The Bible: the word of God?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 am

EmptyMan wrote:I am arguing against the naturalistic assumption that evolution is guided soley by blind processes. I beleive that there is a Supernatural intervention in nature. Thanks for the the post on thermodynamics. I did not pay attention to that particular law in physics class, so I guess that I really don't have much room to talk about it in the first place. :?
You said super-natural. That means, by definition, it is outside the bounds of what scientists investigate.

Think like a fire chief: The mayor asks you to investigate why a building has burned down. What if you reply, "Because God wanted it to burn" ? That's not an answer at all.

As a fire chief, your job is to find the cause of the fire -- perhaps arson, perhaps bad wiring, perhaps lightning struck the building. To find the cause, you will have to examine the evidence. You will have to dig through the rubble and see how the fire happened.

As a human being, the fire chief may be very aware of the power of God and may believe that God is the ultimate cause of everything, but that conviction won't help find what caused the fire. Scripture won't help, either.

When investigating evolution, biologists have a job similar to the fire chief's. We may very well believe that God intended for life to evolve as it did, but that does not mean that events don't have identifiable physical causes. Why do zebras have stripes? "Because God wanted it" is not an answer. It may be true, but it's not an answer for a scientist.

Think of it this way: God gave us hands and feet, and intends for us to use them. But God also gave us the powerful ability to figure out how the world works. We have inferred that the world is made of atoms, we construct telescopes, and we have even figured out how life has evolved. We are not honoring God by ignoring this ability. If we believe in divine purpose, then perhaps we can believe that God has some reason why we are able to understand the world as keenly as we can.

Perhaps we were meant to discover evolution. Why not? If God put those stripes onto the zebra, then He put that curiosity into the scientist, too.

lau_kai
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Sydney

Post by lau_kai » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:39 am

evolution... u make it sound tooooo...ummm complex... i am getting lost with it now and i am just starting to learn it at school..
phpbb

User avatar
Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:12 pm

The Bible contians 66 books which were written over a vast period of time but there has been agreement on the books contained in the Bible since around 397A.D.
Alas, it is not so clear cut as that. See, for example
http://www.probe.org/docs/xn-canon.html
where it says, amongst other things,

"As late as the seventh and eighth centuries there were church leaders who added to or subtracted from the list of texts. Gregory the Great added Tobias and Wisdom and mentioned 15 Pauline epistles, not 14. John of Damascus, the first Christian theologian who attempted a complete systematic theology, rejected the O.T. apocrypha, but added the Apostolic Constitution and 1 and 2 Clement to the N.T. One historian notes that "things were no further advanced at the end of the fourteenth century than they had been at the end of the fourth" (Hannah, Notes, 3.3)."
I am not sure who else disputes the books of the Bible.
Quite a few, in fact. Although the Greek Orthodox Church now accepts the Book of Revelation, it did not do so until the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. The Ethiopic Orthodox Church has the largest Bible, with 81 books. The Nestorian Church omits 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation from its NT canon. These are just a few examples.

It continues to seem odd to me that God, having taken so much care in passing His word on through the Biblical writings, was not equally concerned to make it evident to all Christian traditions which books actually contained it.
phpbb

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:51 pm

gott ist tot.

User avatar
Geoff
Textkit Fan
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:30 pm

Post by Geoff » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:38 pm

I haven't read the entire thread, but I thought some of you may be interested in a debate between Thomas B. Warren PhD. and Anthony G.N. Flew. Both men are master Logicians and professors of Philosophy. This is a debate on the existence of God. The rhetoric is easy to understand for people of every level, and still spares no precision.

Flew was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto and head of the philosophy dept. at Reading University. Warren was a professor of Philosophy at Harding University at the time in addition to several other endeavors not directly related to apologetics.

enjoy

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:12 pm

gott ist tot.
That was an example sentence today in my class on predicate adjectives in German.

Edited by Emma: stop it, I'm warning you.

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:14 pm

My last post was just as meaningful and original as all your repetitive whining posts.

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:25 pm

In fact, the reason that these discussions develop laterally is that the people with the weak argument are always backtracking and evasively bringing up other theories and other argument. Very clever lawyers we would all be... when we begin to lose ground in one argument, we shall bring up a related issue and try to bog down discussion until everyone gives up, not realizing that they almost beat us.

User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by Pete » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:27 pm

Plus, I know some German

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:35 pm

irrumatissimus es. :!:
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Post Reply