Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

I have motor manuels translated into Chinglish.
Because I understand basic mechanics and the objetive reality of motors, I can usually understand what the procedures are.

I Prefer the King James because I am particularly fond of Elizabethean English.

I can use other translations, the same as I can use a British motor manual, where the hood is a bonnet and a wrench is a spanner the same as I can use a Chinglish translation which defies description as a languge but still, the basic objective reality is there and the instructions.

I agree, although by long familiarity I prefer the readings and the Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer, which are actually Coverdale's. It seems to me that if one translation makes much difference over another you are chopping your doctrine way too fine.

 

[Kylie]

There are no true seekers of God. We have all gone astray.

Once again, different believers can't agree with each other.

How do you expect atheists to accept your claims when you guys can't even get your claims straight between you?

Circular reasoning is almost inevitable in these sorts of discussions, because we're dealing with worldview issues that boil down to which solution to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilema we prefer. Religious folk take the dogmatic/axiomatic and circular solution, while non-religious folk tend to presume upon an infinite regress and circular solution.

The separating point isn't a lack of evidence, but how the data is interpreted into evidence.

And no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical.

First of all, there you go again, a believer who thinks that atheists are just determined to not believe. That just isn't the case, not for the most part.

Secondly, why not go with what can be tested and shown to be reliable?

I mean, it doesn't matter what your particular interpretation is. If something works, then you can't deny that it works. And if something works reliably, then any interpretation that disagrees with it is likely to be wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I have motor manuels translated into Chinglish.
Because I understand basic mechanics and the objetive reality of motors, I can usually understand what the procedures are.

I Prefer the King James because I am particularly fond of Elizabethean English.

I can use other translations, the same as I can use a British motor manual, where the hood is a bonnet and a wrench is a spanner the same as I can use a Chinglish translation which defies description as a languge but still...
The basic objective reality is there and the procedures are in all the translations I have seen so far.

Well, to be fair, you said you are "strict King James only."

Now you are saying you are KJV preferred.

 

[Kylie]

I can understand why you wouldn't debate it.

It would entail having to deal with science-can-take-a-hike miracles.

No, I don't debate it because I accept it.

"There are people who believe in God, Jesus and that the Bible is a record of historical events, with interpretations ranging from a combination of literal and metaphorical to strictly literal" is a claim I am perfectly happy to accept.

I don't debate it for the same reason that I won't debate the claim that the Earth is a Sphere. I accept that it's true.

You make it sound like I'm afraid to debate it because I'm afraid I'll lose.

Please don't use strawman arguments against me, AV.

 

[Kylie]

That's what the "Traditional" in "Traditional Christianity" means. Whatever actually happened, if anything, the companions of Christ believed that He died and then rose from the dead. QvQ quoted a passage from 1st Corinthians to that effect, probably the earliest statement we have of it. Scholars of all stripes generally agree that a person named Paul existed and wrote that letter to people in Corinth. Unless you suppose he was pulling their leg, he believed what he wrote and that was the beginning of the traditional belief that has been handed down to this day, that and the writings of others close to the original twelve. The documents themselves don't prove it, they only bear witness to the beliefs of the authors.

Alternatively, one could assert that the letter to the Corinthians was not written by Paul off his own bat but dictated in some way by God, in which case the resurrection is was not just Paul's belief but an objectively true statement. I have never cared very much for that point of view. After all, Christ's commission to us was "Preach the Gospel..."

And perhaps you bothered to read my reply to QvQ where I said I was interested in WHEN it was written, since they claimed it was written around 35AD and the sources I could find said it was more likely 50-60AD.

 

[Fervent]

Once again, different believers can't agree with each other.

There are essentials, and non-essentials. The essentials have broad agreement, there is variety in the non-essentials.

How do you expect atheists to accept your claims when you guys can't even get your claims straight between you?

I'm not concerned with convincing atheists. My concern is feeding believers, the dead can bury themselves.

First of all, there you go again, a believer who thinks that atheists are just determined to not believe. That just isn't the case, not for the most part.

