Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

It's actually quite interesting to see how the earth has moved and changed over time.

Even moreso is how it was moved and was changed over time.

 

[Kylie]

That is quite a limited point of agreement, and not really analogous to what we are discussing.

Are we not discussing objective truths about reality?

I mean, good luck trying to argue that the speed of light in a vacuum is not an objective truth. If you want to claim that what we're discussing here is fundamentally different, you'd have to be saying that the existence of God is not objectively true.

You're building a case on a rather weak analogue, because we're not talking about facts we're talking about worldviews and belief-systems not singular beliefs.

Now you are trying to shift the goalposts.

We are discussing whether a particular religious belief and the claims it makes are objectively true.

But hey, if you want to admit that some religious belief is not factual, then we can stop right now, because I'll happily agree that any religious belief you can name is not factual.

So what do they base their ontology on?

Lots of different things, you'd have to ask each individual skeptic, and it would be different for each one.

Do you think skepticism is a unified worldview like it's a religion or something? It's not.

Nope, philosophical skeptics. People who are consistent in their skepticism not only applying it to worldviews they don't believe in.

Ah, so now, finally, you decide to limit your definition of "skeptic" to one particular kind of skeptic.

Would have been nice if you were clear about that from the start. You were not. You just said, "no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical."

In any case, what I said still holds. I claimed that the skeptics you were describing were contrarians who would reject any knowledge statment. And indeed, there are sources that describe "philosophical skepticism" as "radical doubt." SOURCE

I know quite well what a skeptic really is

Really? From my point of view it looks like you are taking one narrow subset of skepticism and using that to describe ANYONE who claims to be a skeptic.

I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a philosophical skeptic, more a "common sense skeptic." THIS is what best describes me, yet you are determined to portray all skeptics as THIS.

you simply take skeptic half-heartedly and include only religious skeptics rather than philosophical skeptics. The philosophical skeptic doubts the ability to gain knowledge, even doubting whether we can establish sufficient cause for doubt.

Do they also doubt that philosophical skepticism is valid?

And just as no two believers believe the same thing, neither do two skeptics take their skepticism to the same extent.

Yet that doesn't stop you from trying to portray all skeptics as holding a rather extreme version of skepticism.

Seems a rather arbitrary restriction. What makes you think reality is always testable and amenable to human reasoning? How do we test that belief?

It's worked just fine so far. Witness the device you are currently reading this reply on, which relies on reality working in a consistent way.

So you've confined what is true to what is accessible to science, what is your basis for this restriction? What test did you run to determine that?

No.

I've confined what I'll accept as true to that which can be tested in a repeatable way.

Can you give me any good reason why I should accept something as true if it is NOT testable in a repeatable way?

Yes, but God is a panentheistic being. What we move, and breathe, and have our being in. The underpinning existence of all that exists.

So you claim. But other people have made different claims about the nature of God.

How do I know which to believe? Is your claim correct, or is the correct claim one of the countless others made about the nature of God?

Gee, sure would be good if there was some system of investigation which we could use to TEST the validity of claims, wouldn't it?

Such pragmatic considerations don't really matter in the theism vs atheism debate. If the God of the Bible is real, there is a lot that changes in how we understand reality. Though being a Christian doesn't mean we can't be pragmatic, but it does mean that our happiness and our well being are not the greatest ends we can pursue.

Okay, so an atheist has a completely different view of how reality works than a Christian.

Tell me, how does this difference manifest? I mean, does a Christian who is investigating reality use their religious beliefs instead of the scientific method? Do they get a different set of results? Do their different results work in a consistent way?

Considering the contention is not purely about one metaphysical reality vs another, the pragmatic concerns don't matter much. But the epistemics and subsequent plausibility of various beliefs certainly changes depending on the metaphysical conception.

So, when it comes to the sensible and realistic results of these different viewpoints, they don't matter.

Then what difference does it actually make?

It's like the guy who thinks that all of reality is a computer simulation but he continues to live his life as though it's real, and NOT a simulation.

 

[Kylie]

When discussing history, there is often a lack of physical evidence so the history must be reconstructed and argued for. So when someone speaks of the antiquity of creedal statements in 1 Cor, they aren't simply making a claim but are forwarding an argument. How we define evidence is very much relevant to this discussion, especially when we're discussing historical arguments.

No argument was presented. It was nothing more than a claim. "Such and such dates from this particular time." No argument, evidence, or reason was given as to HOW this determination was made, it was simply presented as a statement of fact.

