OT: What do you believe and why?

[GooberGrape1]

I'll be very surprised if anyone changes their mind as a result of this thread. It seems like one of those topics where people go in having already made a hard decision, and spend their entire time defending that decision. I am a little disappointed that we are now referring to rationalwiki and YouTube as references, I don't think those sources would fly in an anthropology peer reviewed research paper. But then again neither would a Bible verse, unless we allow for authenticity of antiquity, so touché.

 

[pharphis]

@pharphis, I do actually have responses for most of the issues you raise--the rationalwiki is really a terrible example of textual interpretation written by someone who has a clear agenda. One issue is that Old Testament law put boundaries on actions, but that did not mean it condoned everything that was not punishable by law. For example, adultery is quite wrong IMO, but in the U.S. we don't have any laws that criminalize adultery. That doesn't mean that everyone in the American justice system condones adultery and thinks it is perfectly fine. That's why the laws made in the Old Testament for governing a nation cannot be regarded as enharmonic with the moral teaching of the New Testament.

Now, I'm packing to leave for a week long trip first thing in the morning, so it's a bit crazy today, and I can't raise too many points because I know I won't have access to the internet for a while, so I'm not going to be able to respond. I also have read through many Ehrman/Dawkin's-esque books, and I know we could go on cherry-picking tricky scriptures for a long time. My position isn't that there aren't any scriptures that are difficult to interpret, but merely that the bulk of scripture preaches a morality that is wonderful, and I believe the difficult ones can be interpreted quite clearly in light of this, even if I don't have time or space here to address every single one individually.

So I'll just say this:

You've already stated that morality is socially constructed. Murder is a subset of ending human life--it is unethical, unjustified killing. You, and others, have already stated that ending a life may be ethical in certain situations, circumstances, traditions, cultures. If you then turn to the ethical system prescribed by the Bible, and then attempt to judge God by some other set of standards, I feel you need to account for this. You state:



Have you changed your position from earlier in this thread? You originally stated morality is ultimately subjective, and that there isn't any absolute right or wrong, but now you are postulating a system of morality that would even trump God if you believed he existed.

As it stood, even other humans could not be required to submit to the morality you postulated, but now I'm interested in what all-powerful universal moral law you're making an appeal to here in order to criminalize the Christian God. How has morality moved from being a non-absolute, subjective, culturally-constructed set of beliefs that humans can't ultimately be judged by, to an absolute, objective, universal concept that God can be judged by?

EDIT: We finally face the Euthyphro dilemma you mentioned earlier!

I don't understand what you mean by the first highlighted part, but I'm ok with waiting

I don't believe I've changed my position or contradicted myself, but I don't know which of us is misunderstanding (assuming that is the case). Again this is a blanket statement because I don't have the background but I think that the justification given for most of god's commandments that involve killing people is not sufficient. The reasons I've heard are things like 1) Anything god says goes (he is the absolute arbiter of morality after all), 2) they were bad and deserved it or 3) god works in mysterious ways (TM) which in the case of killing an entire city's children I've seen argued that god is doing an "infinite good" by sending them straight to heaven or similar arguments. I won't pretend to know even the majority of the arguments but of the ones I've heard they're not compelling.
Still, I'll have to wait to see what kegs was getting at.

I'm not trying to appeal to a universal law, but I do think (from what I've heard) that god commanding people to kill others is unjustified.

 

[pharphis]

I'm enjoying the perspectives being fleshed out here. But I think it's important to note that, when involving The Bible, mistranslations and disconnects are bound to happen. And that it isn't truly fair to take literally words that you yourself do not believe are true to formulate your own argument that counters said words.

And I'm not sure how to feel about using comedic parodies of scripture as replacement of genuine argument, or that somebody else can construct your own perspective better than you. (Especially with the amount of confirmation bias and ingenuous arguments that float out there on the internets)
When videos are titled "Falsehood with Creationism", "Noah's Flood: debunked", "Bible Slavery: TOTALLY DIFFERENT", and is intentionally using pictures like an important symbol like God reading from a transcript in an attempt to ridicule that belief, I do not believe those perspectives to be genuine, nor to be genuinely interested in honest, meaningful understanding or discussion.

I don't see how it's unfair. If the person I'm having a discussion with takes the words literally true (allowing for translation differences and the like) then why am I not allowed to use those same words when arguing that their belief has issues they should address (such as slavery).

That's true. I just found them relevant enough and to put some of the issues I have in a simple enough way that it is sometimes easier to express the problems I have by using them.

I don't control the titles of the videos. I think it's understandable that if someone is going to take their time addressing something like the scientific validity of Noah's Flood that they quite often have titles that betray their position. This isn't necessarily bad and in my opinion has no impact on the validity of the material contained. I think if someone is trained in Geology and wants to explain why and how we know Noah's Flood never happened, it's perfectly acceptable to use a title like that. Besides, kegs wanted information on why I believed a global flood never occurred so I provided the quickest, easily-understood source I was aware of. Even with some of the snark contained in these videos it's much easier to digest than simply linking to a wikipedia article.

I think all of the people I have linked to are interested in honest discussion. You can see it in their comment sections (and I have) time and time again. They very clearly hold some positions but they are willing to address criticisms and other opinions. Potholer54 is especially good at this because he is a science journalist. If you find his religious videos hard to watch perhaps you would like his other videos which imo use the same tone but address different topics (such as climate change).
Also, I think if someone is going to make a series of videos addressing that which they find false regarding creationism that a title like the one mentioned is perfectly fine. It IS a falsehood of creationism, after all (evolution - atheism) because as we all know there are many theists who accept evolution. It is usually limited to the bible literalists that believe that accepting evolution makes on an atheist and in the context of a literal god they are correct - but this ignores every other sect or religion that doesn't agree with them.

I'll be very surprised if anyone changes their mind as a result of this thread. It seems like one of those topics where people go in having already made a hard decision, and spend their entire time defending that decision. I am a little disappointed that we are now referring to rationalwiki and YouTube as references, I don't think those sources would fly in an anthropology peer reviewed research paper. But then again neither would a Bible verse, unless we allow for authenticity of antiquity, so touché.

