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
Quote from stu:
Quoting trainr:
Expand on this. Show me how God requires non-existence to create the universe. I assume it's easy to do considering the lengths you go to proclaim how obvious it is. Go ahead, dumb it down for me.
Quote from trainr:
Does ad hominem attacks indicate you are able to think? If so, you are.
Quote from trainr:
If instead, as I suspect, it is a reflection of the paucity of argument, you are nearly done.
Quoting trainr:
Expand on this. Show me how God requires non-existence to create the universe. I assume it's easy to do considering the lengths you go to proclaim how obvious it is. Go ahead, dumb it down for me.
Please â go ahead.I tell you what.. stop your deceit, I could have a go at it for you.
I should warn you though, the dumbing down you request would make it more complicated than is necessary.
Quote from trainr:
Does ad hominem attacks indicate you are able to think? If so, you are.
Okay. Do ad hominem attacks indicate you are able to think?Would you like another attempt to construct that sentence in English.
Quote from trainr:
If instead, as I suspect, it is a reflection of the paucity of argument, you are nearly done.
You said, âYour religion won't let you think.â Thatâs ad hominem. It serves no purpose.More deceit more confusion
Still, inventing ad hominem attacks where there are non(e) ...
The deceit is clearly yours. There is not even a vapor of capitulation, else you wouldn't be getting so frustrated as to resort to personal attack, eh?... is one way for you to capitulate I guess. But it is deceitful.
I'm in a bit of a rush lately, but tell me more about yourself and what you believe.Quote from archimedes:
Well, you (trainr) still haven't answered my first question directly -- though it seems you have answered it indirectly.
What do you define as a christian? As faith?
What constitutes a/the church? Is there more than one legitimate church? Extending that pursuit, who was the apostle to the gentiles, who was the apostle to the jews?
You say you accepted Jesus early -- at what age?
Are you more interested in finding the truth, or just in the engagement of debate?
Archimedes,
Man, that is a long post. I had to number your paragraphs and reference them by number as quoting all that is more than the system here can handle (character limit).
This is my paltry summary of your considered message. Itâs not an attempt to minimize it intellectually, but rather an attempt to segment it for the purpose of simplicity in response and analysis.
1. I answered you indirectly but not directly
Ok.
2. I believe in wrestling people into the kingdom
Not so much. I believe in effective apologetics, which is a response to an attack on belief. Iâve found that using the preponderance of the evidence (PE) allows a meaningful discussion to take place, and handily refutes attacks. Rather then wrestling them in, Iâd say Iâm not allowing them to be wrestled out.
3. Faith and truth are contradictory
Difficult to respond to until we agree on what âfaithâ means. Iâm awaiting your definition.
4. I rejected the scientific method (SM); evidence and PE are cousins to SM.
In regard to the resurrection, I know of no way to apply the scientific method. Since I want to know whether or not it occurred, I therefore canât use SM. Itâs not an attack of the method, only an issue of what is appropriate.
If I were to apply SM, I would guarantee I would not find the resurrection valid, even if it did occur.
5. You defend hypercriticism and SM.
Ok.
6. Evolution is based upon PE as much is the resurrection.
Evolution is a separate topic. I personally agree that evolutionary speciation did occur, but not based upon random selection through survival of the fittest.
A group of mathematicians met in 1966 at the Wistar Institute to discuss the lack of support â mathematically â for probabilistic random evolutionary speciation. Get this: their conclusion was based on the knowledge of biologic complexity available in 1966; itâs several orders of magnitude greater today. If they found support to be lacking then, imagine how it must look today to the honest mathematician.
One of the mathematicians, Dr. Murray Eden, stated that, "It is our contention that if ârandomâ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible ... "
They said the time lacking is billions TIMES billions of years, based on 1966 knowledge.
Since mathematicians qualified on probability say it can't happen randomly, it must therefore be by design, unless you can posit an alternate method.
Why else would Francis Crick propose panspermia?
7. Theists claims questioned
I donât speak for theists as a group. I speak for myself as a Christian. If the bible is correct, and âThe god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of believers,â then I might expect part of that blindness to be due to the confusion that exists.
In other words, to get people off track, throw a bunch of semi- and not-correct interpretations at them until there are more beliefs than can be evaluated.
However, just because confusion exists, that doesnât mean truth is absent.
8. Christianity is unattractive
Depends on your definition of Christianity â I await your definition.
9. A ranking of belief systems by results; god is hidden.
God is hidden, but not unreachable or unknowable. Godâs existence is also provable to the reasonable man (using PE). But proof doesnât mean acceptance, as youâve already mentioned regarding evolution.
10. A good argument for Christianity is its fringe benefits
Great retirement program, true.
11. You're open to accepting Jesus, but already saved and can't be unsaved, don't need to be re-saved
Probably true, but should be examined. The age of atonement in the old covenant is 20 years. The bible says that those who come into the world are born with a âlightedâ spirit. I infer from that they donât have to worry about the sin nature immediately from birth; they are sanctified until an age of atonement. My personal belief, open to examination. I'm curious when -- at what age -- you "accepted" Jesus.
12. Men can't be wrestled in, must have something else
Agreed.
13. SM can't rule out a hypothetical possibility; itâs beyond its scope
SM here is intended to mean hypercriticism, similar to âproven beyond a shadow of a doubt,â as is used in criminal law. In civil law, however, PE is used. I think we agree that the resurrection canât be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since we want to know if itâs true, we have to use something else, which I propose is PE.
You mentioned the soviet suppression of truth by hypercriticism. Thatâs exactly my point â hypercriticism suppresses much of what is truth.
14. Defense of SM (I like the âsotto voceâ comment)
Iâve no problem with SM in the appropriate context.
15. PE for resurrection isn't good, better to go with current evidence of the resurrection
I disagree. Your comment about the wealth of documents isnât a comment about the wealth of attestation to the resurrection.
Using the same rules you apply to any historical document, namely the âbenefit of the doubtâ as presented by Aristotle, I would like to examine the historical evidence.
I want your agreement weâre not looking for proof âbeyond a shadow of a doubt,â but rather preponderance of the evidence.
When I introduce a supporting statement, if you respond with a rebuttal, I expect your rebuttal to be exposed to examination. If it fails examination for logical reasons, I expect my supporting statement to stand.
I donât agree to the following type of exchange:
Me: belief statement, supported by evidence or logic.
You: rebuttal statement.
You: demand to throw out the original belief statement because it was rebutted.
I expect the following:
Me: belief statement, supported by evidence or logic.
You: rebuttal statement, supported by evidence or logic.
Me: attempt to reject rebuttal based on evidence or logic.
You: acceptance of belief statement based on rebuttal failure; alternately, rejection of belief statement based on successful rebuttal.
16. Donât understand car key analogy
Just saying the method of analysis must be appropriate to its object. Hypercriticism isnât appropriate to starting your car or the resurrection.
17. Proof doesn't work -- scripture says so
Can you expand on this?
18. PE has little/no current support
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since we are agreeing to use it here.
Man, that is a long post. I had to number your paragraphs and reference them by number as quoting all that is more than the system here can handle (character limit).
This is my paltry summary of your considered message. Itâs not an attempt to minimize it intellectually, but rather an attempt to segment it for the purpose of simplicity in response and analysis.
1. I answered you indirectly but not directly
Ok.
2. I believe in wrestling people into the kingdom
Not so much. I believe in effective apologetics, which is a response to an attack on belief. Iâve found that using the preponderance of the evidence (PE) allows a meaningful discussion to take place, and handily refutes attacks. Rather then wrestling them in, Iâd say Iâm not allowing them to be wrestled out.
3. Faith and truth are contradictory
Difficult to respond to until we agree on what âfaithâ means. Iâm awaiting your definition.
4. I rejected the scientific method (SM); evidence and PE are cousins to SM.
In regard to the resurrection, I know of no way to apply the scientific method. Since I want to know whether or not it occurred, I therefore canât use SM. Itâs not an attack of the method, only an issue of what is appropriate.
If I were to apply SM, I would guarantee I would not find the resurrection valid, even if it did occur.
5. You defend hypercriticism and SM.
Ok.
6. Evolution is based upon PE as much is the resurrection.
Evolution is a separate topic. I personally agree that evolutionary speciation did occur, but not based upon random selection through survival of the fittest.
A group of mathematicians met in 1966 at the Wistar Institute to discuss the lack of support â mathematically â for probabilistic random evolutionary speciation. Get this: their conclusion was based on the knowledge of biologic complexity available in 1966; itâs several orders of magnitude greater today. If they found support to be lacking then, imagine how it must look today to the honest mathematician.
