I reiterate... This is all rubbish... unless you understand the bible was written by mystics in the language of the subconscious ie: symbolism and allegory none of these arguments will be resolved... you are all using a different language to solve its mysteries... it was not meant to be read literally... mystics use a technique for planting seed thoughts in the subconscious that are more powerful than plain words, in fact some spiritual truths defy the written language and there is no other recourse but to use this language... it is the same language you confront every night in your dreams... if you dont know the alphabet of this language how do you think you are going to understand a book like the bible?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
traders who are deeply religious
- Thread starter hermit_trader
- Start date
Well, you (trainr) still haven't answered my first question directly -- though it seems you have answered it indirectly.
By continuing to speak of proof and evidence, you apparently align yourself with the Aquinas persuasion, namely that men can be wrestled into the kingdom of God.
I wonder, though, how you would reconcile this with verses like 1 Cor 2:14, stated earlier, which argues quite clearly for a spiritual component to comprehension. In fact, the whole spirit of 'faith' runs counter to the spirit of 'proof' -- again, they are different methodologies at heart.
I find your rejection of the scientific method curious. The 'preponderance of evidence' is not so much an alternative to the scientific method, but rather a legal cousin of it: A logical process employed, most commonly in a courtroom, where a decision must be made in the absence of certainty.
The scientific method is not at odds with the preponderance of evidence standard, and no one I know of ever suggested it was. Your suggestion that the scientific method is routinely a blunt assault weapon appears unwarranted. The charge of hypercriticism can be applied to any unwanted inquiry, just as the Soviets crushed all intellectual dissenters under the guise of "insult."
It further seems to me that the theory of evolution falls under the preponderance of evidence category as much as the resurrection does, in so far as that neither can be recreated in a present day setting. Scientists who believe in evolution would say they do so because the preponderance of evidence for the theory is so strong, and because present day experiments (conducted via scientific method) so clearly and repeatedly support the truth of evolutionary hypotheses. The scientific method and preponderance of evidence standard do not spar with one another as methodologies; they inform and compliment each other.
Which leads to another point of curiosity: if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is a hoax, as so many theists claim it to be, then why should the preponderance of evidence for the resurrection be any less hoax prone? I am not saying that you do this personally, but many defenders of the good book are ready and willing to declare the preponderance of evidence for evolution null and void, while yet embracing the preponderance of evidence for the resurrection with nary a hitch or a double take. This double standard is logically inconsistent at best. Perhaps it is a wise action per application of 1 Cor 2:14, in which case spiritual discernment beyond this world is involved. But that argument, of course, is off limits to you as an available-proof man, rather than a mystery-of-faith man.
There are many places where the preponderance battle is fought on fair and square terms, not just in the scientific and theological arenas. One of the most legitimate modern day complaints, for example, is that Christianity does not appear to work as advertised. What few testable claims it makes are put in doubt by the flabbiness and unremarkableness of the popular church.
Imagine a Religion Olympics with various field events. If one were to rank the great faiths by evidence of tranquility and inner peace, the buddhists or hindus would win; by evidence of moral uprightness, the mormons would win; by evidence of commitment to tradition, the jews or roman catholics would win. The protestant branch of Christianity would win only the 'most lucrative as a business' category. This leaves the honest observer at an impasse. If preponderances past cancel each other out, what do modern day preponderances suggest? Mostly that if there is someone running the show, then He / She / It does not want us to know what's behind door #1. (Of course, this conclusion would again be more in line with scripture than out of sorts with it; God has openly declared His willingness to hide Himself from those He does not choose to reveal Himself to.)
The other distressing thing, to me at least, is that Christianity is frequently argued for based on features rather than logical merits, i.e. this belief system has the most compelling narrative or the best fringe benefits, therefore this is the one you should sign on to. Veracity is left unconsidered. But that is another kettle of fish.
If you could show me that Jesus was God and I needed to accept him, then I would certainly do so, or at least give it some very strong and serious consideration. It would actually be quite strange for me to accept Christ, however, because I already did so at an earlier point in time; furthemore, my Calvinist roots assure me that salvation cannot be lost, even if wicked logic leads the lamb down a temporary stray path. Perseverance of the saints; the good old P in Tulip and all that.
