Hi, sorry for the wait. (The deadline on my thesis is starting to loom.) Anyhow, thanks for the mention! I've recently got 5-6 new subscribers, which I think is thanks to you. Looking forward to the rest of the series! Just be warned; Series often require a lot more installments than first anticipated... :)
Reformed theology distinguishes between special and general revelation. "Design" arguments are derived from general revelation. In contrast, special revelation is just the content of the bible.
Calvinism says: our faith/salvation originates from a monergistic action of God, not our own reasoning.
Consequently, if a Calvinist says you can reason your way to God through design arguments he is forgetting his soteriology.
Hi StormTrek, after I get through Dembski's book, I want to do another series on Reformed theology, which I just find endlessly fascinating. The Westminster confession sounds so paradoxical here, but yet on closer inspection, it is 100% self consistent, because they acknowledge that there's no way you could derive Christianity from nature alone. I think its quite admirable that reformed theologins don't try to backpedal or sugar coat the inevitable conclusion: (cont)
(cont, to StormTrek) God reveals just enough of Himself in nature as to leave us without excuse and therefore justly damnable, but not enough of Himself for us to be able to find salvation. Ergo, the only ones who are saved are those whom God gives extra revalation and the extra cognative powers to recognize it. The rest... well..... they are most justly damned, because God revealed enough of himself as to leave them without excuse. Like I said, I'm not pillorying this position (cont)
(cont, to StormTrek) I actually admire that they are willing to draw out these conclusions and explicitly state them, which is more than can be said for most other branches of Christianity.
"I actually admire that they are willing to draw out these conclusions and explicitly state them, which is more than can be said for most other branches of Christianity."
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that comment, but other branches of Christianity don't draw the same conclusions.
The only bad thing they *might* say is that they are smarter (better, more good, etc) than you because they "reasoned" their way to God while you didn't (refused, were too dumb, etc.)
A least, that's what I hear them saying (though never in those harsh words) sometimes.
But isn't that what they are saying? If we do have the ability to choose God then what makes the difference in one who chooses and another who doesn't.
I prefer Reformed theology's answer to that question.
Hi StormTrek, I do think that reformed theology is the most consistent with (1) the picture of a God which is omnipotent, and (2) salvation by faith alone and not any work of our own. For surely the act of believing something is itself a work, ergo, even the faith itself must be given to us by God in order for our salvation to be by faith alone. I haven't really heard any good answers as to why double predestination, lack of free will, etc isn't the inevitable conclusion.
I use this same example to show why the probability argument for ID is shit.
The thing that seems to work for explanatory purposes is when you point out that us assigning significance to "HHHHHHH" is similar to a selective pressure.
As Max Frisch wrote (freely translating what I inexactly remember of a French translation of Homo Faber), "the improbable is nothing but the etremum of the possible".
Yeah, I find it ridiculous when something like a qualitative difference is seen between what is "probable" and what is "improbable" (and as if these evaluations were really more than strong guesses)
You said: OK or A'right - 64 times !
Fuuuuuuuck you ! ( only once).
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
Hi, sorry for the wait. (The deadline on my thesis is starting to loom.) Anyhow, thanks for the mention! I've recently got 5-6 new subscribers, which I think is thanks to you. Looking forward to the rest of the series! Just be warned; Series often require a lot more installments than first anticipated... :)
trondreitan 3 years ago
re: Westminster Confession: Chapter 1
Reformed theology distinguishes between special and general revelation. "Design" arguments are derived from general revelation. In contrast, special revelation is just the content of the bible.
Calvinism says: our faith/salvation originates from a monergistic action of God, not our own reasoning.
Consequently, if a Calvinist says you can reason your way to God through design arguments he is forgetting his soteriology.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Hi StormTrek, after I get through Dembski's book, I want to do another series on Reformed theology, which I just find endlessly fascinating. The Westminster confession sounds so paradoxical here, but yet on closer inspection, it is 100% self consistent, because they acknowledge that there's no way you could derive Christianity from nature alone. I think its quite admirable that reformed theologins don't try to backpedal or sugar coat the inevitable conclusion: (cont)
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
(cont, to StormTrek) God reveals just enough of Himself in nature as to leave us without excuse and therefore justly damnable, but not enough of Himself for us to be able to find salvation. Ergo, the only ones who are saved are those whom God gives extra revalation and the extra cognative powers to recognize it. The rest... well..... they are most justly damned, because God revealed enough of himself as to leave them without excuse. Like I said, I'm not pillorying this position (cont)
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
(cont, to StormTrek) I actually admire that they are willing to draw out these conclusions and explicitly state them, which is more than can be said for most other branches of Christianity.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
"What is Reformed Theology?" - R.C. Sproul
As long as you're going to do a series on Reformed thought I thought I'd recommend a short book on the subject (216 pages).
I don't know if you have heard of R.C. Sproul but he made this book an easy read. He's famous for that.
StormTrek 3 years ago
"I actually admire that they are willing to draw out these conclusions and explicitly state them, which is more than can be said for most other branches of Christianity."
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that comment, but other branches of Christianity don't draw the same conclusions.
The only bad thing they *might* say is that they are smarter (better, more good, etc) than you because they "reasoned" their way to God while you didn't (refused, were too dumb, etc.)
StormTrek 3 years ago
A least, that's what I hear them saying (though never in those harsh words) sometimes.
But isn't that what they are saying? If we do have the ability to choose God then what makes the difference in one who chooses and another who doesn't.
I prefer Reformed theology's answer to that question.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Hi StormTrek, I do think that reformed theology is the most consistent with (1) the picture of a God which is omnipotent, and (2) salvation by faith alone and not any work of our own. For surely the act of believing something is itself a work, ergo, even the faith itself must be given to us by God in order for our salvation to be by faith alone. I haven't really heard any good answers as to why double predestination, lack of free will, etc isn't the inevitable conclusion.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
"I do think that reformed theology is the most consistent...[snipped]"
I think it will be interesting to see your criticisms. It isn't often that you see an atheist speak out on reformed theology.
StormTrek 3 years ago
I'm commenting only 1 minute in, but I wanted to throw out that Boy Scouting was founded on the idea that nature connects one to God.
HateNeverCeasesHate 3 years ago
I use this same example to show why the probability argument for ID is shit.
The thing that seems to work for explanatory purposes is when you point out that us assigning significance to "HHHHHHH" is similar to a selective pressure.
themadhair 3 years ago
As Max Frisch wrote (freely translating what I inexactly remember of a French translation of Homo Faber), "the improbable is nothing but the etremum of the possible".
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
(extremum?)
Yeah, I find it ridiculous when something like a qualitative difference is seen between what is "probable" and what is "improbable" (and as if these evaluations were really more than strong guesses)
matowana 3 years ago
"Extremum" indeed, sorry.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago