Board index ‹ God

[TrakeM]

>Any perspectives on the material world in the text are written so that the reader of the ancient world could understand what the writer was trying to get across.

I've adressed this in another thread. This method of interpretation can excuse so much that it it's a bit ridiculous. It also causes the problem I explain bellow.

>We cannot encumber with scriptural authority any scientific conclusions we might deduce from the biblical text about the material world, its history, or its regular processes.

That's everything that is testable. You've reduced the Bible down to only that which can't be tested. If you can't test a claim, it shouldn't be accepted. If I said that we are living in a giant computer simulation run by magical space wizards in a cup of tea, a person seeking to get to the bottom of this through logic, reason and science would have to ask me for a prediction made by my claim that could be tested. There isn't one. Therefore, such a claim should not be accepted. Much the same, the Bible should not be accepted either. You have reduced the Bible to where it can't be tested. Personal experience isn't or evidence of anything (personal experience referring to something that happens which is only perceivable to you such as a connection to a greater power). If it was, then you'd have to give the edge to Islam as there are more people who profess of the works of Allah in their life than Yahweh. If that is evidence for one, it's evidence for the other. Of course, it's not just between those two. If we accept it as evidence for your religion, then it's evidence for all of them as all of the religions throughout history have had adherents that have spoken of their walk with their god and how their god has worked wonders in their life and how much peace and purpose their god has brought to their life. If such things are evidence for your religion, it's evidence for all of them.

[jimwalton]

> You've reduced the Bible down to only that which can't be tested.

I have done no such thing. It is only you, who refuses to read or understand what I've written, that continues to come to false conclusions about what I have and haven't said. I believe in evidence and the requirement of evidence to confirm truth claims. There are many aspects of the Bible that can and have been tested, and have proved positive.

> If you can't test a claim, it shouldn't be accepted

This is absurd. I felt a growl in my stomach an hour ago, but there's no way to test that. I felt a twinge of sharp pain in my calf muscle last night while watching "The Hobbit," but that can't be tested either. I like seeing Sarah Huckabee Sanders stand up to the press, but that really can't be tested either. Your friend may have watched "Dunkirk" and told you he enjoyed it, but that can't be tested. There are thousands, if not millions of these. If you limit your knowledge to only those claims that can be tested, your world is very small and your knowledge is very limited.

> Personal experience isn't or evidence of anything

Of course it is. Most of how I engage the world, science, and knowledge is through personal experience. If you rule out personal experience, you even rule out truth. Knowledge itself is reliance on clues perceived by personal experience to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality. Epistemologists will tell you that formulating foolproof criteria for certainty and knowledge has not been successful. Philosopher Dr. Esther Meek writes that "The ideal of certainty of knowledge is this: I must accept as true only those claims of which I am rationally certain, having no shadow of doubt. But if that’s true, how can I be certain of it? The ideal doesn’t even meet its own standard. ... Truth is always somebody’s truth; it’s always personal. It’s something someone claims, or someone appropriates. ... The act of knowing actively involves the human agent. All stated facts, even 2+2=4, involves a human agent. Truth lives in my engaging." In other words, personal experience.

I don't think there's value in continuing to pursue this conversation, but I do appreciate your persistence in engaging for so long.

[TrakeM]

>I have done no such thing. It is only you, who refuses to read or understand what I've written, that continues to come to false conclusions about what I have and haven't said. I believe in evidence and the requirement of evidence to confirm truth claims. There are many aspects of the Bible that can and have been tested, and have proved positive.

I have read what you've written. I just don't agree. You stated that "We cannot encumber with scriptural authority any scientific conclusions we might deduce from the biblical text about the material world, its history, or its regular processes." Other than the material world, it's history and it's regular processes, what is testable? Give me something that we can test that isn't the material world, history, or a regular process of the universe? I'm sorry, but I don't think there's anything testable that isn't included in that. If we can't test anything in the Bible from an objective perspective. If we have to leave it up to faith or experiencing the works of god in our lives or something so completely subjective as that, then the claim should be rejected. After all, these are things that can be listed as evidence for all of the religions. They all say that their god has worked wonders in their lives. They all say that their relationship with their god has enriched their lives. That's not evidence.

>This is absurd. I felt a growl in my stomach an hour ago, but there's no way to test that. I felt a twinge of sharp pain in my calf muscle last night while watching "The Hobbit," but that can't be tested either. I like seeing Sarah Huckabee Sanders stand up to the press, but that really can't be tested either. Your friend may have watched "Dunkirk" and told you he enjoyed it, but that can't be tested. There are thousands, if not millions of these. If you limit your knowledge to only those claims that can be tested, your world is very small and your knowledge is very limited.

You're listing claims about how you feel, not claims of actual events and facts about the universe.

>Of course it is. Most of how I engage the world, science, and knowledge is through personal experience. If you rule out personal experience, you even rule out truth. Knowledge itself is reliance on clues perceived by personal experience to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality. Epistemologists will tell you that formulating foolproof criteria for certainty and knowledge has not been successful. Philosopher Dr. Esther Meek writes that "The ideal of certainty of knowledge is this: I must accept as true only those claims of which I am rationally certain, having no shadow of doubt. But if that’s true, how can I be certain of it? The ideal doesn’t even meet its own standard. ... Truth is always somebody’s truth; it’s always personal. It’s something someone claims, or someone appropriates. ... The act of knowing actively involves the human agent. All stated facts, even 2+2=4, involves a human agent. Truth lives in my engaging." In other words, personal experience.

Keep in mind of what I'm saying is a personal experience. By personal experience I mean things like how something makes you feel. You can't list your relationship with your deity as evidence for your deity's existence. If you can, then so can the Muslims, the Jews, the Buddhists and others.

>If you rule out personal experience, you even rule out truth. Knowledge itself is reliance on clues perceived by personal experience to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality.

My experience of seeing the golden gate bridge is not a personal experience in the sense that it isn't a feeling I had. It's a thing that I can point to. I can take you to it. You can walk along it. Requiring something other than a feeling that you have does not rule out truth. Not everything is based on feelings. I don't think you understand what I mean by personal experience. Personal experience isn't all experiences. It's experiences that occur inside of you. Seeing a bridge and walking across it is not a personal experience.

>Philosopher Dr. Esther Meek writes that "The ideal of certainty of knowledge is this: I must accept as true only those claims of which I am rationally certain, having no shadow of doubt.

I have completely avoided talking about absolute certainty through out all of our conversations. Absolute certainty, if it exists at all, exists only in purely theoretical mathematics (please note: purely theoretical mathematics is mathematics that is not related in any way to any actual reality and even then starts with a set of assumptions which may or may not be true and ends with the statement if (insert assumptions here) is true then (insert conclusion here) is true. EVEN there, I'm not so sure absolute certainty is a thing. I do NOT talk in terms of absolute certainty. I talk in terms of evidence. It's not the same thing.


You seem to keep on thinking that your personal experience of your relationship with your god counts as evidence. It doesn't. If it did, the experiences of Muslims, Buddhists and others would count too. My lack of experience of the works of any god in my life suddenly becomes actual evidence too. Of course, none of this is evidence. Answered prayers aren't evidence either. A prayer is answered no matter what happens. If you get what you asked for, your prayer was answered. If you don't get what you asked for, your prayer was answered. If nothing happens, your prayer was answered. Sorry, if all results count as an answer, getting an answer means exactly nothing.