Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:35 pm
Audie, asking the question the way you did, in the context you did, as a defense as to why you couldn't answer a simple request for information, yes, that absolutely is an assumption on your part. And if it truly wasn't, then perhaps you will be self-aware and curious enough to consider why it is that you've come across that way.
You said you didn't intend your comments to be an attack, and I don't take them as such. I take them as honest communication. I hope you don't take my refusal to discuss YEC or the comso argument or evolution or anything else of substance as an attack either. By way of explanation, for you and for the group, as for why I'm YEC, perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about it, but frankly, I'm not interested. When you reduce necessarily logical conclusion to being "clever," you attack the use of reason itself. That may not be what you intend, but it is my assessment. It is, you might say, the clever conclusion I am forced to draw. And as I said to you before, since you like to attack people for having kites in sewers, then you won't flinch when I say, again, that if your ideas leave you attacking reason itself, then perhaps we can talk about when you get your kite out of the sewer.
I hold the positions I do because the only thing that matters to me is truth, because I prize intellectual honesty over pretty much anything else. You have no idea how that plays out on an issue by issue basis with reference to YEC and the age of the earth and evolution and other such matters because all you do is boring lines about kites and sewers, and refuse to engage in conversation, all while highlighting your disinterest in reason by continuing and even gloating in being irrational about it (that's what a genetic fallacy is).
What, then, is the point in having a rational conversation about how I reach the conclusions I do when you've already stated that rational argument is merely being "clever" and that any conclusions I draw are tainted anyway? It is literally a waste of my time. And yours. So, no, I won't play that game with you.
Again, my disappointment is real. I don't say any of the above lightly and take no joy in this. I post on these boards because I enjoy discussing these things, and it's a rare thing to find someone who so fundamentally disagrees with me to be able to explore these deep ideas. So I mean it when I say I'm disappointed. I consider it a personal loss. But it's where we are, and there's nothing else to say. I still enjoy your presence in the community, and perhaps things can change eventually. Perhaps they won't and we'll have nothing more than playful banter from time to time. There's a place for that, too, and it gives me real pleasure. Despite my deep frustration with your comments and attitude you've taken towards me, I do like you. So I hope you'll stick around. But, no, respectfully, I simply don't see any positive outcome for discussing scientific, philosophical, or theological subjects.
edit: And no offense taken on the YEC, comments, K. I know you don't think Scripture teaches YEC, and that you're no less interested in honestly discovering truth than I am. For the record, I hold no beliefs on the age of the earth, evolution, or other such scientific matters, other than this: I believe that the vast majority of scientists, having studied their fields, have concluded that the earth is about 4 billion years old, the universe 14 billion, that the Standard Model is more right than not, that we all share a common ancestor, etc. I have no beliefs on whether their beliefs are true or false. I simply am not qualified to make such claims. That may sound like a way to duck the question, but it isn't. It is a perfectly and completely honest statement. I do not give assent to their beliefs on the basis of their authority simply because the authority I do understand seems to be in conflict with theirs. And then there are people who share their authority who claim that the standard scientific views are unwarranted. Again, I have no beliefs as to whether or not these other scientists are correct or not. I know both sides believe they are right and both sides believe the others are doing their science wrong. And, again, I am not in a position to referee that debate. I am very careful not to say, "I believe the earth is 10,000 years old." I do NOT believe that. I believe the Bible teaches that, more or less. I believe that I am a fallible interpreter of Scripture. I believe that there may be aspects of the genres in question that I don't fully appreciate. So I don't have nearly enough information to make any claims on the age of the earth or on evolution or to referee the debate between those who do. If Audie wants to say my kite is in the sewer and I'm just being clever, then there's no reason for she and I to discuss anything of any rational substance, is there? Perhaps she could answer my question about Marvel v DC. That might be fun . . .
You said you didn't intend your comments to be an attack, and I don't take them as such. I take them as honest communication. I hope you don't take my refusal to discuss YEC or the comso argument or evolution or anything else of substance as an attack either. By way of explanation, for you and for the group, as for why I'm YEC, perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about it, but frankly, I'm not interested. When you reduce necessarily logical conclusion to being "clever," you attack the use of reason itself. That may not be what you intend, but it is my assessment. It is, you might say, the clever conclusion I am forced to draw. And as I said to you before, since you like to attack people for having kites in sewers, then you won't flinch when I say, again, that if your ideas leave you attacking reason itself, then perhaps we can talk about when you get your kite out of the sewer.
I hold the positions I do because the only thing that matters to me is truth, because I prize intellectual honesty over pretty much anything else. You have no idea how that plays out on an issue by issue basis with reference to YEC and the age of the earth and evolution and other such matters because all you do is boring lines about kites and sewers, and refuse to engage in conversation, all while highlighting your disinterest in reason by continuing and even gloating in being irrational about it (that's what a genetic fallacy is).
What, then, is the point in having a rational conversation about how I reach the conclusions I do when you've already stated that rational argument is merely being "clever" and that any conclusions I draw are tainted anyway? It is literally a waste of my time. And yours. So, no, I won't play that game with you.
Again, my disappointment is real. I don't say any of the above lightly and take no joy in this. I post on these boards because I enjoy discussing these things, and it's a rare thing to find someone who so fundamentally disagrees with me to be able to explore these deep ideas. So I mean it when I say I'm disappointed. I consider it a personal loss. But it's where we are, and there's nothing else to say. I still enjoy your presence in the community, and perhaps things can change eventually. Perhaps they won't and we'll have nothing more than playful banter from time to time. There's a place for that, too, and it gives me real pleasure. Despite my deep frustration with your comments and attitude you've taken towards me, I do like you. So I hope you'll stick around. But, no, respectfully, I simply don't see any positive outcome for discussing scientific, philosophical, or theological subjects.
edit: And no offense taken on the YEC, comments, K. I know you don't think Scripture teaches YEC, and that you're no less interested in honestly discovering truth than I am. For the record, I hold no beliefs on the age of the earth, evolution, or other such scientific matters, other than this: I believe that the vast majority of scientists, having studied their fields, have concluded that the earth is about 4 billion years old, the universe 14 billion, that the Standard Model is more right than not, that we all share a common ancestor, etc. I have no beliefs on whether their beliefs are true or false. I simply am not qualified to make such claims. That may sound like a way to duck the question, but it isn't. It is a perfectly and completely honest statement. I do not give assent to their beliefs on the basis of their authority simply because the authority I do understand seems to be in conflict with theirs. And then there are people who share their authority who claim that the standard scientific views are unwarranted. Again, I have no beliefs as to whether or not these other scientists are correct or not. I know both sides believe they are right and both sides believe the others are doing their science wrong. And, again, I am not in a position to referee that debate. I am very careful not to say, "I believe the earth is 10,000 years old." I do NOT believe that. I believe the Bible teaches that, more or less. I believe that I am a fallible interpreter of Scripture. I believe that there may be aspects of the genres in question that I don't fully appreciate. So I don't have nearly enough information to make any claims on the age of the earth or on evolution or to referee the debate between those who do. If Audie wants to say my kite is in the sewer and I'm just being clever, then there's no reason for she and I to discuss anything of any rational substance, is there? Perhaps she could answer my question about Marvel v DC. That might be fun . . .
