Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 06:50:06 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190989584.817632.136100@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense to
you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is that
you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in, let
alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative reaction.
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
Yawn....BORING. Paranoid expressions of fear.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 11:15:01 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1190989584.817632.136100@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense to
you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is that
you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in, let
alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative reaction.
You assumed I "decided to unbelieve" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
Yawn....BORING. Paranoid expressions of fear.
This coming from somebody who obviously doesn't bother to read what I
write. What are YOU so afraid of?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 07:51:11 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191212101.616877.87780@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190989584.817632.136100@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense
to you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is
that you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in,
let alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to
believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative
reaction.
You assumed I "decided to unbelieve" as if the default is to
believe your nonsense. It isn't.
Yawn....BORING. Paranoid expressions of fear.
This coming from somebody who obviously doesn't bother to read what I
write. What are YOU so afraid of?
Not much....falling into the hands of the living God in a state of mortal
sin would be one thing, though.
And I do read what you write, even when it makes no sense at all or tells
me something other than what you're trying to make me believe about you.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 09:29:02 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 8:51 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191212101.616877.87780@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190989584.817632.136100@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense
to you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is
that you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in,
let alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to
believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative
reaction.
You assumed I "decided to unbelieve" as if the default is to
believe your nonsense. It isn't.
Yawn....BORING. Paranoid expressions of fear.
This coming from somebody who obviously doesn't bother to read what I
write. What are YOU so afraid of?
Not much.
Good. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 09:43:32 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:26:24 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes three.
It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense to you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is that
you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in, let alone
given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative reaction.
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic default
for the rest of the world even though his religion is merely one of
hundreds out there.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 06:50:47 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ch4qf3926jbt6plssmhe3rfrm6esjb63gf@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:26:24 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense to
you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is
that you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in,
let alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to
believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative reaction.
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic default
for the rest of the world even though his religion is merely one of
hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting. But then why am I not surprised at that?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 11:17:32 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote innews:ch4qf3926jbt6plssmhe3rfrm6esjb63gf@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:26:24 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense to
you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is
that you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in,
let alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to
believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative reaction.
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic default
for the rest of the world even though his religion is merely one of
hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
If not, then what is the default position?
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 07:25:25 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191212252.388679.131380@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
innews:ch4qf3926jbt6plssmhe3rfrm6esjb63gf@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:26:24 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense
to you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is
that you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in,
let alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to
believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative
reaction.
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic
default for the rest of the world even though his religion is
merely one of hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
If not, then what is the default position?
Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
Yet it is obvious to ant OBJECTIVE observer that your unbelief is a
choice and not a "default."
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 09:25:31 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 8:25 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191212252.388679.131380@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
innews:ch4qf3926jbt6plssmhe3rfrm6esjb63gf@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:26:24 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190907783.655694.128670@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:47 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190786815.547575.104000@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Sorry but the Nicene Creed talks of "one" God which becomes
three. It doesn't even make sense. Try again.
It will never make sense to you. You have decided to be an
unbeliever and nothing any believer says will ever make sense
to you.
You have no sense to make sense to.
It's not that I have "decided to be unbeliever". Rather it is
that you haven't even given me anything sensical to believe in,
let alone given me a good reason (ie objective evidence) to
believe it.
And I wasn't asking you to believe it, so why the negative
reaction.
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic
default for the rest of the world even though his religion is
merely one of hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
If it doesn't believe then it doesn't believe. It had no "choice" in
the matter.
If not, then what is the default position?
Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
Ignorance is not simply the lack of knowledge. A hundred years ago,
nobody knew anything about relativity or quantum mechanics. Did that
make them ignorant?
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
You're a liar. Again. What you said still appears above. You said
"you have decided to be an unbeliever". We've just established that
not believing in your god is the default position. Therefore, it is
not that I "chose to unbelieve" but that you, for whatever reason,
chose to believe.
Yet it is obvious to an OBJECTIVE observer that your unbelief is a
choice and not a "default."
Yet again you are making the false assertion that you calimed to have
never made and yet which appears above us in this very same post!
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 02:39:50 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
If it doesn't believe then it doesn't believe.
It doesn't disbelieve (reject the belief) either.
It had no "choice" in the matter.
Correct. When it learns about the concept, it will then have the
possibility to choose.
If not, then what is the default position?
Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
Ignorance is not simply the lack of knowledge. A hundred years ago,
nobody knew anything about relativity or quantum mechanics. Did that
make them ignorant?
Yes, at least of those concepts. They neither believed in quantum
mechanics nor disbelieved in quantum mechanics.
Later Einstein learned about the concept of quantum mechanics. He is
widely reported to have chosen to disbelieve that this concept
applied.
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
You're a liar. Again. What you said still appears above. You said
"you have decided to be an unbeliever". We've just established that
not believing in your god is the default position.
An ignorance of the concept of God is not considered "unbelief".
<Main Entry: un·be·liev·er
<1 : one that does not believe in a particular religious faith
<2 : one that does not believe : an incredulous person : DOUBTER,
< SKEPTIC
The first definition isn't applicable though it mentions religious
faith, but is used to apply generically to members of the group that
is outside that particular faith. That kind of "unbeliever" might
believe in God, and even in Jesus Christ, but doesn't believe the
"right things" about them to be members of the faith in question.
The definition of "unbelief" confirms this:
Main Entry: un·be·lief
: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith
There is no definition of "unbelief" corresponding to the 1st
definition under "unbeliever"
It is thus the second meaning that we refer to. We can look up
"incredulous".
<Main Entry: in·cred·u·lous
<1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not
< credulous : SKEPTICAL
<... [other definitions, not applicable]
The concept must have been offered or conceived of, in order for
"incredulous" to apply. Someone with a tabula rasa is not
"incredulous".
Therefore, it is
not that I "chose to unbelieve" but that you, for whatever reason,
chose to believe.
If one never chooses, then one is neither a believer, nor an
unbeliever (in the 2nd sense).
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 04:08:14 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 3:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
More lies. You're projecting. =20
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
If it doesn't believe then it doesn't believe.
It doesn't disbelieve (reject the belief) either.
So? Dave claimed I had "chosen to unbelieve". Belief in his god is
not the default position, as he would claim. How many times do I have
to explain this?
It had no "choice" in the matter.
Correct. When it learns about the concept, it will then have the
possibility to choose.
As you pointed out, some people chose to believe because they are just
going along with their parents wishes. I doubt if most of these
people have a clear idea what "God" means to them. Do they really
believe in a man floating in the sky? If not then what does "God"
mean to them? It's virtually a meaningless concept and yet we are
asked to believe in it.
If not, then what is the default position?
Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
Ignorance is not simply the lack of knowledge. A hundred years ago,
nobody knew anything about relativity or quantum mechanics. Did that
make them ignorant?
Yes, at least of those concepts. They neither believed in quantum
mechanics nor disbelieved in quantum mechanics.
You are twisting the meaning of ignorance. It would be more accurate
to say that they are agnostic about quantum mechanics because they
wouldn't have had the information necessary to decide if they believed
in it or not. A lot of people chose to similarly be agnostic about
God because they consider the concept meaningless. I certainly don't
believe in a man floating in the sky and I have no reason to believe
in an "intelligent designer" either.
Later Einstein learned about the concept of quantum mechanics. He is
widely reported to have chosen to disbelieve that this concept
applied.
Yes and he was wrong, in general. His specific points attacking
quantum mechanics were very astute, however, and they did contribute
to our understanding of quantum mechanics.
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
You're a liar. Again. What you said still appears above. You said
"you have decided to be an unbeliever". We've just established that
not believing in your god is the default position.
An ignorance of the concept of God is not considered "unbelief".
Ridiculous. If it isn't belief then it is unbelief. If I simply
don't believe then I passively disbelieve. If I actively doubt that
something is true then I actively disbelieve. Please get the
definitions straight. If you are "not sure" if something is true then
you don't believe it.
<Main Entry: un=B7be=B7liev=B7er
<1 : one that does not believe in a particular religious faith
<2 : one that does not believe : an incredulous person : DOUBTER,
< SKEPTIC
The first definition isn't applicable though it mentions religious
faith, but is used to apply generically to members of the group that
is outside that particular faith. That kind of "unbeliever" might
believe in God, and even in Jesus Christ, but doesn't believe the
"right things" about them to be members of the faith in question.
The definition of "unbelief" confirms this:
Main Entry: un=B7be=B7lief
: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith
There is no definition of "unbelief" corresponding to the 1st
definition under "unbeliever"
It is thus the second meaning that we refer to. We can look up
"incredulous".
<Main Entry: in=B7cred=B7u=B7lous
<1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not
< credulous : SKEPTICAL
<... [other definitions, not applicable]
The concept must have been offered or conceived of, in order for
"incredulous" to apply. Someone with a tabula rasa is not
"incredulous".
Under definition 1 of "unbelief" someone who doesn't know about a
religion can not be said to believe in it and is therefore an
unbeliever. It's quite simple.
Therefore, it is
not that I "chose to unbelieve" but that you, for whatever reason,
chose to believe.
If one never chooses, then one is neither a believer, nor an
unbeliever (in the 2nd sense).
If you don't believe then you don't believe. It's very simple.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 03:07:38 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
If it doesn't believe then it doesn't believe.
It doesn't disbelieve (reject the belief) either.
So? Dave claimed I had "chosen to unbelieve". Belief in his god is
not the default position, as he would claim.
Neither is disbelief in his god. A newborn neither believes in God
nor disbelieves. At some later point they may choose one or the
other. You have made a choice in reaction to the concept of God, and
that makes your position different from the default.
It had no "choice" in the matter.
Correct. When it learns about the concept, it will then have the
possibility to choose.
As you pointed out, some people chose to believe because they are just
going along with their parents wishes. I doubt if most of these
people have a clear idea what "God" means to them. Do they really
believe in a man floating in the sky? If not then what does "God"
mean to them? It's virtually a meaningless concept and yet we are
asked to believe in it.
Some are willing to believe in meaningless concepts. Others merely go
along, and say they believe for social reasons, but never actually
consider the question. So far as I can tell, every one in this
discussion has made an explicit choice to believe or to disbelieve.
If not, then what is the default position?
Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
Ignorance is not simply the lack of knowledge. A hundred years ago,
nobody knew anything about relativity or quantum mechanics. Did that
make them ignorant?
Yes, at least of those concepts. They neither believed in quantum
mechanics nor disbelieved in quantum mechanics.
You are twisting the meaning of ignorance.
If you prefer a different word for the relationship between a medieval
person and the concept of quantum mechanics, I will consider using it.
It would be more accurate
to say that they are agnostic about quantum mechanics because they
wouldn't have had the information necessary to decide if they believed
in it or not.
People labeled as "agnostic" are generally aware of the concept which
they are agnostic about. Some would require them to have actually
considered the concept and positively decided that they don't know
enough, in order to qualify for the label "agnostic".
A lot of people chose to similarly be agnostic about
God because they consider the concept meaningless.
That is an active choice. An infant on the other hand has made no
choice and lacks the abstraction capability to process the concept.
That is the default state (and Oldridge has said something similar;
neither of us has claimed that belief in God is a default).
I certainly don't
believe in a man floating in the sky and I have no reason to believe
in an "intelligent designer" either.
Whoopie for you. You have chosen to deal with the concepts by not
believing.
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
You're a liar. Again. What you said still appears above. You said
"you have decided to be an unbeliever". We've just established that
not believing in your god is the default position.
An ignorance of the concept of God is not considered "unbelief".
Ridiculous. If it isn't belief then it is unbelief.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
If I simply don't believe then I passively disbelieve.
I recognize no such concept as passive disbelief.
If I actively doubt that
something is true then I actively disbelieve. Please get the
definitions straight. If you are "not sure" if something is true then
you don't believe it.
You also don't disbelieve it.
<Main Entry: un·be·liev·er
<1 : one that does not believe in a particular religious faith
<2 : one that does not believe : an incredulous person : DOUBTER,
< SKEPTIC
The first definition isn't applicable though it mentions religious
faith, but is used to apply generically to members of the group that
is outside that particular faith. That kind of "unbeliever" might
believe in God, and even in Jesus Christ, but doesn't believe the
"right things" about them to be members of the faith in question.
The definition of "unbelief" confirms this:
Main Entry: un·be·lief
: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith
There is no definition of "unbelief" corresponding to the 1st
definition under "unbeliever"
It is thus the second meaning that we refer to. We can look up
"incredulous".
<Main Entry: in·cred·u·lous
<1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not
< credulous : SKEPTICAL
<... [other definitions, not applicable]
The concept must have been offered or conceived of, in order for
"incredulous" to apply. Someone with a tabula rasa is not
"incredulous".
Under definition 1 of "unbelief" someone who doesn't know about a
religion can not be said to believe in it and is therefore an
unbeliever. It's quite simple.
But that is NOT the definition we have been using, and furthermore is
generally used only by missionaries and the like for those who are not
part of their religion of choice. As such, it is a loan-translation
of "infidel".
Therefore, it is
not that I "chose to unbelieve" but that you, for whatever reason,
chose to believe.
If one never chooses, then one is neither a believer, nor an
unbeliever (in the 2nd sense).
If you don't believe then you don't believe. It's very simple.
The English language allows for a middle ground, which is the default.
Most people understand and accept this.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 08:31:54 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 4:07 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
More lies. You're projecting. =20
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
If it doesn't believe then it doesn't believe.
It doesn't disbelieve (reject the belief) either.
So? Dave claimed I had "chosen to unbelieve". Belief in his god is
not the default position, as he would claim.
Neither is disbelief in his god.
Of course it is.
A newborn neither believes in God
nor disbelieves.
A newborn passively disbelieves. Active disbelief is not the default
but passive disbelief IS.
At some later point they may choose one or the
other. You have made a choice in reaction to the concept of God, and
that makes your position different from the default.
The only choice one makes is the choice to believe. And often people
don't even make that choice by themselves as they just go ahead and
believe what their parents tell them to believe.
It had no "choice" in the matter.
Correct. When it learns about the concept, it will then have the
possibility to choose.
As you pointed out, some people chose to believe because they are just
going along with their parents wishes. I doubt if most of these
people have a clear idea what "God" means to them. Do they really
believe in a man floating in the sky? If not then what does "God"
mean to them? It's virtually a meaningless concept and yet we are
asked to believe in it.
Some are willing to believe in meaningless concepts.
Why? Clearly you have to choose to believe in something like that.
Either that or you just SAY you believe to make your parents happy.
Others merely go
along, and say they believe for social reasons,
Exactly.
but never actually
consider the question. So far as I can tell, every one in this
discussion has made an explicit choice to believe or to disbelieve.
You're ignoring the objective fact that disbelief is the default.
Belief in supernatural beings is a mental illness. A delusion. It
doesn't matter how common it is: it a deviation from the default
position that we begin with when we are born.
If not, then what is the default position?
Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
Ignorance is not simply the lack of knowledge. A hundred years ago,
nobody knew anything about relativity or quantum mechanics. Did that
make them ignorant?
Yes, at least of those concepts. They neither believed in quantum
mechanics nor disbelieved in quantum mechanics.
You are twisting the meaning of ignorance.
If you prefer a different word for the relationship between a medieval
person and the concept of quantum mechanics, I will consider using it.
"Ignorance" with its connotations of stupidity and stubbornness
obviously doesn't apply.
It would be more accurate
to say that they are agnostic about quantum mechanics because they
wouldn't have had the information necessary to decide if they believed
in it or not.
People labeled as "agnostic" are generally aware of the concept which
they are agnostic about. Some would require them to have actually
considered the concept and positively decided that they don't know
enough, in order to qualify for the label "agnostic". =20
That's not how Huxley coined the term. He considered a person
agnostic if they didn't know the truth one way or another. That is
not the same thing as ignorance. There are probably significant
scientific concepts to be developed in the future that we simply are
not aware of yet. That doesn't mean mankind is "ignorant". I would
consider myself, agnostic, for example, as to whether or not it will
ever be possible to send messages back in time. I honestly don't know
if the physics prevents such a thing, although I suspect that any
message sent back in time would end up being unreadable. Until
technology advances to a point where such an experiment could be
performed we can only guess, however. Note, however, that I am not
suggesting anything supernatural: common sense tells us that
everything has a scientific explanation and that everything is
therefore natural and nothing, therefore, is supernatural. Accepting
common sense is not about making a "choice" but rather simply seeing
the universe the way it really is.
A lot of people chose to similarly be agnostic about
God because they consider the concept meaningless.
That is an active choice.
Again, you have to choose to believe to believe in something which
doesn't even make sense to you. Perhaps you do it simply to appease
your parents.
An infant on the other hand has made no
choice and lacks the abstraction capability to process the concept.
That is the default state (and Oldridge has said something similar;
neither of us has claimed that belief in God is a default).
Yes. And this default state lacks belief in your god. QED.
I certainly don't
believe in a man floating in the sky and I have no reason to believe
in an "intelligent designer" either.
Whoopie for you. You have chosen to deal with the concepts by not
believing.
I have simply NOT chosen to believe. The default state is unbelief
and I have maintained this default state. I've never believed in
either of these things. I used to consider myself agnostic but as
most people's concept of god falls under one of these two categories
there is little reason to pretend that I have any doubts. I may have
chosen to label myself atheist but I never "chose to unbelieve". That
is an important distinction.
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and t=
hat
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
You're a liar. Again. What you said still appears above. You said
"you have decided to be an unbeliever". We've just established that
not believing in your god is the default position.
An ignorance of the concept of God is not considered "unbelief".
Ridiculous. If it isn't belief then it is unbelief.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
No, it doesn't. The dictionary has multiple definitions. You chose
ONE definition and claimed that this was THE definition. That is
dishonest.
If I simply don't believe then I passively disbelieve.
I recognize no such concept as passive disbelief.
Which doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.
dis=B7be=B7lief
-noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as
true.
2=2E amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, =A9 Random House, Inc.
2006.
Disbelief is the inability OR refusal to believe. This defines
passive and active disbelief, respectively.
If I actively doubt that
something is true then I actively disbelieve. Please get the
definitions straight. If you are "not sure" if something is true then
you don't believe it.
You also don't disbelieve it.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
<snip>
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
03 Oct 2007 02:10:24 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
A newborn passively disbelieves.
There is no such thing as "passive disbelief".
As you pointed out, some people chose to believe because they are just
going along with their parents wishes. I doubt if most of these
people have a clear idea what "God" means to them. Do they really
believe in a man floating in the sky? If not then what does "God"
mean to them? It's virtually a meaningless concept and yet we are
asked to believe in it.
Some are willing to believe in meaningless concepts.
Why?
Because they aren't all that interested in "meaning".
Clearly you have to choose to believe in something like that.
A lot of people believe in gravity, but relatively few have any idea
what it means.
Either that or you just SAY you believe to make your parents happy.
Some people do that as well.
but never actually
consider the question. So far as I can tell, every one in this
discussion has made an explicit choice to believe or to disbelieve.
You're ignoring the objective fact that disbelief is the default.
I disagree with you completely, because your concept of "passive
disbelief" is a gross misuse of the words.
Belief in supernatural beings is a mental illness.
Attacking the others for their beliefs is a sociopathic illness. (And
yes this applies to Christian fundie proselytyzers as well).
You are twisting the meaning of ignorance.
If you prefer a different word for the relationship between a medieval
person and the concept of quantum mechanics, I will consider using it.
"Ignorance" with its connotations of stupidity and stubbornness
obviously doesn't apply.
If you prefer a different word for the relationship between a medieval
person and the concept of quantum mechanics, I will consider using it.
Until then, I will use words the way I understand them, and as most
people who aren't trying to be obnoxiously disagreeable understand
them.
It would be more accurate
to say that they are agnostic about quantum mechanics because they
wouldn't have had the information necessary to decide if they believed
in it or not.
People labeled as "agnostic" are generally aware of the concept which
they are agnostic about. Some would require them to have actually
considered the concept and positively decided that they don't know
enough, in order to qualify for the label "agnostic".
That's not how Huxley coined the term.
Whoopie for Huxley. Not many people use the words "socialism" or
"liberal" as the people who coined them intended either.
He considered a person
agnostic if they didn't know the truth one way or another. That is
not the same thing as ignorance.
It is as much the same thing as ignorance as "active disbelief" and
"passive disbelief" are the same thing.
There are probably significant
scientific concepts to be developed in the future that we simply are
not aware of yet. That doesn't mean mankind is "ignorant".
But do we "passively disbelieve" in these not yet discovered concepts?
A lot of people chose to similarly be agnostic about
God because they consider the concept meaningless.
That is an active choice.
Again, you have to choose to believe to believe in something which
doesn't even make sense to you.
People often do such things. Indeed I accept quantum mechanics, and
it never made sense to me.
Perhaps you do it simply to appease your parents.
My parents raised me in no religion and practiced no religion while we
were growing up. It would be best to describe my dad as an apostate
Catholic, and my mom simply never mentioned anything about religion,
so I have no idea what she may have believed. My parents allowed me
to visit various churches with friends, but I never seriously
considered any of them.
An infant on the other hand has made no
choice and lacks the abstraction capability to process the concept.
That is the default state (and Oldridge has said something similar;
neither of us has claimed that belief in God is a default).
Yes. And this default state lacks belief in your god.
As I said, Neither of (Oldridge or me) has claimed that belief in God
is a default.
I certainly don't
believe in a man floating in the sky and I have no reason to believe
in an "intelligent designer" either.
Whoopie for you. You have chosen to deal with the concepts by not
believing.
I have simply NOT chosen to believe.
You have chosen NOT to believe. You have explicitly rejected belief.
The default state is unbelief and I have maintained this default state.
You are not in the default state. People in the default state don't
attack others for not being in the default state.
<I may have chosen to label myself atheist but I never "chose to unbelieve".
You explicitly and quite outspokenly *reject* belief. Rejection is a
choice.
Ridiculous. If it isn't belief then it is unbelief.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
No, it doesn't. The dictionary has multiple definitions. You chose
ONE definition and claimed that this was THE definition.
It is the definition that applies to the context. I described the
context in which the alternate definition applies.
That is dishonest.
I have been completely honest.
If I simply don't believe then I passively disbelieve.
I recognize no such concept as passive disbelief.
Which doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.
Obviously you have such a concept, so obviously it exists. But the
phrase you use incorrectly describes that concept, since you are not
the least bit passive in your disbelief.
dis·be·lief
-noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as
true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
2006.
Disbelief is the inability OR refusal to believe. This defines
passive and active disbelief, respectively.
No. The inability to believe is not passive at all.
If I actively doubt that
something is true then I actively disbelieve. Please get the
definitions straight. If you are "not sure" if something is true then
you don't believe it.
You also don't disbelieve it.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
The dictionary does not use or define the phrase "passive disbelief".
The phrase gets a meager 242 hits on Google, and most of them appear
to be from people of your extreme persuasion, apparently trying to
convince the rest of us that the concept is meaningful, or people who
are specifically saying that skepticism is NOT "passive disbelief".
If it were a phrase that had meaning outside your peculiar
antitheology, there would be significant sign of its usage.
Here is someone who obviously disagrees that you exhibit "passive
disbelief"
http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2007/02/religion-critic.html
<The problem is linguistic. Look at the situation with debunkers like
< James Randi. As Sam Harris pointed out, we have no special word for
< people who merely disbelieve in the things Randi spends most of his
< time attacking. Randi might be classed in print as a "debunker" or
< "skeptic," but even the second, milder term denotes more than passive
< disbelief. For this reason, no one would for a moment think that
< anyone who disbelieves in psychic powers must be like Randi.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 09:30:29 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 3:10 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A newborn passively disbelieves.
There is no such thing as "passive disbelief".
Assertion.
You're wasting my time.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 12:10:53 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:10 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A newborn passively disbelieves.
There is no such thing as "passive disbelief".
Assertion.
In response to your assertion.
You're wasting my time.
Then stop reading Usenet. And stop crossposting to alt.education. I
certainly won't be wasting your time if I don't see your posts, and
I'm certainly not going to go looking for a religious extremist who
isn't posting in a newsgroup I read.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 07:02:26 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic default
for the rest of the world even though his religion is merely one of
hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
If not, then what is the default position?
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
As I understand Oldridge, we are born with no opinion (because of no
knowledge that there is a question, among other reasons. At some
point we decide that we are interested in the question, and sometime
after that, we decide to "believe" or we decide to believe something
else, or we decide to "not believe". Or we decide that "we don't know
enough to commit to any belief position"
There may be another group that makes no decision, because they never
acquire enough interest to think for themselves, and "go along with"
their parents or whatever other group that raised them. That is the
default position - the one that never realizes that a decision can be
made.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 09:10:39 AM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 8:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to believe
your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic default
for the rest of the world even though his religion is merely one of
hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
If not, then what is the default position?
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
As I understand Oldridge, we are born with no opinion (because of no
knowledge that there is a question, among other reasons. At some
point we decide that we are interested in the question, and sometime
after that, we decide to "believe" or we decide to believe something
else, or we decide to "not believe". Or we decide that "we don't know
enough to commit to any belief position"
There may be another group that makes no decision, because they never
acquire enough interest to think for themselves, and "go along with"
their parents or whatever other group that raised them. That is the
default position - the one that never realizes that a decision can be
made.
And this group of people that are never faced with the question, do
they believe in your god or not? And, if not, did they "decide to
unbelieve"? This is the fallacy of Oldridge's position.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 07:49:24 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191247839.386285.218850@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:02 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
You assumed I "decided to believe" as if the default is to
believe your nonsense. It isn't.
This is the guy who says he understands the world outside his
religion.
Yet he still presumes his doctrinal beliefs are the automatic
default for the rest of the world even though his religion is
merely one of hundreds out there.
More lies. You're projecting.
Answer this question:
When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
If not, then what is the default position?
And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
As I understand Oldridge, we are born with no opinion (because of no
knowledge that there is a question, among other reasons. At some
point we decide that we are interested in the question, and sometime
after that, we decide to "believe" or we decide to believe something
else, or we decide to "not believe". Or we decide that "we don't
know enough to commit to any belief position"
There may be another group that makes no decision, because they never
acquire enough interest to think for themselves, and "go along with"
their parents or whatever other group that raised them. That is the
default position - the one that never realizes that a decision can be
made.
And this group of people that are never faced with the question, do
they believe in your god or not? And, if not, did they "decide to
unbelieve"? This is the fallacy of Oldridge's position.
The default position is ignorance. Philosophically, that is reflected in
soft agnosticism (the "I don't know" doctrine).
Your position is based on your opinion (however you came to form it) that
there is no deity.
Mine is based on MY opinion (formed as a circumstantial inference from my
own experiences).
They are clearly different, but you cannot seem to tolerate that and,
very easily were led into mounting a personal attack on my character for
the sole reason that my opinion differs from yours. I retaliated in kind
(you clearly don't like that, so this may teach you at least some of the
value of the golden rule).
I don't remember being born. I do remember some things that happened not
too long after that, though very little before the age of 2. Still, I
became aware of God through others telling me about Him. By the time I
was 15 or 16, I realized that most of them were just putting me on. That
is, they were happy to relate the spiritual experiences of others
described in scriptures (of one religion or another) but had none of
their own to relate. There were, however, occasional exceptions to that
rule. Still, by the time I was 20, I was, as you are now, inclined to
reject all of them. Then some things happened to me, not of my own
choice particularly but quite inexplicable. For example, at one time a
preacher fresh off the plane from Australia got up in a church I was
attending as a guest and spelled out something very personal relating to
me and my landlord-neighbour. At that time I was still pretty much as
skeptical as you. At another juncture, a girl I knew had invited a lady
over for a prayer meeting and I agreed to take part. There was a message
that I felt so strongly that, when the meeting ended, I asked everyone to
write down what they thought just happened, before any discussion. They
did, complete with scriptural references that were never mentioned during
the meeting itself. Now, I ask you, how do six people agree on something
not articulated at all and get it exactly the same?
That I cannot "give" you these experiences does not make them unreal. Nor
does it detract from the value of inferences I have made from them.
I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong in your opinion, just that
it IS an opinion. Anyone claiming to KNOW a universal negative and
claiming to be logical at the same time is wrong about one or both.
Proving a negative is, of course, possible, but one must exhaust the
universe of discourse. In the case of the proposition "God exists," this
is simply not possible.
For example, I can easily demonstrate that there is no rhinoceros in my
living room. Rhinos are large and my living room is small enough that
even one rhino would be very evident. But I cannot say with certainty
that there are no rhinos in town. Even if I know that nobody has one in
a barn or pasture somewhere, one might, at any moment be passing through
on the highway or on a train. Unless I could exhaust all those
possibilities, I could only say that it's my OPINION (based on
probabilities and known behaviour of rhinos and their owners, of course)
that there is no rhino in town.
But I would not start calling someone a liar just because they said they
believed a rhino to be somewhere in the city limits, even if they
couldn't, at this moment, show it to me.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
