Why is young earth so important?

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
Post Reply
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5997
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 99 times
Been liked: 142 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#91

Post by Byblos » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:14 am

Jac3510 wrote:Second, to do you due dilligence, you need to read philosophy. Science is important. It has taken an outsized role in our lives today, not because it is unimportant, but because science is not identical with logic, and because lots of illogical people have made illogical conclusions about the world based on the work of scientists. The very best book I can recommend to you is Edward Feser's The Last Superstition. Beyond that, go to the Philosophy Forums here and ask, "Can someone walk me through the philosophical proofs for God's existence?" You'll have a lot to learn, but if you want to do your due dilligence, you'll get far.
Does that sound remotely familar Audie? :mrgreen:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#92

Post by Audie » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:21 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:
Much as Dr K Wise, paleontologist put it.
if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. (emphasis added)
Either that or I would have to seriously consider how else to reconcile what I am persuaded is true about Jesus Christ with what it seems He believed and taught concerning the nature of Scriptures.
Where do you think the path of intellectual honesty lies?

As I said, I'm not a scientist, and I don't have your training. All I can say is that there are people who not only see evidence for a global flood, but they see it to be extremely compelling. For instance, there's this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0

Thta's part one of his presentation. If you get that interested, you can go on to part two. Regarding training, he received a BSc in Applied Geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, in 1975 (First Class Honors) and a PhD in Geology The University of Sydney, Australia in 1982. He's just one of many I could name. Now, I am highly skeptical of popular science, and what Snelling offers in his presentation is just that: popular science. I find it interesting. I can't argue for it. I can't argue against it. I certainly don't argue with it (in either of the two senses you can take that). Perhaps he is totally wrong. Perhaps he is a con-artist. My point is merely that there are men of his caliper who present evidence that there was, in fact, a global flood. And I have no doubt that there are men of equal credentials who challenge his scientific claims on scientific grounds. I'll leave that nuanced debate to them. Now, were Snelling and others like him to come out and declare that there is just no scientific evidence, then I would have to reconsider my position on the inerrancy of Scripture. But as it stands, I'm willing to trust him and those like him. Perhaps you can watch his presentation and read his technical/non-popular articles and perhaps you, with your training, can find out where you think he is wrong. But that's on you and your training. It's beyond me, and I'm okay admitting that.
Well, I have heard of this fellow. Here is something to look at, as to whether you'd want him speaking on behalf of anything you believe in.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

You do well to be skeptical of "pop" science, which is what he does, complete with youtube.

Regarding whether there is evidence for a world wide flood, there certainly are things one could point to that, taken by themselves might well lead to that belief. Seashells in Kansas, say; I have found them myself.

As a larger picture emerges from studies all around the world ( you might well be surprised how extensively the earth's geology has been probed) one sees that a world wide flood simply cannot be supported by the evidence....

Possibly more to the point is that a hypothesis or theory can be, must be tested against all relevant data. If even one fact is contrary to it, the theory is simply wrong. As per Einsteins famous quote..

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Kind of like a single ice core showing an age far greater than any Biblical timeline shows there could not have been a world wide flood.

Not at all. The Bible cant just be "Wrong". Poetry cant be wrong; Egypt is real; the history may be incomplete and at times inaccurate but its history, its not "wrong". The list goes one.
No, the fact remains that the Bible is either true or false as it is written. We don't get to play silly word games to get around that fact.
How did that become a fact? :D

As for "true or false" is that 100%? Is an approximation 100% correct?



As for inspiration, how do I know? I dont do certainties; what you took to be obvious is not so at all.
But it is obvious. The Bible says things that you do not believe are true. Now, perhaps you aren't going to go out there and argue with conviction that its claims are false, but there are things it affirms as true that you do not affirm. That is, you think the Bible is wrong. You've done well enough so far that you should continue your trend and just admit that. I mean, consider some of its claims:
Sheesh there you are again, saying what I believe for me. I do not believe the 'bible is wrong". I do believe that an awful lot of people think they are gifted with inerrant reading, and that they inerrently read different meanings.

Admit schamadit, i have nothing to "reluctantly confess". I see the Bible quite differently than you.


  • The Bible claims that it is the inspired Word of God, that is, that its very words are the product of the breath of God (see 1 Tim. 3:16)
    The Bible claims that God created the universe (Gen 1:1)
    The Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor 15:3ff)
    The Bible claims that Jesus was and is God--the same God who created the universe (John 1:1-3)
    The Bible claims that Moses parted the Red Sea and that the Israelites crossed over on dry land while Pharaoh's army chased them (Exo 14)
Do you think those claims are true? If not, then you must hold them to be in error. If I say "X is Y" and it turns out that X is NOT Y, then I cannot not be mistaken. An atheist, therefore, necessarily believes that the Bible is wrong in at least some of its claims.
Not all of the text is claimed to be inspired. And nowhere does the Bible say that it is inerrent.

Whether the Bible is 'wrong" in any place depends on how one reads it.
If one JUST went by the Bible, one could think Pi is 3, and that there actually are unicorns.
Its not unreasonable at all to cross reference with what one can observe. You need a different word than "disingenuous", which I take to mean "false innocence".
. And that is precisely what reinterpretations of Genesis 1 in light of modern science do. They take ideas that the original authors were completely unaware of and force them on the text. In our field, we call that eisogesis, and it is disingenuous.


Suppose one took from the text that stars might actually fall on the earth. Its right there, that it will happen. People didnt know what stars were.

There is nothing "disingenuous" about observing that whatever might be the intent of the text, stars are not going to fall on us.
My fellow posters on this board, many of them OEC, would obviously disagree with my assesment. On that, they would say that I am wrong (remember what I said above -- you can't say something that turns out not to be true and not be wrong!). But that's a matter of disagreement between us. I don't doubt that they really believe OEC is true. But I do doubt that they get it from Scripture. I don't doubt their salvation or their Christianity. But I do doubt the veracity of their theology on this point
.

Some things cannot be worked out by arguing the meaning of text. In the year 1000, say, you'd never get to the fact that stars are not going to fall on us.

How would you go about doing that? I read you as saying that is unthinkable, out of the question to actually face this. I must have misunderstood.
Of course it isn't unthinkable. I gave you some examples of what that might look like already. Perhaps we would just have to deny the inerrancy of Scripture
.

Easy enough; it is unbiblical to say it is.


Those are the sorts of questions we would need to ask. I'm just saying I have no reason to ask them right now because I think the Bible is true. You don't
This is not the yes / no, black / white thing you present it as being. Please do not speak falsely of me.

And that's fine with me, because, for me, it's a matter of authority. I trust me that God told the truth, even when I don't understand it. You seem to trust your interpretation of observational evidence (or the interpretation of other human beings of observational evidence)
You are utterly unwilling to let observation guide your interpretation in any way shape of form? Surely not.
I figure we'll find out who trusted the right source when history is over (or, if you are right, and there is no God, then we'll actually never figure it out, because to die is just . . . the end . . .).
not Pascals Wager, oh surely you didnt bring that in...!!!!

I have a question for you in that regard tho. Would your God be approving if you attributed to him a monstrous act when no such thing ever occurred?

Give that some thought before you get back to me on it.

But if not..

I hate to see this as a bright line over which one cannot step. IF i have to think the flood was real, it would require of me intellectual dishonesty of the most profound sort. I dont see that happening.
Plenty of Christians deny the inerrancy of Scripture. I don't think they can be logically consistent and do so, but they do. Talk to neo-x. He is a theistic evolutionist. He denies that Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans. He has declared plainly on these boards that he thinks the Bible is wrong as it is written on this count. But he's still a Christian, and he's a Christian because he believes the gospel of Jesus Christ. All these debates over creation and the flood are interesting, but frankly, they really ought only be interesting within a Christian context. I couldn't care any less than I do what the Koran says about the miracles Jesus did as a baby (and it speaks to that). I don't believe the Koran, so it just doesn't interest me. It isn't even a curiosity. But if I were Muslim, I would suddenly care a great deal. Now, I'm not telling you (on purpose, anyway) what to be interested in and not. But frankly, I don't know why it matters to you one way or the other what the Bible says or what Christians say about the Genesis Flood.
The Bible does not proclaim itself to be inerrent.
Perhaps you could care about the politics of it, as in, perhaps you could care about public policy as it relates to the Flood (e.g., teaching creationism in public schools). But even that isn't an interest in whether or not Noah's Flood is canonical or inspired. That's a question about the relationship between Church and State.

The question runs deeper than that, and is far more important. The USA is in a disgraceful position with its horrible education system, letting itself lag behind so many other countries. Look at all the scientists and engineers coming from other countries to fill slots no American is able to fill.

Im going to get a bit rough here, but frankly, I see yec as a serious threat to the intellectual climate of the country.

I feel like Paul Revere sometimes. Yes its a digression, but there are all those millions of eager smart and highly motivated Asians who will not be the least bit sentimental about toppling the USA, and I do not believe any faith in any God is going to protect you.

I can go back to Hong Kong any time I like. What are you going to do?





It is a concern to me, though. Im not going into science after all, I was in that to please my father. My training now talks about things like "due diligence", and I have great concern for that.

The way a scientist works, a lot of it is just tedium, meticulous work, like an accountant going over the books, say, looking for where there might be error or fraud.

Then as they go along, they say, hmmmm, that looks isnteresting. Lets see where that takes us.

I cant leave things alone.

Im not writing this well, sorry. Too much else on my mind.

What if you, in your due diligence, were to find as the geologists etc have, that there just could not have been a world wide flood. What would you really do?

And what am I to do, if I must accept it, or reject the whole thing?
I get due dilligence, and I appreciate that. So let me put it this way. When it comes to considering Christianity, there are primary doctrines and there are secondary doctrines (and there are even tertiary doctrines!). If you go back to my reasoning for accepting the Genesis Flood as being true, you'll find I START with Jesus Christ. Were it not for Him, I probably wouldn't believe it to be true today. So the primary doctrine is the gospel of Jesus Christ. You need to decide whether or not you believe THAT. Once you come to a conclusion on that issue, then you can examine the theological and scientific questions relating to the Old Testament. There is an entire field of study on the relationship between the two testaments (the New and the Old). But before you get to it, you have to know whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him you have life in His name (John 20:31). That is a matter of historical studies, believe it or not. If I were you, I would say that to do your due dilligence, the first thing you need to do is read about Jesus. Who do scholars say He was? What do we know about Him when we think about Him historically? If you want to do your due dilligence, read books like Jesus Under Fire by J. P. Moreland. That is what I did when I was doing my due dilligence about fifteen years ago. I wanted to make sure that I believed what I did because it was true and not because I was taught it. I decided to keep an open mind and go where the evidence lead. And the evidence, so far as I understood it and so as my subsequent training proved to me, lead me to the Cross.

Second, to do you due dilligence, you need to read philosophy. Science is important. It has taken an outsized role in our lives today, not because it is unimportant, but because science is not identical with logic, and because lots of illogical people have made illogical conclusions about the world based on the work of scientists. The very best book I can recommend to you is Edward Feser's The Last Superstition. Beyond that, go to the Philosophy Forums here and ask, "Can someone walk me through the philosophical proofs for God's existence?" You'll have a lot to learn, but if you want to do your due dilligence, you'll get far.

