How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:57 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:49 pm
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:03 am
So this is where we finally get to the stated subject of the thread: How we address a new proposition.

I was on the phone with someone last night who asked if I knew any data to confirm or deny the following proposition: "If a dog is bitten by a poisonous snake, and is immediately given a raw egg, the dog will not die."

Note that he was looking for information to confirm or deny this proposition. We discussed it, and neither of us saw a reason to accept the proposition as stated. We both agreed that if our own dogs were bitten, we would take them to the nearest veterinarian for anti-venom treatment. But at the same time, we could not state conclusively that the proposition is bunk.

It sounds stupid. It sounds like some crap an old mountain man made up to convince a ten-year-old that he was wise beyond wisdom. But strange things can be true, even when they seem very unlikely (as here).

So what would be the next step in investigating this? Well, step one would be to chat with real veterinarians. Questions to ask would be:
1. what is the normal course of treatment for the following snakebites?
2. Have you ever seen dogs treated with raw egg?
2a. If so, what was the mortality rate compare to dogs not given a raw egg?
2b. How many such dogs have you seen?

Those questions, asked of enough veterinarians, might give enough data to form a reasonable inference as to the truth value of the proposition.

Personally, I don't care enough to bother finding out. Also, my inference is that the proposition is baloney -- but that is, and I admit it, NOT a REASONABLE inference.
That all seems fine and logical from what you have written OG, it's just when you start talking about God the wheels fall off.

What if there a blood stain on your kitchen floor, is it best for you to assume that someone cut themselves while cooking, or a serial killer murdered someone and dragged them away into your basement (whatever that is)?

You would need to look into the circumstances for each scenario then make up your mind which is more likely before you take action. Yes?
Depending on the amount of blood and the totality of the circumstances... signs of a struggle? damage to the door/lock? A known murderer loose in the neighborhood? ... the either might be a reasonable inference. And depending on the totality of the circumstances, it might be appropriate to call 911 -- I think it's 999 or 555 or 000 for you blokes -- or it might be appropriate to go look for the family member who cut him/herself while cooking.
What if you think that "God placed blood on the floor just to fuck with me"? That's a completely unfalsifiable situation, there is no way you can prove that he did, or did not not cause it to happen.
I would call it an unlikely inference, especially in light of Romans 10:12 ff. It would at best be an inference of exclusion, that is to say, one might make such an inference (or another that was equally explanatory) if, and ONLY IF, one first excluded the more probable inferences of a serial killer and/or an injured family member.
Or that you lost your car keys rushing to get to work on time. You find them after thinking about your daughter telling you to place them on the hook in the kitchen. You find out that if you were on time to get to work, you would have been likely to be involved in a car smash with a truck that killed 15 people. Was it thinking of your daughter that saved you? Or your god, knowing that you love her? Or was it just your logical mind retracing your steps and conversation. See what I mean?
It would be a reasonable inference to assume that it was merely coincidence. It would also be a reasonable inference that the mere coincidence was caused through divine action.

A billiard ball moves because it was struck by the cue ball. But that does not rule out a cue stick, nor a billiard player whose will it was. Proximate causes to not rule out efficient causes or final causes.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:54 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:49 pm
That all seems fine and logical from what you have written OG, it's just when you start talking about God the wheels fall off.

What if there a blood stain on your kitchen floor, is it best for you to assume that someone cut themselves while cooking, or a serial killer murdered someone and dragged them away into your basement (whatever that is)?
You would need to look into the circumstances for each scenario then make up your mind which is more likely before you take action. Yes?
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:57 pm
Depending on the amount of blood and the totality of the circumstances... signs of a struggle? damage to the door/lock? A known murderer loose in the neighborhood? ... the either might be a reasonable inference. And depending on the totality of the circumstances, it might be appropriate to call 911 -- I think it's 999 or 555 or 000 for you blokes -- or it might be appropriate to go look for the family member who cut him/herself while cooking.
Yes, it's 000 here for us ockers, lol! There is a permanent call diversion to 000 when people call 911 here (and they do it consistently because of American TV and movies) or 999 and 555 etc. Well reasoned so far!
What if you think that "God placed blood on the floor just to fuck with me"? That's a completely unfalsifiable situation, there is no way you can prove that he did, or did not not cause it to happen.
I would call it an unlikely inference, especially in light of Romans 10:12 ff.
"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him"???
It would at best be an inference of exclusion, that is to say, one might make such an inference (or another that was equally explanatory) if, and ONLY IF, one first excluded the more probable inferences of a serial killer and/or an injured family member.
See, I wouldn't jump to a god at all, that would not be anywhere on my list of alternatives. The next one for me would be a person who had injured themselves apart from cooking or an animal like a cat or a dog had been injured. Then I would start to question my own sanity, was it a dream or an hallucination? I would never think of gods, spirits or fairies.
Or that you lost your car keys rushing to get to work on time. You find them after thinking about your daughter telling you to place them on the hook in the kitchen. You find out that if you were on time to get to work, you would have been likely to be involved in a car smash with a truck that killed 15 people. Was it thinking of your daughter that saved you? Or your god, knowing that you love her? Or was it just your logical mind retracing your steps and conversation. See what I mean?
It would be a reasonable inference to assume that it was merely coincidence. It would also be a reasonable inference that the mere coincidence was caused through divine action.
I agree with the first statement, not the second. What causes you to jump to divine action? Would it have to be your own specific god or any number of gods? If it was your god, why would he not speak to you directly, warning you of the accident so you would know for sure that it was him and not merely a coincidence?
A billiard ball moves because it was struck by the cue ball. But that does not rule out a cue stick, nor a billiard player whose will it was. Proximate causes to not rule out efficient causes or final causes.
Sure, but our physical laws rule out divine actions that make the ball move.

In regards to moral laws, Paul makes a claim that all earthly leaders are selected by God himself, and that therefore citizens should subject themselves to these authorities - in much the same way that they are expected to subject themselves to God. See:
Romans 13:1-7 New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So, if Paul is correct, then God put in place the following rulers:

1. Idi Amin
2. Attila the Hun
3. Genghis Khan
4. Pol Pot
5. Adolph Hitler

According to Paul, these rulers were God’s selection and it was the duty of those living under their rule to abide by their laws and ethics. If these monsters were placed in power via God's fiat, he is ultimately responsible for what happened directly after the placement. In the workplace it's called vicarious liability. "Whether a person is an employer or a principal also affects the legal liability they have in the event a tort is committed by a person performing work for them. Employers have vicarious liability for certain act and omissions committed by their employees in the course of their employment". So your god is liable for their evil deeds. Source: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/civil-law/ ... employers/
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:32 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:54 pm
SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:49 pm
That all seems fine and logical from what you have written OG, it's just when you start talking about God the wheels fall off.

What if there a blood stain on your kitchen floor, is it best for you to assume that someone cut themselves while cooking, or a serial killer murdered someone and dragged them away into your basement (whatever that is)?
You would need to look into the circumstances for each scenario then make up your mind which is more likely before you take action. Yes?
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:57 pm
Depending on the amount of blood and the totality of the circumstances... signs of a struggle? damage to the door/lock? A known murderer loose in the neighborhood? ... the either might be a reasonable inference. And depending on the totality of the circumstances, it might be appropriate to call 911 -- I think it's 999 or 555 or 000 for you blokes -- or it might be appropriate to go look for the family member who cut him/herself while cooking.
Yes, it's 000 here for us ockers, lol! There is a permanent call diversion to 000 when people call 911 here (and they do it consistently because of American TV and movies) or 999 and 555 etc. Well reasoned so far!
What if you think that "God placed blood on the floor just to fuck with me"? That's a completely unfalsifiable situation, there is no way you can prove that he did, or did not not cause it to happen.
I would call it an unlikely inference, especially in light of Romans 10:12 ff.
"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him"???
Sorry, brain misfire. James 1:13, paraphrased, "God does not mess with your mind."
SEG wrote:
Og wrote:It would at best be an inference of exclusion, that is to say, one might make such an inference (or another that was equally explanatory) if, and ONLY IF, one first excluded the more probable inferences of a serial killer and/or an injured family member.
See, I wouldn't jump to a god at all, that would not be anywhere on my list of alternatives. The next one for me would be a person who had injured themselves apart from cooking or an animal like a cat or a dog had been injured. Then I would start to question my own sanity, was it a dream or an hallucination? I would never think of gods, spirits or fairies.
Just to play the Dutch Uncle: If you had dreamed the night before that God spoke to you, and said, "What sign should I give you that I am God?" and you, in your dream responded, "Cover my kitchen floor in blood," THEN (and probably only then) it might be a reasonable inference that there is blood on your kitchen floor as a result of an act of God (direct or indirect) for the purpose of communicating with you.
SEG wrote:
SEG wrote: Or that you lost your car keys rushing to get to work on time. You find them after thinking about your daughter telling you to place them on the hook in the kitchen. You find out that if you were on time to get to work, you would have been likely to be involved in a car smash with a truck that killed 15 people. Was it thinking of your daughter that saved you? Or your god, knowing that you love her? Or was it just your logical mind retracing your steps and conversation. See what I mean?
Og wrote:It would be a reasonable inference to assume that it was merely coincidence. It would also be a reasonable inference that the mere coincidence was caused through divine action.
I agree with the first statement, not the second. What causes you to jump to divine action? Would it have to be your own specific god or any number of gods? If it was your god, why would he not speak to you directly, warning you of the accident so you would know for sure that it was him and not merely a coincidence?
I did not jump to divine action; I simply did not rule it out.

Why not another means? Well, typically, when God sends someone an email or a facebook friend request, they tend to assume it's a Nigerian 409 scammer. (that is to say -- God uses the means of communication to which you are willing to respond).
SEG wrote:
A billiard ball moves because it was struck by the cue ball. But that does not rule out a cue stick, nor a billiard player whose will it was. Proximate causes to not rule out efficient causes or final causes.
Sure, but our physical laws rule out divine actions that make the ball move.
No, they don't. See, that's where laymen get all kinds of odd ideas about science.

Take Newton's first law: An object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to remain at rest (Like A Billiard Ball) unless what? You know this, you've heard it a billion times -- unless acted upon by an outside force. That would be the cue ball transferring angular momentum to the object ball. Because a cue stick transferred angular momentum to a cue stick. Because a human transferred angular momentum to the cue stick. Because... possibly because God willed it to be so. And possibly not.

But neither "God willed it" nor "God was not involved" is a reasonable inference. We are ignorant of what did or did not happen in the divine space with respect to the billiard game.
SEG wrote: In regards to moral laws, Paul makes a claim that all earthly leaders are selected by God himself, and that therefore citizens should subject themselves to these authorities - in much the same way that they are expected to subject themselves to God. See:
Romans 13:1-7 New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So, if Paul is correct, then God put in place the following rulers:

1. Idi Amin
2. Attila the Hun
3. Genghis Khan
4. Pol Pot
5. Adolph Hitler

According to Paul, these rulers were God’s selection and it was the duty of those living under their rule to abide by their laws and ethics. If these monsters were placed in power via God's fiat, he is ultimately responsible for what happened directly after the placement. In the workplace it's called vicarious liability. "Whether a person is an employer or a principal also affects the legal liability they have in the event a tort is committed by a person performing work for them. Employers have vicarious liability for certain act and omissions committed by their employees in the course of their employment". So your god is liable for their evil deeds. Source: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/civil-law/ ... employers/
Nice argument. Unfortunately, proof-texting is a fairly poor method of Biblical interpretation.

What you have just done is a bit like saying that military men must obey their commanders, therefore we cannot hold soldiers responsible for the crimes they commit under orders. But the Geneva convention holds this to be false: A soldier has a duty to refuse unjust or inhumane orders. By the same token, we have a duty to refuse unjust, ungodly, and inhumane orders given by earthly leaders.

Counterexamples that clarify this point:
Daniel 1:8-20
Daniel 3:1-30
Daniel 6:6-28
Exodus 1:15-21
the OT is replete with such defiances... Samuel rebuking King Saul, Nathan rebuking King David, David defying while still respecting King Saul, Elijah rebuking King Ahab and Queen Jezebel ... Unjust rules are to be opposed and defied; but to just rule one must submit.

And Paul, being greatly learned in the Law, knew this.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Rian » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:41 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:54 pm
Sure, but our physical laws rule out divine actions that make the ball move.
What do you mean? I'm not aware of that at all, and I've studied science at uni level.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:08 am

Rian wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:41 pm
SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:54 pm
Sure, but our physical laws rule out divine actions that make the ball move.
What do you mean? I'm not aware of that at all, and I've studied science at uni level.
Just that we don't have any evidence of supernatural forces, only of natural forces. So if God decides to move his supernatural finger from outside of our physical realm (whatever that means), into our physical realm, it would be dripping with evidence if it moves a billiard ball for example. Do they even discuss divine actions at uni science classes? Not trying to be smart, I just don't know.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:06 am

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:49 pm
What if you think that "God placed blood on the floor just to fuck with me"? That's a completely unfalsifiable situation, there is no way you can prove that he did, or did not not cause it to happen.
I would call it an unlikely inference, especially in light of Romans 10:12 ff
"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him"???
Og3 wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:32 pm
Sorry, brain misfire. James 1:13, paraphrased, "God does not mess with your mind."