Well, I think we all know that very few opinions are going to change in this thread, but most of us seem to want to better understand the position of others, so we consider it a worthwhile discussion for our benefit. Besides, if we think we can correct or point out flaws in someone arguments, we might hope to convince them that their argument is wrong even though they'll still likely hold onto their belief. That's one less person using one less poor argument, after all. I mean, it would be nice if Pascal's Wager would just die, already

This isn't a journal discussion board, though, where ofc they would not be sufficient. I think it's fair to use common, easy to digest material for these discussions so we can better educate one another. I think we all know that youtube isn't a primary source for science, but material made by a science journalist is likely to reflect the scientific consensus on subjects that aren't controversial (like GMOs or something similar where science journalism is trash). The references are meant to provide some basic background for certain subjects (well, rationalwiki was mostly for a collection of verses because it's one of the first things that came up in google for me). If there's a biologist here who wants to explain evolution and reference original papers in science journals, that's fine with me, but it won't be understandable to virtually anyone here that doesn't share that same expertise.

 

[pharphis]

Let me be clear, though: I don't let scientific consensus dictate the way I read the Bible (exegesis) anymore than I let science dictate the reason I practice any other discrete discipline: literary criticism, philosophy, theology, or historiography. Scientific consensus can be a dangerous thing, and it is quite often mistaken. If it was not--well, then science would never progress. Only half a century ago, the steady state theory was quite popular. I'm not quite sure when it lost its dominance, but I won't be surprised if there is another paradigm shift in scientific consensus in this area within my own lifetime. So, if science doesn't line up with a particular part of scripture, I don't think that means I have to shift my entire approach to scripture to some hazy, higher criticism approach, just to account for a single anomaly that could be accounted for in some other way.

In any case, scientific consensus has become more biblical over the past century. In my view, the steady state theory was far more incompatible with creation and a creator. Now scientists claim that the universe someone existed in an extremely compacted state and then exploded into being all of a sudden--sounds quite close to the process of creation to me.

I find this doubtful. If you didn't let science dictate how you interpret the bible then why are you fine with an old earth and other scientific discoveries? (at least I think that's your position)
Stance on evolution? Age of earth vs age of sun? Global flood? Adam and Eve?

I know you didn't really want to get into that discussion but it seems unlikely to hold true if you do in fact accept the scientific consensus on these sorts of things.

If by "more biblical" you mean "less directly contradictory", then sure, I'll agree with respect to this one specific thing. But, there are other differences such as the age of the earth vs age of the sun and the universe altogether that makes it less biblical.I will accept that the big bang theory says nothing to directly contradict a creator creating the universe (though ofc it does not confirm any such thing - you'll learn more about that as you look into the cosmological stuff I mentioned)

 

[Interdasting]

I don't see how it's unfair. If the person I'm having a discussion with takes the words literally true (allowing for translation differences and the like) then why am I not allowed to use those same words when arguing that their belief has issues they should address (such as slavery).

That's true. I just found them relevant enough and to put some of the issues I have in a simple enough way that it is sometimes easier to express the problems I have by using them.

Because that's the entire issue with the debate in the first place. To say that the words mean one thing and not another is contradiction at its finest, because all interpretations are true. (See: Founders' Intent argument)
And to say that the words mean one thing and not another, despite using those words as tools for your own argument, is hypocrisy. It's just how it goes. There is no true end. Not sure why you think people should address issues that you hold with their belief just because they hold a certain belief though. I'd say just let them live if they aren't doing harm (vague I know). Basically, because consensus is impossible, debate is meaningless.

Not to mention that by using the words of the Bible it means that you already view it as legitimate, which is probably not what you are arguing.

You cannot possibly hope to mean that you find parody videos with the most full intent to mock, ridicule, and debase for the effect of comedy as "genuinely interested in discussion". I at least hope you don't mean that, because comments in videos don't matter, and it's obvious the intent of those videos. Especially with embedded links instead of links to the sites with those comments...

 

[Kestegs]

It doesn't just sound closed-minded, it is closed-minded by definition. Also, usually the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. So if someone claims a global flood happened, they better have good reason to believe it. Ofc, a holy book is no better an explanation than any other holy book, so that leaves us at square one. I don't think you or many people are truly closed-minded, either. I think you just believe your stance can't change. Ofc, I also recognize that the chance of me changing your stance is very small. Seeds of doubt blah blah you get the picture.

Once again, I'm going to refer to Peter Hadfield's videos which address the global flood hypothesis:

(it's a 2-parter). He doesn't address every problem (there are many), but if you're curious enough I can fish out some of his or other people's articles or videos that explain the problem. You won't like that he refers to AiG. He sticks to what we have observed, in this pair of videos, rather than random ideas or other problems regarding this we haven't or cannot observe.

I'll give this AiG article a read after I go for a walk. I'm curious about what they say but I suspect it will be 1) assert it is is true and 2) ignore whatever contradicts it.

Well as I believe was explained in that video (I could be wrong, I saw it quite awhile ago), there are many religions and gods for said religions that don't have to reject evolution. This is true for many Christians and Catholics, as well. For biblical literalists, ofc you have to reject it.

Under at least some definitions of Christianity (follower of Christ?) Catholicism is a subset of Christianity. I suspect that just some sects reject this. BTW< if you have a title for the sect that you're in I'd like to know. Especially if biblical literalism is the defining feature.

BRB

I don't think you are being any less close minded. You are starting with the belief that there is no God and allowing science to "prove" that for you.

We're probably both hoping for seeds of doubt I guess.

The video you linked (I did watch both) was interesting. Both sides of the issue are fairly new to me, so not sure what to really think. And for the record, AiG is not gospel to me, but it's a place that offers possible explanations for why science shows things the way they are.

Christianity is such a muddy term, and that's why I'm reluctant to use it. Catholics do generally fall under the broad term of Christianity I suppose. I'm a follower of Christ. That's the best way to describe it I guess. I was raised in the Church of Christ, which is pretty legalistic. I have also attended an evangelical free church and currently go to a non-denominational church. That probably doesn't help much, sorry.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, in Genesis 1, the earth is created, but the sun doesn't govern the day and night yet--that happens a few days later. That doesn't mean it's not a 24 hour period, but it also seems that the concept of day existed before the earth had days in the sense we refer to them now, if that makes sense. So, there could be a cosmic concept of a day that preceded our actual days, just as many concepts on earth mirror concepts in the heavenly realm. *If* a cosmic/prehistory day existed, I wouldn't be surprised if it were more than 24 hours. But again, that's just speculation, and part of the reason I don't have super concrete views in this area is because I just don't know.

Let me be clear, though: I don't let scientific consensus dictate the way I read the Bible (exegesis) anymore than I let science dictate the reason I practice any other discrete discipline: literary criticism, philosophy, theology, or historiography. Scientific consensus can be a dangerous thing, and it is quite often mistaken. If it was not--well, then science would never progress. Only half a century ago, the steady state theory was quite popular. I'm not quite sure when it lost its dominance, but I won't be surprised if there is another paradigm shift in scientific consensus in this area within my own lifetime. So, if science doesn't line up with a particular part of scripture, I don't think that means I have to shift my entire approach to scripture to some hazy, higher criticism approach, just to account for a single anomaly that could be accounted for in some other way.

In any case, scientific consensus has become more biblical over the past century. In my view, the steady state theory was far more incompatible with creation and a creator. Now scientists claim that the universe someone existed in an extremely compacted state and then exploded into being all of a sudden--sounds quite close to the process of creation to me.

At different points in my life I've leaned in different directions as far as the age of the earth. An old earth and non literal 7 days makes a lot more sense for fossil records especially, but I am not 100% convinced in either direction. The main point that I get out of Genesis is that God made it, and that's the most important one of course.

(some stuff removed I already responded to or not directed to me)
I didn't include your later comment on evolution, but if you understand that fossilization is difficult and rare process and (presumably) know that we have thousands of fossils regarding the ancestry of humans, I don't know exactly what you want.

No I don't find it ironic. The point was to illustrate that our best method for making predictions about the universe involve observation of said universe, producing models that allow us to make reliable predictions and refining those models as we increase our knowledge-base.

"The Bible has proven to be a credible source of information by other historical documents, for one. Nothing that the Bible states can be proven to be inaccurate. This is not the case with many other books (I'm no expert, but I know many of them have things that have been proven inaccurate)"
I think this is completely unsubstantiated. If it wasn't, people wouldn't have to assume god first, then accept the evidence that agrees with them and reject anything else. But on another line of thought... do you mean that the bible CANNOT be proven wrong (to any degree), or do you think it's possible that it can but it has not? I think you mean the former but I don't want a minor issue in language to confuse me.

On slavery: I think it is a myth that the bible condones treating slaves well. I try to avoid referencing rationalwiki but they put a lot of relevant passages in one place so here we go: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Beating_slaves
Also, I think it is in fact racial slavery because afaik slavery involves anyone outside of Israel. Here is one cartoon I found entertaining regarding this kind of slavery:

Make that two, actually (parody of the King's Speech):

(bible verses are referenced throughout the video)
As a slight aside, the US makes a big deal about the "10 commandments" which could have and should have explicitly banned slavery instead of wasting the first several imo.


On murder: I think we're going to disagree on what is "justified". You probably think that god has ultimate authority on who deserves to die, when, and how, so any commandments from god are justified. I disagree on this point, and especially on verses that involve killing children who obviously shouldn't be held accountable for whatever actions they supposedly are. One of the most well-known is the Egyptian infanticide.
"And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)"

The point about the irony is that you can't prove I don't know what's in it, just like you can't prove God didn't make the universe.

Again, I haven't heard any credible info debunking anything in the Bible outside of a translation issue. So to me that's credible.

Those videos are just terrible. I watch 1 min of the first one, and didn't feel it was worth any of my time. 1. It is completely inaccurate. 2. It is highly offensive. (largely due to its inaccuracy I suppose)
Some others stated how I feel much more in depth later, so no need to repeat it.

They didn't just enslave a race, like Africans. They enslaved some people from an area sometimes, and also members of their own society.

The murder was also pretty well stated by BBS, and I don't have much to add to it. But yes, God is the ultimate morality guide.

I'm enjoying the perspectives being fleshed out here. But I think it's important to note that, when involving The Bible, mistranslations and disconnects are bound to happen. And that it isn't truly fair to take literally words that you yourself do not believe are true to formulate your own argument that counters said words.

And I'm not sure how to feel about using comedic parodies of scripture as replacement of genuine argument, or that somebody else can construct your own perspective better than you. (Especially with the amount of confirmation bias and ingenuous arguments that float out there on the internets)
When videos are titled "Falsehood with Creationism", "Noah's Flood: debunked", "Bible Slavery: TOTALLY DIFFERENT", and is intentionally using pictures like an important symbol like God reading from a transcript in an attempt to ridicule that belief, I do not believe those perspectives to be genuine, nor to be genuinely interested in honest, meaningful understanding or discussion.

I do agree. The titles don't bother me, as they accurately reflect what is in the video.

That is indeed close minded, but let's leave that at side for now. Approach you described is exactly opposite of scientific. Scientific approach is first to prove something by experiment, then it can be confirmed as fact. Your approach is first claim something is fact, and then seek evidence for why is it fact (where you don't even seek evidence is it really a fact. Hey, it is fact that in the middle of the Earth aliens live and teleport among us to study us, now I seek scientific evidence of why is that fact because I know and feel that it is fact). In other words, science cannot prove your view to be wrong because your view contradicts scientific approach which is required to prove you wrong at the first place. So that won't happen, ever, unless you develop more scientific approach to the matter.

Also things in science work at confirming the truth, and not at proving something wrong unless two things are mutually connected and if both cannot be true at the same time. Then science is going to confirm that one thing is true and that way we could logically conclude that other thing must be wrong.

But your example does not have any credible proof to back it up, so it falls short.

The truth is that God exists and he made the universe, that is what science can prove, which is what I meant earlier, although I think I said it in the opposite way. If it fits better I can say that God creating the universe is a theory, if I was to teach this in a school I would want it to be taught that way alongside evolution/big bang. Now science can prove or disprove my theory, or hypothesis, if that's a better word.

Because that's the entire issue with the debate in the first place. To say that the words mean one thing and not another is contradiction at its finest, because all interpretations are true. (See: Founders' Intent argument)
And to say that the words mean one thing and not another, despite using those words as tools for your own argument, is hypocrisy. It's just how it goes. There is no true end. Not sure why you think people should address issues that you hold with their belief just because they hold a certain belief though. I'd say just let them live if they aren't doing harm (vague I know). Basically, because consensus is impossible, debate is meaningless.

Not to mention that by using the words of the Bible it means that you already view it as legitimate, which is probably not what you are arguing.

You cannot possibly hope to mean that you find parody videos with the most full intent to mock, ridicule, and debase for the effect of comedy as "genuinely interested in discussion". I at least hope you don't mean that, because comments in videos don't matter, and it's obvious the intent of those videos. Especially with embedded links instead of links to the sites with those comments...

That's the real catch of course. But I feel that if I'm stating that the Bible is fact it is fair for him to use it to argue with me, without acknowledging it as truth, because how else will he prove it wrong. If he can't use the Bible then we don't have much to discuss.

 

[Gripphon1]

@kestegs

Just ignore example I gave since it's least important for what I wanted to say.

