question about christianity!

[nova900]

You share a similar mind as Adam. Let's assume he knew neither Good nor bad. You both have a reasoning mind and a sense of self preservation.
So where does the warning "not to eat from the tree" stand for you?
Do you endanger your life or not? And Why?

I would ask both parties involved to explain their case as to why I should or should not eat from the tree of knowledge.
I would ask why is knowledge bad? Why is Satan evil? What are his qualities that qualify him to be evil . I would ask God...why are you good? What qualities do you possess that make you good?
If as you say I knew neither evil or good and If an implied threat of dying is being made this still does not tell me the differences between good and evil and why I should pick one over another.

 

[Revolvr]

You sound like a second rate politician. Or an apologetic Christian.

You come to very big conclusions based on very little evidence. Is that how you approach life? I hope not for it often leads you astray.

Just answer the question. It is not that hard.

Oh my, I 'd better answer then because the Emperor demands it! Since you're such a nice guy, I'll tell you: Neither. But thanks for playing.

So what's your story? Agnostic? Atheist? Panspermist?

 

[Spud Emperor]

You come to very big conclusions based on very little evidence. Is that how you approach life? I hope not for it often leads you astray.



Oh my, I 'd better answer then because the Emperor demands it! Since you're such a nice guy, I'll tell you: Neither. But thanks for playing.

So what's your story? Agnostic? Atheist? Panspermist?

"neither" Err, I don't think that actually qualifies as an answer, it's more like a cop out.
Come on [Insult Removed], elaborate (for Christ's sake)

p.s Panspermist!, you do know that my ability not to make at least three pathetic puns from this is nil, don't you?

 

[Myles]

Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You replied with a couple of quotes from Hume that in no way invalidated my view. I saw no need to reply further.

It is the atheist who has great faith in the nonexistence of the scientifically unproven. Doesn't seem too scientific to me. Atheism is intellectually dishonest. You go to your atheist Gospel web sites and pick up disingenuous one-sided arguments that commonly ignore facts and misinterpret the Bible, generate meaningless statistics. Then take great pride in repeating it here.

Atheists like to think the Gospel of Evolution disproves God. Evolution has become dogma, like anthropomorphic global warming, where scientists are not allowed to discuss its flaws. Why don't you tell me about the flaws? Can you be that objective? Evolution, even the parts that do fit the evidence, do not disprove God.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was quoted as saying, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Crick is an atheist. He cannot believe in a creator. So now he says that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships.

You believe this too don't you? Tell me more about these spaceships.

Don't you give a damn for the truth ? If you look back at the post I referred to you will see that YOU were the one who mentioned Hume. You, or one of your mentors,concoted a stupid little syllogism purporting to have been used by Hume in relation to miracles. You claimed he had argued in a circle I challenged you to cite where in Humes works that syllogism occurs but you have never come back with an answer. At the time I quoted some of what Hume DID say about miracles and gave you a source. You ovviously couldn't be bothereed to follow it up.

So I repeat. where in Humes works is that stupid syllogism to be found.

You make a practice of saying things that are patently untrue and when your error is pointed out. you just ignore what is said to you. In my book , that makes you a liar or incredibly stupid or both.

You are now clutching at another straw by mentioning Crick, as opposed to answering my question about Hume.

I do not believe life came to earth in spaceships, so don't put words in my mouth. You are just playing another of your games in the hope that your stupid claims and failure to answer questions will be overlooked.


As for the rest , try and resist your little ad hominens about getting out of bed and so on. You think such statements bolster your position; on the contrary, the show you have nothing of substance to say.

Evolution ? You know nothing about it. What have you read about evolution and what are your objections ? Or are you just taking the easy way out and believing the crap I have seen on some Creationists sites ? Try telling me wht you know at first hand.

 

[Saquist]

I would ask both parties involved to explain their case as to why I should or should not eat from the tree of knowledge.
I would ask why is knowledge bad? Why is Satan evil? What are his qualities that qualify him to be evil . I would ask God...why are you good? What qualities do you possess that make you good?
If as you say I knew neither evil or good and If an implied threat of dying is being made this still does not tell me the differences between good and evil and why I should pick one over another.

Remember you have no knowledge of Good and Bad thus you couldn't ask these questions. There are questions you could have asked but the nature of Good and Bad would not have been one of those questions since we're going from the assumption they had no knowledge of either.


Additional:
Satan the Devil means :Slander and Deciver.
It was only at this exact moment when he bore false witness did he lose his perfect state and become sinful.

However assuming you did know what at least Good was sense God says that you were created and declared Good you have already done more than Adam and Eve who didn't question either the serpent or God.

 

[nova900]

Remember you have no knowledge of Good and Bad thus you couldn't ask these questions.

Thats just plain illogical!
No knowledge of good or evil would be the reason I ask those questions. Otherwise,why should I listen to one over the other??
In a case like that it would just seem like I'm stuck between two warring beings and have no criteria myself to determine one should be obeyed and the other not obeyed.

Additional:
Satan the Devil means :Slander and Deciver.
It was only at this exact moment when he bore false witness did he lose his perfect state and become sinful.

If I was Adam or Eve I probably would not understand what "deceiver" or "slander" mean ,so it's irrelavent.

 

[Revolvr]

You make a practice of saying things that are patently untrue and when your error is pointed out. you just ignore what is said to you. In my book , that makes you a liar or incredibly stupid or both.

I don't know why you are so uptight about Hume. You also have a tendency to state that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid ignorant liar. Which is a stupid ignorant thing to say, which might explain why sometimes people don't respond to you. It is normally not worth any effort to respond to closed-minded egotists.

But I suppose we can go back to it. I had said Hume's argument looks like this:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough​

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criteria used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Look carefully at these criteria. I see no way to provide adequate evidence that miracles exist. Example:

No man, not even many, can be of "such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning" or can be of "such undoubted integrity" or of "such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind" that they can convince skeptics that the witnesses for miracles are not deluded or do not have "any design to deceive others" or are not exempt from self-interest and shame of being detected in promoting miracles (pp. 116-17).


Your reply was this:

If you read chapter 10 part 1 you will see that Hume is saying:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He gives examples to make his meaning clear.

He concludes " The plain consequence is (..........) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish. " He has more to say for those who care to read the passage I have cited. I see no circularity in Hume's argument.
​

So, it appears you agree with me up to this point. Hume has set up the conditions for affirming the occurrence of miracles. These conditions cannot be met. Thus, no persons testimony, even if he has the utmost integrity and honesty, can overturn the laws of nature established by "firm and unalterable" experience. Your reply was consistent with my argument so I never replied.

Hume has stacked the deck. He assumes the answer before looking at evidence. The circularity comes in due to A). We know miracles are impossible because the evidence for them is false. We have no evidence for them because no evidence is good enough and must be rejected. Because no satisfactory evidence has been found, we know miracles don't occur.

This is prejudicial. Hume laughs out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are.

Circularity is only evident if one rejects A). That is why I see it and you don't, even though we read the same thing.

I interpret things differently than you. You can call me and others stupid ignorant liars all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself. Doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[Myles]

I don't know why you are so uptight about Hume. You also have a tendency to state that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid ignorant liar. Which is a stupid ignorant thing to say, which might explain why sometimes people don't respond to you. It is normally not worth any effort to respond to closed-minded egotists.

But I suppose we can go back to it. I had said Hume's argument looks like this:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough​

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criteria used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Look carefully at these criteria. I see no way to provide adequate evidence that miracles exist. Example:

No man, not even many, can be of "such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning" or can be of "such undoubted integrity" or of "such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind" that they can convince skeptics that the witnesses for miracles are not deluded or do not have "any design to deceive others" or are not exempt from self-interest and shame of being detected in promoting miracles (pp. 116-17).


Your reply was this:

If you read chapter 10 part 1 you will see that Hume is saying:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He gives examples to make his meaning clear.

He concludes " The plain consequence is (..........) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish. " He has more to say for those who care to read the passage I have cited. I see no circularity in Hume's argument.
​

So, it appears you agree with me up to this point. Hume has set up the conditions for affirming the occurrence of miracles. These conditions cannot be met. Thus, no persons testimony, even if he has the utmost integrity and honesty, can overturn the laws of nature established by "firm and unalterable" experience. Your reply was consistent with my argument so I never replied.

Hume has stacked the deck. He assumes the answer before looking at evidence. The circularity comes in due to A). We know miracles are impossible because the evidence for them is false. We have no evidence for them because no evidence is good enough and must be rejected. Because no satisfactory evidence has been found, we know miracles don't occur.

This is prejudicial. Hume laughs out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are.

Circularity is only evident if one rejects A). That is why I see it and you don't, even though we read the same thing.

I interpret things differently than you. You can call me and others stupid ignorant liars all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself. Doesn't bother me a bit.

You are a hopeless case. I asked you where that syllogism appears in Hume's work. You still have not told me because you made it up. Thar says something about you.

You do not understand what Hume is saying about miracles. He is NOT dismissing them, merely suggesting what would be necessary for us to believe in them. If you were more widely read you would know that most pholosophers accept that he is not saying miracles are impossible; merely that we require extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim

You, I imagine, believe that Lazarus was raised from the dead. Given our experience, no one has seen such a thing. Moreover, based on our knowledge, we know that the body would be decomposing and that the brain would be irreversibly damaged after half an hour. Hume is rightly saying that such an event would require an extraordinary explanation, as it could not be explained in terms of our normal experience. You, no doubt ,think otherwise.

You are way out of your depth but there is no way anyone can make you see that.

 

[Myles]

Truer words rarely been spoken on the Forum.

Look chum,

You need to sort out the difference between belief and knowledge. Belief requires no empirical evidence wheras knowledge does. You can believe there are cabbages growing on mars but that does not guarantee its truth,

And yes, the Bible does not count as empirical evidence, so you are left with belief. That accounts for the great number of Christian sects , each one having its own set of beliefs.

 

[SnakeLord]

Satan the Devil means :Slander and Deciver.

Actually it means 'adversary, one who plots against another'. You seemingly enjoy just making shit up as you go along, can I ask why?

Out of interest, you missed one of my posts. It awaits your response. Thanks.

 

[Saquist]

Thats just plain illogical!
No knowledge of good or evil would be the reason I ask those questions. .

These are your words bellow.

If I was Adam or Eve I probably would not understand what "deceiver" or "slander" mean ,so it's irrelavent.

Do you think that it is illogical to suggest that Adam and Eve did not understand the language that was given to them or illogical that they did not understand both good or evil.

I can't find either very logical.

Actually it means 'adversary, one who plots against another'. You seemingly enjoy just making shit up as you go along, can I ask why?

Out of interest, you missed one of my posts. It awaits your response. Thanks.

You believe I missed your post. I assure you I did not. I read and understood. Do you need more attention than a listening ear? Do you need a challenge or perhaps someone you can challenge to oppose or resist...do you need me to be your adversary?

I was wrong, Satan means "opposer" or "resister", devil means "slanderer"

 

[Myles]

A logical Bible is an oxymoron

 

[nova900]

These are your words bellow.


Do you think that it is illogical to suggest that Adam and Eve did not understand the language that was given to them or illogical that they did not understand both good or evil.

I can't find either very logical.

"

Since they had no knowledge of good and evil,I was referring to finding it illogical they could not ask questions, as you stated yourself ,of both God and Satan.
Being completely without any determing factor at that point as to whether good was desirable or evil they would need explanations as to why good is the path to follow and evil the one to shun.

 

[Myles]

Since they had no knowledge of good and evil,I was referring to finding it illogical they could not ask questions, as you stated yourself ,of both God and Satan.
Being completely without any determing factor at that point as to whether good was desirable or evil they would need explanations as to why good is the path to follow and evil the one to shun.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.They should have known better; that's all there is to it. It's not for us to question god's ways.

 

[Saquist]

Since they had no knowledge of good and evil,I was referring to finding it illogical they could not ask questions, as you stated yourself ,of both God and Satan.
Being completely without any determing factor at that point as to whether good was desirable or evil they would need explanations as to why good is the path to follow and evil the one to shun.

I agree.

 

[Myles]

I agree.

So what does that entail ?

 

[Saquist]

Nova if it's illogical to suggest they couldn't have asked the question due to lack of common frame of refrence then it's equally illogical to suggest they "they couldn't understand what death was" or that they didn't know "good"

According to the bible "God made them" and saw that it was good." and later Paul tells us that "they were with out sin" at this point. Without badness, before "sin and death entered the world."

Quite simply you're saying that it would have been inappropriate to make a decision with they're current level of information and knowledge. I agree.