mitchellmckain wrote:There is no such reasoning. Science is not a matter of such syllogistic proofs but of evidence. The way scientific evidence works is by looking at what we can expect if the hypothesis is true. Then if we find such expectations are met then that is evidence that the hypothesis is correct.
Well, syllogism has been in science since Aristotle - there is even a special class of syllogism called scientific syllogism which is incorporated into the scientific method not to mention syllogism is foundational to science (caused events are viewed by science and science observes caused events) (only natural events can be observed by science and science only observes natural events) so saying science isn't a matter of syllogistic proofs is about as helpful as saying science doesn't attempt to interpret data or use deduction or build cumulative cases or has no perimeters which are built into it as a method of collecting data... not to mention you yourself used syllogism to describe how scientific evidence works (if the hypothesis is correct we expect certain kinds of evidence, if we find certain kinds of evidence then the hypothesis is correct) that is evidence as syllogistic proof... but I digress.
You say, if we came from a common ancestor, we expect that we will see that there are similar gene sequences and similar structures, is that correct?
Why would you expect to see that?
Can someone looking at it from a creation perspective not expect to see such things?
The fact is that this has been over and over and over again, for this theory more than any other in science and the result is always that the evidence agrees with the theory not the other way around.
Is that a fact? Seems to me that the interpretation of the evidence agrees with the paradigm. Another interpretation of the same evidence disagrees with common decent from a universal common ancestor. You seem to be ignoring that data doesn't just open and tell you what it means, it has to be interpreted... not only that but the very evidence you point to, genetics, is largely based on statistical algorithms, and as a programmer and have written algorithms myself it is something I know about and am in a position to question professionally. The assumptions that go into a genetic model (or any bioinformatics model) based on statistics are not always correct, nor can the conclusions be accurate unless both the assumptions and the algorithm are accurate. Genetics requires hugely complex algorithms and prominent paleontologists like Bernard Wood and Richard Klein are also beginning to complain about the methodology, because the conclusions regularly mis-match with the fossil record. Richard Klein has said there is a "tendency for geneticists to ignore fossil and archaeological evidence, perhaps because they think it can always be molded to fit the genetics after the fact." If a geneticist assumes that the gene does X and that there was an ancestor that existed at the right time and place and assumes that the only method for that gene being introduced other than inheritance, then they find said gene in the sampled sequences... well "bingo bango bongo" you have a conclusion that matches the theory, even if it doesn't match the fossil record and even if they were wrong about the gene function and even if there is another method for the gene to be introduced (or even a piece of DNA being turned the wrong way making it look older than it really is).
And I am saying that this is just how God has spoken to YOU and that you cannot limit God in such a manner.
I haven't limited God, I said the primary way
is via scripture. Obviously if there is a primary way, there is a non-primary way.
"So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17)
reallyRyan wrote:But faith comes by hearing.
No it does not. Faith comes by choosing, whether you can hear or not.
I will say it again, faith comes by hearing.
You can't have faith in something you have never heard, can you?
Faith comes by hearing and the choice is the outworking of faith. Choosing is a work, works are a product of faith, not a means to come to faith.
reallyRyan wrote:Otherwise, everything that the apostles struggled and died for had no real value.
Salvation does not come by what the apostles accomplished.
I didn't say that it did. The apostles didn't struggle and die to get salvation, they already had that and anyone who accepted Christ had it. What they struggled and died for was spreading the gospel so others could hear and follow Christ too. If hearing the gospel doesn't matter, if it isn't how one comes to faith, then there was no need for the apostles to spread the message and no reason for them to die for it and no reason to call it good news. The fact is, that because faith comes by hearing the word of God, and the word was delivered through what Christ had said and done, then spreading that message has infinite value.
reallyRyan wrote:Who are "they" Mitchell? I have never met any one like that.
You are the one that tried to tell me that God didn't want us to know and understand things.
No, I said "there are some things we can't know and some things we shouldn't know" and that is because of our position while in this world. But, what you said is: "They want there to be a gap in science which they can build their church in. A church founded on ignorance and worshiping a god of ignorance, who they say wants people to always be ignorant." I don't know anyone who wants
gaps in science or believes God wants us to remain ignorant, so they can build an ignorant church and worship a god of ignorance who wants people to be ignorant. But, wanting to know a thing doesn't make it possible or even good to know it. Are you saying all of our questions are supposed to be answered in this life? When God talked to Job, he didn't explain himself, he doesn't have to. He pointed out that there are things we won't know nor can we know in this life and that very fact should humble us. That isn't wanting a gap in science so we can build an ignorant church, its being realistic about our position while in the world and humbling ourselves before God.
I said that the pursuit of truth in science is honest but that the evidence (for most people) is found in its usefulness. The scientific methodology is one that insures objective observation and that makes it honest, but the proof of it in the fact that it works, and over and over and over again it reveals new and unexpected things about the world that are proven in the uses we make of them every day.
Then, as I pointed out, the usefulness (the fact that it works) is not evidence of honesty as you said it was. Those don't flow one to the other. Evidence "for most people" is not objective evidence, it is subjective and I can simply subjectively deny your claim to proof of the honesty and you have no recourse but to say, "well other people do". So what? Further, I can make objective observation, but if I plan on only interpreting what I see in one way, and then planning on calling that interpretation unbiased or objective, then there is nothing honest about that, is there? That is science, it can only interpret things from the naturalistic view point, it might attempt honesty, it might attempt a search for truth. The attempt is noble, but science can't explain everything since nature is not all there is. It is objective in the sense that it looks at objects, and objective in the sense that it already has a goal in mind (to find a naturalistic explanation), but it is not unbiased nor objective in the sense that it is not independent of the human mind needed to interpret it. Calling it a fact, when it requires the philosophy behind it to be true and that simple premise is in question... how is that honest if in fact the naturalistic view is not all there is?
mitchellmckain wrote:So you are saying that the fruit which they were forbidden was the ability to know when they had done something wrong?
No, go back and read what I said again. There was nothing within the fruit that gave them anything, the fruit had the ability to be whatever fruit it was, poisonous or otherwise - and that is the only ability the fruit had. It was the decision to disobey that gave them the ability to know good and evil, not to know when they had done something wrong, they knew they shouldn't do it before they did it, Eve even explained that they weren't supposed to do it, but couldn't truly know what evil was until they did the thing they shouldn't have done.
You are saying that the great sin of mankind was that they acquired a conscience?
No, the sin was disobeying God. They already had a conscience (see above), they had the concept of right and wrong. But after disobeying they knew good and evil and their conscience could respond to it so they hid themselves. They had been good, now they had been evil, that is true knowledge, not just and idea or concept. Knowledge, true knowledge isn't just a justified belief, it is being one with the thing that is to be known. I guess the easiest way to point that out is to say you don't know really know a dog, you know what a dog looks like, what it eats, how it moves, but unless you are a dog, you don't really know what a dog is, you don't now what it thinks, what it dreams, what it feels, you just have an external concept. Similarly unless you have done evil or had evil done to you (as Satan did in the same event), you don't really know evil, you haven't been in it and felt it and experienced it in any real way, you only have an external concept of it.
Yeah I KNOW what you are saying!
Obviously you didn't know what I was saying, or you wouldn't have misrepresented it as you did.
but the problem is the whole idea that making a mistake any mistake at all is fatal and for that we must be damned.
It wasn't a mistake. A mistake would be tripping over a log and landing face first in the fruit and eating it by accident, and saying "oh my gosh, I ate the fruit!". The sin was a conscious decision to do what they were told not to do, that sin then led to another in blaming everyone but themselves and then another and another and another. But, there is no "we must be damned" for it, the gospel of Christ says that clearly we are not if we put our trust in the one who has provided for our salvation.
I repudiate this theology as not only fundamentally unsound but as pragmatically catastrophic.
I agree, the way you misrepresented my view would be a fundamentally unsound and catastrophic view.
We are CHILDREN and it is perfectaly NATURAL and GOOD that we make mistakes because THAT IS HOW WE LEARN!
Its perfectly natural to make mistakes (oops I accidentally knocked the milk over) and now with sin in the world it is also perfectly natural for children to disobey, but it isn't good. When you tell your kids not to do something, and they do it anyway, do you think that is good? If its good then you should be encouraging children to disobey their parents, shouldn't you?
Thus I utterly repudiate this theology that God would create children and would not understand or not expect that they would ever be disobedient or make mistakes.
Of course he understood and expected that they would be disobedient, that is where the gospel message is found. Before the foundation of the world, he had prepared a way to remedy the disobedience, restore the relationship and bring an end to evil and sin.
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’" (Gen 3:17)
But the real problem was not that they made a mistake but that they refused to acknowledge it so that they could learn from it.
Where does it say "because you refused to acknowledge what you did wrong and hid it from me?"
A good theology teaches the lesson that actually should be learned from the story rather one that sounds a great deal more like the accusations of the enemy.
Yes, you are very right. I don't say, "hey son, go ahead and continue to disobey me, as long as you acknowledge you dun wrong." No, I say "Listen to me because you are only 4 years old and I know the dangers of what you are doing, but now that you did it, own up to it, apologize for not listening and show me you mean it by stopping your rebellious ways and doing right from now on." That is the lesson that should be learned from the story, God knows better, has told us what is right - its in our conscience and God has written it on our hearts and in scripture, trust he is right and good, but now because you have already done wrong, repent (take responsibility, ask forgiveness turn away from your transgressions and do right in the future).
mitchellmcain wrote: I do NOT believe that God gives arbitrary commandments just for the sake of testing whether people will be obedient.
Who claimed the reason was arbitrary? First, we don't know what kind of fruit it was, it could have been something that wasn't intended as food (ever let your kids eat crayons?). Further, if God made it and was claiming a special right to it, that is His property, eating it is theft, that alone is enough to make it a valid commandment. When your kids were young (assuming you have kids of course), did you let them play with anything they wanted or were some things your possessions and you had a privileged right to them?
God created children not robots, and so it is NOT about obedience. I deny this utterly.
OK, then its ok to be disobedient, since it has nothing to do with it - right or wrong?
And the commands that a parent gives are not arbitrary at all.
Right, assuming we are talking about a good and morally perfect parent as God is. I know plenty of parents (maybe even you) who do give arbitrary commands (in the sense of "because I don't want you to right now"), but they aren't perfect and neither am I.
God's commandment was very much like one that we give to our own children, "Do not play in the street or you will die." God was warning them of a danger that was inherent in life itself, by which they could lose the most precious thing that they had, the source of eternal life itself.
Yes, that is the reason he warned them, as I explained already, using similar examples in my previous post. So I agree, it isn't arbitrary.
But the point is that God is NOT a small light in the darkess.
Why do you keep coming back to that? I never said God was a small light in the darkness. I said his light is infinite and that it shines in the darkness that is in this world. Where do I say small? Continuing to bring this "small light" thing back is an attempt at setting up a straw man that we have both agreed is knocked down already. Can we put it to bed?
Likewise Genesis 11 isn't about God being angry that his children would dare to accomplish great things, but rather that they were going down the same path that led to the flood and God wasn't going to let things happen that way again.
As of yet, I hadn't mentioned Genesis 11, so I agree - in a sense. But we know from a study of archaeology that the ancients were fond of building ziggurats, which were popular throughout the ancient world. They were basically a very tall structure with a winding staircase which ended in a shrine or temple at the peak. It was man's attempt at "raising themselves" to the height of God, but rather than to show praise and glorify God, it was something akin to "Don't call us, we'll call you" or attempting to put a gate between God and man, thus the thinking was, when man wished to contact Him, He was easily accessible, but when they didn't He was behind the gate. They were also intentionally refusing to fulfill God's instructions to spread out and fill the earth. "lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth"
Building something great is
great, if the intention is right. In this case, it wasn't - so I agree, He wasn't angry that they were accomplishing something great, the they weren't accomplishing the right things nor in the right way, further the text doesn't say God was angry, rather he did was give motivation to do what he had told mankind to do and give them more freedom to accomplish what he had intended.
reallyRyan wrote: I honestly hope you think about this passage more and the implications your interpretation has.
The implications are that God created the laws of nature and He does not set them aside for our convenience or wishful thinking. If you step off a building. You will fall because those are the rules of life that God has set down. Looking for God in the BREAKING of His own rules is simply INSANE! Jesus addressed this very thing in Luke 4:12. The implication is that you most definitely should NOT test God with such a thing or demand that God prove Himself in such a way because you will get a flat "No" and He WILL stick the laws of nature that He created. It is a wicked generation that seeks such signs (Luke 11:29) and what they will find if they keep doing this isn't God but indeed nothing but parlor tricks by magicians and con men. Yes God will answer your prayer, not by changing the rules but by helping you to live according to those rules, because those rules are the foundation of life itself and it is by them that God upholds the world.
You must have missed my point, because you didn't address it at all, other than to wave your hand at it with an a priori
belief that God doesn't do something and a healthy amount of rhetoric. I can't force you to re-examine your ideas, that is your responsibility - just as it is my responsibility to examine my beliefs. Blowing it off because you have already decided its insane doesn't benefit anyone. People surely have thought many true things were insane, including the resurrection and it benefits us to re-examine our beliefs about that, doesn't it?
Look at it this way, you say that looking for God in the breaking of his own rules is simply insane, yet you have said before that God is not bound by those rules because he is spirit... so why is it insane for God to break rules that only apply to the creation and not the Creator? Which is it, is God bound by the laws of nature or not bound? If he is not bound, then it is not insane to look for evidence where those rules are superseded by spiritual works. No one demanded that God prove Himself in such a way, Christ demonstrated it willingly so that we could believe. No one ever claimed that God changed the rules, they aren't rules he is obligated to follow, thus nothing needs to change about the rules to accommodate the miracles. I would remind you that the laws of nature are not the foundation of life, God is the foundation of life and it is in Christ that all things are held together.
I am American, but kindly bear with me, I deal with Japanese speakers most of the day. My English skills have steadily gone to pot.