But that is neither here nor there. The actual rub, you see, lies in the fact that 'showing' me or anyone else absolute metaphysical proof is not so easy. Only a dupe or a dullard would argue otherwise. The bible itself argues repeatedly against the notion of wrestling men into the kingdom of god by way of factoids and philosophies and eloquent words; scripture tells us that spiritually dead men have not ears to hear. A divine spark must first open the heart, and only then can the head participate; such references are sprinkled all throughout the new testament. These references are not a problem to the mystery-of-faith contingent, but they make it very hard for the available-proof contingent (i.e. you, Josh McDowell, Simon Greenleaf etc) to maintain a logical evidence stance consistent with the teachings of the good book. Perhaps you are only softening up the ground so that a divine seed might be planted; but even still, it is awfully hard for someone outside the club to accept that they will only be allowed to access truth after a holy anointing has taken place. Better for evangelists to acknowledge this mystical component than wrongly pretend it's all reason and evidence.
Switching tracks once again: The scientific method is a process, not a rule book or a judge and jury, and as such I don't see how it could effectively 'rule out' a hypothetical possibility. (But nor is this to imply all hypothetical possibilities are worthy of examination; Eckhardt's chocolate cakes orbiting jupiter and so forth.) If Jesus indeed rose from the dead, that means there are metaphysical explanations for certain phenomena that lie beyond our understanding, just as the shape of reality prior to the big bang lies beyond our understanding. The existence of such phenomena would not invalidate the scientific method, it would just add to the scope of phenomena that do not subject themselves to earthly measure.
In any case, the scientific method in itself is not an enemy to be defeated or a saber toothed tiger to be declawed. It is simply a tool, and a highly useful one at that. When Christians portray the scientific method as an underhanded assault weapon, what they are really saying is that scientists on the whole are intellectually dishonest, willfully fooling themselves out of the hardness of their hearts. Such a conclusion is fairly impolitic, and thus far more frequently implied than said aloud. Making such a claim in public would also create real problems in the event of a no-holds-barred evidence and reason showdown. As the Mormons have learned with recent DNA evidence refuting the American Indian / Hebrew connection, best to keep certain assertions on the sotto voce level.
The illusion many seek to promote is that the preponderance of evidence for believing in the resurrection is simple and clear cut. It is not. There are many rabbit trails, diversions and sink holes in piecing together a highly biased and emotionally charged 2,000 year old event. 'Tis perhaps easier instead to start with the modern day evidence, the downstream claims that such an event as the resurrection would validate and facilitate... but we already saw how Christianity would fair in the Great Faith Olympics.
I am not sure what your point is regarding the car key analogy. I imagine it is important, as you have repeated it, but I am missing the connection to the debate.
Personally I think your biggest problem at this point is the contradiction that exists between the notion of 'proving' Christianity's validity scientifically and the many scriptural statements that declare such efforts folly in the absence of divine inspiration / intervention. Independent of the truth or falsehood of Christianity as a belief system, I suggest this flaw in your approach needs addressing. Personally I've always thought Cornelius Van Til had the most logical and defensible position, in which the primacy of the one true God is argued for as a presupposition, no ratiocination required; poor old Aquinas is just too ambitious and too easily dismantled I'm afraid, as are the McDowellites and the intelligent design guys.
I further suggest that the preponderance of evidence standard finds its biggest problem in the lack of present day support, i.e. the evidence of ancient documents pales against a lack of supportive evidence in the present. The downstream effects are noticeably lacking, and there is a Ptolemy-like build of complexity in the ever more convoluted explanations as to why scripture is maddeningly confusing and the church is so consistently mediocre. Evolutionists can apply their insights to medicine and biology with fruitful results. Believers in the holy spirit, however, are left with a serious lack of wisdom, temperance and love to point to. One can in fact apply the scientific method to statistical studies arguing that the vast majority of professing Christians are no discernibly different in their daily lives than people of other faiths, or people of no faith for that matter, in any way that truly counts.
So many rabbit holes.
By continuing to speak of proof and evidence, you apparently align yourself with the Aquinas persuasion, namely that men can be wrestled into the kingdom of God.
I wonder, though, how you would reconcile this with verses like 1 Cor 2:14, stated earlier, which argues quite clearly for a spiritual component to comprehension. In fact, the whole spirit of 'faith' runs counter to the spirit of 'proof' -- again, they are different methodologies at heart.
I find your rejection of the scientific method curious. The 'preponderance of evidence' is not so much an alternative to the scientific method, but rather a legal cousin of it: A logical process employed, most commonly in a courtroom, where a decision must be made in the absence of certainty.
The scientific method is not at odds with the preponderance of evidence standard, and no one I know of ever suggested it was. Your suggestion that the scientific method is routinely a blunt assault weapon appears unwarranted. The charge of hypercriticism can be applied to any unwanted inquiry, just as the Soviets crushed all intellectual dissenters under the guise of "insult."