But if you continue to try to ask theological questions and try to use science as your tool in answering them, not only will you fail to get your answer, but you'll fail to see why your answers are both incorrect and unhelpful, precisely because the questions you are asking are not scientific but theological and philosophical. And being theological and philosophical, your own answers will be theological and philosophical answers. Yet your training is not in those areas, and so you will think you are giving a scientific answer when you are not. As the cliche says, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

Now, I've written far more than enough . . . too much, I'm sure. But I hope SOMETHING in this wall of text I've offered you is at least similar to helpful. And if it isn't, forgive me for wasting your time. And I mean that sincerely, because you only have one life to life, and I hate to waste a single second of it. I've only said all of this because I have far too high opinion of myself, and somehow, I'm under the impression that something here might actually be worth a bit of your attention! :)
No, you're cool, you are not wasting my time. You may well be right about philosophical proof, and about hammers and nails. What, tho, of your own tool kit and
how you see things? Does it not apply also to you?
What if I am right about scientific disproof of said flood? Does philosophical proof of anything have a response to that?

I said before that I feel what i consider a tug, toward Christianity. Perhaps I could be persuaded or inspired to find that God, and Jesus are real as rain.

The way I see your particular faith tho, its not something I could possibly embrace.
If its a 3 legged stool, I am inquiring into the two possibly good legs, but I know the one made of vapour wont stand.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21374
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1077 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#93

Post by RickD » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:10 am

Audie,

By chance, have you looked at any of the old earth articles on the home site? Have you investigated theistic evolution as well? Christians believe in different creation beliefs. Believing in a young earth is not a requirement for salvation. As Jac said earlier, trusting Christ for salvation is the only requirement. Believe in Him, and He will help you with the secondary issues like creation beliefs.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#94

Post by Audie » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:18 am

RickD wrote:Audie,

By chance, have you looked at any of the old earth articles on the home site? Have you investigated theistic evolution as well? Christians believe in different creation beliefs. Believing in a young earth is not a requirement for salvation. As Jac said earlier, trusting Christ for salvation is the only requirement. Believe in Him, and He will help you with the secondary issues like creation beliefs.
No, I did not yet. Thanks for the suggestion.

I do, though, understand that its not a salvation requirement, anything but.
I have huge respect for my father in law, and he as a geologist and Christian has done more than anyone to make a path for me to follow, should I do so.

As for secondary issues, I wonder what is your take on my idea that one should avoid a belief in God having done things that clearly He did not do?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21374
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1077 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#95

Post by RickD » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:23 am

Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:Audie,

By chance, have you looked at any of the old earth articles on the home site? Have you investigated theistic evolution as well? Christians believe in different creation beliefs. Believing in a young earth is not a requirement for salvation. As Jac said earlier, trusting Christ for salvation is the only requirement. Believe in Him, and He will help you with the secondary issues like creation beliefs.
No, I did not yet. Thanks for the suggestion.

I do, though, understand that its not a salvation requirement, anything but.
I have huge respect for my father in law, and he as a geologist and Christian has done more than anyone to make a path for me to follow, should I do so.

As for secondary issues, I wonder what is your take on my idea that one should avoid a belief in God having done things that clearly He did not do?
Could you be more specific?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#96

Post by Audie » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:54 am

Would you agree in general to the principle?

And

What Old Earth article in particular would you recommend?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21374
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1077 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#97

Post by RickD » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:15 am

Audie wrote:Would you agree in general to the principle?

And

What Old Earth article in particular would you recommend?
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you asking me if I would believe something that the bible said happened, when my logic tells me it didn't happen?

As far as old earth articles, you can start here:
http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fm ... earch2.cgi
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#98

Post by Audie » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:28 am

RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:Would you agree in general to the principle?

And

What Old Earth article in particular would you recommend?
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you asking me if I would believe something that the bible said happened, when my logic tells me it didn't happen?

As far as old earth articles, you can start here:
http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fm ... earch2.cgi

Sorry about not being clear.

Here is an example. Read Kings, the value of Pi seems to be 3.
So one might conclude that is it.

Observation shows its not so. So do you change your reading of scripture, or, do you stick to it that D=10, C=30 gives Pi, as 3, and that is that?

Or, if you are satisfied yourself that yec is disproved, then, what of the practice of spreading this false reading of Gods work?

So I am wondering if you would agree or disagree in principle, that one should cross reference to see if there may be a more reasonable interpretation than the one a person may have chosen.

Thanks for the link, but it does not work.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21374
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 200 times
Been liked: 1077 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#99

Post by RickD » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:08 pm

Audie wrote:
Here is an example. Read Kings, the value of Pi seems to be 3.
So one might conclude that is it.
I'd never heard that one before. But this link's explanation seems reasonable.
Or, if you are satisfied yourself that yec is disproved, then, what of the practice of spreading this false reading of Gods work?
Personally, I think there are things that are not salvational, so believers are free to disagree.
So I am wondering if you would agree or disagree in principle, that one should cross reference to see if there may be a more reasonable interpretation than the one a person may have chosen.
Regarding YEC, I used to be one. Until I actually started studying the subject more in depth. So, I guess you could say I changed my interpretation of some scripture. But that's with a lot of what I believe. My interpretations I have now, certainly aren't what I had 20 years ago.
Thanks for the link, but it does not work.
Sorry. Try this.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#100

Post by Audie » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:34 pm

RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
Here is an example. Read Kings, the value of Pi seems to be 3.
So one might conclude that is it.
I'd never heard that one before. But this link's explanation seems reasonable.
No matter how you slice it, its not a problem for the Bible. its an example of how one might want to cross check a reading, with observation. With no external source of info to go by, the value of 3 is the simplest to derive.

Or, if you are satisfied yourself that yec is disproved, then, what of the practice of spreading this false reading of Gods work?
Personally, I think there are things that are not salvational, so believers are free to disagree.
Fair enough; but is it not somehow wrong, as there was no flood, to say there was, and that God did such horrific slaughter when in fact, no such thing occurred?
So I am wondering if you would agree or disagree in principle, that one should cross reference to see if there may be a more reasonable interpretation than the one a person may have chosen.
Not many people ever are able to let anything change their mind about their chosen reading. It may be in part because if they believe they are led by God to their understanding, then it cant be changed.
Regarding YEC, I used to be one. Until I actually started studying the subject more in depth. So, I guess you could say I changed my interpretation of some scripture. But that's with a lot of what I believe. My interpretations I have now, certainly aren't what I had 20 years ago.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#101

Post by Audie » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:40 pm

RickD wrote:
Thanks for the link, but it does not work.
Sorry. Try this.

Checked the link. It lost me right here...

Darwinian evolution (change through unguided naturalistic processes) is unbiblical, biologically untenable, and not supported by the fossil record. Old-earth creationists adamantly reject the Darwinian concept of common descent—the hypothesis that all plant, animal, and human life ultimately evolved from primitive single-celled organisms through unguided mutations and naturalistic processes.


If one is going to talk evidence for God, then they really do need to go where the evidence takes them, not pick and choose what they find (force) fits their preconceived ideas.

That is as intellectually dishonest as one could readily be. So is the deliberate or negligent misrepresentation of what evolution is about, down to the "Darwinian' thing. put in twice, and then mislabelling it as a hypothesis.

If one wants to argue against the theory of evolution, that is fine, its good sport to argue against any theory, all need to be vigorously challenged, lest they be stagnant dogma, and, however wrong, be perpetuated.

It is not worthwhile, its the opposite of an actual challenge to just make assertions such as those in bold. False and unsupportable assertions, not a fact or datum point to support them just make the challenging view look feckless and dishonest.

Einstein and his comment on how one experiment could disprove any of this theories..
Notice he did not say anything about sweeping assertions, with nothing to back them up.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#102

Post by Jac3510 » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:07 pm

Audie wrote:Where do you think the path of intellectual honesty lies?
I don't really understand your question. Intellectual honesty isn't "on" a path. It is the path.
Well, I have heard of this fellow. Here is something to look at, as to whether you'd want him speaking on behalf of anything you believe in.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm
I've read that article. I'm not sure what problem you think it shows. The fact that he has demonstrated he can practice science from within your philosophical framework somehow counts against him? By appealing to Ritchie (who is every bit as ideologically driven as Snelling) you seem to be presenting Ritchie's own damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't "argument." For if Snelling were to write from an explicitly YEC perspective, there's no way he would be granted any credentials. And then you would condemn him for not "understanding science." So he plays by your rules long enough to demonstrate that he has a very, very deep knowledge of the subject matter, now he's accused of not being "real"?
You do well to be skeptical of "pop" science, which is what he does, complete with youtube.
And are you as dismissive people like deGrasse and Hawking? Perhaps you are. I don't know. As I've said before, I'm not a trained scientist, so it wouldn't do be any good whatsoever to try to read his technical material. My point is just that he is one instance of someone who holds a PhD in science who holds to a young earth interpretation of the evidence.
Regarding whether there is evidence for a world wide flood, there certainly are things one could point to that, taken by themselves might well lead to that belief. Seashells in Kansas, say; I have found them myself.

As a larger picture emerges from studies all around the world ( you might well be surprised how extensively the earth's geology has been probed) one sees that a world wide flood simply cannot be supported by the evidence....
Says you. And why should I believe you? You say that a world wide flood can't be supported. Snelling, who has a PhD in geology, says it can. So, again, why should I take your position? Why should I put faith in YOU? Because the majority say so? You have to know why that doesn't work.
Possibly more to the point is that a hypothesis or theory can be, must be tested against all relevant data. If even one fact is contrary to it, the theory is simply wrong. As per Einsteins famous quote..

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Kind of like a single ice core showing an age far greater than any Biblical timeline shows there could not have been a world wide flood.
But YECs make the same kinds of claims and you don't take it seriously. You've just given me some popular science, the very thing you agreed with me I ought be skeptical of. So I see your ice core (and can point to scientists who have disputed the claim) and raise you soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. You can, of course, link to attempts to explain how that data does not, in fact, falsify the consensus. And then I can link to counter claims. So who "wins" . . . the one who gets the last link? Again, that's absurd. I'm not nearly educated enough to study the ice cores nor am I educated enough to study the proteins on the dino bones myself to discover if it comes from a TRex or if it is a contamination. Frankly, I doubt you have that kind of training, either. But perhaps you do. In any case, if nothing else, that shows that your "one experiment can falsify things" is a bit silly. Sure, it is theoretically true, but it never really works that way.
How did that become a fact? :D

As for "true or false" is that 100%? Is an approximation 100% correct?
The statement, "Moses parted the Red Sea" is not an approximation. It is a statement that is either true or false. You've done well so far. Please don't run off and refuse to say things that are obvious at this point. To your point, though, 1 Ki :23 IS an approximation, and is therefore not wrong as written.
Sheesh there you are again, saying what I believe for me. I do not believe the 'bible is wrong". I do believe that an awful lot of people think they are gifted with inerrant reading, and that they inerrently read different meanings.

Admit schamadit, i have nothing to "reluctantly confess". I see the Bible quite differently than you.
You just aren't being honest with the text. If God does not exist, then it is wrong when it attributes existence to Him. There's no "approximation" here. There's a statement of fact. If your "view" of the Bible refuses to interact with what the text actually says, then you aren't even doing any due diligence. If you want to know if Christianity is true, you have to know whether or not the Bible's claims are correct, and that requires recognizing what the text says. Frankly, I don't know why you are blustering on this. The text says that Moses parted the Red Sea. Specifically, it says:
  • Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. (Ex 14:21-22)
So did that happen or not? The Bible says it did. Is the Bible right or wrong on this count?
Not all of the text is claimed to be inspired. And nowhere does the Bible say that it is inerrent.
I notice you didn't answer my question. Care to do so? In the meantime, you are wrong. The Bible does claim that all the text is inspired: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). So here's another example. Either the Bible is right that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration or the Bible is wrong about that. So which is it?
Whether the Bible is 'wrong" in any place depends on how one reads it.
No it doesn't. That is disingenuous. If I said, 2+2=5, that wouldn't be right or wrong depending on how you read it. It would just be wrong. Just so, if Moses did not part the Red Sea, then the Bible is wrong. You can, of course, insist that it is wrong as written and then argue that it's little more than a myth, and that myths can't be WRONG after all, since they aren't attempting to tell history. But that doesn't help you, because it is still based on the premise that the Bible is wrong as it is written.
Suppose one took from the text that stars might actually fall on the earth. Its right there, that it will happen. People didnt know what stars were.

There is nothing "disingenuous" about observing that whatever might be the intent of the text, stars are not going to fall on us.
Stars falling from the sky is apocalyptic language. That was a genre well understood and intentionally employed by the author. So, once again, eisogesis is always disingenuous.
Some things cannot be worked out by arguing the meaning of text. In the year 1000, say, you'd never get to the fact that stars are not going to fall on us.
I've never said that EVERYTHING can be worked out by arguing the meaning of a text. I said that the meaning of every TEXT can be worked out by arguing about its meaning. Again, your star argument is a good example. That's a well known example of apocalyptic language. If you had gone through the studies I have, you would know what that genre is and how to recognize it. The only people who are confused on this matter are people who have not studied apocalyptic literature.
Easy enough; it is unbiblical to say it is.
Then you disagree with Jesus: "Scripture cannot be broken." You disagree with Paul: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Of course, proof texts are easy, but there are very deep studies that have been done on this as well. I refer you to the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and its related research. (This book would be a good start).
This is not the yes / no, black / white thing you present it as being. Please do not speak falsely of me.
I'm speaking charitably of you. You say you are an atheist. The Bible says the atheist is a fool (Ps 14:1). Either you disagree with the Bible or you think yourself a fool. Or you simply refuse to listen to what the Bible actually says, which makes you contumacious. I could, of course, read you in the worst possible light, if that is what you would prefer, but somehow, I doubt that would be your preference. I'm only following the Golden Rule, my friend.
You are utterly unwilling to let observation guide your interpretation in any way shape of form? Surely not.
Go back and reread what we've already said. I've given you two ways in which observation can be used to interpret a text.
not Pascals Wager, oh surely you didnt bring that in...!!!!
That's not Pascal's Wager. I'm very familiar with the wager, with the arguments against it, and with why it ought or ought not be used. You would do well not to assume that you know more than me about theology. You'v said yourself that you have no formal training on this matter. I've told you that I have had it. Do you really think that I would make such an elementary mistake? That's rather uncharitable of you. You would do much better before you make such silly posts to say to yourself, "Hmm, now that strikes me as Pascal's Wager, but Jac is clearly not so uneducated that he would make such an obvious mistake. I wonder, then, where I have failed to understand his argument?" For on that approach, you could simply ask for clarification. You would learn much more than way. Again, you said you want to do your due diligence. So do it. Part of that will be learning, not presuming that you already know.

Lastly, I'm not one to wave credentials, but since you have so unjustly impugned me here, you should know that I hold three degrees, two of them master's degrees, in this subject matter. I have presented papers at academic conferences, and I have taught at both the undergraduate and master's level. In addition to that, I have over 2000 hours of clinically supervised work in which I have applied this material in a clinical setting, my supervision coming from people with even more training than myself. I have also taught on the processional level on material such as the intersection between theology, philosophy, and psychology in doing clinical assessments of both acutely and chronically ill patients. I read Greek and Hebrew and can work my way through a Latin text, and I have two papers that are currently being considered for publication in peer reviewed journals, both rather technical.

I could continue, but those are some of my professional highlights. My only point it "boasting" is to suggest to you that you ought not assume I would make such ridiculous mistakes. And frankly, the kind of mistakes I would make are not the kind that you are going to be able to point out. I'm sure that if we were talking about science, the roles would be exactly reversed, and that is precisely why I would not challenge you on those matters. I'm sure I have far more than you to learn in that area of study.
I have a question for you in that regard tho. Would your God be approving if you attributed to him a monstrous act when no such thing ever occurred?
Read Job 42:7 and you tel me.
Give that some thought before you get back to me on it.
Why? Because you assume I haven't thought it through already? Here's a link to a paper I wrote two years ago (before I earned my second master's; I only say that to address any concern you might have for seeing only "M.A." after my name as well as to point out that not only have I thought this through, but I did so and have been using it as a basis for argument years ago).
The question runs deeper than that, and is far more important. The USA is in a disgraceful position with its horrible education system, letting itself lag behind so many other countries. Look at all the scientists and engineers coming from other countries to fill slots no American is able to fill.