I just had a prophesy: "Nice argument. Unfortunately, proof-texting is a fairly poor method of taking scripture out of context or shoe-horning your ideas into sermons.
Og wrote:It would at best be an inference of exclusion, that is to say, one might make such an inference (or another that was equally explanatory) if, and ONLY IF, one first excluded the more probable inferences of a serial killer and/or an injured family member.
SEG wrote:See, I wouldn't jump to a god at all, that would not be anywhere on my list of alternatives. The next one for me would be a person who had injured themselves apart from cooking or an animal like a cat or a dog had been injured. Then I would start to question my own sanity, was it a dream or an hallucination? I would never think of gods, spirits or fairies.
Og3 wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:32 pm
Just to play the Dutch Uncle: If you had dreamed the night before that God spoke to you, and said, "What sign should I give you that I am God?" and you, in your dream responded, "Cover my kitchen floor in blood," THEN (and probably only then) it might be a reasonable inference that there is blood on your kitchen floor as a result of an act of God (direct or indirect) for the purpose of communicating with you.
That would work ONLY if you are convinced that God exists. What do you use as your mechanism to work out that, if that is the case?
SEG wrote: Or that you lost your car keys rushing to get to work on time. You find them after thinking about your daughter telling you to place them on the hook in the kitchen. You find out that if you were on time to get to work, you would have been likely to be involved in a car smash with a truck that killed 15 people. Was it thinking of your daughter that saved you? Or your god, knowing that you love her? Or was it just your logical mind retracing your steps and conversation. See what I mean?
Og wrote:It would be a reasonable inference to assume that it was merely coincidence. It would also be a reasonable inference that the mere coincidence was caused through divine action.
SEG wrote:I agree with the first statement, not the second. What causes you to jump to divine action? Would it have to be your own specific god or any number of gods? If it was your god, why would he not speak to you directly, warning you of the accident so you would know for sure that it was him and not merely a coincidence?
I did not jump to divine action; I simply did not rule it out.
You could have also not ruled out millions of other gods.
Why not another means? Well, typically, when God sends someone an email or a facebook friend request, they tend to assume it's a Nigerian 409 scammer. (that is to say -- God uses the means of communication to which you are willing to respond).
Why wouldn't believers believe that God could do that if he wanted to, along with all the other gods? That's why faith is such a poor mechanism for working out if something is true. You could use faith to come to the conclusion that anything is true and be just as easily wrong about it being true.
A billiard ball moves because it was struck by the cue ball. But that does not rule out a cue stick, nor a billiard player whose will it was. Proximate causes to not rule out efficient causes or final causes.
SEG wrote:Sure, but our physical laws rule out divine actions that make the ball move.
No, they don't. See, that's where laymen get all kinds of odd ideas about science.
Aren't you a layman too, or have you a degree in science?
Take Newton's first law: An object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to remain at rest (Like A Billiard Ball) unless what? You know this, you've heard it a billion times -- unless acted upon by an outside force. That would be the cue ball transferring angular momentum to the object ball. Because a cue stick transferred angular momentum to a cue stick. Because a human transferred angular momentum to the cue stick. Because... possibly because God willed it to be so. And possibly not.

But neither "God willed it" nor "God was not involved" is a reasonable inference. We are ignorant of what did or did not happen in the divine space with respect to the billiard game.
We are back to millions of gods also being a reasonable inference then. What makes you so sure it was your god?
SEG wrote: In regards to moral laws, Paul makes a claim that all earthly leaders are selected by God himself, and that therefore citizens should subject themselves to these authorities - in much the same way that they are expected to subject themselves to God. See:
Romans 13:1-7 New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:54 pm
So, if Paul is correct, then God put in place the following rulers:

1. Idi Amin
2. Attila the Hun
3. Genghis Khan
4. Pol Pot
5. Adolph Hitler

According to Paul, these rulers were God’s selection and it was the duty of those living under their rule to abide by their laws and ethics. If these monsters were placed in power via God's fiat, he is ultimately responsible for what happened directly after the placement. In the workplace it's called vicarious liability. "Whether a person is an employer or a principal also affects the legal liability they have in the event a tort is committed by a person performing work for them. Employers have vicarious liability for certain act and omissions committed by their employees in the course of their employment". So your god is liable for their evil deeds. Source: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/civil-law/ ... employers/
Nice argument. Unfortunately, proof-texting is a fairly poor method of Biblical interpretation.
What you have just done is a bit like saying that military men must obey their commanders, therefore we cannot hold soldiers responsible for the crimes they commit under orders.

Nope, my analogy to "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities" was spot on. I was comparing Paul's passage with the governing authorities of;
1. Idi Amin
2. Attila the Hun
3. Genghis Khan
4. Pol Pot
and
5. Adolph Hitler.

You just don't like it because it makes your god responsible for assigning those governing authorities.
But the Geneva convention holds this to be false: A soldier has a duty to refuse unjust or inhumane orders. By the same token, we have a duty to refuse unjust, ungodly, and inhumane orders given by earthly leaders.
So why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?

Oh I see now! It was a DIVINE leader and not an EARTHLY leader that decrees it right to kill defenceless babies, toddlers, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and animals. Being divine, that leader has every right to commit all the atrocities he wants because he created all life. Is that how your morality works?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:08 am
Rian wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:41 pm
SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:54 pm
Sure, but our physical laws rule out divine actions that make the ball move.
What do you mean? I'm not aware of that at all, and I've studied science at uni level.
Just that we don't have any evidence of supernatural forces, only of natural forces. So if God decides to move his supernatural finger from outside of our physical realm (whatever that means), into our physical realm, it would be dripping with evidence if it moves a billiard ball for example. Do they even discuss divine actions at uni science classes? Not trying to be smart, I just don't know.
I studied at an obscure school called Naval Nuclear Power School. I've also done some autodidactic studies of science, and I've applied sciences in trades. Science does not address divinity. It does not assume divine action; it also does not disprove divine action.

The original scientists of the modern era were men like Newton, who sought to understand the methods by which God orders and operates His universe. In order to do so, they formed Natural Laws based on their observations and the reasonable inferences that they drew, with the underlying assumption that God had originated those Natural Laws, and that they were merely the discoverers of God's actions.

You do not see science develop as it has within Christendom in any other part of the world. Rudimentary science found in Islam was learned in Christian Europe, and filtered into Islam through centuries of war.

So if you have as a premise or an assumption that "Science disproves all that religion stuff" I can state authoritatively that you don't understand science.

I can recommend some books...
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm

I've noticed that if you say "There's no reason to assume a god" and then I point out a case in which such an assumption might be reasonable, you immediately jump to "Well, that doesn't mean that it's your god."

That, SEG, is something we refer to as "Moving the Goal Posts."

In the case of blood in the kitchen, if you had had such a dream, and then found such blood, and formed that inference, one would logically assume that the god who had answered would be the god with whom you had spoken in the dream. That is, either it was part of the same conversation, or else it was unrelated. That it was a third-party god would be an unreasonable assumption.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:46 pm

I note that you've omitted this:
Og wrote: Counterexamples that clarify this point:
Daniel 1:8-20
Daniel 3:1-30
Daniel 6:6-28
Exodus 1:15-21
the OT is replete with such defiances... Samuel rebuking King Saul, Nathan rebuking King David, David defying while still respecting King Saul, Elijah rebuking King Ahab and Queen Jezebel ... Unjust rules are to be opposed and defied; but to just rule one must submit.

And Paul, being greatly learned in the Law, knew this.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:11 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
I've noticed that if you say "There's no reason to assume a god" and then I point out a case in which such an assumption might be reasonable, you immediately jump to "Well, that doesn't mean that it's your god."

That, SEG, is something we refer to as "Moving the Goal Posts."

In the case of blood in the kitchen, if you had had such a dream, and then found such blood, and formed that inference, one would logically assume that the god who had answered would be the god with whom you had spoken in the dream. That is, either it was part of the same conversation, or else it was unrelated. That it was a third-party god would be an unreasonable assumption.
Well how do you know that the god that spoke to you in a dream was your particular god? Do you agree with my statement: "That's why faith is such a poor mechanism for working out if something is true."? IOW could you use faith to determine if any statement is true? For example, could you use faith to determine if white people are more intelligent than black people?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply