Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jan 31, 2021 3:12:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 1, 2021 16:02:54 GMT
The two are not opposed. They are both "avenues to truth." Where they might appear to be opposed, there is error in interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 17:29:13 GMT
The two are not opposed. They are both "avenues to truth." Where they might appear to be opposed, there is error in interpretation. Yeah, tell that to Giordano Bruno!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 17:34:52 GMT
The two are not opposed. They are both "avenues to truth." Where they might appear to be opposed, there is error in interpretation. Do you realize that what your saying is the apex of hubris? Basically you are saying or implying is : "I can't be wrong, whenever I appear to be wrong that means you misinterpreted what I said." |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 3, 2021 15:54:57 GMT
The two are not opposed. They are both "avenues to truth." Where they might appear to be opposed, there is error in interpretation. Do you realize that what your saying is the apex of hubris? Basically you are saying or implying is : "I can't be wrong, whenever I appear to be wrong that means you misinterpreted what I said." How could you POSSIBLY come to that conclusion? Like... SERIOUSLY? What I'm SAYING is that my own interpretation of the physical world and/or of theology could be wrong if they are not in agreement. And that would be true of anyone else as well. Part of the purpose of having religion/science conversations would be to expose and hopefully resolve those kinds of discrepancies. Good God, but you're a cynic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 22:17:20 GMT
...How could you POSSIBLY come to that conclusion? Like... SERIOUSLY? What I'm SAYING is that my own interpretation of the physical world and/or of theology could be wrong if they are not in agreement. And that would be true of anyone else as well. Part of the purpose of having religion/science conversations would be to expose and hopefully resolve those kinds of discrepancies. Good God, but you're a cynic. Ok, I was still too cryptic for my own good I am afraid. Let's try this: What you said is that the bible can't be wrong, if the bible seems to be wrong then it's our interpretation of it that is at fault. I find that attitude to be the essence of fanaticism. Suppose your bible is wrong because it's the wrong bible. With that kind of attitude, you'll never know it. Suppose your bible is wrong because there's no such thing as a genuine bible. I mean when I hear religious people talk about "the truth", I have a hard time not entering into a discussion about the nature of truth and how scientific truth is the only one who has a satisfactory definition. The only thing keeping me from it is the knowledge that these people are too far gone be it by mental deficiency, lack of knowledge, or a willful inability to grasp anything that could threaten their beliefs. So I would just be wasting my breath along with my time. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 3, 2021 22:53:45 GMT
...How could you POSSIBLY come to that conclusion? Like... SERIOUSLY? What I'm SAYING is that my own interpretation of the physical world and/or of theology could be wrong if they are not in agreement. And that would be true of anyone else as well. Part of the purpose of having religion/science conversations would be to expose and hopefully resolve those kinds of discrepancies. Good God, but you're a cynic. Ok, I was still too cryptic for my own good I am afraid. Let's try this: What you said is that the bible can't be wrong, if the bible seems to be wrong then it's our interpretation of it that is at fault. I find that attitude to be the essence of fanaticism. Suppose your bible is wrong because it's the wrong bible. With that kind of attitude, you'll never know it. Suppose your bible is wrong because there's no such thing as a genuine bible. Yup. Could be. I don't believe that to be the case, but that's a far cry from being arrogant enough to presume that "I am always right" and "you are always wrong." What's your definition of the truth? I'd be happy to have that conversation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 22:36:23 GMT
...What's your definition of the truth? I'd be happy to have that conversation. Outside of "scientific truth" which has a clear definition... "Truth" is just a word without much meaning, most of the time it is a substitute for sincerity and honesty... Take a witness in a trial for example.. when a lawyer can't dispute the "truth" of a witness, well, because most of the time it is nearly impossible, what does he do? He tries to impeach the witness himself, show that he's insincere and unreliable... Or too emotional... etc... It's well known that ocular witnesses are unreliable anyway. There have been experiments that I've shown that depending on the circumstances, e.g. their state of mind, their level of education, and countless other parameters, people will think they have seen different things. Sometimes completely different. Sincere people that believe what they're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 5, 2021 22:39:38 GMT
...What's your definition of the truth? I'd be happy to have that conversation. Outside of "scientific truth" which has a clear definition... "Truth" is just a word without much meaning, most of the time it is a substitute for sincerity and honesty... Take a witness in a trial for example.. when a lawyer can't dispute the "truth" of a witness, well, because most of the time it is nearly impossible, what does he do? He tries to impeach the witness himself, show that he's insincere and unreliable... Or too emotional... etc... It's well known that ocular witnesses are unreliable anyway. There have been experiments that I've shown that depending on the circumstances, e.g. their state of mind, their level of education, and countless other parameters, people will think they have seen different things. Sometimes completely different. Sincere people that believe what they're saying. So...to be clear, you're saying that there's no truth outside of scientific truth? Or just no accessible truth outside of scientific truth (i.e., there's nothing we can be sure about outside of scientific truth)? Are you arguing for empiricism? What about those cases in which scientific consensus is revealed to be wrong over time? Is that simply the corrective nature of the scientific method so that..."we thought it was true, but it wasn't really true"? Because surely you're not arguing that scientific truth is simply decided by consensus interpretation of scientific data... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 22:54:50 GMT
... Are you arguing for empiricism? What about those cases in which scientific consensus is revealed to be wrong over time? Is that simply the corrective nature of the scientific method so that..."we thought it was true, but it wasn't really true"? Because surely you're not arguing that scientific truth is simply decided by consensus interpretation of scientific data... "scientific consensus" and "scientific proof" are two very different things. Plus people can be wrong for many a reason... Scientists have opinions about things that haven't been proven yet, these opinions may be worth much more consideration than those of lay people but they are still opinions... Plus just stop and think about it. If even a specialist someone who's studied the matter all his life can be wrong about something, what are the chances of an ordinary person being right (when opposing the views of scientists)? You'd have better luck winning the lottery. Being wrong because you lack some data is one thing... being wrong because you're an ignorant fool is quite another... The former is easily reformable, the latter irremediable. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 14:47:41 GMT
... Are you arguing for empiricism? What about those cases in which scientific consensus is revealed to be wrong over time? Is that simply the corrective nature of the scientific method so that..."we thought it was true, but it wasn't really true"? Because surely you're not arguing that scientific truth is simply decided by consensus interpretation of scientific data... "scientific consensus" and "scientific proof" are two very different things. Plus people can be wrong for many a reason... Scientists have opinions about things that haven't been proven yet, these opinions may be worth much more consideration than those of lay people but they are still opinions... Plus just stop and think about it. If even a specialist someone who's studied the matter all his life can be wrong about something, what are the chances of an ordinary person being right (when opposing the views of scientists)? You'd have better luck winning the lottery. Being wrong because you lack some data is one thing... being wrong because you're an ignorant fool is quite another... The former is easily reformable, the latter irremediable. Agreed on all counts. So are you arguing for empiricism? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 16:59:58 GMT
"scientific consensus" and "scientific proof" are two very different things. Plus people can be wrong for many a reason... Scientists have opinions about things that haven't been proven yet, these opinions may be worth much more consideration than those of lay people but they are still opinions... Plus just stop and think about it. If even a specialist someone who's studied the matter all his life can be wrong about something, what are the chances of an ordinary person being right (when opposing the views of scientists)? You'd have better luck winning the lottery. Being wrong because you lack some data is one thing... being wrong because you're an ignorant fool is quite another... The former is easily reformable, the latter irremediable. Agreed on all counts. So are you arguing for empiricism? Sort of. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 17:39:44 GMT
Agreed on all counts. So are you arguing for empiricism? Sort of. To what extent? Can you clarify? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 17:48:45 GMT
To what extent? Can you clarify? Making hypotheses and then finding experiences to prove them is not exactly empiricism. When Einstein first formulated his theory of special relativity... Empiricism had very little to do with it. It wasn't even applicable as such as there were missing parts. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 17:52:00 GMT
To what extent? Can you clarify? Making hypotheses and then finding experiences to prove them is not exactly empiricism. When Einstein first formulated his theory of special relativity... Empiricism had very little to do with it. It wasn't even applicable as such as there were missing parts. Okay, yeah, I see what you mean by that. So...something like "mathematical and empirical reality" is what is "true"? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 19:59:25 GMT
...How could you POSSIBLY come to that conclusion? Like... SERIOUSLY? What I'm SAYING is that my own interpretation of the physical world and/or of theology could be wrong if they are not in agreement. And that would be true of anyone else as well. Part of the purpose of having religion/science conversations would be to expose and hopefully resolve those kinds of discrepancies. Good God, but you're a cynic. Ok, I was still too cryptic for my own good I am afraid. Let's try this: What you said is that the bible can't be wrong, if the bible seems to be wrong then it's our interpretation of it that is at fault. I find that attitude to be the essence of fanaticism. Suppose your bible is wrong because it's the wrong bible. With that kind of attitude, you'll never know it. Suppose your bible is wrong because there's no such thing as a genuine bible. I mean when I hear religious people talk about "the truth", I have a hard time not entering into a discussion about the nature of truth and how scientific truth is the only one who has a satisfactory definition. The only thing keeping me from it is the knowledge that these people are too far gone be it by mental deficiency, lack of knowledge, or a willful inability to grasp anything that could threaten their beliefs. So I would just be wasting my breath along with my time. I'm actually gonna agree with you here. Mercy For All speaks as though he has no conviction in anything he says. How can we know truth if we don't know how to properly interpret the Bible? What is subject to interpretation? When I read comments like his its very abundantly clear to my mind that he is inexperienced and should be studying more than preaching. I took the time to study before preaching; even now, after 18 years, I still study before I teach anything. As for the topic of science vs. religion? Well for me every worldview is a religion and all thought has an ancient ancestor. As Solomon wisely said: "There's nothing new under he sun." Solomon said what has been done will be done again. So atheism isn't new at all. With that said, as a Christian I have absolutely no problem with science. I just reject bad science like evolution theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 21:32:47 GMT
Ok, I was still too cryptic for my own good I am afraid. Let's try this: What you said is that the bible can't be wrong, if the bible seems to be wrong then it's our interpretation of it that is at fault. I find that attitude to be the essence of fanaticism. Suppose your bible is wrong because it's the wrong bible. With that kind of attitude, you'll never know it. Suppose your bible is wrong because there's no such thing as a genuine bible. I mean when I hear religious people talk about "the truth", I have a hard time not entering into a discussion about the nature of truth and how scientific truth is the only one who has a satisfactory definition. The only thing keeping me from it is the knowledge that these people are too far gone be it by mental deficiency, lack of knowledge, or a willful inability to grasp anything that could threaten their beliefs. So I would just be wasting my breath along with my time. I'm actually gonna agree with you here. Mercy For All speaks as though he has no conviction in anything he says. How can we know truth if we don't know how to properly interpret the Bible? What is subject to interpretation? When I read comments like his its very abundantly clear to my mind that he is inexperienced and should be studying more than preaching. I took the time to study before preaching; even now, after 18 years, I still study before I teach anything. Convictions: 1) Jesus is Lord. 2) The Bible is trustworthy. 3) There's no reason God could not use evolution in his Creation. 4) Science does not "lie." 5) There is no "anti-Christian" or "anti-Bible" conspiracy among scientists. I have a lot more convictions. I don't hide them. Experience? I've been doing my job for over 20 years. That we disagree doesn't make me stupid. How you respond to disagreement can certainly reveal character. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 22:22:53 GMT
I'm actually gonna agree with you here. Mercy For All speaks as though he has no conviction in anything he says. How can we know truth if we don't know how to properly interpret the Bible? What is subject to interpretation? When I read comments like his its very abundantly clear to my mind that he is inexperienced and should be studying more than preaching. I took the time to study before preaching; even now, after 18 years, I still study before I teach anything. Convictions: 1) Jesus is Lord. 2) The Bible is trustworthy. 3) There's no reason God could not use evolution in his Creation. 4) Science does not "lie." 5) There is no "anti-Christian" or "anti-Bible" conspiracy among scientists. I have a lot more convictions. I don't hide them. Experience? I've been doing my job for over 20 years. That we disagree doesn't make me stupid. How you respond to disagreement can certainly reveal character. You trust the Bible but believe each and every single verse in the Bible was intended to have absolutely no meaning; that each and every verse can be interpreted multiples ways and each way is both right and wrong. 20 years?? Yeah, right. I've been doing this for 18 years. But I live the life of a monk which means no parties, no sex, no drugs, etc., etc. I've dedicated my life to the study and understanding of Scripture as well as all topics related to the Bible. I also have a vast knowledge of Islam and the Qur'an. I have mastered two religions. And no, I'm not a Muslim. I hate Islam and the Qur'an. But it was worth the time mastering. If you had 20 years of study in you would not be holding the views you do. You'd have over twice the discipline and would refrain from being argumentative about simple things all reputable scholars agree with. Once you disagree with all reputable scholars you become an apostate. For you have invented your own image of God in the likeness of yourself. God did not use evolution to create !!! That is a complete oxymoron. I already refuted that claim with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 22:30:27 GMT
Convictions: 1) Jesus is Lord. 2) The Bible is trustworthy. 3) There's no reason God could not use evolution in his Creation. 4) Science does not "lie." 5) There is no "anti-Christian" or "anti-Bible" conspiracy among scientists. I have a lot more convictions. I don't hide them. Experience? I've been doing my job for over 20 years. That we disagree doesn't make me stupid. How you respond to disagreement can certainly reveal character. You trust the Bible but believe each and every single verse in the Bible was intended to have absolutely no meaning; that each and every verse can be interpreted multiples ways and each way is both right and wrong. Wrong. I explicitly said there are wrong interpretations. Not every interpretation is valid. Are you misunderstanding or are you deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying? What...you're calling me a liar? 😂 I've been working in full-time ministry since 1997. Good for you. I'm married with two sons. I'm not sure how to respond to this, because I did and you ignored it. Evolution says nothing at all about the emergence of the universe. You're tilting at a windmill by trying to apply Genesis 1:1 to the theory of evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 22:37:55 GMT
You trust the Bible but believe each and every single verse in the Bible was intended to have absolutely no meaning; that each and every verse can be interpreted multiples ways and each way is both right and wrong. Wrong. I explicitly said there are wrong interpretations. Not every interpretation is valid. Are you misunderstanding or are you deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying? What...you're calling me a liar? 😂 I've been working in full-time ministry since 1997. Good for you. I'm married with two sons. I'm not sure how to respond to this, because I did and you ignored it. Evolution says nothing at all about the emergence of the universe. You're tilting at a windmill by trying to apply Genesis 1:1 to the theory of evolution. You're married so naturally you give time to your wife and kids. I have no wife or kids. So you see, I've been doing this much longer than you. Evolution theory starts with the big bang theory (or cosmic evolution). Anyone who cannot admit that is a liar. Genesis says God created. That completely rules out evolution theory. |
|
