Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
KF,
DS, my experience with those who play the y/n question game is that they usually have rhetorical traps in mind pivoting on loaded dilemmas. KF
Well, my experience is that in some discussions here, one party will refuse to clarify his or her own position, which creates its own problems.
PPS: I further suggest that the first principles and duties of right reason are well known and cannot be avoided. KF
Yes, including the law of the excluded middle.daveS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
PPPS: In handling scripture, here are my thoughts (as were just communicated to HP in reply to his repeated accusations on interpretation):
While hermeneutical fallacies, flawed exegesis and flagrant eisegesis are rampant in our day (and even demand equality with sound theology), it remains the patent case that there is precisely one sound approach to Scripture: careful respect for words, grammar, textual context, broader Scriptural context and relevant well-founded facts of the place, time, life-setting and general circumstances of the text. That is, the longstanding grammatico- contextuo- historical hermeneutics that has so often spoken in terms: sola scriptura, sacra scriptura sui interpres, sola fidei, and so forth. Further to this, if one is not at the level of professional understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text, one would be well advised to respect the cumulative work of those who have spent lifetimes producing major, classic reference works, and the cumulative body of knowledge that is now readily accessible through many freely offered resources. In such a context, sects and novelties or fads that despise that historic deposit should be treated with extreme caution. At more basic level (say, Lay Preacher or Bible Study Leader in one’s own right), before standing up to advocate views and positions, one should be so full of and so familiar with the flow and focus of the scriptures on topics, that that flow is AUTOMATICALLY present on seeing or hearing a text or term. The best means to that end is to be like Timothy, steeped in the scriptures able to make one wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, from infancy. If one does not measure up, one is best advised to face the fact squarely, and neither initiate nor follow movements of the unstable and unlearned who wrench scripture to the ruin of souls. Like unto that — and yes, echoes of the KJV are surfacing from deep childhood on — if one cannot wholeheartedly embrace the gospel as summarised in 1 Cor 15:1 – 20 or so, or hesitates before affirming that all scripture is “Theopneustos” [= God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, rebuke and correction leading to training in righteousness, then one is not ready. Likewise, on gospel ethics Matt 5 – 7, Rom 1 – 3, Rom 13, 1 Cor 13 and more are pivotal. I add to this that, as I have checked to my satisfaction, the Nicene Creed is an historic, sound summary of the core Christian faith. If one cannot unhesitatingly assent to and even celebrate it, that is a bad sign.
kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
PPS: I further suggest that the first principles and duties of right reason are well known and cannot be avoided. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
DS, my experience with those who play the y/n question game is that they usually have rhetorical traps in mind pivoting on loaded dilemmas. KF PS: Case in point:
John 8:8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came back into the temple [court], and all the people were coming to Him. He sat down and began teaching them. 3 Now the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. They made her stand in the center of the court, 4 and they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women [to death]. So what do You say [to do with her—what is Your sentence]?” 6 They said this to test Him, hoping that they would have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and began writing on the ground with His finger. 7 However, when they persisted in questioning Him, He straightened up and said, “He who is without [any] sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Then He stooped down again and started writing on the ground. 9 They listened [to His reply], and they began to go out one by one, starting with the oldest ones, until He was left alone, with the woman [standing there before Him] in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She answered, “No one, Lord!” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go. From now on sin no more.”] [AMP]
KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Eugen,
OK, but if there’ll be any debates, beforehand we all have to agree to follow some basic rules like the Laws of logic. I’ve seen many discussions on UD. Atheists can have feelings and opinions but they are not proper response to arguments or logic.
I second this suggestion, with one addition: If someone is asked a a yes/no question, they must respond with an answer of "yes", "no", or "I don't know". Aside from obviously loaded questions of course. Do you have a minimal list of rules in mind that we should all adhere to?daveS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
PPS: We must also not lose sight of the need to respond to RVB8's zombie icons.kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
PS: The Nicene Creed, in classic English rendering, Book of Common Prayer, 1662:
I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.
