Djevv said:
What 'data', what 'evidence'? Sometimes I think we are reading different threads! The evidence reasonably applied supports ther veracity of the Bible. I have repeatedly demonstrated this and get called 'illogical'! You assume that naturalism is correct, don't you - therefore the supernatural events recorded in the Bible is ruled out of court. So everything must have a natural explanation --> pious fraud, delusion, prophectic and historical revisionism. This when 'the data' could just as well support the other conclusion. Why is one chosen and not the other. Natuaralistic presupposition!
The veracity of the Bible?!? Just because some of the stories have some historical accuracy does not support the supernatural claims made therein. Many of the stories are patently untrue (ie Noah's ark).
You aren't called illogical out of hand though. Whenever I have seen that levelled, it comes with an explanation.
I don't assume naturalism....I have yet to witness anything supernatural, dodgy websites aside. When did this supernatural world cease to exist?
Why do you assume that the supernatural exists? Because you have read stories in a book that provide you with a meaning in life and these stories have supernatural themes?
??? my supernatural beliefs reveal the nature of God and the meaning of existance. They further reveal the nature of man and his destiny. In fact they answer all the same questions your 'anti-faith' does.
They do no such thing outside of your head. I could come up with any old explanation for these questions....would that make them so? Why do your beliefs on these matters have any more legitimacy than other faiths'?
IMO your 'faith' does exactly the same thing! How do you know faith 'clouds my vision'? I believe it helps me see as I never saw before!
My faith? In naturalism, I assume? When you look at the evidence, say for common descent, the obvious answer is clear. However, because you have supernatural beliefs that would be challenged by this conclusion, you choose to go through logical gymnastics to explain the evidence in a way that fits your view. This begs the question as to the basis of these beliefs and when examined it comes down to faith. This is the 'clouding' I speak of, your platitudes aside.
Pfft. Critics on this thread have been repeatedly shown up as either trumpeting their opinions as facts, and also having a very low level of Biblical understanding. They think saying I'm illogical means they have actually demonstrated it. To me Disco's suffering argument was completely dismanted on numerous counts yesterday, but, surprise, surprise, I come on here and find you see things differently.
Are you aiming that accusation at anyone in particular?
A low level of Biblical understanding? You would think the perfect guidebook to life would have self evident values and not be open to interpretation. It may also contain some insights that transcend the time in which it was written, but no. So when critics point out the logical inconsitencies it is because they don't understand? However you do? You have some special ability to determine this?
The core of Disco's argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient being could not suffer whilst knowing the outcome was never addressed. The arguments all revolved around the physical pain (temporary and knowing the outcome) and the fact that he didn't have to do such a thing for his imperfect creation (????). What sort of being creates such a universe?!?!
This is a mere assertion and begs the question. When we say 'supernatural' we mean that the universe is not it's own explanation! That a supernatural creator can make it work the way He wants and sometimes not the way it usually does.
And how do you know anything about this supposed creator?
Interpreting the available evidence presupposing naturalism.
For reasons described above.
So you rule the available historical and other evidence 'out of court' by your presupposition. You also presuppose that you actually need evidence for a belief to be true.
Where is the historical evidence for the miracles described in the Bible?
If you want to convince someone (and yourself for that matter) as to the truth of a belief, evidence is usually helpful. :
Of course the evidence doesn't make it true....but how are you to know, but for the evidence?
Glad you find this amusing and admit to making this presupposition. What if God does actually move in ways that are beyond our comprehension - ridiculous from your POV but not mine. However I believe He is usually comprehensible and have repeatedly demonstrated this.
I see you ignore my post and just assert presuppositions. The logical inconsitencies aren't presupposed, but are pointed out!
OK...if your God works in mysterious ways how do you claim to have 100% certainty as to his wishes? "Usually comprehensible" means that you can cobble together an explanation and when you can't you play the "god works in mysterious ways" card?
Yet another presupposition.
So you also believe the contradictory evidence from other religions? My apologies....I did presuppose that you thought that the Christian theology was exclusively correct. :
I'll ask you the same question. How do you guarantee if naturalism is correct that you are thinking straight?
I don't. I use and rely on controlled experiments and the predictions of hypotheses to reduce the chances that my interpretations are accurate. I see you again dodge the question though.
What about fine-tuning? This is powerful evidence for God. The Big Bang is further powerful evidence for God. All I've ever heard you do with such evidence is mock it. Given these two ONLY a creator is a reasonable proposition.
Mock it? I have never discussed fine-tuning or Big Bang as an argument for God with you. Nice try though.
Your captialised assertion aside, there are other explanations.
How old is the universe exactly?
Above. I don't have a huge problem with the way you do your arguments, it's your pre supositions that worry me
.
I hope that has clarified it a bit for you.
