3 ms·

> So considering God, to be truth can be the only fully trustworthy position Has "God" and his proclamations not been proven wrong over the age of the Earth, t

> So considering God, to be truth can be the only fully trustworthy position Has "God" and his proclamations not been proven wrong over the age of the Earth, the origins of mankind, geocentrism, global flooding, etcetra? If secularism promotes the warping of objective truths, then religion reciprocally practices the interpretation of fiction. As a rational person I'd rather argue over the merits of rational information. From my perspective, the existence of a God is used as a ersatz explanation for determinism. Not to get too far off in the weeds, but this is usually the Achilles heel of religion. We create religion because man feels a need to justify irrational suffering. Why aren't the crops growing, why did our king die, how does space work, who made us, all of these questions have been skewed by religion since time immemorial. When you deconstruct Christianity and the merits of religion from a postmodern worldview, you very quickly identify how it digs it's claws into people. The founding fathers of America, Christian though they may be, even acknowledge the poison that is a state-affiliated church. Thousands of people have senselessly lost their lives throughout history due to deference to religious interpretation over logic. I've heard the gospel since I was a kid, and I've watched the wheel go round with or without the dedication of the faithful. People deserve a better education than a penitent mindset. Peace and suffering are thermodynamic certainties, religion will make no sense of it unless you reject reality entirely.

tsegratis 3y ago
You know the big bang was initially rejected by scientists as being too religious? https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-conceived-of-the-big-bang/ https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-... > age of the Earth Heavens and the earth are created, and light and dark are separated out before the first day listed in Genesis1.5. So total length of time is unstated. The length of the day is also unspecified, see Hebrews3, which shows that those 7 days are still in effect "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as you did in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers tested and tried Me, and for forty years saw My works." Heb3. An example where day means 40 years, and today means an unspecified period of time longer than 24hours The bible has no proclamations on the age of the earth or geocentrism. Unless you're Calvinist (and not many people are), God is also not used as an explanation for determinism Global flooding, I would argue is roughly the same as the issue of "day". If everything was flooded as far as you could see in every direction, you would say everything was flooded. It would be silly to misconstrue that. You know that the Black Sea floor was inhabited and catastrophically flooded around the time of Noah? Noah and vast portions of the bible are supported by archeology You dismiss examples that many Christians already dismiss. That is corroboration > Not to get too far off in the weeds I like the weeds. Just some quick thoughts: > religious interpretation over logic Do you know that the best basis we have for logic (set theory) was said by Georg Cantor to be given to him as a revelation by God, to help us understand God better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor I think the universe cannot provide a foundation for logic without being cycilical. For instance explain axioms, without using axioms. They simply exist, without possible explanation. Quines are possible (uses an external transformer to re-create itself), but a self-explaining system without external help, is as possible as a perpetual motion machine. All systems we have require an external force to exist, including logic How can you argue postmodernism is more logical? To quote wikipedia "postmodernism ... rejects the certainty of knowledge and stable meaning, and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power. The idea of objective claims is dismissed" In postmodernism you loose stability and objectivity > a better education than a penitent mindset Jesus didn't advocate for this, a penitent mindset would hardly be good news. @nickpsecurity explains this well on his website But thankyou for your comments!
- talldayo 3y ago
  > You dismiss examples that many Christians already dismiss. That is corroboration It's part of my point. When the text isn't an authority on itself, who holds the power in it's interpretation? It simply becomes a tool for narrative control, which has been repeated throughout history to violent extents. Religion is a tool for subjugation, and Christianity is the pinnacle of the master/slave morality system regardless of how Jesus feels about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality > All systems we have require an external force to exist, including logic Sure, it's a lot to think about. The regressive nature of reality doesn't preclude the idea that things can be explained, though. Multiple times throughout history, religion has contended with the modern understanding of reality or society. You've done an excellent job cherry-picking the agnostic advancements in science, but there's no shortage of conflicting advancements that challenge that worldview. The best we can do is agree that it's too abstract to say anything for sure (or build a faith system around it, your pick). > How can you argue postmodernism is more logical? Because of the second part of the sentence: and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power As I said, the truth is manipulated no matter where you are, secular or not. Whoever can create the most-trusted narrative controls their constituents, through lies or blind faith. Faith is not separate from this system, however enticing the idea of "true belief" is. Anything can be challenged with more conclusive evidence, and should God reach out tomorrow and invite me for a game of checkers I'll write you an update about what I think then.
nickpsecurity 3y ago
"not been proven wrong over the age of the Earth, the origins of mankind, geocentrism, global flooding, etcetra?" It really hasn't. One thing I realized after finding Christ was how many of our "scientific" beliefs weren't science at all. We simply repeated, on faith, what other people told us with no thorough peer review or proof of many claims. If the proof contradicted it, then organized science would suppress alternative views. Actually, no dissent is allowed in academia on some topics which is a hallmark of religion, not science. (Science always allows dissent or exploration.) So, age of the Earth. The theory that we've been around forever was built on the assumption that how Earth works today is how it always worked. That there were no geology-changing catastrophes or that they were rare. The Flood predicted we'd find evidence of Earthquakes, super volcanos, tsunamis, maybe hypercanes, etc. All life on Earth was wiped out by chaotic events that would've layered them on top of each other. Today, modern science talks about all of those things I named with new research showing catastrophe was common. Which means all guesses about millions of years etc need to be thrown away. They told us fossils and geological structures take a long, long time to form. It's been proven false by actual observations today. They still keep repeating it because it's faith, not science. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/ https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/texas-miniature-grand-canyon/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/texas-... On evolution, Darwin predicted a continuous stream of changes from one species to another for all species. The fossil record should be full of transitional fossils. With billions of animals in captivity, we should be seeing new ones all the time. Instead, the fossil record shows (esp Cambrian Explosion) fully formed animals appearing out of nowhere with no transitions. We see no evolution today with the only adaptations happening within the same kinds God originally created. While evolution is falsified, they repeat it non-stop with no dissent allowed because it's their religion. The Bible also said humans originally descended from a small number of people near Africa and the Middle East. That it happened not long ago (eg 4500 years). Both population analysis and genetic analysis show that's the case. They get no press coverage. Even scientists have often said we came from one group in Africa while giving the Bible no credit for that prediction. So, the Bible is true again. https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics I'm also re-running the population estimates myself using the exponential, growth model with all observed, growth rates. Using both averages and Monte Carlo over varying rates, evolution model is always off by insane numbers while 4500 years is closer to the truth. At one rate, 4500 years is really close to today's population while evolution predicts the Earth would be totally full of creatures. Although I hope to publish it, I want to get it checked by data scientists for methodological errors first.