These things are historic and so are touch-stones we cannot play with to suit our own fancies. It can also be seen that the core of this is 1 Cor 15, with major inputs from John 1, Col 1, Heb 1 etc. Solid, sound, authentic [never mind Dan Brown's novellistic fantasies or the like), historic.kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
HP, Perhaps, I need to remind you that no-one in this thread but you has raised the sort of cultural marxist, political correctness agenda of talking points you have again raised. (I note, the ongoing abortion holocaust of 800+ millions in 40+ years and mounting at a million per week is there, as a marker of the utterly corrupt, reprobate-minded age we are in. Our generation is the most blood-guilty generation in history and that blood guilt utterly warps ability to reason soundly and responsibly on anything touched by ethical issues. Such include our duty of care towards truth, right and soundness so it is literally all-encompassing. We must save ourselves from an untoward generation.) As can be seen from the outset, the thread has focussed instead on the worldviews core and scriptural warrant for the C1, Apostolic deposit core Christian faith. It has done so in a specific context of distinguishing that core warrant from the context of the design inference. In major part, that has been for the explicit purpose of addressing a common slander or innuendo against design thought and thinkers, that it is nothing but a stalking horse for "fundy" [already an unjustified term of contempt] Christo-Fascist, right wing totalitarianism under the general rubric "Creationism." Now, you speak of varied interpretations and by so doing seem to wish to dismiss the clear NT concept, "the faith, once for all delivered unto the saints," and to support such a dismissal you speak of my alleged denigration of alternative approaches to said interpretation. Ironically, I have said little or nothing about interpretation and hermeneutics. I guess I need to do so now. Here is my comment:
While hermeneutical fallacies, flawed exegesis and flagrant eisegesis are rampant in our day (and even demand equality with sound theology), it remains the patent case that there is precisely one sound approach to Scripture: careful respect for words, grammar, textual context, broader Scriptural context and relevant well-founded facts of the place, time, life-setting and general circumstances of the text. That is, the longstanding grammatico- contextuo- historical hermeneutics that has so often spoken in terms: sola scriptura, sacra scriptura sui interpres, sola fidei, and so forth. Further to this, if one is not at the level of professional understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text, one would be well advised to respect the cumulative work of those who have spent lifetimes producing major, classic reference works, and the cumulative body of knowledge that is now readily accessible through many freely offered resources. In such a context, sects and novelties or fads that despise that historic deposit should be treated with extreme caution. At more basic level (say, Lay Preacher or Bible Study Leader in one's own right), before standing up to advocate views and positions, one should be so full of and so familiar with the flow and focus of the scriptures on topics, that that flow is AUTOMATICALLY present on seeing or hearing a text or term. The best means to that end is to be like Timothy, steeped in the scriptures able to make one wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, from infancy. If one does not measure up, one is best advised to face the fact squarely, and neither initiate nor follow movements of the unstable and unlearned who wrench scripture to the ruin of souls. Like unto that -- and yes, echoes of the KJV are surfacing from deep childhood on -- if one cannot wholeheartedly embrace the gospel as summarised in 1 Cor 15:1 - 20 or so, or hesitates before affirming that all scripture is "Theopneustos" [= God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, rebuke and correction leading to training in righteousness, then one is not ready. Likewise, on gospel ethics Matt 5 - 7, Rom 1 - 3, Rom 13, 1 Cor 13 and more are pivotal. I add to this that, as I have checked to my satisfaction, the Nicene Creed is an historic, sound summary of the core Christian faith. If one cannot unhesitatingly assent to and even celebrate it, that is a bad sign.
Finally, I now explicitly cite a text of warning that I have hitherto linked, one that has been specifically on my mind to ponder all year so far:
1 John 2:15 Do not love the world [of sin that opposes God and His precepts], nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust and sensual craving of the flesh and the lust and longing of the eyes and the boastful pride of life [pretentious confidence in one’s resources or in the stability of earthly things]—these do not come from the Father, but are from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and with it its lusts [the shameful pursuits and ungodly longings]; but the one who does the will of God and carries out His purposes lives forever. 18 Children, it is the last hour [the end of this age]; and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming [the one who will oppose Christ and attempt to replace Him], even now many antichrists (false teachers) have appeared, which confirms our belief that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us [seeming at first to be Christians], but they were not really of us [because they were not truly born again and spiritually transformed]; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out [teaching false doctrine], so that it would be clearly shown that none of them are of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One [you have been set apart, specially gifted and prepared by the Holy Spirit], and all of you know [the truth because He teaches us, illuminates our minds, and guards us from error]. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie [nothing false, no deception] is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed)? This is the antichrist [the enemy and antagonist of Christ], the one who denies and consistently refuses to acknowledge the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies and repudiates the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses and acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that remain in you [keeping in your hearts that message of salvation] which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you too will remain in the Son and in the Father [forever]. 25 This is the promise which He Himself promised us—eternal life. 26 These things I have written to you with reference to those who are trying to deceive you [seducing you and leading you away from the truth and sound doctrine]. 27 As for you, the anointing [the special gift, the preparation] which you received from Him remains [permanently] in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But just as His anointing teaches you [giving you insight through the presence of the Holy Spirit] about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as His anointing has taught you, [c]you must remain in Him [being rooted in Him, knit to Him]. 28 Now, little children (believers, dear ones), remain in Him [with unwavering faith], so that when He appears [at His return], we may have [perfect] confidence and not be ashamed and shrink away from Him at His coming. [AMP]
KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
God has left the decision to man, to believe in Him or not. Neither science nor anything else logically or otherwise compels one to believe. Otherwise we would not have been free in the true sense. But any decision comes at a price, including the decision not to believe. You who are young, be happy while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment. (Ecclesiastes 11:9)EugeneS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
OK, but if there'll be any debates, beforehand we all have to agree to follow some basic rules like the Laws of logic. I've seen many discussions on UD. Atheists can have feelings and opinions but they are not proper response to arguments or logic.Eugen
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Eugen:
We are trying to reach a goal of objective truth. This is not competition of interpretations or who will be better Christian. If anything this should be competition of arguments and rational ideas.