 

[Kylie]

There's a marked difference between the origin of Islam and the origin of Christianity. Explaining how a crucified man came to have a following willing to die to not give up the claim that He was resurrected and thus Lord of all vs explaining how a man who used the threat of death to keep his followers in line and spread his religion at the end of a sword are two very different challenges.

Plenty of people have shown that they are willing to die for Islamic beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, I was hoping you would link us to an academic source from a scholar (or two) whom YOU trust and think definitively describes what you think is a solid operative definition of evidence.

As it is, you've instead given us a standard dictionary definition clearly saying that evidence is essentially ........... "ANYTHING" seen, experienced, read or told, but then you go on to state that ANYTHING doesn't really mean anything.

Additionally, you resort to gaslighting me by implying that my asking for a definition of evidence is "muddying the waters" and a "childish tactic."

You do realize that no one, even others who are atheists, agree with you on this, right?

Are you not trying to shift the burden onto my shoulders?

QvQ made a claim, they must support it. You're efforts to wriggle out of it on their behalf are indeed a childish tactic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Plenty of people have shown that they are willing to die for Islamic beliefs.

Did any of them die, knowing their claim was false?

 

[dlamberth]

Even moreso is how it was moved and was changed over time.

Agreed. Some of what's coming to light is how the clockwise motion of the Northwest is about 1 degree every million years. And how that's had a direct affect over the past 50 million years on the Yellowstone Hotspot track as the continent moved over it. And at the same time period we have magma from a seduction arc from the Farallon plate bubbling to the surface which birthed the Cascade Mountains. Mt. St. Helens as an example.

 

[dlamberth]

Plenty of people have shown that they are willing to die for Islamic beliefs.

Many American Indians are another example of a people who died for their beliefs.

 

[Fervent]

Plenty of people have shown that they are willing to die for Islamic beliefs.

What does that have to do with explaining the origins of the beliefs?

 

[BCP1928]

12. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

(I'll answer this in my next post.)

First tell us why they need reconciling?

 

[Kylie]

Did any of them die, knowing their claim was false?

No, they all believed they were right.

What's your point?

 

[Kylie]

What does that have to do with explaining the origins of the beliefs?

You'll have to tell me.

You are the one who said that Jesus having followers who were willing to die for their beleifs was important.

I'm just pointing out that Islam has the same thing, when you specifically left out that fact and said that Islam spread through nothing but violence, presenting the impression that all Muslims were forced into it.

Careful, your bias is showing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. Some of what's coming to light is how the clockwise motion of the Northwest is about 1 degree every million years.

pffft

That impresses you?

Watch this:

2 Kings 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many American Indians are another example of a people who died for their beliefs.

Knowing those beliefs were wrong?

 

[Kylie]

Agreed. Some of what's coming to light is how the clockwise motion of the Northwest is about 1 degree every million years.

pffft

That impresses you?

Watch this:

2 Kings 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

I wonder, which one of these has evidence to show that it actually happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

First tell us why they need reconciling?

Because academia got their fingers into it and created their usual rifts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you not trying to shift the burden onto my shoulders?

Shifting? No. I am clarifying the responsibility that is inherently incumbent on anyone who wishes to press others about the nature of "evidence." Remember, I have two degrees and while you might be able to contend about this with some of the other Christians here, you won't with me. Period.

QvQ made a claim, they must support it. You're efforts to wriggle out of it on their behalf are indeed a childish tactic.

No one at the university level will agree with you, Kylie. What's more, no one at the university level will rely upon mere dictionary definitions for discussion involving academic and/or scholarly issues, such as those of Science or Historiography/History, or even World Religions or the Philosophy of Religion.

So, it's just sort of time for you to tow the line for the sake of intellectual fairness. I'm sorry I have to be the one to break the news to you about this. If you can't adjust to, and abide by, what I'm suggesting you abide by, then you incline me to think that you're either trolling us or you have some personal issues with Christianity that none of us is responsible to alleviate for you.

Besides, you're always complaining that you want Christians to leave you alone, yet here you are............on CF of all things for over a decade. I'd call that dedication.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they all believed they were right.

What's your point?

From AI Overview:

According to most perspectives, it is highly unlikely that someone would willingly die for something they knew to be a lie; the very concept of "knowing it's a lie" implies a conscious understanding that it is false, making it improbable to sacrifice one's life for it; however, people might die defending beliefs they strongly hold, even if those beliefs are based on misinformation or propaganda, as they may genuinely believe them to be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are the one who said that Jesus having followers who were willing to die for their beleifs was important.

I'm just pointing out that Islam has the same thing,

Negative.

Jesus performed miracles in front of His followers at will.

Mohammad?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder, which one of these has evidence to show that it actually happened?

Dlamberth.

On paper.

What's your point?