It further seems to me that the theory of evolution falls under the preponderance of evidence category as much as the resurrection does, in so far as that neither can be recreated in a present day setting. Scientists who believe in evolution would say they do so because the preponderance of evidence for the theory is so strong, and because present day experiments (conducted via scientific method) so clearly and repeatedly support the truth of evolutionary hypotheses. The scientific method and preponderance of evidence standard do not spar with one another as methodologies; they inform and compliment each other.
Which leads to another point of curiosity: if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is a hoax, as so many theists claim it to be, then why should the preponderance of evidence for the resurrection be any less hoax prone? I am not saying that you do this personally, but many defenders of the good book are ready and willing to declare the preponderance of evidence for evolution null and void, while yet embracing the preponderance of evidence for the resurrection with nary a hitch or a double take. This double standard is logically inconsistent at best. Perhaps it is a wise action per application of 1 Cor 2:14, in which case spiritual discernment beyond this world is involved. But that argument, of course, is off limits to you as an available-proof man, rather than a mystery-of-faith man.
There are many places where the preponderance battle is fought on fair and square terms, not just in the scientific and theological arenas. One of the most legitimate modern day complaints, for example, is that Christianity does not appear to work as advertised. What few testable claims it makes are put in doubt by the flabbiness and unremarkableness of the popular church.
Imagine a Religion Olympics with various field events. If one were to rank the great faiths by evidence of tranquility and inner peace, the buddhists or hindus would win; by evidence of moral uprightness, the mormons would win; by evidence of commitment to tradition, the jews or roman catholics would win. The protestant branch of Christianity would win only the 'most lucrative as a business' category. This leaves the honest observer at an impasse. If preponderances past cancel each other out, what do modern day preponderances suggest? Mostly that if there is someone running the show, then He / She / It does not want us to know what's behind door #1. (Of course, this conclusion would again be more in line with scripture than out of sorts with it; God has openly declared His willingness to hide Himself from those He does not choose to reveal Himself to.)
The other distressing thing, to me at least, is that Christianity is frequently argued for based on features rather than logical merits, i.e. this belief system has the most compelling narrative or the best fringe benefits, therefore this is the one you should sign on to. Veracity is left unconsidered. But that is another kettle of fish.
If you could show me that Jesus was God and I needed to accept him, then I would certainly do so, or at least give it some very strong and serious consideration. It would actually be quite strange for me to accept Christ, however, because I already did so at an earlier point in time; furthemore, my Calvinist roots assure me that salvation cannot be lost, even if wicked logic leads the lamb down a temporary stray path. Perseverance of the saints; the good old P in Tulip and all that.
But that is neither here nor there. The actual rub, you see, lies in the fact that 'showing' me or anyone else absolute metaphysical proof is not so easy. Only a dupe or a dullard would argue otherwise. The bible itself argues repeatedly against the notion of wrestling men into the kingdom of god by way of factoids and philosophies and eloquent words; scripture tells us that spiritually dead men have not ears to hear. A divine spark must first open the heart, and only then can the head participate; such references are sprinkled all throughout the new testament. These references are not a problem to the mystery-of-faith contingent, but they make it very hard for the available-proof contingent (i.e. you, Josh McDowell, Simon Greenleaf etc) to maintain a logical evidence stance consistent with the teachings of the good book. Perhaps you are only softening up the ground so that a divine seed might be planted; but even still, it is awfully hard for someone outside the club to accept that they will only be allowed to access truth after a holy anointing has taken place. Better for evangelists to acknowledge this mystical component than wrongly pretend it's all reason and evidence.
Switching tracks once again: The scientific method is a process, not a rule book or a judge and jury, and as such I don't see how it could effectively 'rule out' a hypothetical possibility. (But nor is this to imply all hypothetical possibilities are worthy of examination; Eckhardt's chocolate cakes orbiting jupiter and so forth.) If Jesus indeed rose from the dead, that means there are metaphysical explanations for certain phenomena that lie beyond our understanding, just as the shape of reality prior to the big bang lies beyond our understanding. The existence of such phenomena would not invalidate the scientific method, it would just add to the scope of phenomena that do not subject themselves to earthly measure.
In any case, the scientific method in itself is not an enemy to be defeated or a saber toothed tiger to be declawed. It is simply a tool, and a highly useful one at that. When Christians portray the scientific method as an underhanded assault weapon, what they are really saying is that scientists on the whole are intellectually dishonest, willfully fooling themselves out of the hardness of their hearts. Such a conclusion is fairly impolitic, and thus far more frequently implied than said aloud. Making such a claim in public would also create real problems in the event of a no-holds-barred evidence and reason showdown. As the Mormons have learned with recent DNA evidence refuting the American Indian / Hebrew connection, best to keep certain assertions on the sotto voce level.
The illusion many seek to promote is that the preponderance of evidence for believing in the resurrection is simple and clear cut. It is not. There are many rabbit trails, diversions and sink holes in piecing together a highly biased and emotionally charged 2,000 year old event. 'Tis perhaps easier instead to start with the modern day evidence, the downstream claims that such an event as the resurrection would validate and facilitate... but we already saw how Christianity would fair in the Great Faith Olympics.
I am not sure what your point is regarding the car key analogy. I imagine it is important, as you have repeated it, but I am missing the connection to the debate.
Personally I think your biggest problem at this point is the contradiction that exists between the notion of 'proving' Christianity's validity scientifically and the many scriptural statements that declare such efforts folly in the absence of divine inspiration / intervention. Independent of the truth or falsehood of Christianity as a belief system, I suggest this flaw in your approach needs addressing. Personally I've always thought Cornelius Van Til had the most logical and defensible position, in which the primacy of the one true God is argued for as a presupposition, no ratiocination required; poor old Aquinas is just too ambitious and too easily dismantled I'm afraid, as are the McDowellites and the intelligent design guys.
I further suggest that the preponderance of evidence standard finds its biggest problem in the lack of present day support, i.e. the evidence of ancient documents pales against a lack of supportive evidence in the present. The downstream effects are noticeably lacking, and there is a Ptolemy-like build of complexity in the ever more convoluted explanations as to why scripture is maddeningly confusing and the church is so consistently mediocre. Evolutionists can apply their insights to medicine and biology with fruitful results. Believers in the holy spirit, however, are left with a serious lack of wisdom, temperance and love to point to. One can in fact apply the scientific method to statistical studies arguing that the vast majority of professing Christians are no discernibly different in their daily lives than people of other faiths, or people of no faith for that matter, in any way that truly counts.
So many rabbit holes.
Most fundamentalists who interpret literally are like this individual
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5464505634137914176
Quote from trader28
This is all rubbish... unless you understand the bible was written by mystics in the language of the subconscious ie: symbolism and allegory none of these arguments will be resolved... you are all using a different language to solve its mysteries... it was not meant to be read literally... mystics use a technique for planting seed thoughts in the subconscious that are more powerful than plain words, in fact some spiritual concepts defy the written language and there is no other recourse but to use this language... it is the same language you confront every night in your dreams... if you dont know the alphabet of this language how do you think you are going to understand a book like the bible?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5464505634137914176
Quote from trader28
This is all rubbish... unless you understand the bible was written by mystics in the language of the subconscious ie: symbolism and allegory none of these arguments will be resolved... you are all using a different language to solve its mysteries... it was not meant to be read literally... mystics use a technique for planting seed thoughts in the subconscious that are more powerful than plain words, in fact some spiritual concepts defy the written language and there is no other recourse but to use this language... it is the same language you confront every night in your dreams... if you dont know the alphabet of this language how do you think you are going to understand a book like the bible?
Your form of logic is a personal one and contradicts itself. You don't acknowledge the contradictions you make and ignore your own tautologies when they are brought to your notice.Quote from trainr:
Since youâre having difficulty with tautologies, deal with the logic of the statements themselves. We can return to a discussion of tautologies if you first deal with simple logic.
Fair enough?
As an aside, when ever a religious apologist makes mistakes, they can only recognise and acknowledge them subconsciously it seems, by accusing others of making those very same mistakes.
Straight out of the cage and you make a tautological and faulty assumption. It is equally valid to state "Any non-eternal or eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation"Quote from trainr:
Me: Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation
However as already pointed out, Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no "adequate cause", from observation.
I did not give that response to your statement. Now you are becoming dishonest.Quote from trainr:
Me: An eternal truth â or an eternal God â requires no cause; self-evident.
You: Positron pairs are uncaused.
This is the response I gave. "... an eternal anything would require no cause. An eternal universe for instance would not require God as cause. So what is your point exactly?"
You have made another tautological statement which is logically flawed. So again, what is your point exactly!!??
Now you are being downright dishonest.Quote from trainr:
Me: Please prove positron pairs are uncaused.
You: Letâs pretend I didnât say that last little thing.
My reference to do with Positron Pairs is with bringing to your notice that non eternal things are observed to have no cause. As opposed to your disfunctional tautology that only eternal "truths" or "an eternal "God" require no cause.