Agreed. And I am willing to argue and discuss over rational ideas. But that is not what Kairosfocus has been doing. If he wants to discuss any issue (eg. Same sex marriage, birth control, abortion, whatever), I would be willing to do so. But only if he can do so without denigrating my interpretation of scriptures. I am not interested in a theological debate. They are pointless and fruitless.hammaspeikko
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
F/N: It is always relevant to highlight Lewontin's cat out of the bag comment:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
Where, Philip Johnson's response is also instructive:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
HammasP We are trying to reach a goal of objective truth. This is not competition of interpretations or who will be better Christian. If anything this should be competition of arguments and rational ideas.Eugen
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Cont'd, 56: Here I took up point 2 in RVB8's string of claims: >>>>>>> 56 kairosfocusMay 12, 2017 at 3:20 am RVB8:
2) The discovery of the structure and function of DNA, has bolstered the fact of, ‘descent with modification.
Really, now! Let’s see, to get to origin of cell based life as observed, you have to explain 100k – 1 mn bases of D/RNA, plus the accompanying execution nanotech, as well as the wider metabolic network that provides energy and materials, also getting wastes out of the way. Each additional bit beyond 1,000 DOUBLES the config space. Taking just 100 kbits, the space is 9.999*10^30,102 possibilities. This utterly dwarfs cosmological scale potential blind search resources. Then, to originate novel body plans here on earth or the wider sol system, in your 10^17 or so seconds, with 10^57 atoms, you are looking at needing to account for dozens of deeply isolated islands of function requiring 10 – 100+ mn bases of info. In short, the message of DNA as a key part of cell based life is that we see an information system using huge quantities of coded, alphabetic, textual, algorithmically functional information. The Ribosome is a NC machine assembling proteins per step by step coded textual instructions. Text is LANGUAGE. No wonder Crick wrote as follows to his son on March 19, 1953 — right from the beginning of the DNA era:
Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)
And yes, that is the letter that just sold a few years back for US$ 6 mn, and which we sometimes put up as a scan in Crick’s handwriting here at UD. Let us hear your reply to Sir Francis Crick, RVB8: __________ Those are direct indicia of language-using intelligence capable of operating on molecular nanotech BEFORE there was cell based life on earth. ‘In the beginning was the WORD . . . ” >>>>>>>> In short, RVB8's quarrels start with Sir Francis Crick. KF PS: Note, my outline comments in the PPS to 373 in this thread, where I cross-clipped RVB8's set of objections:
For no 1, I think the record of say the Cambrian fossils highlights the issue of major gaps, sudden origin, stasis of core forms and disappearance or continuation into the modern era that is a more accurate view at body plan origin level. As for the notion that a chromosome fusion accident disposes of the huge body plan gaps between Chimps etc and us, that fails skeletally, it fails on pop genetics, it fails on accounting for responsible, rational freedom and language origin thus origin of distinctively human intelligence and morality and much more. I add, the suggeston that the notion of DNA junk as what 90 – 95+% of our genome has long since fallen apart, and more. I note that the Galapagos Finches show minor adaptive radiation triggered by a few regulatory genes, rather than origin of body plans. The famous case of the fertile inter-species successful nesting couple should also be faced. And more.
kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Cont'd: Clip 2, from 55 in that thread, on point 5 in RVB8's string of objections: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 54 kairosfocusMay 12, 2017 at 2:38 am RVB8, I passed by, and see your claimed consensus point:
5) ID has no positive evidence, just negative attacks upon the positve evidence of evolutionary biology.