Yes, hypothesis is much better word for what you are after because theory, at least in science, is very strong word. I think I already mentioned in here that people usually misinterpret what scientific theory is because in regular life people use word "theory" to describe literally any idea of explanation for something, no matter how stupid or illogical or ignorant it is. Scientific theory is not what people usually interpret as theory in casual language, nor can scientific theory be "just a theory" as many people like to say.
Also even hypothesis is not exactly good word we seek for, at least not in scientific sense since hypothesis is something that should be possible to be tested and verified, and honestly I don't know how can we test or verify that someone or something people use to call "God" created the universe since "God" is not variable nor is part of scientific language (the fact many scientists believe in God or like to admire God in a beauty of science has nothing to do with it, they still don't use word "God" in their scientific papers). For "God" to have concrete meaning in science, we should be able to prove him with experiments and testings, and that is highly unlikely as even some non-material stuff cannot be tested that way in science, let alone "God" himself. So best wording to describe what you like to call "theory" is a simply "idea" or "belief", in scientific sense. In casual language it can be "theory" if you like to, but that shouldn't be mixed up that with "scientific theory" since they are completely different things.

 

[Gripphon1]

I find it ridiculous that logical, scientific people value absolute external truth in reference to the material world, but then totally reject it in relation to the ethical world.

Hello again. First of all that is great observational point. Perhaps my explanation might bring some light on that why is that so.
The thing is how do we actually get to the point to assume there is some kind of external truth ready to be grasped within our reach, poetically speaking. In material world experiments are made with certain results. If you throw stick in the air, you will notice it falls down always, no matter who throws the stick. With some time you realize there is more to it than just falling down, you realize acceleration of stick always appears to be same. Etc etc. No matter who does experiment or who measures, result will be the same, and will be confirmed every day thousand times if needed. That way with many other independent-of-people experiments which always confirm same patterns, we came to idea there is some external truth to physical world, there are universal physical laws matter is following and so on.

Ethical world, however, is different. There are no experiments here that are irrelevant of people included into it. Now we have to include people's opinions and views in various experimental testings. There certainly is pattern in some situations (as in your question about stabbing child), but that pattern is rather dependent of the persons view. Difference is not obvious at first with some extreme example like stabbing child where 99.999% people will agree on answer. Difference compared to physical world is quite obvious in not so extreme examples where people's opinions will start to vary. I could give many examples of where people's opinions vary, but I don't want to start unwanted discussions around here. Let's just say there are tons and tons and even more tons of examples where people's opinions on ethics is varying and answer is inconclusive. Whilst in physical world no matter what experiment you do and who does it, obvious pattern will be there.

That's why people generally think it is obvious there is external truth regarding physical world, but at the same time it is questionable is there or is there not external truth about ethics. Strong indication of existence of external truth about ethics and morality is obvious only in those extreme cases like your example of stabbing child. However, in wast majority of cases, where people don't completely agree and situation is blur, those cases are on the other hand quite strong indication there is no such thing as external truth for ethics and morality, but those things are rather subjective and vary from person to person.

So, did I offer explanation that makes sense now why is there generally considered to be external truth for physical world, but it is highly questionable for ethics and morality? I will give you my own answer about matter below, here I only offered one possible explanation I find logical.

Proposition: It would be wrong for me to leave work now and go stab my child to death.

For me, this statement is unalterably true. To go stab my four-year-old son would be evil. This is as self evident to me as it is self evident that my child exists. I don't know anyone who would disagree with me and say it would be fine to leave work now and go stab my child to death. That all signals to me that there is universal, external truth regarding evil. It is not universally recognized in every circumstance, but in certain circumstances, it generally is. Underneath it all, it is there to be grasped.

This example and similar to those are strong indication there might be some external truth about ethics. But to avoid repeating what I already said above, I will go further in here. To explain why would 99.999% people agree with you about good-evil in this example we don't need too assume there is external truth to ethics, nor does agreement of 99.999% people mean that there de facto is external truth to ethics (argumentum ad populum). Simply, explanation why all people would agree about this is because today whole world is connected, ideas are shared between nations and is experience, people travel from one side of the world to another... simply, people have educational systems which are generally similar enough that people are taught from the beginning that killing someone is bad. So naturally pretty much all people will agree upon extreme examples like that.

But, agreement of 99.99% people might indicate there is external undeniable truth about ethics and we just have to figure it out. But as I said, only extreme cases seem to have such effect, while majority of cases where people's opinions vary brings some questions in equation, right. Everything said is the reason why I consider it possible there might be external truth for ethics, but at the same time I find it questionable and am wondering do we really have sufficient material, apart from those extreme cases, to assume existence of external truth for ethics.

To continue further, I wanted to ask following thing. Let's assume there is external truth about ethics. How could we possibly tell that someone is able to grasp the external truth and realize it objectively rather than subjectively? Do you have some interesting idea how can that be done?
That is the question that bothered me in discussion with some other people and I still have no idea how could I be sure that person is indeed seeing and realizing external truth and is not only another regular subjective person like myself. After all, there are many people on world who like to claim they know truth, and each of them says something different.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Great post, @Gripphon. I just wanted to let you know I've read it, and will respond, but I'm on vacation so it may take a while. Glad to see you back in the discussion.

 

[pharphis]

Because that's the entire issue with the debate in the first place. To say that the words mean one thing and not another is contradiction at its finest, because all interpretations are true. (See: Founders' Intent argument)
And to say that the words mean one thing and not another, despite using those words as tools for your own argument, is hypocrisy. It's just how it goes. There is no true end. Not sure why you think people should address issues that you hold with their belief just because they hold a certain belief though. I'd say just let them live if they aren't doing harm (vague I know). Basically, because consensus is impossible, debate is meaningless.

Not to mention that by using the words of the Bible it means that you already view it as legitimate, which is probably not what you are arguing.

You cannot possibly hope to mean that you find parody videos with the most full intent to mock, ridicule, and debase for the effect of comedy as "genuinely interested in discussion". I at least hope you don't mean that, because comments in videos don't matter, and it's obvious the intent of those videos. Especially with embedded links instead of links to the sites with those comments...

I'm still not sure I understand the problem with what I'm doing. If I've made it sound like I'm trying to say my interpretation is absolutely correct, then I apologize. When I refer to things as problematic and believe others should also see these things as problematic or have some kind of justification for why it is not, it is because I think people in general agree about murder and slavery and related things. I don't mean to say that they have to agree with my view but I do think they probably have reasons which i'm interested in hearing for why they do not share proposed* problems with their holy book.

*proposed, because I don't share these views but if I were to entertain their ideals these are things that come up as issues in my mind. I can entertain an idea without having to believe it, which is why I see no problem with using bible verses in a discussion where I'm trying to discuss the merits and problems with the related religious views.

The intent of the videos is sometimes mocking of ideas. This can be an effective method of getting people to re-evaluate their beliefs. I believe any and all methods which get people to think critically about their beliefs are valuable. I'm not willing to throw some methods out just because some will find it offensive. I think it takes a combination of many methods to change how people view the world. We should all keep in mind that when it comes to religious views, people often associate it as their identity, and so criticism of any kind will look like an attack on the person, and this is why people are so easily offended in these discussions. Ofc, I'm not offended by these videos but I also interpret them a little more neutral (ofc they are arguing one specific narrative) than you probably do.
Also, if you didn't already know you can click on the video title or the youtube button on the bottom right to bring you directly to the youtube page, and the comments are below, where quite often I see serious discussion by the users I've linked to (especially potholer54)

 

[pharphis]

I don't think you are being any less close minded. You are starting with the belief that there is no God and allowing science to "prove" that for you.

We're probably both hoping for seeds of doubt I guess.

The video you linked (I did watch both) was interesting. Both sides of the issue are fairly new to me, so not sure what to really think. And for the record, AiG is not gospel to me, but it's a place that offers possible explanations for why science shows things the way they are.

Christianity is such a muddy term, and that's why I'm reluctant to use it. Catholics do generally fall under the broad term of Christianity I suppose. I'm a follower of Christ. That's the best way to describe it I guess. I was raised in the Church of Christ, which is pretty legalistic. I have also attended an evangelical free church and currently go to a non-denominational church. That probably doesn't help much, sorry.



At different points in my life I've leaned in different directions as far as the age of the earth. An old earth and non literal 7 days makes a lot more sense for fossil records especially, but I am not 100% convinced in either direction. The main point that I get out of Genesis is that God made it, and that's the most important one of course.



The point about the irony is that you can't prove I don't know what's in it, just like you can't prove God didn't make the universe.

Again, I haven't heard any credible info debunking anything in the Bible outside of a translation issue. So to me that's credible.

That is NOT my position, which is why I tried to state very clearly that I am an agnostic atheist at the beginning of this thread. I don't assume there is no god and try to prove that. That would be silly (and impossible, afaik). My position is that there is not sufficient reason to believe in any particular god (let alone a deistic one), and so I reject the claim that a god exists. This is the open-minded position by definition - accepting claims that have sufficient evidence and changing one's position given enough evidence. The religious position is the closed-minded one, if you believe "book says X, so X is true and I'll disregard anything that suggests otherwise because the book cannot be wrong" which is the position stated by AiG and what I believe you agreed with.

I only use science to disprove god when it comes to testable claims made regarding a god and the associated religion such as creationism, global flood, etc. where it is very clearly proven (as "proven" as anything can be outside of math - think of the legal definition) that these things did not occur. To believe so would require a paradigm shift in multiple fields of science regarding our understanding of most of geology, physics, chemistry and biology. It sounds like a sweeping statement but I'm willing to make it because I know it is true.

I'm glad you checked out the video by potholer54. His stuff is done very well generally and takes sourcing of information very seriously.

No problem. I wasn't sure if you'd have a name that embodies all of your beliefs but I was just curious.

I've already provided sources that debunk some claims made in genesis (earth before sun, etc.) as well as the entire timeline (a few days - a few thousand years past vs millions and billions of years...)
I understand you reject these but if indisputable scientific consensus on a multitude of topics can't convince you that the bible could be incorrect about some things, then I don't know what could. You might be thinking of the mathematical definition for the word proof, in which case it's impossible to "prove" anything in the bible wrong. Under that definition, 99.99% certainty isn't enough.. and I think that is absurd. We might as well claim we don't "know" that the earth is not flat.

I'll respond to the second half of your post (which I didn't include fyi) later. I hate huge walls of text and I've already typed too much

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

@Gripphon - Here goes a tentative answer. I am going to try to do my best not to use overly esoteric philosophical terminology, but this is somewhat abstract, so I hope it makes sense. First, let me propose three strong impressions that are basic qualities of human experience.
I-1. The material world exists and operates according to universal, observable principles. (The study of this phenomena by human agents we call science.)
I-2. I have free will; I can make choices.
I-3. Some choices should be made and some shouldn't. (The study of this by human agents we call morality.)

Let's begin with the first impression: that the material world exists and behaves according to universal principles. This is a reasonable impression of human experience. As Kant observed, this is ultimately subjective and unverifiable. More recently, philosopher Hilary Putnam (who is actually still living) has restated this problem with much clarity. Furthermore, in some cultures there are many who deny the existence of the material world, and even certain religions that are entirely predicated on such a denial. But despite that initial problem, I accept the first impression as truth without much problem. If we go further and maintain that the material world is all that exists, however, this denies the second two concepts. If man and other creatures are no more than the sum of chemical reactions in a group of molecules, then despite the great complexity in these reactions, there is no possibility for variation. These reactions would have always occurred in the way they did, because the material world is government by universal principles that do not vary. In a materialist conception that denies the metaphysical/supernatural, the world that exists is the only one that could exist, as it is inexorably subject to the principles that govern it. This means the conception that the material world is all there is, is ultimately a deterministic one that does not allow for free will.

As morality is the result of free will, if we believe the material world is all that there is to reality, then we ultimately deny free will and morality, so talking about them doesn't make sense. They are illusory, and so is our talking about them. Now, is this a complete explanation for human experience? It is logical, but it denies two of the most basic impressions I named earlier. We should note that the second proposition, I-2, that we have free will, is what we have largely understood is the precondition to understanding I-1--that is, scientific inquiry is the result of free human choice. Now, you're probably thinking, well sure I agree with I-1 and 2, but what about the third impression? Is it really a self-evident facet of human existence like the other two? Well, I-3, the proposition that some choices should be chosen over others, is what has driven scientific inquiry. The high level of contingency in these propositions strongly suggests a causal relationship that in turn points to the truth of all three. It could be that this relationship is pure coincidence, and thus a large part of human experience is in truth an illusion, but I don't think so. It seems quite verifiable that I have free will. Although I could explain away my own free will as some sort of illusory mental interpretation of a deterministic world, I can test my free will and that of others according to a fairly scientific process and verify it without much problem. Someone can ask me to choose to throw a ball a hundred times, and each time I can easily respond by throwing the ball. It does not matter that the chemical and material processes in my body are functioning quite differently at each time I am asked, I am still able to make the choice. This process can be replicated ad infinitum with any human agent capable of throwing a ball. Thus, while morality can't be subjectively demonstrated, it seems that free choice quite easily can, and is even observable in the material world. This is really quite astounding: the existence of the metaphysical world can be proven by experimentation in the material world.