You seem to misunderstand what I've said, because "atheists" don't play any role in the matter. Skeptics, on the other hand, are very much relevant.

Secondly, why not go with what can be tested and shown to be reliable?

There's an important gap that must be crossed first, worldview issues to sort out. There are hidden assumptions among skeptics that they never turn around and question befoer we get to the stage of hypothesis testing. How do we test whether something is "natural" if our definition of natural can cover any and all observable phenomena? The difference lies in the interpretation, the theist sees a universe and believes universes need an explanation. The "skeptic" sees a universe and assumes there is no need to explain its existence.

I mean, it doesn't matter what your particular interpretation is. If something works, then you can't deny that it works. And if something works reliably, then any interpretation that disagrees with it is likely to be wrong.

There's no reason a Christian can't be pragmatic and take various approaches to learning seriously in their own terms. Science makes for effective research into pseudo-mechanical operations, but when it comes to questions of ontology there isn't much we're able to test. We're stuck with three options, either we take something as being self-evident and build on it, we engage in circulrar reasoning(usually this is secondary...such as invoking the "success" of science to defend science as truth), or we pretend that there is an infinite regress of answers(though of course if we tested this personally we would eventually run out of answers somewhere). So why should we be skeptical of promised immortality that provides a sense of purpose and meaning to our lives? What benefit does religious skepticism provide?

 

[QvQ]

Well, to be fair, you said you are "strict King James only."

Now you are saying you are KJV preferred.

Well, to be fair, I can always find a KJV.
My personal beliefs are strictly KJV
But I will use any translation I have on hand.
There are what may be doctrinal differences inherent in the language of different translations
For instance
KJV Psalm 23: 3 He restoreth my soul He leads me in the path of righteousness
NIV Psalms 23: 3 He refreshed my soul. He guides me along the right path

The concept is the same, basically but in light of other passages, "restore" is the better word than refresh
We could probably have a very long and interesting thread as to whether God refreshes or restores our souls.

But in the end it has to do with the objective reality and the procedures included in the Book.
Not any particular word choice by the translator, such as spanner and wrench mean the same things, actually.
I do prefer wrench because spanner slows me down, just as "refreshed my soul" does.
But I am here to tell you, all I have in my tool box are wrenches, not a spanner in the lot.
So I am strictly a wrench person.
And I am strictly KJV

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't debate it because I accept it.

"There are people who believe in God, Jesus and that the Bible is a record of historical events, with interpretations ranging from a combination of literal and metaphorical to strictly literal" is a claim I am perfectly happy to accept.

I don't debate it for the same reason that I won't debate the claim that the Earth is a Sphere. I accept that it's true.

Then why are you an atheist?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're welcome. I'd like to get a feel for how much you understand about what you posted. Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?

It's too bad that neither has anything to do with orbital motion. No fictitious forces are needed for orbital motion. The relevant force is a centripital force directed toward the center of motion. In this case, gravity provides the centripital force.

 

[Yttrium]

There's an important gap that must be crossed first, worldview issues to sort out. There are hidden assumptions among skeptics that they never turn around and question befoer we get to the stage of hypothesis testing. How do we test whether something is "natural" if our definition of natural can cover any and all observable phenomena? The difference lies in the interpretation, the theist sees a universe and believes universes need an explanation. The "skeptic" sees a universe and assumes there is no need to explain its existence.

Hey. Being a skeptic, I feel an irresistible urge to interject here. Now, I'm not going to speak for all skeptics, but at the very least you seem to be overgeneralizing.

I see a need to explain the existence of the universe. I allow for the possibility of the supernatural. I'm very open to the idea of an intelligent creator, and in fact I think that it would be awesome if God exists. Open-mindedness and skepticism go hand-in-hand. They're practically the same thing. An open-minded person honestly considers the possibilities, but if that person becomes convinced of one, then that person isn't open-minded about that topic anymore. The other possibilities still have to be considered. Thus, the open-minded person remains skeptical.

Although I want to know the answers and think that this weirdo universe needs lots of explaining, I don't jump to conclusions.

There's no reason a Christian can't be pragmatic and take various approaches to learning seriously in their own terms. Science makes for effective research into pseudo-mechanical operations, but when it comes to questions of ontology there isn't much we're able to test. We're stuck with three options, either we take something as being self-evident and build on it, we engage in circulrar reasoning(usually this is secondary...such as invoking the "success" of science to defend science as truth), or we pretend that there is an infinite regress of answers(though of course if we tested this personally we would eventually run out of answers somewhere). So why should we be skeptical of promised immortality that provides a sense of purpose and meaning to our lives? What benefit does religious skepticism provide?

I would rather not know an answer than believe something that is false. If I believe something that is false, I'm wasting my time and possibly even harming myself by following misinformation. Now, I definitely would like to know that answer but again, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

A promise of immortality is sweet, if truly offered, and I'll gladly accept the offer. If there's a requirement of faith, though, then I'm out of luck, since my brain doesn't work that way.

 

[Fervent]

Hey. Being a skeptic, I feel an irresistible urge to interject here. Now, I'm not going to speak for all skeptics, but at the very least you seem to be overgeneralizing.

Skepticism is a broad enough term it can capture numerous views, but I'm speaking specifically about naturalist skeptics who look to science exclusively to answer their questions.

I see a need to explain the existence of the universe. I allow for the possibility of the supernatural. I'm very open to the idea of an intelligent creator, and in fact I think that it would be awesome if God exists. Open-mindedness and skepticism go hand-in-hand. They're practically the same thing. An open-minded person honestly considers the possibilities, but if that person becomes convinced of one, then that person isn't open-minded about that topic anymore. The other possibilities still have to be considered. Thus, the open-minded person remains skeptical.

There's a difficulty in remaining open minded, as we often are subject to hidden biases and assumptions that we don't explicitly state. Skepticism takes work, and eventually IMO anyone who is truly skeptical will end up either throwing in the towel and desperately grasping whatever hope for truth there is, or fall into a nihilistic despair. True skepticism will ultimately bring us to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilemma where it appears there is no satisfactory way of justifying what we believe to be true.

Although I want to know the answers and think that this weirdo universe needs lots of explaining, I don't jump to conclusions.

Fair enough, but I don't see taking Christ as God incarnate being the best possible source for Truth as jumping to conclusions. It still leaves a lot to discover and unpack.

I would rather not know an answer rather than believe something that is false. If I believe something that is false, I'm wasting my time and possibly even harming myself by following misinformation. Now, I definitely would like to know that answer but again, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

Seems to me it's more likely that we'll believe something that is false if we rely on being led by other blind people as we come to a consensus agreement on what's going on. Describing the shadows dancing on the wall doesn't get us closer to the light, it just gives definition to the darkness.

A promise of immortality is sweet, if truly offered, and I'll gladly accept the offer. If there's a requirement of faith, though, then I'm out of luck, since my brain doesn't work that way.

Seems to me that faith is required no matter how we slice it. It's just a question of where we place that faith, in God or in human beings. God be true, and every man a liar.

 

[Yttrium]

Skepticism is a broad enough term it can capture numerous views, but I'm speaking specifically about naturalist skeptics who look to science exclusively to answer their questions.

How does that... even work...

A naturalist "skeptic" who looks to science exclusively?

That's, like, an oxymoron. Reminds me of the "skeptic" flat Earther I saw on YouTube once.

(Note: I am definitely not a naturalist.)

There's a difficulty in remaining open minded, as we often are subject to hidden biases and assumptions that we don't explicitly state. Skepticism takes work, and eventually IMO anyone who is truly skeptical will end up either throwing in the towel and desperately grasping whatever hope for truth there is, or fall into a nihilistic despair. True skepticism will ultimately bring us to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilemma where it appears there is no satisfactory way of justifying what we believe to be true.

My only belief is that I exist, and I can justify that to myself quite satisfactorily. And your personal opinion of what happens to skeptics is quite unfounded.

Seems to me it's more likely that we'll believe something that is false if we rely on being led by other blind people as we come to a consensus agreement on what's going on. Describing the shadows dancing on the wall doesn't get us closer to the light, it just gives definition to the darkness.

Right... thus skepticism. Don't be led. Question everything.

Seems to me that faith is required no matter how we slice it. It's just a question of where we place that faith, in God or in human beings. God be true, and every man a liar.

I'd have to say that you're projecting. You have faith, so you think that faith is required.

 

[Fervent]

How does that... even work...

A naturalist "skeptic" who looks to science exclusively?

That's, like, an oxymoron. Reminds me of the "skeptic" flat Earther I saw on YouTube once.

(Note: I am definitely not a naturalist.)

Generally speaking, "skeptic" in conversations such as these are religious skeptics. And such skeptics tend to view the naturalist methodologies as the exclusive vehicle for finding truth.

My only belief is that I exist, and I can justify that to myself quite satisfactorily. And your personal opinion of what happens to skeptics is quite unfounded.

That's not skepticism, that's solipsism. And I doubt you are genuinely a solipsist, since I am willing to bet you eat when your tummy grumbles and you network with other people. Reduction to Munchaussen's trilemma isn't my personal opinion, it's the center point of philosophical skepticism. The options are either to despair that any knowledge can be had(in your case entertaining the silliness of solipsism) or accepting some source to cling to to lead us to truth.

Right... thus skepticism. Don't be led. Question everything.

There are different levels of skepticism, and given that you're engaging in what is in some ways a debate on the internet I assume you don't follow your own advice and truly believe what you claim to believe about your own existence.

I'd have to say that you're projecting. You have faith, so you think that faith is required.

Nope, I'm stating a fact. If we hope to arrive at any kind of truth, we have to place our faith somewhere. You make a pretense of solipsism, but I'm sure that pretense fades pretty quickly when tax season comes around.

 

[QvQ]

Have you got a source that says it was specifically dated to within five years of Jesus' death? My understanding is that 1 Corinthians was written around 50-60 AD.

1 Corinthian 15: 3-8 is a Creed.
IF you didn't notice, what defines a Christian on this site is The Nicene Creed,
That is what all the Calvinist, Evangelical Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, have in common
We are all Christians who believe the Creed, whatever our doctinal difference between denomination.

The Corinthian Creed
It predates Paul's conversion.
Paul was persecuting Christians
How were Christians identified?
By the Corinthian Creed.
Paul "received" that either in writing or verbally.

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• 
  
• Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

 

[roman2819]

If they refuse to talk about it, how do you know they are atheists.

I was giving a summary of their attitude, how do you infer wrongly I didn't talk to them? I know them and try to evangelize from time to time, but their response is 'Not Interested' and 'There is no God' ,which couldn't be more different than a wannabe-atheist like you, who keep answering and asking questions as if you have an axe to grind with God.

I would be happy to, but there isn't really a place on this site to post such a thread.

You often claim that others' opinions are invalid because they are not based scientific proof or concrete evidence the way you want it (your way to discredit others) yet your own claim that 'most atheists are looking for evidence of God' is not based on science or concrete evidence either. You contradict yourself.

 

[David Lamb]

I think it was the Epistle of Barnabas which was meant. Mid 2nd century, authorship uncertain. It's a favorite of YECs.

Is it really? I have never read or heard a young earth creationist even refer to the Epistle of Barnabas, let alone call it their favourite. Do you have any examples of YECs viewing the Epistle of Barnabas as their favourite?

 

[Kylie]

There are essentials, and non-essentials. The essentials have broad agreement, there is variety in the non-essentials.

And, of course, if they agree on some point, then you can claim that it's an essential. And if they don't agree, you can claim that it's non-essential. How very convenient.

I'm not concerned with convincing atheists. My concern is feeding believers, the dead can bury themselves.

I suspect you'll have similar luck with other believers who don't share your interpretation.

You seem to misunderstand what I've said, because "atheists" don't play any role in the matter. Skeptics, on the other hand, are very much relevant.

The same point applies to skeptics, I think.

There's an important gap that must be crossed first, worldview issues to sort out. There are hidden assumptions among skeptics that they never turn around and question befoer we get to the stage of hypothesis testing. How do we test whether something is "natural" if our definition of natural can cover any and all observable phenomena? The difference lies in the interpretation, the theist sees a universe and believes universes need an explanation. The "skeptic" sees a universe and assumes there is no need to explain its existence.

Who said anything about natural?

I'm talking about what is REAL.

If something supernatural is real, then I'm happy to accept it, even if it isn't natural. Just as long as it is testable.

There's no reason a Christian can't be pragmatic and take various approaches to learning seriously in their own terms. Science makes for effective research into pseudo-mechanical operations, but when it comes to questions of ontology there isn't much we're able to test. We're stuck with three options, either we take something as being self-evident and build on it, we engage in circulrar reasoning(usually this is secondary...such as invoking the "success" of science to defend science as truth), or we pretend that there is an infinite regress of answers(though of course if we tested this personally we would eventually run out of answers somewhere). So why should we be skeptical of promised immortality that provides a sense of purpose and meaning to our lives? What benefit does religious skepticism provide?

If different ideas can't be tested, then do they really make much of a difference?

I mean, if there's no test that can show the difference between Platonic realism, conceptualism, and nominalism, then the difference does really exist in any practical sense.

 

[Kylie]

Well, to be fair, I can always find a KJV.
My personal beliefs are strictly KJV
But I will use any translation I have on hand.
There are what may be doctrinal differences inherent in the language of different translations
For instance
KJV Psalm 23: 3 He restoreth my soul He leads me in the path of righteousness
NIV Psalms 23: 3 He refreshed my soul. He guides me along the right path

The concept is the same, basically but in light of other passages, "restore" is the better word than refresh
We could probably have a very long and interesting thread as to whether God refreshes or restores our souls.

But in the end it has to do with the objective reality and the procedures included in the Book.
Not any particular word choice by the translator, such as spanner and wrench mean the same things, actually.
I do prefer wrench because spanner slows me down, just as "refreshed my soul" does.
But I am here to tell you, all I have in my tool box are wrenches, not a spanner in the lot.
So I am strictly a wrench person.
And I am strictly KJV

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You say, "But I am here to tell you, all I have in my tool box are wrenches, not a spanner in the lot. So I am strictly a wrench person." The analogy here, clearly, is that the wrench is the KJV. A spanner would be like the NIV you referenced earlier.

But you also said, "But I will use any translation I have on hand."

To continue the analogy, that's saying that you'd use any tool you'd have on hand. But you've already said the only tools you'd ever have are wrenches. So using a spanner--the NIV--just isn't an option for you. A position which is contradicted by your statement that you will use any translation.

 

[Kylie]

Then why are you an atheist?

Because the fact that people hold a belief to be true doesn't mean that the belief is true.

It just means that there are people to believe it.

There's a huge difference between "There are people who believe that God exists," and "God exists."

I thought it was quite clear that this is what I was saying.

 

[Kylie]

1 Corinthian 15: 3-8 is a Creed.
IF you didn't notice, what defines a Christian on this site is The Nicene Creed,
That is what all the Calvinist, Evangelical Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, have in common
We are all Christians who believe the Creed, whatever our doctinal difference between denomination.

The Corinthian Creed
It predates Paul's conversion.
Paul was persecuting Christians
How were Christians identified?
By the Corinthian Creed.
Paul "received" that either in writing or verbally.

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
• 
  
• Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

The fact that it is a creed is irrelevant., I'm not asking if it's a creed. I am asking you a question that you have failed to answer.

What source do you have that shows that 1 Corinthians was written between 30-33AD?

I don't want you to show me a webpage that says, "Lots of people say it was written between 30-33AD.

I want you to show me a source that says, "We have determined that 1 Corinthians was written between 30-33AD due to evidence A, evidence B and evidence C."

I want actual evidence, not people repeating the opinions of someone else.