This may well be a widespread opinion among the guild. But that only illustrates that a dominant consensus — especially one led by the domineering — is utterly not in the same category as truth. Where if one institutionalises a crooked and inaccurate yardstick, then the real truth and right will always fail and be rejected or dismissed and trashed, as the real truth already aligns with the plumb-line of reality, so it cannot ever align with what is crooked and inaccurate. Unfortunately, too often, this is viewed as a feature not a bug, by the domineering party: it locks in the party-line and locks out the inconvenient truth, especially among those who lack the basis or are unwilling to think for themselves. At least, until things go over the cliff and crash. But, how do we know this consensus is founded on wrenching and disregard for evident truth? Pretty directly, as 33 above illustrated but was obviously studiously ignored by you: in order to try to sneer at the concept of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, you had to provide a textual s-t-r-i-n-g that exemplifies the matter, and of why its only credible source — on trillions of cases in point all around us — is design. That irony seems lost on you and on those whose hyperskeptical dismissals you follow. I simply challenge you and those you enable to provide a counter-example to the trillions of cases I just adverted to, by giving us a clearly and actually observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as actually seen, gave rise to FSCO/I without intelligently directed configuration: ______. I predict, you and those you enable, predictably, will not be able to provide such a case in point . . . . Just as a footnote, your comment [–> at 32] has 172 or so ASCII characters, at 7 bits or 128 states per character. Converting to bits, 1,204. This specifies a config space of 2.756 * 10^362 possibilities, well beyond 10^301 at the 1,000 bit upper threshold for FSCO/I. In effect if the atomic resources of our cosmos of about 10^80 atoms working at fast chem rxn rates were used and the scope of search in 10^17 s were viewed as a straw, the config space would be a haystack dwarfing our observed cosmos and the blind needle in haystack search implied would be negligibly different from no search. That is what you and those you follow are ducking and diverting attention from. And of course, in that same comment, I adverted to this longstanding remark in a 1973 work by OoL researcher Leslie Orgel that is just across from me as I cite . . . i.e. this is not exactly a novelty: living organisms are distinguished by theirspecified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [–> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken “wiring diagram” for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, — here and — here — (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).] One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [–> so if the q’s to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [–> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [–> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 – 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.] So, directly contrary to your assertions in recent days, there is direct evidence of design that may be quantitatively inferred from metrics of the complexity and linked information content of entities that are based from several well matched components that must be specifically arranged and coupled in particular ways for function to emerge. Text, the PCs or the like we are using, the watches on our wrists, the glasses on our faces, even gear trains and nuts and bolts. Trillions of cases, literally. FSCO/I is real, is quantifiable, and on trillions of observed cases in point reliably indicates design as cause. This is backed up by a readily estimated configuration space blind search challenge for islands of function. And if someone suggests that self-replicating or reproducing entities replicate or reproduce, the issue there — as William Paley long since pointed out in Ch 2 of his 1804 work (try the functional, self replicating watch thought exercise that somehow mysteriously is absent from discussions . . . as in STRAWMAN alert) — is the origin of the FSCO/I to get TO such replication or reproduction. So, despite the crooked yardsticks, there is indeed abundant evidence and much good reason to infer to design as best current empirically grounded causal explanation on significant signs such as FSCO/I. To overturn this sign, simply provide a counter-instance where an entity with complexity beyond 500-1,000 bits which critically depends on organisation to achieve function, per observation comes about without intelligently directed configuration as key cause: _________ I predict, confidently, no good case in point will be forthcoming, even as ever so mysteriously, perpetual motion machines refuse to show up and demolish thermodynamics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
F/N: Cross-clips to bring issues back together under one roof, in reply to RVB8 on "lots and lots of evolution": >>>>>> RVB8, 32: May 10, 2017 at 11:10 pm Kairos, they say that if you repeat something loud enough, and as many times as possible, then it will eventually be accepted as truth. FSCO/I, has a hell of a long way to go. _________ KF, 33: kairosfocusMay 10, 2017 at 11:35 pm RVB8, in order to try to sneer at the concept of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, you had to provide a textual s-t-r-i-n-g that exemplifies the matter, and of why its only credible source — on trillions of cases in point all around us — is design. That irony seems lost on you and on those whose hyperskeptical dismissals you follow. I simply challenge you and those you enable to provide a counter-example to the trillions of cases I just adverted to, by giving us a clearly and actually observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as actually seen, gave rise to FSCO/I without intelligently directed configuration: ______. I predict, you and those you enable, predictably, will not be able to provide such a case in point. KF PS: Kindly note as well, this from Orgel all the way back to 1973:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[–> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken “wiring diagram” for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, here and here (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
