The Unproven Claim of the Uncreated Creator.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:22 am

Hello Reggie.

May I be so bold as to suggest the following?

One way of stomping on Troy so that he can't get a foothold on any of your sites is to keep a lookout for his site, Biblocality.com occuring in any posting from newly-registered members. As we know, he uses sock-puppets to gain access where he's not wanted. Being so tightly focused on himself though, he can't resist the urge to force the address of site into as many messages as possible.

Now I know that you're a very busy man and so my suggestion might not be viable, but I believe that is the way to shut him out for good. I hope this is helpful.

Thanks,

BornagainAthiest.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:51 pm

Thanks. Great idea.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:57 pm

Hello MockingGods.

MockingGods wrote:

Sorry for my lack of care last night, I was obviously distracted and becoming a bit sleepy when writing the response, a reply that was certainly more worthy of my efforts and time.

No problem.

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

However, my reasoning for using the word, "zillions" was not because it's a real number but because in popular culture it's often seen as an "unimaginably high" number.

I do understand and often use similar popular verbiage to express my ideas. It's often difficult in a format such as this to fully express your thoughts on any given subject, especially one dealing with something as abstract as infinities. It's actually quite amazing we've conceptualized infinite.

Agreed.

When first writing the following sentence I included the phrase "infinite number of universes". Then I thought there is no number that can describe an infinite; infinities defy quantitative analysis.

I wrote:

If space and thus matter is infinite, there are infinite universes, infinite earths, infinite me and you.

I've encountered Parture's "exponential progression of conscience" argument for his god before, but discussing this with him is obviously impossible. Do you have any thoughts on this argument, other then it being poorly framed (I think he's deliberately designed it to sound impressive and yet remain vague)?

Some thoughts on it? Why, yes - it's about as much use a device designed to extract sunlight from freshly harvested zucchini.

Imho MockingGods I think you're crediting him with too much ability when you say that he deliberately designed it to do anything at all. As far as I can see the sum total of Troy's understanding of such things as logic, truth and fact is that if it works for him it must be logical, must be true and must be a fact - end of story. He seems to have no concept of other people's p.o.v. being in any way valid if it disagrees in any way with his views. If Troy say 2+2 = 5, then that is true.

Perhaps the closest analogy I can think for him is Nomad.
Do you remember the episode of the original Star Trek called, "The Changeling"? If not, here's a very brief summary. Nomad is a robotic Earth probe from the late 21st century that gets lost in interstellar space and eventually meets with a damaged alien robot probe called Tarn Ru. The two fuse together in a kind of cybernetic symbiosis to form a regenerated Nomad. The prime directive of Tarn Ru (To sterilize all harmful microbes and bacteria on planets suitable for colonization) also becomes fused with Nomad's (To seek out and contact all forms of intelligent life).
The resulting prime directive of the renewed Nomad is, "To seek out and sterilize all forms of intelligent life." It obeys this programming with, as Spock says, "It's own relentless logic."
Now apply that idea to Troy. The only thing that is valid in his universe is his own opinions, therefore all those with contrary views must be destroyed!

What's really sad MockingGods is that he could have turned Biblocality.com into a half-effective website of Christian outreach. I could even have helped him do that. But of course that would require him to do the unthinkable - to change his p.o.v. and accept that other people are actually allowed to hold opinions that differ from his own.
If he had taken Gary Habermas' Minimal Facts Approach as the starting point for his belief system and then built up from this he might get somewhere. Why? Because it is intrinsic to Gary's work that other people have the right and the ability to accept or reject the evidence he presents for the reality of Jesus' resurrection. The ability, freedom and right to choose is a cornerstone of Christianity, which Gary acknowledges and works with. The existence of such rights, freedoms and abilities in Troy's universe are an impossibility. There is only the truth as defined and decreed by him. As such, despite the fact that he claims to be championing Jesus Christ, what Troy really stands for is not Christianity at all. What he really loves isn't Christ but the idea of using the name and words of Christ to create and run the Church of Troy Brooks the Infallible, Who Must Not Be Questioned.

The Christian God of the Bible is not a tyrant - but Troy is. If he could gather a community of followers around him they'd soon find out that they are in fact slaves to Troy's dominating will.

Ironically enough, a proof of the existence of God could be the continued zero membership at Biblocality.com. I say zero, because I'm not counting the eight sock-puppets he's populated the place with or the two other members who are only there to disagree with him. As long as it's zilch at Biblobotomy.com, it's not so absurd to say that God is keeping it that way to stop Troy from hurting himself and others any more than he's doing already. Perhaps it would be wise of us to keep an eye on that site and monitor the membership numbers. If, one day, we start seeing lots of members registering there it might be sign that God really is dead. Then we'd all be in trouble!

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:30 pm

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Some thoughts on it? Why, yes - it's about as much use a device designed to extract sunlight from freshly harvested zucchini.

Good one

If I understand him correctly, and admittedly understanding him may not be possible on any rational level, he's arguing that if the natural existence we're experiencing were eternal, human morality (he likes to call conscience) would have attained a much higher level (not sinning to the extent we do). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument fails because humanity isn't infinite even if natural existence is. We've only had a mere one-hundred-fifty-thousand years at best to develop our ethics, not an eternity. I didn't want to discuss this with the wall (Pature) so I thought I'd bounce it off you.

Quote:

Imho MockingGods I think you're crediting him with too much ability when you say that he deliberately designed it to do anything at all.

You are probably correct, but I've notice similar trends with other theists (mostly Christians) to layer their arguments with obscure and arcane sounding language. It's like using the word "law". I think they intentionally use these words to add weight to nebulous and frankly absurd argumentation. If nothing else, I'll give him one complement, he has a tenacity I've rarely encountered before.

Quote:

Perhaps the closest analogy I can think for him is Nomad.
Do you remember the episode of the original Star Trek called, "The Changeling"? If not, here's a very brief summary. Nomad is a robotic Earth probe from the late 21st century that gets lost in interstellar space and eventually meets with a damaged alien robot probe called Tarn Ru. The two fuse together in a kind of cybernetic symbiosis to form a regenerated Nomad. The prime directive of Tarn Ru (To sterilize all harmful microbes and bacteria on planets suitable for colonization) also becomes fused with Nomad's (To seek out and contact all forms of intelligent life).
The resulting prime directive of the renewed Nomad is, "To seek out and sterilize all forms of intelligent life." It obeys this programming with, as Spock says, "It's own relentless logic."
Now apply that idea to Troy. The only thing that is valid in his universe is his own opinions, therefore all those with contrary views must be destroyed!

I'm a big Star Trek fan and remember this episode very well, didn't they also use it as a framework for the first movie?

Quote:

Now apply that idea to Troy. The only thing that is valid in his universe is his own opinions, therefore all those with contrary views must be destroyed!

There's another analogy you might take from it; he pulls his logic from a very narrow stream of data, just like Nomad. He basically can't escape his programming.

Quote:

What he really loves isn't Christ but the idea of using the name and words of Christ to create and run the Church of Troy Brooks the Infallible, Who Must Not Be Questioned.

Other people have been using the words in this book to do the same or worse for a very long time.

Quote:

The Christian God of the Bible is not a tyrant - but Troy is.

I tend to disagree. The god that is portrayed in the bible is one very nasty fellow. Troy/Parture, while he is certainly delusional and controlling, doesn't compare to the depiction set forth in this work of fiction. Jesus is added later to make him seem better, but really, the first half of the story is a vindictive bloodbath.

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:25 pm

MockingGods wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Some thoughts on it? Why, yes - it's about as much use a device designed to extract sunlight from freshly harvested zucchini.

Good one

Thank you. (Bows.) I can't really claim originality on this one though. I seem to recall reading that somewhere in "Gulliver's Travels" there was a character who was trying to extract sunlight from cucumbers. His reasoning was that if a certain amount of sunlight went into the process of creating a mature cucumber (along with soil, water and fertilizer), then it should be possible to get the same quantity of sunlight out of the damn thing! Laughing

If I understand him correctly, and admittedly understanding him may not be possible on any rational level, he's arguing that if the natural existence we're experiencing were eternal, human morality (he likes to call conscience) would have attained a much higher level (not sinning to the extent we do). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument fails because humanity isn't infinite even if natural existence is. We've only had a mere one-hundred-fifty-thousand years at best to develop our ethics, not an eternity. I didn't want to discuss this with the wall (Pature) so I thought I'd bounce it off you.

Quote:

Imho MockingGods I think you're crediting him with too much ability when you say that he deliberately designed it to do anything at all.

You are probably correct, but I've notice similar trends with other theists (mostly Christians) to layer their arguments with obscure and arcane sounding language. It's like using the word "law". I think they intentionally use these words to add weight to nebulous and frankly absurd argumentation. If nothing else, I'll give him one complement, he has a tenacity I've rarely encountered before.

Here's where you and I might well differ, MockingGods. As far as it goes I use the word "tenacity" in a positive way, indicating or implying determination to see something helpful or useful thru to it's proper end. I'd be reluctant to call him that. Obsessive or fanatical, yes. Tenacious, no.

Quote:

Perhaps the closest analogy I can think for him is Nomad.
Do you remember the episode of the original Star Trek called, "The Changeling"? If not, here's a very brief summary. Nomad is a robotic Earth probe from the late 21st century that gets lost in interstellar space and eventually meets with a damaged alien robot probe called Tarn Ru. The two fuse together in a kind of cybernetic symbiosis to form a regenerated Nomad. The prime directive of Tarn Ru (To sterilize all harmful microbes and bacteria on planets suitable for colonization) also becomes fused with Nomad's (To seek out and contact all forms of intelligent life).
The resulting prime directive of the renewed Nomad is, "To seek out and sterilize all forms of intelligent life." It obeys this programming with, as Spock says, "It's own relentless logic."
Now apply that idea to Troy. The only thing that is valid in his universe is his own opinions, therefore all those with contrary views must be destroyed!

I'm a big Star Trek fan and remember this episode very well, didn't they also use it as a framework for the first movie?

Yep! V'ger was the old NASA probe Voyager 5 that went thru a black hole's event horizon, skimming past the singularity at the center and then exiting via a wormhole. It ended up on the far side of our galaxy, was found by a race of machines and then sent back to Earth as the Nebraska-sized starship, V'ger. They ever kept in the plot device about it looking for it's, "Creator". Pity they didn't ask Troy! He knows all about Uncreated Creators! Laughing

Quote:

Now apply that idea to Troy. The only thing that is valid in his universe is his own opinions, therefore all those with contrary views must be destroyed!

There's another analogy you might take from it; he pulls his logic from a very narrow stream of data, just like Nomad. He basically can't escape his programming.

Y'know, MockingGods, your idea of him being confined to a limited datastream has just given me two ideas.

Firstly, referring back to V'ger, the data held in Voyager 5's computer was badly corrupted by it's transit thru the wormhole. The machine-beings who sent it back to Earth had very little to go on about it's creator. So when Ilia (Persis Khambatta,) was converted into a machine replica of the original Deltan woman, it could only give very limited answers to Kirk, Spock and McCoy's questions. Didn't it go something like this...?
Kirk: What is V'ger?
Ilia: V'ger is that which seeks the Creator.
Kirk: So who is the Creator?
Ilia: The Creator is that which is sought by V'ger.
...and so on.
Now if that kind of circularity is familiar, maybe you're onto something?

Secondly, how about this?
I'm r-i-g-h-t out of my depth here MockingGods and r-i-g-h-t out on a limb with this speculation, but bear with me while I try and make my case.
My understanding of the condition we call Autism is that it's origin is congenital, that is, derived from a problem occurring when the child is being formed in the womb. Apparently there is some kind of difference between the structure of the brain-stem in non-Autistic people and of those from people confirmed to have this condition. I also understand that this difference leads to problems in the normal development of such concepts as The Self and Recognition of the Existence of Other "Selves" .

A truly Autistic person recognizes that they exist as a person but have problems understanding that other people are just as much a "person" as they are. Because they are not required to interpret their own facial expressions (except in a mirror) , they struggle to interpret those of other people - leading to problems in social interactions. All the usual clues, indicators and accepted social norms are a mystery to them. Here I'm talking about things like maintaining eye-contact during conversation, reading another's body language, listening to the tone of their voice, etc. We do these things without even thinking about it.

Now, so far I've discussed those with full-blown or severe Autism to illustrate my point, but there are also degrees of Autism. One of my partner's nephew's has problems interacting with other kids at school, yet he's very bright, intellectually speaking. His parents don't want him to be "labeled" as Autistic, but M and I think he might be slightly affected by that condition.

Not long ago I read an article where a shrink speculated that Albert Einstein might have been an undiagnosed borderline Autistic. His reasoning was that Einstein spent much longer periods absorbed in his own thoughts than most other people. The distractions that affect you or me seemed to be irrelevant to the man. The shrink said that whereas you or I have to make a conscious effort to filter these things out, with Einstein it appeared to be a natural ability, like blinking or swallowing. This was highly unusual and led the article's writer to suggest that this was because Einstein had a reduced involvement with the "Outer" world of human life and interactions, living a lot of his life in the "Inner" world of his thought experiments, equations and hypotheses. This kind of self-absorption wasn't a deliberately egotistical thing - it was just a symptom of mildly Autistic behavior. Because the Self is what they know best, this is their comfort zone and they are reluctant to leave it and interact with others.

Diagnosing severe Autism is far easier than cases where this condition is only mildly-expressed or displayed in a "borderline" manner. I suspect that in our society there are many who go around undiagnosed, struggling with social situations others have no problem with.

So could any of this apply to Troy?

Well, if we look at his behavior what do we see?
* An inability to see any point of view other than his own as being valid. Could that be because he has a highly developed sense of the Self and a poorly developed sense of Other Selves? If he places great value on everything to do with the Self (i.e. Troy Brooks), does he then automatically devalue anything to do with Other Selves?

* Because all other points of view are invalid, others must defer to his as being the correct one . I don't believe this is egotism on his part. His "Inner" world is a place of total certainty. Therefore, he rarely uses the words might, possibly or perhaps. Notice his trouble with the concept of speculating about things? There is, much like Nomad, only what is right. This correctness and rightness dwells almost exclusively in his Inner world. Only those, "Others" who's opinions he agrees with, like Gary Habermas', are accorded the status of being right . All the other "Others" are therefore automatically wrong and must be brought into line with the inflexible laws of his Inner world.

* Virtually no capacity to negotiate or compromise with others who do not defer to his "correct" viewpoint. An Autistic person, having problems interacting properly with others, finds it next to impossible develop strategies of negotiation, of bargaining or of liaising on a one-to-one basis with others. Children pick up these skills as they grow up - Autistics rarely do so to any successful degree. If Troy is a borderline Autistic then this might apply in some degree to him. Instead of seeing a discussion as being a 50/50 exchange of views across the level playing field of an Internet forum, he might see it as 90/10 exchange, where the role of the other is not to disagree but to automatically conform to what he knows is right. If that's the case and there is disagreement, out will come his limited repertoire of threats and mockery and he will just keep on hammering away with them because he doesn't have the capacity to develop anything more sophisticated or more successful.

Just to make it clear MockingGods, all of this is just speculation. However, there does seem to be some kind of pattern forming here. If this is anything near the truth, then Troy is to be pitied more than railed against. Unlike say, some alcoholics, who can sometimes recognize their problem and do something about it, Troy may truly be completely unable to appreciate any of what we've been discussing. If so, then I'll change my tactics for dealing with him, should he ever reappear here. Flaming him, mocking him or deriding him will be just as unsuccessful as trying to debate with him. Now I'll just ignore everything he writes.

Quote:

What he really loves isn't Christ but the idea of using the name and words of Christ to create and run the Church of Troy Brooks the Infallible, Who Must Not Be Questioned.

Other people have been using the words in this book to do the same or worse for a very long time.

Agreed.

Quote:

The Christian God of the Bible is not a tyrant - but Troy is.

I tend to disagree. The god that is portrayed in the bible is one very nasty fellow. Troy/Parture, while he is certainly delusional and controlling, doesn't compare to the depiction set forth in this work of fiction. Jesus is added later to make him seem better, but really, the first half of the story is a vindictive bloodbath.

Sorry friend. I didn't make myself clear in this case.
What I should have said was something like this...
The God of the Bible, by supposedly permitting us free will and supposedly granting us the ability to choose to believe in Him or not, is therefore not a tyrant of the same order as Troy Brooks. With Troy you have no choice at all. You must conform or face instant condemnation. With Troy there is no, "Come let us reason together..." because with him there can be no reasoning. Does that read better?

Thanks,

BornAgainAthiest.

Just Arrived Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 5

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

The God of the Bible, by supposedly permitting us free will and supposedly granting us the ability to choose to believe in Him or not, is therefore not a tyrant of the same order as Troy Brooks. With Troy you have no choice at all. You must conform or face instant condemnation. With Troy there is no, "Come let us reason together..." because with him there can be no reasoning. Does that read better?

This is sort of off on a tangent here, but anywho....That line from Isaiah 1:18 that says "Come let us reason together",says the Lord....." My fundie wife likes to quote that one to me quite often. (since I'm a Thomas Paine fan, if you couldn't tell from my nickname) How would you respond to that line? If I read the the verses correctly that come immediately after 1:18, while "god" DOES say to "reason together", he goes on to say that if you don't reason properly in his favor, you will be "devoured" by a pointy sword. Sounds reasonable, huh?
Has anyone ever heard of any other instance of supposedly using "reason" in the bible? Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:11 pm

ageofreezon wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

The God of the Bible, by supposedly permitting us free will and supposedly granting us the ability to choose to believe in Him or not, is therefore not a tyrant of the same order as Troy Brooks. With Troy you have no choice at all. You must conform or face instant condemnation. With Troy there is no, "Come let us reason together..." because with him there can be no reasoning. Does that read better?