Im going to get a bit rough here, but frankly, I see yec as a serious threat to the intellectual climate of the country.

I feel like Paul Revere sometimes. Yes its a digression, but there are all those millions of eager smart and highly motivated Asians who will not be the least bit sentimental about toppling the USA, and I do not believe any faith in any God is going to protect you.

I can go back to Hong Kong any time I like. What are you going to do?
Oh, please . . . are you really trotting out the idea that YEC holds back science? That's absurd. Do you know that the inventor of the MRI held to YEC beliefs? The inventor of TERRA? YEC scientist. I'm not going to go into all that. It's just silly for you to suggest that if you reject the consensus that the earth is billions of years old that you either can't do real science or that you will be hindered in learning it.

But because you raised it, in my view, what IS a serious intellectual threat is the censorship of secularists, like yourself. In fact, I know from my field that it is having an impact on people's actual health. You would do well to go to your local library and get access to Michael J. Balboni's article "A Theological Assessment of Spiritual Assessments" as a good example of what I am talking about. He holds a PhD as well as a ThM and works in the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Harvard, if that means anything to you). Again, a brilliant individual.
No, you're cool, you are not wasting my time. You may well be right about philosophical proof, and about hammers and nails. What, tho, of your own tool kit and
how you see things? Does it not apply also to you?
What if I am right about scientific disproof of said flood? Does philosophical proof of anything have a response to that?

I said before that I feel what i consider a tug, toward Christianity. Perhaps I could be persuaded or inspired to find that God, and Jesus are real as rain.

The way I see your particular faith tho, its not something I could possibly embrace.
If its a 3 legged stool, I am inquiring into the two possibly good legs, but I know the one made of vapour wont stand.
Of course that would apply to me. But my field is philosophy, and as such, I know, due to my field, how to distinguish between nails and screws. I also know that I am particularly well equipped to use one kind of tool, though not another. Beyond that, you don't know enough about my faith to know whether or not you could hold it. I've already said that everything you are talking to me about is really unimportant. These are secondary matters at best. The real issues are the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. Everything else is a matter of details. Rick disagrees with me on the interpretation of Genesis 1. He disagrees with me on Noah's Flood. But that's fine. We hold to the same faith. And if you held to the same faith as Rick and I, you and I could have a much more productive discussion about the age of the earth. But as it stands, there's very little we can say to each other.

As such, I then repeat the advice I gave to you before. First, get Feser's book. Second, spend the rest of your time on the philosophy boards talking about philosophical proofs for God's existence. And to add to that, if you want to talk about the Bible, spend time asking questions about Jesus and His resurrection. You do THAT, and you'll get much, much, much further. And please note the place that I'm coming from. On this, I am speaking directly out of my expertise. You can do with my advice what you want, of course. But I can tell you that if you were to get the same education I have, you would turn around and be giving yourself the same advice.

And, advice is cheap, so on that, I wish you all the best! Sorry you had to read this wall of text (assuming you managed to get through it). :)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8380
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 394 times
Been liked: 636 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#103

Post by Philip » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:31 pm

Note: If you fire at Jac with a mere capgun, he will return fire with a large-magazine submachinegun. And even if he doesn't kill you by airconditioning your torso, he'll kill you with the smoke from his wit! :pound: And while he'll frequently claim not to care what someone says, nonetheless, he'll still respond with a gazillion words to explain why he doesn't care, while simultaneously noting how clueless you are with a remarkably snarky, snobby, snooty, intellectual-sounding, and always-clever dis. :lol: He's part mild-mannered hospital chaplain, part Rambo, and part pitbull, so engage him at your own great risk. :pound:

Image

Jac, it would be dull around here without you and Rick! :D

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#104

Post by Audie » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:34 am

Philip wrote:Note: If you fire at Jac with a mere capgun, he will return fire with a large-magazine submachinegun. And even if he doesn't kill you by airconditioning your torso, he'll kill you with the smoke from his wit! :pound: And while he'll frequently claim not to care what someone says, nonetheless, he'll still respond with a gazillion words to explain why he doesn't care, while simultaneously noting how clueless you are with a remarkably snarky, snobby, snooty, intellectual-sounding, and always-clever dis. :lol: He's part mild-mannered hospital chaplain, part Rambo, and part pitbull, so engage him at your own great risk. :pound:

Jac, it would be dull around here without you and Rick! :D
That is not a submachine gun, it is just firecrackers you hear. Warding off evil. They dont really drive away evil spirits of course, but, we set them off anyway.

The smell does drive me away tho. I didnt come here to initiate such behaviour nor to return fire, however good I might be at it.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Why is young earth so important?

#105

Post by Audie » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:39 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:Where do you think the path of intellectual honesty lies?
I don't really understand your question. Intellectual honesty isn't "on" a path. It is the path.
Well, I have heard of this fellow. Here is something to look at, as to whether you'd want him speaking on behalf of anything you believe in.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm
I've read that article. I'm not sure what problem you think it shows. The fact that he has demonstrated he can practice science from within your philosophical framework somehow counts against him? By appealing to Ritchie (who is every bit as ideologically driven as Snelling) you seem to be presenting Ritchie's own damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't "argument." For if Snelling were to write from an explicitly YEC perspective, there's no way he would be granted any credentials. And then you would condemn him for not "understanding science." So he plays by your rules long enough to demonstrate that he has a very, very deep knowledge of the subject matter, now he's accused of not being "real"?
You do well to be skeptical of "pop" science, which is what he does, complete with youtube.
And are you as dismissive people like deGrasse and Hawking? Perhaps you are. I don't know. As I've said before, I'm not a trained scientist, so it wouldn't do be any good whatsoever to try to read his technical material. My point is just that he is one instance of someone who holds a PhD in science who holds to a young earth interpretation of the evidence.
Regarding whether there is evidence for a world wide flood, there certainly are things one could point to that, taken by themselves might well lead to that belief. Seashells in Kansas, say; I have found them myself.

