Recent content by Fervent

Funny, because I'm able to come to reasonably certain interpretations while engaging in this level of scrutiny. Though it involves making assumptions about what the text is to determine what conventions to use, as I am only human. And I have reasons for those assumptions that satisfy me, and...

No, you always make interpretive decisions. An example is you must determine which literary conventions are in operation to know when something might be figurative, for example. There's no such thing as a plain meaning, otherwise everyone who reads a text will understand it the same way but its...

Decided I'd give this a reply after all. Your question isn't representative of my experience of free will in operation, but just one small part of it. My will isn't just active in decision making but through the whole process. My will orders and arranges my thoughts, weighs the various options...

Perhaps if you would simply provide an answer, we would be able to move on. Or you could give us some other way to exclude events without identifiable causes as falsifiers in our data set. If you say so, and it's unsurprising that you do since the circularity of your argument is so deeply...

I'm asking you to defend your argument, rather than sending us off into the woods by arguing over the difference between efficient and final causes. What different observations would we have?

Answering my question would be bringing something new to the table. Nope, because an answer to my question would consist of you bringing something new. Or you could come up with some other challenge to it, besides just resorting to the very assumption you're seeking to justify.

As soon as you answer my question about what different observations we would make for an effect without cause and an effect without identifiable cause I might entertain this line of questioning, but until then I'm not going to.

Sure, but that was sophistry because it conflates final causes with efficient causes.

Yes, you make assumptions when you interpret a text. Any text, and usually not on a conscious level. I'm not giving examples because I'm not looking to argue about what the correct reading is because you and I make some very different assumptions about questions like what genre of literature...

Since you've indulged my contentions about your attempt at justifying your belief, perhaps I should give you an opportunity to attack the logic in my justification. And this is as good a place as any to start, since it highlights at least part of the logical process I've gone through. Your...

It does, but squabbling about which understanding is stronger is contrary to my purposes since my aim is not to convince you that the Bible does or doesn't give the age of the Earth or what that age is, simply trying to highlight that your contention that science is based on assumptions isn't...

Good Yes, it's quite clear that there is emotional reactions to trauma from religious abuse and that often leads to initial hostile posturing. But when the hostility arises within what was previously a civil and largely dispassionate academic discussion it becomes clear there's more going on...

Fair enough, and I agree. So why don't we lower the bar since anyone worthy of those things must also be worthy of a lesser consideration. So how about we change worship to adoration and rule to governance, what would we have to know about a person to decide that they were fit for those things...

Based on what, exactly? And what qualifies you to make such a judgment? How did you determine that whatever considerations you used to come to that conclusion were valid? Oh? So it's just our own sense of self-importance? Aren't we just specks in the universe, what makes us important? Oh? And...

It's a spiritual war as much as it's an intellectual one. The hostile posturing comes with the territory of serving the crucified Lord, because it isn't dispassionate academic arguments that are truly at the core of most of these disputes but visceral reaction. Which becomes apparent in the...