It is sort of hard to follow your posts when they get too long. But I admire your energy.
Thanks.
Bryan as a Christian what is your perspective on Mormonism. Do you find the claims of Mormonism (i.e. golden plates) convincing, and the scripture about the connection between American Indians and the tribes of Israel?
No, Mormonism is not convincing at all. The key emphasis for Mormons comes from subjective confirmation. They emphasize to prospective converts that a “burning in the bosom” (I’m not kidding) will serve to confirm the testimony of the Book of Mormon. Apparently that approach works pretty well. I have found that subjective witness a persistent barrier in my discussions with Mormons.
On the other hand, I have some real admiration for the Mormon emphasis on leading a moral life. But I don’t particularly trust the power structure of the LDS church.
I find the success of Mormonism ,which I consider to be a near-obvious fake, to undermine the credibility of all religions.
I have trouble following the logic in that. Unless more than one religion is true, you’re bound to have fake religions. On what basis would finding one outstanding fake reasonably serve to dismiss all of them?
If this many people in the 19-21st centuries can be convinced of Mormonism, surely this should make us skeptical of other religious claims.
I don’t make a distinction between religious claims and other types of claims. I think the criteria for accepting claims should be the same regardless of the type of claim.
I don’t follow what you’re trying to say. How is the definite article relevant? You think that Kirk was taking it as an allegory?
You said the text plainly speaks of only one serpent so we shouldn’t generalise, I think that ‘s absurd when the subject of the paragraph happens to be a reptile, but I ‘ll go along and retort Kirk was referring to the story, one story, the genesis one. In other words, he was referring to a snake in a story, it could be any snake, so yes, generalising is standard here since the bible didn’t specify wether the snake was Dick, Adolph or Jack. As far as the allegory goes, they always do that, they preach the events spoken of in the bible as literal and just as soon as one literally holds them up to some biblical frightening discrepancies, they turn around and claim well, the texts are mean in metaphorical or allegorical sense. I think that’s very dishonest.
What generalization do you think is appropriate from the Genesis account? That all serpents could speak regardless of how many there were or how many different kinds?
And regardless, one serpent, a serpent or all of them, we know that a serpent (or all) don’t speak.
We do? What’s the logic? Can you reproduce it as a syllogism or in some logical format?
P Daisy knows (personally or via reports she trusts) of no speaking serpents
C Therefore serpents do not speak
P People who know about serpents say that serpents don’t speak
C Therefore serpents do not speak
P Serpents do not speak
P The tempter in the garden was a serpent
C Therefore, the serpent in the garden did not speak
?
why do you need me to give you a syllogism to demonstrate something like that?
So that I can follow the logic you’re using. I think you’re probably committing a fallacy.
do you believe that snakes can talk?
I’ve never encountered a snake with the ability to talk (at least not in a language I am able to understand). I don’t rule out the possibility that a serpent might talk because I don’t have any logical means for making an absolute determination. Apparently you think you do, so I’d like to know what it is.
the only thing I can tell you is from what I know, some can somewhat hiss, this is the closest a snake can come to talking. Brennen is a Vet, ask him, also, google is your friend, if neither is good enough, then I’d suggest to visit a zoo.
A syllogism would be better, I think. It’s much easier to pinpoint the error so that you can see it for yourself.
If you know the reality of the situation (regardless of whether or not the story occurred as written), you have fallaciously begged the question.
You don’t want to do that, do you?
English is my third language, I don’t really know what you mean when you say “fallaciously beg the question”, can you explain that please?
Sure. And your English seems rather good considering it’s your third language for whatever that’s worth.
When I say that one fallaciously begs the question, I refer to the commission of a logical fallacy (an error of reasoning). The fallacy of begging the question means that one assumes the conclusion of the argument in at least one premise. The classic example among atheists is the claim that the Bible is the Word of God based on the Bible’s own claim to that effect.
The fallacy is also called petitio principii, which may help you detect a reference in your first language.
and to clarify my point, I’d add that the only reality I referred to is today’s as we know it and that of non-speaking serpents then and now. I am not being fallacious about anything here.
You may be fallaciously begging the question again with that statement.
Dawkins quotes a scientist as saying something along the lines of “If history of science shows us anything, it’s that we go nowhere by labeling our ignorance god.” in TGD.
What application for that quotation would you suggest here?
you broke this block from the explanation. It’s bellow but I’ll repeat it: The application I suggest is that you ( or anybody else) go nowhere by labeling one’s whishful thinking and fantasies “miracles”, I gave the content of that quote as a parallel. Until you give me the (e?)soteric rundown of a typical miracle in order to convince me of its existing frame you would have accomplished nothing and the word “miracle” might as well mean “smoke”.
Oddly enough, we agree on that. If you woke up tomorrow morning and a snake was sitting on the bed next to you and asked you to fix it some breakfast, how would you integrate that event with your world view? Equipped with your answer to that question, we may be able to bridge our communications gap on the issue of miracles.
Are you asking for a naturalistic explanation for an event that traditionally (language conventions sometimes differ) has no naturalistic explanation by definition?
If you’re not talking nonsense, Daisy, you’ll need to explain what you mean. From here, it looks like you’ve assumed the conclusion that miracles do not take place.
You have not answered my question.
Correct, for the question seems to be nonsense. I hope to understand what it is you’re asking prior to giving you an answer, if that’s OK with you. Hopefully you’re not asking a nonsense question on purpose.
Do you then have any other explanation that is digestible to the human mind? “naturalistic” is what we have as reasonable formula to be able to understand and make sense out of things since we are natural ourselves. If an event doesn’t have any, then maybe it exists only in one’s mind or we have yet to acquire the necessary logical tools to be able to figure it out.
How then do you categorize the formation of random quantum particles, which scientists (not priests, at least not in the customary sense) say are uncaused? Are the scientists merely describing a phenomenon that exists only in their own minds? Or is there ultimately a law of randomness that will enable us to predict randomness but we just don’t yet understand it?
And bogus terms such as faith, miracles, god are not the answer, they are nothing more than counterfeit labels.
If you can supply a naturalistic term for random quantum particle formation then we’ll go with that for your sake. I’ll try not to make you stumble by resorting to Christianese.
And I either have to believe in smoke or I don’t make sense. I believe in what I can see, use, study, etc. This is precisely how humanity was able to surmount all that it has, it didn’t through perpetuating the belief in fairy tales.
I wonder how you figure that, given the relative evolutionary success of religious humans.
If this god is real, why do you have to do his talking for him?
I don’t (so far as I know). But why wouldn’t God let me do the talking? Are you just dodging the issue you brought up or what?
I am not dodging anything, you brought up DIFFICULT, and I simply pointed out that it shouldn’t be DIFFICULT for your god to talk for himself since he has the ability to make a donkey speak without initial verbal linguistic training or anything (not to mention successfully managing those oblong box type of jaws in the process ), if he can do that surely he can manifest and stand up for himself. I mean what is the secrecy about? He talked to all those dellusional schezophrenics, but he cannot talk to us, “his other beloved children”?
Well it took you a whole paragraph, but you appear to have backed off of your original argument regarding the speech of Balaam’s ass. It clearly isn’t that the story cannot be believed, it is that you do not believe the story. Like I said, you don’t need to provide your personal criteria for believing a given claim (that’s your business). When you make the broader claim as to what others should believe, however, you need to provide non-fallacious reasoning to back it up or else it is proper to question your reasoning.
why is that so difficult? why can’t he do his own talking?
If you can’t stay on the topic of the question you asked, why would God want to talk to you?
Seriously, why are you dodging my question to you about the supposed difficulty of having a donkey talk? Is it because you realize your earlier argumentation was silly?
I answered your concern above, and you are the one who wouldn’t answer why god wouldn’t do his own talking and hold his own retarded arguments?
Daisy, you’re moving the goalposts. You asked why God wouldn’t speak to you himself and I answered to the best of my ability. I don’t know. Third language or not, you should take care not to misrepresent what I write.
I am going to give you the answer to that, and that is, you dodge because you have no valid answer to give.
I don’t understand how you can take my admission that I don’t know as a dodge intended to hide the fact that I have no valid answer to give. Perhaps you think I’m trying to trick when when I say I don’t know, using it as a smokescreen to hide the inadequate answer that I intend to keep secret. Interesting theory, if that’s the case.
In “faithfully” believing, you follow a crowd that itself followed a previous crowd, that followed an ulterior one and so on. You do this without questioning, analysing or challenging. This is hardly how one grows or expands.
On what evidence do you base this accusation? Have you sent out spies who have told you precisely what authority figures I follow/followed unquestioningly?
I think the whole story is man made, not long ago I’ve seen a tape of a christian flavor I’ve borrowed from the library that claims that the whole curse was brought up on eve by this other ill repute woman (ill repute with whom? only my invisible cat knows since eve & adam are supposed to be god’s first human prototypes) whom adam didn’t want and who decided to take her revenge on eve, and as result she casted this “curse” on her and her children.
The Lilith legend, IIRC.
speaking about your religion and your god, here one more sexist bias that orginate strictly in religion and your evil homosexual god, this is the given explanation by dictionary.com for lilith, surely anything evil had to be a woman, this is miserably laughable gross, disgusting and primitive:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Lil·ith Audio Help /ˈlɪlɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lil-ith] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Semitic Mythology. a female demon dwelling in deserted places and attacking children.
2. Jewish Folklore. Adam’s first wife, before Eve was created.
I’m not sure how Jewish folklore from the 9th century or thereabouts is supposed to have had any significant impact on my religion. Perhaps you’ll start an “ask an atheist” thread and we can get to that subject at a later time.
Bryan as a Christian what is your perspective on Mormonism. Do you find the claims of Mormonism (i.e. golden plates) convincing, and the scripture about the connection between American Indians and the tribes of Israel?
No, Mormonism is not convincing at all.
I find the success of Mormonism ,which I consider to be a near-obvious fake, to undermine the credibility of all religions.
I have trouble following the logic in that. Unless more than one religion is true, you’re bound to have fake religions. On what basis would finding one outstanding fake reasonably serve to dismiss all of them?
Hi thanks for the reply.
On what basis should we identify the 1 ‘true’ religion from the 99 ‘fakes’. The example of Mormonism and our neighbors and colleagues who believe in Mormonism, tithe to Mormonism, and lead otherwise reasonble and exemplary lives ‘proves’ that it is not easy to identify the true religion. Mormonism is flourishing—numbers are growing, the adherents are strongly convinced and actually do missionary service and tithe.
For me, the fact that I could see that Mormonism was not true was the lever I needed to look at all religions objectively.
I’ll have to think about your response some more but thanks for responding.
what separates straight dop and myth from reality in your book whether it’s bible or any other?
Epistemology.
And we’re clear now that the Lilith legend is non-biblical, right? Reading my Bible (or even those including the Apocrypha) would not have informed me of the Lilith legend as you apparently incorrectly supposed.
mary magdalene is depicted in the bible as a prostitu(t)e,
Which book do I have to read in order to confirm that claim?
the adultress is in the bible, yet no male adulterer is spoken of,
Cheer up. At least no women were depicted as tax collectors, and the tax collectors were even less popular than the prostitutes (I’m assuming that the various male adulterers from the Hebrew Scriptures don’t count).
Mary supposedly is the mother of god, yet the bible speaks of her as a mere breeding cattle, etc.
It does?
Kirk run away because he couldn’t put his walk where his mouth is in a thread that He,,,,,,STARTED!!!! you decided to take over for him, I have asked few very very very specific questions that you failed to asnwer, now, do you want to take over for him or not????
I thought I made it clear in my first reply to you that I would take a stab at answering a few of the questions that had been asked since Kirk had checked out. Does that obligate me to answer any and all questions that might be asked of a Christian in this thread, in your opinion?
if you do, you need to take off your dishonesty robe and get to work, if you can’t, then you need to step to the side and stop hitting me with baseless accusations.
What accusations do you think I’ve hit you with? We can look at the evidence and see whether or not they are baseless once you’ve identified one or more.
Your god created us in his own image, right? yet, in his own eyes we are just hopelessly screwed up (read you bible), right?
I think that the image of God refers to our nature as personal (intelligent) beings and our role as sub-rulers of the creation. If you think it means more than that you’re pretty much stuck making an argument about theology.
No I am not stuck you are the one who pesists in zigzaging from literalism to allegorism and back whenever that serves you. and you need to snape out of that.
Baloney. I interpret the Bible in terms of normal human language. In normal human language some things may be meant literally while others are figures of speech. You’d have to be blind not to know that (simply to illustrate!).
Now, in the above you’d be correct to interpret “I interpret the Bible in terms of normal human language” according to the words I used. In other words, a “literal” interpretation should obtain for you the proper meaning. On the other hand, I did not literally mean that you would have to be blind not to realize that normal communication is not either all literal or all allegorical. We shouldn’t be surprised to find a mixture of literal and figurative (or even allegory) in the Bible. But the principles of interpretation should be applied using a sensible framework of rules (it makes sense to assume literal interpretation except when there is good reason to suspect otherwise). In the case of Genesis, we have no indication of the form of YHWH (unless we count later references to the burning bush or to the figures who appeared to Abraham in the name of YHWH; that sort of thing). So the text gives us very little to go on with respect to physical appearance. On the other hand, YHWH is portrayed from the first as having authority over the creation (having created it and having placed others in charge of a portion). The authority given to Adam in the Garden to tend it and look after it gives us our strongest parallel between YHWH and the humans: each is in charge of something while the other living things live under their authority and power (as when Adam names the animals).
The immediate context of a passage provides the surest clues to its meaning, in short.
doesn’t that beg the question that by association, since (1) he created us, (2) in his own image, (3) he is perfect, (4) we are screwed up, that there is a problem along the line?
You seem to be using the term “beg the question” in its latter-day sense of prompting a question (not the sense I used earlier and not a logical fallacy). Sure, you can argue that God must be imperfect if he created something in his own image that is imperfect. But it’s a weak argument
why is it a weak? because it hits you right in the jaw? I think you are here to be right not to sort ideas out, and that makes you weak, it takes a man to be honest. And clearly not all are.
