Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 206 by bluegreenearth]

Are you sure you know what a equivalent fallacy is?

It is fact that there is not solution to the creation problem in science.

If anyone holds some type of naturalistic position, they would have to have faith that science will solve the creation problem.

An equivocation fallacy occurs when a single word can have multiple nuanced meanings but is utilized in an argument as though it only has one meaning. In this case, the word "faith" is being equivocated with the word "trust." However, it is more nuanced than that. The kind of trust implied by the word "faith" in a religious context is not equivalent to the kind of trust expressed in a scientific context.

For example, you might trust an apple exists at the grocery store despite the fact that you are not on location to observe it. The foundation of your trust in this case is based on implicit empirical evidence you have collected from previous visits to the grocery store where you consistently observed apples in the produce section. Therefore, the application of "faith" here is reasonable because it refers to a conceptual truth as supported by an implicit empirical foundation. However, having a reasonable "faith" in a claim does not mean the claim is empirically true or that you can claim to know it is empirically true. After all, you could go to the grocery store to discover they are sold out of apples.

Conversely, if you had no prior knowledge of apples being sold at the grocery store, you would lack the implicit empirical foundation upon which your "faith" in the claim would be justified. Likewise, if your prior experiences with grocery stores were that they never maintained a supply of apples in the produce section, trusting the aforementioned claim would not be reasonable because the implicit empirical evidence would suggest it is most likely false. Similarly, if a grocery store advertises that it has "eternal salvation" for sale, you would have neither a conceptual nor implicit empirical basis to trust the grocery store can sell you eternal salvation. In fact, the available conceptual and implicit empirical evidence would better justify "faith" in the alternative claim which suggests "eternal salvation" is more likely a brand name for some type of known food item.

So, comparing your faith in supernatural claims which have no implicit empirical basis is not equivalent to the trust we place in scientific claims which do have an implicit empirical basis.

[Tart]

First of all, if you are going to use someone words, you should give them credit for their work. It looks like, at least some of this, is pretty much plagiarizing a bias source called rationalwiki (that we are all aware of), which doesnt look good for you.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Con ... ns_in_Acts

This is simply listing what contradictions they say are in Acts, and it doesnt even look like they are making a case for biblical authorship at all. Im looking for Biblical authorship arguments that you said is specifically for "the Two Letters Written for Theophilus", which are the 2 Epistles of the Thessalonians, right? In which case you have not mentioned any evidence at all for.

Your request was exactly as follows:

I'm really interested in this, can you be more specific and give us the verses and passages used to determine these "facts"?

For example, can you support this assertion with the evidence?
"Paul’s character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Paul’s own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church."

The list I posted provides examples of verses and passages that were used to determine the fact that incongruities exist between Acts and Paul's letters as per your request. Since the requested information directly references Bible verses and passages that anyone can review from any source they choose, the secular perspective of my chosen source is completely irrelevant. Feel free to open your Bible and look up those verses and passages for yourself if you don't approve of the summary that was provided in my post. Also, because this is an informal debate forum, I don't always feel it is necessary to include citations for information that is widely and freely available. Furthermore, in a subsequent post, your expressed impatience in waiting for me to provide those verses and passages was a strong motivation to expedite the acquisition of the requested material by consulting an external source rather than drafting original content.

As for the implication that these "contradictions" are debatable, I never used the word "contradiction" to describe their relationship. The word I used was "incongruities" meaning the two sources are inharmonious or incompatible with one another in a few critical ways. When we examine the verses and passages in question, they are not reasonably harmonious with each other and are incompatible in some circumstances. Christian apologists recognize this fact, and it is precisely the reason why post-hoc theological arguments were developed to try and harmonize Acts with Paul's letters. So, even with convoluted but clever apologetic strategies designed to force compatibility between Acts and Paul's letters, these incongruities give us good reasons to doubt that the author of Acts was Paul's long-time traveling companion.

Well maybe you and I disagree, if you use someone elses words you should give them credit.. Especially when using word for word...

And here is a sections of the rules for this forum that deal with the strength of evidence.

Strength of evidence

Not all evidence carries the same force. The better quality your evidence, the weightier your evidence would be. Quoting from a prestigious university would carry more weight than quoting from a high school senior's homework posted on his personal website.

Also, if you present evidence from commonly accepted sources, then it would give your evidence more strength. Even better is to present evidence that is from your opponent's side. So, if you are a non-Christian and you present evidence from a Christian website, it would be strong evidence.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 221 by Tart]

Your objection is irrelevant because the request was for the Bible verses and passages that demonstrate the fact that incongruities exist between Acts and Paul's letters. I indicated which Bible verses and passages would satisfy your request. It doesn't matter where the list of those Bible verses and passages came from. Once again, go examine those verses and passages in your own personal copy of the Bible if it makes you feel better. Either way, the results are exactly the same. Now, may we please return to the topic of the debate?

[Danmark]

Yes apparently i have misinterpreted the argument... which is a shame becuase im [sic] not really interested in these contradictions, and more interested in biblical authorship... I personally think contradictions listed by atheists are just unfounded for the most part, nit picking stupid things that i dont [sic] care to even discuss.. When i read it, though there are some things that seem to contradict, perhaps the linage of Christ or soemthing [sic] like that, but the vast majority of these things pointed out are just dumb...

It is natural that one who supports the Bible as the inspired word of God would not want to discuss it's many contradictions since they prove it was not written by an infallible God. Those contradictions are the same whether pointed out by atheists or believers.

It would be more helpful perhaps if you could point out the contradictions you think are 'dumb' or 'stupid' according to you, rather than just ignore them all or put them all under the same unfounded and unexplained label.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 182 by Realworldjack]

Your inability to properly understand what constitutes an epistemology or how it operates is demonstrated through the lack of any meaningful progress in our conversation. I'm not sure if this is my failure to adequately articulate these important concepts or a psychological defense mechanism keeping you doxastically closed. So, maybe you'll gain a better understanding of where apologetic arguments fail if is presented to you through another source:

Educate yourself and enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lroKN5g ... B-3MiY17uk

My friend, I happen to know what epistemology is, and exactly how it operates. This is not hard to understand at all. The reason "we are not making any meaningful progress" is simply because of the fact that you fail to deal with the facts, and evidence we have, and instead want to deal with my epistemology, and the only reason I can think of is, you have no answers for these facts, and evidence.

Therefore, since you cannot deal with the facts, and since you are not having success with this argument concerning epistemology that you seem to love so much, you assume it has to be because I cannot comprehend the argument, or it is that you are not articulating it well enough, and so you simply find one who is in agreement with you, and you hope this will finally get me to understand, and have to agree.

However, the problem is not at all with my understanding, because I understand you just fine. The problem is, it is a failed argument, which seems to be made out of desperation. In other words, when one cannot deal with the real facts we have, then they must, and have to attempt to find, some other avenue.

At this point, I have listen to this link you supplied 3 times all the way through, using my commute back, and forth to work, and will more than likely listen to it again today, back, and forth, and the speaker is completely irrational as we will see, and it starts right at the beginning.

He begins by telling us about America, and how it was predominantly Christian, for many years, and goes on to assume that it is because of the information age, that many folks are falling away from the faith of their parents. Now, I do believe this has something to do with it, however I have other ideas as well, as to why this is occurring, but I will admit it is an assumption, while this guy seems to be under the impression, that his assumption, would be a fact.

Okay, from this assumption this guy goes on to say, "Therefore". In other words, because there are those who are not holding on to the faith of their parents, "apologists, have organized a campaign to publicly defend their faith, and defend their status", and he says this as if it were a fact.

However, this ignores the fact that, there have been apologists all along, even when Christianity was dominate in America, and the idea actually goes back to the NT where Christians at the time are told, "be ready to give a defense." So then, it is not a fact that all of a sudden we have this apologetic campaign, because of the fact that there are those rejecting the faith, since there have always been those who have defended Christianity.

