So you claim, yet the two quotations to which I referred, earlier, do not deal with faith in any way, either of the scientist or of their audience. It actually appeared that you weree simply pouting that science does not allow religious belief to interfere with investigation.
As to reliability: science is self-correcting. Any given proposition is always open to challenge by anyone who can provide contrary evidence. That makes it pretty reliable in the long run.
I sincerely apologize, Gobear. While I am one of those “fundies”, I wish no ill to come to you.
On the contrary, I have come to respect your intellect and character, and feel dismayed when you display such anger and ferocity in your posts against Christians. The anguish is certainly visible, and I’m deeply hurt by the suffering you’ve endured.
I find no way to agree to disagree on this subject in such a way as to remain civil. Yet, engaging in battle is less than ideal. Perhaps minds will be changed, those listening in so to speak, but the result is more likely to be absolute rejection of God. A puzzle without resolution.
Do I speak and chance the word of God reaching one of the lost, as Jesus commanded, or do I stay silent for the sake of temporary peace. I find both options dissatisfactory.
Jesus said that if someone didn’t want to hear your message you should shake the dust from your feet and move on.
Got it. So would it be fair, then, to say that you have lots and lots of circumstantial evidence, but no “proof?”
However, in this case, all of them would have seen the actual burgler. As Gobear pointed out, nobody has seen a god, so that testimony you say would be so admissible would, instead, be hearsay. I only bring this up to counter the claim that such “evidence” would be admisible in practically any court, as it would not.
No matter how you word this, it comes off as promoting one world-view over another purely because of the number of people who believe it, and not for the reasons behind it. To use your earlier example, it doesn’t matter how many people “believe” a person was the burglar, if they don’t have any evidence (Such as being an eye-witness) to support that claim.
several people can also share the same ideas and beliefs about the loch ness monster.
First off, I felt I’ve already addressed several concerns about the accuracy of your logic-proof, which have not been commented on. For a specific example, the fact that the logic chain can show that god is not “necessary existance,” in that it is possible god does not exist (To use the modal logic you’ve touted before, this mean god does not exist in at least one possible world, and therefor, even if god exists in some worlds, god does not exist in all worlds, and therefor can not be necessary existance).
I never argued against the concept of “necessary existence.” However, “supreme being” seems to be an unneeded and anwarranted anthropomorphization of this concept. Your modal-logic proof shows only that necessary existence exists, and then uses the anthropomorphized “supreme being” to link that with a specific concept of god. Wouldn’t it be more fair to say that it proves that the greatest possible thing that exists does exist?
And the fact still remains, that with this proof, we can effectively define into existance any object we so desire. Do you think if someone were trying to prove that the lock ness monster existed, and they said it was a supreme being, and therefor, must exist, that this argument would prove that the lock ness monster exists as a physical entity?
Na Sultainne, our Lord said to “speak the truth in love,” as reported by John. This is what I’ve endeavored to do, to th best of my ability. The central message of the Gospel, even to a gay person, is not that passage from Leviticus or Romans 1:27-28; if it can be pinned down to a verse or two, it’s Romans 10:9 and John 3:16-17.
We disagree on a lot of non-core stuff about our faith, but not, I think, the central message. When you cited me those passages, I took your advice seriously – when you rebuked me above, I did listen, though what you presumably thought did not apply.
It’s your privilege to be a full five-petal TULIP fundamentalist, and I will never criticize you for that. Rather, what I meant by “fundy. porn” was the lies circulated by a certain group of people who claim to be fundamentalists and think nothing of bearing knowing false witness against liberal Christians such as myself and against gay people. The AFA website I linked to in my “Snopes’s Evil Twin” thread is typical, or you might take a look at some of the stuff Concerned Women of America and their “family-friendly” associates put out. Bishop John Shelby Spong tells of an occasion where he was engaged in a debate in Vancouver, and his opponent rewrote the transcript of the debate to show him saying things he never had said. If you can look at that linked website, come back here, and tell me that you believe what is said on it is true of gobear, Priam, and andygirl, my respect for you will have dropped immensely. If, on the other hand, you recognize it for the lies that it is, then you will see why I believe it is something that good Christians should not condone – and why I described it and things like it, not the beliefs of fundamentalists, as “fundy porn.”
I share your sentiments – and I believe that the Holy Spirit will work in the lives of those to whom we can reach out. And that it is unnecessary to alienate people for the sake of God’s truth – and that he or she whose witness consists entirely in “standing by the truth of God’s word” by reiterating those tired old verses of condemnation is far from spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ.
May there be peace between us.
Nope, when dealing with things like creation, or the age of the earth, there are certain things you have to base on faith. And in dealing with creation, even if science did show some element of God, it would be rejected. Seems they aren’t without biases then, IMO.
Maybe, but the only person who said anything like this was you. Why talk about just homosexuals though, why not coloured people, and say that the KKK is Christian too, as Hollywood has shown that every KKK leader is a preacher.
Do you really think lip service is what it’s about? And if you have a problem with my definition of good, which I think is in reference to the good test, as I don’t think I’ve posted my definition of good, then I’d have a problem with your definition of good. But it’s a good thing (excuse the pun) it’s not based our your or my definition. As for my testimony though, please don’t assume anything. I’ll use a good quote I heard, and assumption is the lowest form of knowledge. Honestly you have no idea what I did, nor how I became a Christian.
Then I’m using the accounting definition of reliable, and that isn’t subject to change over time. If I wanted reliable financial statements, I wouldn’t expect them to adapt the next year. Kind of affects the comparability too, as well as the fact that if f/s were prepared that way, there’s no way anyone would use them to make any sound financial decisions.
As for the 10 commandments, again, I take them in the whole context of the Bible. For instance, it says do not murder, then Jesus said if you hate, you’ve committed murder in your heart, which I understand. For instance, if I decide to rob a bank (yes, another bank story) whether I do or not, in my heart I’ve already done it. If I’m crossing the street (after helping someone who fell) and get run over, I will be accountable for my heart. As I said before, man looks on the outside, God the heart. Now adultery I also posted the reference, as Jesus’ comments were going to the spirit of the law, not the letter. That said, there are some things that are not covered by the ten commandments, like rape…well, actually it would be now that I think about it, as it says not to covet, or desire what doesn’t belong to you. So I believe, and you if this isn’t a good enough answer, I’ll email Ray Comfort, that the track goes by the spirit, as it does have reference to what Jesus said.
Neither of these statements are true.
Colored people???
Fundies preach that gay people are inherently sinful. You believe it and so does Na Sultainne, although I thank her for her politeness in not saying so. I bring it up because the fundie attitude towards folks like me is one of the reason that I find them threatening. As a riule, fundies are not on my side.
And just which movies depict KKK leaders as preachers? The only two major films in the past couple of decades that depict the Klan are Mississippi Burning, which had a sheriff in the Klan and O Brother, Where Art Thou, which depicted a gubernatorial candidate as a clandestine Klan member. I suspect that this more of the “persecuted Christian” mythology, which is patently false. Christian faith gets a generally respectful treatment in films and TV. far more so than gay folks did until very recently.
But financial statements do change from year to year, depending on external factors such as income, interest rates, and so on. It would be a very foolish person indeed who did not expect financial planning to be fluid. If you have the same planning now that did in 1999, I suspect that you would be hemorrhaging cash.
The self-correcting nature of science insures its long-term reliability as theories and ideas are tested and shown to be valid or worthless. It is certainly more interesting and intellectually honest to refine a theory to fit the facts, as science does, than to omit or distort facts to fit inflexible preconceived notions as religion does.
I give you exhibit A. Instead of taking the time to learn why geologists think the earth is as old as it is, even in the interests of refutation, Svt4Him closes his/her eyes and clings blindly to the verities of her irrational faith.
Colored people???
Fundies preach that gay people are inherently sinful. You believe it and so does Na Sultainne, although I thank her for her politeness in not saying so. I bring it up because the fundie attitude towards folks like me is one of the reason that I find them threatening. As a riule, fundies are not on my side.
[/quote]
Actually, I think you were saying Christians somehow give the idea that " beating or killing gay people is acceptable" As for the KKK, actually, I just finished watching a show about it, and how they really do believe they are doing God’s will. As for inherent sin, please don’t assume.
Well, A time to kill, and have you ever read a Stephen King book? I bring that up, as I use to be a huge SK fan. But fair enough, all movies I recall have scenes of KKK members in church, so it was false for me to say they were leaders. Although there was one with the guy who plays in Fight Club, but I’ll agree with you, and say it’s based on scenes I recall.
Now you’re talking my language. F/S do change each year, based on current cash inflows and outflows. But when you are talking about reliability, the financial statements for last year can’t change because you discover that the information you used is wrong. Reliability has to have feedback as well as predictive value, and if the current/past numbers are changing, then no, they aren’t reliable. In Human Resources, we to make sure tests are reliable, and reliable evidence doesn’t change. If it did, it’s not reliable.
[quote]
The self-correcting nature of science insures its long-term reliability as theories and ideas are tested and shown to be valid or worthless. It is certainly more interesting and intellectually honest to refine a theory to fit the facts, as science does, than to omit or distort facts to fit inflexible preconceived notions as religion does.[/qutoe]
Wow, that’s a bit of a general statement.
Again, I’m going to ask you to refrain from this line of thoughts. I don’t mind disagreements, but please don’t assume things you don’t know. I have heard great arguments for the age of the earth from young to old, and honestly they both have some great points. And these are from people who have a lot more experience than I, as well as education in this area. To me, this is a pointless argument, as I can understand the case put forth by both, as well as the fact that when God created Adam, he was created as an aged man, so if God created the earth as already mature, how would you measure it? Honestly, if you want to believe the earth is a million years old, I won’t dispute you, but when you say I’ve closed my eyes, you are attacking character again, and eventually I won’t respond. I don’t mind questions, and honestly some make me look up things, and get me thinking, but others are just done for possibly shock value or to cause a dispute. If you want to talk about the age of the earth, maybe also try and answer how many angels do you think can stand on a pin?
And evolution doesn’t take faith? Which theory of evolution are you referring too, and was anyone there when it happened? If not, and no faith is required how is faith defined?
That last statement was directed at this. So again, which theory of evolution doesn’t involve faith, and what is the exact age of the earth?
Which theories of evolution do you propose I accept? One does not need to be present at an event to examine evidence of the event (unless you are a Last Thursdayan).
No theory requires faith, only a dispassionate examination of the evidence. One may come to slightly different conclusions based on different interpretations of the evidence, but there is no faith involved.*
As to old and young earth ages, there is consensus in the scientific community regarding the relative age of the earth. Voices outside that are generally anti-scientific and are always non-scientific.
*If you go on to play word games about having “faith” that the evidence is presented fairly, then I will have to conclude that you are interested only in word games and not a serious discussion.
The “faith” that the sun will rise tomorrow is a different use of the word than the faith that God is the creator of all.
I agree with your selection of verses, adding Romans 10:10 for a complete sense. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Thank you, ** Polycarp**. I had not caught your fundy.porn as a site, but rather as a horrendous insult, which is why I so strongly reacted. My error, and I thank you for your gracious response.
Appreciated. Now, if you’ll only drop the “fundamentalist”. While correct, here it’s used strictly in a derogatory sense and I would rather not encourage the habit.
Yes, I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but I have checked out your thread. I cannot imagine the mindset that urges someone to lie, obscure, selectively censor material in order to persuade another of a given position. Can the ends truly justify the means? I find this dishonesty appalling, and surely it cannot count as “good”.
Someday, you and I should have a long chat. Can Luke 10:27 be removed from Matthew 5:18-19?
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 2Peter 1:5-7
Diogenes, wise words. Have you read the full text of Jesus’ comments? And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.
I find neither peace nor satisfaction, only sorrow and regret.
Pun
You’re probably right. As one of the great facilitators of the SDMB, you more often than not perceive such matters correctly.
There was a demand for evidence, and what I offered for evidence was the following, in order — historical and contemporary testimony, Hartshorne’s analytic theories, natural mechanistic law, citation of first-order logic principles, Hawking’s observations on entropy, weakness of opposing theories, a valid syllogistic proof, a statistical sampling, the philosophy of ethics, observational evidence of indirect influence, and citation of HOL (higher order logic) principles.
What had been asked for was this — (1) “show us something beyond ‘I get a yummy feeling in my tummy and that’s God.’” and (2) “provide any [proof]” (emphasis in the original). In your view, which of these did I fail to satisfy? Did I offer nothing beyond feelings in my tummy? Or did I fail to provide anything at all?
If indeed I did give what was demanded, I would have expected an expression of appreciation and acknowledgment. Instead, it turned out (as is usually the case in arguments with materialists) that meeting the demands is not enough. And in the course of our discussions, I learned from them the following:[ul][li]Testimony is an appeal to popularity[/li]
[li]Hartshorne’s theological theories are irrelevant to theology[/li]
[li]Logical fallacies make “darn good lab tools”[/li]
[li]If a theory is “backed by math”, then it is good[/li]
[li]An event or object does not exist if people interpret it differently[/li]
[li]The philosophy of ethics is not relevant[/li]
[li]The universe can be infinitely old and still have energy available to do work[/li]
[li]I have gone “Lekatt on us”[/li]
[li]My logic is poor despite that the inferences follow from one another[/li]
[li]All modal tableaux look alike[/li]
[li]The universe can be both infinitely old and have an origin (apparently, the universe moves in mysterious ways)[/li]
[li]Explaining what logical fallacies mean constitutes “quibbling with words”[/li]
[li]Explaining what a fallacy means is equivalent to admitting use of the fallacy[/li]
[li]God does not fall within the purview of science, and yet He does[/li]
[li]A tautology is a false dichotomy[/li]
[li]Evidence and proof are synonyms[/li]
[li]All evidence of God’s existence is categorically wrong whether it is understood or not[/li]
[li]Hearsay evidence is categorically inadmissible as evidence despite the numerous exceptions of Title 28[/li]
[li]Science already knows how the universe was created[/li]
[li]“Nothing” is actually a container for other things[/li]
[li]God, a supernatural being, is subject to natural law[/li]
[li]My interpretation of entropy as energy unable to do work is “unusual”[/li]
[li]Though no time existed before the universe, conditions and potential existed[/li]
The universe is not eternal, and yet something mystical preceded it that somehow “influxed in”[/ul]Maybe you will refrain from declaring who is right and who is wrong, but there is one thing you cannot deny — there exists no more mystical and gloriously mysterious a belief system than materialism.
Welcome back, friend.
I can help you out a little here with my own, admittedly incomplete, understanding.
There was no time at which the universe did not exist. That is not to say that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.
The best analogy, as put forward by amongst others the Hawking chap you speak of in both of his popular books, is that the further you go back in time, the more it becomes one of space.
My own personal extension of this (which might be utter codswallop, but which my cosmologist friends at least don’t hate) is: Imagine a rubber map, on which all possible universes are drawn. Locate our universe, take a pair of tweezers and, Poink!, draw it out towards you. This is a really really flexible rubber sheet, so it essentially forms a line leading back to the map.
The line is time. The tweezers are “now”. Travelling back along the line gets you to a point at which you slide down the rubber curve, and merely into dimensions of space, ie. where time “appeared”.
(They didn;’ really like it either!)
Sentient
Thanks. As always, your posts are edifying and enjoyable. I do understand the notion that time did not exist before the universe existed, but I also understand that the materialist cannot have it both ways — i.e., if nothing existed, then neither did potential, including potential for the universe (or multiverse) to emerge.
Oshkosh, Lib: My turn of phrase had you as a dialectic driving instructor.
The “nothing” and “potential” you speak of is a whole new piscine boiling device, and I certainly agree that many materialists appear to be in denial regarding just how thoroughly untestable (and, therefore, “mysterious” if you prefer) are the theories which attempt to answer the questions “Why is there not nothing?” and “How come the universe is not different?”
I also agree that many are not able to resolve the apparent paradoxes thrown at them by playfully confrontational theists returning from a hopefully enjoyable sabbatical.
I used to be one of them. Now I enjoy watching them squirm as much as I enjoy arguing their case.
Oh, well, Lib, I can play that too. Here’s what I learned from the theists.
[ul]
[li]That 12 billion years is equivalent to infinity.[/li][li]That legends fropm an ancient book are literally accurate in every detail, while data from astronomy, geology, and biology are unimportant[/li][li]That distorting or suppressing facts to fit a previously held conclusion is a Christian’s duty[/li][li]That the truth of a proposition is directly proportional to the number of people who support it [/li][li]That debating the name of a fallacy beats having to admit your error[/li][li]That saying something is true automatically makes it so[/li][li]That handwaving is called “making logical inferences”[/li][/ul]
Is that anything like myYahoo.com?
You know, the more I read from evangelicals, the less I think of christianity as a whole. Sorry to all those who believe in christianity, but your nutcase cousin keeps tainting the font.