I explained why it is weak subsequently. If you want to imagine that it’s because it hit me in the jaw that’s up to you. As for me, I’ll look below to see how you responded to the argument subsequent to your knee-jerk response.
...at best because the best you can do is argue that a model of determinism fits the data from the story the best (in terms of making sense of the story). And that’s the approach that some extreme Calvinists take (and perhaps some sects of Judaism). The implication from your argument is that God has the capacity to choose evil, extrapolating in reverse from the creation. But that notion appears to be firmly rebutted in the New Testament.
apparently you didn’t really all of the NT.
And her answer is an obscure one-liner without much comic effect. But I wasn’t done with my argument yet so maybe Daisy has something more substantial later on ...
since he created us, and since he is perfect, we must be, but since we aren’t, then neither is he.
Again, that would follow given determinism. But you haven’t argued for determinism as a premise therefore your logic doesn’t follow. Your argument fails to take account of the fact that a perfect god could create a perfect adam and eve and that the latter subsequently made themselves imperfect--
how could they if they are created to be pefect? I am new to the term determinism, I just looked it up, I want to know what you have against it.
In this case, all I have against determinism is the assumption that it is true minus an argument to that effect.
even if you extrapolated the notion that god could conceivably make himself imperfect in the same manner at some later time.
I am not going to extrapolate anything, I am going from what your word of god says and it says that god is perfect and that he created us in his own image, yet at the same time, it says that we are screwed up.
But the Bible does not unequivocally teach determinism and that’s where your argument breaks down. You can’t assume it without argument. Perhaps to you “perfect” means causally determined, but it isn’t clear how that follows.
You can turn around aalll day and play with your semantics alll you want to make yourself feel better but you are not going to fool me since you have not for a single time HONESTLY addressed a single question I have asked. You are clearly here to be right (in your own eyes only, that is), from what I ve read, you are not here to honestly clarify as most of the members that come here strive to do.
If that’s the way you feel, then you probably shouldn’t waste time in conversation with me. I’d say your logic is rather inept based on what you’ve given me--but since you think I’m lying I doubt you’d pay much attention to that.
Let’s hold you to account for your attempt at reasoning before we act on your tentative conclusion. And while we’re at it, would you address the issue of whether or not it would be difficult for a god who created the world to induce speech from a donkey?
I will answer that if you answer why is it difficult for him to show up instead of letting a mortal do his talking for him.
Your question contains a questionable premise to which I do not accede (if you can believe that!).
I don’t think it is difficult for God to appear to people. If we use the Bible as evidence, he does so from time to time and we have no indication that it produces any particular strain on God’s abilities.
On the other hand it’s not clear why God should talk directly to everyone (and assuredly if he spoke to 61 percent it would then be asked why not 62 percent, and so on).
I am here doing my own talking, you are, why can’t he?
You mean “won’t.” I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t feel like it. But if you can figure out what my secret invalid reason is that I’m trying to hide by saying I don’t know I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.
he cant because he is in people’s head along with all other stories they make up about him including that of the speaking snake and dumb donkey.
I’d wager that if we had that argument in the form of a syllogism we’d see petitio principii.
Now, would you be accountable enough to display some straight honesty, or is that too much to ask, since you guys are too used to being worshiped, through a god that you created to serve your own interests, to see yourselves as anybody else and start to walk your talk the good old fashion way???
I have no idea why you’d accuse me of dishonesty unless you either were having trouble understanding English (which might be understandable given your circumstances) or you felt it was your best strategy for deflecting attention from the arguments you’ve been using.
What generalization do you think is appropriate from the Genesis account? That all serpents could speak regardless of how many there were or how many different kinds?
unless they are figurative, serpents don’t speak, in the bible or else where, they don’t speak. In the Genesis case, the serpent is a literal one. Literal serpents can’t speak.
why do you need me to give you a syllogism to demonstrate something like that?
So that I can follow the logic you’re using. I think you’re probably committing a fallacy.
what do you mean “probably”? if you know a literal snake that talks I would like to meet it.
I’ve never encountered a snake with the ability to talk (at least not in a language I am able to understand). I don’t rule out the possibility that a serpent might talk because I don’t have any logical means for making an absolute determination. Apparently you think you do, so I’d like to know what it is.
For certain facts one doesn’t need to state logical means to prove them, for that they can resort to encyclopedic references or others.
A syllogism would be better, I think. It’s much easier to pinpoint the error so that you can see it for yourself.
ok,
A/- for a serpent to speak or learn to, it will have to have access to a set of speaking serpent parents or tutors to teach it how, and I doubt that back then adam or eve spoke, let alone the serpent.
B/- Therefore it could not have spoken since back then even man’s luiguistic abilities consisted of few grawls or were simply nile for the most part.
