ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/14/84)
In article <258@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> The problem with these arguments is that you are trying to make man's >> definition of these words be the standard for your discussion. In my system >> the standards of these words are much higher that a human standard. >> [KEN NICHOLS in response to David Canzi's followup] > >Ken's "higher standard" is nothing more than his own assumptions and >presumptions about what he feels a deity should be like. Nothing more. >(Since Ken has offered to answer all points/questions, I hope he will have >a response to this.) >-- >Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr This is Rich's favorite argument. One which I have not questioned him much on as yet. However, I feel that now is the time. Where did I get my assumptions and presumptions about God? Was I born with them? I was born only with the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. And that punishment would come from wrong deeds. Did I get them from my parents? I assume here is where you would say 'yes'. It is true that I was raised in a Christian atmosphere. It was not oppresive for me as most people raised in a Christian home seem to feel. God was not forced on me. And I was not told to accept Christ at a young age. In fact, I did not realize the truth about Christ in a real way until I was 10 years old. Sure I knew all the Bible stories. I knew the difference between right and wrong. I knew who Jesus Christ was in the same way that I know who Abraham Lincoln is. But I had no relationship with Him. When I was ten, I went to a Billy Graham Crusade. I had heard him speak before and though I thought he was a good speaker, I had never been affected like I was that night. After he was done speaking, and had given the invitation, I had this overwelming feeling that I had to do something. I wasn't even sure what it was. But I knew I had to go forward. I ask my father to go forward with me. He was pleasantly surprised, and came with me. That evening I came to know Jesus Christ not as just a historical figure that I learned about in church, but as a friend, and as Saviour. What preconcieved ideas told me that that was the thing I should do? (I feel it was the Holy Spirit tugging on my heart that made me feel I had to go forward.) Rich, do you claim that you have no assumptions or preconceptions about the world around you? If you feel that Christians and many others do, wouldn't it follow that you might have them too? Why should you be considered free from the things that you blame so many others for? Are you on a higher plane of thinking than we are, one in which you can judge all reality on a purely objective basis? I mean, really, every little thing about the world you judge without any subjective means? If this is the case you must be better than Mr. Spock at controlling your emotions. I think I have seen quite a bit of emotion in your postings. Most emotions are usually associated with feeling and opinions. In this case, the feelings and opinions that you have regarding the world around you. You also keep asking for evidence. I have two kinds of evidence while you only have one. I have the Bible. It does take faith to believe it, I'll agree. But I can't make you believe it. Only the Spirit of God can do that. And I have the internal (I say from the Holy Spirit, you say from myself) evidences of peace and security, etc. You however have science. An entity that is allways changing as new facts are discovered. A belief system that sets forth certain standards about the universe, and in ten or twenty years, changes the rules because of some new discovery. You say that I use cyclical logic in saying that the Bible tells me the Bible is true, etc. Well, you also use faulty logic. Science tells you that science is right, doesn't it? Either it does, or some subjective evidence does. And if subjective evidence does, then might that subjective evidence contain preconceptions, etc.? I think it is possible. So know it looks like we are down to who's supposed preconceptions are true. Well, nothing can convince you except the Spirit of God. Anyway, I'll just leave it at this and wait for your comments, which I'm sure will be plentifull. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -----------------------
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/19/84)
[] >Where did I get my assumptions and presumptions about God? Was I born with >them? I was born only with the knowledge of the difference between right and >wrong. And that punishment would come from wrong deeds. You must have been a very unusual child. From my own experience, and from my memories of the behavior of my little brother and other small children, it would appear that the typical human child is born with no sense of morality whatsoever, and without any knowledge of punishment to follow from moral infractions. Tell me, weren't you ever punished for doing something wrong as a child? > ... >You also keep asking for evidence. I have two kinds of evidence while you >only have one. > >I have the Bible. It does take faith to believe it, I'll agree. But I can't >make you believe it. Only the Spirit of God can do that. Things taken only on faith do not constitute evidence about the nature of reality, since they are not verifiable via *objective, repeatable* experiments. > And I have the >internal (I say from the Holy Spirit, you say from myself) evidences of peace >and security, etc. This is also not evidence. We have no way of knowing for sure that you do in fact gain peace and security, etc. >You however have science. An entity that is allways changing as new facts are >discovered. A belief system that sets forth certain standards about the >universe, and in ten or twenty years, changes the rules because of some new >discovery. As opposed to a completely unadaptive system... Entities which cannot adapt are prey to environmental changes. A system of beliefs which cannot change as new information becomes available is liable to be proven false eventually, and thus be destroyed as a viable entity. A system which can change, however, will be viable into the far future. Why are you so resistant to change, anyway? Is this the price of your peace and security? >You say that I use cyclical logic in saying that the Bible tells me the Bible >is true, etc. Well, you also use faulty logic. Science tells you that science >is right, doesn't it? I don't know about Mr. Rosen, but I consider science to be reasonable because it *works*, not because of what any person says about it. Nothing in the bible has ever put more food on the table. Agricultural research, on the other hand, has. This is, to my mind, an indication that science has something to say about the nature of reality, whereas christianity does not. > Either it does, or some subjective evidence does. And >if subjective evidence does, then might that subjective evidence contain >preconceptions, etc.? I think it is possible. What is "subjective evidence"? Your statement contains (apparently) contradictory terminology. >So know it looks like we are down to who's supposed preconceptions are true. >Well, nothing can convince you except the Spirit of God. Anyway, I'll just >leave it at this and wait for your comments, which I'm sure will be plentifull. Nothing can convince *me* except hard evidence. Do you have any way to *show me beyond a shadow of a doubt* that the "Spirit of God" even exists? >-- > Ken Nichols > ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/20/84)
<> As a christian AND a scientist(biologist) I felt I *had* to comment on some of Ken`s statements: In article <314@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: > I was born only with the knowledge of the difference between right and >wrong. And that punishment would come from wrong deeds. Did I get them from >my parents? I assume here is where you would say 'yes'. I would also say Yes, at least to a large degree. A persons initial concept of right and wrong comes largely from ones parents during the first two yrs or so of life -- before any conscious memories. > >Rich, do you claim that you have no assumptions or preconceptions about the >world around you? If you feel that Christians and many others do, wouldn't >it follow that you might have them too? Why should you be considered free >from the things that you blame so many others for? Here I agree with Ken, *everyone* has preconceptions, including myself: knowing this I try to at *least* identify my own preconceptions and own up to them. > >You however have science. An entity that is allways changing as new facts are >discovered. A belief system that sets forth certain standards about the >universe, and in ten or twenty years, changes the rules because of some new >discovery. *flame on* I consider this statement *entirely* wrong. *Science* per se is *not* a belief system, it is a methodology, an approach to discovery. Fundamental to this methodology is a willingness to modify concepts as new data come to light. To insist on clinging to old "theories" in the face of contrary data is contrary to the very basis of science. (Admittedly I know of some otherwise intelligent scientists who insist on clinging to pet theories out of pride, but that just proves scientists are human too.) You seem to have confused *science* with *scientism*, which *is* a belief system based on the concept that science is the *only* basis for understanding, thus elevating it to a religion. > >You say that I use cyclical logic in saying that the Bible tells me the Bible >is true, etc. Well, you also use faulty logic. Science tells you that science >is right, doesn't it? Either it does, or some subjective evidence does. Wrong again - The scientific method is validated by the fact that it works. After all where did computers come from?? >-- >"...holding forth the Ken Nichols > word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken >----------------------- A christian *can* be rational(I *hope*).