Posted on 09/15/2006 3:39:45 PM PDT by ofwaihhbtn
I delved into this thread with the primary goal of delivering rebuke to the first poster I identified posting Ad homimem. Your post, #2, rang bells, but didn't cross the threshold per se (as far as I was concerned). To be frank, when I made my first reply to you I had only reviewed the first 50 posts. Perhaps there's a quite egregious offense in that regard subsequently.
I decided that whether or not your post #2 to this thread was Ad hominem, or could be classified as a "personal attack" was immaterial, in that the article itself cited "personal attack". This is nothing more than logic.
Whether or not the ethos, pathos, and logros of any debate framed within such construct is useful is beyond my abilities. My meager academic instruction has taught me that one should always address the audience in terms that they can understand - if the interest is to pursuade - so that a compelling argument may indeed be convincing.
Browbeating isn't going to earn anybody credibility - I present the myriad of conspiracy evidence cited respecting Oklahoma City bombing, Flt 800 "bombing", WTC "bombings", moon landing "hoax", etc.
I'm not going to stand here and argue science with you; I'm unqualified to do so. But I will state that the assertations and assertions made concerning evolution are rejected by myself. I understand the "scientific" arguments being made in support of the theory. However, it is my conviction that its all a mirage.
The sophisticated predictive abilities of ancient astronomers is quite reknown. HOWEVER, the essential premise that was the crux of the their calculations was that the Earth was the center of the "universe". Its astonishing to me to see, despite how "right" they were, they empirically were wrong. And so it is with evolution.
I completely understand that "spiritual" has no place in the scientific discipline. What part does "supernatural" have to do with science? That notwithstanding, can "science" operate within the purvue of the supernatural?
I dismiss absolutely the premise and conclusions upon which foundation the theory of evolution is based. Are evolutionary models useful in biological sciences? I would have to side on the "yea" sayers. However, and that notwithstanding, I posit that the original premise is flawed. A distinction is drawn between logical validity and truth. Validity merely refers to formal properties of the process of inference. Thus, a conclusion whose value is true may be drawn from an invalid argument, and one whose value is false, from a valid sequence.
John Stuart Mill held that the scientist or experimenter is not interested in moving from the general to the specific case, which characterizes deductive logic, but is concerned with inductive reasoning, moving from the specific to the general. I see this concept with respect to evolution permeating all the sciences. For example, the statement "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not the result of a particular deductive process, but is based on a psychological calculation of general probability based on many specific past experiences; and so it is with evolution.
Are these logical arguments useful to the biological sciences in general? I'd have to say yes. If so, are the premises and conclusions upon which these arguments based "true"?
Some time ago I went round and round with somebody concerning the syllogism for intelligent design. I was shot down at every turn. I never received an answer to the construct of the syllogism for evolution. That's o.k., in that that question was if not immaterial, but irrelevant, to the issue specifically being debated at the time, i.e., intelligent design. I embrace the fallacy of intelligent design, not just in its logical failings, but in that the presupposition that I'm using as a basis for refutation is that of "religious belief". There's no place for that in science. My position is that science can be both "correct" and "incorrect" (as far as currently known), but there is only one Truth.
GREAT!! ANSWER!!! The same one I use for my belief in the Bible.
First of the Bible itself exhorts us to reason (Isa 1:18). How many times is it indicated in "canon" that it is the Word of God? Logically, the claim is true or false. Upon whom does the onus fall to prove falsehood? Can the veracity of the "canon" (Bible) be ascertained? If so, then what standards are to be used in that regard?
Not a single shred of evidence exists that Shakespear wrote what is univerally attributed being his writings. Why not apply the same standards used for any other writing of ancient antiquity? Think about the ramifications to accepting that challenge.
Secondly it stipulates that the "faith" is not based on cunningly devised fables. Thirdly it addresses faith in that its based on that which is not seen. If anything that can be seen, what need be there for faith in it. That's addressing the intinsic aspects of faith altogether.
Finally, science can NOT concern itself with "faith", or the "supernatural". Either one of those are totally anathema to science (and for damned good reason too). I wouldn't take any artificial drug designed on principles of faith. Nor would I get onto an airplane designed by "engineers" who designed the plane according to Biblical "principles".
I can be perfectly happy designing aerospace vehicles, pharmaceuticals, computer programs/systems, etc. et ali. My faith doesn't come into it at all.