  One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [–> so if the q’s to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [–> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
PPS: Just as a footnote, your comment has 172 or so ASCII characters, at 7 bits or 128 states per character. Converting to bits, 1,204. This specifies a config space of 2.756 * 10^362 possibilities, well beyond 10^301 at the 1,000 bit upper threshold for FSCO/I. In effect if the atomic resources of our cosmos of about 10^80 atoms working at fast chem rxn rates were used and the scope of search in 10^17 s were viewed as a straw, the config space would be a haystack dwarfing our observed cosmos and the blind needle in haystack search implied would be negligibly different from no search. That is what you and those you follow are ducking and diverting attention from. >>>>>> In short, selective hyperskepticism on RVB8's part does not constitute a failure of the concept FSCO/I to be reasonable and relevant. When one has to exemplify what one objects to in order to object, one should take a pause or two. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
tape rolledkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus:
HP, with all due respects, that is what you implied. KF
With equal respect, you have to learn to read for comprehension. How you can imply that from what I wrote is beyond me. --> With all due respect, imply scroll up and contrast your characterisation of Christian faith and claimed identification with the C1 summary of the faith once for all delivered unto the saints. KF, thread owner i/l/o above and elsewhere. PS: Onlookers may wish to ponder how the discussion here on may be unfortunately applicable here (and don't overlook here); where because souls are at stake the ignore option is not possible. The worth of a single human soul, we have it on the best authority, exceeds the wealth of a planet.hammaspeikko
May 12, 2017
May
05
May
12
12
2017
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
HP, with all due respects, that is what you implied. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2017
May
05
May
12
12
2017
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus:
HP: Yes, one may believe what one pleases, but one cannot then properly represent such as the authentic, first generation apostolic deposit, sealed with the blood of the martyrs,...
Who said anything about believing whatever one pleases? Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that your interpretation of scriptures are no more valid than mine, or anyone else's. I certainly put much thought into the scriptures and what they mean. As I am sure you do. We both believe that our interpretations are as close to what was intended as is possible. We obviously can't both be correct. I choose to acknowledge that we have differences. You choose to denigrate those who have a different interpretation than you. That alone, in my interpretation, makes me a better Christian than you. But, frankly, I didn't know it was a contest.hammaspeikko
May 12, 2017
May
05
May
12
12
2017
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
F/N: Remember, a main point of this thread is precisely to point out what the actual core warranting argument of the Christian Faith is and to trace it back to worldview roots. This, by specific contrast with the nature of the design inference. I think we can take it that
-- something that traces to eyewitness claims of the 500 regarding fulfillment of scriptural prophecies by the omnipotent arm of God through the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is worlds apart from -- the exploration
* on empirical evidence and linked analysis of configuration spaces, of how * functionally specific, complex organisation, * associated information content and phenomena such as active information vs search challenge, * fine tuned mutual adaptation and organisation of parts to achieve composite function, linked patterns such as *irreducible complexity etc . . .
point to design as relevant, empirically warranted credible causal explanation.
But, we can predict that the rhetoric of strawman caricature, invidious association, etc will continue, as these have been useful in playing agit prop games. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2017
May
05
May
12
12
2017
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
PPPS: Nor should we forget the impact on credibility of consensus presented to the public of Lewontin's cat out of the bag moment:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus
May 12, 2017
May
05
May
12
12
2017
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
F/N: It seems we now have a picture of RVB8's "lots and lots of evolution" as asserted above, i/l/o his remarks last night in another thread:
1) The fossil record is an accurate representation of ‘descent with modification.’ 2) The discovery of the structure and function of DNA, has bolstered the fact of, ‘descent with modification. 3) We have 46 chromosomes, great apes 48; there must be a chromosome on the human branch which shows signs of pairing; there is. 4) Junk DNA is a fact. 5) ID has no positive evidence, just negative attacks upon the positve evidence of evolutionary biology. 6) Creation science like its sister ID has no positive evidence for creation, just negative attacks upon evolutionary biology. 7) Geology, homology, biogeography, anatomy, and paleontology all support evolutionary biology. All of these I believe every evolutionary biologist can get on board with.
Let us take these as a marker for points to address one by one in order to help his students (some just might be lurking) and others. KF PS: If you scroll up to # 33 there you will see where I already addressed his drive-by rhetoric at 32 on FSCO/I etc as signs pointing to design, and have elaborated on 2 and 5 in responses at 54 and 56. Let's see how his other zombie icons stand up to a little scrutiny. PPS: For no 1, I think the record of say the Cambrian fossils highlights the issue of major gaps, sudden origin, stasis of core forms and disappearance or continuation into the modern era that is a more accurate view at body plan origin level. As for the notion that a chromosome fusion accident disposes of the huge body plan gaps between Chimps etc and us, that fails skeletally, it fails on pop genetics, it fails on accounting for responsible, rational freedom and language origin thus origin of distinctively human intelligence and morality and much more. I add, the suggeston that the notion of DNA junk as what 90 - 95+% of our genome has long since fallen apart, and more. I note that the Galapagos Finches show minor adaptive radiation triggered by a few regulatory genes, rather than origin of body plans. The famous case of the fertile inter-species successful nesting couple should also be faced. And more.kairosfocus
May 12, 2017
May
05
May
12
12
2017
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
HP: Yes, one may believe what one pleases, but one cannot then properly represent such as the authentic, first generation apostolic deposit, sealed with the blood of the martyrs, the apostles and many others of the 500 being chief among these. Nor may one properly claim such to be that gospel manifested in fulfillment of the prophecies and witnessed by the 500 and the millions since. KF PS: 1 Jn 2:15 - 27: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+2%3A15+-+27&version=AMPkairosfocus
May 11, 2017
May
05
May
11
11
2017
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus:
HP, with all due respect, I am duty-bound to point out the nature of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (as I summarised above as a yardstick) and to point out that no individual or group is in a position to alter such to suit their preferences.
Yet it is done all of the time. Your opinion of what it entails to be a good Christian is no more valid that mine, the pope's or any of the hundreds of denominations. At the end of the day it comes down to how we chose to interpret scriptures. Subjective opinion. That is why I refuse to argue that my interpretations are the best, although I obviously believe this. I let my interpretations inform my opinions on things like homosexuality, transgendered, birth control, abortion, etc. You may disagree with me, and that is fine, but that doesn't mean that your personal interpretation of scriptures is any closer to the truth than mine are. Only that our opinions differ. I will fight for mine and you will fight for yours, but I will do so based on logic and reason, not on any claim that my interpretation of the bible is better than yours.hammaspeikko
May 9, 2017
May
05
May
9
09
2017
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
I wanted to conclude my comments on a different note. The point of the original post was to demonstrate atheist hostility in their disbelief. They claim to merely disbelieve, but as shown, they are not content in their own disbelief. The point of this comment is to offer a life-affirming alternative to disbelief or uncertainty. It was proven in the comments above that God exists, because only a supernatural being outside of time could accurately predict when the Messiah would come, and that Jesus is the Messiah, because it was Jesus who fulfilled Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks, as well as Isaiah 61 & 53 and many other Messianic prophecies. Start with comment 368 and work backwards thru the referenced earlier comments. Because you have irrefutable forensic evidence that God exists and Jesus is His Messiah, you also have reason to believe the truthfulness of all the prophecies about Jesus, especially the warnings Jesus Himself gave. Jesus announced the beginning of His salvific ministry in Luke 4:18-21 and said he was in fact the Messiah in John 4:25-26, and that He was also God in John 8:58 (and other passages). In Matt 24:15 Jesus affirmed Daniel's prophecy of the 70th week when the abomination of desolation would be seen in the Temple, which would signal the end times and that Jesus' return would follow. Except that Jesus would be returning not as the suffering servant but as the conquering Lord in judgement. Jesus encapsulates the choice that every person must make:
Joh 3:16-18 NASB "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Born twice (physically & spiritually), die once (physically, then resurrected to eternal life). Born once (physically only), die twice (physically and then spiritually, eternally in hell). Choose life. An intelligent person would consider the irrefutable forensic evidence offered (in Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks) for God's existence and Jesus as Messiah, and reconsider the cost/benefit tradeoff of studying the Bible, sincerely, to gain a true understanding. It costs maybe a few months of time and the benefit is eternal life. You don't have to be credulous. Bring your brain. God delights in sincere, honest questions. If you just want to play "gotcha" with God and "spin" scripture to your own view, smarter people have tried, and died. But if you're sincerely seeking the truth, you will find it. Above, in Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks, is but one of many examples.Charles
May 7, 2017
May
05
May
7
07
2017
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
FFT10B: What about that "according to the scriptures" stuff in 1 Cor 15? Fulfilled prophecy involving God's intervention and/or sovereignty in the world. Stuff we could not do and which made up gods or imagination cannot do. Indeed, we read in Isaiah:
Isa 41:4 “Who has performed and done this, Calling forth [and guiding the destinies of] the generations [of the nations] from the beginning? ‘I, the Lord—the first, and with the last [existing before history began, the ever-present, unchanging God]—I am He.’” 5 The islands and coastlands have seen and they fear; The ends of the earth tremble; They have drawn near and have come. 6 They each help his neighbor And say to his brother [as he fashions his idols], “Be of good courage!” 7 So the craftsman encourages the goldsmith, And he who smooths metal with the smith’s hammer encourages him who beats the anvil, Saying of the soldering (welding), “That is good”; And he fastens the idol with nails, So that it will not totter nor be moved . . . . 21 “Present your case [for idols made by men’s hands],” says the Lord. “Produce your evidence [of divinity],” Says the king of Jacob. 22 Let them bring forward [their evidence] and tell us what is going to happen. Regarding the former events, tell what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome; Or announce to us the things that are going to come. 23 Tell us the things that are to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, you should do something good or do evil, [c]that we may be afraid and fear [you] together [as we observe the miracle]. 24 Hear this! You [idols] are less than nothing, And your work is worthless; The worshiper who chooses you [as a god] is repulsive. Isa 48:3 “I have declared the former things [which happened to Israel] in times past; They went forth from My mouth and I proclaimed them; Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. 4 “Because I know that you are obstinate, And your neck is an iron tendon And your brow is bronze [both unyielding], 5 I have declared them to you long ago; Before they came to pass I announced them to you, So that you could not say, ‘My idol has done them, And my carved image and my cast image have commanded them.’ 6 “You have heard [these things foretold]; look at all this [that has been fulfilled]. And you, will you not declare it? I proclaim to you [specific] new things from this time, Even [u]hidden things which you have not known. 7 “They are created now [called into being by the prophetic word] and not long ago; And before today you have not heard of them, So that you will not say, ‘Oh yes! I knew them.’ [AMP]
In short, the real God has power to foretell the future, in warning to those who are in rebellion against him, in hope for those who look to him (even while suffering the consequences of earlier folly). Where, idolaters of old put their carvings in temples, today, we put them in museums, on TV and on YouTube, with illustrations in textbooks. Images surrounded by myths that turn hearts away from God. And in a new situation, he also acts freshly in a prophetic manner, demonstrating his here and now power. In the words of Amos:
Amos 3:4 Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Does a young lion growl from his den if he has not captured something? 5 Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it? Does a trap spring up from the ground when it has caught nothing at all? [Of course not! So it is that Israel has earned her impending judgment.] 6 If a trumpet is blown in a city [warning of danger] will not the people tremble? If a disaster or misfortune occurs in a city has not the Lord caused it? [--> That is, by judgement of consequences in the teeth of warnings not heeded, or by direct acts of judgement] 7 Surely the Lord God does nothing [a]Without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets. 8 The lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken [to the prophets]! Who can but prophesy? [AMP]
So, what is the evidence? ANS: Isa 52 - 53 is perhaps the classic reference. Let's clip: >>>>>>>>>> http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_accor "According to the Scriptures . . . " This key phrase sets the testimony of the 500 witnesses in context: God acting to fulfill his promises to his covenant people, Israel, that he would send a Messiah; an anointed Deliverer. Indeed, the promise is not just to Israel but to all mankind, as can be seen from the curse put upon the deceiving serpent of Genesis 3: Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Here, we see that the power of evil over humanity gained through the fall of our fore-parents, was to be utterly broken by one who would be the seed of the woman -- a subtle prophecy of the virgin birth. Also, the blow of victory would be crushing, but it would be costly. The Messiah was to be a wounded healer. Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 -- from its context of the reign of Hezekiah and the then recent attacks of the Assyrians, c. 700 BC -- gives us far more details:
Isa: 52:13Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. 14As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— 15so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand. Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. 8By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? 9And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. [ESV. The source of the Christian theology of the redemptive, saving, healing, delivering substitute is not hard to discern!]
The predictive prophecies of the rejection of and redemptive death, burial, and resurrection of Messiah and the theology of saving, healing, liberating atonement through our wounded redeemer and healer are plain. In the teeth of the hopes for a political and military deliverer that dominated the hopes of a colonised and oppressed nation in the First Century, we see here a suffering servant who is a wounded healer and atoning sacrifice, not only for Israel but for the whole world. And so also we come to Jehovah's taunt to the gods (and their priests):
Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me . . . . Isa 46:9remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose[ESV]
The God of prophecy is the only God, the Lord of History, the Saviour. (And yes: "Saviour," here, is plainly a Divine title.) So, the conviction, testimony and message of the church -- from the first to the twenty-first century – is that that Lord has acted in his Christ, who came according to the scriptures, died for our sins as our substitute, was buried, and rose again as triumphant Lord. This same Jesus the Christ, is our Saviour; who shall return one day to judge the world and break the power of evil forever. It is therefore no surprise to see just that testimony summarised in the core of the AD 325 and 381 Nicene Creed. Here, we read in the Book of Common Prayer translation:
[THE NICENE CREED, 325 & 381:] We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
>>>>>>>>>> So, according to the scriptures, 700 years ahead of time. KF PS: And again, notice, the core Christian case of warrant turns on fulfilled prophecy attested by 500 witnesses, not any scientific inference to design on signs. It is time that the strawman caricatures were retired. Again, Peter, on the eve of his judicial murder c 65 AD on Nero's trumped up accusation of treasonous arson against Rome July 18, 64 AD:
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories or myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were [h]eyewitnesses of His majesty [His grandeur, His authority, His sovereignty]. 17 For when He was invested with honor and [the radiance of the [i]Shekinah] glory from God the Father, such a voice as this came to Him from the [splendid] Majestic Glory [in the bright cloud that overshadowed Him, saying], [j]“This is My Son, My Beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased and delighted”— 18 and we [actually] heard this voice made from heaven when we were together with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more certain. You do well to pay [close] attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and light breaks through the gloom and the [k]morning star arises in your hearts. 20 [l]But understand this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of or comes from one’s own [personal or special] interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved [–> with typhoon force] by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [AMP, I use this as it draws out underlying things in the Greek text]
kairosfocus
May 6, 2017
May
05
May
6
06
2017
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
To summarize: This argument started on another thread wherein I argued that not content to merely disbelieve, atheists attempt to legislate millenia old Judeo-Christian views out of society. Therein (and the OP above) I further argued that:
.... while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ. .... The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists. .... And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
rvb8 exemplifies the failed atheist predilection to convince "believers" there is nothing in which to believe. rvb8 even went so far as to offer up his list of questions which he claims makes backsliders of new converts (comments 337 & 364). Further, not only are atheists dissatisfied to merely disbelieve, some in fact actually do believe in a fundamental cosmic intelligence (comment 13), that they have a soul (which atheist here denies he has an immaterial personalilty and a conscience?), that heaven and hell exist, and that Jesus is the Savior who offers eternal life (comment 364). And while these atheists/materialists claim there is no evidence for Christian belief, not one of them commenting here (no, not one) refuted the evidence for God's existence and that Jesus is the Messiah, presented in comments @ 12, 23, 29, 64-67, 71, 167, 173, 181, 210, 278, and 364. One "immaterial materialist" tried to find a flaw in that evidence (comments 159, 167 & 173), another stood pat on his self-admitted improbable Christian hoax theory (see comments 174, 175, 200, 210, and 278), and lastly, rvb8 couldn't even defend his "backslider" questions (comments 337 & 364). Atheists/materialists are dissatisfied with their own disbelief because they haven't convinced themselves, let alone anyone else. Q.E.D.Charles
May 4, 2017
May
05
May
4
04
2017
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
HP, with all due respect, I am duty-bound to point out the nature of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (as I summarised above as a yardstick) and to point out that no individual or group is in a position to alter such to suit their preferences. And in saying that, I know this point will be unpopular in a radically relativist or subjectivist ultra-modernist [more accurate than "post modern"] age. KFkairosfocus
May 3, 2017
May
05
May
3
03
2017
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: "If you have not met these conditions, you may be a part of a Christianised culture (now frankly largely apostate) and may have some affinity or affiliations, but you have unfortunately not come to the pivotal experience of repentance and trust." I must have missed the part where I asked you about advice on how to be a Christian. If I wanted advice, I certainly wouldn't come to a blog to receive it from an anonymous source. Arguing about what it is to be a good Christian is not something I have any intention or desire to do. I know what it takes for me to be a good Christian and that is all that I care about.hammaspeikko
May 2, 2017
May
05
May
2
02
2017
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 18

Leave a Reply