Prayer and power

[Genesius]

Well, Kettle, I'm going to be presumtious and go with the idea that you're not really interested. You can chew on your false dilemma for a while. Be sure to skin it first.

Gene

Nice way to avoid the question, Gene. Now I've got another one for you:

You said that John 14:13-14 and God's promise to grant all prayers only applied to the disciples, because that's who Jesus was talking to at the time.

Promise Jesus made to the apostles:

• And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

• So how about Matthew 28:16-20?

28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

28:17 And when they saw him,they worshipped him: but some doubted.

28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

These verses, commonly known as the Great Commission, are taken by Christians to this day as orders to spread Christianity throughout the world. But, according to your logic, since Jesus was speaking to the Apostles the Great Commission only applied to them and modern Christians are under no obligation to spread anything.

Would you agree?

 

[Bri]

No, this is wrong. Bri, you are not arguing. You are simply asserting.

Of course I'm not arguing, but rather asserting that the arguments thus far presented are lacking. It is up to the person making the claim that the Christian belief in prayer is incoherent to provide evidence to support that claim. So far I've seen little. Certainly not enough to proclaim that the Christian belief in prayer is necessarily incoherent. That's what I meant when I said in a previous post that although I don't disagree with many of your points, I think you're overstating your case.

Please don't make my argument for me. No. That is not my argument. I realize that it would be easier for you to argue what you want to argue but it's really not helping. Could we stick to my argument?

The implication that I'm attempting to somehow make my argument any easier is unfounded, particularly since, as you noted, I don't really have an argument.

It would be much easier to show that the scripture must be interpreted in such a way that it is necessarily incoherent (i.e. that God grants any and all prayers) than to show that a significant number of Christians actually believe such an interpretation. I doubt you can show a single Christian who currently holds such a belief, much less a significant number.

Based on what theory?

Based on a lack of evidence that the Christian interpretation of the scripture (much less any Christian belief based on that interpretation) is necessarily incoherent. In fact, I haven't seen any Christian interpretation of the scripture presented at all -- only your interpretation which is entirely irrelevant.

One more time. I'm not pushing an interpretation. I'm demonstrating the inconsistency of believing that God answers prayers, the history of Christian miracles and the fact that there is no evidence that such miracles happen today. That's it.

It appears to me that any inconsistency of belief you've demonstrated is based entirely on a particular inconsistent interpretation of the scripture. Otherwise, you have presented no evidence of an inconsistency in any belief concerning prayer held by anyone.

That there is no evidence of miracles today isn't in dispute at all -- it simply doesn't advance any theory of inconsistency of Christian belief unless you can show that Christians believe that there should be evidence of miracles today.

And schizophrenics can and do reconcile the voices in their head. You are missing the point. Do Christians reconcile their beliefs with logic, reason and the objective evidence?

Yes I imagine that most do, at least as much as you're using logic, reason, and objective evidence to show that their belief is necessarily inconsistent.

If I say I can walk on water you might be able to reconcile your belief that I'm telling the truth but can you reconcile that belief with the laws of physics?

To my knowledge, most Christians don't believe God to be limited by the laws of physics. In order to demonstrate an inconsistency of belief, you would have to show that Christians would have reason to believe that God must never violate the laws of physics.

Again, you are not making an *argument. This is just an assertion. I can't address it since there is nothing to address. I can assert that an invisivle unicorn lives in my garage but who cares? Can you make an argument that would appeal to the intelect, that relies on premise and inference to help us arrive at a conclusion?

I'm sorry, did I suggest that I was making an argument other than that the evidence presented is insufficient to support the conclusion that the Christian belief in prayer is inconsistent?

This is not responsive. I'm saying that there is a lack of objective evidence that they are rational.

Surely you're not claiming that a belief is irrational by default, are you? If so, what amount of evidence must be presented to deem a belief rational? A lot of strong atheists, people who believe that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system, and nearly anyone else with an opinion (a belief without proof) might take exception to someone insisting that their opinions are all irrational until they provide what others deem to be sufficient evidence.

That said, the claim that Christian belief in prayer is incoherent simply has not been shown to be true. If a Christian belief in prayer were shown to be incoherent, I would agree that it would also be irrational. Since no Christian belief in prayer has been shown to be incoherent, then I would hesitate to use the word "irrational" to characterize such belief. To do so would also categorize other beliefs -- particularly opinions such as those listed above -- as irrational.