Now if we affirm both I-1 and I-2 as true, we've affirmed quite a lot, because in affirming free will, we've affirmed that something exists beyond the strictly material realm--this would be described as metaphysical or supernatural: two terms that merely mean "beyond" the natural/material. Now again, this is a fairly monumental truth, as it not only demonstrates that a supernatural/metaphysical component of reality exists, but also demonstrates that this metaphysical component can profoundly impact the material world. Civilizations are built, the secrets of nuclear power are unlocked, men are put on the moon--all as a result of a metaphysical process of free will. In light of the magnitude of the ramifications of choices that take place in the metaphysical realm, morality would seem of the utmost importance. And this is generally how it has been understood throughout human history.

Now, as to your question of how and why moral truth appears subjective, and possible solutions, we should examine the origin of its problematic nature. Scientific experiments can be conducted because the truth we seek is truth regarding the material world. These truths are constants--they are "what is." We may discover them precisely because they cannot be violated, and as such are always observable. Morality, on the other hand, is not the study of laws that cannot be violated. It is rather the study of truths that may be violated or affirmed--they are "what should be." This is where the problem arises. There are two problems. The first is that because these principles can be violated, they cannot be verified through experimentation as they are not constants. The second is that morality, as the study of the proper function of the human free will, ultimately isn't the study of a material truth, but of an immaterial/metaphysical/supernatural truth. This is why I ultimately seek answers to questions of moral truth through active inquiry into the supernatural/spiritual/metaphysical realm. To answer your final question, I don't ultimately believe we can divine moral truth so clearly through the same processes of observation that work so well with the physical world. So, I agree that the basic quandary you have posited indeed exists.

Now, this does not mean that we can't make some fairly concrete ethical observations. It's just that it takes a lot more effort than it does to verify truths in the material realm. Many philosophers have been able to speak fairly clearly about these things, but it just takes tons of space--something this post is already proving! A few that come to mind are Aquinas, Kant, and Leibniz. In the 18th century Jeremy Bentham even developed an entire system of felicific calculus for making moral decisions. I will hopefully post a bit more about it tomorrow, but I hope that explanation helps make a little sense of where I'm coming from as far as seeking answers for moral questions outside the material world. I realize I haven't as much addressed the problem of disentangling morality from culture, but I'll try to explain that a bit more tomorrow.

To be sure, it'd be far easier just to say morality was subjective and leave it at that. I think that's actually a more defensible position intellectually, just because it is quite reductive, but I also think it's quite important to make moral judgments that transcend culture. Like I said earlier in the thread, if morality is merely a product of culture, we have no more right to decry genocide in Darfur than we have a right to judge the taste of their cuisine.

 

[Username is not in use]

well, Game theory would be a Moral Guidiance, so you have it, there _is_ objective Moral, at least if doing something directly influhences future situations.

If actions dont influhence the agents future situation in _any_ way, then we are talking about the marble in a vacuum where we all now it makes no sense to talk about.

 

[Interdasting]

It is precisely because there is no stability within decision-making that morality exists. That's why we even discuss it. Otherwise we would just do "as we feel" which almost certainly comes down to selfishness and the crumbling of a society based around trust. And you can't have a society without trust (One main reason why Kantian ethics, or Deontology, notes that one absolute is never to lie).

Stability is the core reason why rules exist. Most people prefer some basic structure, and it's why every person involved with military can tell you it gives them a purpose, that there was always something to do or be, and somewhere to go, at every moment on the schedule.

 

[Kestegs]

@kestegs

Just ignore example I gave since it's least important for what I wanted to say.

Yes, hypothesis is much better word for what you are after because theory, at least in science, is very strong word. I think I already mentioned in here that people usually misinterpret what scientific theory is because in regular life people use word "theory" to describe literally any idea of explanation for something, no matter how stupid or illogical or ignorant it is. Scientific theory is not what people usually interpret as theory in casual language, nor can scientific theory be "just a theory" as many people like to say.
Also even hypothesis is not exactly good word we seek for, at least not in scientific sense since hypothesis is something that should be possible to be tested and verified, and honestly I don't know how can we test or verify that someone or something people use to call "God" created the universe since "God" is not variable nor is part of scientific language (the fact many scientists believe in God or like to admire God in a beauty of science has nothing to do with it, they still don't use word "God" in their scientific papers). For "God" to have concrete meaning in science, we should be able to prove him with experiments and testings, and that is highly unlikely as even some non-material stuff cannot be tested that way in science, let alone "God" himself. So best wording to describe what you like to call "theory" is a simply "idea" or "belief", in scientific sense. In casual language it can be "theory" if you like to, but that shouldn't be mixed up that with "scientific theory" since they are completely different things.

Yes, well said. The use of terms is often an issue in a discussion like this. Probably the main reason I'm inclined to use the word theory for my own beliefs (which is of course a step down from how I really feel) is because science uses that word for things which I know aren't true, and feel they should be at least at an equal level when they are taught to people.

That is NOT my position, which is why I tried to state very clearly that I am an agnostic atheist at the beginning of this thread. I don't assume there is no god and try to prove that. That would be silly (and impossible, afaik). My position is that there is not sufficient reason to believe in any particular god (let alone a deistic one), and so I reject the claim that a god exists. This is the open-minded position by definition - accepting claims that have sufficient evidence and changing one's position given enough evidence. The religious position is the closed-minded one, if you believe "book says X, so X is true and I'll disregard anything that suggests otherwise because the book cannot be wrong" which is the position stated by AiG and what I believe you agreed with.

I only use science to disprove god when it comes to testable claims made regarding a god and the associated religion such as creationism, global flood, etc. where it is very clearly proven (as "proven" as anything can be outside of math - think of the legal definition) that these things did not occur. To believe so would require a paradigm shift in multiple fields of science regarding our understanding of most of geology, physics, chemistry and biology. It sounds like a sweeping statement but I'm willing to make it because I know it is true.

I'm glad you checked out the video by potholer54. His stuff is done very well generally and takes sourcing of information very seriously.

No problem. I wasn't sure if you'd have a name that embodies all of your beliefs but I was just curious.

I've already provided sources that debunk some claims made in genesis (earth before sun, etc.) as well as the entire timeline (a few days - a few thousand years past vs millions and billions of years...)
I understand you reject these but if indisputable scientific consensus on a multitude of topics can't convince you that the bible could be incorrect about some things, then I don't know what could. You might be thinking of the mathematical definition for the word proof, in which case it's impossible to "prove" anything in the bible wrong. Under that definition, 99.99% certainty isn't enough.. and I think that is absurd. We might as well claim we don't "know" that the earth is not flat.

I'll respond to the second half of your post (which I didn't include fyi) later. I hate huge walls of text and I've already typed too much

Yeah...I knew that first sentence wasn't going to fly
Of course the problem is that I don't view your evidence the same way you do, and you don't view my evidence the same way I do. So I feel like my evidence more than sufficient. You don't like my evidence because it's not measurable. I.E. Feelings and anecdotes and other immeasurable things like miraculous healings.

I dunno, the definition of proven is pretty much the same no matter what context you put it in. And you certainly have not proven anything by the legal definition either. I've made plenty of sweeping statements, so it's only fair for you to have your turn. Of course there are still plenty of things you can't explain, so it's a bit silly of a statement imo.

I'm sorry, but indisputable scientific consensus is just silly. For one, that statement has been made many times on many things and has been shown to be wrong. But you are right that those things won't convince me.

 

[Pb_pal1]

Wow, quite a ton of stuff happened over the weekend in here! I'm staying out of the ethics/morality discussion, but am definitely enjoying reading everyone's viewpoints

@kestegs - I'd love to explain my thoughts on evolution, and why I believe that all life originated from single-celled organisms, but I'd like to first clear some things up so that the discussion can move as smoothly as possible (and I'm not just ranting on about certain things for no reason).

That's fine, no rush! I do know that a full fossil record would be completely unrealistic, that's not what I was expecting.

*snip*

When I use the word evolution I almost always mean from single cell---->man.

I'm curious about what you ARE looking for. You have stated that you believe in "micro-evolution", so I'm just wondering where the disconnect is. If you believe in evolution on the "smaller" scale (ie. the examples I pointed out in my previous post), where exactly does it end for you? Is it just the jump from single-cell to multi-cell that troubles you? The transition from rodent upwards through primate? I guess what I'm asking is for you to flesh out where your doubts are, so I can address them properly.

--

On the topic of C14 dating, here is an article that outlines answers to some of the frequent cases that are made against it. The article addresses directly several of the "problems" with C14 dating that were outlined in the article you previously posted, such as the "magnetic field problem", and the increasing amount of C14 being produced today. I'm not going to go into them here, as it would be too long-winded, but the article gives you some solid reasons for why C14 is in fact dependable (for the time frame it is meant to study).

As for the age of the earth itself, other radiometric dating techniques have been tested abundantly, with results that reliably show that the earth is older than 6000 years old. This article (If you can get passed the ridiculous title) lays out the techniques used, how they've been checked against each other, how to explain the "pitfalls" that are typically latched onto, and provides sources backing up it's information. Obviously it can get wordy, but give it a read and see what you think. It's a good starting point, anyways.

It is essential to note that there are now literally dozens of different methods of radiometrically dating rocks and other strata. Each method works on a very specific timescale (geologically speaking), as they are all based on different variations of atomic decay. When used in their rightful time frames, they are very reliable. Much of the literature used trying to debunk radiometry abuses this system by pointing out that certain techniques fail when used on time scales that they are not intended for. This is not a pitfall of radiometry, it is a deliberate (or maybe not, mistakes happen) misuse of the information to gain results that are not experimentally sound.

I'll let you read the article, and you can tell me what you disagree with, and why. This is a very complex issue, and atomic decay is not exactly the most straightforward of concepts, so I don't want to "wall-of-text" too much without needing to or everyone will be asleep by the time I'm done.

I also don't think you ever expressed why you don't believe there was ever a flood, can you reference or explain that?

Here is another place where you can see many of the potential problems with the Global Flood. It is also replete with references if you require further reading, but is also pretty good for just some quick skimming.

--

As I stated multiple times, this post was meant more as a "what do you have issues with?", rather than a "here's all my evidence" post, to generate some discussion and a jumping-off point on these specific issues (if you or anyone else wants to have a discussion about these issues, of course).

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I'm back from vacation. Let me address a few things I think I missed earlier in the thread.
@Gripphon You and others have portrayed science as conducting experiments and thus deductively proving hypotheses to be fact. In light of this, one thing we should mention is that paleontology and cosmology do not function this way in regard to inquiries into the origins of mankind or the universe. They are scientific, but they certainly don't fit the model you've given, while physics, chemistry, and biology do. Cosmologists and paleontologists cannot conduct experiments and confirm their hypotheses as fact. They ultimately cannot employ deductive reasoning, and as such, are not employing the "scientific method" in the traditional way. They can, however, attempt to support hypotheses through inductive reasoning. In this sense, they cannot absolutely prove their hypotheses as a physicist or a chemist can. They can merely offer support that their beliefs are probable explanations. This doesn't mean they don't have academic rigor, but there is certainly a methodological difference.

In this sense, any scientific inquiry into the origin of mankind or the universe is quite different from scientific observations regarding the way the natural world works. This is why these fields suffer from dramatic paradigm shifts in short time periods (e.g., Steady State to Big Bang) while the other, deductive sciences do not.

@pharphis I believe you mentioned my statement that I don't let science dictate how I read scripture. I looked back through the thread, and didn't see it, so I'll just respond here without the quotation and risk misreading you. To refer back to my previous post, the end of scripture is moral instruction: to instruct humans as to what should be, and what should not be. Science inquires into how the natural world functions. This is not the end of scripture at all. Most of those who science that the Bible does not work with science bring up examples supported by inductive reasoning, as I mentioned to Gripphon above. Furthermore, these are generally in relation to the creation story in Genesis, which is necessarily accommodated to some extent so that mankind can understand it. As such, this is a very minor point in scripture, and is not the end of scripture. Thus, my claim is that although I expect science, especially in its deductive forms, to support scripture, that doesn't govern how I read scripture because I'm not reading scripture to gain information on science--if I wanted to do that, I would conduct some experiments. I am instead reading scripture for moral instruction. Since the endeavors of cosmology and paleontology are so problematically colored by human subjectivity, scientific consensus in these areas is already notoriously weak and subject to change. (This is one of the major points of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is one of the most important works on science written in the last century.) Knowing this, I don't feel the need to throw out my entire worldview if something seems to contradict scripture based on a certain idea of literality, a particular concept of a day, and a narrow definition of creation/God, etc.

It's a bit like how morality probably doesn't affect the way you conduct science. Sure it does in some areas: although it would be much more efficient to test medicine on humans than on rats, medicine as a discipline has sought harmony with morality in this area. That doesn't mean that we throw out the entire scientific method because it cannot be conducted in concert with proper morality in certain contexts.

I believe you also responded to my post regarding God and your position on whether certain actions by God were moral or not. EDIT: I see it now--it's just right above; I was looking through previous pages. My problem with your argument was this: you made the claim earlier that morality was subjective, ultimately cannot be known, depends on circumstance, and thus we cannot ultimately make statements on what is moral and what is not. If this was not your position, please clarify. But, moving from that position, you proceeded to critique the morality of the Christian God. This doesn't at all seem consistent to me. You claim that certain killings weren't "justified", but you haven't given a universal criteria for justification that would transcend all cultures. If we wished to declare that God's actions in a certain circumstance were wrong, we would necessarily need a universal criteria for justification since God resides outside of culture. You also have maintained that morality is merely culturally constructed. As a result, any morality you espouse is merely the product of your environment, heredity, and class. As such, your personal moral criteria for justification aren't ultimately sufficient for you to critique the morality of God, or anyone else. At best they can merely give a subjective idea of what is moral for you. You've already claimed that there is not absolute truth in this area, so God, or anyone cannot be absolutely "wrong" for killing anyone. He can be wrong to you, but he may be right to others.

I will mention that I don't believe that God's actions are merely moral because he's God and he is the ultimate authority, and so I don't agree with the explanations you've cited as commonly given. I believe that goodness is actually a separate quality that is not determined by a being's omnipotence, but rather intrinsic to certain actions and not to others. But that's not really the issue you are raising here, since you do not believe in universal morality. If you have come to accept the idea of absolute moral truth, then we could move into a discussion of what makes actions right or wrong, but if you believe there isn't any absolute truth in regard to morality, then we can't really make any statements in this area, can we? We already know the answer: it's just an arbitrary function of culture.

EDIT: I think all of this ultimately again points to the fact that there is absolute moral truth. Even the most die-hard atheists and agnostics generally make appeals to morality continually.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I don't understand what you mean by the first highlighted part, but I'm ok with waiting

I was just merely explaining that law for governing a nation does not define morality: it merely sets boundaries upon it. Some of the sites that you linked to were criticizing the Old Testament law for allowing certain things, as though that meant God claimed these were moral. I was pointing out that our law allows for much that we don't judge as moral. Our law does not criminalize adultery. That does not mean adultery is moral. There is no law criminalizing getting plastered at a party, though that certainly may not be a wise moral choice at times! Thus, law does not equal moral instruction. It merely sets boundaries on things that are clearly wrong and hinder the functioning of society. That does not mean that everything that was legal under the OT was moral any more than it means everything that is legal under U.S. law is moral.

 

[Kestegs]

~~~

I'm curious about what you ARE looking for. You have stated that you believe in "micro-evolution", so I'm just wondering where the disconnect is. If you believe in evolution on the "smaller" scale (ie. the examples I pointed out in my previous post), where exactly does it end for you? Is it just the jump from single-cell to multi-cell that troubles you? The transition from rodent upwards through primate? I guess what I'm asking is for you to flesh out where your doubts are, so I can address them properly.

~~~

On the topic of C14 dating, here is an article that outlines answers to some of the frequent cases that are made against it. The article addresses directly several of the "problems" with C14 dating that were outlined in the article you previously posted, such as the "magnetic field problem", and the increasing amount of C14 being produced today. I'm not going to go into them here, as it would be too long-winded, but the article gives you some solid reasons for why C14 is in fact dependable (for the time frame it is meant to study).

As for the age of the earth itself, other radiometric dating techniques have been tested abundantly, with results that reliably show that the earth is older than 6000 years old. This article (If you can get passed the ridiculous title) lays out the techniques used, how they've been checked against each other, how to explain the "pitfalls" that are typically latched onto, and provides sources backing up it's information. Obviously it can get wordy, but give it a read and see what you think. It's a good starting point, anyways.

It is essential to note that there are now literally dozens of different methods of radiometrically dating rocks and other strata. Each method works on a very specific timescale (geologically speaking), as they are all based on different variations of atomic decay. When used in their rightful time frames, they are very reliable. Much of the literature used trying to debunk radiometry abuses this system by pointing out that certain techniques fail when used on time scales that they are not intended for. This is not a pitfall of radiometry, it is a deliberate (or maybe not, mistakes happen) misuse of the information to gain results that are not experimentally sound.

I'll let you read the article, and you can tell me what you disagree with, and why. This is a very complex issue, and atomic decay is not exactly the most straightforward of concepts, so I don't want to "wall-of-text" too much without needing to or everyone will be asleep by the time I'm done.




Here is another place where you can see many of the potential problems with the Global Flood. It is also replete with references if you require further reading, but is also pretty good for just some quick skimming.

--

As I stated multiple times, this post was meant more as a "what do you have issues with?", rather than a "here's all my evidence" post, to generate some discussion and a jumping-off point on these specific issues (if you or anyone else wants to have a discussion about these issues, of course).

I can't say for sure that I believe in evolution on the scale that you provided links for, because I didn't spend a ton of time looking at it. Yes, the jump from single cell to multi cell, the jump from rodents to primates and even just the transition from nothing to single cell.

I have read both sides of the c14 dating problem I posted. And since I'm not an expert on any of this I really can't say much more. But more on this a little later. I tried to read the article, but I don't think I have it in me today, sorry. I'm sure that I could come up with some counter points to what it says with some research, but we're getting so far outside of my knowledge that you might as well just google it yourself

I did read most of the global flood argument, which is interesting, and brought up some stuff I had never even thought about. Here's a link to where they are building a full size ark currently, I'm not sure if it will actually clear up any questions in that article or not, as a computer program can likely recreate it just as well.

I really hate to go here, because there's really no rebuttal to it, but oh well, it's still how I feel. If I believe in a God that can create the world and do all of these things then I can certainly believe in a God that can make anything do what he wants. He can make a chalk bed look millions of years old only seconds after he made it. He can solve all of the "issues" with creation, evolution, the ark, etc. with his power, and not by our logic. There are many examples of God doing things in the Bible that don't make sense to us and don't fit into our scientific boxes. So if I can believe in everything in the Bible it makes sense for me to believe that God can do ANYTHING. They don't call it faith for nothing of course.

 

[pharphis]

Sorry for the delay (it's been like a week) but I've been a mix of busy and demotivated this last week wrt most things (including this RFO. *yawn*). I've read everything but need to sit down and reread before I make any responses.

There was one question I've been meaning to ask in the meantime, because I think we've covered the "what do you believe" but not the "why do you believe it".

For those who have some religious beliefs and are still around for discussion, WHY do you believe? I suspect most of you were raised to believe what you do, but as adults i'm sure you've come up with one or more reasons which you think are good reasons for belief. This might be personal revelation or something else...?