Sure. And your English seems rather good considering it’s your third language for whatever that’s worth.
TXS.
When I say that one fallaciously begs the question, I refer to the commission of a logical fallacy (an error of reasoning). The fallacy of begging the question means that one assumes the conclusion of the argument in at least one premise. The classic example among atheists is the claim that the Bible is the Word of God based on the Bible’s own claim to that effect.
thank you, is there any other beside that of the bible?
The fallacy is also called petitio principii, which may help you detect a reference in your first language.
not really but I still get it.
You may be fallaciously begging the question again with that statement.
Haven’t you done so as Christian at least couple of times and didn’t bother pointing it out?
Oddly enough, we agree on that. If you woke up tomorrow morning and a snake was sitting on the bed next to you and asked you to fix it some breakfast, how would you integrate that event with your world view? Equipped with your answer to that question, we may be able to bridge our communications gap on the issue of miracles.
well, it depends what type are we talking about here. regardless, that would be cool, but then I woudn’t want to kill a rabbit or hamster in the process though feeding the snake may be still worth the sacrifice. And the odds of such thing ocurring are inexistant. I think not too long ago I’ve made the conscious decision to consider only scientific miracles (breakthroughs) from then on, from the scientific end, they are not since they are explainable/ buildable but from my side, depending on my ability to absorb the “miracle” or not, it will be kind of fluid.
Correct, for the question seems to be nonsense. I hope to understand what it is you’re asking prior to giving you an answer, if that’s OK with you. Hopefully you’re not asking a nonsense question on purpose.
I asked you to break down the mechanics by which a miracle takes place or progresses, if this is nonsense then so is the word that triggered it, and that answers my question, not the way I was hoping but it does.
How then do you categorize the formation of random quantum particles, which scientists (not priests, at least not in the customary sense) say are uncaused? Are the scientists merely describing a phenomenon that exists only in their own minds? Or is there ultimately a law of randomness that will enable us to predict randomness but we just don’t yet understand it?
why do we have to go that far, even at the superficial level basic answers in regard to god are obvious. If scientists don’t have answers to that particular question, they will ‘tomorrow’, they are currently working hard to finalize others answers as they had many others in the past, it’s not like religionists that refuse to get off their couch and hand you unknowable words each time one asks legitimate questions. I know that for example, as life long athlete, if I don’t get off my rear end and sweat hard by specifically working different group muscles, I am not going to get the results I am looking for, and the last thing I will do in order to get them is continue to sit on my buns and fantacize in my mind about doing 10k or whatever it is that I need to do. The same principle works here, Scientists are asking questions and working to answer them, religionists are not. Dawkins quoted someone else (or himself, I don’t remember) in TGD as saying something along the lines of “religionists like the mysterious and want it to remain that way, scientists also like the mysterious but for a different reason: it gives them something to do.” I absolutely agree (kisses on Daddy Dawkins’s Holy Hands). You think you are putting them on the spot, well guess what?! they constantly put themselves on the spot and they’ve already done it before you or anybody else has.
If you can supply a naturalistic term for random quantum particle formation then we’ll go with that for your sake. I’ll try not to make you stumble by resorting to Christianese.
Assuming what you said above is true, if big dudes are not able to answer that for the time being, why do you expect me to?
I wonder how you figure that, given the relative evolutionary success of religious humans.
what evolutionary? ...success? that of filtering? success contingent upon an un-upset church, one that results from work performed within a specific paradigm and political religious correctness?
Well it took you a whole paragraph,
I like to be specific and thorough if I can.
but you appear to have backed off of your original argument regarding the speech of Balaam’s ass.
what makes you say that?
It clearly isn’t that the story cannot be believed,
how did you get there?
it is that you do not believe the story. Like I said, you don’t need to provide your personal criteria for believing a given claim (that’s your business). When you make the broader claim as to what others should believe, however, you need to provide non-fallacious reasoning to back it up or else it is proper to question your reasoning.
When did I ever speak for anybody but myself? unless you consider me speaking for myself to be speaking for a self that is outside of my person and how could that be? this in fact doesn’t shock me since it is typical of religionist to think that one speaking for themseves (especially when it’s a female) is less legitimate than the religionist doing the speaking for them or they may even deem that “un-righteous”. You on the other hand are from what I understand not only speaking for yourself but also for the all Mighty himself!!! and you don’t seem to have an issue with that.
Daisy, you’re moving the goalposts. You asked why God wouldn’t speak to you himself and I answered to the best of my ability. I don’t know.
you just did now Bryan. At last, and thank you.
Third language or not, you should take care not to misrepresent what I write.
I didn’t, this is the first time you said you don’t know. And since you have, that opens the door to my hypothesis to be right to at least 50 % .
On what evidence do you base this accusation? Have you sent out spies who have told you precisely what authority figures I follow/followed unquestioningly?
I take that back, that was an oblivous remark.
I’m not sure how Jewish folklore from the 9th century or thereabouts is supposed to have had any significant impact on my religion. Perhaps you’ll start an “ask an atheist” thread and we can get to that subject at a later time.
Christianity orginated in judaism. Do you dis-agree with that?
PS:jackson is right, your energy is really cool, maybe we should consider starting a Bryan FanClub . Hey, I have an idea, do you know what Matthew 18:20 says? ... that makes us at least Fouuuur. I can suspend reason for a time…
What generalization do you think is appropriate from the Genesis account? That all serpents could speak regardless of how many there were or how many different kinds?
unless they are figurative, serpents don’t speak, in the bible or else where, they don’t speak. In the Genesis case, the serpent is a literal one. Literal serpents can’t speak.
So far as I can tell, you’re fallaciously begging the question. If a god existed (a basic premise of the Bible, we should agree) then the speech of a serpent should be considered possible even if extremely unlikely.
why do you need me to give you a syllogism to demonstrate something like that?
So that I can follow the logic you’re using. I think you’re probably committing a fallacy.
what do you mean “probably”? if you know a literal snake that talks I would like to meet it.
I’ve never encountered a snake with the ability to talk (at least not in a language I am able to understand). I don’t rule out the possibility that a serpent might talk because I don’t have any logical means for making an absolute determination. Apparently you think you do, so I’d like to know what it is.
For certain facts one doesn’t need to state logical means to prove them, for that they can resort to encyclopedic references or others.
So all I have to do is find an encyclopedia that says serpents might speak on occasion and I’ve won you over. Is self-publishing allowed?
Seriously, there is no authority be it encyclopedia or nucular genius upon whom we can rely on the proposition that serpents absolutely never speak--not without granting that authority respect on the order of Biblical infallibility.
A/- for a serpent to speak or learn to, it will have to have access to a set of speaking serpent parents or tutors to teach it how, and I doubt that back then adam or eve spoke, let alone the serpent.
B/- Therefore it could not have spoken since back then even man’s luiguistic abilities consisted of few grawls or were simply nile for the most part.
How exactly are we supposed to know that the serpent did not have a set of speaking serpent parents (or perhaps angelic speech tutors)? Your argument contains the unspoken premise that the serpent had neither (petitio principii).
When I say that one fallaciously begs the question, I refer to the commission of a logical fallacy (an error of reasoning). The fallacy of begging the question means that one assumes the conclusion of the argument in at least one premise. The classic example among atheists is the claim that the Bible is the Word of God based on the Bible’s own claim to that effect.
thank you, is there any other beside that of the bible?
Any other examples? Sure. There are many.
“Miracles could not happen, because miracles do not exist.”
The argument doesn’t fly without separate justification for either the proposition that miracles could not happen or the proposition that miracles do not exist.
And we can always make our own examples.
You may be fallaciously begging the question again with that statement.
Haven’t you done so as Christian at least couple of times and didn’t bother pointing it out?
I don’t think I’ve ever done so knowingly. It’s always possible that I advanced an argument that begged the question where the fallacy escaped my notice, of course--but I try to check my work with a skeptical eye before placing it before skeptics. And I hope I will always remain above the level of advertisers and lawyers who intentionally employ fallacious arguments simply because they tend to work reasonably well on the average person.
Oddly enough, we agree on that. If you woke up tomorrow morning and a snake was sitting on the bed next to you and asked you to fix it some breakfast, how would you integrate that event with your world view? Equipped with your answer to that question, we may be able to bridge our communications gap on the issue of miracles.
well, it depends what type are we talking about here.
How about an albino reticulated python? Modestly sized, lest you suspect you might be on the breakfast menu.
regardless, that would be cool, but then I woudn’t want to kill a rabbit or hamster in the process though feeding the snake may be still worth the sacrifice.
Let’s assume that Cheerios or a Marmite sandwich would suffice.
And the odds of such thing ocurring are inexistant. I think not too long ago I’ve made the conscious decision to consider only scientific miracles (breakthroughs) from then on, from the scientific end, they are not since they are explainable/ buildable but from my side, depending on my ability to absorb the “miracle” or not, it will be kind of fluid.
I’m having some trouble making sense of your answer. If you witness the talking serpent yourself, you will have fulfilled the scientific requirement of empirical observation. Would you discount your observation until it was confirmed in some way, then? Please further suppose that the serpent passed the initial step of confirmation and answer in terms of that.
I asked you to break down the mechanics by which a miracle takes place or progresses, if this is nonsense then so is the word that triggered it, and that answers my question, not the way I was hoping but it does.
In terms of worldviews, you are begging the question in favor of metaphysical naturalism (all phenomena are understandable and explicable in terms of laws).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
It is logically possible for a world to exist in utter chaos, where all events occur uncaused and randomly. Your world view would reject even one instance of that world from intruding on this one (that’s why I’m so interested in your reaction to quantum particle formation).