tsegratis 3y ago

You know the big bang was initially rejected by scientists as being too religious? https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-conceived-of-the-big-bang/ https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-jesuit-astronomer-who-... > age of the Earth Heavens and the earth are created, and light and dark are separated out before the first day listed in Genesis1.5. So total length of time is unstated. The length of the day is also unspecified, see Hebrews3, which shows that those 7 days are still in effect "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as you did in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers tested and tried Me, and for forty years saw My works." Heb3. An example where day means 40 years, and today means an unspecified period of time longer than 24hours The bible has no proclamations on the age of the earth or geocentrism. Unless you're Calvinist (and not many people are), God is also not used as an explanation for determinism Global flooding, I would argue is roughly the same as the issue of "day". If everything was flooded as far as you could see in every direction, you would say everything was flooded. It would be silly to misconstrue that. You know that the Black Sea floor was inhabited and catastrophically flooded around the time of Noah? Noah and vast portions of the bible are supported by archeology You dismiss examples that many Christians already dismiss. That is corroboration > Not to get too far off in the weeds I like the weeds. Just some quick thoughts: > religious interpretation over logic Do you know that the best basis we have for logic (set theory) was said by Georg Cantor to be given to him as a revelation by God, to help us understand God better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor I think the universe cannot provide a foundation for logic without being cycilical. For instance explain axioms, without using axioms. They simply exist, without possible explanation. Quines are possible (uses an external transformer to re-create itself), but a self-explaining system without external help, is as possible as a perpetual motion machine. All systems we have require an external force to exist, including logic How can you argue postmodernism is more logical? To quote wikipedia "postmodernism ... rejects the certainty of knowledge and stable meaning, and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power. The idea of objective claims is dismissed" In postmodernism you loose stability and objectivity > a better education than a penitent mindset Jesus didn't advocate for this, a penitent mindset would hardly be good news. @nickpsecurity explains this well on his website But thankyou for your comments!