But according to what you have already said and by your own standards already laid down, the onus is on you to prove without a shadow of doubt that positron pairs 1. don't exists and 2. are not uncaused. Remember ? the same standards you set down that others are to follow. It leads according to you that not being able to prove God doesn't exist means It does exist ?
Feigning your own responses as being mine to your own statements, shows your preparedness to be deceitful and displays a marked lack of honesty rather than hopefulness. Really.. The perversions you are prepared to embrace in the defence of your God idea. sheesh.Quote from trainr:
You: An eternal universe would not need God as a cause.
Me: Please prove the universe is eternal (unchanging).
You: Letâs pretend I didnât say that last little thing.
Or
You: Iâm still planning to prove these things to you later. (Thatâs trainr being hopeful.)
Incomprehensible why? Because you short circuit when the ridiculousness of your own assumptions fall over at the slightest touch from the obvious?Quote from trainr:
Me: a thing can not simultaneously be both existent and non-existent (as an example of an eternal truth).
You: (incomprehensible). Something like, it (God) has to if it (God) created the universe.
Indeed you say "a thing [God] can not simultaneously be both existent and non-existent (as an example of an eternal truth)."
So your "eternal truth" sets a limitation on your thing. It can't not exist. Yet It would have to -not exist- to create the universe.
You may want to follow the implications of what you have stated, but my guess is you don't because you can't . Your religion won't let you think.
You want me to demonstrate and prove statements which I have not made?Quote from trainr:
You need to demonstrate that this is a mutually exclusive contradiction (or logical disjunction). I fail to see it.
You need to prove, or show that Iâve said, âOnly things that are simultaneously existent and non-existent are eternal.â (Which in reality is the opposite of what I explicitly state, when I say that âeternalâ is âunchanging.â)
So your method of reasoning is to promote your own self-perpetuating tautological self-contradictions, but accuse others of doing so, by which you then make unconnected assumptions , demanding them to be proven true..
How much more messed up do you get?
Why ask me since you boast that :
:eek:Quote from trainr:
...My IQ is "up there"
What does your IQ says to your question?
...My IQ is "up there."
Where the sun doesn't shine?
Guffaw! TDog, you wicked wit, you.
This is such a corny, lame rejoinder that it doesn't really deserve to be acknowledged, but this small, so innocuous, so simple exchange is so very telling; it's like a microcosm of this whole debate, or better put, lack of debate.Half right.
What happens? Trainr is trumped, he's one-upped by Thunderdog's "shine" line in the silly insult dept., the perfect response to the perfect pompous ass. (Someone please explain that pun to trainr, else he'll think he came up w/it himself in his response, something along the lines of "Speaking of asses....") Instead of having the balls to simply let it go, or better yet, the integrity to acknowledge it with "Touche'", or best of all, to go Thunderdog one better, which would require real wit, he just steamrolls over it w/banality and pretends it's clever, assuming no one will notice it ain't. The "If I Post, It must be So" syndrome.
Everything one writes on this board has a subtext, a deeper meaning, and what trainr is saying in this simple little exchange is the exact same thing he says in the most involved discussions in this thread: "You haven't said anything." That is the sum total of his argument. By refusing to acknowledge wit, he has shown how witless he really is - in all areas of debate.
In a real discussion there is real give and take, actual exchange of ideas, not just energetic obfuscation for its own sake. Trainr writes and writes but says nothing. He doesn't respond to a response; where others react, he only acts; he doesn't understand how to engage or be spontaneous or ask real questions that matter to anyone other than himself or that vary from his precisely scripted sermon. It's not his Faith that drives his obsession, it's his Ego, his Pride. And it's quite ugly. Jesus, one of most skilled and magnanimous of debaters, would not be pleased.
My point of this amateur psychological profile is that to "debate" this man is utterly pointless. Because he is a fake, a toy disciple; a bobble-head Jesus you put on your dashboard for amusement and nothing else.
H
If you weren't explicit, you implied it. Why do you introduce the concept of positron pairs unless you are trying to convince people that there are things -- in this case positron pairs -- that have no cause?Quote from stu:
Quote from trainr: Me: An eternal truth â or an eternal God â requires no cause; self-evident.
You: Positron pairs are uncaused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not give that response to your statement. Now you are becoming dishonest.
I think you're just playing games. Are positron pairs caused or uncaused?
Then you are agreeing with me.This is the response I gave. "... an eternal anything would require no cause. An eternal universe for instance would not require God as cause. So what is your point exactly?"
My question: how does agreeing with me ("an eternal anything would not require ... " a cause (God)) contradict "An eternal truth â or an eternal God â requires no cause; self-evident"?
For the time being, you are agreeing with me, whether you think so or not. You don't have an argument.