Lawrence wrote:I thought Emery's argument near the end (I guess you could call it appeal to uniqueness) was cogent. I think Norton just couldn't think of a response that's why he said it was weird. His large family analogy wasn't applicable because the argument was uniqueness not just production.
mitchellmckain wrote:The problem was that Emery was pulling a fast one by throwing in a premise that was not being examined carefully. Norton as a recent "convert" to evolution just wasn't prepared to see all the implications of evolution, for the most significant implication is that LIFE IS NOT CREATED BY DESIGN!!!! Once this is properly disposed of then Emery's premise that God can just start over and create a world EXACTLY like this one is also out the window.
mitchellmckain wrote:On the other hand, there is an important issue that was not discussed, namely the philosophical/theological issue of determinism/predestination. Now perhaps it was simply being assumed by both Emery and Norton that the world is deterministic (contradicting quantum physics) or predestined in absolute sense of the fundamentalists where God is in complete control of everything, and perhaps that is why the comparison didn't seem to work.
mitchellmckain wrote:Anyway back to the beginning of the podcast I would very much object to Emery's attempt to make the acceptance of evolution imply a rejection of the resurrection. On the one hand, this sounds a great deal like a TYPICAL atheist attempt to equate science with his rejection of religion and the supernatural, for while there is a scientific theory of evolution there is NO scientific theory that resurrection is an impossibility.
Lawrence wrote:I'm very interested in this topic, maybe we can make a new thread about it in general discussion? Are you interested in a conversation about this? Does quantum physics provide contra-causal free will?
Lawrence wrote:We don't know that necessarily, Norton did say that evolution was guided by God.
Lawrence wrote:If so, they God could create humans again. Maybe not a world exactly like ours but I think the point is having a second helping of homo sapiens -- and if God gives us our souls -- with the same personalities as well. Of course the latter part makes assumptions about one's belief in regards to souls. However I don't think that is needed for Emery's point either. However long (or short) it may take, God could recreate humans meaning they are not as unique as fully natural humans.
Lawrence wrote:There is no scientific theory that creationism is impossible but people accept evolution because it's the most likely theory supported by the evidence. Likewise there is no scientific theory that resurrection is impossible, but there is no evidence that it is possible (at least as described in the Bible) and it goes against all that we know about dead bodies. That is why I think a physical resurrection has no credence to it.
Lawrence wrote:If it was a spiritual resurrection only (as you believe) then this whole argument is pointless anyway. This is really only a debate when someone like Norton is debating.
Shans wrote:I thought Emery left a chance on the table to probe the implications of Norton’s newly adjusted Evolution beliefs. Once we’ve breached the denial of evolution (in its fullest form and not some ‘progressive creation over the eons’ style) it seems to me there are some serious ramifications to a Christian’s orthodoxy. On this point I think the YEC are correct.
Shans wrote:Okay, now evolution is completely true warts and all; speciation dead ends, extinction events destroying 90% of species at a time, junk DNA, bad design, etc.
Shans wrote:What about the Garden of Eden. True or just more poetry?
Shans wrote:And of course the Flood portion was nonsense (poetry?) as are the stories of the Tower of Babel, Cane and Abel, Methuselah, etc.
Shans wrote:What of the evolution of humanity?
Shans wrote:Where is he willing to draw a line and on what criteria?
Shans wrote:If it was poetry and not history how many were in on the secret? Did the author of Genesis know he was writing poetry and not history put poetically?
Shans wrote:Did the later authors and editors of the OT understand it this way? Did Jesus? Did Paul?
mitchellmckain wrote:But now you are contradicting yourself. You said that the point was uniqueness and that is what makes the analogy with children work, and thus the suggestion is that if a parent does like how a child is turning out then he should just kill the child and start over with another one.
mitchellmckain wrote: But there is no evidence to support a scientific theory that contradicts the resurrection of Jesus. At this point you are simply presenting a gaps argument. We don't know of any way of resurrecting a body that has been dead for a certain amount of time, but that just does not mean that it is impossible. The same sort of gaps argument is made against abiogenesis. But just because we don't know how this ocurred doesn't mean that it didn't.
Lawrence wrote:Just the fact that life, especially humans is infinitely replaceable in a God universe assuming God would want to do that for whatever reason (asteroid impact, disease, whatever). In a natural universe, without God, humans are precious, unique, and finite. That is all Emery was trying to say in my opinion.
Lawrence wrote:There is however reason to think it's incredible since it is far more likely it's false than everything we know about dead bodies to be false,even if that knowledge is incomplete. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.It's not impossible though. This is justified through induction I think.
mitchellmckain wrote:But children are clearly not replaceble because they are NOT a means to an end but an end in themselves. Genesis makes it quite clear that the same is true of human beings. God did not create man as a means to something else but rather God created everything else as means to bring man into being. This is made clear both by the fact that God's work of creation finishes with man and that man is said to be in His own image (which is exactly what you do when you create children). But when a parent sees his children destroying themselves then it is likely that he will restort to extreme measures to save what children he can.
mitchellmckain wrote:But your demands for evidence are pointless.
mitchellmckain wrote: But the fact is that people will believe what they experience for themselves and whether they have any objective evidence to prove it to YOU or Emery is really rather irrelevant.
mitchellmckain wrote:while there is a scientific theory of evolution there is NO scientific theory that resurrection is an impossibility.
Lawrence wrote:there is no scientific theory that resurrection is impossible
mitchellmckain wrote:It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Norton's acceptance of the evidence for the theory of evolution, for this does not change the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for the premise of metaphysical naturalism and there NEVER will be.
Lawrence wrote:I saying God can recreate humans if God wished to with whatever natural wrangling you need to not have cognitive dissonance with your scientific understanding.
Lawrence wrote:with whatever natural wrangling you need to not have cognitive dissonance with your scientific understanding. God is all powerful whether or not he is also moral.
Lawrence wrote:It's like if there was only one flower in the whole history of the world. Its beauty would be unique and spectacular not only for all of humanity but a something to be proud of and share with the future so they may enjoy it as well and saddening to know that dead will never expereince it. In the real world that isn't the case, there are billions of flowers. They have existed for the entirety of humanities existence and we can be fairly sure posterity will experience them as well. We may grow attached to certain flowers and care for them lovingly but even the death of an entire garden is no great loss. They can always be replaced ad infinitum. They may not be the same flowers but they will be flowers and special in a different way. It is not the same level of loss.
Lawrence wrote:I only wish for evidence for myself, else there is no reason for me to believe it.
Lawrence wrote:mitchellmckain wrote: But the fact is that people will believe what they experience for themselves and whether they have any objective evidence to prove it to YOU or Emery is really rather irrelevant.
I agree. You were leading me towards a scientific approach to this however mentioning gap arguments and scientific theory. Now you claim it's unimportant even though you brought it up. What I was arguing was:
Lawrence wrote:I also don't understand how you can expereince Jesus' resurrection for yourself. What does that mean?
Lawrence wrote:What exactly am I missing holding onto this naturalism until there is experiential evidence (which I don't think might be due to emotion, manipulation or delusion) that would way me otherwise?
mitchellmckain wrote:All powerful does not include what is logically inconsistent -- it does not mean that God can do whatever you say by whatever means you care to dictate.
mitchellmckain wrote:Right. ? I agree? that the comparison of individual flowers to individual human beings is a poor one. ?
mitchellmckain wrote:I see clear signs that it is probably better that you don't believe it.
mitchellmckain wrote:But tell me, what sort of evidence do you wish for and what difference would it make to you?
Nonsense. It is important to understand the difference between what is science and what is not. We were discussing Emery's argument and it validity. Science provides abundant evidence for the theory of evolution, therefore it is rational to take this seriously as Norton does. It does not follow that one should therefore only believe what science provides evidence for. Emery's argument is not valid -- at least not in so far as anything that was actually discussed.
I did not say anything like that. Do scientist experience the evolution of the dinosaurs? Not exactly. They see it in the fossil evidence -- so in that sense they experience it. It is a matter of what is consistent with what they do experience. Christians experience the risen Christ in a personal relationship and thus in that sense they see the resurrection of Christ through their personal experiences with Him.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests