Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Does all valid knowledge flow from Scripture?

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,05:19    I thought that Dave might want a separate thread dealing with fulfilled prophecy, archeology, etc. Besides, I have been guilty of invading Dave's thread, so the least I can do is give him some extra space to address Number Nine's criticisms. I'd also like to discuss Van Tilian epistemology and how it refutes metaphysical and methodological naturalism. Basically, I will contend that archeology, linguistics, natural history, and logic support the Bible as a Divine Document that grounds all valid knowledge claims. Dave, if you're listening, you may use this thread to siphon irrelevant chatter from your main topic. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Shirley Knott Posts: 148 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,05:32    I'll bite with a challenge: There is no valid knowlege which flows from Scripture. None. Nada. Zilch. Everything Scripture asserts is wrong. hugs, Shirley Knott PS -- Ghastly old boy, don't you have a model you should be building?  Isnt' that significantly more important than the plethora of distractions you keep indulging in?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,06:02    Actually, at this point, it's distracting you from the model talk which is important to Paley.

Reluctant Cannibal Posts: 36 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,06:08    The answer is, of course, no. Let's suppose that Ghost's answer to his question is "Yes". I'm not sure precisely what Ghost is claiming here, so I'll list some examples of items of knowledge in 2 categories: Knowledge that flows from Scripture 1) According to the Bible, Melchizedek begat Zerubabel. (or somebody). Knowledge that does not flow from Scripture 1) The structure of DNA. 2) Pythagoras' Theorem. 3) Genghis Khan was born about 844 years ago. 4) Some plant native to Papua New Guinea, as members of a hitherto uncontacted tribe know, is toxic. 5) According to the Analects of Confucius, "It is virtuous manners which constitute the excellence of a neighbourhood". 6) Anything that is not knowledge about the content of Scripture. It could be that Ghost is using one or more of the words "flow", "valid", "knowledge" or perhaps even "grounded", in a sense with which I am not familiar.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,06:09    And just WHERE in this scriptural diversion are my curling up antibonding orbitals that leave the corresponding bonding orbitals untouched? Don't make me whip out the "Brave Sir Robin Award for Running Away" Ghosty. You would be severely disappointing me if I come to the conclusion you deserve that. Less distraction. Less obfuscation. Less being oh so sweet and nice by switching to randomn ephemera and making convenient topics for poor people who I am sure really can't start one themselves mmmm hmmmm. More still, round earth geocentrism please. And I voted for it, despite not getting 18 voters, don't I deserve the model as a "loyal fan"? {cough splutter} Louis -------------- Bye.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,06:19    Quote (Reluctant Cannibal @ June 28 2006,11:08) It could be that Ghost is using one or more of the words "flow", "valid", "knowledge" or perhaps even "grounded", in a sense with which I am not familiar. Bill claims that the Bible "metajustifies" all knowledge. I believe he talks about this more on AF Dave's thread, probably back on about page 40 or so. I'm not precisely sure what Bill means by this, but I know he's wrong in any event. The Bible in its generality is so far away from being an accurate account of anything that it's essentially a work of fiction. It's no different from any other literary work composed by human beings. I know Bill disagrees with this, but he can't prove it, or even really provide any evidence for it, so I don't know how he can prove or provide any evidence for the assertion that the Bible "metajustifies" anything. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Reluctant Cannibal Posts: 36 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,06:35    Quote (ericmurphy @ June 28 2006,11:19) Quote (Reluctant Cannibal @ June 28 2006,11:08) It could be that Ghost is using one or more of the words "flow", "valid", "knowledge" or perhaps even "grounded", in a sense with which I am not familiar. Bill claims that the Bible "metajustifies" all knowledge. I believe he talks about this more on AF Dave's thread, probably back on about page 40 or so. I'm not precisely sure what Bill means by this, but I know he's wrong in any event. The Bible in its generality is so far away from being an accurate account of anything that it's essentially a work of fiction. It's no different from any other literary work composed by human beings. I know Bill disagrees with this, but he can't prove it, or even really provide any evidence for it, so I don't know how he can prove or provide any evidence for the assertion that the Bible "metajustifies" anything. Thanks, Eric. I was guessing something along the lines of "Western Civilization is founded on Xtianity", or "If God hadn't created everything, there would be no knowledge". I tried to construct examples that would rule these out.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,07:07    Louis:         Quote And just WHERE in this scriptural diversion are my curling up antibonding orbitals that leave the corresponding bonding orbitals untouched? Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place? I'm addressing this issue on the geocentric thread. Here's the relevant bit:       Quote Probability distributions are described in this imaginary space. As the Klein bottle cycles wave motion from information space into realspace, the available kinetic energy turns into gravity. Now think of a Hydrogen atom, with its antibonding orbital existing at a higher energy. This antibonding orbital does not get tranferred to real space due to its node, so only the bonding orbital makes it across the divide. In other words, I'm proposing that gravity is molecular bonding minus the antibonding orbital. Now, it's true that the antibonding orbital doesn't "curl up" in 3D space while the bonding orbital just sits there, but consider this: if the scale and energy levels are different in information and 3D space, and both orbitals exist in info space (as my math is trying to establish), then couldn't one orbital get transferred and "blown up" in 3D space, while the antibonding remains shriveled up in the other dimension? This implies that information energy can map to kinetic and thermal energy. Berlinski (the Master) actually mentioned this formal relationship in a thermodynamic thread on Talk Origins, while Dembski (the Wizard) was busy proving that information "energy" is distinct from, and necessary for, the creation of complexity. My model attempts to resolve this paradox. I wish that the Master and Wizard would work together more frequently.     Quote Less distraction. Less obfuscation. Less being oh so sweet and nice by switching to randomn ephemera and making convenient topics for poor people who I am sure really can't start one themselves mmmm hmmmm. More still, round earth geocentrism please. And I voted for it, despite not getting 18 voters, don't I deserve the model as a "loyal fan"? {cough splutter} Yes you do. As does Eric. And the missing Cogzie and Vicklund. But you do know, don't you, that the moderators won't let Dave start new threads? However, Wes has said that others can start threads as long as we stay on topic, so that's what I'm trying to do. Do not put any more orbital stuff on this thread, because I won't respond. Put it on the appropriate thread, please. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Shirley Knott Posts: 148 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,07:23    Hey Ghastly, Stop trying to help others with their housework when you are so far behind in yours. Put up or shut up. hugs, Shirley Knott

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,07:31    I think the title of this thread makes an invalid presupposition. It presupposes that some/most 'valid knowledge' flows from 'scripture' (by which of course is meant the Christian Bible). I think the first question to be explored is whether ANY valid knowledge 'flows from' the Christian Bible', before we even think of asking the ludicrous question of whether it all does. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,07:32    Ghosty, I'll stick this here and elsewhere. I must confess I missed your part about the hydrogen atom, I must have skipped over in in my excitement. An antibonding MOLECULAR orbital in a hydrogen ATOM? Hello? Hello? McFly? Is there anyone in there McFly? Look Ghosty, atom OR molecule, not both, they are different see. Louis -------------- Bye.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,07:48    The argument that any valid and useful knowledge flows out of the Christian Bible necessarily rests on such a liberal and freewheeling scope of interpretation as to make Nostradamus' predictions explicit by comparison. But unfortunately, this begs an important question: if the words of the Bible can be interpreted post facto to mean anything we want, why do we even need the Bible in the first place? We could do the same thing with the phone book.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,08:16    No, no, I get what the Wisp is trying to say. See, in the past, all the valid knowledge in scripture just flowed plumb out. And so now there's none left. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,08:23    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ June 28 2006,13:16) No, no, I get what the Wisp is trying to say. See, in the past, all the valid knowledge in scripture just flowed plumb out. And so now there's none left. Ah, okay, cool. Yeah, I can sign on to that. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,08:30    I think we discussed this earlier, Bill. For you, the Bible is the Word of God™. For the rest of us, it's just a book, with no more or less moral or epistemological authority than any other book. I don't think this issue is one that can be proved one way or another. As an exercise, how would you "prove" that the Bible is, in fact, the word of God? How could anyone "prove" that it isn't? This is the kind of difficulty one encounters when one mixes science and religion. But here's something to think about. Does one need to consult the Bible in order to devise an experiment to test Bell's Theorem? Clearly not. Does one need to validate the results of that experiment against the Bible? Again, no. If something in the Bible contradicts the results of that experiment, which do you go with, the Bible, or the experiment? In your case, the answer is clear, but I don't think you can give us a persuasive reason why. For myself, I believe I can safely disregard anything the Bible has to say about the results of any experiment, and still trust the results of that experiment. Can you show me why I'm wrong in believing that? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,08:37    1 In the beginning was the white page, and it was good. 2 And on the first page God created A Babe for You Escort service, and it was good. 3 But the Lord looked and sayeth unto the Escorts, "what troubleth thee and thy sistren." 4 The Escorts cried out with a loud voice and said "Lord of the great telephone book, Thou art great and mighty, for in one day Thou createst the telephone book and us to be therein. 5 In thy mercy. 6 Yet we are troubled, for Thou hast forgottenest to create for us someone to Escort." 7 And the Lord God of the Telephone Book looked, and lo they cried out to Him in truth. 8 So the Lord God looked and saw that His Book was incomplete, and vowest to doeth something about it. 9 And on the second day God created A Beasley's Bail Bonding Company, and it was good.  And then He created the ARBCO Manufacturing Corporation, and it was good. 10 And on the third day God went a little loco in la cabesa, and created Aakeith Eric, and Aaron Raymond and Nancy, and Aaron Sue, and all the people in the pages of white who there appear, yea even unto Zywicki Shaun. 11 And it was good. 12 And on the fourth day, The Lord God of White and Yellow looked upon His creation and realized that there was no Yellow for Him to rule over. 13 And the people of the White cried out "Lord, why hast Thou created only the White?  With whom shall we do business, other than with Thy Holy Escorts, and ARBCO Manufacturing?  Where the fucketh shall we buy our Pizza? 14 For our neighbor Lenny who hath not faith hath no pizza and starves?  Shew unto Lenny Thy greatness and create the Yellow! 15 In thy mercy." 16 And the Lord spake unto the people of the White and sayeth in a loud voice "New Testament." -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,08:47    Quote And just WHERE in this scriptural diversion are my curling up antibonding orbitals that leave the corresponding bonding orbitals untouched? In a related note, where in the SCRIPTURE does one find the text to justify all this bonding orbitals, etcetera, junk? Can you quote a Bible verse for us, Paley?

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,13:25    Here's an interesting question: can the various ways of knowing be meaningfully detached from each other? In a narrower sense, did Popper circumvent the "problem of induction"? I think the fact that hypotheses are tested in "bundles" wrecks any falsification principle, which is the only inductive reasoning considered kosher by modern science (and deductive reasoning is probabilistically dangerous, as there exist an infinite number of axioms and permutations of same). On the larger scale, the sensory evidence begets induction, but induction is grounded in reason, which in turn depends on the senses for validation/communication. An oldie but goodie..... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,14:07    Okay, here's my problem. I can't load a page from AtBC. What are the possible problems? (this isn't, obviously, an exhaustive list) Hyp. 1) The computer's unplugged. Test 1) Nope. The status lights are on, and I can read the screen. (This is what one might call a trivially-disproved hypothesis.) Hyp. 2) Wireless router is down Test 2) Nope. I can ping to an IP address off my network. (which, incidentally, eliminates a lot of other hypotheses, such as switch unplugged, DSL modem down, ISP network down, all at once). Hyp. 3) DNS problem. Test 3) Nope. I can perform DNS lookups of sites I haven't visited in months, which eliminates problems with my providers DNS and the possibility that DNS entries might be cached locally but unavailable remotely. Hyp 4) AtBC is down. Test 4) Bingo. I do a host lookup of AtBC to get its raw IP address, and doing a traceroute stalls at AtBC's IP address. Did I need to consult the Bible at any point to perform this group of tests? No. Did anything I learned from the Bible in any way inform my methodology? No. If I had never heard of the Bible before, didn't even speak any language the Bible was written in, would I still be able to perform these tests? Yes. If the Bible had never been written, would I still be able to perform these tests? Yes. In what way does the Bible meta-justify the results of my tests? I think my larger point here is that the true measure of a theory or model is its usefulness, at least as much as its truth (or is it "truthiness"?). It's far from obvious that anything in the Bible is of any use in elucidating the nature of experience. Theories such as quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, etc. are not in any way informed by the Bible, nor do they suffer from being in contradiction to the Bible. They work, and are accepted by the scientific community, because they provide a useful description of experience. The Bible may be fine as a work of literature or as a guide for moral behavior (although many would take issue with the latter), but it's essentially useless as a description of experience. In fact, huge swaths of the Bible are directly contradicted by observation of experience. This would be a problem for AF Dave if he had the wit to apprehend it. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,14:12    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 28 2006,18:25) Here's an interesting question: can the various ways of knowing be meaningfully detached from each other? In a narrower sense, did Popper circumvent the "problem of induction"? I think the fact that hypotheses are tested in "bundles" wrecks any falsification principle, which is the only inductive reasoning considered kosher by modern science (and deductive reasoning is probabilistically dangerous, as there exist an infinite number of axioms and permutations of same). On the larger scale, the sensory evidence begets induction, but induction is grounded in reason, which in turn depends on the senses for validation/communication. An oldie but goodie..... Why do I have this weird feeling that GoP is just jerking us around for laughs here? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,14:37    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2006,19:12) Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 28 2006,18:25) Here's an interesting question: can the various ways of knowing be meaningfully detached from each other? In a narrower sense, did Popper circumvent the "problem of induction"? I think the fact that hypotheses are tested in "bundles" wrecks any falsification principle, which is the only inductive reasoning considered kosher by modern science (and deductive reasoning is probabilistically dangerous, as there exist an infinite number of axioms and permutations of same). On the larger scale, the sensory evidence begets induction, but induction is grounded in reason, which in turn depends on the senses for validation/communication. An oldie but goodie..... Why do I have this weird feeling that GoP is just jerking us around for laughs here? Because you are a wise man. Paley is just looking for a reason to get all EXISTENTIALISM on us again. For him, leaving your opponents speechless is a clean victory... even if they are left speechless by the inanity of your arguments. Sorry Ghost, I'm not biting. Work on "your" model. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,15:32    Quote (ericmurphy @ June 28 2006,19:07) Did I need to consult the Bible at any point to perform this group of tests? No. Did anything I learned from the Bible in any way inform my methodology? No. If I had never heard of the Bible before, didn't even speak any language the Bible was written in, would I still be able to perform these tests? Yes. If the Bible had never been written, would I still be able to perform these tests? Yes. Eric, you know I have a great deal of respect for you, but I must insist that you are wrong.  