PHILOSOPHY IS KING

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".

quote:

---

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.

---

Thanks for the definition, I must have missed that in freshman philosophy. It is all so clear now.By the way, I am not an atheist and have never rejected God. If I have no God sense, then I lack it in such a way as to prove Dr. Scott wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

So God is not even limited by logic? How can we falsify a being that we cannot remotely understand? If God can exist in literally any condition, then there is no condition by which we can falsify him. Even if we come up with failed prophecies, one can just explain that God decided not to have them come true.

quote:

---

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.

---

One cannot be omnipotent with an exception. If there is exception, he is not omnipotent. Thanks for showing the indefinable nature of theology terms. God is omnipotent in his own special way. Not the way that the word actually means, omnipotent in everything unless humans interfere.Care to justify the words "love" and "benevolence" when applied to God? Right now we have an omnipotent and omniscient God who is neither all powerful nor all knowing. We have a benevolent God who loves us, but not benevolence or love as we understand them. All of this comes down to the mystery of God who we can't understand anyway.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incidentally, I was trying to make the point that no two people are likely to have the same God sense. Without the same God sense, no discussion is possible. Bach and Cobain probably have nothing to say to one another in the afterlife Both had a musical ear, just not the same ear. Similarly, two people can have a God sense, but not the same sense of Him.Maybe the problem is that I do not care for Dr. Scott's definition of God sense, and prefer James's. If this is so, I propose that we agree to disagree and leave God sense out of further discussions.

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)

quote:

---

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).

---

AAAAAAARGH! Why are we arguing if you agree that the Bible cannot be proved false? If it cannot be proved false then it cannot be falsified, thats what the word means.That popping sound is my head exploding.

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.

quote:

---

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 ?

---

This is true enough, but I would stress that if falsification fails, the theory lives until it is falsified.

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly. I should have read more closely earlier, I apologize. However, this seems to say that theologically based claims cannot be falsified, but I will read on.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not subordinate, seperate. Believe what you want, just don't expect science to agree. Really though, God doesn't fail the litmus test, he just doesn't show up. Maybe he exists and maybe he doesn't, science doesn't care.

quote:

---

According to theology; science is a subordinate pathway to truth, a secondary back-up, a mirror to deduce the invisible God.

---

Theology can think whatever it wants. The fact is that science is not useful for proving or disproving God, but it does give us lots of neat technology. Again, theology and science are not complimentary in any way.

quote:

---

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.

---

The "evidence" of people not being able to deduce intelligent design also fits another model, the model of "there is no intelligent design." Thus you need more evidence. The evidence you have does not favor one model over another. It only favors one model over another when you have assumed claims that bias you. Drop assumptions and become impartial.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's one interpretation of the evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, lets go through the claims then. I have already shown that the one you gave fits more than one model, lets see if the others do too.

quote:

---

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.

---

You really haven't confirmed anything. At least, not in this thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

Except that prophecies can be interpreted to come true quite easily. Also, since no time frame is given, one can just say that the prophecies haven't come true yet.As for the Behe stuff, I don't really know enough to respond. From what I have read, it sounds like the logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity, but I can't say for sure.

Hi Willow,I've only got a moment now, but will try and address your post in more detail later. I appreciate your response. I'll just take a second to address the part we agree on: Not a bad restatement. Your understanding of the concept appears accurate. Just remember that, even if a theory passes ONE test, it doesn't mean that further tests will continue to validate it. The nature of science is basically continuing tests - and often with new methodologies, new discoveries, or new technologies those previous seemingly "passing" theories can be invalidated. 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. There's always something else to discover, something new to learn, something novel that can upset the applecart. That's why science is so successful. Correct. However, the inability to falsify a philosophical, metaphysical or Divine claim DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CLAIM IS FALSE! It means that it is unaddressable by science. In this much, if not all else, I agree with Stephen Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria", which basically says that science and theology deal with completely different subject matters. To oversimplify, science deals with the what and how, theology deals with the why. Science is unable, by definition, to address questions of "purpose", for example.All for the moment. Will write more later.

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.....

