tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6226269873507053740.post7928264394843011444..comments2024-03-28T09:47:25.719-04:00Comments on Daffey Thoughts: Victor Stenger makes me laugh.David Griffeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629314279592541401noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6226269873507053740.post-47616613324382402982010-08-16T14:21:22.135-04:002010-08-16T14:21:22.135-04:00I haven't a clue what he is getting at in the ...I haven't a clue what he is getting at in the last paragraph. That was my best shot. It seems, with nothing left to say, he throws in a 'go team!' to the already cheering audience and hopes for the best.David Griffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06629314279592541401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6226269873507053740.post-91061343756765845642010-08-16T13:29:54.987-04:002010-08-16T13:29:54.987-04:00Ok, let me get this straight. He acknowledges that...Ok, let me get this straight. He acknowledges that religion would be evidenced by prophecies being fulfilled. Then he dismisses the whole slew of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Christ because... why, exactly?<br /><br />This without even getting into the assumption that prophecies are meant to be testable; they aren't, they're meant to be trustable, but explaining that is a whole other story (involving free will and issues of why a God would "hide" Himself rather than making Himself readily provable). Unfortunately, once you get into that story, the discussion is dismissed because it's not science -- which is exactly the point: science can't say anything as to whether God ought to behave the way atheists want Him to, so by their own epistomological standards scientific atheists have no basis for the standards they wish to hold God to... but consistent reasoning is a difficult virtue for anybody to obtain, I've found.<br /><br />I still want to know why the fulfilled prophecies we already have don't count, though. What sample of his rejection I've seen isn't convincing. If nothing else, you'd think the end conclusion would be that he hasn't managed to find any that convince him, not that it's irrational/unscientific for anyone to be convinced by any of them. (I dunno, maybe he actually holds something more like that and this is just his case for his own unconvincedness? I've heard the argument so many times I don't care to read yet another iteration of it, but on the other hand I don't want to impute to one man all the positions of his peers.)SCnoreply@blogger.com