Evolution vs Creationism, Why are we having this silly debat

Post Reply New Topic

It is indeed your own spin. You are looking at the Old Testament and not doing exactly what it says. This is your own spin on it, it does not matter why you do it, the fact remains you pick and choose what you think is meant instead of actually reading it all and following it all.

And again, you are straight up saying that the bible does not say what it is saying. Two gospels are giving different lineages for Joseph, this is a contradiction. Was his father Jacob or Heli? Unless you want to claim that he was the son of two men and no woman was involved, which isn't biologically possible. So what if the people who wrote those gospels died rather than recant them? Why does that matter in the slightest? If someone dies instead of renouncing racism does that mean racism must be correct? After all, according to you, that persons death would make his ideas credible.

Like I said, no matter what I show you, you will rationalise it because you are blinded by your belief.

My copy of "Why I am Not a Christian" had a second section entitled "Skeptical Essays". I mistakenly referenced material from the second section. Sorry.
I believe that Russell's assumptions about what God would do if God existed are greater than the assumption that, if a god exists, that god would be more likely to reward those who pray seeking god than to punish those who seek god. Since neither set of assumptions is a subset of the other, I do not know how to prove this. Certainly, Russell has more assumptions. Also, my assumption is supported by the statements of many people who are believers. I do not think that Russell's assumptions have similar empirical support.
I am happy to see that we can reduce important parts of our disagreement to the somewhat concise problem about which assumptions are more reasonable. The bigger question, however, is what about the people such as myself, who have prayed and believe that they have been shown miracles in response to prayer?

Abacus said "So what if the people who wrote those gospels died rather than recant them? Why does that matter in the slightest? If someone dies instead of renouncing racism does that mean racism must be correct? After all, according to you, that persons death would make his ideas credible.
Like I said, no matter what I show you, you will rationalise it because you are blinded by your belief."

If someone were to die rather than recant racism, it would not make racism right. It would, however, be a very strong piece of evidence that the person sincerely believed in racism.
Similarly, the fact that authors of the NT willing died rather than recant what they wrote is very strong evidence that they believed in what they wrote. This implies that they were not making up Jesus' miracles.
I cannot see any reason that Mt or Luke would have had to make up geneologies for Jesus. Please think about that. If one of them were going to lie, is that the area about which he would choose to lie? Since there are interpretations which make those geneologies consistent, it makes sense for us to accept those interpretations. If any two people describe a sequence of events which they saw, it is likely that the descriptions will not be identical. Unless they unambiguously contradict, however, it would not make sense to assert that one of them is not telling the truth.

You don't have to lie (or make up stuff) in order to submit false information. The genealogies contradict each other => false information.

Also, it's very likely the authors of Matthew and Luke weren't aware of each others' writings at the time. Please have a good think about this.

I am also of the view that Luke and Matthew had not read each other's gospels prior to writing their own. A contradiction implies, however, that at least one of them lied or was not careful with his facts. The view that they were not careful with facts is what I would call the liberal Christian view. It is the view held by mainline Protestant denominations. I think that it is plausible.
My view is that if there is a plausible interpretation which makes all parts of the NT consistent, then we should take that interpretation. I have not found any parts of the NT for which there is no consistent interpretation which I find plausible. This methodology has the advantage that it often gives unique interpretations of areas (like divorce) which are otherwise controversial. It requires careful reading.
I find it plausible that Luke is giving the geneology of Mary. Another possibility relies on word usage. Matthew states that Jacob "begat" Joseph. Luke states that Heli "was the father of" Joseph. The difference in word choice may indicate that Jacob was the biological father while Heli had some other relationship which also qualified for the word "father".
I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe that my method leads to better interpretation.

Not to a better interpretation but to one that suits what you want to believe.

They were careful with what they wrote, though. Here's what I think happened at the time. These were people who wanted to convince the target readers that Jesus was born of David (and through the legal father even) so that they could be persuaded that Jesus really was indeed the Messiah who was prophesied to be of the seed of David.

Unfortunately, for them, it was a difficult task as it entailed having to figure out which of the Davidic genealogies of Jesus that arose at the time was the more accurate one (when, in fact, none of them was correct, as Jesus was likely not historically of David's seed anyway). Based on careful thinking, each of them came up with what he believed was the right one for Jesus and probably made some suitable adjustments somewhere in the genealogy accepted to fit his own theological purposes.