I'm certain that you've all heard the old saw: "If you had the skulls/fossils arranged in front of you, you'd arrange them in accordance to the theory of evolution."
What precisely would such demonstration prove? Since when is "science" a democracy? Could gravity be proven in a rigorous sense using such procedures?
Faith does not deal in logic. Everything dealing with faith is actually illogical. That is the reason it is called faith. It is a belief in the illogical but is based on what is believed to be true. There is much that can be proven about the compilation of the Bible. Many of the actual events of the Bible would be considered illogical but are accepted on faith.
First of all its extremely hard to deal with what's presented in Isa 1:18 without logic.
Isa 43:25- While other arguments can be made, foremost in any critics mind is that of God's intent.
Quite clearly the context of the passages foregoing and subsequent to the one at issue, is that Israel will become righteous, either through outright repentance (1:16, 17, 19) or God will achieve their "purification" through judgement (Isa 1:20). Isa 43:25-28 is a good one in that regard...
Jn 3:16
You take Isaiah 1:18 out of context. God is referring to the view of sin. We can "reason" as to what is sin and what isn't. Is it "logical" that One man die for the sins of the whole world? No it isn't. Therefore faith is based on the illogical.
RE fable
Is The Bible A Fable?
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-bible-fable.html
you have distorted the biblical meaning of faith, its TRUST, trust is not illogical, trust that God is smarter, knows better, and loves/wants whats best for you. is, in short trusting in the TRUTH.
infact, in every statement one makes there is an underlining "trust me, what I say is true"
logic/reason is subjective, this is by definition..(a product only of the fallible human mind)
as sin entered by one man, so will it be destroyed by one man. seems wise to me.
plus there is the whole purpose of using what is foolish to humble the wise. so none may boast before God.
I disagree. The Bible states, "By faith ye are saved....". Nowhere in the Bible does it state that by "trust" one is saved. In order to trust God one must have faith in His Word.
Isa 1:18 (and its corollary verse, i.e., He says it twice), specifically exhorts the reader to "reason" with respect to their salvation.
Personally, I'm averse to "cunningly devised fables".
You raise an issue of context. Your perspective of what the "context" is is un-contextual and most illogical.
First off: if the issue pertained to what God thought about sin, then Genesis is about as far as need be sought.
Secondly, the specific issue addressed in Isa 1:18 pertains precisely to that of reason.
I'm not going to hermeneutize that specific verse for you at this time.
Your syllogism is flawed, and as a result your conclusion is flawed: faith is illogical.
Faith is based on that unseen; for what is faith needed for if it is based on that can be seen?
I have issues concerning the applicabilty and suitability of this specific forum concerning the forensics that would soon come to the forefront.
You're out of your mind.
First of all what "faith" are we to have trust in?
Secondly, what is it about "faith" that the apostle Paule talls about at one time or another?
I believe that we've digressed way beyond the original bounce of the thread.
You only have yourself to blame. "Trust" me.
"Trust you"?
I do not such thing. I believe my mind.
One thing that I find most revulsive: evolutionary thinkers who "feel" that they need to be cutting their nose off to spite thier face. Nah, I don't care whatever your special little problem is.
You do need help with whatever it may be.
Gee, wasn't this my question from an earlier thread? If Darwin asked the question, then what was wrong with my asking the same question?
I need help enduring the incessant ramblings of those who have zilch to offer. You can help me by not responding.
"In order to trust God one must have faith in His Word."
does this sentence take on any significant difference in meaning?
in order to have faith in God, one must Trust His Word.
Yes it does. One can and does put faith into God's trusted Word. However, one cannot put trusted Word into faith. We have God's Word. It is written in the Bible. We can see it and we trust it to be true. We cannot visibly see God but we know him thru His Word. It is faith that believes in the visibly unseen God and not trust. Another analogy, would you trust a person you did not know? Would you put your faith in someone you did not know? I believe one comes to know and believe in someone before they put their trust in that someone.
"It is faith that believes in the visibly unseen God and not trust."
not necessarily, for "even the demons believe(in God) and tremble"..ie that he exists, but do not trust in Him or have faith in him.
Perhaps this might be mostly semantics...anyway thanks for thoughts and insight.
Once again, there is a difference between belief and faith. The demons believe because they have seen things God has done. However, they don't have faith in Him which is the power to save. It's like saying I have seen the space shuttle go into space but do I have faith that it will happen every time it is launched. Thanks for the back and forth. It is enlightening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.