you wanted to know if I was truly getting my kitchen remodeled right now, how would Christianity enter the picture?

And some of the most critical thinkers in the world were Christian.

Do you even know what argument you are trying to put forth with this sentence? If you do, please inform the rest of us.

There are all types of Christians and non-Christians. Smart/dumb, critial and non-critical. Same goes for Muslims and atheists. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

"Cogito, ergo sum" (I think therefor i am)~Descartes, he was a Christian...

If you think this amounts to evidence for something, please explain what it is evidence for.

[Tart]

[Replying to DeMotts]

The semantic are irrelevant... Given post 114, with the other verse Jeremiah prophecies.

The subject was pretty much dropped after that post... The prophecy seems to be true...

Are you pretending that you have information available to you that the rest of us do not?
If not, please describe the mechanism that is at work that allows humans to tell the future.

Next, will I have to accept your claim uncritically, or will I be able to reproduce it myself?

Reproduce a prophecy? What do you have in mind?

Provide me with the mechanism for telling the future so I can attempt to reproduce it.

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
~Paul

This thread is not about the uselessness of faith.

That is as critical as it gets... If Christianity isnt objectively true, then we shouldn't believe in it, and even the first disciples confessed that.

Agreed. Can you show that Christianity is objectively true?

The claim is that when you seek you will find, and that is exactly what happen to me. I sought out and I found...

Former born again, spirit filled, street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades here!
Losing my beliefs was the hardest thing I have ever done.
If there was any truth to 'seek and you will find', I would still be a Christian. Countless tear filled prayers took place where I begged my god to make itself real in my life.

Christianity is a foundation for truth.

Please explain what you mean by this. For example, if you wanted to know if I was truly getting my kitchen remodeled right now, how would Christianity enter the picture?

And some of the most critical thinkers in the world were Christian.

Do you even know what argument you are trying to put forth with this sentence? If you do, please inform the rest of us.

There are all types of Christians and non-Christians. Smart/dumb, critial and non-critical. Same goes for Muslims and atheists. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

"Cogito, ergo sum" (I think therefor i am)~Descartes, he was a Christian...

If you think this amounts to evidence for something, please explain what it is evidence for.

Short minded in debate... When someone accuses Christianity of indoctrination, and suggests we dont think critical about our beliefs, and then examples are given of critical thinking Christians, the debate shifts to "If you think this amounts to evidence for something, please explain what it is evidence for"... It is evidence for critically thinking Christian!

Accusations were made that Christians dont think critically, you guys where just claiming that Christianity propagates by indoctrination of uncritical thinkers...

And then?

"There are all types of Christians and non-Christians. Smart/dumb, critial and non-critical. Same goes for Muslims and atheists. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make"

It seems like the ones who are not being critical of the things they believe, are you guys.... Please think about the things you are responding to, before you respond...

Quote:
That is as critical as it gets... If Christianity isnt objectively true, then we shouldn't believe in it, and even the first disciples confessed that.

Agreed. Can you show that Christianity is objectively true?

Christ as the risen Messiah... That wuold make Christianity objectively true, and i think the evidence speaks for itself...

[Danmark]

Christ as the risen Messiah... That wuold [sic] make Christianity objectively true, and i think the evidence speaks for itself...

Yes, the lack of evidence for a man being born of a virgin, then dying and being buried for three days, then flying into the sky speaks for itself and far more eloquently than your clumsy argument.

[Tart]

Christ as the risen Messiah... That wuold [sic] make Christianity objectively true, and i think the evidence speaks for itself...

Yes, the lack of evidence for a man being born of a virgin, then dying and being buried for three days, then flying into the sky speaks for itself and far more eloquently than your clumsy argument.

We dont have a lack of evidence, we have evidence... We have testimony from the apostles, we have prophecy... Suggesting these things dont exist is absurd.

[Tart]

So now we are on the objective evidence of Christianity...

So here is the debate... What we know is that Jesus came and lived a life showing great signs, he was crucified in the fulfillment of God's plan, prophesied hundreds of years before it happen. While everyone denied him. He was later resurrected by God, which began the first Church. As testified by the apostles, who showed lives transformed by Christ, and died for their beliefs... (and no, the apostles dying for refusing to reject Christ is not comparable to a Jihadist killing people and themselves)....

The evidence we have here is the explanation for the existence of the Christian faith, and myself (and many like me) are convinced the evidence cant be explained away. That this isnt only the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, its the only reasonable one.

Do you have a better explanation?