If you read the whole Bible as translated by JL Publications, you would see that in the original Hebrew:   Quote (Malakezaiah @ June 28 596 BC,19:07) Malakezaiah 1 1 The word of the Lord unto His prophet Malakezaiah 2 In all things shalt thou praise his name Amen 3 In His mercy. 4 Yea verily I say unto you my prophet in thy times of need 5 If thou shalt go unto the board where thou commentest when the pub is not open any longer 6 And when thou surfest there there be no comedy nor foolishness 7 Yea if even unto three tries thou shalt not hear the words of the Prophet of the Spirit of Paley 8 First shalt thou go unto the wall plug and checketh that the power of my mighty spirit floweth through the plug. 9 If thou seest that my Spirit floweth go thou to thy keyboard and pingeth an IP address off thy Holy Network. 10 If thou canst not yet hear the words of the Prophet of the Spirit of Paley, neither canst thou hear the words of the Prophet AFDave, then shalt thou perform a DNS lookup of a site you have not visited in three months. 11 Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. 12 Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. 13 Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. 14 Five is right out. 15 Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.' 16 Then shalt thou curse the ground, for the board where thou commentest when the pub is not open any longer, is also not open any longer. 17 Amen. Admit you were wrong, and we can move on. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,15:56    Quote (Lou FCD @ June 28 2006,20:32) Eric, you know I have a great deal of respect for you, but I must insist that you are wrong.  If you read the whole Bible as translated by JL Publications, you would see that in the original Hebrew:       Quote (Malakezaiah @ June 28 596 BC,19:07) Malakezaiah 1 etc. etc. etc. Admit you were wrong, and we can move on. You know, I must have spaced on that particular passage in the Bible. But, now that you mention it, that must have been where I got the particular methodology I used to find out that the problem was with AtBC, and not with the power switch on my laptop. I can see now that I was wrong, and must accept Jesus as my personal escrow agent and title officer. Or something. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,19:04    Imagine a group of frozen embryos on an interstellar ship are sent to an Earthlike planet--there they are  brought to term and "born" with the aid of some non-speaking robots that then re-enter the ship and leave once the children are old enough to feed themselves. Which book would serve best to inform the children and ensure their survival--the Bible or a single-volume encyclopedia of sciences?  Explain your choice. This essay question is worth 1/3 your grade total. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,02:50    Since we're discussing inane witterings of madmen, my overtired mind has come up with a philosophical conundrum for you all. If a man speaks in a wood, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong? Louis -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,03:27    Quote (Louis @ June 29 2006,07:50) Since we're discussing inane witterings of madmen,... I believe I resemble that remark.     Quote (Louis @ June 29 2006,07:50) If a man speaks in a wood, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong? Louis My wife assures me that indeed, he is still wrong.  In fact, she is quite sure that the he need not even speak. Lou -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,03:27    Paley, what specific part of scripture leads you to the specifics of your "geocentric model"? Does it go something like "thou shalt suffer no liberal to live"?

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,04:18    First question:  "Which Scripture?" Please define -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,04:37    Quote Here's an interesting question: can the various ways of knowing be meaningfully detached from each other? Yes. Next question.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:19    Quote (MidnightVoice @ June 29 2006,09:18) First question:  "Which Scripture?" Please define Of course, only the Christian Bible is Scripture. Everything else is merely scripture. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Caledonian Posts: 48 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2006,09:37    Why yes, all valid knowledge comes from Scripture. Unfortunately, Scripture doesn't say that all valid knowledge comes from Scripture.  I would conclude that I can't know that it's the source of all valid knowledge, but Scripture doesn't say that either. Now that I think about it, although Scripture says many things, it doesn't list the things it says, it simply says them.  Determining what Scripture does and does not say is a task for a reasoning mind, which obviously cannot be a source of valid knowledge, and therefore I cannot even use Scripture as a source of knowledge, because it doesn't say what it says. That conclusion would be problematic for me if it wasn't for the fact that it's not in Scripture, so I can avoid having to confront it.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard