News and Politics Forum

abbymoore wrote:

Anyone care to answer my post, anyone?

What am I, chopped liver...?

What can we infer from a lack of response to a post, such as your failure to respond to my question in post #32?

Again, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis would be helpful to your understanding of these issues.  I can't respond for Buho, in part because I don't share his specific faith, but your posts are turning toward ground already covered by Descartes.

http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity … amp;sr=1-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes# … hical_work

abbymoore wrote:

Anyone care to answer my post, anyone?

Tell you what...

You share the link that you used to borrow that material with the rest of us, and we'll chime in...

So far, I highly doubt that you are arguing from your own premises.  You appear to have "borrowed" from others.  If I'm wrong, so be it, but let's be up front here.

First of all, I argued from Christianity.  For brevity and simplicity, I ignored other religions, even ones that can share the same evidences I mentioned for Christianity.  I think it is important to take the evidences as a whole in addition to individually.  In other words, even though some evidences can be used by, say, Muslims, that does not diminish the Christian claims (and even further, it should not be forgotten that these evidences still argue against an atheistic worldview).

The logical soundness, internal consistency, and coherency:

I'm sure I've said elsewhere here that I hold to a singular axiom by faith that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  Given that this is indeed true (my premise), what would one expect from Christianity?  I am arguing that the beliefs of Christianity are logical derivations of this singular axiom.  For example, if all of humanity is tainted by the original sin of Adam (Romans 5:12ff) and in need of a Savior to pay for this sin (Heb 7:27), the Savior cannot be an ancestor of Adam.  This is precisely what Jesus is:  born of God, not of man.  The doctrines of Christianity exhibit incredible coherence.  For contrast, compare Christianity with Greek mythology.

Additionally, you will not find contradictions in the Bible.  If you disagree, please make sure you are familiar with what a contradiction is before presenting contrary evidence.

Additionally, by a plain reading, you will find incredible cohesiveness (consistency) between the chapters, books, and even Testaments.  Authors corroborate other authors and vouch for their authenticity.  The Bible was written over a period of two thousand years by dozens of authors.  Together they present a clear, unified picture of God and His plan for mankind.  It suggests a single Authorship.

What you do not find me doing is arguing circularly, as you accuse.

The archeological evidence:

Yes, I was speaking of "certain historical events."  Because of this evidence, even non-Christian skeptics assume the Bible reports accurately on historical matters.  If the Bible is reliable on small details, there remains little reason to distrust the Bible on large details.

Regarding archeological evidences of supernatural events, most supernatural events recorded in the Bible would have left virtually no evidence for us today, so to criticize the Bible on this lack is unjustified.  For example, Jesus walking on water or healing the blind would have left no archeological evidence even in theory!  What remains, however, are eyewitness evidence, which is recorded (allegedly) in the Bible as well as outside the Bible (which I covered under extrabiblical evidences, to which you ignored).

Some supernatural events should have left an archeological record for us today.  I argue that the global Flood left just such a record, but this can be covered under the creation account if you'd like.

If I missed any (alleged) supernatural event that should have left a record for us, please let me know.

The objective beauty evidence:

I don't need this evidence, but offered it up for sake of novelty and discussion.  Objective truth is truth that is true independent of any observer.  A tree falling in the forest will make a sound, whether anyone heard it or not.  Mars is red, whether anyone believes it or not.  Objective truths are difficult to explain apart from an objective God.  Beauty is one such objective truth.

I argue that there exists beauty that transcends observers and exists outside of observers, that observers merely react to this objective beauty.  A sunset, fine art, fractals, mathematical constructs of physical phenomenon....  Every human intrinsically recognizes beauty, and it is difficult to talk about beauty without assuming its objective existence, further evidencing its objectiveness.

So, how can objective beauty exist apart from God?  What is beauty if it is not the sum of its material components?  Beauty can be compared in relative amounts.  How can something be determined to be beautiful if an absolute, objective measure does not exist?  Beauty is a quality of God (Ps 27:4, 50:2); observed beauty is an outworking of this nature of God, and so explains beauty's objectiveness.

Do other religions claim beauty?  I don't know, but as I prefaced above, it matters not.  Does science explain away beauty?  As outlined above, beauty causes problems for scientific materialism, since beauty appears to be independent of the material components (you cannot weigh beauty in a flask).

The evidence from order:

It is the age-old question:  why cosmos and not chaos?  I mentioned above my singular axiom.  I find it difficult to imagine fewer axioms.  This axiom explains why the universe is orderly and obeys physical laws; the Creator Himself is a God of logic and order.  Science is about discovering these laws, but is unable to discern (in fact, cannot even in principle discern) the origin of these laws, so I can only conclude that "there are other sufficient explanations that require fewer assumptions" is pure bluff.

The evidence from fine-tuning:

The odds that life could even be possible in this universe is astronomical.  More evidence is coming to light that Earth is in a very special place, challenging the Copernican Principle (an untestable assumption, a belief).

The evidence from biology:

I omitted "design" here, although the word is used quite often in Nature, a strongly pro-evolution journal, although they never catch the irony.  This evidence takes us beyond the topic of faith, but suffice it to say, biology has no need for evolution, biological advancements all use the word "design," and the field of biomimetics (reverse engineering biology) only works with the assumption of intelligent design.

When you say "there are scientific explanations for [DNA's] existence that require few (if any) assumptions," I can only take that as pure bluff.  Basic science requires at least a half-dozen unprovable assumptions which must be held by faith.  Some of these include:  the universe is orderly, the universe can be observed accurately, an identical experiment will yield identical results, and our senses can mostly be trusted.  The basis for all of these assumptions can be found in the Bible, which is their singular axiom.  Does the non-Christian scientist have any rational basis for these axioms? 

So, right off the bat, the materialists are at a disadvantage.  Considering materialistic science has not yet formulated a cohesive and coherent explanation for the origin of life that squares with the observable evidence, I think your bluff above is patently false.

The evidence from evil:

I thought you might be intrigued by this one, Abby.  I'm glad you asked.

Evil cannot be discerned apart from good.  In order for good to exist, there must exist an objective moral law by which to differentiate between good and evil.  An objective moral law requires an objective moral Lawgiver.  The God in the Bible is described as being this universal, objective moral Lawgiver.  Most everybody on this planet agrees that evil exists.  If evil actually does not exist, most everybody's common sense is wrong, untrustworthy, and is merely a figment of the imagination, maya.  If evil actually does exist, it is fully explained by Christianity, and materialists are either left with either endless speculation or denying a fundamental observation of humanity.

I will briefly add that only Christianity offers the most robust explanation of evil.  All other religions either do not address it, or address it in a less-robust manner.

The evidence from mind:

First of all, I am overjoyed that you seriously considered and digested this argument (one of the reasons why I karma'd you).  It is not an easy one.

So, what did you conclude?  "Well, it seems that I DO have reason to believe that I can trust my own thoughts:  necessity."  This begs the question, of course, namely what reason do you have for necessity, what is its basis?  It also assumes that the given reason is a good reason ("because I said so" is a bad reason, but a reason nonetheless).  Further, you assume that your communication to me (while trusting your thoughts) is coherent and meaningful, when in fact it may not be.  You could be talking about which episode of Star Trek featured the most Shatner chest hair.  That is meaningless.  This topic on faith could be meaningless (particularly if faith does not exist).  If this topic is meaningless, rational thought is not a necessary requirement; your correspondences being merely jiggles in a petri dish that will eventually die a slow heat death with the universe.

Again, I heartily appreciate your contribution, but it could have gone further.  What basis do you have for your own rationality?  If you have none, and yet find yourself using it, while Christianity explains this rationality (God is Logic (John 1:1); we are made in His image), this is powerful evidence (not proof) for the Christian God.

The prophetic evidence:

I think it is telling that you ignored this part in your rebuttal, Abby.  Bart, did you notice this?

Ezekiel 26, the destruction of Tyre.  Any objections?

Jeremiah 49:15-17, the destruction of Edom.  Any objections?

Daniel 2:37-42, the succession of great world kingdoms.  Any objections?

Mark 13:1-2, the destruction of Jerusalem.  Any objections?

Isaiah 53 (the "suffering servant") combined with Isaiah 7:14 (virgin birth) and Micah 5:2 (born in Bethlehem).  Any objections?

The conclusion of the evidence:

You ignored extrabiblical evidence and prophetic evidence.  If this is because you have no problems with this, then the original premise you had (that there is no evidence for Christian faith) is patently false.  All it takes is for a little bit of this evidence to hold up and one can see this.  Clearly, the Christian has a reason for his faith.  Do not forget to give credit where it is due.  I objected to your absolute claims.  I do not make these kinds of claims about atheists, for I know they have reasons for their belief as well (I had them too).  The evidences above drew me intellectually out of agnosticism and into the faith of Christianity.  My conversion was a reasoned one.

abbymoore wrote:

It seems that after analysis of your points, prima facie, there is nothing here that constitutes evidence for the claims of Christianity

It seems clear that my original evidences have not even been scratched and remain stronger than ever.  I could be horribly misguided and indoctrinated into seeing what is not really there, however.  I leave it to the reader to pursue the evidence himself and discern the truth.  Christianity is and has always been founded on historical and real truths.  We have never proclaimed a "concept" of a god, but The God who has walked with us, died for our crimes against God, and paid the just penalty, so that we may be reconciled to our Creator and realize the joy, purpose, and life we were designed to have.  The rubber hits the very real road.

+ + + + +

abbymoore wrote:

Could you please present some of the evidence that strongly suggests the truth of the creation account as recorded in the Bible?

I would love to, honestly, but I fear this will derail the conversation on faith.  Haven't there been enough threads on this topic already?  If you'd like to continue, I stand by my original challenge:  "If you were to ask me about nearly anything on this planet or above us, I could show you how it supports the creation account in the Bible."  If you'd like to continue, the ball is in your court. 

abbymoore wrote:

evolution does not say anything about the origin of life

Gordy Slack, evolutionary science writer for The Scientist has this to say:

Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution.  It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology.  Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes.  And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it.  And right now we are nowhere close.  I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life.  My faith is well founded, but it is still faith. [Emphasis added by Buho]

Interesting how this quote ties in with the topic at hand, no?  Two for one.

abbymoore wrote:

everything that I have read indicates the contrary [that creationism is not science]

An equivalence is being asserted.  If the equivalence holds true, and creation is deemed not science, then it follows that evolution is not either, but if evolutionists want their science, creationists should have theirs as well.  If the equivalence is true.

Who considers creation as not genuine science?  The majority  of scientists?  That would be the ad populum fallacy.  Creation used to be the dominant scientific paradigm two hundred years ago.  The courts?  Since when do the courts determine scientific truths?  Since when are they infallible?  In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that slaves were non-persons.  Finally, has somebody figured out the Demarcation Problem?  It might do you good to notice that it is only the evolutionists who are bigotedly stating what is science and what is not science when the issue is far from clear.  By contrast, I am willing to grant evolution the same scientific rights as creation, although it clearly is not producing any good scientific results.  I'm willing to bet that for every reason you cite against creation, it can be equally damaging to evolution; for every asset you cite for evolution, it can be applied to creation.  Are you willing to take this bet?  I warn, however, that this might be off-topic; the items above are already overmuch.

Golf clap for Buho, you managed to tackle Abby's 10+ threads worth of questions in one post.

Axe, which part of his evidence are you referring to?

The bible also doen't state specifically that Cain's wife, and Lamech's wives, and so on were actually their sisters/nieces. Nor, when Seth was born to replace Abel, does the bible mention that there might have been a number of other children born before Seth and after Cain and Abel that went out on their own in order to create the number of people that Cain was afraid of when God was to banish him from the area after killing Abel. Biblical scholars and evangelists have to assume that that was the case in order to support the bible being true and unerring. Since God didn't tell Cain that there was no one out there to be afraid of, and that he would be the only man out in the outer world, then the people have to have already been there. And in order for that to have happened, either there were already people on the earth NOT decended from Adam, or Adam and Eve would have had to have numerous children not mentioned in the bible BEFORE cain killed Abel. But then Seth, who was born AFTER that, shouldn't have been that big a deal to Eve. And yet, he was: The New Son. "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” " the assumption is that the other sons and daughters were unimportant, and only serve as window dressing and for forming the population that God was protecting cain from by placing the mark on him. But it's an assumption not supported by text.

Interstingly enough, just before mention is made of Seth, the family of Cain is listed, and here we see the ONLY mention by name of any wives, Lamech's wives, Adah and Zillah. And Lamech killed a couple men, who we don't find out who they are, and he isn't punished for it. Bibical scholars have to assume that the men killed must be family of some sort, but the unerring word of God is very mum on the subject.

Additionally, you will not find contradictions in the Bible.  If you disagree, please make sure you are familiar with what a contradiction is before presenting contrary evidence.

Authors corroborate other authors and vouch for their authenticity.

Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”


Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”

Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be.

axe wrote:

Buho, most of your "evidence" is circular; "Yes, what the Bible says is true! Look, it says so right here, in the Bible!"

Wait until the "interpretation" and "that was meant allegorically" arguments come out.  It won't be long now.

Crash6 wrote:

Ok.  To answer the original question:  No.  You can't apply logic to faith. 

Logic is applied to a process when you're looking for a conclusion or truth.  In other words, logic is applied to the pursuit of knowledge.

Faith is applied as a motivating factor to pursue truth; personal, or absolute.  Faith is the assumption.  In the case of religion, faith becomes the assumption, and the process.  This makes arguing against the truth of a religion a fruitless act, because a person either believes, or they don't.  Their logic exists within their faith.

Faith is typically necessary to fill in the gaps of our understanding, where truth is unknown, and an assumption is necessary.  I have faith that when I flip the light switch, that the light will turn on.  I don't KNOW that the light will turn on (dead bulb, short circuit, etc.) but I know it should.  I have faith in what is an assumed causality.

Religion is a strange sort of faith necessitated by no less important questions, regarding intangible unprovable causalities.  Life and death, the consequences of certain behaviors that transcend humanity's social contracts, etc.  The problem lies with the multiple approaches, or schools of faith, that one uses to answer these types of questions.  There are just too many of them, and all of them have inconsistencies.  This doesn't take away from their importance, but it does take away from any one faith's credibility.  Faith like this can't be supported by logic, and is a matter of choice.  You can compare them to one another to support their viability, but this is a logical approach within the framework of faith to begin with.  Its really a non-starter if you want to examine the concept or necessity of faith.

I don't think any less of a person who can't justify their faith with logic, as long as they admit they believe the way they do by choice.  Saying they believe by mandate, or because what they believe is truth, demands scrutiny.  Telling you that you should believe the way they do, also demands scrutiny.  Those people deserve every bit of derision you can throw at them.

Explain that to the movers and shakers in Science -- especially Cosmology, who now posit virtually every theory directly in the realm of "faith" based on certain "logical conclusions" that may or may not be well grounded at their inception.

I'm not avoiding responding, I've just been very busy or haven't had an opportunity at a keyboard lately.  Stay tuned....

Slap wrote:

Of all the logical premises we can imagine, how many entail no faith whatsoever?  I can only think of one or two.

Really?  Which two?

<-- Genuinely interested

Slap wrote:

Existence and cogito ergo sum, are the first two that come to mind.  They seem to require little to no faith, particularly if we're comfortable with first person ambiguity.

I suppose you heard about descartes untimely end?  He was taking the red-eye from London to Paris and the stewardess asked him if he'd like some coffee.  He replied, "I think not," and, Poof...

Unka Bart wrote:

I suppose you heard about descartes untimely end?  He was taking the red-eye from London to Paris and the stewardess asked him if he'd like some coffee.  He replied, "I think not," and, Poof...