heddle
Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
STJ,
| Quote | so here we clearly see that miracles are indeed subjective by definition.
why would you presume, by your own logic then, that any of the other things in the bible you currently think of as "miracles" would not also be considered in a similar fashion?
|
This would appear as one example of this claim. However, the whole complaint is a red herring. When the bible talks about cosmology, or in other instances of potential scientific errors—rabbits chewing cud, Noahic flood, etc, there is no “miracle escape clause.” Miracles have a certain flavor about them i.e.,—short duration, clearly written as miracles and most importantly recognized as miracles by the witnesses.
You guys want this too-simplistic criticism—that anything that is shown to be unscientific can simply be declared a miracle—but that is unthinking.
Russell,
| Quote | | Your comment I quoted suggests you think there's a different reason for the interest. |
Yes, a belief in biblical error reinforces your notion that the opposition is a bunch of mouth-breathing morons, and that their position would be dismissed by anyone who has married outside their own family. That’s why you want biblical inerrancy, especially scientific consistency, to be easily refutable.
Steve S,
| Quote | | The I&O are completely consistent with science. The parts which don't seem to be are all miracles, so they don't count. |
Wrong. Argument by trivialization.
Arden, | Quote | | If it's fair game in proving the 'scientific accuracy' of the Bible to say that everything that is objectively impossible is a 'miracle' (basically walling off everything difficult), then why even be a Christian apologist at all? That precise line of argumentation would serve you just as well in proving the 'scientific accuracy' of the Koran, the Vedas, Dianetics, or the Navajo creation legend. |
Wrong. Another argument by trivialization. The short-term aspects of miracles means they leave little or no signature other than witnesses. Creation, however, leaves definite signatures. Any religion’s creation account must be consistent with science.
And anything said in routine dialog in the bible has to be scientifically consistent. That is why we, as apologists, are required to explain things like the pi=3 problem beyond saying “at that instant God miraculously changed pi to 3.”
What you guys are really saying is that there are no miracles. If there were no miracles, then it would make sense to ask “why even be a Christian apologist at all?”.
Russell,| Quote | | Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that some high-tech archeologist managed to locate and identify the remains of Methuselah, and proved somehow that the old guy had in fact lived to the impressive - for those days, I imagine - old age of 63. Would you (a) assume that the archeologist had to be mistaken, or (b) decide that the 900+ year age was not meant literally? |
If the result was demonstrated beyond doubt, I’d say the bible was in error. You are essentially asking me, if the bible is shown to be in error, would it be in error?
Arden Chatfield ,
| Quote | | Since you're now 'accepting science', can you you tell us why people now live as tenth as long as they did back then? Why does this not qualify as yet another one of your miracles? |
I thought I explained that in a previous post. I cannot give the detailed science, because it is in its infancy, but research is ongoing into genetic causes of aging, the cessation of cell reproduction, etc. It leaves the door open to the possibility that we were genetically altered for shorter lifespans.
Chris Hyland,
| Quote | I agree its not fair to try and interpret the entire bible literally, but why then should we not just take the resurrection etc as metaphor.
|
That’s like asking, why can’t you be a Christian without being a Christian? The essence of Christianity is not that everyone should love one another—that’s important but not the essence —the essence of Christianity is that the resurrection happened.
Chris Hyland,
| Quote | | An interesting question for further creationist research. Presumably either God altered their genes to extend their lifespan, or altered ours to shorten it. |
The genetic causes of aging is an interesting, legitimate, and ongoing research topic for mainstream “normal” science.
Stephen Elliott ,
| Quote | | BTW. I am only talking adults here. Child mortality was higher. But if someone made it to adulthood they could expect a long life. |
I am glad someone pointed out the flaw in that “one-tenth” argument. Life expectancy at birth is almost irrelevant.
Arden Chatfield | Quote | | About now we can maybe expect one or two more peevish emails from him where he snarls something about our attitude and how we're misquoting him or whatever, but without actually answering the question. |
What question, specifically, have I not answered? Can you back up this allegation?
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
)