Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PHILOSOPHY IS KING
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 46 of 123 (99574)
04-13-2004 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
04-12-2004 11:58 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2004 11:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2004 12:32 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 123 (99580)
04-13-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object
04-13-2004 12:09 AM


Yes that SHOULD be the case but it isn't
But it is, though. There's a number of disagreements among the text. The only way you could not come to conclusion there aren't is if you assume that the only "proper" interpretation of the Bible is the one that elminates all contraditctions, no matter the linguistic gymnastics required.
With that kind of reasoning you can eliminate the contradictions in anything. Me, I'll read the Bible as it's written, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2004 12:09 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 48 of 123 (100314)
04-16-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Quetzal
04-11-2004 11:50 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 04-11-2004 11:50 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by coffee_addict, posted 04-16-2004 5:28 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 9:36 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 51 by Cynic1, posted 04-16-2004 11:00 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 49 of 123 (100349)
04-16-2004 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
04-16-2004 12:23 AM


quote:
If not, are you claiming science to be the only avenue to determine truth?
Nope. In fact, I see science more as a tool to determine certain "truth" to be not true. Since I don't believe that not a single person in this world can know truth... you can guess where I'm coming from.
By the way, the reason I've been not responding to you is because I am having a hard time understanding and thinking in your mindset, which tells me that (1) either there is a miscommunication between us somewhere along the line or (2) I am simply not advance enough to think the way you do. Either way, I'm tired of the age old argument whether science is a conspiracy that is out to do satan's work or the all-the-books-in-the-bible-are-100%-accurate argument, for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 12:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 11:59 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 123 (100363)
04-16-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
04-16-2004 12:23 AM


Hi Willow,
I think you may be slightly confused on the concept of falsification as it applies to science. What the "rule" of falsification means, in essence, is that we can conceivably come up with some concrete observation or phenomena that shows our idea is wrong. It doesn't mean that such an observation actually exists, merely that the potential is there. IOW, when we are discussing ideas that relate to phenomena in the physical world, there should be possible physical observations that can refute it. I'm badly stating the idea here - let me quote Karl Popper, the guy who first proposed the falsifiability criteria as a way of determining the difference between a scientific discipline or theory (such as astronomy), and a theory that sounds scientific - and may even be based on huge numbers of observations - but isn't (say, astrology).
quote:
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. (from Science as Falsification)
Willow writes:
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.
No, in fact they can't be falsified simply by people disagreeing with them. Claims can only be falsified by the discovery of disconfirming evidence. Where most of your particular claims fail is in the utter lack of CONFIRMING evidence (making them assertions, not hypotheses in scientific terms), AND the way they are structured: there cannot exist any physical evidence that falsifies them because the claims are open-ended (officially, the "undeclared claim".) I.e., so ambiguous or filled with undefined terms as to be meaningless in an empirical context.
If not, are you claiming science to be the only avenue to determine truth?
Another trick question. Why is it that people who argue philosophy are so adept at and insistent on presenting yes/no questions whose structure contains so many hidden assumptions? No matter which way I respond to this, you have tricked me into making an unsupportable claim. In simple words, science doesn't provide an avenue to determine "truth" - which you need to operationally define, btw. It DOES, however, provide a highly useful, practical avenue for discovering an asymptotic approach to an understanding of physical reality. It is never 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 ?
See above. And no, it isn't self-evident that everything can be falsified. For example, personal preferences and emotions, as well as personal experiences can't be falsified unless they are based on objective criteria. How would you go about falsifying the existence of your God, for instance? Is there any empirical observation that could conceivably be made that would?
How is gravity falsified ?
The theory of gravity could be falsified by discovering a case or system where it doesn't apply. You'd have to ask a physicist about the possibility.
How is a round Earth falsified ?
In a general sense, the round Earth claim is an observation, not a theory to be falsified. However, it could be falsified if it were determined through measurement that the Earth isn't round. In fact, the original idea that the Earth was a sphere WAS falsified - it's an oblate spheriod that bulges in the middle. This was determined by more accurate measurement due to advances in technology (IIRC).
What falsifies natural selection (briefly) ?
Briefly? Okay, in a nutshell, NS could be falsified in a number of different ways - for example, if it could be shown that a population DIDN'T change in response to a change in environment. Or if it could be shown that genetic changes in response to environment occurred in a single individual rather than over generations. Etc. I can think of a bunch more.
Why are theological arguments not eligible for falsification ?
Again, briefly, because they aren't based wholly on empirical evidence. Although there may be SOME empirical evidence for elements of a given theology, there remain a large number of unfalsifiable parts (c.f., existence of a non-coporeal entity that routinely violates the known laws of space and time, which is inherently unfalsifiable).
All for now. Looking forward to your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 12:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 12:19 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-17-2004 5:29 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 51 of 123 (100375)
04-16-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
04-16-2004 12:23 AM


quote:
Why are theological arguments not eligible for falsification ?
This is a very interesting question that I would like to take a stab at, if I may.
Theological arguments are not eligible for falsification for two reasons. The first is that God himself is generally regarded as too mysterious to understand. We cannot fully comprehend His motives or His methods. Without being able to comprehend why He does what He does or even how He does what He does, we cannot even approach a meaningful understanding of Him. Without this understanding, falsification is not an option.
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.
The second reason theological arguments are not falsifiable lies within theological language. The words that theologians use are generally meaningless. For example, God is usually said to love us. I can say that I love people in my life, and not only would I not inflict pain and suffering on them, I would not knowingly allow pain and suffering to be inflicted upon them. God, however, does exactly that. The answer to this argument usually boils down to something like well, God’s love is unique to God, and our love is primitive in comparison. Even assuming this is true, we must admit that this God love is never defined meaningfully in terms of any human experience by which we might analogously understand it.
For another example, I would give the word omnipotent. Omnipotence is usually defined as unlimited power, but God clearly does not possess this. Can God create a stone so large that he cannot lift it? This is a logical paradox that is obviously irresolvable. Since it seems that even God must work within the bounds of logic, there is a limit on his power, and cannot justifiably be called omnipotent. Of course, this is assuming that God must work within the bonds of logic. If he is not so constrained, we are even less likely to be able to define him or anything about him in any meaningful way.
Most of what I have written is an attempt to show that theological arguments are not even meaningful, let alone falsifiable. This is not to say that God does not exist, or that what anyone thinks about Him is wrong, or anything else that could be perceived to be an attack on anyone’s beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 12:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 4:26 PM Cynic1 has replied
 Message 61 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-18-2004 6:25 PM Cynic1 has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 52 of 123 (100384)
04-16-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by coffee_addict
04-16-2004 5:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by coffee_addict, posted 04-16-2004 5:28 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 53 of 123 (100387)
04-16-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Quetzal
04-16-2004 9:36 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 9:36 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 54 of 123 (100431)
04-16-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cynic1
04-16-2004 11:00 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cynic1, posted 04-16-2004 11:00 AM Cynic1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Cynic1, posted 04-16-2004 7:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 55 of 123 (100471)
04-16-2004 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Cold Foreign Object
04-16-2004 4:26 PM


I know that there is more response coming, but I will respond to what you have so far.
I reread my post and I think I may not have been clear in my point. It was not that most people do not believe or even that most people cannot believe, it was that not all people are capable of seeing God’s works as God’s works. For something to be falsifiable, it must first be able to be verified by anyone, not just those with a special sense. Not that I am saying that a God sense is special in that it is unique to a few people, but special in that not everyone has it.
As to God sense, you might consider reading the works of William James in this matter. In his Variety of Religious Experience, James writes that religious experience (he uses mystical experience and religious experience synonymously) is ineffable:
quote:
The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality of worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one‘s self to understand a lover‘s state of mind. (Variety of Religious Experience, 1902, taken from Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, page 94)
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. However, to utilize his musical ear analogy, some people like classical music, some people like rock. While they agree in that they like music, they cannot meaningfully discuss it even among themselves. To carry this analogy further, even among people who like rock, you get some people who have one favorite band, and some people who have another. Among the people who agree on a band, some people have one favorite song, others have another favorite song. I can carry this analogy further, but I do not think it is necessary.
I would submit that God sense is similarly defined on a uniquely personal level, simply because there is no more than a very basic level of agreement between religious experiences. You can find two people who have God sense easily enough, but two people with the same God sense is impossible.
One more problem though. One must also realize that even if one were to find two people who completely agree on everything musical, even they would not be able to tell you why they like what they like. This is because of the inexplicable nature of what makes a person like a certain type of music. Even if one were to find these two people (if two such people exist), they would not be able to have a meaningful discussion. Similarly, even if one were to find two people with the same God sense, God is still too incomprehensible to them to discuss meaningfully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-16-2004 4:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Cynic1, posted 04-16-2004 8:10 PM Cynic1 has not replied
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-18-2004 6:50 PM Cynic1 has replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 56 of 123 (100487)
04-16-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cynic1
04-16-2004 7:14 PM