So no intended lying necessarily went on. Just two "historians" figuring out what each saw were the correct events and traditions pertaining to Jesus.

It's really not black or white.

I disagree that my method "suits what (I) want to believe". Finding the interpretation which is consistent across multiple verses reduces my choices. Often, there is a unique result. I believe, however, that this is the correct method since the Bible tells us to look at (the Hebrew equivalent of) each syllable and punctuation mark. That detailed observation, by the way, leads to Christian interpretation of the OT. For example, in the first line of the Bible, where it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", the Hebrew word used for God is "Elohim". That is plural. It is one of many verses for which the exact word choices are difficult to explain except in light of Christ.

ProfessorP, the issue is that we have multiple rewarded groups for seeking incompatible deities.

The problematic assumptions are in regards to knowing the divine, as there are all sorts of problems that make this difficult.

Russell's assumptions about goodness are perfectly fine. Additionally, your model fails due to multiple religions. In fact, most of them are logical definitions that most people would uphold, the question is really whether they close in on their goals, and that's a matter of some argument, but a large number of people consider the theistic side to just be a matter of dragging heels rather than a real debate partner.


The answer is EVERY SINGLE SODDING RELIGION has this. Poorer nations say they have MORE OF THIS HAPPEN. When you start to grasp this, then you will realize that your simplistic models appear kind of silly.

I don't see how much more there is to say at this point. Most of your supports fail to be persuasive because they are too easily duplicated by false beliefs.(and we know those beliefs are false because at minimum they exclude each other)

I think evolution is the most likely.......however evolution does not really dis-prove there is an intelligent force in the universe, and the idea of an intelligent force in the universe or god does not really disprove evolution. So I do find it a bit ridiculous how often people seem to fight over that.

Pascal's wager would certainly apply to false religions. It is an argument to seek God, but not necessarily an argument for Christianity.
As I stated much earlier, the existence of God is an empirical matter which cannot be resolved by pure logic. (Even that, by the way is Biblical.) The best empirical evidence is that the writers of the NT observed many miracles during Jesus' life, with His resurrection, and through themselves after Pentacost. Many practicing Christians have observed similar evidence, and the vast majority of those observers are not crazy. Some people choose to believe this evidence while others choose to deny it, and the strength of the evidence seems to have little bearing on people's choice in this. (That also is Biblical).

How coincidental that none of this "evidence" ever seems to appear to people that don't believe in the first place.

Evidence appears to both believers and unbelievers. Years ago an atheistic fellow faculty member managed to get on my tenure committee and voted against me. I received tenure anyway, but found myself hating this person. I prayed to not hate him but to love him instead. Within a week, the faculty member was diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas. He underwent an operation during which the physicians concluded that the cancer had metastacized. They did not want to remove the tumor, and told him that he had only a month or two to live. Other faculty hated this person so much, that at the next faculty meeting they told him they were glad they he would not be around to vote against them.
I had begun attending a student prayer meeting (my first experience with group prayer), and students prayed with me for this person. I went to the faculty member and offered to pray with him. He accepted the offer. At the end of the prayer, he jumped up and said that he felt perfect. He showed no signs of cancer after that until near his death some ten years later. He came to a student prayer meeting and told me that he saw a glow around us as we prayed. The students and I prayed for four other cancer patients in succession, each of whom had been diagnosed as terminal. One had already collected viatical benefits from his life insurance. All four of these patients became well and lived for years. After that, word of this got around my campus and many people began asking for prayer on terminal illnesses. Somehow, this healing stopped, and the other people were not healed.
This is just one of many miracles I have personally witnessed, but I mention it since it involves a miracle for an avowed atheist.

...mhm.

Faith healing works in the same way a placebo does, if someone believes it will work there is a good chance it will work.

Please keep in mind that this person had told me that he was "a confirmed atheist". (Of course, he did agree to pray with me, so he apparently had some belief at that moment. Also, in the Gospel's Jesus did not do many miracles in his home townbecause of their lack of belief)
Also, I do not think that placebos work on metastacized cancer.

Last edited by ProfessorP on 27 Jan 2012, 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fair enough. Do you have any proof of this happening? Clip from a newspaper? Segment on a news program?

Or am I expected to take your word on faith?

I can probably get other people who witnessed this to confirm. Otherwise, this did not appear in any newspapers.
I have experienced many other miracles, but mostly there is only myself and maybe a couple of other people who can confirm them.
The Bible tells us that God shall not be put to the test. This may be part of that.