"Peer review" [W:46]

[JohnPaul]

I prefer the Ralbag's view of free will personally.

I claimed that Maimonides' logic had never been refuted without denying God's omniscience. Your Ralbag denied God's omniscience.

Wikipedia

, Gersonides held that God does not have complete foreknowledge of human acts. "Gersonides, bothered by the old question of how God's foreknowledge is compatible with human freedom, holds that what God knows beforehand is all the choices open to each individual. God does not know, however, which choice the individual, in his freedom, will make."[3]

 

[RAMOSS]

I claimed that Maimonides' logic had never been refuted without denying God's omniscience. Your Ralbag denied God's omniscience.

Wikipedia

There is also denying that free will exists.

 

[JohnPaul]

There is also denying that free will exists.

True. Or we could also deny that logic exists.

 

[Sherman123]

I claimed that Maimonides' logic had never been refuted without denying God's omniscience. Your Ralbag denied God's omniscience.

Wikipedia

I agree with him. I believe that God chooses to deny himself knowledge of our choices in order to facilitate the miracle of free will. That this comports with a Universe in which free will exists, and that free will is only truly possible with the existence of God.

 

[RAMOSS]

True. Or we could also deny that logic exists.

Or, you could say 'Fore knowledge does not force that choice'.. which I don't agree with.

 

[JohnPaul]

Or, you could say 'Fore knowledge does not force that choice'.. which I don't agree with.

I have heard Christians say that, but that is the same as saying that God is not omniscient. If any other choice were possible, that would prove God's knowledge to be imperfect and wrong. Christian theologians have trapped themselves with these two doctrines.

 

[Logicman]

A Fundamentalist is someone who interprets the Bible literally, then cherry-picks parts of it and ignores the rest.

Nope. We don't interpret Psalm 91 to think God has feathers, or Genesis to think the sky is an iron dome overhead.

The "Father God" Jesus believed in was not the same as the primitive tribal god described in the Bible.

Jesus is Jehovah

https://righterreport.com/2011/09/29/jesus-must-be-jehovah-god/

 

[RAMOSS]

Nope. We don't interpret Psalm 91 to think God has feathers, or Genesis to think the sky is an iron dome overhead.



Jesus is Jehovah

https://righterreport.com/2011/09/29/jesus-must-be-jehovah-god/

Your source uses the 'theology by sound bites, by taking little phrases out of context to justify a foregone conclusion. Another error is that is uses common phrases for imagery, an d uses that to justify that foregone conclusion, yet ignores other instances where that is clearly not the case. For example, the term of 'rock'.. and claiming that means Jesus is God. Jesus refers to Peter as 'the rock' also.. but no one things that it means 'Peter' is god. That pattern of argument is repeated though out the entire attempt for proof, which makes your source unreliable, not intellectual, and highly misleading.

 

[JohnPaul]

Nope. We don't interpret Psalm 91 to think God has feathers, or Genesis to think the sky is an iron dome overhead.



Jesus is Jehovah

https://righterreport.com/2011/09/29/jesus-must-be-jehovah-god/

The Sunday School level of scholarship of your source is misleading at best. The word "Jehovah" is never used in the Bible. I suppose you know that is a German spelling, probably derived from Martin Luther's early German translation. The German "J" is pronounced as an English "Y".

The name of God was forbidden to the Hebrews and they always substituted some other term, commonly the Hebrew 4-letter Tetragrammaton, YHWH. This was never spoken and the vowels are unknown, but it is commonly transliterated into English as Yahweh.

The first chapter of Genesis uses the word "elohim," which simply means "the gods" (plural). Beginning in the second chapter of Genesis, the word "Adonai" is used, which means "lord" and is commonly translated in English as "Lord God."

 

[Logicman]

Your source uses the 'theology by sound bites, by taking little phrases out of context..

Your counter arguments are forever in denial of legitimate early historical sources and events, the jack-legged denial of original authorships, out of context interpretations, and an unfounded anti-supernatural world view.

 

[Logicman]

The Sunday School level of scholarship of your source is misleading at best. The word "Jehovah" is never used in the Bible. I suppose you know that is a German spelling, probably derived from Martin Luther's early German translation. The German "J" is pronounced as an English "Y".

The name of God was forbidden to the Hebrews and they always substituted some other term, commonly the Hebrew 4-letter Tetragrammaton, YHWH. This was never spoken and the vowels are unknown, but it is commonly transliterated into English as Yahweh.

The first chapter of Genesis uses the word "elohim," which simply means "the gods" (plural). Beginning in the second chapter of Genesis, the word "Adonai" is used, which means "lord" and is commonly translated in English as "Lord God."

Thanks for your views. I'll stick with what I previously posted.

 

[mbig]

Adherents to atheism are often seen and heard saying that writing or opinion that does not conform to mainstream scientific thought is not "peer reviewed", which is to say that it has not been vetted by other professionals in the same field.
Yet, these same people, when it comes to Christianity, apparently believe that any claim counter to Christianity is thought to be legitimate by virtue of the fact that it exists at all - no "peer review" necessary. Peer review is not only viewed as unnecessary but not even welcome.
Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.=
Why is that? Why the hypocrisy?

It's not "peer review" that's the problem, it's Lack of Any real world EVIDENCE to review.

One can be a Theology Scholar/expert, but then you are talking about someone who is an expert in a Closed system/Myth/specific and acknowledged dogma.
There are indeed highly educated experts in all the different religions. (Most of which have Contradictory creation Myths)
We can all acknowledge they're experts in what, ie, the Bible says: ie, what's the best reading.
But unlike science, that has Nothing to do with Reality: they are knowledgable in a non-reality/Faith based field.
Therein the fallacious attempt at equivalence/ostensible "hypocrisy."

 

[RAMOSS]

Your counter arguments are forever in denial of legitimate early historical sources and events, the jack-legged denial of original authorships, out of context interpretations, and an unfounded anti-supernatural world view.

I will agree that I do not agree with your sources about what is said. As for 'unfounded anti-supernaturl world view', you have not shown that the 'supernatural world view' is 'founded', or that the authorships of the gospels are as you say they are. You cut/paste from extreme views, without comment, and do not discuss the subject matter here..

 

[Logicman]

I will agree that I do not agree with your sources about what is said. As for 'unfounded anti-supernaturl world view', you have not shown that the 'supernatural world view' is 'founded', or that the authorships of the gospels are as you say they are. You cut/paste from extreme views, without comment, and do not discuss the subject matter here..

Do you believe in the supernatural or not?

 

[RAMOSS]

Do you believe in the supernatural or not?

Before I answer that, since there are multiple definitions of 'the supernatural', please tell me what your working definitions of both 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

My defintion of the natural is 'that which exists, or potentially can exist'. The definition of 'supernatural' is 'that is which beyond the natural'. By those definitions, the supernatural does not exist.

 

[Schism]

My defintion of the natural is 'that which exists, or potentially can exist'. The definition of 'supernatural' is 'that is which beyond the natural'. By those definitions, the supernatural does not exist.

At best, the only possible logical statement you can make is, "I have seen no physical evidence of the supernatural".

 

[RAMOSS]

At best, the only possible logical statement you can make is, "I have seen no physical evidence of the supernatural".

I will say , with that definition, if the events claimed to be supernatural actually have happened, then by definition, those events are natural. .. it can happen.

 

[vesper]

At best, the only possible logical statement you can make is, "I have seen no physical evidence of the supernatural".

I read your response and laughed for I have seen evidence of the supernatural!

 

[William Rea]

Re: "Peer review" [W:46]

I read your response and laughed for I have seen evidence of the supernatural!

Response retracted

 

[JohnPaul]

I read your response and laughed for I have seen evidence of the supernatural!

Please reveal it unto us. I am all agog.

 

[it's just me]

It's not "peer review" that's the problem, it's Lack of Any real world EVIDENCE to review.

One can be a Theology Scholar/expert, but then you are talking about someone who is an expert in a Closed system/Myth/specific and acknowledged dogma.
There are indeed highly educated experts in all the different religions. (Most of which have Contradictory creation Myths)
We can all acknowledge they're experts in what, ie, the Bible says: ie, what's the best reading.
But unlike science, that has Nothing to do with Reality: they are knowledgable in a non-reality/Faith based field.
Therein the fallacious attempt at equivalence/ostensible "hypocrisy."

You're missing the freaking point, like you guys always do, and this is aside from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about, anyway.

Number one, I don't care about "other religions" - other religions have no business making claims about any religion other than their own. They simply cannot make claims about Christianity that can't be backed up with Christianity's own teachings, period. And you have no business lumping them all together in some kind of blanket statement that condemns Christianity, it's not only false, but it's illogical, dishonest, and all you have done is make my point for me.

Back to the topic, though, I know all of this is horribly abstract to you but if you think that no statement that cannot be shown to be empirically true is false, then that statement itself cannot be shown to be empirically true, and I defy you to do so.

Therein the fallacious attempt at equivalence/ostensible "hypocrisy."

And with that, you expose your own hypocrisy. I hate to burst your bubble, but if you think the "science" that people like you claim to be reality is not corruptible, watch what happens when when there's money involved, if you ever get the chance, which you probably won't.

 

[mbig]

You're missing the freaking point, like you guys always do, and this is aside from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about, anyway.

Oh My. Posting Myths and claiming high ground.

Number one, I don't care about "other religions" - other religions have no business making claims about any religion other than their own. They simply cannot make claims about Christianity that can't be backed up with Christianity's own teachings, period. And you have no business lumping them all together in some kind of blanket statement that condemns Christianity, it's not only false, but it's illogical, dishonest, and all you have done is make my point for me.

Christianity has NO better claim on Reality than any other religion. ZIP.

Back to the topic, though, I know all of this is horribly abstract to you but if you think that no statement that cannot be shown to be empirically true is false, then that statement itself cannot be shown to be empirically true, and I defy you to do so.

I make empirically true statements daily. (Doh)
What statement are YOU claiming is "empirically true"?
This should be good!

And with that, you expose your own hypocrisy. I hate to burst your bubble, but if you think the "science" that people like you claim to be reality is not corruptible, watch what happens when when there's money involved, if you ever get the chance, which you probably won't.

Everything is "corruptable", but Science corrects it's own said corruption, usually quickly.
Religion keeps having to defend scriptural corruption/Errors. (think ie, Galileo, Copernicus)
In fact, religion/scripture is one big corruption/Myth. Unlike science it is Not based on Facts, but myth.

 

[it's just me]

Oh My. Posting Myths and claiming high ground.


Christianity has NO better claim on Reality than any other religion. ZIP.

I make empirically true statements daily. (Doh)
What statement are YOU claiming is "empirically true"?
This should be good!


Everything is "corruptable", but Science corrects it's own said corruption, usually quickly.
Religion keeps having to defend scriptural corruption/Errors. (think ie, Galileo, Copernicus)
In fact, religion/scripture is one big corruption/Myth. Unlike science it is Not based on Facts, but myth.

....And nothing but rhetoric. Thanks for playing.

 

[flogger]

Nonsense. There is an objective, often historical standard, that Christians have agreed on for hundreds or even thousands of years. "Peer review" does not have to be atheistic scientism.

No here you are talking about a 'subjective' standard and that of course is something completely different. Its links to actual history are tenuous to non existant

 

[RAMOSS]

Nonsense. There is an objective, often historical standard, that Christians have agreed on for hundreds or even thousands of years. "Peer review" does not have to be atheistic scientism.

Well, there are several htings. When it comes to the 'historical standard', the gospels do not meet it. THe function of peer review in theology is different than when it comes to science. The term 'athistic scientism' is nonsense by the way. It is a term that gets plucked out of the air when someone gets upset that they can not show what they believe is true.

It appears the function of peer review is much different in science than it is in theology. In science, it is to attempt to see if the methods and data are able to support a conclusion, and it is the function of the peers to attempt to find error in the article. In theology, it is an attempt to reinforce the orthodoxy.