I've said it before and I will say it again (sadly you will likely ask it again). No. I don't know that for a fact. I don't know for a fact that the voices a schizophrenic hears are not real.

You can understand my confusion since you said in your previous post "I'm saying that the fact that these miracles do not happen today is a good indication that they never happened" (emphasis mine). Now you seem to be saying that you don't know for a fact that they don't happen today, so you'll have to forgive me for asking for clarification.

I provisionally hold that such miracles don't happen just as I hold that pigs don't fly. I could be wrong. There could be a pig out there somewhere that is flying right now. But based on the laws of physics, logic and reason it is irrational to suppose that pigs can fly.

Since you admit that you could be wrong when you say that pigs don't fly, then it seems that you suppose it possible that pigs do fly. So what makes the opinion that pigs can fly necessarily irrational but the opinion that pigs can't fly rational, particularly in light of the possibility that pigs can and do fly?

You: A soda can coming out of a machine is not a miracle because its explanation can be understood without asserting divine intervention.

Sorry, that's not what I said. I said that a soda can coming out of a machine could be a miracle (for example, if the machine was empty).

Me: So called miracles are not miracles because their explanation can be understood without asserting divine intervention.

The above example of a soda can coming out of an empty machine can (and likely would) be understood without asserting divine intervention if the person didn't know the machine was empty. That would not preclude the event from being a miracle.

Who said that miracles are only things that are not impossible?

Why call something that is possible a miracle (by miracle I mean in the religious sense)?

Perhaps too many negatives. Rewritten, my sentence says: Who said that miracles are only things that are possible? Clearly, the example of the empty soda machine is a miracle since it is otherwise impossible for an empty machine to produce a soda can.

I also pointed out that even if something could be entirely understood without asserting divine intervention doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a miracle. If you were to bet your house on the roll of a 6-sided die landing on a 4, 5, or 6, and without divine intervention the die would land on a 3, but God decides to make it land on a 6 instead, that would also constitute a miracle even though you might never know it.

miracle
n a marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of God

I prefer Webster's:

miracle
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

An event is extraordinary if it wouldn't have happened without divine intervention, regardless of whether it has another (incorrect) explanation or not, and regardless of how impressed people are by the event.

I note that you ignored my points about flying by virtue of flapping my arms and my encounter with the talking snake. Those were good arguments I'm disappointed you would not address them.

I did answer them, though not directly. I would not likely believe someone who claimed without evidence to converse with a snake or to fly. Whether I would discount such beliefs as necessarily irrational would depend on the nature of the belief and the reasons for the belief. Nor do I discount your belief that such events have never occurred as necessarily irrational even though you cannot present evidence that they have never occurred.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Of course I'm not arguing, but rather asserting that the arguments thus far presented are lacking.

??? I don't think you get this argument thing. Ok, you assert that my argument is lacking. That's fine. That is your opinion. Do you have any reason for anyone else besides yourself to agree?

It is up to the person making the claim that the Christian belief in prayer is incoherent to provide evidence to support that claim. So far I've seen little. Certainly not enough to proclaim that the Christian belief in prayer is necessarily incoherent. That's what I meant when I said in a previous post that although I don't disagree with many of your points, I think you're overstating your case.

I can't make someone accept what they won't accept. You are entitled to an opinion.

The implication that I'm attempting to somehow make my argument any easier is unfounded, particularly since, as you noted, I don't really have an argument.

Fair enough. Thanks for your opinion.

It would be much easier to show that the scripture must be interpreted in such a way that it is necessarily incoherent (i.e. that God grants any and all prayers) than to show that a significant number of Christians actually believe such an interpretation.

Again, completely beside the point. But thanks.

Based on a lack of evidence that the Christian interpretation of the scripture (much less any Christian belief based on that interpretation) is necessarily incoherent. In fact, I haven't seen any Christian interpretation of the scripture presented at all -- only your interpretation which is entirely irrelevant.

At risk of arguing ad nauseam, their interpretation isn't at issue. Sorry.

It appears to me that any inconsistency of belief you've demonstrated is based entirely on a particular inconsistent interpretation of the scripture. Otherwise, you have presented no evidence of an inconsistency in any belief concerning prayer held by anyone.

No, but let's be clear here, we are simply talking about your opinion. Since you have no argument and it is only opinion then there isn't much more to add.

That there is no evidence of miracles today isn't in dispute at all -- it simply doesn't advance any theory of inconsistency of Christian belief unless you can show that Christians believe that there should be evidence of miracles today.

??? All I can say is, bizarre. But thanks.

Yes I imagine that most do, at least as much as you're using logic, reason, and objective evidence to show that their belief is necessarily inconsistent.

I would ask you to demonstrate this but I suspect that it would be a waste of my time. Thank you for the opinion.

To my knowledge, most Christians don't believe God to be limited by the laws of physics. In order to demonstrate an inconsistency of belief, you would have to show that Christians would have reason to believe that God must never violate the laws of physics.

I think you found an irrational belief there. Don't worry about it. It's just an opinion on your part.

I'm sorry, did I suggest that I was making an argument other than that the evidence presented is insufficient to support the conclusion that the Christian belief in prayer is inconsistent?

Nope, I stand corrected. You are simply spouting opinions. Did I thank you for them yet? We'll, let me thank you now. I appreciate your opinion. I don't agree. I don't see why anyone else should agree but Ed knows you are entitled to that opinion.

Surely you're not claiming that a belief is irrational by default, are you?

{sigh} No.

If so, what amount of evidence must be presented to deem a belief rational?

Asked and answered.

• A belief that pigs can fly is irrational because the belief is counter to the laws of physics.
• Believing that John has magical powers to make pigs fly when no one is looking is irrational because it IS STILL counter to the laws of physics. Inserting magical thinking does not overcome irrationality.

A lot of strong atheists, people who believe that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system, and nearly anyone else with an opinion (a belief without proof) might take exception to someone insisting that their opinions are all irrational until they provide what others deem to be sufficient evidence.

None of these beliefs are counter to the laws of physics. Your argument does not hold water.

That said, the claim that Christian belief in prayer is incoherent simply has not been shown to be true. f a Christian belief in prayer were shown to be incoherent, I would agree that it would also be irrational. Since no Christian belief in prayer has been shown to be incoherent, then I would hesitate to use the word "irrational" to characterize such belief. To do so would also categorize other beliefs -- particularly opinions such as those listed above -- as irrational.

I'll skip the rebuttal since you have stated that you are not arguing. Again, thank you for the opinion. You are wrong.

You can understand my confusion since you said in your previous post "I'm saying that the fact that these miracles do not happen today is a good indication that they never happened" (emphasis mine). Now you seem to be saying that you don't know for a fact that they don't happen today, so you'll have to forgive me for asking for clarification.

Sure, there is no evidence that they have happened.

• There is no evidence that pigs can fly.
• There is no evidence that there are invisible unicorns (you don't have one by chance do you?)

1. I hold provisionally that these miracles do not happen today.
2. I hold provisionally that pigs can't fly.

Please tell which if either you have a problem with and why?

Since you admit that you could be wrong when you say that pigs don't fly, then it seems that you suppose it possible that pigs do fly. So what makes the opinion that pigs can fly necessarily irrational but the opinion that pigs can't fly rational, particularly in light of the possibility that pigs can and do fly?

I'm not sure if I can take you seriously. Are you being serious? Do you think pigs can fly? (unaided of course).

Sorry, that's not what I said. I said that a soda can coming out of a machine could be a miracle (for example, if the machine was empty).

That was exactly the inference drawn. If it were empty then the only answer would be divine intervention.

The above example of a soda can coming out of an empty machine can (and likely would) be understood without asserting divine intervention if the person didn't know the machine was empty. That would not preclude the event from being a miracle.

Sorry, the machine is empty. Please readdress the hypothetical?

Perhaps too many negatives. Rewritten, my sentence says: Who said that miracles are only things that are possible? Clearly, the example of the empty soda machine is a miracle since it is otherwise impossible for an empty machine to produce a soda can.

And my point stands. Thank you.

You: An empty soda machine can only dispense sodas with divine intervention.

Me: There are no documented instances of impossible events happening.

Severely retarded children are never healed.
Missing limbs never regrow.

Those are provisional (falsifiable) statements (important please note the preceding). Prove me wrong. Give me the proof. Absent that, and given the thousands of examples, all negative that we know of, my point stands.

I also pointed out that even if something could be entirely understood without asserting divine intervention doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a miracle.

And I proved that by definition you are wrong.

If you were to bet your house on the roll of a 6-sided die landing on a 4, 5, or 6, and without divine intervention the die would land on a 3, but God decides to make it land on a 6 instead, that would also constitute a miracle even though you might never know it.

