PHILOSOPHY IS KING

LAM quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've somehow completely ignored on what I had to say about science and God. Let me say this again. Mainstream science is completely neutral on the issue of the existence of God. What science does is just look for facts and attempt to explain them with theories, not to disprove anything you religious people claim... except for some of your rediculous assertions from time to time like the "gay plague."
----------------------------------------------------------------------No I have not ignored what you have said about science and God. Major portions of the opening text (and subsequent posts) are dedicated to my position concerning the alleged Divine neutrality of science.You have completely ignored these arguments and gone behind them by claiming science is neutral concerning God. Science is not neutral, this defies all logic and is an insult to ones intelligence. I see no need to repeat my arguments, especially if you are not going to recognize them.It is the claim of this topic that the Bible explains why scientism (the branch of science that "a priori" rejects God/the branch whose philosophy controls Higher Education, Law, Media) is so successful. This explanation/declaration says the rejection of God to be premeditated. God reacts to the rejection by incapacitating ability to ever recognize Him. Regardless of silly claims of neutrality about God; these claims, are in reality; insulation from accusations of making conclusions about the Divine.Evolution has the emotive and reportive meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.For the record : Please do not insinuate that I am anti-gay because I am a christian/creationist. I apologize to every gay person in behalf of christianity for the treatment they have received by god-damn fundementalists. Gays are welcome in our church as the only persons not welcome are the fundementalists.LAM quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what I mean when I said that the bible cannot be as reliable as you people think. Meanings of words change from language to language. Even if the original was the word of God, unless you go back in time and learn the language from the people at the time you can't know for sure what certain passages really mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I have already addressed this. You are essentially being lazy and declaring that difficulty equals "unknowability". You are also essentially saying that variances of translation equals unreliability and thus we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.The issue is the philosophy and truth of certain passages. This topic assumes the Bible to be the word of God. The claim is verified when claims therein are evidenced to be true.LAM quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but this goes against everything that I believe in. I believe that you should be objective when you approach every problem, not try to beat the data with a hammer to make it fit your faith
----------------------------------------------------------------------This quote was your response to Romans 1:20. It seems your alleged objectivity takes a vacation when the Bible is the subject.In sum : I have only agrued that it is absurd to claim science is neutral concerning God. Everyone has opinions about God and evoultion is designed to thrash the God of Genesis while hiding behind a ridiculous disclaimer. Romans tells us why the massive hostility against God exists and what triggers it.And all you can do is offer non-sequitors about an off topic belief (is the Bible the word of God ?)P.S.What about a response to my reply of your assertions about the Dead Sea Scrolls ?[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-12-2004]

We have 12 manuscripts for the entire report of Herodotus.
Yet he is taken as a god and never questioned.Yet the Bible is a source written by numerous writers across a vast gulf of time. The content is brilliantly harmonious/consistent. There are thousands of manuscripts which confirm a consensus, which doesn't allow for the criticism of conspiracy.The real issue is being sidetracked, which is, certain people do not like what it says so they exist to poison the source with swiss cheese arguments of translation errors. Any errors involve minor controversies and every person in this forum knows what evos say to creos who cite alleged evidenciary inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.

Out of nowhere you appear !Glad to see you Crashfrog.Relax, my only point is that the Bible has thousands of independant sources that create the whole text. This fact should forestall any criticism about the lack of corroboration - but it doesn't, which is a testimony to the quality of criticism about the Bible.

Yes that SHOULD be the case but it isn't, which evidences the source to be the word of God.

Does falsification apply to philosophical evidence ?
My claims can be falsified via persons who disagree. I falsify my own arguments on a routine basis as a way of highlighting the truth/point.If not, are you claiming science to be the only avenue to determine truth?If something must be falsified before it is eligible to be considered true then what is the concept/reason for this ? Isn't it self- evident that everything can be falsified ?How is gravity falsified ?How is a round Earth falsified ?What falsifies natural selection (briefly) ?Why are theological arguments not eligible for falsification ?Just wondering. I am still trying to digest what you said to BAE in the closed topic.Thanks in advance for any time that you put into the response. (providing you choose to respond)

Lack of response does not indicate defeat 99% of the time. I am equally tired of the age-old debate of evo-creo dancing. I never invoked Satan or conspiracy. I just demand that it is nonsense to believe that opinions and conclusions about the Divine cease because of a ridiculous disclaimer being conveniently invoked.Also, never did I say or imply Biblical inerrancy. I opposed the concept of errancy equals unreliabailty via the truth of a certain passage being evidenced. Your only response was to dip behind the assumption which is actually a compliment to the argument and a argument killer.Lam I like discussing with you. If interest increases come on back.Thanks !Willowtree

Hello Quetzal :You are not "philosophically challenged", if anything you are humble about your capabilities.It is your arguments/knowledge that seemingly cannot be penetrated. I am searching for this opening.I have downloaded this response of yours and am studying it.When I can respond with something worthwhile - I will. I need a little time, maybe until Monday April 19th.Thanks,Willowtree

Cynic1 Quote :
______________________________________________________________________
You have to admit that God is outside the realm of most human experiences. Even according to Dr. Scott, God’s works can only be seen as his works by those who believe in him. Any argument you use to show how He exists can only be understood by those who already believe in Him. For something to be falsifiable, it has to be able to be falsified by anybody without assuming anything on faith.
______________________________________________________________________Hello Cynic1 : My first encounter with you.Quite the contrary; God is not outside the realm of most human experiences. A solid majority of persons in the U.S. profess some type of deistic/theistic belief in God.According to Dr. Scott, and his interpretation of the Romans verses in question, God's "fingerprints" CANNOT be seen by persons who have "a priori" rejected Him as a possibilty. Dr. Scott has identified the alleged Divine neutral clauses of RE and MN to be this previously made decision to do away with the God of the Bible, which means these claims of neutrality are exposed by Romans/God to really be hostile/Divine/exclusionary. WHEN persons refuse to credit God as the ultimate Creator and to be genuinely thankful (two things); this failure is deemed to be premeditated by God and triggers the punishment of "God sense" removal. Recipients of the punishment all have one thing in common: They do not care that they lack "God sense"; they have a "so what" shrug your shoulders attitude about God and His claim of Creator.I must suddenly go off line. I will finish your response ASAP.I am back and I will finish my response to the excerpt that was cut and pasted.I've lost my train of thought. Everything typed thus far was previous material worded differently. This review was intended to correct the following mistake in your understanding of my argument.Cynic1 quote :
______________________________________________________________________
Even according to Dr. Scott, God's’s works can only be seen as his works by those who believe in him.
______________________________________________________________________Negative. The invisible God can be deduced from what is seen/made. Failure to see the invisible God from what is seen/made is a punishment for REJECTING God "a priori"/previously. When a person with premeditated fore-thought dismisses God as a possibility/Creator THEN God reserves the right to react to this rejection via crippling them who reject Him with "God sense" removal. This means eveyone has the capacity to see/deduce God, the capacity is removed as a punishment for flipping God off/rejecting Him. Understand that God, from the text, only requires credit/thanks - nothing more - nothing less.
He doesn't require public prayer confessing Him, He doesn't require you embrace Jesus, He doesn't require you to go to church. He wants credit for creating and a word of thanks. That is the line He has drawn (so little). The fact that there are SO MANY people who cannot see/deduce intelligent design MEANS that these people have given God the finger and He has responded with the aforementioned punishment.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-17-2004]

Falsification According to Willowtree : The best way to test any given theory is to try and prove it wrong/incorrect. If the falsification attempts fail/unsuccessful THEN, in this context, the theory has survived/passed ?If my understanding is correct, then I can see why science has adopted falsification - it makes perfect sense.Then this sound and reasonable scientific strategy cannot be applied to theologically-based claims, because, in essence, nobody has figured out a way to test and falsify the invisible and elusive Divine.Thats the argument of scientism (the branch of science openly hostile to the God of the Bible), it is also the argument of mainstream science.In other words: The Divine/theology is subordinate to science. If you want to be included - fine. Submit your claims to our methods of discovery, if not, you and your God fails our (rigged) litmus test. Believe what you want but we can't be bothered with claims that reside outside what we are pre-programmed to consider. A closed system existing under the appearance of openess and neutrality.According to theology; science is a subordinate pathway to truth, a secondary back-up, a mirror to deduce the invisible God.The supreme pathway to truth is via the written record/word of God.How is this pathway suppose to work ?ASSUMED CLAIMS1) God exists
2) God reveals Himself via the written word/Bible.
3) His subjective views IF HE IS becomes objective truth.I have a claim(s) (Romans verses) and I have supported the claim with evidence (persons who cannot deduce intelligent design). This evidence, which supports the claim, ALSO becomes evidence supporting the three assumptions.When enough claims are demonstrated to be supported by enough evidence, then the totality of the claims and evidence and ones exposure to them provide a basis of proof supporting the three assumptions.I have provided one block of verses that make two distinct claims: God can be deduced from what is seen/failure to see/deduce God is a punishment for premeditated rejection. Western society and their controlling segments (Scientism, Law, Higher Education, Media) are hostile/reject the God of the Bible, which is explained by the block of verses.If something written in the Bible/Romans is evidenced to be true, then something that is true becomes a member of truth (and part of assumption number 3). Romans verses declare and explain the rejection of God by intellectuals, they are, in essence, permanently rejecting God for a previous rejection that God holds them accountable for. Christians must remember that the reason why our controlling segments are so atheistic is because of God's wrath/punishment.Yet I have only evidenced one block of verses; times this by 10 or 20 or 100 separate claims, then you know why I believe the Bible to be the eternal word of God. This is why there are so many "scholars" out there to destroy the claims of the Bible - they know the claims and what it means if the Bible is confirmed true.I have confirmed my claim of God sense removal via the intelligent massses who cannot deduce an Intelligent Designer, of course, these persons unanamously would say the reason to be something else.Falsification of claims ?Dr. Scott himself declares that IF anyone can prove that even ONE Biblical prophecy has failed to come to pass then he has better things to do than waste his time with a God that will not back His word. Dr. Scott is the ultimate source to see the performance of God in making His word come to pass. Dr. Scott uses all of his talent to "falsify" the claims of scripture for the exact purpose of testing their veracity.But to know this for youself would require listening to a theologian, and science is not about to relinquish their hard-fought gains of preeminence over their old nemesis the religionists.Quetzal, I know you hate philosophers but "we" are king. You brilliant scientist types can do what you do best: scientific discoveries, and then leave the interpretation of what it all means in relation to the big picture to us.This is a free for all forum....would you tell me why Micahel Behe's conclusions are false ?I read a book written to refute his claims and all the author could do was re-define IC systems to be the product of chance - an assertion to which he offered no evidence except to just declare it, which of course is an assumption compatible with his worldview.It's things like this that evidence the claim that evolutionary concepts only evidence-against a Designer if the filter of your worldview is operating.

NosyNed quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Most of use recognize that methodological naturalism is not an open ended method for determining all things. I do anyway. However, for answering questions about the natural world I have yet to see a better one proposed.
______________________________________________________________________Agreed. There is no better.

Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
The words that theologians use are generally meaningless.
______________________________________________________________________I believe this belief that arrogantly and ignorantly dismisses an entire dimension of truth as meaningless comes from Immanuel Kant.If you, cannot understand, theology, which is a word derived from the greek "theos" meaning God, then you reveal how utterly God senseless
you are.Then you refer to the infamous oxymoron; can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it.Yes He can but God would not be so stupid to do such a thing. The entire question is framed to conclude only one answer.God is omnipotent with one exception: He cannot create the one thing He does not know : If free will mankind will use their freedom to do otherwise and choose to trust Him by faith.I do not indict you Cynic1 just anyone who might actually think theology has no meaning.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-18-2004]

Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Assuming God sense to exist, James takes another view of it. According to him, either people have it, or they don’t. Only between people who have this sense is there any chance of a meaningful discussion, and only then if this God sense is universal.
______________________________________________________________________Absolutely correct ! I agree 100%Now, do not go any further and think that I agree with everything else that you add on to this in your post.You go on to say that persons with God sense cannot between themselves have meaningful discussion about God - as the British are so fond of saying - absolute rubbish.Do you want to know what God's name means, those "mysterious" four consonants "YHWH". According to Dr. Scott, who is the brightest scholar in the world in O.T. Hebrew, it is pictoral. If you can picture something that is being held back from bursting forth, then that is what "God" means. "Wanting to burst forth" is the meaning of God's name.What's holding Him back from bursting forth ? (and revealing Himself to any given person)Answer: FaithIt is the corruption of religious people who have clouded the intentions and desire of God to be known. Jesus said "by your traditions you make void the word of God".

Cynic1 quote :
______________________________________________________________________
Remember the Galileo fiasco. Copernicus disproved the biblically supported notion that the sun revolved around the Earth, and Galileo confirmed his findings. For all intents and purposes, this disproved a section of the Bible
______________________________________________________________________I assume you are referring to Joshua when he saw the sun stand still.
The Bible wasn't proved wrong - just someones interpretation of it.
Joshua was honest, he recorded what he saw, he saw the sun stand still. We know, in fact, that it was the Earth that stood still, but Joshua thought the sun revolved around the Earth.For all intents and purposes this confirms the truthfulness of the Bible/writer.The Bible cannot be proved to be false, this is why powers that be invented the "invulnerable" argument, as if invulnerability is somehow a negative thing (which they intend it to be). But there exists armies of persons who exist to slander and disprove the Bible. They know what the Bible claims and they hate what it says so they dedicate themselves to fraudulently changing the truth, also known as "suppressing the truth/exchanging the truth for a lie" (Romans1)

Have you read post number 57 ?It can be evidenced false but not ultimately proved to be false.You need to read post 57, as this is where I explain how the claims of the Bible are confirmed/verified.

Quetzal quote :
______________________________________________________________________
A lot of people seem uncomfortable with that kind of uncertainty. I mean, if even the best-supported scientific theories are capable of being overturned, where's the point? For me (and I presume many others like me), this uncertainty is quite refreshing as it makes science always new and fascinating.
______________________________________________________________________But doesn't the nagging uncertainty make you want to reduce that cloud via some other method ?Are you desensitized to uncertainty ?Gotta go for now.....