Savant on Falsifiability and the God Hypothesis

[Phil153]

The Hugh Ross version is far too easy a target to be any fun in it. Any of scores of flood related Genesis quotes blow it away. No agenda anyway, just asking. I look forward to your thoughts when done researching/thinking.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The Hugh Ross version is far too easy a target to be any fun in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whew. Man, that was close. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why Exodus and not the latter parts of Genesis (i.e. the worldwide flood). Just curious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to do that while DS attempts exodus. One caveat: I'm currently reading a series of books, one of which will deal with the flood, but it may be a couple months before I get to it. If you want to save some time I think I will be accepting the Hugh Ross version of the flood which means it was a local flood that covered Mesopotamia. Go get'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in reading the details as to why historians doubt even the non miraculous parts of exodus. My only points are that this idea are apparently held by a majority, of them, including non atheists, and that unlike questions about God, scientists have every right to try place a probability regarding the truth of those non miraculous stories.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in reading the details as to why historians doubt even the non miraculous parts of exodus.


[/ QUOTE ]

If all you're planning to do is cite a poll of historians that the majority think exodus is a myth that won't do it.

[OneChipWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a dim-witted sort of discussion that ignores both authoritative theology and all modern philosophy; and cannot be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be smart, but you're a jerk. You are doing nothing but attempting to derail a very interesting conversation. So please put a bit more effort into your posts.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a dim-witted sort of discussion that ignores both authoritative theology and all modern philosophy; and cannot be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be smart, but you're a jerk. You are doing nothing but attempting to derail a very interesting conversation. So please put a bit more effort into your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, how about this.

(1) Protestants have, from day one, misconstrued natural theology in the tradition of Augustine as being a decisive or sufficient source of doctrine. Thus Protestants also make the converse, and equally wrong, assumption that arguments from the natural world could discredit religious theism. WRONG.

(2) Much of modern philosophy in response to Kant is, at its heart, a rejection of a priori standards for truth, value, and morality. That is, a rejection of idealism in all its forms. The problems of psychology and language are moving to the forefront. So when someone says,

[ QUOTE ]
5. If it was shown that our ideas and beliefs are exclusively the result of biological and cultural processes entirely beyond our control (and therefore their content immaterial) - or, to put it another way, if it were shown that there is no such thing ultimately as 'Truth'.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is hard to take him seriously. For it shows that he has, out of hand, without justification or proper respect, dismissed the profound challenges raised by Nietzsche, Sartre, Wittgenstein, etc. When I see this sort of thing it always reminds me of Undershaft in Shaw's Major Barbara (Act III), "What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers...: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you are a genius, a master of masters, a god! And at twenty-four, too!"

Has a more perfectly sarcastic critique of presumption ever been put into words?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Has a more perfectly sarcastic critique of presumption ever been put into words?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Are you freaking kidding me?

Let me get this straight. YOU are presuming that the challenges raised by Nietzche, Sartre, Wittgenstein, etc. have absolutely shown that idealism (and/or dualism) is incorrect. And in turn, you have presumed that the works of the great philosophers before them, such as Kant, are completely wrong.

If you actually tried to understand the content of the OP, rather than channeling all your efforts into being as pretentious and snooty as possible, you would see the author of the quote in the OP was presuming NOTHING. He simply stated that IF anyone could show that ideas and beliefs were exclusively the result of biology and/or culture he would reject theism. You are the one presuming that someone has already shown this to be absolutely true. And your reasoning is that some modern philosophers have raised some interesting challenges to idealism. Did you think it might be useful to provide some type of argument, rather than appealing to a few big fancy names, to show why idealism is so above you and SO WRONG that one cannot even think in terms of idealism without being derided?

It is awesome that you posted a quote sarcastically criticizing presumption at the end of such a presumptuous post.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in reading the details as to why historians doubt even the non miraculous parts of exodus.


[/ QUOTE ]

If all you're planning to do is cite a poll of historians that the majority think exodus is a myth that won't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose it was 90% of historians and archaeologists?

Here is why the situation is different regarding exodus as compared to something like the resurrection.

Suppose a scientist was asked if he has any reason,aside from the bible, to believe the ressurection happened. Even the most religious scientist would probably say no. But that fact shakes no one's faith because it is a one time event involving one incident. So what if scientists can find no evidence of it.

But the situation is different with a large scale historical story like exodus. Forget the atheist historians. There are surely theist historians who also seriously doubt the story. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY there are surely many other theist historians who don't doubt the story only because it is in the bible! They would admit that the facts would normally indicate to them that exodus didn't happen EXCEPT for the fact that they believe the bible.

Now I'm actually not sure whether the previous sentence is true. That's for others to find out. But if it is true, it can't be dismissed away as easily as the fact that scientists say they see no evidence of individual miracles. It makes no sense that so many modern day experts are sure the story is false unless it probably is.

The bottom line is that if the great majority of experts disagree with exodus OR agree with it ONLY because the Bible talks about it, you have a serious problem on your hands.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

ive never understood how people make the leap from "the universe has a beginning therefore God exists" to "God wrote everything down in the bible and sent jesus to teach us the way", etc etc.

[Subfallen]

Matt -

LOL. Kant was completely wrong when taken as a whole. Consider though: "The philosopher supposes that the value of his philosophy lies in the whole, in the structure; but posterity finds its value in the stone which he used for building, and which is used many more times after that for building---better. Thus it finds the value in the fact that the structure can be destroyed and nevertheless retains value as building material."

Besides---are you incapable of seeing that one cannot reject idealism idealistically? Releasing the "certainty" of idealism only means accepting the possibility of antinomian positions. Nothing more.