Sorry, you are wrong. Please re-read the definition. Why the hell do you suppose I posted it in the first place?

I prefer Webster's:
miracle
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

Hey Bri, let me ask you a question, if I don't know that god made the dice land on 6 how the hell would that manifest God?

Perhaps you should look up the word manifest?

An event is extraordinary if it wouldn't have happened without divine intervention, regardless of whether it has another (incorrect) explanation or not, and regardless of how impressed people are by the event.

??? Huh?

I did answer them, though not directly. I would not likely believe someone who claimed without evidence to converse with a snake or to fly.

Why?

Whether I would discount such beliefs as necessarily irrational would depend on the nature of the belief and the reasons for the belief.

Belief is not something that magically makes the irrational rational.

Nor do I discount your belief that such events have never occurred as necessarily irrational even though you cannot present evidence that they have never occurred.

This is fallacy. You are arguing from ignorance.

A.) It is irrational to believe the impossible is possible.
B.) It is rational to believe that the impossible is impossible.

You are trying to equate A & B.

Bri, A != B.

That is, BY DEFINITION, irrational.

If you don't know that then take a course in logic.

I'm sorry Bri but your post is largely silly and illogical. It is really hard to take you seriously. You are making a lot of errors. Some of them are very basic errors in simple logic. Take some time to think through these things. Your last argument, and YES, IT IS AN ARGUMENT, is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[empeake]

I prefer Webster's:

miracle
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

An event is extraordinary if it wouldn't have happened without divine intervention, regardless of whether it has another (incorrect) explanation or not, and regardless of how impressed people are by the event.

How do you ascertain that there was divine intervention, specially if there is a more "earthly" explanation for the event? Is it just a matter of faith? Also, "extraordinary" does not always mean "good". An extraordinary calamity could also be considered a miracle, by this definition.

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

I suspect you are making a fundamental error in thinking that since there are many logical and rational Christians then their beliefs must all be logical and rational. Sadly no. It is true that some of the greatest minds of all time belonged to Christians and other theists, St. Thomas, Blasé Pascal, George Boole, Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant to name my personal favorites.

I have often defended the ability of theists to be logical and rational. That they are does not mean that they always are.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Genesius,
On the one hand you say....



then on the other hand you say...

• I don't agree that Jesus said anything

Ever heard of the concept of "speaking within the mythology?" In the bible, Jesus says stuff. This doesn't mean that a person needs to agree with it, believe it really was said or that Jesus even existed.

 

[AgingYoung]

thaiboxerken,

That's too funny. Your campaign looking button reminds me of limo democrats speaking within the mythology that they're poor (like Senator Kennedy.)

Genesius wants to exclude the possibility that Jesus wasn't talking to the church when he was at the last supper speaking to the apostles. If you look at the record of the first century church (in acts) you can see there's a difference between what the aposltes can do and the average christian. It's always been that way.

Gene

 

[Ossai]

I less than three logic

Originally Posted by AgingYoung
yet since you seem comfortable in your beliefs I wouldn't want to rock your boat.

Anyone know that he was talking about here? 'Cause this make no sense whatsoever.

I was speaking of knowledge we’ve gained since the bable was written.


AgingYoung

2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

We are presently discussing point 2 of the premise you're using to support your conditional conclusion and your allegation of a strawman.

Since I less than three logic already answered I’ll just quote him.

You mean like taking the claim "at least large sections, are obviously not true" and distorting it down to a single example, then dismiss that example and pretend it refutes the claim?

Are you wanting a listing of knowledge that we now have that contradicts what is stated in the bible? Easily provided, go pick up a ninth grade physical science book.

I guess you'd rather not address the accusation of 'straw man'. I'll remove the bold points from your laundry list.

Answered in this post.

Everyone has two geneologies (mother and father) which answers the 2nd bold text. Either thru Joseph or Mary Jesus has a lineage traced to King David.

Yet both genealogies are reportedly for Joseph, at least according to the text. Even if you argue that they are two separate genealogies, they still don’t match (multigenerational gap on both sides – yes it is on both sides because both genealogies mention the same people a number of times - or ‘that tree don’t branch’).

yet in the example I gave (that you called a strawman) you can see that as we know more about the past thru archeology, the new information bolsters the biblical accounts and removes former objections. Given that it could go either way I think you're overstating your case with your 2nd premise.

Apparently you do want that list. I'll start with some easy ones.
The Earth isn’t flat.
The Earth orbits the sun.
The moon orbits the Earth.
The moon is not a source of light.
Damascus is still inhabited (not quite ‘current knowledge’ just another biblical assertion proven wrong)



elliotfc

Personally, I have faith in the bible because it satisfactorily addresses all of my deepest personal philosophical questions and I see a ton of beauty and truth in it and I am satisfied with the behavior of those who knew Christ.

Finding beauty in the eternal torment of others.

Ossai

 

[Tricky]

Bri,

I suspect you are making a fundamental error in thinking that since there are many logical and rational Christians then their beliefs must all be logical and rational. Sadly no. It is true that some of the greatest minds of all time belonged to Christians and other theists, St. Thomas, Blasé Pascal, George Boole, Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant to name my personal favorites.

I have often defended the ability of theists to be logical and rational. That they are does not mean that they always are.

I don't know anybody who is always logical and rational. I pride myself on appreciating all of the creatures on earth, though I avoid some. Snakes, spiders, bats, leeches, slugs. None of these things bother me to see or (if safe) touch. But if I see a cockroach and especially if one walks on me, I freak out. Logically, I know cockroaches are not dangerous, nor do they carry disease, but I cannot make logic work when that glistening carapace is near. I'm grossed out just writing about it.

 

[Genesius]

thaiboxerken,

That's too funny. Your campaign looking button reminds me of limo democrats speaking within the mythology that they're poor (like Senator Kennedy.)

Genesius wants to exclude the possibility that Jesus wasn't talking to the church when he was at the last supper speaking to the apostles. If you look at the record of the first century church (in acts) you can see there's a difference between what the aposltes can do and the average christian. It's always been that way.

Gene

So how about answering my last post? Only the disciples were present when Jesus gave them the Great Commission. Does that mean the Commission applied only to the Disciples?

 

[Bri]

How do you ascertain that there was divine intervention, specially if there is a more "earthly" explanation for the event? Is it just a matter of faith? Also, "extraordinary" does not always mean "good". An extraordinary calamity could also be considered a miracle, by this definition.

I don't know that it's possible to ascertain that there was divine intervention if there is a more "earthly" explanation. But that would only be a problem for Christians if the purpose of the miracle was to allow us to ascertain that it was a miracle. The belief that there are miracles is undoubtedly a matter of faith, like the belief that God exists. Yes, an extraordinary calamity (one that would not have otherwise occurred without divine intervention) would certainly qualify as a miracle by this definition.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

??? I don't think you get this argument thing. Ok, you assert that my argument is lacking. That's fine. That is your opinion. Do you have any reason for anyone else besides yourself to agree?

The question is whether there is reason for anyone to agree with your conclusions, since my opinion is that your argument is lacking until you can show an example of a Christian who holds the belief that you claim is incoherent. Still, I gave reasons for my opinion, unlike most of your post.

I can't make someone accept what they won't accept. You are entitled to an opinion.

Thanks. And of course, that seems to go for you too.

No, but let's be clear here, we are simply talking about your opinion. Since you have no argument and it is only opinion then there isn't much more to add.

Yes, it is my opinion that you haven't presented a single Christian belief that is incoherent. Actually, you haven't presented a single Christian belief at all. So it seems that it is only your opinion that Christian belief in prayer is incoherent. Shall I dismiss your opinions as you've dismissed every opinion that opposes yours?

Sure, there is no evidence that they have happened.

There is no difinitive evidence that they have happened, of course. And no difinitive evidence that they have never happened either. So is it a fact that they have never happened as you initially claimed, or just your opinion?

• There is no evidence that pigs can fly.
• There is no evidence that there are invisible unicorns (you don't have one by chance do you?)

1. I hold provisionally that these miracles do not happen today.
2. I hold provisionally that pigs can't fly.

Please tell which if either you have a problem with and why?

As I've already indicated, I have no problem with either. It is your opinion, and one that I happen to agree with. However, you're the one who claims that opinions are irrational, particularly those that are in opposition to your own.

I'm not sure if I can take you seriously. Are you being serious? Do you think pigs can fly? (unaided of course).

Of course I don't think pigs can fly. However, I also don't think that it is necessarily irrational for someone to believe that they can or do if they happen to have a rational reason for believing it. No, I can't tell you what such a reason might be, but neither can I say that it's not possible to have a rational opinion that pigs can fly.

You: An empty soda machine can only dispense sodas with divine intervention.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? Of course I never said that.

Those are provisional (falsifiable) statements (important please note the preceding). Prove me wrong. Give me the proof. Absent that, and given the thousands of examples, all negative that we know of, my point stands.

And I entirely agree with your opinion that these things don't happen. Nonetheless, I don't find you to be at all irrational for having your opinion. Nor do I find it necessarily irrational to have the opposing opinion.

And I proved that by definition you are wrong.

OK, if you believe that a miracle only occurs if it is obvious, then the example with the die (and possibly even the soda machine unless someone knew it was empty) isn't a miracle. No less impressive in my book, but perhaps not a miracle by that definition, since it doesn't meet the requirement of being obvious. If that was your point, then I concede.

This is fallacy. You are arguing from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance is to claim that something is false only because it hasn't been proven true, or to assume that something is true only because it hasn't been proven false. I have not assumed that miracles have or have not occurred. On the contrary, you have assumed that miracles have not occurred only because they have not been proven to have occurred -- a classic example of argument from ignorance.

If you don't know that then take a course in logic.

I'm sorry Bri but your post is largely silly and illogical. It is really hard to take you seriously. You are making a lot of errors. Some of them are very basic errors in simple logic. Take some time to think through these things. Your last argument, and YES, IT IS AN ARGUMENT, is demonstrably fallacious.

In light of the above, this doesn't require a response.

-Bri

 

[thaiboxerken]

Genesius wants to exclude the possibility that Jesus wasn't talking to the church when he was at the last supper speaking to the apostles.

Who said that? I'm simply agreeing that the character Jesus said what he was quoted as saying, as far as the bible is concerned. I'm also poining out that a person can criticize fiction without actually believing the fiction which refutes your position that someone is a hypocrite to quote jesus and not follow jesus's advice.

If you think Jesus words were only meant for those disciples, fine. However, why do you follow the rest of anything Jesus has to say, since the vast majority of it was only said to the disciples (according to the mythology)? So if the last supper was only addressed to the disciples, aren't communion rituals not part of what jesus wanted people in the church to do?

 

[Bri]

I suspect you are making a fundamental error in thinking that since there are many logical and rational Christians then their beliefs must all be logical and rational.

No. What I am saying is that Christian belief may be wrong, but it is consistent and may in fact be right.

Given that, I would hesitate to call it irrational, otherwise other opinions that cannot be proven must also be irrational.

-Bri

 

[thaiboxerken]

No. What I am saying is that Christian belief may be wrong, but it is consistent and may in fact be right.

Which denomination are you talking about?

Given that, I would hesitate to call it irrational, otherwise other opinions that cannot be proven must also be irrational.

It is irrational because it's not based on any valid reasoning or logic.

 

[AgingYoung]

Ossai,
When you said....

I was speaking of knowledge we’ve gained since the bable was written.

That's precisely what the example (there are quite a few examples) of the discovery of the ruins of Nineveh speaks to.

Now that is if by 'bable' you mean bible and not your posts. But since you've been posting about this matter a new discovery...

Archaeologists call it the "Port of Theodosius
Sat Jul 22, 11:01 PM ET

So far, the 17 archaeologists, three architects and some 350 workers at the site have found what they think might be a church, a gated entrance to the city and eight sunken ships, which have Pulak particularly excited

...has been found.

Premises:

1. the bible, or at least large sections, are obviously not true
2. other sections contradict more current knowledge
3. and other parts contradict itself


....then the only conclusion to be drawn is that

Conclusion with embedded conditional....

the bible, if from one divinely inspired source, is nothing more than a lie.

Your 2nd premise is at times not true yet you want to make a conclusion based on that idea. I'm not willing to accept that reasoning or the conclusions you'd care to draw from it much less persuing other ideas with that sort of reasoning. If it works for you that's fine.

Gene

edit: simply put your 2nd premise has been falsified. If you can't see that there's no point to go further.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Your 2nd premise is at times not true

How many legs do insects have?

 

[I less than three logic]

Your 2nd premise is at times not true yet you want to make a conclusion based on that idea. I'm not willing to accept that reasoning or the conclusions you'd care to draw from it much less persuing other ideas with that sort of reasoning. If it works for you that's fine.

Gene

edit: simply put your 2nd premise has been falsified. If you can't see that there's no point to go further.

