[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

OK, but I forgot to mention that I also like Arab food, the Palestinians, and Mexican food. My Mexican friends are some of the greatest people in the world.

Still not caring. You know I am a kind of Mexican, though touched by the grace of the Lord. I am part of the greatest people in the world. The ones chosen by God to live with Him after death.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

OK, but I forgot to mention that I also like Arab food ...

I didn't realise that there was such a thing as "Arab food". Goodness me, the things you learn from experts on the internet!

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

And I do not care about what you do or like.

OK, but I forgot to mention that I also like Arab food, the Palestinians, and Mexican food. My Mexican friends are some of the greatest people in the world.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I love black people and I love all Jews. They are some of the best people in the world. I also love all Asians, Buddhists and Hindus. I love Chinese food, Vietnamese food, Indian food and Jewish food and I love their cultures. Some of the smartest people in the world are Jewish, Indian, or Asian. And of course, Russian culture and food and the various European cultures are great also.

And I do not care about what you do or like. I look for guidance in the Bible, not you.


Thanks anyway.


Please, when the science can prove that is our God, and not any other God, send me a private message. Until that science is useless even if you were right and not being crushed by Dr White and señorita Dolores.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Fixsen,D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic MicrowaveBackground". TheAstrophysical Journal. 707(2):916–920.


White,M. (1999). Anisotropiesin the CMB. Proceedingsof the Los Angeles Meeting, DPF 99. UCLA. arXiv:astro-ph/9903232 

Thank you. It would be more helpful if you provided a direct link to the actual articles.

Here is the direct link for the first one. I have learned from it that while the accuracy of our method of estimating the CMB temperature is still far from perfect, it is being refined all the time.

For the second one you did provide an almost-direct link, thank you. It is quite outdated as it was written in 1999 but it helps to see how the science on the subject has changed in one decade. I like its optimism but the later Fixsen's article shows that White should have been much more cautious and less cheerful in his writing.

It would be even more useful to see a more recent citation, something from the last few years, to see how science has changed since 2009. But you are finally improving. I appreciate that.

I think you are mistaken when you say that I do not rely on modern science or the scientific method. I am not sure why you would think so.

Probably because until now you have been name-dropping ("so-and-so said that") and appealing to majority as some sort of authority ("the majority of X says Y") which is not scientific at all.

I do hope that you find this explanation helpful.

In addition to Holy Scripture, there are alternate sources which mention Jesus and Christianity in the early stages of development.

I am eager to hear you list the early non-Christian sources which support the historicity of Jesus. I am not aware of such sources, but then again, I did history of religions in my undergrad studies, so maybe there are new sources now which were not available then.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

First, "common sense" or "relying on authorities" are not scientific methods.

This is very true. You are making a lot of sense here. Modern physics has shown us that it is necessary to refine our ordinary notion of common sense. That is why we need to think a little more deeply about the question of suffering and the omnipotence of an all Merciful and all Loving God. Our ordinary and common sense notions will fail us as we go forward with our study of this question.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Boys, you are taking the fun out of the worshipping of God. Why don't we go back to discuss the usual topics on how do we protect ourselves from homofaggotry, niggotry and jewishery?

I love black people and I love all Jews. They are some of the best people in the world. I also love all Asians, Buddhists and Hindus. I love Chinese food, Vietnamese food, Indian food and Jewish food and I love their cultures. Some of the smartest people in the world are Jewish, Indian, or Asian. And of course, Russian culture and food and the various European cultures are great also.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Boys, you are taking the fun out of the worshipping of God. Why don't we go back to discuss the usual topics on how do we protect ourselves from homofaggotry, niggotry and jewishery?

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Second, classical mechanics were never dismissed but supplemented by relativity not because "relativity appeared" but because observations no longer supported classical mechanics and no matter how they tried, the photoelectric effect and the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example, could not be explained, and new theories were necessary.

Newtonian gravitational theory works on the principle of instantaneous action at a distance which is not true according to the general theory of relativity.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

How do you know those who claim that Jesus was a mythological figure who never walked on Earth did not get it right?

In addition to Holy Scripture, there are alternate sources which mention Jesus and Christianity in the early stages of development. There is such a thing as historical fact which is true, but cannot be proven to be true to a solipsist. You might as well ask how do you know that your mother or Ivanka Trump exists and it is not all a dream. Is reality an illusion of some sort? There are different levels of knowledge with perhaps the most certain being mathematical knowledge. I don't know anyone who would deny that in euclidean geometry the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. However, there are those who deny that there ever was a man on the moon. Can you prove to a solipsist that there was a rocket sent to the moon and a man landed there?

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The Catholic Catechism has but one interpretation. Is it more reliable than our Statement of Faith

I would say it is certainly more comprehensive and in any case is pretty reliable.

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian™ Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

Mr. Much,


If you really want severe burns try an oxy-acetelene torch.


YIC
TT

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Obviously, tradition, common sense, and reliance on Biblical experts have their limitations in theological studies and our knowledge derived from these methods can frequently be improved. And this is also true for other areas of study. Take for example, Newton's gravitational laws which were thought to be the last word until relativity came about. Still, in college freshmen calculus and physics courses, students are asked questions about escape velocities and throwing a ball up in the air from a certain height and angle and asked to calculate when it will hit the ground (using Newtonian mechanics). Undergraduate physics majors generally study electromagnetism classically and do not get into quantum electrodynamics QED except at a more advanced level. So although our knowledge may be somewhat incomplete or limited, it is not useless. I think you are mistaken when you say that I do not rely on modern science or the scientific method. I am not sure why you would think so.

My hopes are not high but your enthusiasm to continue discussing these things gives me strength to go on.

2 Samuel 22:33
God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.

First, "common sense" or "relying on authorities" are not scientific methods. That is why I mentioned that when it comes to assessing which parts of the Bible are True™ in your opinion, you rely on your feelings ("common sense") and hearsay ("tradition and authorities") and just give them fancy names. If you relied on the latest developments and improvements in studies on the historicity of Jesus and the process that became the Bible you would not be able to accept anything except a few geographical places beyond reasonable doubt. No, you don't seem to trust science there, which is good for you!

Second, classical mechanics were never dismissed but supplemented by relativity not because "relativity appeared" but because observations no longer supported classical mechanics and no matter how they tried, the photoelectric effect and the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example, could not be explained, and new theories were necessary. Of course, people are still taught Newtonian mechanics, as they work very well in everyday life and the effects of QM or relativity can be disregarded when you design a bridge.

I am not going to discuss any additional Gish Gallop examples of personal names. You trust your feelings and authorities regarding the Bible's Truth™ value. How can you know they were not deliberately or accidentally mistaken? How do you know those who claim that Jesus was a mythological figure who never walked on Earth did not get it right? How do you reconcile the mindless suffering and eschatology with the standard cosmological model. If all that is true, what's the point?

Based on the original source (the Bible) many scholars have written hundreds of thousands of pages explaining why Jesus did "not mean or say what He actually said". These accounts are widely divergent. The Catholic Catechism has but one interpretation. Is it more reliable than our Statement of Faith or feminist theology or process theology or OEC or JW or Mormonism or Urantia or liberation theology or 18th century Deism or the mythicist theory? How do you choose among these mutually conflicting interpretations?

Except by turning to the original source material. That's what we do!

Revelation 22:6
And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Yes, I know.

You thus rely on modern science when it comes to the Genesis not being literal history. OK. This is acceptable. I don't endorse it and I think that it is perilous to your soul and to Christianity based on the issues I tried to make you assess (suffering and eschatology).

When it comes to choosing the parts that you like, however, you do not rely on modern science. OK. Your choice. Instead (from the perspective of methodological naturalism that is OK with Genesis) you choose to believe...

• Tradition (the ad traditionem fallacy, things don't have to be right even if many people used to believe them).
• Biblical experts (the ad verecundiam/appeal to authority fallacy - an issue can be wrong even if promoted by a prestigious figure, you might want to check the Nobel-Prize winner Montagnier and his opinions on water memory, if you're interested; and you could rely on the Bible instead of someone else's opinion on it).
• Common sense (the appeal to reason fallacy, for instance, QM and the theory of relativity and totally against common sense yet in those cases they're OK).

Verily, this is what I called special pleading earlier on. Different criteria to assess different issues. Still, please let me say that I appreciate your sincerity and our discussion, as you clearly have been forced to step out of your comfort zone. I urge you to re-assess the positions of tradition, your own musings (our cognitive faculties are notoriously unreliable) and reliance on authority and then think over the things we discussed. I am afraid that I'm seeing precedents of all this in the Bible.

1 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

I don't think I need to say more at the moment. I'm praying for you.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Obviously, tradition, common sense, and reliance on Biblical experts have their limitations in theological studies and our knowledge derived from these methods can frequently be improved. And this is also true for other areas of study. Take for example, Newton's gravitational laws which were thought to be the last word until relativity came about. Still, in college freshmen calculus and physics courses, students are asked questions about escape velocities and throwing a ball up in the air from a certain height and angle and asked to calculate when it will hit the ground (using Newtonian mechanics). Undergraduate physics majors generally study electromagnetism classically and do not get into quantum electrodynamics QED except at a more advanced level. So although our knowledge may be somewhat incomplete or limited, it is not useless. I think you are mistaken when you say that I do not rely on modern science or the scientific method. I am not sure why you would think so.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

... I think that it is perilous to your soul and to Christianity based on the issues I tried to make you assess (suffering and eschatology).

I don't see eschatology as a serious disputed question, at least from the Catholic POV. The very serious question of suffering is one which does need to be discussed in detail.