3 ms·

> They assumed that an omnipotent God existed. I actually doubt that they assumed that. Much more likely their belief in an omnipotent God was based on some

by lisper 4y ago

> They assumed that an omnipotent God existed. I actually doubt that they assumed that. Much more likely their belief in an omnipotent God was based on some more fundamental assumption, like that the Bible is true.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Yes they believed in more than the omnipotent God. However, the omnipotent God was the base assumption in their argument. It didn't require belief in the Bible as a base assumption for their argument to hold together, only a belief in an omnipotent God. The robustness in their argument was probably so it would hold up for both literal Bible adherents and figurative Bible adherents. IIRC it was some sort of adaptation of an argument for a literal Bible. IIRC it was something like this: If you believe in a figurative Bible you believe in an omnipotent God. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then (steps elided because I can't remember them, but they were logical), thus proving a literal Bible thesis and a figurative Bible thesis were equivalent.
- lisper 4y ago
  OK, I've never met a religious person who admitted to this as their base assumption, and I've talked to a lot of religious people (I run a weekly Bible study). It seems like a really weird thing to assume. But my experience is obviously not exhaustive.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    That's not their base belief. It's their argument's base assumption. Nobody ever states their true base assumptions when arguing anything. Most people don't know the base assumptions of the argument they are making. It takes a lot of analysis to tease it out.
    - lisper 4y ago
      > It's their argument's base assumption. According to them, or according to you? Because if it's according to you then I'm pretty sure you're just wrong. (But of course unless we can consult with one of your subjects there is no way to resolve this so we should probably just drop it.)
- krapp 4y ago
  > It didn't require belief in the Bible as a base assumption for their argument to hold together, only a belief in an omnipotent God. Young Earth Creationism is, as I understand it, entirely based on a literal interpretation of Genesis - the "young earth" part specifically referring to using the Old Testament from Genesis as a basis for counting geologic time.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    If your argument requires a belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis, it's not a very robust argument since most people don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. If your argument requires a belief in an omnipotent omniscient God, it's a lot more robust because a small majority of people believe in an omnipotent omniscient God.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Young Earth Creationism is a Christian fundamentalist framework masquerading as science. They may not mention the Bible in order to keep up the facade of simply presenting an alternate scientific viewpoint, but requiring a belief in the Bible is still non-negotiable, since their entire thesis, as such, draws from it.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        Certainly my exposure to them is limited and I'd like to keep it that way, but in my experience you've got it backwards. The literal Bible is the goal, not the base assumption. They want to prove that the Bible is literal truth. Evolution disproves the literal Bible, therefore they must disprove evolution and/or prove creationism.

by lisper 4y ago

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Yes they believed in more than the omnipotent God. However, the omnipotent God was the base assumption in their argument. It didn't require belief in the Bible as a base assumption for their argument to hold together, only a belief in an omnipotent God. The robustness in their argument was probably so it would hold up for both literal Bible adherents and figurative Bible adherents. IIRC it was some sort of adaptation of an argument for a literal Bible. IIRC it was something like this: If you believe in a figurative Bible you believe in an omnipotent God. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then (steps elided because I can't remember them, but they were logical), thus proving a literal Bible thesis and a figurative Bible thesis were equivalent.

lisper 4y ago
OK, I've never met a religious person who admitted to this as their base assumption, and I've talked to a lot of religious people (I run a weekly Bible study). It seems like a really weird thing to assume. But my experience is obviously not exhaustive.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  That's not their base belief. It's their argument's base assumption. Nobody ever states their true base assumptions when arguing anything. Most people don't know the base assumptions of the argument they are making. It takes a lot of analysis to tease it out.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > It's their argument's base assumption. According to them, or according to you? Because if it's according to you then I'm pretty sure you're just wrong. (But of course unless we can consult with one of your subjects there is no way to resolve this so we should probably just drop it.)
krapp 4y ago
> It didn't require belief in the Bible as a base assumption for their argument to hold together, only a belief in an omnipotent God. Young Earth Creationism is, as I understand it, entirely based on a literal interpretation of Genesis - the "young earth" part specifically referring to using the Old Testament from Genesis as a basis for counting geologic time.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  If your argument requires a belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis, it's not a very robust argument since most people don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. If your argument requires a belief in an omnipotent omniscient God, it's a lot more robust because a small majority of people believe in an omnipotent omniscient God.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Young Earth Creationism is a Christian fundamentalist framework masquerading as science. They may not mention the Bible in order to keep up the facade of simply presenting an alternate scientific viewpoint, but requiring a belief in the Bible is still non-negotiable, since their entire thesis, as such, draws from it.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      Certainly my exposure to them is limited and I'd like to keep it that way, but in my experience you've got it backwards. The literal Bible is the goal, not the base assumption. They want to prove that the Bible is literal truth. Evolution disproves the literal Bible, therefore they must disprove evolution and/or prove creationism.