Your absolutely abysmal grasp of logic is at times quite scary. Yes, some of the Bible contains accurate information. I know of no one that claims otherwise, almost all fiction is based on some truth. So of course at times the Bible coincides with current knowledge. However, the claim Ossai made wasn't that all of the Bible contradicts current knowledge, only that parts of it do. You have yet to refute this point, and I suspect that you can not as you would have to show that all of the Bible coincides with current knowledge. So, no, his second premise has not been falsified.

 

[RandFan]

The question is whether there is reason for anyone to agree with your conclusions...

And the answer is yes. I have made an argument not simply spouted opinion

Yes, it is my opinion that you haven't presented a single Christian belief that is incoherent. Actually, you haven't presented a single Christian belief at all. So it seems that it is only your opinion that Christian belief in prayer is incoherent. Shall I dismiss your opinions as you've dismissed every opinion that opposes yours?

I've not simply given an opinion. I have made an argument. See that's the problem. You are not arguing and I am.

There is no difinitive evidence that they have happened, of course. And no difinitive evidence that they have never happened either. So is it a fact that they have never happened as you initially claimed, or just your opinion?

You are either being obtuse or just ignorant, perhaps something else but I just can't tell. I could not be more clear. Science cannot make absolute claims. I'm not making an absolute claim. My claim is provisional. I stand by it. Absent proof from you to the contrary and using logic it stands. Now you don't have to believe it. You can believe whatever you like.

As I've already indicated, I have no problem with either. It is your opinion, and one that I happen to agree with. However, you're the one who claims that opinions are irrational, particularly those that are in opposition to your own.

No, this is wrong and does NOT represent my view. I only claim that irrational opinions are irrational.

Please don't do this.

Of course I don't think pigs can fly. However, I also don't think that it is necessarily irrational for someone to believe that they can or do if they happen to have a rational reason for believing it.

Please look closely at your statement. You said "reason for believing it". That's the point, there is NO reason to believe it. Absent "reason" it is irrational.

No, I can't tell you what such a reason might be, but neither can I say that it's not possible to have a rational opinion that pigs can fly.

IT'S COUNTER TO THE F'NG LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Again, what in the world are you talking about? Of course I never said that.

{sigh}

And I entirely agree with your opinion that these things don't happen. Nonetheless, I don't find you to be at all irrational for having your opinion. Nor do I find it necessarily irrational to have the opposing opinion.

{sigh}

OK, if you believe that a miracle only occurs if it is obvious...

I did not use the word "obvious". Please stop that.

An argument from ignorance is to claim that something is false only because it hasn't been proven true, or to assume that something is true only because it hasn't been proven false. I have not assumed that miracles have or have not occurred. On the contrary, you have assumed that miracles have not occurred only because they have not been proven to have occurred -- a classic example of argument from ignorance.

You are turning science on its head. I assume provisionally that they have not been proven true. That IS, in part, the scientific method and you ARE ARGUING that since I can't prove that they have never happened that I can't hold the opposite is irrational. That's the same as saying that since I can't prove that there is no Santa Claus I can't provisionaly hold that a belief in Santa Claus is irrational.

It IS irrational (or ignorant) to believe in Santa Claus. My belief that there is not a Santa Claus does not equate to a belief that there is.

Can you prove that every ball dropped has always fallen to the ground? NO.
Do you believe that a ball dropped will always fall to the ground?
What is your basis for your belief?

Can you prove that there is no Santa Claus?
Do you believe that there is no Santa Claus?
What is the basis for your belief?

Science does not absolutely hold anything as true.

In light of the above, this doesn't require a response.

Don't respond, I don't care. If you choose to live in ignorance that is your choice. You are making fundamental and silly errors in logic and reason. That is demonstrable.

 

[RandFan]

No. What I am saying is that Christian belief may be wrong, but it is consistent and may in fact be right.

Consistent with what? The question is, is there "reason" to believe it?

Can you walk on water? No.
Can I walk on water? No.
Can anyone walk on water? So far no one has.
Is it rational to believe that I can walk on water? No.

Can a rabbits foot give me good luck?
Is it rational to believe that a rabbits foot can give me good luck?

Given that, I would hesitate to call it irrational, otherwise other opinions that cannot be proven must also be irrational.

Here you are doing it again. NOTHING CAN ABSOLUTELY BE PROVEN.

Bri, please educate yourself. You are sounding ignorant.

Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method