- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:01 pm to civilag08
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:01 pm to civilag08
quote:
Does the name of Jesus have any significance to you when spoken out loud? As opposed to any other name?
It has the same significance as the names of Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan or Winston Churchill. They’re all impactful historical figures who in various ways change the course of human history.
I guess I don’t really understand your question. I don’t have any emotional attachment to his name. I don’t use it in vein around my mother out of respect for her so I guess if that counts then you’ve got me
2
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:04 pm to Roger Klarvin
It wasn't meant as a gotcha. But, I have no further questions.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:04 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Kurt Wise, who has PHD from Harvard in paleontology and is a creationist, has probably the most honest take I’ve ever read.
Because you like it. You’re intelligent enough to know that there are different takes that are just as honest.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:05 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Probably because dog owners can act as their God
Why do dogs feel guilt and shame?
quote:Hence those apologists don’t ascribe to your framework. Based on their epistemology, they have every right to believe in the truthfulness of their claims. This is only a problem for the naturalist.
The problem with the “you can’t know you know anything without god” line used by apologists is that’s its only true in the extremely technical sense and in that sense they can’t know anything they claim to know either.
quote:
And all I have to do is know ONE THING to be demonstrably true, just one, to invalidate the argument.
So what’s your one truth?
This post was edited on 5/22/22 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:13 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:The other Christians in this thread would be wise to do the same when it comes to online conversations.
he certainly rejects biblical literalism.
However, I wouldn’t say he rejects it so much as he doesn’t believe that’s it’s required. But he does this cool thing where he distinguishes literal truth from moral truth, as you know.
So a thing can be true or truthful without it needing to have “happened “.
This post was edited on 5/22/22 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:13 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
But because there’s no reason to believe
That’s a little verbal jiu-jitsu and you know that. There isn’t NO reason to believe. You may not find it sufficient but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 11:23 pm to Flats
This is for anyone. I was thoroughly impressed with how Stephen Colbert articulated his Christian faith: Two minute clip
Posted on 5/23/22 at 12:00 am to Flats
quote:
Because you like it.
I actually don’t, I think it’s a terrible way to live. And I don’t need Kurt Wise to point out that reality is incompatible with Biblical literalism, that is already abundantly clear. But it takes an incredible amount of honesty to admit that you choose to believe something despite recognizing it objectively makes no sense.
That’s far harder than believing something you incorrectly believe is supported by evidence, which is what most biblical literalists do.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 12:10 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Probably because dog owners can act as their God
But dog owners can’t impart on dogs the ability to experience those emotions. Goldfish have owners too but lack any emotional capacity. That comes from somewhere else and it’s not explained by the Christian worldview. It is explainable scientifically.
quote:
Hence those apologists don’t ascribe to your framework. Based on their epistemology, they have every right to believe in the truthfulness of their claims. This is only a problem for the naturalist.
The apologist assumes his argument is true because he assumes god exists. Logically there’s no reason why under his worldview the same simulation couldn’t make him believe god was real and the justification for knowledge. He simply circumvents that inconvenient fact with a baseless assumption. It’s just another example of presuppositional apologetics.
quote:
So what’s your one truth?
I exist
It’s a claim that I know to be true under all practical scenarios. And in the scenario where I can’t technically know it’s true, no religious individual can know either without making assumptions not in evidence.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 12:13 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
But he does this cool thing where he distinguishes literal truth from moral truth, as you know.
So a thing can be true or truthful without it needing to have “happened “.
Sure, but there are equivalents of Jordan Peterson doing the same thing with the Koran in the Middle East. So I guess I don’t understand how this is evidence for the truth of Christianity. It’s merely evidence that humans for some reason share some basic moral ideas across most societies, which is self evident and nobody religious or otherwise denies this. On the contrary, evolutionarily it would make no sense if this weren’t the case.
This post was edited on 5/23/22 at 12:14 am
Posted on 5/23/22 at 5:51 am to BamaAtl
quote:(1) No wonder you believed in the Russia hoax. After all, the "lens flare" folks told you Russia-Russia-Russia was all true.
Often lens flares. Other times classified aircraft/drones.
(2) I'm curious. Do you also believe SARS-CoV-2 is an animal virus that was transmitted to humans in the Wuhan Wet Market? Because that's what Fauci is telling you.
(3) Regarding the extra-terrestrial premise. (a) Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. (b) We know there are other planets >12 billion years old. (c) We know there are TRILLIONS of planets in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. (d) We estimate there are 200 billion other galaxies in the universe. (e) You believe the life arose from random occurrence in Earth's primordial ooze. (f) Predictive statistics is science. As you believe life on Earth originated from random events, if you believe such events to be unreplicable amongst the other >200 billion-trillion (200 Sextillion or 200 X 10^21) planets, then predictive statistics would rate you an abject imbecile.
Are you an imbecile?
Let's take the 200 Billion-Trillion planet premise the next step. If conditions were such that life could only form on 1 out of every trillion planets, there would still be more than 200 billion such occurrences out there. What are the odds some of those planets beat Earth to the evolutionary punch? What is the chance life is millions or billions of years more advanced than our own in some of those locations?
quote:My implication is that if you believe randomness accounts for origins of life here, yet believe ET's are beyond the realm of possibility, you are a moron.
what you're trying to imply
quote:What I think they did?
what you think they did billions of years ago
That's an odd statement considering I take no definitive position on ID, aside from recognizing the possibility and delineating it.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 5:55 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Belief and contemplation are two completely different concepts. In that regard, the contemplations otherwise intelligent, educated adults are capable of limiting themselves to never ceases to amaze me.
The things otherwise intelligent, educated adults are capable of believing never ceases to amaze me.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 6:33 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Yes and no.
See the problem with the Old Testament is that it was written before humans knew much of anything about the world or the physical realities of existence
For example, Hebrews would have employed the term "world" to address their world, the Tigris-Euphrates basin. In fact, Hebrew concepts and terms, even those translated by explicit English words, such as generation, frequently carry in Hebrew a variety of meanings, some of which are neither commensurate with English nor immediately evident.
There is voluminous evidence of a massive Mesopotamian flood. The evidence is not just Biblical. It is physical and described in cuneiform records as well.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 6:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Let's take the 200 Billion-Trillion planet premise the next step. If conditions were such that life could only form on 1 out of every trillion planets, there would still be more than 200 billion such occurrences out there.
Hence Fermi's paradox. We have no evidence of the existence of aliens, yet the math and science says they're out there.
To believe not only that they're out there but that they've impacted our development in such a way as to be undetectable -and- they're still around (yet never seen) is silly. You should really be better than substituting one fairy tale for another.
quote:
My implication is that if you believe randomness accounts for origins of life here
And the fact is we have no other plausible scientific explanation except for randomness re: abiogenesis. And the best part? After that initial spark, the only random part is mutation.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 6:56 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:I prefer Cardinal Ratzinger to Descartes.
I exist
I am thought, therefore I am.
I just don't see how we exist from the randomness of your theory, but if that is the basis of our existence then I can never make another value judgement for the rest of my life. I can only act within the confines of society, which you've already said is in alignment with Judeo-Christian thought.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:07 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Indeed. You know you exist. So you know there is physical matter involved in that existence. How did that (Big Bang emanated) matter come into existence in the first place?
So what’s your one truth?
I exist
It’s a claim that I know to be true under all practical scenarios. And in the scenario where I can’t technically know it’s true, no religious individual can know either without making assumptions not in evidence.
quote:Yet you DO believe. You believe science will find the answers to that which you don't know. You have faith science will eventually develop an atheistic explanation of universal origins for example. That is where your faith, and your belief, reside. Your faith in science or atheism is fine of course. But don't consider it as something it isn't.
But because there’s no reason to believe
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:16 am to aubie101
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:28 am to Flats
quote:
Islam still functions
There are varying levels of functioning.
You could compare a perfectly running corvette to a civic barely running and in desperate need of a tune up.
Both technically fuction.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How did that (Big Bang emanated) matter come into existence in the first place?
I don’t know and I’m comfortable with that. Nobody else knows either, some just pretend to.
quote:
You have faith science will eventually develop an atheistic explanation of universal origins for example.
Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. It’s not a certainty such a thing is even knowable so I don’t lose any sleep over it.
quote:
That is where your faith, and your belief, reside. Your faith in science or atheism is fine of course. But don't consider it as something it isn't.
You and I both know that “faith” in repeatable, testable claims about the physical world that simply lie outside an individuals personal domain of knowledge is not the same thing as faith in a being that supposedly exists outside of the physical universe and is neither testable or falsifiable.
We all have faith that our car will start every morning, but that faith is grounded in the fact that cars are made by experts who knows how cars work. If you asked those people, they could show you why your car starts every morning. And we see cars start all the time verifying the reality of cars starting. That’s fundamentally different than having faith in this existence of god.
This post was edited on 5/23/22 at 7:44 am
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:47 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
I can only act within the confines of society
But that’s already what you do.
Page 21 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News