This is sort of off on a tangent here, but anywho....That line from Isaiah 1:18 that says "Come let us reason together",says the Lord....." My fundie wife likes to quote that one to me quite often. (since I'm a Thomas Paine fan, if you couldn't tell from my nickname) How would you respond to that line? If I read the the verses correctly that come immediately after 1:18, while "god" DOES say to "reason together", he goes on to say that if you don't reason properly in his favor, you will be "devoured" by a pointy sword. Sounds reasonable, huh?
Has anyone ever heard of any other instance of supposedly using "reason" in the bible? Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Hello Ageofreezon.

I hope this is of some use.
Below is a link showing the results of a keyword search using the word reason at Biblegateway.com

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=reason&version1=31&searchtype=all

You'll notice that most of the results fall into the category of, "The reason for this is...". Not very helpful. If you read thru you'll see (in the Book of Acts) that the Apostle Paul does some reasoning with the Jews, during his missionary journeys. Fine, but this is the use of reason between humans about God, not the use of reason between humans and God, as in that Isaiah quote. As far my limited knowledge goes, Isaiah 1:18 is unique in the Old Testament, if not the whole Bible. Other, more knowledgable members of this forum, may well correct me here. No problem - unlike some people (recently banned) I am open to learning from others. Wink

You wrote, "How would I respond to that line?", Ageofreezon.

Hmmm...well that kinda depends on what kind of response you're planning to give, friend.

Now please don't get mad at me for speaking my mind here. It's just that are you're planning to lock horns with your good lady over this, then I'd rather not get involved. You can appreciate that, right?
My partner M came from a devout Catholic background, but she's now a confirmed atheist (like myself) so there's no real strife between us on these matters. However, having clicked on your name I don't see any declaration as to your belief system or worldview or personal philosophy, so I've only got the five messages you've posted in this thread to go on.
So I don't know quite where you stand in relation to your Christian Fundamentalist wife. I assume, from the tone of your posts that you aren't a religious man, but beyond that I'm just guessing.

When it comes to my personal philosophy, I believe in giving others the benefit of the doubt, because that's the way I'd like to be treated by them. Therefore I'll choose to believe that you aren't asking this question to score points over your missus. That ok?

Right now, I'm gonna log off and do some reading of Isaiah. I'll come back to you when I have something to go on.

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:50 pm

Hello again Ageofreezon.

Ok, here's my two cents worth.

Why don't you ask your wife if she's reading it properly?

By this I mean that a common criticism of Fundamentalist Christians by non-Fundie Christians is that of Literalism .

This is the taking of what's written in the Bible as the 100% inerrant Word of God that can just be picked up and read by anyone. Part and parcel of the Literalist p.o.v. is that the Holy Spirit will guide the reader to the truth. So from an atheistic standpoint Literalism immediately fails because you have to invoke an invisible, intangible, inaudible, undetectable agency that interacts only with the mind of the reader. The fundies claim that the proof of their literalist belief cannot be found by any empirical testing or experiment, but can only seen in the transformation of the lives of the believing Bible readers. Being honest, I don't think it'd be polite for me to write down here my opinion on that claim!

Now, if you go back to my previous message and click on the link to BibleGateway.com you'll get just Isaiah 1:18 up on your screen. Now look up to the top left of the screen and you'll see a row of 5 "arrowed" button icons. Click on the middle one that looks like a rolled-up scroll. This will display the whole of Isaiah, Chapter One.

Notice how the text is arranged in verse form? Also, see that it all starts with the announcement that this is a vision that was given to the prophet Isaiah.
So, right off we can see that that this is not the same kind of ballgame as Moses' narrative account of the Exodus of Israel's 12 Tribes from Egypt nor the eye-witness testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Gospels, nor the carefully-composed letters of the Apostle Paul. This is not first-hand reportage of historical events happening in real places - it is (supposedly) an intimately personal experience given to Isaiah by God that was later written down for posterity.

Therefore, can we really say that anyone guided by the Holy Spirit can just open up the book of Isaiah and understand...

A. What God meant when He was speaking one-to-one with Isaiah?
B. What God meant concerning the salvation of any believer from any period of history ("Come lets us reason together...")?
C. What God meant concerning the nation of Israel then (hundreds of years B.C.), now (2009 A.D.) and in the future (The End Times)?

and...

D. What God meant concerning all the other nations (the Gentiles) from the time of Paul's conversion (being the Apostle to the Gentiles), to today and into the future?

This implies that when God said these things he meant them not just for Isaiah's ears at that time, nor for Israels' ears (via the mouth of it's prophet Isaiah) but for anyone at any time in history who is guided by the Holy Spirit. Now there are those who say that when God spoke to Isaiah like this, He did so in the full knowledge that His words would be applicable not only in that prophet's time but also now and in the future. My reply to that assertion is that it is a very bad case of circular argumentation and self-justification. "Because God foreknew that we would look at His word, here and now in 2009, we can therefore take these words as appropriate not only for Isaiah's time but also to for ours too. God's word is eternal and His Holy Spirit will guide us into what this means for us today." As before, I could give an impolite response to this insupportable claim!

So Agefreezon, your wife may claim that Isaiah 1:18 applies now, to anyone who is seeking God, but to make that claim she is (imho) indulging in circular reasoning and probably not reading the text as it was meant to be understood.

Ok then, how was it meant to be understood?
Well, my recent visits to Christianforums have been very informative in this area.
The Fundies there insist that the Bible is easily readable, here and now, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those of some other denominations and sects take a different line. They say that the Bible is not the inerrant, literal word of God (6 days of Creation meaning 6 x 24 hours) , but instead points the way to God thru allegory and symbolism. God's word is still true, but it must be read in the context of it's time and culture so that it's proper meaning can be understood and then applied to our lives today. Your wife may well take issue with this approach because it runs counter to her innate belief that the Bible's words apply here and now if the Holy Spirit "opens the scriptures" to our understanding. I say this to warn you about her possible reaction to what I'm going to write next. This is a direct quote from a non-Fundamentalist member of Christianforums as to how the Bible should be read.

Biblical Principles for Interpreting God's Word.

1. Follow the customary usages of the language.
2. Commit no historical or cultural blunders.
3. Make Christ central to all interpretations.
4. Be conscious of context.
5. Interpret by the analogy of the faith.
6. Recognize the progress of revelation.
7. Grant one interpretation to one phrase.
8. Choose the common sense alternative.
9. Never invent explanations to silent areas of scripture.
10. Never theorize to accommodate man's view or religion or modern science.
11. Never base a doctrine on one passage of scripture.

Also bear these things in mind.

12. Allegory - Taking the literal meaning of story, discourse. or something written and giving it another spiritualized or non-literal meaning.

13. Analogy - Similarity between things of partial resemblance. Comparing something point by point with something else, noting it's similarity. As applied to Bible study, it means the scriptures are alike and do not contradict each other.

14. Context - The parts of the book, passage or verse, which shows the whole situation and relevant environment in which it is found.

15. Expository - Setting forth facts, ideas and an explanation from a detailed examination of a passage.

16. Exegesis - Critical analysis or interpretation which seeks the meaning from the passage and does not impose meaning on the passage.

17. Interpretation - To arrive at the original meaning the writer intended when he wrote the words.

18. Syntax - The study of the word in it's grammatical setting, showing it's relationship to other words.

Now please note Ageofreezon, that I'm only quoting this - I don't agree with it.
However, you might like to run a few of these ideas past your wife, concerning Isaiah 1:18, to see what she says. Don't hit her with the lot. Just ask if she thinks she's reading it in it's proper historical, grammatical and cultural context. That should give her something to chew over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for myself, I don't agree with either approach - neither the Literalist one or the 18-Point Guideline above.
Assuming the existence of the Holy Spirit and then applying that assumption to justify reading any part of the Bible in a particular way is, as far as I'm concerned, totally invalid - for the reasons I described earlier. A Literalist approach also yields other problems relating to the denial of what Science tells us about the natural world.
Insisting on the use of the 18-point way also brings attendant problems. I won't outline what these problems are right now though.

Instead I'll wait on your reply.

Thanks,

BornAgainAthiest.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 5

Many thanks to BornAgainAthiest for inviting me to the thread. After replying to him on another, he mentioned that he was confining himself to this one. After reading through the whole thread from the beginning…whew…

May I offer thoughts on both the first few posts and the last one by BAA (Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:50 am -good grief BAA, don’t you ever sleep? Very Happy

)?

In many of the first few posts of this thread references to “science” were made, most commonly, if I remember correctly, discussing the big bang. “Science” in this vein, has been purported to be logical and rational. I disagree. Science will never be able to prove that the big bang theory is true. It will never be able to prove that evolution is true. Additionally and furthermore, it can also not prove that God exists, it never will. In fact, we can logically say that science is not capable to reliably tell us anything conclusive about reality. This fact weighed on Einstein heavily (and somewhere I have a quote that I can’t find right now.) It’s “science” after all. Why? Has science ever been wrong? Sure it has, it often is. Sometimes science gets it right. So then, to claim “absolute truth” because of scientific evidence is MOST illogical and irrational.

If I claimed to know for sure that God exists because of “scientific proof”, the non-Christian would be justified in asking, “how can I be sure?”, and I would be without defense. Now, just for argument sake, I happen to believe that Christians can do better science than non-Christians. But it has everything to do with first-principles, and at this point in the discussion is irrelevant . Yes, even we Christians’ science does not conclusively prove God’s existence. Like-wise, when the atheist claims that evolution must be true because of scientific proof, it is an illogical statement and I am justified in asking, “by what authority do you make this claim?” The same when an explanation of the cosmos is given, “do you make this claim by the absolute authority of science?” There is no such thing as the “authority of science”. Well come on then, RenewedMind, how can we “know” anything? How can we be “sure” of anything? Is there even something as an “absolute truth” to be known? And if there was how could we know it? I will deal with this in a future post and this could be developed much further, but let me lay this down for the moment and come back to it later. I want to give readers time to think and ponder the thought of why science can’t reliably prove anything. For much if not all of the atheistic belief structure to be built on and rely on science is a very dangerous place to be. If Christianity was built solely on science I would denounce it instantly. If the atheist was truly logical and rational as they claim they would realize the faulty foundation they stand on.

Secondly, I want to make a comment that BAA made in the most recent post regarding reading and interpreting scripture. While yes, I affirm that non-Christians are unable to again, logically and rationally, interpret scripture, something else needs to be said. For Christians, somebody in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, much of scripture is indeed easy to read and understand. It does not require someone to interpret for most Christians as was believed and practiced when scripture existed only in Latin, the Holy Spirit provides insight and guidance. However, Christians should not automatically assume that every passage in scripture is plain and easy to interpret. There is a place for theological study. There is a place for delving into Hebrew and Greek. God gave us brains, and when renewed, He expects us to use them! After all, 2 Timothy says that scripture is “God-breathed”. To think that one can easily know all about God is to reduce God to nothing more than a simple book and would indeed be arrogant and blasphemous! 2 Timothy 3:16-17 gives us a good description of what scripture is useful for. Volumes more could be written here, and likely our debate will take us there. The atheist will argue that scripture is just as illogical as science. In this we are diametrically opposed, but before diving into a full fledged war on the inerrancy and unity of scripture we have some further issues to discuss…for example, can the existence of God be proven without the use of scripture at all? Or, how do we make sense of evil if in fact God really does exist?

My sincere hope is that those who read these words, that God Himself will begin to speak to your heart and mind and draw you to Himself. Acts 17:27 says that God is not far from you.

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:47 am

RenewedMind wrote:

It (science) will never be able to prove that evolution is true.

This is a rather broad and empty statement. Science maybe never be able to accurately describe the exact natural method of evolution, but it is a fact that biological life-forms evolve. Evolution's existence is no less questioned then the existence of gravity.

Quote:

So then, to claim “absolute truth” because of scientific evidence is MOST illogical and irrational.

Science is the method by which we deduce natural functions. It deals with probable truths that conform to the data which it produces.

Quote:

Yes, even we Christians’ science does not conclusively prove God’s existence.

If a god is not natural, science can tell us nothing about it.

Quote:

The atheist will argue that scripture is just as illogical as science.

What? The scientific method isn't illogical; it is the most logical method we've developed so far to give us any understanding of the functions of nature.

Scripture (I assume you're speaking of the bible) is mostly tradition, allegory, superstition, legend and myth. While it might tell us something about the human condition, it says almost nothing about the reality of nature.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 5

Quote:

[quote="MockingGods"]

RenewedMind wrote:

It (science) will never be able to prove that evolution is true.

This is a rather broad and empty statement. Science maybe never be able to accurately describe the exact natural method of evolution, but it is a fact that biological life-forms evolve. Evolution's existence is no less questioned then the existence of gravity.

If science may never be able to accurately describe the exact natural method of evolution, then why is evolution purported as fact? What do you mean by “it is a fact that biological life-forms evolve”? Do you mean that science has resolutely proven evolution as fact…the same science that is not able to accurately describe the natural method of evolution? This is circular reasoning and is illogical to me. Am I not understanding something correctly?

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:05 pm

Quote:

MockingGods wrote:

RenewedMind wrote:

It (science) will never be able to prove that evolution is true.

This is a rather broad and empty statement. Science maybe never be able to accurately describe the exact natural method of evolution, but it is a fact that biological life-forms evolve. Evolution's existence is no less questioned then the existence of gravity.

If science may never be able to accurately describe the exact natural method of evolution, then why is evolution purported as fact? What do you mean by “it is a fact that biological life-forms evolve”? Do you mean that science has resolutely proven evolution as fact…the same science that is not able to accurately describe the natural method of evolution? This is circular reasoning and is illogical to me. Am I not understanding something correctly?

Science is the method by which we analyze the natural fact of evolution, just like it's the method by which we analyze the natural fact of gravity. We know less through science about gravity then we do about evolution, yet the both exist.

There is no evidence to suggest life is static (doesn't change/evolve over multiple generations), there is overwhelming evidence which proves that it does. If you can show some evidence to suggest biological life doesn't evolve, it would be the greatest scientific result of the twenty-first century. So please, present your case.

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:35 pm

Hello again RenewedMind.

RenewedMind wrote:

Many thanks to BornAgainAthiest for inviting me to the thread. After replying to him on another, he mentioned that he was confining himself to this one. After reading through the whole thread from the beginning…whew…

May I offer thoughts on both the first few posts and the last one by BAA (Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:50 am -good grief BAA, don’t you ever sleep? Very Happy

)?

Umm... I guess it doesn't look much like it, I suppose. That could be due to me being my own boss and grabbing computer time whenever I can.

Now, my reply to you below will be what I consider to be what Science does and what Science cannot do. Please note that I'm not speaking for anyone else here. If somebody disagrees with my definitions, well, that's up to them.

In many of the first few posts of this thread references to “science” were made, most commonly, if I remember correctly, discussing the big bang. “Science” in this vein, has been purported to be logical and rational. I disagree. Science will never be able to prove that the big bang theory is true . It will never be able to prove that evolution is true . Additionally and furthermore, it can also not prove that God exists, it never will. In fact, we can logically say that science is not capable to reliably tell us anything conclusive about reality. This fact weighed on Einstein heavily (and somewhere I have a quote that I can’t find right now.) It’s “science” after all. Why? Has science ever been wrong? Sure it has, it often is. Sometimes science gets it right. So then, to claim “absolute truth” because of scientific evidence is MOST illogical and irrational.

If I claimed to know for sure that God exists because of “scientific proof”, the non-Christian would be justified in asking, “how can I be sure?”, and I would be without defense. Now, just for argument sake, I happen to believe that Christians can do better science than non-Christians. But it has everything to do with first-principles, and at this point in the discussion is irrelevant . Yes, even we Christians’ science does not conclusively prove God’s existence. Like-wise, when the atheist claims that evolution must be true because of scientific proof, it is an illogical statement and I am justified in asking, “by what authority do you make this claim?” The same when an explanation of the cosmos is given, “do you make this claim by the absolute authority of science?” There is no such thing as the “authority of science”. Well come on then, RenewedMind, how can we “know” anything? How can we be “sure” of anything? Is there even something as an “absolute truth ” to be known? And if there was how could we know it? I will deal with this in a future post and this could be developed much further, but let me lay this down for the moment and come back to it later. I want to give readers time to think and ponder the thought of why science can’t reliably prove anything. For much if not all of the atheistic belief structure to be built on and rely on science is a very dangerous place to be. If Christianity was built solely on science I would denounce it instantly. If the atheist was truly logical and rational as they claim they would realize the faulty foundation they stand on.

Ok RenewedMind, you'll note that I've highlighted the words "true" and "truth" in red, in the two paragraphs quoted above.
This is because there is a good deal of confusion (amongst atheists as well as those of faith) as to what Science is, what it does, what it cannot do and how these things relate to the Truth. I aim to outline these things as best as I understand them, right now.

How Science Works.
It is the pursuit of better definitions and a better understanding of everything that can be analyzed by the methods it uses.

These definitions are made up of validated and proven facts, derived from repeatable measurements, observations and experiments. In Science the rule is that any measurement, observation or experiment must be repeatable by anyone, anywhere under the same set of conditions and controls - hence repeatability. If something can only be measured by one person and not anyone else, this data is invalid because is is open to personal bias and falsification. This is why measuring the interior angles of a square in Canada will yield a the same result as an identical measurement performed in India, in Egypt or on the Moon. So Science only accepts what is proven and provable by all, what is tested and testable by all and what is generally accepted by all.

When one scientist disputes the facts or theories presented by another, this is to science's benefit, not harm. Science is always checking, testing and re-checking what it holds to be factual. This is how it improves itself - by testing it's current definitions and understanding, discarding what is refuted by newer and better theories. This is how Newton's Theory of Gravity came to be superseded by Einstein's. Today, there is some evidence that Einstein's theories may be superseded by a future theory. No problem. This dynamic approach to knowledge is how science works. An outmoded theory may be considered to be "wrong" but this is only because a better, more precise theory has supplanted it. This does not make Science-as-a-whole "wrong" and it is a fundamental mistake to think that because a better theory says something very different to an older one, the whole of science is a sham. NASA still uses Newtonian physics to steer it's space probes to other planets and this works perfectly well within the parameters used. Within other parameters the Newtonian equations fail to cope and the Einsteinian ones take over. The former is a good definition of how gravity works, but the latter is a better one.

Science is Not Speculation.

Science's methodologies include observation, measurement, experiment and analysis. These tools yield results (facts) which can be formulated into a theory. A theory that is not backed up with any observations, measurements, etc. is simply speculation, not a proper theory at all. Now, scientists are free to speculate about their work, but in doing so there is a risk that non-scientists will take these speculations as theories or facts. This misinterpretation of scientific speculation occurs all to often, with some of the main culprits being...

* Newspapers (Dressing up speculation as theory or fact makes for more interesting news and bigger sales. Not all of them do it, but enough do to perpetrate inaccurate ideas about science.)

* Internet Blogs (Those who cannot or will not appreciate the difference between speculation, theory and fact abuse the privilege of their freedom to write what they like. A blog, being a
personal thing, usually goes unregulated unless there are legal/criminal issues. Therefore scientific speculation is often taken wrongly, out of context or as some kind of truth.)

* Websites with vested interests (Those who have some kind of axe to grind or some beef with either science in general or a specific scientific issue, e.g. Evolution. I name no names here, but I do say that the easiest way to make a good-looking case against something you don't like is to cleverly misrepresent what a scientist speculates about, calling it a theory or a fact or the truth.)

Not all of this misrepresentation is malicious. A lot of it simply stems from a lack of understanding and this kind of disinformation is spread far and wide, muddying the waters.

So, speculation can be based on scientific facts and/or theories, but it is clearly not the same thing. To criticize all of Science because some non-scientists have mistaken speculation for fact and/or theory is to misrepresent all of Science. Sadly, this kind of sloppy criticism is all too prevalent.

Science and The Truth.
Now RenewedMind, I think you'll find that you've been laboring under some misapprehension about science, much in the same way some atheists have made errors about religion.

You are right. Science will never prove that the Big Bang is true because there is no such thing as scientific truth - there are only better and better theories, formulated from better and better facts, derived from better and better measurements. Science can prove to a higher and higher degree of probability the measurable facts about the Big Bang event, that is all. However once we become 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% accurate in our definition of the facts about it, isn't that good enough? The same would also apply for Evolution and a lot of other things.

Now if you need 100% certainty or truth, science is not the tool to work with - try Philosophy or Religion. I say this because, as far as I'm concerned Certainty and Truth are simply different sides of the same coin and this coin is different for everyone. For you the existence of God is both a 100% Certainty and The Truth. For me it is neither. Science can never alter your definition of what is Certain and what is True because that is personal to you and only you can change these things. You may argue that Certainty and Truth are not just subjective, personal things but objective ones that apply to all. However, I would contend that the facts speak differently. You may contend otherwise, but in the arena of what is measurable, observable and testable (Science) we are all free to accept or reject what we like. All that differs between people of different viewpoints is how consistent they are being in regard to two things.
1. How internally consistent your belief system or world-view is. This should be self-explanatory.
2. How consistent your beliefs/views are with the rest of reality. E.g., if you believe that fast-moving bullets cannot kill you, then I reckon that reality will rudely conflict with this belief.

So RenewedMind, science does indeed have NO authority and NO truth, in of itself. Any "authority" or "truth" science may have is the result of the quality of it's definitions (theories) about reality. If you wish to question the quality of science's definitions of ballistics, chemistry and physics by all means go ahead and believe that science is wrong. Just put the gun to your head and pull the trigger.
The evidence that science gets A LOT right is all around you, in you and in your existence. Our global civilization is built upon the fruits of better and better scientific theories about reality. The computer you're using now wouldn't exist without it. Nor would the fillings in your teeth, the car you drive or the electricity you use every day. Scientific advances in medicine allowed your parents to avoid malnutrition, disease and many other things that might otherwise have killed them - allowing you to exist.
So science's authority and truth are the simply products of how well it's theories describe the nature of reality. Very well, as far as I can see.

The mistake you are making when you talk about, "scientific truth" and "scientific authority" is that these concepts are themselves mistaken views of what science is and does. Correct these mistaken views and your criticisms disappear. I've already explained how speculation is wrongly taken as fact and theory. Scientific truth and scientific authority are equally mistaken concepts. So, you are exactly right when you say that claiming "absolute truth" due to scientific evidence is most illogical and irrational. It is in fact totally illogical and irrational.

Science deals with facts and not truth, as mentioned earlier. Nor does it have any authority, other than the quality of it's definitions. Therefore those who talk about truth and authority in the context of science are doing so in error. What they probably mean to say it something like this...

"The Theory of the Big Bang or Evolution or Whatever (Insert appropriate theory) is scientifically proven to be accurate - within the context and limitations of the known facts. "
The italicized ending of that sentence is usually left out, but it is the most important qualification of the concept under discussion.
Provided we talk about science in this way we are being completely logical and rational. When we give science the labels of "authority" and "truth" we are being illogical and irrational.

Therefore, as long as atheists qualify what they claim about science in the way shown above, they stand on a foundation that is composed of rock-solid logic and rational thought.