Quetzal quote :
______________________________________________________________________
the inability to falsify a philosophical, metaphysical or Divine claim DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CLAIM IS FALSE! It means that it is unaddressable by science. I agree with Stephen Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria", which basically says that science and theology deal with completely different subject matters. To oversimplify, science deals with the what and how, theology deals with the why. Science is unable, by definition, to address questions of "purpose", for example.
______________________________________________________________________Thank you for this wonderful paragraph. I have no reason to doubt YOUR sincerity, but as you know I have blasted scientism/science for claiming integrity-based idealism toward competing dimensions of truth, while surreptitiously offering personal worldviews in the reporting of scientifc research.This paragraph of yours makes sense, it unfolds the philosophy behind the Divine neutral clauses of RE and MN, but, unfortunately, these claims are buffers erected to deflect away accusations by theists. I will not repeat that which I have laboriously hammered. I will end by pointing out the obvious : The emotive and reportive defintions of "evolution" means the God of Genesis was not involved.Moving on.....Quetzal :Michael Behe's IC systems, IF they are in fact IC, then his simple claim that these IC systems cannot be attributed to the slow step by tiny step evolutionary mutative process ?IDists have interpreted this evidence to clearly say, by deduction, that the alleged Creator was involved.Physicist Mark Perakh, in his 2004 book "Unintelligent Design" wants to refute Behe by redefining IC systems to already belong to Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) which of course is a product of randomness/chance.This refutation (providing that I have accurately represented his position) is in fact not a refutation, but an admission that the systems are IC (which Perakh assumes as he is not a micro biologist) and that the IC systems are to be arbitrarily assigned to randomness.
This "refutation" completely ignores and fails to address Behe's claim against the long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. I was extremely disappointed to see Behe's claims sidestepped.Perakh is interpreting claims of Divine involvement, which are based upon evidence, that an IDer was not involved based solely on his worldview - fine.IC systems exist.Cause: IDer or chance/randomness*.Pick according to your worldview.Philosophy is King**.* Perakh admits in his book that if proponents of ID want to claim that the alleged Designer creates/designs under the appearance of chance/randomness THEN this renders the entire debate meaningless.** And the philosophy of the N.T. declares and explains why certains cannot deduce ID. (opening text) And post 36 strongly evidences that the God of Genesis operates/controls under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-19-2004][This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-19-2004][This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-20-2004]

Cynic1 quote :
______________________________________________________________________
The "evidence" of people not being able to deduce intelligent design also fits another model, the model of "there is no intelligent design." Thus you need more evidence. The evidence you have does not favor one model over another. It only favors one model over another when you have assumed claims that bias you. Drop assumptions and become impartial.
______________________________________________________________________The model of "there is no intelligent design" is explained by Romans.
Thats my only point and I know and realize that it is invulnerable. I just want a little slice of the internet to know the real reason why certains cannot deduce ID. Dunces like chance, fluke, randomness are getting the credit. Steal intellectual property from Hollywood and you will get sued into the poor house. Do it to God and He will harden your heart against Him and make you believe something that aint true.Everyone has assumptions and science is supposed to have less. Theology assumes a lot but has the unique positon of claiming eternal objective truth which is voodoo to science. I have already addressed how our claims are verified and confirmed. To equate assumptions with partiality and thus error is an assumption based upon anti-theology bias, which indicates the filter of your worldview is operating.Cynic1 :I really like the fact that you at least understand what I am saying/claiming (I didn't say agree).Why don't you create a post that sums up your entire position and conclusions concerning this topic or anything else you want to say and then I will respond.

An invulnerable position is not necessarily a good thing to have. It is the very vulnerability of scientific theories that makes their verification possible. If there are no conditions under which a given statement is false, that doesn't make the statement true, it makes the statement unverifiable. Moreover, it makes every statement unverifiable that you base the on the unverifiable original statement. That is really the problem with your assumptions: they are unverifiable, so every statement that you base on those assumptions is also unverifiable.I apologize if I came across as saying that an assumption is a bias that leads to error because that was not my intent. What I was saying was that the assumption makes every statement you base on it unverifiable, not true or false. The bias I spoke of was just to say that it makes you lean to one side or the other on claims that are unverifiable, but not right or wrong on those claims.I must stress that when I say unverifiable, I am not really saying that the statement is neither true nor false, it is just that we cannot know if the statement is true or false. For example, I say that I am wearing a hat, and I ask you to verify this. From where you are sitting, the statement that I am wearing a hat is unverifiable. There is a right answer, it is just that you cannot know what it is. Now if you have an assumption that I seem like a person who would wear a hat, that would bias you to a "yes" answer. That bias isn't wrong, just that it has no real bearing on the truth. That was what I was trying to get at earlier.I would submit that your claims are not verified and confirmed because of the unverifiable assumptions that they must be based on. Again, it is not that they are false, just that we can't judge their validity.Now there is the "God sense" issue. I disagree with Dr. Scott on the nature of the sense of God, and also I see that it may not even exist. That may be for another topic, however, as I have a few views on the matter. Assuming God exists, and assuming God sense to exist, there may be those who can verify God, but because the assumptions are unverifiable, it is impossible to say.Well, I did my best to put my thoughts on the matter in one post. Of course there are my other posts about theological discussions being flawed because of the ineffability of God and the failures of theological language, but I have too many thoughts on the matter to put it all in one post. Thankfully, that is a slightly different topic, so perhaps they will not come up again. I can't promise that all of my relevant thoughts on this topic are in this post, but for the moment, they are. I also want to thank you for the kind words, and know that I am enjoying this discussion as well.As a side note, I just noticed that you are from Long Beach. I'm from Torrance, so howdy neighbor! I'm a student too, so it really is a small world.

Cynic1 quote :
______________________________________________________________________
An invulnerable position is not necessarily a good thing to have. It is the very vulnerability of scientific theories that makes their verification possible
______________________________________________________________________Yes, in science it is self-evident that vulnerability keeps the theory
"honest" and beyond having to take someones word for its veracity.
Invulnerable and theological (claims) is a compliment to the dimension of truth despite the negative emotive meaning attached.Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
The bias I spoke of was just to say that it makes you lean to one side or the other on claims that are unverifiable
______________________________________________________________________This sentence was offered in the context of theological claims, which you remain unflexible in regards to their confirmation. No problem, but I will reiterate that I did explain how theological declarations are confirmed/verified.Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I must stress that when I say unverifiable, I am not really saying that the statement is neither true nor false, it is just that we cannot know if the statement is true or false.
______________________________________________________________________Yes we can. If the Bible declares x and there is evidence for x outside the pages of scripture then the statement can be known to be true.Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I would submit that your claims are not verified and confirmed because of the unverifiable assumptions that they must be based on.
______________________________________________________________________I can accept this response and place it in the "we agree to disagree" category IF I was certain that you at least understood the portions of my previous posts that explained HOW and WHY we come to verify the assumptions in question.If a claim of scripture is evidenced to be true THEN this evidenced claim ALSO evidences the assumption under which it was offered. (God exists/Bible contains/is His word) The more claims that are discovered to be true the more the assumptions are evidenced to be true.Cynic1 quote :
______________________________________________________________________
Now there is the "God sense" issue. I disagree with Dr. Scott on the nature of the sense of God, and also I see that it may not even exist.
______________________________________________________________________"God sense" is the capacity to deduce the Creator, IF a person cannot with the naked eye ascribe what is seen to be the creation of God then they have no "God sense".Romans verses requires God be given credit/thanks. Failure to do so is premeditated defiance and triggers the wrath of God sense removal.
"So that they are without excuse" (1:20)...."and changed the glory of God into icons made like corruptible man and birds and quadrupeds" (1:23)....."who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and worshipped and served the CREATURE rather than the Creator" (1:25)Notice how many EvC members have an icon/picture under their name that depicts some type of animal ? Thats their god and the object of their focus and valid evidence demonstrating the above declaration/claim.I am sick of seeing some scientist being treated like a god for spending 30 years in Africa mesmorized by apes. They are convinced that mankind evolved from these creatures, again Romans evidenced, God senselessness demonstrated.Cynic1 you have my admiration as a quality debater and formidable opponent, while we are neighbors, Long Beach locals do not venture into Torrance and we would appreciate the same respect.

quote:

---

Invulnerable and theological (claims) is a compliment to the dimension of truth despite the negative emotive meaning attached.

---

This is, unfortunately, unverifiable. It may be as you say, but say two religions offer two equally invulnerable, yet equally contradictory statements. Without being able to verify these statements, which do we use?

quote:

---

This sentence was offered in the context of theological claims, which you remain unflexible in regards to their confirmation. No problem, but I will reiterate that I did explain how theological declarations are confirmed/verified.

---

I maintain that I did not mean to imply that the bias leads to error.

quote:

---

Yes we can. If the Bible declares x and there is evidence for x outside the pages of scripture then the statement can be known to be true.

---

Probably, it kind of depends on the evidence. For the most part I would say that you are right, provided you did not say that the Biblical statements "w," "y," and "z" are also true because "x" is true. Empirical statements the Bible makes can be verified, non-empirical statements really can't. That some empirical statements can be verified does not mean that the whole book or any of the metaphysical concepts are true. Sections of other religious materials and myths have been proved true, but that does not mean that the metaphysical element to them is true.

quote:

---

If a claim of scripture is evidenced to be true THEN this evidenced claim ALSO evidences the assumption under which it was offered. (God exists/Bible contains/is His word) The more claims that are discovered to be true the more the assumptions are evidenced to be true.

---

Well, a statement being proved true does help prove an assumption true. However, it is circular when the assumption has to be true in order to evidence the statement that proves the assumption. If the assumption does not have to be true for the evidence to make the statement true, then and only then the assumption is evidenced.

quote:

---

Notice how many EvC members have an icon/picture under their name that depicts some type of animal ? Thats their god and the object of their focus and valid evidence demonstrating the above declaration/claim.

---

I think that may be attaching too much significance to the avatar. I hope you are joking.

quote:

---

I am sick of seeing some scientist being treated like a god for spending 30 years in Africa mesmorized by apes. They are convinced that mankind evolved from these creatures, again Romans evidenced, God senselessness demonstrated.

---

I haven't seen many altars to scientists, nor prayers of any kind. Perhaps saying that they are treated as Gods is hyperbole, but I would say that treating them like learned people is fair.

quote:

---

Cynic1 you have my admiration as a quality debater and formidable opponent, while we are neighbors, Long Beach locals do not venture into Torrance and we would appreciate the same respect.

---

Thanks, you too. You're mean though. I'm in Long Beach twice a week at least to visit friends and family, plus I intent to re-attend CSULB.