Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[geo]

I don't find Johnson1010's post as compelling and erudite as some. I am sure that is a surprise to no one but honestly he is just posting the atheist talking points and not staying focused on the instructions for this thread which were:

Someone who rejects all evidence for a 4.5-billion-year earth is surely going to be a tough one to convince.

[stahrwe]

I don't find Johnson1010's post as compelling and erudite as some. I am sure that is a surprise to no one but honestly he is just posting the atheist talking points and not staying focused on the instructions for this thread which were:

Someone who rejects all evidence for a 4.5-billion-year earth is surely going to be a tough one to convince.

It isn't a matter of convincing anyone it is a matter of following instructions. So far all I have seen are the usual atheist talking point generalities, or as they say in Texas, 'all hat and no cowboy.'

[DWill]

jcoffey wrote:
"The thing I object to is the idea that if someone is a theist it automatically disqualifies them from using scientific evidence to bolster their world view."

Thanks for coming around to talk with us, jcoffey. You seem to be somebody open to the "wow" factor in science, as I think most people here are. Often I think part of that "wow" reaction includes recogntion of specific workings we don't know about, or causes we don't know about. So there may seem to be a gap, as several have said, that could be filled by the divine, or could not be, depending on whether we think as theists in the first place. When it comes to believing that there is "something else," which is probably beyond our ability to comprehend due to our mental limitations, I think that's not against reason or evidence. It is, though, a pretty vague notion, not anything you can base theology on or anything you can really worship. And that might be a main problem you would have with that idea.

It's when we say that science, revealing as it does so much that we yet don't know, gives evidence for particulars in any body of theology that I think we've left reason behind and are now promoting our own preferred belief system. In this connection, I was impressed that your presentation did not promote any particulars beyond that of a Creator. It had a nice ecumenical flavor. I didn't see anything that would contradict Muslim or Jewish belief. If it is your intention to say that the Creator is a shared one among the monotheistic faiths, I enthusiastically support that effort. As you have heard, a lot of Christians, Jews, and Muslims are either killing each other or giving fulltime consideration to doing it! So a campaign led by religious leaders to defuse this dangerous situation is a worthy and needed effort.

I personally wouldn't welcome the belief in creationism that could still be a product of ecumenical agreement on the identity of the Creator, but I'd consider saving the world to be a fair exchange!

[Interbane]

Stahrwe,

You've gone your entire life thinking in an unstructured fashion, that you can't recognize good reasoning if it were to slap you in the face. This is part of the reason that it's impossible to have a discussion with you. You will commit a fallacy, but deny that it's a fallacy. To you, the reasoning you use is such a bedrock of your knowledge that when, for the first time in your life it runs up against logic, it is logic that you consider false. Or you pretend it doesn't apply to your thoughts. You've been guilty of committing textbook quality fallacies, then proceeded to deny you've committed them.

Undisciplined thinking is normal. It is the default state of thinking for most people. We do not naturally resist the biases of our evolutionary heritage, because such resistance is in itself unnatural. It would be contrary to our fitness. The use of logic and critical thinking skills takes practice. Some of the things we assume are logical and reasonable are actually not. Finding this out can be a letdown. For example, if the smartest man on Earth with a dozen different doctorate degrees is a YEC Christian, that does not in any way support your position. On the surface it appears to be supportive, but the truth is, it is not supportive. Only the arguments themselves are supportive of what you believe. Understanding such idiosyncracies of the fallibility of undisciplined thinking is vital if you want to stop committing fallacies.

It's like lifting weights for the first time. Some of the motions that are most beneficial and least damaging are actually counter-intuitive. You have to train your body to move in a way that seems unnatural. The same is true of thinking. Without discipline and formal training, you mistakenly believe that some of the methods of reasoning you use are correct.

The point is, there is a structure inherent to the relationship of concepts that runs deeper than the words we use. You structure good sentences, that appear reasonable on the surface. But the underlying logic is faulty and cracked. It's not a surprise that when someone makes a post with good reasoning, as Johnson did, you're unable to recognize it as such.

[stahrwe]

You've gone your entire life thinking in an unstructured fashion, that you can't recognize good reasoning if it were to slap you in the face. This is part of the reason that it's impossible to have a discussion with you. You will commit a fallacy, but deny that it's a fallacy. To you, the reasoning you use is such a bedrock of your knowledge that when, for the first time in your life it runs up against logic, it is logic that you consider false. Or you pretend it doesn't apply to your thoughts. You've been guilty of committing textbook quality fallacies, then proceeded to deny you've committed them.

Undisciplined thinking is normal. It is the default state of thinking for most people. We do not naturally resist the biases of our evolutionary heritage, because such resistance is in itself unnatural. It would be contrary to our fitness. The use of logic and critical thinking skills takes practice. Some of the things we assume are logical and reasonable are actually not. Finding this out can be a letdown. For example, if the smartest man on Earth with a dozen different doctorate degrees is a YEC Christian, that does not in any way support your position. On the surface it appears to be supportive, but the truth is, it is not supportive. Only the arguments themselves are supportive of what you believe. Understanding such idiosyncracies of the fallibility of undisciplined thinking is vital if you want to stop committing fallacies.

It's like lifting weights for the first time. Some of the motions that are most beneficial and least damaging are actually counter-intuitive. You have to train your body to move in a way that seems unnatural. The same is true of thinking. Without discipline and formal training, you mistakenly believe that some of the methods of reasoning you use are correct.

The point is, there is a structure inherent to the relationship of concepts that runs deeper than the words we use. You structure good sentences, that appear reasonable on the surface. But the underlying logic is faulty and cracked. It's not a surprise that when someone makes a post with good reasoning, as Johnson did, you're unable to recognize it as such.

I must point out again that you are wrong. Your claims that I commit textbook fallacies are unsubstantiated and are construtcs of your own limiting assumptions. As a prime example I present the following from the Epistemology and Biblical Evidence discussion:

Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948
By Britt Gillette

Prior to 1948, Israel last existed as an independent nation in 606 B.C. when the first captives of Israel were taken by Nebuchadnezzar. The destruction of Israel at the hands of the Babylonians was completed in 587 B.C. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. For 70 biblical years (approximately 69 years on the Gregorian calendar), the Jewish people were held as captives in Babylon. In 537 B.C., the Persian King Cyrus conquered Babylon and issued a decree for the Jews to return to their land and rebuild the Temple. It was during the Babylonian captivity and this return to Israel that Ezekiel appeared as a prophet and provided the following information on the future existence of Israel as an independent nation:

"Now lie on your left side and place the sins of Israel on yourself. You are to bear their sins for the number of days you lie there on your side. You will bear Israel's sins for 390 days - one day for each year of their sin. After that, turn over and lie on your right side for 40 days - one day for each year of Judah's sin." Ezekiel 4:4-6 (New Living Translation)

According to this passage, the people of Israel would not be free until this period of punishment passed. This time is known as the "Servitude of the Nation," and the time allotted by God is 430 years. However, 70 years of atonement for their sins had already been served during the Babylonian captivity, so only 360 years of punishment remained. The Jews who returned to Israel in 537 B.C. refused to repent of their sins as Ezekiel warned. As a result, Israel continued to be ruled by foreign powers: the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. In A.D. 70, Titus and the Roman legions destroyed the Temple and scattered the Jewish people as slaves among the various provinces of the Roman Empire. The year 176 B.C. had come and gone, yet Israel never emerged as an independent nation. So what happened? Was the Bible wrong? Did God change his mind?

Absolutely not.

Several earlier Old Testament passages shed light on this mystery. In the Book of Leviticus, they reveal that if, upon their return to the land of Israel, the people refused to obey God, he would increase their punishments seven-fold. This is repeated several times:
"And if in spite of this, you still disobey me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over."

Leviticus 26:18 (New Living Translation)

"If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins." Leviticus 26:21 (New Living Translation)

"And if you fail to learn a lesson from this and continue your hostility toward me, then I myself will be hostile toward you, and I will personally strike you seven times over for your sins." Leviticus 26:23-24 (New Living Translation)

"If after this you still refuse to listen and still remain hostile toward me, then I will give full vent to my hostility. I will punish you seven times over for your sins." Leviticus 26:27-28

(New Living Translation)

In the year 537 B.C., 360 years of punishment remained on God's timetable. However, when the people of Israel refused to repent of their sins, this punishment was multiplied seven-fold from 360 years to 2,520 years. 360 days comprise a biblical year, so the allotted time equaled 907,200 days.

However, in modern times, we don't use the Jewish calendar, but rather the Gregorian calendar which has 365.2425 days in a year. If the 907,200 days are divided by 365.2425, we get approximately 2,483.8292 years.

Historians have established that Cyrus the Persian issued his proclamation to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem sometime in the first half of the year 537 B.C. We don't know the exact day of the proclamation, but the Bible reveals that it had to be prior to the seventh month on the Jewish calendar because in that month, "the Israelites had settled in their towns, all the people assembled together as one person in Jerusalem." Ezra 3:1 (New Living Translation)
Without an exact starting date, it's more accurate to count backward 907,200 days from the day of Israel's restoration. Israel declared its status as an independent nation on May 14, 1948. Numerous online calendar conversion tools are available for counting days as well as converting between the Gregorian calendar and the Jewish calendar. Just try Googling "Jewish calendar conversion" to find one.

Subtracting 907,200 days from the Gregorian date of May 14, 1948, the calculator reveals a date of July 15, 537 B.C.
Gregorian Calendar: 14 May 1948 A.D.
Jewish Calendar: 5 Iyyar 5708
-907,200 days (360 days x 2,520 years)
Gregorian Calendar: 15 July 537 B.C.
Jewish Calendar: 15 Av 3224

Does this reconcile with the Biblical statement that the Jews had resettled in Jerusalem in the seventh month of 537 B.C.?

The equivalent date on the Jewish calendar is 15 Av 3224 - the fifteenth day of the fifth month. Since approximately 900 miles separate Babylon and Jerusalem (the geographical distance is less, but the ancient travel route is estimated at 900 miles), and ancient caravans rarely traveled more than 20 miles per day, this date doesn't seem to contradict the biblical account. The Jews would have had only 74 days to make their trip. Accounting for the Sabbath day of rest, that leaves approximately 63 actual travel days to reach Jerusalem before the end of the seventh month. To cover 900 miles in that time, they needed to average 14.29 miles/per day, 6 days per week - a task well within reach.
It also seems highly likely that Cyrus made his proclamation in this part of the year, because the Jewish holiday Tisha B'Av, a three week fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple 50 years earlier ends on the 9th of Av. 9 Av 537 B.C. was within a one week of the 50th anniversary of the Temple's destruction, a fitting time for a king's proclamation to rebuild it.

Although July 15, 537 B.C. can not be verified by outside sources as the exact day of Cyrus's proclamation, we do know that 537 B.C. was the year in which he made it. As such, we can know for certain that the Bible, in one of the most remarkable prophecies in history, accurately foresaw the year of Israel's restoration as an independent nation some two thousand five hundred years before the event occurred.

ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfi ... ;id=449317
http://www.msevans.com/epilepsy/daysbetweendates.htm

As you were unable to account for the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy made 2.5 millenia in advance your solution was to claim that I commited the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". I explained that you were wrong but your construct is such that anything from the Bible shown to be correct is the result of a fallacy. How convenient, and how wrong. The prophecy of Israel's return is not a fallacy but a real event predicted 907,200 days in advance. The only reason you argue that it is a fallacy is that you can't, I repeat CAN'T admit it is truly a fulfilled prophecy or your world view collapses.

I am not the one in error my friend.

[jcoffey]

Interbane,
wow, arrogance is one of the great inhibitors to any acquisition of knowledge. I am not used to having arrogance so evident so fast. It seems wildly presumptuous to assume I have done so little critical thinking when you know so little about me or my education. Slow down and let's just talk about some ideas. It appears that you are the one who is threatened with thinking that may be outside your comfort zone.

[johnson1010]

jcoffey,

I don't think Interbane's comments were meant for you.
Stahrwe has a long history of fuzzy thinking on this board.

[Interbane]

Interbane,
wow, arrogance is one of the great inhibitors to any acquisition of knowledge.

I detest arrogance. I find it within myself more often than I'd like, and quell it at every opportunity. The comments were meant exclusively for Stahrwe. You would understand if you'd read the things he's written. For example:

"Such a document is accepted evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and its truthfulness is also assumed unless the opposing counsel can impeach it."

That is classic argumentum ad ignorantiam. His hope appeared to be that the Federal Rules of Evidence would excuse it, or that somehow logic didn't apply.


My first lengthier post was addressed to you Joe, the one where I claim to be a Shingletonist.

[Interbane]

Stahrwe:

As you were unable to account for the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy made 2.5 millenia in advance your solution was to claim that I commited the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".

Excellent example, thanks. This is the type of delusion my response was directed towards Joe. It was nothing you said.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/ ... r-fallacy/

[johnson1010]

Thanks for that link, Interbane.

good site.