There you have it RenewedMind.
I hope that this is a better, clearer definition of what science is and how it works.
Your criticisms would be valid if the concepts of scientific authority and scientific truth were valid too. Hopefully, I've demonstrated that they are not and therefore your criticisms are not either.

Secondly, I want to make a comment that BAA made in the most recent post regarding reading and interpreting scripture. While yes, I affirm that non-Christians are unable to again, logically and rationally, interpret scripture, something else needs to be said. For Christians, somebody in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, much of scripture is indeed easy to read and understand. It does not require someone to interpret for most Christians as was believed and practiced when scripture existed only in Latin, the Holy Spirit provides insight and guidance. However, Christians should not automatically assume that every passage in scripture is plain and easy to interpret. There is a place for theological study. There is a place for delving into Hebrew and Greek. God gave us brains, and when renewed, He expects us to use them! After all, 2 Timothy says that scripture is “God-breathed”. To think that one can easily know all about God is to reduce God to nothing more than a simple book and would indeed be arrogant and blasphemous! 2 Timothy 3:16-17 gives us a good description of what scripture is useful for. Volumes more could be written here, and likely our debate will take us there. The atheist will argue that scripture is just as illogical as science. In this we are diametrically opposed, but before diving into a full fledged war on the inerrancy and unity of scripture we have some further issues to discuss…for example, can the existence of God be proven without the use of scripture at all? Or, how do we make sense of evil if in fact God really does exist?

My sincere hope is that those who read these words, that God Himself will begin to speak to your heart and mind and draw you to Himself. Acts 17:27 says that God is not far from you.

Please note that I do not currently plan to respond to the above paragraph. I think I've said enough for now!

Thanks,

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:15 am

Another great post BAA

Quote:

Science is Not Speculation.

Yes, science isn't speculation. However, science often starts with speculation, in other words, hypothesis. The science begins after the hypothesis is made, otherwise it's only speculation.

One should also note that some speculations/hypothesizes are more probable then others. Ones based upon natural ideology are in my opinion more probable then those religiously based in the supernatural. For instance, it's more probable we've been visited by non-terrestrial machines/organisms then for any anthropogenic god to exist.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 5

MockingGods (MG) and BornAgainAtheist (BAA), thank you for your replies. For readability may I skip including all the quotes? For other lurking readers, which I hope there are many, I’m assuming they will read the two previous posts prior to this one. I’ll try to respond to both of your posts at the same time.

If I came across giving the impression that science wasn’t useful, please forgive me. It is indeed very useful, sortof. MG wants to equate the natural “fact” of evolution to the natural fact of gravity. Gravity is not ruled by the scientific method. Evolution is. Does this mean that we can not test gravity by using the scientific method?…I did not say that. Evolution’s very foundation however, is built on the scientific method, but a fatally flawed scientific method. Take the topic of radioactive dating of rocks for example. Now, I am a statistician by trade. I admit that I am not properly schooled in geology. Perhaps that’s why it is possible for me to smell a rat. (No actually, it’s a different reason.) There is not enough room in a single post to describe all about radioactive dating, you may read all about it all over the internet, and by some apparently very smart PhDs that will try to convince you that the earth is billions of years old. It’s just that there is a really huge flaw. One that I’m sorry, MG and BAA, I can’t get by. In order for radioactive dating to even remotely accurate, you have to know how much of the parent element was in origin when the rock was formed in the first place and you also have to additionally know that there was no daughter element in the rock when it was formed in the first place. Without knowing this information, the radioactive dating method is irrelative. How a PhD can be so intelligent and to stick their head in the sand when it comes to this is beyond me (no not really, I will tell you why below.) I am a statistician. I can manipulate statistics any way I want to make the numbers say pretty much anything I want them to, because I know more about statistics than the average person. What atheism does, is test. “Whoops that didn’t prove our point, test it a different way.” “Whoops failed again.” “Test it again.” “Whoops failed again.” “Well if we ignore that part, THEN it confirms what we “know” MUST be true.” The fact is, is that the atheist doesn’t know what they don’t know, this is why a PhD can be so blind as to miss something so fundamental. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” MG, BAA, other readers, you both know God. The knowledge of God is written on your hearts as a human being.

Evolution is presupposed by cosomology. Cosmology is presupposed by epistemology. Atheism’s epistemology fails miserably, precisely because it based on science. Scientific truth and scientific authority are indeed mistaken concepts as BAA asserts. They don’t exist, period. So evolution is built on quicksand…as is the theory of the big bang. Do I want to be 100% right? You bet I do! And that is exactly why I have turned to something better, more rock solid than science.

Different but related topic (more philosophical in nature): Since BAA brought it up. In BAA’s paragraph above where I need 100% certainty and truth, the issue of relative truth is raised. What right’s for me is what’s right for me and what’s right for BAA is right for BAA. BAA says above, “In the arena of what is measurable, observable, and testable we are free to accept or reject what we like.” I mean good grief, do you know what you just said? “I don’t care if evolution is false, if I want to think that the science, (which by your own admission can not prove the Big Bang), is true, then by my definition it’s true!”
You are NOT free to accept or reject what you like. Do you not want the “truth”? Pull your head out of the sand man! (I sound like I’m being arrogant, humbly I’m not. If I didn’t give a crap about you two, (MG and BAA) and all the others reading this, I wouldn’t waste my time here. But I do care about you, and I care about the other people reading this debate.)

I got carried away…I just couldn’t help myself with the doublespeak. The different topic is this: Atheism is a relativistic belief structure at it’s core. By this I mean that there are some very important issues that the atheist can not make sense out of, least of which is science. They will try but they can not. For example, the whole issue and problem of “evil”. Atheism can not properly even define what evil is. What’s evil for me is not evil for you, etc. etc. Society self destructs without an absolute truth of what evil is. The atheist can not explain what evil is, they can not explain where it came from, and they can not explain it's purpose.

MG and BAA, I look forward to your comments. In all seriousness, I wish to God that He would call you and that you would heed His call.
(end note: I will not write here again this week. I am swamped and have way way to much to do. So please bear with me. I’ll be back next week.)


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile