Comments on: Proof and evidence

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:59:09 +0000

“There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life”.

Really? Do you have proof of that? Otherwise your entire post fails to meet the criteria set by your opening statement…For example…reading/responding to posts on this website is part of my “Every-Day Life”. And since there’s no such thing as proof in that context then there is no proof that anything you’ve said is correct.

By: Erma Gee

Erma Gee — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:36:37 +0000

Thanks for one more awesome post. Keep up the good work.

By: Popular agnosticism versus proper agnosticism » The Antichristian Phenomenon

Popular agnosticism versus proper agnosticism » The Antichristian Phenomenon — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:07:09 +0000

[...] And of course there is no proof, as I have previously written and explained that proofs only exist in formal systems. Personally, I think a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics because they are [...]

By: nazani14

nazani14 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:19:35 +0000

Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but i thought you might like to see this:
"With “Math and the Bible,” Dr. Keister is breaking entirely new ground; for no one, to our knowledge, has ever before attempted to base arithmetic on the Bible." http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=5…
It's sad, just sad, when you consider what was going on in India at the same time.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:33:42 +0000

I agree with your assumptions, and it is true that I have found many things supposedly "handed down from God" that are incompatible with the bible or other things claiming the same. At the end of the day I use my personal experiences, what I have seen and done. But I cannot expect you to believe anything because of that, my experiences are just that, mine.

I do find it sad that there is so much convolution in Christianity, I won't get into preaching about the whys and hows of it being this way but even if every Christian on earth was doing things wrong, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the religion, just its 'adherents'

And of course then we reach the wall of which you are on one side and I on the other, I believe in Gods revelation and guidance if I remain open to his will for my life and am not stubborn yada yada yada Christian stuff, you look at all those who claim this and yet contradict each other and (quite justly I must admit) have invalidated revelation because of this. In all my time as a Christian I have never known one person to be converted by crossing this wall. Its has always been a different way.

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:49:32 +0000

Yes, it would be a problem if they object to my fundamental assumptions. But I simply won't accept revelation. They can whine all they want, I'm not going to accept it. I am quite sure I could find two cases of 'revealed truth' that are incompatible with each other. That's reason enough not to trust it.

Sorry about the poll, it's hopelessly outdated. I think it's been up there for more than a year. I guess we should change it to something new, soon. Thanks for the comment, though!

By: mikespeir

mikespeir — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:26:12 +0000

I would agree. How about those who don't? How about those who will say that certainty is possible outside of a formal system? When you challenge them they'll tell you that they don't subscribe to your ground rules. Revelation (or "inspiration") can provide the same certainty, they'll insist. Then you're faced with the daunting challenge of making them accede to your fundamental assumptions about what certainty is and how we come to be certain.

BTW, how could you omit Carl Baugh from your poll? He's my favorite. Talk about an air of authority and certainty! So scholarly sounding and yet so whacked!