As a larger picture emerges from studies all around the world ( you might well be surprised how extensively the earth's geology has been probed) one sees that a world wide flood simply cannot be supported by the evidence....
Says you. And why should I believe you? You say that a world wide flood can't be supported. Snelling, who has a PhD in geology, says it can. So, again, why should I take your position? Why should I put faith in YOU? Because the majority say so? You have to know why that doesn't work.
Possibly more to the point is that a hypothesis or theory can be, must be tested against all relevant data. If even one fact is contrary to it, the theory is simply wrong. As per Einsteins famous quote..

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Kind of like a single ice core showing an age far greater than any Biblical timeline shows there could not have been a world wide flood.
But YECs make the same kinds of claims and you don't take it seriously. You've just given me some popular science, the very thing you agreed with me I ought be skeptical of. So I see your ice core (and can point to scientists who have disputed the claim) and raise you soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. You can, of course, link to attempts to explain how that data does not, in fact, falsify the consensus. And then I can link to counter claims. So who "wins" . . . the one who gets the last link? Again, that's absurd. I'm not nearly educated enough to study the ice cores nor am I educated enough to study the proteins on the dino bones myself to discover if it comes from a TRex or if it is a contamination. Frankly, I doubt you have that kind of training, either. But perhaps you do. In any case, if nothing else, that shows that your "one experiment can falsify things" is a bit silly. Sure, it is theoretically true, but it never really works that way.
How did that become a fact? :D

As for "true or false" is that 100%? Is an approximation 100% correct?
The statement, "Moses parted the Red Sea" is not an approximation. It is a statement that is either true or false. You've done well so far. Please don't run off and refuse to say things that are obvious at this point. To your point, though, 1 Ki :23 IS an approximation, and is therefore not wrong as written.
Sheesh there you are again, saying what I believe for me. I do not believe the 'bible is wrong". I do believe that an awful lot of people think they are gifted with inerrant reading, and that they inerrently read different meanings.

Admit schamadit, i have nothing to "reluctantly confess". I see the Bible quite differently than you.
You just aren't being honest with the text. If God does not exist, then it is wrong when it attributes existence to Him. There's no "approximation" here. There's a statement of fact. If your "view" of the Bible refuses to interact with what the text actually says, then you aren't even doing any due diligence. If you want to know if Christianity is true, you have to know whether or not the Bible's claims are correct, and that requires recognizing what the text says. Frankly, I don't know why you are blustering on this. The text says that Moses parted the Red Sea. Specifically, it says:
  • Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. (Ex 14:21-22)
So did that happen or not? The Bible says it did. Is the Bible right or wrong on this count?
Not all of the text is claimed to be inspired. And nowhere does the Bible say that it is inerrent.
I notice you didn't answer my question. Care to do so? In the meantime, you are wrong. The Bible does claim that all the text is inspired: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). So here's another example. Either the Bible is right that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration or the Bible is wrong about that. So which is it?
Whether the Bible is 'wrong" in any place depends on how one reads it.
No it doesn't. That is disingenuous. If I said, 2+2=5, that wouldn't be right or wrong depending on how you read it. It would just be wrong. Just so, if Moses did not part the Red Sea, then the Bible is wrong. You can, of course, insist that it is wrong as written and then argue that it's little more than a myth, and that myths can't be WRONG after all, since they aren't attempting to tell history. But that doesn't help you, because it is still based on the premise that the Bible is wrong as it is written.
Suppose one took from the text that stars might actually fall on the earth. Its right there, that it will happen. People didnt know what stars were.

There is nothing "disingenuous" about observing that whatever might be the intent of the text, stars are not going to fall on us.
Stars falling from the sky is apocalyptic language. That was a genre well understood and intentionally employed by the author. So, once again, eisogesis is always disingenuous.
Some things cannot be worked out by arguing the meaning of text. In the year 1000, say, you'd never get to the fact that stars are not going to fall on us.
I've never said that EVERYTHING can be worked out by arguing the meaning of a text. I said that the meaning of every TEXT can be worked out by arguing about its meaning. Again, your star argument is a good example. That's a well known example of apocalyptic language. If you had gone through the studies I have, you would know what that genre is and how to recognize it. The only people who are confused on this matter are people who have not studied apocalyptic literature.
Easy enough; it is unbiblical to say it is.
Then you disagree with Jesus: "Scripture cannot be broken." You disagree with Paul: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Of course, proof texts are easy, but there are very deep studies that have been done on this as well. I refer you to the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and its related research. (This book would be a good start).
This is not the yes / no, black / white thing you present it as being. Please do not speak falsely of me.
I'm speaking charitably of you. You say you are an atheist. The Bible says the atheist is a fool (Ps 14:1). Either you disagree with the Bible or you think yourself a fool. Or you simply refuse to listen to what the Bible actually says, which makes you contumacious. I could, of course, read you in the worst possible light, if that is what you would prefer, but somehow, I doubt that would be your preference. I'm only following the Golden Rule, my friend.
You are utterly unwilling to let observation guide your interpretation in any way shape of form? Surely not.
Go back and reread what we've already said. I've given you two ways in which observation can be used to interpret a text.
not Pascals Wager, oh surely you didnt bring that in...!!!!
That's not Pascal's Wager. I'm very familiar with the wager, with the arguments against it, and with why it ought or ought not be used. You would do well not to assume that you know more than me about theology. You'v said yourself that you have no formal training on this matter. I've told you that I have had it. Do you really think that I would make such an elementary mistake? That's rather uncharitable of you. You would do much better before you make such silly posts to say to yourself, "Hmm, now that strikes me as Pascal's Wager, but Jac is clearly not so uneducated that he would make such an obvious mistake. I wonder, then, where I have failed to understand his argument?" For on that approach, you could simply ask for clarification. You would learn much more than way. Again, you said you want to do your due diligence. So do it. Part of that will be learning, not presuming that you already know.

Lastly, I'm not one to wave credentials, but since you have so unjustly impugned me here, you should know that I hold three degrees, two of them master's degrees, in this subject matter. I have presented papers at academic conferences, and I have taught at both the undergraduate and master's level. In addition to that, I have over 2000 hours of clinically supervised work in which I have applied this material in a clinical setting, my supervision coming from people with even more training than myself. I have also taught on the processional level on material such as the intersection between theology, philosophy, and psychology in doing clinical assessments of both acutely and chronically ill patients. I read Greek and Hebrew and can work my way through a Latin text, and I have two papers that are currently being considered for publication in peer reviewed journals, both rather technical.

I could continue, but those are some of my professional highlights. My only point it "boasting" is to suggest to you that you ought not assume I would make such ridiculous mistakes. And frankly, the kind of mistakes I would make are not the kind that you are going to be able to point out. I'm sure that if we were talking about science, the roles would be exactly reversed, and that is precisely why I would not challenge you on those matters. I'm sure I have far more than you to learn in that area of study.
I have a question for you in that regard tho. Would your God be approving if you attributed to him a monstrous act when no such thing ever occurred?
Read Job 42:7 and you tel me.
Give that some thought before you get back to me on it.
Why? Because you assume I haven't thought it through already? Here's a link to a paper I wrote two years ago (before I earned my second master's; I only say that to address any concern you might have for seeing only "M.A." after my name as well as to point out that not only have I thought this through, but I did so and have been using it as a basis for argument years ago).
The question runs deeper than that, and is far more important. The USA is in a disgraceful position with its horrible education system, letting itself lag behind so many other countries. Look at all the scientists and engineers coming from other countries to fill slots no American is able to fill.

Im going to get a bit rough here, but frankly, I see yec as a serious threat to the intellectual climate of the country.

I feel like Paul Revere sometimes. Yes its a digression, but there are all those millions of eager smart and highly motivated Asians who will not be the least bit sentimental about toppling the USA, and I do not believe any faith in any God is going to protect you.

I can go back to Hong Kong any time I like. What are you going to do?
Oh, please . . . are you really trotting out the idea that YEC holds back science? That's absurd. Do you know that the inventor of the MRI held to YEC beliefs? The inventor of TERRA? YEC scientist. I'm not going to go into all that. It's just silly for you to suggest that if you reject the consensus that the earth is billions of years old that you either can't do real science or that you will be hindered in learning it.

But because you raised it, in my view, what IS a serious intellectual threat is the censorship of secularists, like yourself. In fact, I know from my field that it is having an impact on people's actual health. You would do well to go to your local library and get access to Michael J. Balboni's article "A Theological Assessment of Spiritual Assessments" as a good example of what I am talking about. He holds a PhD as well as a ThM and works in the Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Harvard, if that means anything to you). Again, a brilliant individual.
No, you're cool, you are not wasting my time. You may well be right about philosophical proof, and about hammers and nails. What, tho, of your own tool kit and
how you see things? Does it not apply also to you?
What if I am right about scientific disproof of said flood? Does philosophical proof of anything have a response to that?

I said before that I feel what i consider a tug, toward Christianity. Perhaps I could be persuaded or inspired to find that God, and Jesus are real as rain.

The way I see your particular faith tho, its not something I could possibly embrace.
If its a 3 legged stool, I am inquiring into the two possibly good legs, but I know the one made of vapour wont stand.
Of course that would apply to me. But my field is philosophy, and as such, I know, due to my field, how to distinguish between nails and screws. I also know that I am particularly well equipped to use one kind of tool, though not another. Beyond that, you don't know enough about my faith to know whether or not you could hold it. I've already said that everything you are talking to me about is really unimportant. These are secondary matters at best. The real issues are the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. Everything else is a matter of details. Rick disagrees with me on the interpretation of Genesis 1. He disagrees with me on Noah's Flood. But that's fine. We hold to the same faith. And if you held to the same faith as Rick and I, you and I could have a much more productive discussion about the age of the earth. But as it stands, there's very little we can say to each other.

As such, I then repeat the advice I gave to you before. First, get Feser's book. Second, spend the rest of your time on the philosophy boards talking about philosophical proofs for God's existence. And to add to that, if you want to talk about the Bible, spend time asking questions about Jesus and His resurrection. You do THAT, and you'll get much, much, much further. And please note the place that I'm coming from. On this, I am speaking directly out of my expertise. You can do with my advice what you want, of course. But I can tell you that if you were to get the same education I have, you would turn around and be giving yourself the same advice.

And, advice is cheap, so on that, I wish you all the best! Sorry you had to read this wall of text (assuming you managed to get through it). :)
I did read it all. Brevity is said to be the soul of wit, something to keep in mind.
As for the golden rule, you might wish to review it. I wont engage in this kind of "discussion". Sorry to see thats how you want to be.

Post Reply