Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 2:18 AM
422 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 418 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,056 Year: 6,662/21,208 Month: 2,423/2,634 Week: 86/525 Day: 1/60 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   Is String Theory Supernatural?
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 166 of 181 (699340)
05-17-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by AZPaul3
05-17-2013 4:19 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
AZPaul3 writes:

Of course there is a conflict. Natural Law is just that: law. It holds at all times in all situations. That is why it is law. If it was not then such a phenomena would be a dependant variable not a law.

I don't agree with that. Humans make laws and they are broken all the time. If God created natural laws what would prevent Him from breaking them.

he reason we call them laws is precisely because we have never seen them violated. To assume your god can cause such violations becomes just another article of faith of the superstition that conflicts with the reality we see around us.

In my experience I have never seen a natural law violated but there are many who have claimed that they have, including the writers of the Gospels. We make up our own minds about whether to believe them or not.

I agree that to believe that the Gospel writers have not made a mistake in their accounts of the resurrection is taken on faith. I wasn't there. I also take the accounts of the Battle of Hastings on faith.

AZPaul3 writes:

ABE: I assume we're talking the laws of nature as in the physical laws and not the Natural Law as in human morality and the quest for justice.

Correct


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 4:19 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 7:49 PM GDR has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 167 of 181 (699346)
05-17-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by GDR
05-17-2013 5:10 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Humans make laws and they are broken all the time.

BZZZZZZZZZTTT!

Sorry Contestant #1, that is an incorrect answer.

Human law takes the form of this:

Sometimes some people do this and we, society, in our collective subjective opinion, don't like that because it's bad for others and bad for society. So if you are a people who does this thing then we are going to slap your peepee real hard.

Scientific law takes the form of this:

Every time we do this or see this then this here happens. Every time! I mean everEVERY every figgin time! It is so consistent that I can predict with extreme accuracy that when I do/see this then this here is going result everEVERY every figgin time whether that is here, there or on the other side of the galaxy. And looky there we just saw it happen again on the other side of the universe.

That is scientific law.

Now you can say that your favorite flavor of god made those scientific laws so he is entitled to break them, which he seems to do when there are only the deeply devout watching with no skeptics, and most telling for me, no one to write it down until someone who wasn't even there gets a bug in their butt some decades to centuries later.

It's OK. You can say that. In fact you did say that.

But such a pronouncement can only be regarded as an article of faith stemming from your superstitious beliefs that not only conflicts greatly with the science we most certainly know, but violates egregiously the reality this universe has already shown us in stunning detail and accuracy to be true.

When this happens, GDR, your article of faith falls aside rejected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 5:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 11:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 177 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 168 of 181 (699360)
05-17-2013 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by AZPaul3
05-17-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
AZPaul3 writes:

But such a pronouncement can only be regarded as an article of faith stemming from your superstitious beliefs that not only conflicts greatly with the science we most certainly know, but violates egregiously the reality this universe has already shown us in stunning detail and accuracy to be true.

If the material world that we perceive is all there is then I'll buy it. If it isn't then we have no way of knowing if the laws that we see are merely derivative of or superseded by other laws. Yes, I take it on faith that there is more than we are able to perceive.

Science studies our natural world and as a result is subject to natural law. Science has no way of knowing whether or not those natural laws having been broken or not. It only knows that if it has it can't be repeated or verified.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2013 1:21 AM GDR has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 169 of 181 (699365)
05-18-2013 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by GDR
05-17-2013 11:34 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
If the material world that we perceive is all there is then I'll buy it. If it isn't then we have no way of knowing if the laws that we see are merely derivative of or superseded by other laws.

And unless there is reason to suspect such then there is no reason to consider such a possibility in any way whatsoever.

Science has no way of knowing whether or not those natural laws having been broken or not. It only knows that if it has it can't be repeated or verified.

And unless there is reason to suspect otherwise there is no reason to consider such a possibility in any way whatsoever...

... other than as an article of faith, which, sorry GDR, means nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 11:34 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 2:13 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 170 of 181 (699369)
05-18-2013 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by AZPaul3
05-18-2013 1:21 AM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
AZPaul3 writes:

And unless there is reason to suspect otherwise there is no reason to consider such a possibility in any way whatsoever...

... other than as an article of faith, which, sorry GDR, means nothing.

Well I did go over my reasons to think otherwise, however it is still an article of faith which may mean nothing in terms of scientific evidence, but it also doesn't mean that faith is misplaced either.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2013 1:21 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2013 4:29 AM GDR has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 171 of 181 (699370)
05-18-2013 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by GDR
05-18-2013 2:13 AM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
GDR, do you ever give serious consideration to the thought the sun is carried across the sky on Apollo's chariot or that it might really be turtles all the way down?

There is nothing to show such things warrant any consideration and there are facts that negate such things.

The same applies to the physical laws being suspended or broken.

Nothing in human experience warrants such a consideration and all the facts show otherwise.

As an article of faith you can go there and take Apollo and the Turtles with you. But reality as the universe has shown itself to us cannot. And, yes, the universe has shown us sufficient reality to dismiss such speculations without even blinking.

Edited by AZPaul3, : expanded a bit

Edited by AZPaul3, : oops


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 2:13 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 10:54 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 172 of 181 (699385)
05-18-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by AZPaul3
05-18-2013 4:29 AM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
AZPaul3 writes:

As an article of faith you can go there and take Apollo and the Turtles with you. But reality as the universe has shown itself to us cannot. And, yes, the universe has shown us sufficient reality to dismiss such speculations without even blinking.

Repeating your claim as fact doesn't make it true. If it was so obvious then all scientists would agree with you. Here is a theoretical physicist whose doctoral advisors were Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne named Don Page who is Christian. Here is a physicist who was heavily involved in the discovery of quarks named John Polkinghorne who is a Christian. I can obviously go on with other scientists. The fact that eminent physicists are believing Christians doesnít prove that their and my beliefs are true, but it does show that it isnít nearly as cut and dried as you say it is.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2013 4:29 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2013 12:23 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 173 of 181 (699387)
05-18-2013 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by GDR
05-17-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Do your theistic beliefs require you to believe that natural laws and scientific principles were suspended or violated in order for your beliefs to be true?

Do you maintain that you are adjusting your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science?

Straggler writes:

If you believe in events for which the suspension of natural law is required, regardless of which entity you invoke as the cause of such events, then you cannot say that you are adjusting your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science.

GDR writes:

Sure I can.

But if you do this you haven't adjusted your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science have you? You have instead modified the limits of science to be in accordance with your theistic beliefs.

Surely you can see this.......?

GDR writes:

Science does not tell us that natural law cannot be suspended. There is no conflict.

Then there is no claimed event that can said to be in conflict with science.

Does the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken which turned into a cat before transforming into my son conflict with scientific findings and principles? If we invoke the suspension of natural laws throughout this process then, according to you, there is no conflict between this claim and scientific findings.

This is madness.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 3:42 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 12:43 PM Straggler has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 174 of 181 (699390)
05-18-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by GDR
05-18-2013 10:54 AM


Last Shot
Repeating your claim as fact doesn't make it true.

But that's the point. It is fact. Demostrable fact just as assuredly as the facts the sun does not move around the earth and the turtles are not there.

Yes, there are lots of religious scientists. And we already know how acculturation and emotional need can lead to accepting religious thought. There is no doubt in my mind that the people you cite know the facts in their heads but their hearts constantly whisper in their ears otherwise and as religionists they are letting their hearts rule. And whether these scientists are atheists, christians, druids or hindus makes not a bit of difference on the facts we know to exist and the reality they reveal.

I've shot slings and arrows at you enough on this. If you want, my friend, the last word is yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 10:54 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 175 of 181 (699391)
05-18-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Straggler
05-18-2013 11:37 AM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Straggler writes:

Do your theistic beliefs require you to believe that natural laws and scientific principles were suspended or violated in order for your beliefs to be true?

Yes in terms of the natural laws and scientific principles as we understand them.

Straggler writes:

Do you maintain that you are adjusting your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science?

Yes, if included in what you term my theistic beliefs the nature of our world and universe for that matter. (Things like cosmology, biology etc.)

No, in instances such as revelation and divine intervention. (Things such as God touching human hearts and minds and such interventions as the resurrection.) These happenings, if indeed that they do happen, are not science and science has nothing to tell us in this area.

Straggler writes:

But if you do this you haven't adjusted your theistic belief s to be in accordance with science have you? You have instead modified the limits of science to be in accordance with your theistic beliefs.

Here is a definition of science from Websterís:

quote:
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

Science is limited to ďthe physical world and its phenomenaĒ, and ďthe operation of general lawsĒ. When it comes to science in that realm it informs me as to what God has done, as opposed to understanding the Bible as a book of science.

Things that fall outside of the realm of the physical world, (at least physical as we perceive it with our 5 senses), and general laws are outside the purview of science and I look to other sources to form my conclusions. You have done that and presumably have come to the conclusion that there is nothing outside the purview of science, (correct me if Iím wrong), which is a valid belief that I obviously disagree with.

Straggler writes:

Then there is no claimed event that can said to be in conflict with science.

In a way Iíd have to agree with that but of course that does not mean that all claimed events are true. We have to draw our own conclusions based on our own understanding of our existence and our degree of scepticism about whoever is making the claim.

Straggler writes:

Does the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken which turned into a cat before transforming into my son conflict with scientific findings and principles? If we invoke the suspension of natural laws throughout this process then, according to you, there is no conflict between this claim and scientific findings.

Yes because if that were the case it falls outside the Websterís definition of science. Good luck convincing anybody though. Call me a sceptic.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2013 11:37 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2013 2:04 PM GDR has responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 176 of 181 (699395)
05-18-2013 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by GDR
05-18-2013 12:43 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
GDR writes:

Here is a definition of science from Websterís:

quote:
: a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

Science is limited to ďthe physical world and its phenomenaĒ, and ďthe operation of general lawsĒ.

Feeding 5,00 people and re-animated corpses are very much part of the physical world which can be detected with the 5 senses.

What does our system of knowledge covering general laws as obtained and tested through the scientific method lead us to conclude about the physical possibility of feeding 5,000 people with a couple of fish and some bread?

What does our system of knowledge covering general laws as obtained and tested through the scientific method lead us to conclude about the physical possibility of a 4 day old corpse being re-animated back to instant health?

Straggler writes:

Does the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken which turned into a cat before transforming into my son conflict with scientific findings and principles? If we invoke the suspension of natural laws throughout this process then, according to you, there is no conflict between this claim and scientific findings.

GDR writes:

Yes because if that were the case it falls outside the Websterís definition of science.

Are you happy with an approach to scientific consistency where the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken is deemed to be consistent with "general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".....?

Can you see why others might be less..accommodating....?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 12:43 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 6:08 PM Straggler has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 177 of 181 (699404)
05-18-2013 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by AZPaul3
05-17-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
AZPaul3 writes:

As an article of faith you can go there and take Apollo and the Turtles with you. But reality as the universe has shown itself to us cannot. And, yes, the universe has shown us sufficient reality to dismiss such speculations without even blinking.

GDR writes:

Repeating your claim as fact doesn't make it true. If it was so obvious then all scientists would agree with you. Here is a theoretical physicist whose doctoral advisors were Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne named Don Page who is Christian. Here is a physicist who was heavily involved in the discovery of quarks named John Polkinghorne who is a Christian. I can obviously go on with other scientists. The fact that eminent physicists are believing Christians doesnít prove that their and my beliefs are true, but it does show that it isnít nearly as cut and dried as you say it is.

AZPaul3 writes:

Yes, there are lots of religious scientists. And we already know how acculturation and emotional need can lead to accepting religious thought. There is no doubt in my mind that the people you cite know the facts in their heads but their hearts constantly whisper in their ears otherwise and as religionists they are letting their hearts rule. And whether these scientists are atheists, christians, druids or hindus makes not a bit of difference on the facts we know to exist and the reality they reveal.

Your point was that, ďthe universe has shown us sufficient reality to dismiss such speculations without even blinkingĒ and I pointed out that there are many eminent scientists who blinking or not donít dismiss such speculations and in fact believe them to be true.

Your response then is because they are driven by their culture and emotions to over-ride their reason. There are obviously those at least as well qualified as yourself scientifically that disagree with you so it isnít just a case something that should obviously be rejected. Again that is not evidence that they are correct. I donít question the fact that peopleís religious views are impacted by their culture and emotions. That does not mean that there isnít a greater truth that can be understood even if dimly so.

Your beliefs are based on the concept that our perceived reality is the only reality that there is. What is your reason for believing that? Your belief can no more be tested or verified than mine can.

AZPaul3 writes:

I've shot slings and arrows at you enough on this. If you want, my friend, the last word is yours.

Science is a wonderful tool and has done some wonderful things for mankind, (and some far less than wonderful as well), and frankly I am in awe of the great minds that can work in that field. I do however reject the idea that we canít learn, albeit in a different manner altogether, from our philosophers and theologians.

I appreciate your kindness in giving me the last word so out of respect Iíll give you the last word.

AZPaul3 writes:

But such a pronouncement can only be regarded as an article of faith stemming from your superstitious beliefs that not only conflicts greatly with the science we most certainly know, but violates egregiously the reality this universe has already shown us in stunning detail and accuracy to be true.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 178 of 181 (699405)
05-18-2013 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Straggler
05-18-2013 2:04 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Straggler writes:

Feeding 5,00 people and re-animated corpses are very much part of the physical world which can be detected with the 5 senses.

What does our system of knowledge covering general laws as obtained and tested through the scientific method lead us to conclude about the physical possibility of feeding 5,000 people with a couple of fish and some bread?

What does our system of knowledge covering general laws as obtained and tested through the scientific method lead us to conclude about the physical possibility of a 4 day old corpse being re-animated back to instant health?

I agree that according to normal law those things can't happen. That does not tell us anything about the origination of those natural laws nor does it tell us whether or not those laws can be superseded.

If our natural laws are derived from a greater reality then we have no firm reason to believe that time can't flow backwards in order to revive Lazarus. Mind you, my faith isn't dependant on that account being factual even though I believe it happened.

Straggler writes:

Are you happy with an approach to scientific consistency where the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken is deemed to be consistent with "general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".....?

I didn't say that. All I was saying that all beliefs have a degree of probability attached to them whether we all agree on that probability or not. I think that it is reasonable to say that the number of people who believe something is something of an indication on the degree of probability. The fact that there are far more people that would agree roughly with theism, would certainly make theistic belief more probable than your scenario.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2013 2:04 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2013 8:05 AM GDR has responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 179 of 181 (699526)
05-21-2013 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by GDR
05-18-2013 6:08 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
GDR writes:

I agree that according to normal law those things can't happen.

When someone claims that they are willing to adjust their beliefs based on scientific findings the clear expectation is that they will abandon beliefs which contradict scientific findings.

But with regard to the events in question you have not adjusted your theistic beliefs. Instead you have simply circumvented scientific findings by applying a catch-all-get-out-clause that could be applied to literally any claim at all.

Your approach allows you to pick and choose between the conclusions of science and the claims of theism based on whichever gives the answer you find most subjectively plausible with regard to any specific claimed event.

This is not the same as adopting scientific conclusions over theistic claims in the way originally implied.

Straggler writes:

Are you happy with an approach to scientific consistency where the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken is deemed to be consistent with "general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".....?

GDR writes:

I didn't say that.

The exact same suspension of natural laws and scientific principles you are putting forward to justify ressurections and the feeding of the 5,000 as having no conflict with scientific findings can be applied equally to a human giving birth to a chicken as having no conflict with scientific findings.

The only difference is that you are prepared to invoke the suspension of natural laws and scientific principles for things you find theistically appealing but not for things that you don't.

GDR writes:

I think that it is reasonable to say that the number of people who believe something is something of an indication on the degree of probability.

Half of Americans believe that God created man in a single day about 10,000 years ago. More Americans believe that president Obama is a Muslim than believe in evolution.

I think it very often unreasonable (indeed potentially quite dangerous) to treat the popularity of a belief in and of itself as being indicative of it's veracity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 6:08 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 05-21-2013 2:05 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 181 by GDR, posted 05-29-2013 2:14 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 180 of 181 (699545)
05-21-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
05-21-2013 8:05 AM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Straggler writes:

When someone claims that they are willing to adjust their beliefs based on scientific findings the clear expectation is that they will abandon beliefs which contradict scientific findings.
But with regard to the events in question you have not adjusted your theistic beliefs. Instead you have simply circumvented scientific findings by applying a catch-all-get-out-clause that could be applied to literally any claim at all.

I just donít see it that way, although I agree that people can make any claim they like but that isnít the point. Science is not able to, nor does it try to tell us that natural law canít be suspended. Science informs us about the world of natural law. Science has nothing to say about whether the resurrection happened or not except to say that science does not have a method of replicating the incident. When it comes to items that science can talk about that is where I turn. I donít look to the Bible for items of science such as for the birth of our universe. The Bible tells us that the universe was intelligently caused but I look to science to tell me how it was done, at least to the extent that it is able.

Straggler writes:

Your approach allows you to pick and choose between the conclusions of science and the claims of theism based on whichever gives the answer you find most subjectively plausible with regard to any specific claimed event.

By that you have to assume that science and my theism are in conflict. I donít agree with that. Yes, I believe in miracles and specifically the resurrection of Jesus. Scientists can only tell me that in their experience it doesnít happen but they cannot tell me that it absolutely canít happen.

Straggler writes:

This is not the same as adopti ng scientific conclusions over theistic claims in the way originally implied.

I adopt scientific claims for articles of science and adopt theistic claims for non-scientific beliefs.

Straggler writes:

The exact same suspension of natural laws and scientific principles you are putting forward to justify ressurections and the feeding of the 5,000 as having no conflict with scientific findings can be applied equally to a human giving birth to a chicken as having no conflict with scientific findi ngs.
The only difference is that you are prepared to invoke the suspension of natural laws and scientific principles for things you find theistically appealing but not for things that you don't.

That is true but I object somewhat to the word appealing. I am prepared to invoke the suspension of natural laws for things that I subjectively believe to be true. In saying that I am not claiming infallibility. I believe that there is a higher intelligence that is able to suspend our natural laws and you donít. We come to the question from very different starting points.

Straggler writes:

Half of Americans believe that God created man in a single day about 10,000 years ago. More Americans believe that president Obama is a Muslim than believe in evolution.
I think it very often unreasonable (indeed potentially quite dangerous) to treat the popularity of a belief in and of itself as being indicative of it's veracity.

I didnít make the claim that the majority is always right. Iím only saying that the more people believe something the more reason there is to consider it. I donít know anybody that believes a human can give birth to a chicken but there are millions who believe in the resurrection of Jesus. If nobody believes something then the likelihood is that the idea should be rejected but if millions of people believe something then there is some reason for them believing it which suggests it is worth considering. That does not mean though that the millions are correct. We all come to our own conclusions.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2013 8:05 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017