Now, we are about to see where this guy is completely irrational. After making this assumption concerning apologists, he then begins to explain to us the "consequences involved, and how it affects "all of us".

Read very carefully here. At about the one minute mark, this guy tells us, "all of us, everywhere, has a SERIOUS STAKE in this issue, and we would do well to understand it as best we can".

Now, I would agree with this, and he has already at this point told us of some of the stakes involved. At this point this guy goes on to tell us how impressive his education is, and how important his line of work is, and then at about the 1:38 mark, he has this to say, "I have no personal STAKE in any of the beliefs I hold"......... WHAT?

I'm telling you, I don't know what it takes for you to understand when someone is completely irrational, but this guy, just less than a minute ago has told us, "all of us, everywhere, has a SERIOUS STAKE in this issue", only now to tell us, "I have no personal STAKE in the beliefs I hold"?

This is crazy talk! We all have a personal stake in the beliefs we hold, no matter what they are, or who we are, because we operate our lives according to our beliefs. However, simply because we have a stake in what we believe, does not necessitate that we do not have the ability to dig this stake up, and place it elsewhere, when, and if we determine our beliefs to be in error. So again, it is crazy talk to even suggest that one does not have a personal stake in the beliefs they hold, but it is completely irrational for one to say on the one hand, "we all, everyone of us, have a serious stake in this issue, and would do well to understand it as best we can", and then on the other hand to proclaim, "I have no personal stake in the beliefs I hold". This is nonsense!

You see, I admit, because I understand that I have a personal stake in the beliefs I hold. So then, do you really believe, trust, and listen to those who claim, they have no personal stake in their beliefs? GOOD GRIEF! But, I continued to listen anyway.

He then goes on to talk about how he forms these beliefs of his, (which btw he has no stake in), and then goes on to tell us, "When it comes to religion, you don't have to bother with any of this stuff at all, your beliefs are decided for you at birth".

Oh really? This seems to ignore the fact, that there have been many, many unbelievers who were not brought up in the faith, who converted to Christianity. Among these many unbelievers who have converted to Christianity, would be those who had no religious affiliation at all.

However, there would also be those who converted to Christianity, from a completely different religion, and they will explain that they converted based on the facts, and evidence involved.

Then there would be those who were not only unbelievers, but were completely opposed to Christianity, so much so, they set out in order to demonstrate just how ridiculous the claims would be, only to convert to Christianity, after examining the facts, and evidence, for themselves, in order to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief would be. The short list here would be, those such as, C. S. Lewis, Lee Stroble, and Rosaria Butterfield.

All of these were not only unbelievers at one time, they were actually out to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief was, and in the process, converted to Christianity, based on the facts, and evidence they were examining, in order to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief was.

So, would you, and this guy, like to tell us, these sort of conversion have never occurred? Would you like to argue that the beliefs of all Christians were decided at birth? Or, do you understand that there are, and have been many Christians who converted as an adult who were not exposed to Christianity?

Would you, or this guy, like to argue that there have never been Christians who converted from a completely different religion, who were brought up from birth in that religion? Would you, or he, like to argue that there have never been those who converted who were completely opposed to Christianity, and were out to demonstrate how ridiculous it was, only to convert to Christianity after examining the facts, and evidence in order to demonstrate how ridiculous it was?

If not, then I guess we can say he is dead wrong to say, "When it comes to religion, you don't have to bother with any of this stuff at all, your beliefs are decided for you at birth". Because you see, simply because there may be many Christians who simply hold on to the faith, without ever examining what it is they claim to believe, this would not mean that all of us must, and have to operate in this way, and many of us do, "bother with that stuff".

Let's look at myself for example. I was brought up in a Christian home, and my dad was actually an ordained minister, which means I was at Church every time the doors were opened. However, when I became of age, I never attended Church, unless there may be a wedding, or funeral. The reason being? I was not interested at all.

At this point, "I did not have a dog in the hunt", or as your guy tells us, "I had no stake in the game". It was not until I began to have children that I understood, that I clearly have a "dog in the hunt" now, because my children were at risk, seeing as how my parents wanted to take them to Church. But you see, I am not the type of guy who would say, "well it ain't so bad, I was brought up in the Church".

Therefore, I understood at that point, I would have to tell my children something about Christianity, because I knew my children would be exposed to it, one way, or the other. So then, I set out to learn all I could know about Christianity, and I read and studied intently, from both sides of the equation.

Form the start I knew I would tell my children one, of three things,

1. I have studied Christianity intently, and I am convinced it is false, and here are the reasons why.

2. I have studied Christianity intently, and I have not come to any sort of definite conclusions as of yet, but this is what I have learned thus far.

3. I have studied Christianity intently, and I am convinced it is true, and here are the reasons why.

Of course, you already know where I landed, but the fact of the matter is, I came away from all of this convinced that the theology I was exposed to as a child, was a reckless, and dangerous theology, so much so, that I cannot, and will not, worship with my mom, dad, other family members, and many life long friends.

All of the above demonstrates, that one does not have to have their beliefs decided for them at birth, in order to be a Christian, because many of us actually do, and have, "bothered with this stuff".

So as you can see, thus far, all this guy is doing is, making noise. Because you see, simply because there are indeed many Christians who are brought up in the faith, and simply believe upon that basis, and never actually examine what they believe, or why they believe it, does not in any way demonstrate, that to be a Christian, you must, and had to be brought up in such a way as for your beliefs to be decided for you. If that were the case, then we would not have those who are Christians, who were never exposed to it as a child. You would not have Christians who came from completely different faiths. You would not have Christians who were once so opposed to it, they were attempting to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief was. And I guess, I would still be in the Church I was brought up in, if my beliefs, were decided for me at birth. Your guy, has put forth, a very lazy thinking argument, which can easily be demonstrated to be false.

At any rate, this guy then goes on to say, "Christians are required to spread the word to everyone else", based upon a passage which would clearly not be a command to all Christians. Of course, he more than likely gets this idea because many Christians believe this is a command to all Christians, but it would seem as if this guy would at least attempt to determine if it could possibly be a command for all Christians, before he announces it, as a fact.

He then sort of gets it right when he says, "this problem is further amplified by a constant push to exercise legal force as a blunt instrument to impose a narrow version of Christian morality onto the rest of the nation".

You see, this guy acknowledges this would be a "narrow version", and I would agree with him on this, and out right disagree with the Christians who are attempting to legislate Christian morality. Christians are nowhere commanded to legislate morality, and this is easily demonstrated when Paul says, "what do I have to do with, judging those outside the Church"?

The point is, if he would acknowledge the fact that, not all of us as Christians operate in this way, and it is not commanded of Christians, and those Christians who do operate in this way, are going against what is taught by the Biblical writers, then I would be right there with him, and in fact I am ahead in the game, because I have already done this very thing, on the floor or a statewide Christian conference, many years ago!

Well then, your guy at one point actually makes this comment,

No one converts to Christianity from the pure force of evidence, and argumentation, but plenty of people do convert because of tradition, upbringing, and social pressure

As has already been demonstrated, this is simply a false statement, and if the first part of this statement were in fact true, then in the second part he would not have to say, "but PLENTY of people", but could rather at that point say, "ALL people who convert do so because of tradition, upbringing, and social pressure."

We have already talked about some folks above who converted who were not influenced by these things, and as for myself, I could not care less about, tradition, upbringing, and social pressure, because if I did, I guess I would have succumbed to the social pressure, of the tradition, of my upbringing.

You see, this guy is not dealing with the facts, and evidence here. Rather, he is simply dealing with how folks come to their beliefs, and since there are many Christians who really have no idea what it is they claim to believe, nor why they believe it, he is simply generalizing here, and assuming all Christians must, and have to operate in this way.

But, it is my guess, that this guy really knows better than this himself, and is rather attempting to make an argument in an attempt to convince weak minded folk. The fact of the matter is, this argument will indeed work on weak minded folk, because if you have weak minded Christians, who are Christians simply because of, tradition, social pressure, and upbringing, then this type of weak minded argument could just be enough to talk them out.

In other words, if there are those who would make such a major life decision, without thinking deeply through such a decision, then it may not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out. This is what I call, "easy in, easy out". However, for those of us who actually think through these type of decisions, we can easily recognize this as the weak minded argument it is.

Okay, this guy then goes on to say,

Giving up ones religion IS NEVER as simple as causally admitting some trivial cognitive error, but the physiological equivalent of cutting off an entire arm, or a leg

This is SO SO COMICAL! I really do not know how anyone can listen to this, with a straight face? Okay, so then, what we can learn from this is, there are NO Christians who are concerned with the truth, and if Christianity would be demonstrated to be false, all of us would act as if we had lost, an arm, or a leg, while if the shoe was on the other foot, and the resurrection was somehow demonstrated to be a fact, all those opposed, would gladly, and be more than willing to change their beliefs, with no problem whatsoever? Really? GOOD GRIEF!

I will admit, it is a fact that many Christians would react in this way, and this is demonstrated by the fact that there are those on this very site, who were once Christian, and have now rejected, and still continue to seem as if they wish it could be true. However, I myself, cannot for the life of me understand this, because if you truly understand what Christianity proclaims, who would want to believe it?

The main point here however is, this guy, acts as if, it would only be Christians who would act in such a way, while all those opposed, would easily, and happily concede? What is that segment on that NFL show called??????? Oh yeah, "C'MON MAN"!

Okay, I am not going to sit here and critic everything this guy says, because I think I have brought forth enough to demonstrate that this guy is certainly bias, and irrational in his thinking. And I have certainty demonstrated the fact that he uses generalizations, in that he simply takes what a good number of Christians may do, and then supposes, and even insists, that this is the way all Christians, must, and have to operate. And we are about to see this same thing again, as we look at the next thing I consider.

Toward the end this guy shows an excerpt of William Lane Craig. Now, I would like it to be known, that I have heard of Craig in the past, but up until just a few weeks ago, I would not have known who he was if he walked into my house, and I do not recall ever hearing, or reading anything he has said, before that time.

The only reason I even looked him up a few weeks ago, is because he was brought up here on this site, and so I was interested to see some of his views. A good way to do this would be to watch one of his debates, and so this is what I actually did. I watched an entire debate.

Throughout most of the debate, Craig did a really good job of using the facts, and evidence, and I think anyone who watched this debate would have to say that he certainly won the debate. However, this debate looked to be in a Church setting, and most in attendance seemed to be Christian, and his opponent look to be really nervous, and somewhat unprepared. With this being the case, I do not put a whole lot of stock into the outcome.

At any rate, Craig attempted to make, almost the same argument in this debate, that he seemed to be making in the excerpt provided in the video. However, in the debate, he simply seemed to be saying something to the effect that, "along side all the other evidence, he has the testament of the Holy Spirit in his heart", and he went on to say something like, "I do not see why this would not be considered evidence as well"?

When I heard him say this in the debate, I thought he did a fairly good job of defending what he was saying, but I thought is was a bad idea on his part, because I have always been against referring to any sort of inner experience one my believe they have had, as being any sort of evidence, even to one's self.

Because I thought he did a fairly good job defending this idea in the debate, I would have like to have seen what he may have said, just before, and, or after what is shown in the video you supplied, but I do not see how this will help Craig out in any way in this situation, because he went way over, and above what he had to say in the debate concerning this same thing, by saying that, "even if the historical evidence seemed to turn against the Christian faith, I do not see how this would controvert, the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart". That is at least close to what he had to say.

Okay, well I happen to believe Craig is way off here, and this is something I have argued with other Christians about, time, after time, and I have explained to them just how reckless, and dangerous it is, to trust some sort of inner experience, over and above the facts, and evidence.

To demonstrate this, there is a certain hymn I refuse to sing, and it is the one which has the words, "you ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." It is a known fact to many of my friends that I will not sing this hymn, and many of them will no longer sing this hymn.