One of the mathematicians, Dr. Murray Eden, stated that, "It is our contention that if ârandomâ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible ... "
They said the time lacking is billions TIMES billions of years, based on 1966 knowledge.
Since mathematicians qualified on probability say it can't happen randomly, it must therefore be by design, unless you can posit an alternate method.
Why else would Francis Crick propose panspermia?
7. Theists claims questioned
I donât speak for theists as a group. I speak for myself as a Christian. If the bible is correct, and âThe god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of believers,â then I might expect part of that blindness to be due to the confusion that exists.
In other words, to get people off track, throw a bunch of semi- and not-correct interpretations at them until there are more beliefs than can be evaluated.
However, just because confusion exists, that doesnât mean truth is absent.
8. Christianity is unattractive
Depends on your definition of Christianity â I await your definition.
9. A ranking of belief systems by results; god is hidden.
God is hidden, but not unreachable or unknowable. Godâs existence is also provable to the reasonable man (using PE). But proof doesnât mean acceptance, as youâve already mentioned regarding evolution.
10. A good argument for Christianity is its fringe benefits
Great retirement program, true.
11. You're open to accepting Jesus, but already saved and can't be unsaved, don't need to be re-saved
Probably true, but should be examined. The age of atonement in the old covenant is 20 years. The bible says that those who come into the world are born with a âlightedâ spirit. I infer from that they donât have to worry about the sin nature immediately from birth; they are sanctified until an age of atonement. My personal belief, open to examination. I'm curious when -- at what age -- you "accepted" Jesus.
12. Men can't be wrestled in, must have something else
Agreed.
13. SM can't rule out a hypothetical possibility; itâs beyond its scope
SM here is intended to mean hypercriticism, similar to âproven beyond a shadow of a doubt,â as is used in criminal law. In civil law, however, PE is used. I think we agree that the resurrection canât be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since we want to know if itâs true, we have to use something else, which I propose is PE.
You mentioned the soviet suppression of truth by hypercriticism. Thatâs exactly my point â hypercriticism suppresses much of what is truth.
14. Defense of SM (I like the âsotto voceâ comment)
Iâve no problem with SM in the appropriate context.
15. PE for resurrection isn't good, better to go with current evidence of the resurrection
I disagree. Your comment about the wealth of documents isnât a comment about the wealth of attestation to the resurrection.
Using the same rules you apply to any historical document, namely the âbenefit of the doubtâ as presented by Aristotle, I would like to examine the historical evidence.
I want your agreement weâre not looking for proof âbeyond a shadow of a doubt,â but rather preponderance of the evidence.
When I introduce a supporting statement, if you respond with a rebuttal, I expect your rebuttal to be exposed to examination. If it fails examination for logical reasons, I expect my supporting statement to stand.
I donât agree to the following type of exchange:
Me: belief statement, supported by evidence or logic.
You: rebuttal statement.
You: demand to throw out the original belief statement because it was rebutted.
I expect the following:
Me: belief statement, supported by evidence or logic.
You: rebuttal statement, supported by evidence or logic.
Me: attempt to reject rebuttal based on evidence or logic.
You: acceptance of belief statement based on rebuttal failure; alternately, rejection of belief statement based on successful rebuttal.
16. Donât understand car key analogy
Just saying the method of analysis must be appropriate to its object. Hypercriticism isnât appropriate to starting your car or the resurrection.
17. Proof doesn't work -- scripture says so
Can you expand on this?
18. PE has little/no current support
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since we are agreeing to use it here.
Quote from trader28:
You obviously never went to a catholic school and felt the sting of a nuns cane across the back of your knuckles on a cold winters morn
You are missing the point, the nuns exist so you can hate them all you want but why are people showing hate towards GOD if he does not exist ?
Your rather high opinion of yourself apparently leads you to believe that CoolDude must have been trying to communicate with you after the plonking.
He wasn't.
JB
He wasn't.
JB
Quote from trainr:
Cooldude and others who have been *plonk*-ed and are trying to respond to my posts.
I can't see your responses. I receive an email telling me you have replied but can't see it -- that's the point of having a killfile.
How do you communicate with me?
You don't.
I'll remove you from the killfile in a month to see if you have decided to contribute.
The possible reason you're there:
1) the majority of your posts were ad hominem, or personal attacks;
2) your arguments never extended beyond "because aberrancy exists, therefore christians are aberrant."
3) you were incomprehensible.