Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

davewhite04 said:
Me too, but I acknowledge that either case requires an element of faith.
Click to expand...
...but it doesn't. I adjust my perceived probability of a thing being true strictly in accordance to how strong I believe the evidence to be. There's zero faith in that.

In your first example I would require very little faith to believe in your second example I would require a huge amount of faith to believe it, so much that I don't even entertain it.
Click to expand...
Well, the second is about where I place God. :shrug:
 
davewhite04 said:
If they weren't ignorant of a moral code then why did God say this:
Click to expand...

Genesis 6:5-6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
Click to expand...

I think inclinations and desires are different from knowing even if an inward knowing of right or wrong is what you're speaking of or a litteral knowing of right or wrong. Even without a litteral law I think people understand what is right or wrong but we are inclined to do what is bad.

I think when people who attempt to conceal what they've done have acknowledge that they know what they've done is unacceptable and are seeking to avoid the consequences.


Myles said:
Well, if that's the best you can manage you are projecting an image of a redneck bible-puncher , which is what I conclude.

I summarized your response accurately and, despite my having given you a simple example, you are still unable to see that you argue in a circle. When are you going to publish Saquist's Rules of Irrational Debate. A Guide for Bible Students.
Click to expand...

Your example was shoddy and full of holes. It had the craftsmenship of derranged pscho. You changed the subject, made an accusation which you can not acurately portray as part of my argument in written form, proceeded to jump to a conclusion to press forward you conspiracy theory against the the bible.

You still can not isolate a part of my post which portrays a circle.
You're chasing your own tale biting yourself like a flea infested mongrol with as much self awareness as a fruit snataching monkey. At some point it's a nusiance but what can you do when monkeys roam free. I go about my way and say...Oh those darn monkeys...
 
redwards said:
...but it doesn't. I adjust my perceived probability of a thing being true strictly in accordance to how strong I believe the evidence to be. There's zero faith in that.


Well, the second is about where I place God. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Okay so you "believe" in the evidence.

Are you open to the possibility of God?
 
davewhite04 said:
Okay so you "believe" in the evidence.
Click to expand...
Elaborate. Believe that it isn't all faked by a massive conspiracy? Believe that reality isn't a giant persistent delusion? These are the sort of things which account for the one quadrillionth of one percent.

Are you open to the possibility of God?
Click to expand...
Sure. He's right there in the one quadrillionth of one percent range with hollow unicorns, celestial teapots, and brilliant blondes.
 
Saquist said:
I think inclinations and desires are different from knowing even if an inward knowing of right or wrong is what you're speaking of or a litteral knowing of right or wrong. Even without a litteral law I think people understand what is right or wrong but we are inclined to do what is bad.

I think when people who attempt to conceal what they've done have acknowledge that they know what they've done is unacceptable and are seeking to avoid the consequences.
Click to expand...

I believe that people today certainly know what is right and wrong without a need to refer to the law.

I do wonder if they did know back in the ancient times, maybe they did, but after Jesus it is stated in the NT that the law was written on our hearts, so was it not there before then?
 
redwards said:
Elaborate. Believe that it isn't all faked by a massive conspiracy? Believe that reality isn't a giant persistent delusion? These are the sort of things which account for the one quadrillionth of one percent.
Click to expand...

All I meant was that you use the word "believe" and not "faith".
 
davewhite04 said:
I believe that people today certainly know what is right and wrong without a need to refer to the law.

I do wonder if they did know back in the ancient times, maybe they did, but after Jesus it is stated in the NT that the law was written on our hearts, so was it not there before then?
Click to expand...
Legal systems predate Jesus.
 
davewhite04 said:
All I meant was that you use the word "believe" and not "faith".
Click to expand...
I see what you're after. If I'd said "how strong I think the evidence is," you may not have bothered with that last post, but 'believe' is a topical buzzword.

How strong I think the evidence is is all I meant. Obviously, the strength of the evidence is, at some point, subject to interpretation. If I was uncertain about the strength of a given body of evidence, I may doubt it, and would probably investigate further.
 
redwards said:
I see what you're after. If I'd said "how strong I think the evidence is," you may not have bothered with that last post, but 'believe' is a topical buzzword.

How strong I think the evidence is is all I meant. Obviously, the strength of the evidence is, at some point, subject to interpretation. If I was uncertain about the strength of a given body of evidence, I may doubt it, and would probably investigate further.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how strong you *think* the evidence is (unless your omnipotent) you will always have to believe in most things.

Your last paragraph is logical.
 
davewhite04 said:
It doesn't matter how strong you *think* the evidence is (unless your omnipotent) you will always have to believe in most things.
Click to expand...
Omniscient, you mean. ;)

And you're still misinterpreting. As far as belief goes, it's not most things, it's all things. I'm not sure how I could believe something without believing it. I will, however, always base that belief on how strong I perceive the evidence to be, and adjust it accordingly.

Your last paragraph is logical.
Click to expand...
Gee, thanks.
 
redwards said:
Omniscient, you mean. ;)
Click to expand...

Aye :)

And you're still misinterpreting. As far as belief goes, it's not most things, it's all things. I'm not sure how I could believe something without believing it. I will, however, always base that belief on how strong I perceive the evidence to be, and adjust it accordingly.
Click to expand...

So do I.

Gee, thanks.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that in a flippant sense, sorry if it sounded that way.
 
davewhite04 said:
Yes, this is interesting.

But let keep this in context, those were all written laws I was talking about how people know without the need of a written law of what is right and wrong.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

Right and wrong are subjective ideals. I certainly don't think that there's any evidence that people were implanted with an internal moral compass at some point during the life of Moses or Jesus. Obviously, we didn't all start getting along.
 
redwards said:
:shrug:

Right and wrong are subjective ideals. I certainly don't think that there's any evidence that people were implanted with an internal moral compass at some point during the life of Moses or Jesus. Obviously, we didn't all start getting along.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting subject, I mean if anything modern history is worse than ancient history in terms of casualities in war or whatever (as far as we know).
 
davewhite04 said:
It's an interesting subject, I mean if anything modern history is worse than ancient history in terms of casualities in war or whatever (as far as we know).
Click to expand...

I think that the notion is fairly absurd, and I disagree with your assessment of any change in the ferocity of warfare. Technology has changed.

As far as how well we treat other people, when's the last time you saw anyone crucified?
 
redwards said:
I think that the notion is fairly absurd, and I disagree with your assessment of any change in the ferocity of warfare. Technology has changed.

As far as how well we treat other people, when's the last time you saw anyone crucified?
Click to expand...

The notion may seem to you absurd but it is a fact, there has never been more casualities than there was in WW1 & WW2, technology or not. If you think there would have been provide evidence.

I haven't seen anyone crucified lately, so what? We may be less barbaric but our thoughts are the same, in some cases worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top