So here again, we can see, just like you, this guy, does not deal with actual facts which pertain to Christianity. Rather what he does is deal with the way many Christians arrive to their beliefs, and then generalizes, coming to the conclusion that all Christians must, and have to operate in the same way, which we have seen to be false.

I can only believe this is some sort of tactic, in order to divert the conversation from the real facts, and evidence, so that one does not have to deal with these facts, and evidence, but I can certainly see how this sort of tactic will indeed work on those who are lazy thinkers.

It is a fact that many Christians simply hold on to the faith they were brought up in. It is a fact that many of them simply believe because of, tradition, upbringing, and social pressure. With this being the case, it is a fact that there would be many weak minded Christians, and we know this to be a fact, because we have many folks who were once Christians, who freely, and openly admit, they made the decision to become a Christian, without the use of the mind.

Many of these ex-Christians will announce this fact, freely, and openly, as if this would be to their credit. However, what this could be telling us is, we are dealing with folks who freely, and openly admit to making a major life decision to embrace a belief with all their heart, and they did so, admitting their mind was not engaged, and so it should not be surprising to us at all, when these same folks are convinced the belief they once embraced so dearly is false after all, simply by hearing these sort of weak minded arguments which are supplied in this video. It is not shocking in the least, but should be expected.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 224 by Realworldjack]

I'll take the blame for not providing a disclaimer before recommending that series of videos. It was not my intention to have you critique the guy's personal perspective on Christianity but to focus only on the factual components of the video with regards to epistemology. When you look passed the counter-apologetic content of the videos, I think his explanation of epistemology is quite informative and enlightening. If the videos contain too many distracting detours, then find another source of information on epistemology that is more appealing to you.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 216 by Clownboat]

No im just not interested in responding to hyper sensitive skepticism. Like for instance, here in this thread of Biblical Creation Mythology, we have discussed interpreting an error in the creation story.. And the atheists have insisted on a radically literal interpretation, even on a word that have been translated from the original Hebrew... Was it a contradiction? No, it was a translation error, and if you read post 40, it bring to light this kind of radical interpretations you guys make.
viewtopic.php?t=36282

Another example would be the people who claim the Bible has a contradiction of calculating Pi, becuase it is calculated as "3" in the Bible... In 1 Kings 7:23, if we take these numbers and have C/d=Pi, Pi comes out to 3. And we had a huge mass of nonbelievers going and calling the Bible wrong for this calculation. But this is a perfectly reasonable calculation to make. It is just rounding Pi to some value...

I just dont think a lot of these atheists read the Bible the way an independent source would read it. They are intentionally trying to pick it a part at every word, and they miss the real meaning of a lot of it becuase of that. Now i agree there are some areas where the words seem to be contradictory, but the vast majority of nonbelievers radical criticism in these areas is unfounded.

It is almost like we are not even reading the same book. I dont see these errors in Act's when i read it, I just take the story as is... And i suppose ill take 1 example, even though this has never been a contradiction in my mind. Lets take for example when people pointed out that Peter said in Acts 15:7 that “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.".. And this is taken as a contradiction becuase Paul later says "they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised."

I have never seen this as a contradiction.. Why cant Peter talk about his beliefs, and Gentiles hear it? Do you think if a Gentile was in the same room with Peter, that he would have to hide his message? I believe Peter WAS meant to go to the Jews, but that doesnt limit him only to Jews. In fact Peter was the one who had the vision of eating unclean animals, which was symbolic for Gentiles.. I just dont read this as an error like you guys do.


Im just not interested in refuting all these supposed contradictions, becuase I simply dont read it like you guys read it... I dont think you guys are trying to make sense of its words, usually you guys try to make nonsense of its words.

Two things:
1) I'm not an atheist.
2) Like I said already: Would anyone really expect a Muslim to fuss over their religious contradictions? Nah, they would probably just poison the well and say something like they are just stupid and atheists are just nit picking.

Beside the Muslim part (which was just an example), I'm pretty much a prophet it seems!

[Danmark]

....it is a fact that there would be many weak minded Christians, and we know this to be a fact, because we have many folks who were once Christians, who freely, and openly admit, they made the decision to become a Christian, without the use of the mind.

[3-4 pages redacted]
Name one. Also name one Christian who became one solely because of empirical evidence.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 183 by benchwarmer]


This is sort of strange? This article you supply is dated, 2016. However, when I take a look at this link I will supply you with, it says nothing whatsoever about this, but rather continues to use language as if these things have not been observed.

It is strange, I pulled this quote from the link you supplied:

Since speciation has been observed,

Are we moving the goalposts now to require multiple successive speciation events? That's what would be involved to observe even higher level changes which is what the article is talking about in your quote.

I'm not trying to totally derail this thread, but the point is that you called someone out for having a belief not based on facts. I showed the facts for speciation do exist so your point was refuted.

You said (bolding added by me):

This is very simple. Has the idea that, one species evolving into another species, been demonstrated to be a fact? Has this idea, ever been observed? Can this event ever be observed? Will this event ever be observed?

The answer to all these question is, NO!

I proved the answer to that question is yes. Why not just retract your statement?

Since speciation has been observed,

My friend, do you see that comma? This means the sentence has not ended.

At any rate, as I have said, this has nothing to do with the topic, but when we arrive to the last sentence of this same article we read,

It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.

So what does this mean? Well, it means this has not been demonstrated, because if it had, the article would not have to say, "It is logical and reasonable to conclude", rather than, "this is a known fact", which is exactly my point.

So then what is the point? These folks believe there is reason to believe an event has occurred which not only has not been observed, but can never be observed, because the process would take far to long, which they are admitting themselves.

Therefore, this is not a debate on evolution, and I am not willing to allow this to happen, but is rather a demonstration that there very well may be very good reasons to believe an event has occurred, which has not, and maybe even cannot ever be demonstrated to be a fact.

So then, you either agree there may be good reasons to believe certain things based on the facts, and evidence we have, which have not, and maybe even cannot be proven? Or, you are under the impression there would be no reasons to believe that which have not been, and may never be proven?

That's it! It has nothing to do with, evolution!

I'm not trying to totally derail this thread, but the point is that you called someone out for having a belief not based on facts.

NO! In fact, here is some of what I said,

your belief would have to be based upon the facts, and evidence, which you happen to believe supports such an idea

So, as you can see, I am not insisting their beliefs would not be based upon facts, but am rather acknowledging their beliefs would be based upon facts, which is exactly the point I am making.

So again, it had really has nothing to do with evolution, but rather this was simply an example of a reason there may be to believe something which has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

So then, If you want to insist that this example has been demonstrated to be a fact, then I am not going to argue the point, because I am not interested here in debating evolution, and have agreed to move on to something else we may can agree people believe to be true, based upon facts, and evidence, which has not, and maybe even cannot be demonstrated to be a fact, and I suggested the idea of the human, evolving from the ape.

Again, this really has nothing to do with evolution. Rather, it has to do with whether there may be reasons to believe something has occurred, even though this event may not have, and maybe can never be, demonstrated to be a fact.

So again, either you agree there may be reasons to believe certain things, based of the facts, and evidence we have, which may not have been demonstrated to be an actual fact. Or, you are under the impression there would be no reasons to believe anything at all, which has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 192 by Realworldjack]

It is then, and only then, when the text goes on to say,
And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Now, just for a moment, let us imagine this story is in fact true. This would mean, Paul would have just been confronted with the creator of the universe, and came to the realization that, what he thought he was doing was serving God, only to be confronted by God to be informed he was dead wrong, on top of losing his ability to see.

Or, this would mean Paul had a stroke, or a seizure, or a fit, or.... Concluding that he had been confronted by God is a huge and totally unjustified step.

So, what would be the facts, and evidence which would support such things as it being a, stroke, seizure, or fit?

How would if be a "huge and totally unjustified step", when this is exactly what is reported, by two authors? It seems at this point we at the very least, have testimonial evidence to support the idea Paul was confronted by God, with only speculation that it must, and had to be a stroke, seizure, or fit.