How then do you categorize the formation of random quantum particles, which scientists (not priests, at least not in the customary sense) say are uncaused? Are the scientists merely describing a phenomenon that exists only in their own minds? Or is there ultimately a law of randomness that will enable us to predict randomness but we just don’t yet understand it?
why do we have to go that far, even at the superficial level basic answers in regard to god are obvious. If scientists don’t have answers to that particular question, they will ‘tomorrow’, they are currently working hard to finalize others answers as they had many others in the past, it’s not like religionists that refuse to get off their couch and hand you unknowable words each time one asks legitimate questions.
Daisy, I hate to break it to you but physicists don’t think they’ll get any closer to the cause of quantum particles. They wouldn’t call them “uncaused” if that were the case. They’d simply say they don’t know the cause. The notion of a law of randomness is pretty dependably an oxymoron--a contradiction (the idea of scientific laws is to make predictions; randomness is unpredictable by definition).
http://www.google.com/search?q=uncaused+quantum+particles+site:.edu&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&pwst=1&start=10&sa=N
I know that for example, as life long athlete, if I don’t get off my rear end and sweat hard by specifically working different group muscles, I am not going to get the results I am looking for, and the last thing I will do in order to get them is continue to sit on my buns and fantacize in my mind about doing 10k or whatever it is that I need to do. The same principle works here, Scientists are asking questions and working to answer them, religionists are not. Dawkins quoted someone else (or himself, I don’t remember) in TGD as saying something along the lines of “religionists like the mysterious and want it to remain that way, scientists also like the mysterious but for a different reason: it gives them something to do.” I absolutely agree (kisses on Daddy Dawkins’s Holy Hands). You think you are putting them on the spot, well guess what?! they constantly put themselves on the spot and they’ve already done it before you or anybody else has.
Scientists who are not also philosophical naturalists have little to worry about with respect to quantum randomness. It’s an explanatory dead end if they’re correct about the lack of causation. Few scientists think that science has the answers to all questions.
If you can supply a naturalistic term for random quantum particle formation then we’ll go with that for your sake. I’ll try not to make you stumble by resorting to Christianese.
Assuming what you said above is true, if big dudes are not able to answer that for the time being, why do you expect me to?
You don’t need to explain it. We just need a term acceptable to you for the phenomenon. If a quantum fluctuation occurs with no cause then we should be able to use the same term for water that changes into wine and the like.
I wonder how you figure that, given the relative evolutionary success of religious humans.
what evolutionary?
Religious humans abound. Surely you’ve noticed? You’re not suggesting that God created them specially, are you?
Well it took you a whole paragraph, but you appear to have backed off of your original argument regarding the speech of Balaam’s ass.
what makes you say that?
You moved to a different argument.
It clearly isn’t that the story cannot be believed,
how did you get there?
1) I know people who believe it
2) You moved to a different argument
When did I ever speak for anybody but myself?
I’m not suggesting you have. I’m suggesting the rhetorical implications of doing so.
Daisy, you’re moving the goalposts. You asked why God wouldn’t speak to you himself and I answered to the best of my ability. I don’t know.
you just did now Bryan. At last, and thank you.
Third language or not, you should take care not to misrepresent what I write.
I didn’t, this is the first time you said you don’t know. And since you have, that opens the door to my hypothesis to be right to at least 50 % .
Bite your tongue!
Daisy:
If this god is real, why do you have to do his talking for him?
Bryan:
I don’t (so far as I know).
I offered “I don’t know” as a summary of the (longer) answer I already gave you, whereas you suggested I had not answered.
I’m not sure how Jewish folklore from the 9th century or thereabouts is supposed to have had any significant impact on my religion. Perhaps you’ll start an “ask an atheist” thread and we can get to that subject at a later time.
Christianity or(i)ginated in judaism. Do you dis-agree with that?
No, but Christianity branched from Judaism in the 1st century. There seems far less reason to suppose any substantial degree of borrowing as late as the 9th century. I hardly ever play with a dradle, for example.
How then do you categorize the formation of random quantum particles, which scientists (not priests, at least not in the customary sense) say are uncaused? Are the scientists merely describing a phenomenon that exists only in their own minds? Or is there ultimately a law of randomness that will enable us to predict randomness but we just don’t yet understand it?
Daisy, I hate to break it to you but physicists don’t think they’ll get any closer to the cause of quantum particles. They wouldn’t call them “uncaused” if that were the case. They’d simply say they don’t know the cause. The notion of a law of randomness is pretty dependably an oxymoron--a contradiction (the idea of scientific laws is to make predictions; randomness is unpredictable by definition).
http://www.google.com/search?q=uncaused+quantum+particles+site:.edu&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&pwst=1&start=10&sa=N
Bryan, sorry to break in, but your explanation is not quite correct either.
Physicists do not think they can’t get any closer to the cause of quantum particles, they know it, and they know exactly why. They know there is no cause. (Experimental proof of the Bell unequalities). The point is that the physicists can predict the chance exactly. That is less than than what would hope of a natural law (and it is a famous story that Einstein had his troubles accepting this), but this is the way it is. These events are ‘uncaused’ because they really are, it has nothing to do with our level of knowledge.
So far as I can tell, you’re fallaciously begging the question. If a god existed (a basic premise of the Bible, we should agree) then the speech of a serpent should be considered possible even if extremely unlikely.
Why is it considered “begging the question” to assume that a god does not exist and not begging the question to assume that a god does exist? Your argument is dependent just on such a conditional, or an equally question-begging one that the Bible is to be taken literally and as accurate, at least as regards the existence of Yhwh.
Surely, given any existence claim, the default assumption should be to assume that the entity does not exist, or that one does not know if it exists or not, until independent evidence is proposed.
Bryan - 22 April 2008 11:56 PM
Seriously, there is no authority be it encyclopedia or nucular genius upon whom we can rely on the proposition that serpents absolutely never speak--not without granting that authority respect on the order of Biblical infallibility.
That’s just to say that it isn’t logically necessary that serpents don’t speak. It’s not a very strong counter-argument. The reverse argument is stronger. If we find a c. 3000 year old book of stories, we need to have reason to believe what we find in it is accurate. If it makes claims about global floods, people turning into salt pillars and talking serpents, claims for which we have absolutely no evidence whatever, we have very strong reason to believe it is not a particularly credible piece of evidence.
BTW, was the serpent evil? Why then did Yhwh pronounce all the animals “good”? (Gen. 1:21)
If the serpent was evil, how was it that the serpent was truthful to Eve about Yhwh’s lie that they would die after eating from the tree? (Gen. 2:17; 3:4-5). Why did Yhwh lie?
Were humans created together after all the animals? (Gen. 1:20-27) Or was Adam created before the animals, and Eve created after them? (Gen. 2:7-22)
To be fair, none of this matters if one takes the Bible as an early book of interesting fables, along the lines of other holy books throughout history from a hundred cultures. They only matter if one is prone to take the Bible literally and as a book that is always true.
Or to put it another way, taken at face value, the Bible is clearly not a completely truthful book. So one needs an actual argument to support the claim that it should be taken as something more accurate than the Iliad or the Mayan Popol Vuh. One cannot rationally simply assume it.
Bryan - 22 April 2008 11:56 PM
In terms of worldviews, you are begging the question in favor of metaphysical naturalism (all phenomena are understandable and explicable in terms of laws).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
We have independent reason to believe that metaphysical naturalism is true. To take three recent examples, people have claimed to provide evidence for ESP, telekinesis and intercessionary prayer. Had the evidence panned out, believers in supernatural causation would have claimed vindication. They did not pan out.
So far as I can tell, you’re fallaciously begging the question. If a god existed (a basic premise of the Bible, we should agree) then the speech of a serpent should be considered possible even if extremely unlikely.
Why is it considered “begging the question” to assume that a god does not exist and not begging the question to assume that a god does exist? Your argument is dependent just on such a conditional, or an equally question-begging one that the Bible is to be taken literally and as accurate, at least as regards the existence of Yhwh.
I think he meant the talking snake not god ... IOW (as I read it) if the bible is the basic proof for the existence of god then how can someone (out of hand) reject the claimed existence of a talking snake (also “evidenced” in the same tome). If I’m interpreting Bryan right, it makes perfect sense to me
I think he meant the talking snake not god ... IOW (as I read it) if the bible is the basic proof for the existence of god then how can someone (out of hand) reject the claimed existence of a talking snake (also “evidenced” in the same tome). If I’m interpreting Bryan right, it makes perfect sense to me
Right; I think the claim goes something like:
(1) The Bible says that God exists
(2) The Bible says that a snake talked
(3) If God exists then at least possibly a snake talked
---------------
(4) At least possibly a snake talked
But the suppressed premise is:
(1’) If the Bible says X (at least about God) then X is true.
What reason do we have to accept (1’)? Is the Bible generally an accurate account? It is in some ways and isn’t in other ways; in that respect it resembles books like the Iliad. And the earlier one goes in the Bible, the less accurate it is. Virtually no university-level biblical scholars accept the accuracy of any account in the Bible prior to Abraham at Gen. 12; and many do not accept any Biblical account as historical until we get into the accounts of the early (or late!) Israelite kings.
.
. Hey, I have an idea, do you know what Matthew 18:20 says? ... that makes us at least Fouuuur. I can suspend reason for a time…
