Creating a Learning Network for Kingdom Builders!
Replies are closed for this discussion.
The evidence for the resurrection is very measurable with over 500 witnesses of the resurrection. Human observation provides that best evidence for any fact since only minds can understand cause and effect relationships.
Darwinian evolution has never been demonstrated or observed so it cannot be measured as it has never been observed. We have evidence for variation within a kind, but we have no evidence that one kind can become another.
The fact is that all knowledge is based on faith. You have faith in your senses that they are accurately informing you about the physical world. It is the same faith in Jesus Christ that informs you about the love of God that is found in Christ Jesus. Since man is not God, we can only know things by faith in either case.
The real question is whether you have a blind faith or an informed faith. Darwinian evolution is based on a blind faith since it has never been observed. The resurrection is based on an informed faith since it has been verified and confirmed.
In fact over 75% of NT Scholars believe that the disciples saw the resurrected Christ. The evidence that we have can only be explained by the resurrection itself and rational minds agree. The only people that disagree are those who hold to a worldview called naturalism which says that all human observation is limited by natural causes; however, this is simply a worldview that is not justified rationally either by science or by reason.
Even if a naturalist saw the resurrected Christ himself, they would be forced to believe that they were hallucinating no matter how strong the evidence. Your worldview can limit your ability to desribe reality which is the goal of science. As a result, naturalism is anti-scientific because it puts a limit on knowledge and experience that is unjustified that forces you to deny the obvious.
I don't understand what the implication is here, but you've reversed the chronological order of those quotes, Mossa is actually quoting Zdenny.
Also, she is actually correct in a sense. For example probability assessments as the basis of judging a hypothesis are an important component of Bayesian inference.
As an aside, is anyone else beginning to sense that this thread is going nowhere? Perhaps it would be more constructive to narrow the field to a specific point of controversy, and limit the discussion to that?
I don't dislike Jim at all and I apologize if that comes across in my post. When dealing with cold reason, the knife seems to cut pretty deep. I know most like to wander around in the world of the unknown by claiming ignorance and faith; however, I have never thought this was the best way to deal with people who actually demand a reason for the hope that is within you. I like what Paul said, "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
I honestly believe that Jim will someday be a powerful evangelist for Christ! He has a mind that thinks in the realm of ideas but is limited by his worldview at this point. I am simply helping him to open his mind so he can think properly. Science obviously begins with human observation rather than naturalism so simple truths like this can put him on the right track.
In fact, during the whole course of the conversation, Jim has only responded to one argument which was a non-issue. Lenski's research clearly supports Intelligent Design and falsifies Darwinian evolution. Jim only argument was to attack a writer who requested information from Lenski. I stated in my argument that this was not central to the argument; however, he decided to make a political move rather than deal with the substance of the argument again.
When I approach an argument, I always look for their best argument and seek to understand it before undermining the best argument that is made. Jim simply has to learn to think for himself and become a free thinker like myself.
I agree that Popper's falsification theory is a valid tool; however, philosophically, the theory is itself unfalsifiable causing it to fall on it's own sword. The same is true of Flew's verification principle. Truth can sometimes go beyond the tools of Flew's verification or Popper's falsification theory. Christians all realize this because we have the inner witness of the Spirit who cries out "Abba Father." It is a concept of verification that goes beyond Flew's or Popper's tools. Truth can exist by itself without our knowledge of it which is the whole point of science. Science seeks to explore and understand reality using many different tools; however, all of the tools that we use may not be sufficient to understand fully the nature of God who is both similar to us and also very different. As I explain to kids, God is too big to be seen; however, we can all see the Father when we look at His Son Jesus who life, death and resurrection have been observed in human history therefore making it a historical scientific truth that all should believe!
Denise, what exactly do you mean when you say, "I wish your God would stop playing hide and seek?"
I'm going to jump off my own topic for a bit and repply to your comments.
I also do not understand when you say that "My God (I assume you mean the Christian understanding) is playing hide and seek" sonI will leave that alone for the moment.
I do want to touch on your comments regarding martrydom and intolerance of other faiths.
I am the first to agree that there are those of all faiths who are intolerant of one another. However, I do not think that it has to be that way. I think the violent manner in which we often see intolerence is itself intolerable. The way I see it I can easily tolerate and make room for someone of another faith. However, although I can work with, be nice to, and make room for religious items and celebrations, I cannot fully agree with those of a faith truly counter to my own. I do not mean denominations here, I mean truly different faiths. At some point I will probably make it known that I disagree and why. How far that conversation goes and it's end result will depend on how open minded and level headed both parties are. I think people of all faiths refuse to listen to another and harshly cut them off simply because they do not agree. I might decide to give someone of another faith air time but then share my own views and let it be known that I disagree with them.
I think we will find that in in all faiths the martyrs are the most dedicated and radical members. You are correct there are martrys in all faiths. Most likely they all appear a bit foolish to the rest of the world. I think that it is astounding that the disciples who lived with Jesus became martrys. After spending three years with Christ and witnessing the crucifixion these folks had to know the truth of the events. I find it hard to believe that they would give their lives, preach and especially die in support of a lie. I think that if they were not telling the truth they would have opted to save their own necks.