Jack wrote:
>>What makes truth out of being in the majority? I dont think it is our job to make everyone believe what we believe, God chooses who will believe, it is through the Spirit that eyes are opened to the Truth. <<
I have sold oil deals for 30 years. One of the things I have had to learn is that when I am selling something no one wants, I have to stop and re-assess what it is I am selling. THe market place is telling me something about my prospect. What I don't see here is any willingness to re-assess what is being offered.
There is nothing noble about being an ignored minority. There is nothing noble about being without an impact. No majority doesn't make truth but neither does being a minority and especially being a minority which is totally ignored.
Jack wrote:
>> I am listening to you. I think you make some good points. I agree that we should not be shying away from claiming that the Bible makes claims about tangible reality. But the context of this should be within apologetic, historical or religious discussions, not scientific ones.<<
The problem with this is that as I have repeatedly said, and have seen no logic which contradicts it, is that the apologetic approach starts with the assumption that the Bible is true therefore we make our apology such that it can NEVER be false. We rig the dice and call it erudition.
>>> I would expect you to know the difference between a resuscitation and a resurrection. A resuscitation is clearly not miraculous. A resurrection is miraculous. I dont really need to explain the difference, I know you know the difference. (And three days has everything to do with it.) And if we as Christians believe in the miracle of the resurrection, which is necessary to be Christian (and to be a member of the ASA) then we also believe that God can intervene supernaturally in the World. If Christ was only resuscitated then Christianity is false. (Or if he was only in a deep coma and appeared dead but really wasnt and woke up three days later, then similary our hope, our faith is meaningless.)<<<
You still didn't answer the point. Why does a resurrection prove design in creation? The line between life and death is now a fuzzy one. There have been kids who fall through the ice in winter and are underwater for an hour, yet they live without too much ill effect even though their brains were without oxygen for an hour. But that really isn't too important because there is no logical connection between a resurrection and design.
Jack wrote:
>> No that is not at all what we are saying. We are saying that we dont agree with the claims of ID that it is science and should be taught alongside evolution in a scientific class. I dont think anyone here would deny design in the universe, or would not want the world to know that we embrace design, or even that alternative theories like ID shouldnt be taught, just that they are not science and should not be considered as such.<<<
But if design is an addon, kind of like that jaguar on the hood of the famous British car, then it really isn't of much use. Remember, if everything we say can be said without referring to design, but then we spout a platitude about design, that makes design a mere useless addon. That is what I see.
of design with a capital D, Jackwrote:.
>>> Sorry but I think the burden of proof is on you. It should not be that hard for you to give some evidence to your claim, if it was true. I am sure that someone would have made a comment on the website, or in the email discussions, where they deny the existence of design, or imply that there is no design, if that is what they thought. Since you are making that claim, the burden is on you to show me that evidence. You cant say that there is inconsistency between action and belief, and then jump to the conclusion that they dont believe. You cant prove anything with negative evidence. I have positive evidence that ASA believes in design because they claim to believe the resurrection, and therefore believe in the miraculous.<<
There have been several atheists with whom I have debated my web page on design. If you have any real interest go look them up on theologyweb or Christian forums. The burden may be upon me to present the evidence, but you have some responsibility to go read what I have referred people to on this list.
Your last statement once again avoids laying out the logical connection between having a resurrection and having design. I can think of the possibility of an undesigned universe in which resurrrection is part of it. Sure it would be different than what we have today, but isn't that the point? You can't say that we have to have the world just like today with no changes and in order to rule out the possibility of an undesigned universe with resurrection. INdeed, if the multiverse is correct, there very well may be a universe in which resurrection is the norm--afterall, there in the multiverse is an infinitude of possibilities.
Received on Wed May 25 18:24:32 2005