talldayo 3y ago
> You dismiss examples that many Christians already dismiss. That is corroboration It's part of my point. When the text isn't an authority on itself, who holds the power in it's interpretation? It simply becomes a tool for narrative control, which has been repeated throughout history to violent extents. Religion is a tool for subjugation, and Christianity is the pinnacle of the master/slave morality system regardless of how Jesus feels about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality > All systems we have require an external force to exist, including logic Sure, it's a lot to think about. The regressive nature of reality doesn't preclude the idea that things can be explained, though. Multiple times throughout history, religion has contended with the modern understanding of reality or society. You've done an excellent job cherry-picking the agnostic advancements in science, but there's no shortage of conflicting advancements that challenge that worldview. The best we can do is agree that it's too abstract to say anything for sure (or build a faith system around it, your pick). > How can you argue postmodernism is more logical? Because of the second part of the sentence: and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power As I said, the truth is manipulated no matter where you are, secular or not. Whoever can create the most-trusted narrative controls their constituents, through lies or blind faith. Faith is not separate from this system, however enticing the idea of "true belief" is. Anything can be challenged with more conclusive evidence, and should God reach out tomorrow and invite me for a game of checkers I'll write you an update about what I think then.

nickpsecurity 3y ago

"not been proven wrong over the age of the Earth, the origins of mankind, geocentrism, global flooding, etcetra?" It really hasn't. One thing I realized after finding Christ was how many of our "scientific" beliefs weren't science at all. We simply repeated, on faith, what other people told us with no thorough peer review or proof of many claims. If the proof contradicted it, then organized science would suppress alternative views. Actually, no dissent is allowed in academia on some topics which is a hallmark of religion, not science. (Science always allows dissent or exploration.) So, age of the Earth. The theory that we've been around forever was built on the assumption that how Earth works today is how it always worked. That there were no geology-changing catastrophes or that they were rare. The Flood predicted we'd find evidence of Earthquakes, super volcanos, tsunamis, maybe hypercanes, etc. All life on Earth was wiped out by chaotic events that would've layered them on top of each other. Today, modern science talks about all of those things I named with new research showing catastrophe was common. Which means all guesses about millions of years etc need to be thrown away. They told us fossils and geological structures take a long, long time to form. It's been proven false by actual observations today. They still keep repeating it because it's faith, not science. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/ https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/texas-miniature-grand-canyon/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/texas-... On evolution, Darwin predicted a continuous stream of changes from one species to another for all species. The fossil record should be full of transitional fossils. With billions of animals in captivity, we should be seeing new ones all the time. Instead, the fossil record shows (esp Cambrian Explosion) fully formed animals appearing out of nowhere with no transitions. We see no evolution today with the only adaptations happening within the same kinds God originally created. While evolution is falsified, they repeat it non-stop with no dissent allowed because it's their religion. The Bible also said humans originally descended from a small number of people near Africa and the Middle East. That it happened not long ago (eg 4500 years). Both population analysis and genetic analysis show that's the case. They get no press coverage. Even scientists have often said we came from one group in Africa while giving the Bible no credit for that prediction. So, the Bible is true again. https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics I'm also re-running the population estimates myself using the exponential, growth model with all observed, growth rates. Using both averages and Monte Carlo over varying rates, evolution model is always off by insane numbers while 4500 years is closer to the truth. At one rate, 4500 years is really close to today's population while evolution predicts the Earth would be totally full of creatures. Although I hope to publish it, I want to get it checked by data scientists for methodological errors first.