What’s the same?
You don’t really have your heart in this discussion, do you.
1 Like
The art of rhetoric allows one to put up a show of argumentation without much meaning and thus to push your will on others even when you have no reason of substance to do so. It is called empty rhetoric and a typical tactic of empty rhetoric is to accuse others of empty rhetoric even whey clearly state their reasons for their argument. Another tactic is the two year old game of asking endless questions such as why why why… This game of rhetoric is enhanced by the uncertainty whether there really is meaning or substance behind their words but you just cannot see it because their thinking is too far and alien to your own. But there are a few signs and clues which give them away, such as the sense that they are not really interested in any of the answers you give to their questions because they simply ignore your answers rather than address them.
What discussion? You made an empty claim and got your facts wrong which you can’t acknowledge to save your life.
But you refuse to identify what facts are wrong. Makes it pretty hard to work the discussion through to a real conclusion when you abandon the details mid-way.
The facts you seem to think are self-evident is:
-
Christians MUST believe God only works through natural lawful processes.
-
And that Christians cannot logically believe in a lawful order punctuated by certain super-natural or miraculous events.
In fact, my position is that almost all Trinitarian Christians in America believe in at least SOME miracles… and the Young Earth Creationists affirm EVEN MORE miraculous activity, while rejecting natural processes of Evolution at the same time.
Since the sentence above (in bold font) is so evidently obvious and evidently true, it is hard to believe you are willing to take up your pen (or keyboard) to contradict me.
And yet, apparently your secret weapon is to contradict me without specifying what you are contradicting - - and that way you win the discussion without looking like someone who can’t read English.
Incoherent.
I identified your factual error in the last line of my first response. How could you have missed it?
If you actually have any interest in the answers given to you then you may ask questions about what it is in particular that you do not understand… or is the entire science of physics something you typically find incoherent? If not then you could even just google the subject mentioned.
No the incoherence is in you saying I was incorrect in saying that natural processes explain the OP and further bizarrely following up with a non sequitur.
Incorrect. The demonstration that for some events there are no hidden variable within the accepted premises of the scientific worldview determining such outcomes means that events are not fully explained within those premises, and you either have to accept that there is no explanation for why some things happen or the explanation is from outside the scientific worldview based on those premises. As I said, you can google Bell’s inequality to check this out for yourself if you do not understand any part of this. But the application of this discovery to your claim that everything is explained by natural processes is completely straightforward. It is a demonstrable discovery of science itself that science cannot account for the way everything happens – that is a false conclusion from the outdated science of the nineteenth century which is now understood to be incorrect.
Incoherent. Bell’s inequality is natural. I have no need to refer to what I already know. Why would you think I didn’t? How you know Bell’s inequality is unnatural I haven’t the faintest idea and you cannot communicate it.
Bell’s inequality and all of the paradoxes of mathematics actually found in reality, like actual infinity, are the perfectly natural explanation of everything.
I abandoned no details and pointed out your two errors, both in the OP, in my first post here.
No fact of mine. Christians believe all manner of nonsense. But they, we can’t believe that as Jesus wasn’t natural.
All Christians do, including this one, so not my fact.
Why would I?
Unlike you I am English.
@Klax, you wrote this in your first response:
So… do you or don’t you think Jesus was born God?
Do you or don’t you think Jesus being born God is a miraculous event?
Do you or don’t you think that Jesus being resurrected after dying on the cross is a miraculous event?
If you say No to at least two of these questions, then you are denying the legitimacy of Trinitarian Christian beliefs… and maybe even if you say No to only one of these, depending on how you justify it.
Why the incomplete quote?
Because it summarizes your viewpoint enough to know you are wrong.
If we have to explain the creation of Adam and Eve by natural means, then we must also deny other one-off miracles, like Jesus being born a god, or a dead Jesus being resurrected.
These things have to be explained by natural means… if it even makes sense to allow Jesus to be a God!
Now that is a non sequitur.
Of course it makes no sense that God should become a man. As Kierkegaard pointed out, Christian faith is an offense to reason, since it depends on the paradox of the eternal, immortal, infinite God being incarnated in time as a finite man.
1 Like
In other words you cannot admit that you are demonstrably wrong; you misinterpreted the article and me. As there was no Adam and Eve apart from in an old Jewish story, what’s that got to do with Jesus? I had no idea there were Unitarian YECists.
Because you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not know anything about this such as when you describe Bell’s inequality as natural or unnatural. It is as absurd as describing the moon as salty.
Calling Bell’s inequality natural or unnatural is just absurd, showing how little you understand what it is about. This is not a phenomenon of any kind. It is a derived mathematical relation (under a set of assumptions about reality) for a set of measurable correlations. The assumptions besides the basic premises of the scientific world view is that the outcome of certain events are determined by unknown variables. So these correlations were measured and it was found that the derived inequality does not hold. In other words Bell’s inequality does NOT describe reality and the question is why? The inescapable conclusion is that either premises of the scientific worldview are not correct or the unknown variables determining these events do not exist (this latter conclusion is the consensus of the physics community). Again all this is something you can google.
Bell’s inequality is not paradox of mathematics. And the claim to have found infinity in reality is a level of preposterous that demonstrates very little understanding of physics.
But it is hardly surprising that you do not understand any of this stuff. Physicists struggle with understanding quantum physics and non-physicist usually doesn’t understand enough to comprehend the difficulty. Covering this all with a blanket platitude is typical of an ideologue whose pretense at understanding is the emptiest rhetoric of all.
And so you have a master-plan to convince Trinitarian Christians there is a way to resolve the conflicts within the Bible: you only require that they no longer be Trinitarian Christians.
This is exactly the point I am raising with @Klax! He too seems to think the solution is to REQUIRE American Christians to drop Trinitarian views.
Is this, then, the “highest and best” solution for BioLogos literature in general?
Or will the “highest and best” solution be the one that makes minimum requirements on a Trinitarian audience, other than to accept Evolutionary processes as part of God’s design of his Creation!
You must be reading my posts too quickly. I have NOT proposed Unitarian YECs… I am criticizing YOU for attempting to suggest Unitarianism for those who are YECs.
This is actually what Jay proposes!
So @Klax, perhaps you should challenge your buddy @jay313 on the Unitarian issue?!?!?
It has nothing to do with physics. Rationality pre-empts that.