AronRa
Administrator
None of it is correct. So you're saying that your evidence amounts to no more than the logical fallacy of a circular argument routing back to an assumed conclusion. It also means that the Bhagavad Gita is proof that Lord Krishna is the supreme personality of the god-head and the creator of the universe, just as he claimed to be. Does that also mean that The Hound of the Baskervilles is proof that Sherlock Holmes is real? Does that also mean that Aeschylus' narritive is proof that Prometheus is real too? What about Superman? And treat this as a serious question; give me an answer. Was there ever a Darth Vader?shauk100 said:
But you're the one putting confidence in the fables written by men. It is only a literary fact that the story gives the details that it does. I don't need to ignore any of it; it's not true just because the story says it is, just as it is not truth just because you say it is. You have to show that the story is true. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe it, and having no reason to believe it is a good reason not to believe it. How could you be convinced by a lack of reason?
For twenty years now, I have been offering a challenge to prove evolution to your satisfaction. That challenge is typically refused, and those who accept it usually default by refusing to acknowledge points or properly address direct questions. Will you do the same? Well, the reason I accepted your challenge is because you were the first creationist who ever promised to prove your point the way I do. I'd hoped you'd realize what that means, but so far, it doesn't look like it.
We're both going to have to use the scientific/academic standard, because that's the only epistemology that works. So neither of us should put confidence in "man". That means that you can't accept the fables written by ignorant primitives to be anything close to 'absolute truth', and I shouldn't either.
No. First of all, you don't have God's word; you have a haphazard compilation of man-made mythology. Second, once again, truth is that which is concordant with reality, and that obviously doesn't apply here, We can't call it truth until we can show that it is true. Third, God's opinion is still an opinion. Otherwise you'd need objective criteria, and you don't have any.
Creationist arguments typically resort to false equivocation and projection pretty quickly. You're the one who is presuming things; not me.
Except that, as I just said, the 30 pieces of silver was just identified as being the price/reward/payment for his wickedness/inequity/treachery, This was also explained in Matthew 27:3-7, where it says he gave that same money back to the Pharisees without buying anything, So we still have a contradiction. And that's probably the most trivial of them. I have much worse ones to talk about, if you really like to fight for lost causes.
Except that, as I just said, it is not possible to fall 'headlong' that way, and the fall wouldn't have been the cause of death anyway. Even if he failed to hang himself and fell in the attempt, we still have a contradiction on the cause of death. The gospel erroneously attributed to Matthew says he hanged himself; you say he failed in that attempt. Why don't you take your own advise, and let scripture interpret itself? Because there is no way to reconcile this.AronRa said:
And men wrote all of the fables pretending to speak for God, and that's why I can cite contradictions from the prophets as well as from and about Jesus, which certainly effect the gospel message. For example, there are places where Jesus contradicts the very laws he is teaching as well as prior wisdom. And God is certainly the author of confusion since Jesus speaks only in parables while God lies to people, and plays both sides of the Chess board by hardening hearts, and also demonstrates again and again that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, nor even competent.
Nonsense. None of it can be shown to be true. Thus there is no truth in it, and the Bible reeks of failure throughout.
You don't understand things of the spirit either. Like my friend, Peter Boghossian said, "faith is pretending to know what you don't know".
It was pretty foolish of you to say that you could prove the Bible then, wasn't it?
Right, the people who really understand this don't know anything and only idiots can get it. "Someone has to stand up to experts!" I've heard that before. So I guess you're going to follow Kirk Cameron's guidance and try to 'circumvent the intellect'? Because I don't think you could possibly use reason here, and that's the only way you'll convince me.
So your belief is fully accepting of evolution? In which case, how does God exist without a brain? And what is the mechanism he uses to do anything?
That is correct. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence and what is not supported, and what is not supported does not warrant serious consideration.
So you provide evidence indicating your claim. Failure to do so results in an unsupported assertion to be discarded in favor of the null hypothesis, which is the default position. Science doesn't need to disprove every wild ass fever dream that any raving loon imagines. Neither should we give benefit of the doubt to anyone who can't back up their own bullshit. Not everything is possible. For example, it would be impossible for monkeys to fly out of my ass. So before a scientist can determine whether something is possible, there must be some precedent or parallel indicating that possibility, or at least a confirmed phenomenon regardless proving that it can happen regardless whether we can yet explain it.. We shouldn't even say that anything is probable without evidence indicating that probability. We certainly can't assert as fact what is not evidently true, because it is dishonest to call something a fact when it's not a fact.
Evidence, by the way, is a body of facts (opjectively verifiable accurate data) which is exclusively concordant with, or positively indicative of, one explanation over any other.
Wrong. The Bible very clearly talks about physical/material and biological beginnings, and it gets all of that wrong.
It is important to note that it does mention redemption, using the stick and the carrot. It promises impossible rewards for those who believe and threatens a fate worse than death for those who don't, because whether you believe all this bullshit is all that matters. You're not judged on whether you're good or bad. It doesn't matter how evil you are, all sins will be forgiven if you but believe. But if you don't believe, then it doesn't matter how good you are, because the only sin that will not be forgiven is the sin of disbelief. Thus gullibility is the sole criteria for redemption, especially when you remember that you're supposed to swallow all of this nonsense without question, without reservation, and without reason.
The problem you face is that you're trying to prove what has already been disproved; that is not even logically possible. We know that Adam & Eve never existed, that neither the Tower of Babel nor the global flood ever happened, and we know where those myths came from. The Exodus never happened either, nor could it have, and Moses evidently never existed. There is no god, but even if there was, evolution would still be an inescapable fact of phylogeny and the Bible would still be a collection of fables and fairy tales. Christianity would still be false, but even if Christianity was true, the Bible would still be wrong, and not even the existence of your god can change that now. I would be very impressed at your bravado thinking you can somehow salvage all this mythology, but then your confessed ignorance of evolution tells me you have no idea what you're up against, and that you are about to try and avoid getting an education.
Just to keep focused, I'm going to try not to prove evolution to you, or even educate you on it, any more than I logically have to during the course of this conversation. So let's have it: what do you think should convince me that the Bible is true? I heard that the Bible is God's word and the ultimate infallible authority, and you said that what I heard about the Bible is not true. So how are you going to prove that? And what would it take for you to accept that evolution is true?