Sorry for the double post, but I should also mention that there is another way in which theological arguments are not falsifiable. Consider this situation: lets say that I come to you and say that I have falsified God. Because if God is falsified, then your God sense is nothing more than a personal bias in favor of God. Thus you would probably either reject the findings out of hand, or look at it and not agree with them, regardless of whether or not they actually falsify God.
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, but it did not even come close to falsifying God. People just reinterpreted the relevant texts and continued belief. Because these texts can be (and are) reinterpreted when new evidence conflicts with them, they cannot be falsified. There is nothing that we can observe in nature, no logical syllogisms, no evidence at all that would be immune to reinterpretation. A current biblical interpretation may be falsified, but the Bible itself cannot be.
If you disagree, come up with a few bits of possible evidence that could falsify God. Please only include evidence that the living can falsify. I submit to you that no evidence would be enough to overcome reinterpretation.
(edited to fix run-on sentence)
[This message has been edited by Cynic1, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cynic1, posted 04-16-2004 7:14 PM Cynic1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-18-2004 7:09 PM Cynic1 has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 57 of 123 (100609)
04-17-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Quetzal
04-16-2004 9:36 AM


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 CLAIMS
1) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 9:36 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 6:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 59 by Cynic1, posted 04-18-2004 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 68 by Cynic1, posted 04-18-2004 8:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 69 by Quetzal, posted 04-19-2004 9:30 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 123 (100616)
04-17-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object
04-17-2004 5:29 PM


Again!??
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.
Do I consult the microwave manual for how to opererate Windows XP? No! (well not yet )
There are specific boundaries around different tools we might use. This applies to intellectual tools as well. You're wording is so far off base. It is not 'pre-programmed' it is "as defined". The method of arriving at an understanding that science uses is specifically limited. No one has claimed otherwise. (well, "scientism" as you note might be over stating what the scientific approach can do )
You talk about submitting your claims to "our methods of discovery" as if that was some kind of fault. If you want to use my bathroom scale as a way of measuring the mass of a helium filled balloon who is at fault when the scale turns out to be unsuitable for the purpose?
If you don't want your claims of devinity scrutinized by methodological naturalism then do not submit them to it. All you will get told, as you have been over and over, is that the tool is not suitable for that purpose.
Now if you do want to submit your claims as literalists seem to, you have no room to complain when the results are either null (can't say one way or the other) or negative (there is no "god stuff" detected here).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-17-2004 5:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-18-2004 6:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 59 of 123 (100759)
04-18-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object
04-17-2004 5:29 PM


quote:
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.
So when is the next biblical prophecy due to come to pass? The only reason I ask is because without a general time frame, one could always say the prophecy hasn’t happened yet. Also, what is prophesied to happen? The only reason I ask is because most of the prophesies I have heard being fulfilled have been interpreted as fulfilled after the fact. If all prophecies have already been interpreted as fulfilled, it is no longer falsifiable by us.
Well lets falsify the Bible together then. Just tell me when the next prophecy is due to come true, and what is prophesied. We’ll know if the Bible is true based on what happens after the prophecy is supposed to be fulfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-17-2004 5:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 60 of 123 (100762)
04-18-2004 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
04-17-2004 6:46 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 6:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024