Why don’t you two apply the scientific method to your beliefs in order to determin which set of beliefs is true, and which set of beliefs is not true?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why don’t you two apply the scientific method to your beliefs in order to determin which set of beliefs is true, and which set of beliefs is not true?[/quote]Please see above post to Joab. The scientific method depends upon my God for it’s validity. I would never dare be so insolent as to attempt to wrestle Him under my microscope. May I die a thousand painful deaths first.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< No, you wouldn’t even try unless you wanted your jaw jacked. Moreover, speak plainly please.
P.S. Where does the Bible come from?[/quote]Will you knock it off LOL!!! I can’t believe you’d come at me like this after all we’ve been through together. What is it you need clarified and holy scripture comes from the Holy Spirit who has a fabulous sense of humor and irony.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What would motivate priests way back in the second century to write false letters that weren’t historically accurate?[/quote]
What motivates priests/pastors/ministers/whatever they want to call themselves, now to write heretical books and letters? I don’t know.
I would guess for profit and fame.[/quote]
Knowing that people write fraudulent history, rather than factual history, to serve their own selfish purposes casts doubt on these ancient letters. Especially when even most biblical scholars agree that none of these letters were written by people that lived during the time of Jesus, and actually met him. Paul may well have been the biggest fraud of them all, although like Joseph Smith he may have actually believed he had a vision. He never met or knew the historical Jesus. Just because people claim visions, whether Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, doesn’t mean those visions reflect reality.
Joab, an infinite causal regress isn’t illogical if in fact eternity extends both directions. Why is it so hard for people to envision a retroactive eternity, when they willingly accept a proactive eternity?
On matter and energy, I’m not aware of any evidence that it’s impossible for them to exist outside of time. In fact, isn’t light supposed to be basically timeless since the closer you reach the speed of light, the more time dilation takes place?
On the second law of thermodynamics, heat death is only one possibility. Some scientists believe the universe goes through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. Others believe heat death is impossible, since as the universe expands, the value of max entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively away from heat death (see wiki).
I agree that purpose is intrinsic to meaning. I strongly disagree that meaning can only come from a supernatural being, and in fact find it sad that people believe this. If you suddenly, irrevocably learned that there is no god would you stop loving people? My skepticism has actually led me to love people more genuinely than I ever did as a believer.
To answer your question, yes, I do believe there could be a god or gods since it’s impossible to prove a negative. However, I also think it’s possible there are no supernatural beings out there, and that the universe is entirely natural. Either way, I still have meaning and purpose in my life.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< “Science does not have the right to give to me my reason for being. But I am going to take science’s view because I want this world not to have meaning. A meaningless world frees me to pursue my own erotic and political desires.”
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves… For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”[/quote]I don’t know if it’s possible for an unbeliver to get any more honest than this. I once got into a debate with a guy at a state university (no I wasn’t going there) a loooooong time ago and I wound up telling him that he didn’t believe what he believed because he really believed it. He believed what he believed to keep from believing what I believe. Because what I believe would impose upon him a moral accountability that he would be willing to believe anything to avoid.
[/quote]
Just because some unbelievers find no meaning in life doesn’t mean the same is true for all unbelievers.
Just because some unbelievers want to escape moral accountability doesn’t mean the same is true for all unbelievers.
I think many believers are sincere, happy, and fulfilled. How about granting at least some unbelievers the same grace?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Putting your TRUST in the scientific method is very different that putting your FAITH into religion.
The TRUST in science is EARNED through demonstrable and verifiable reproduction of the test clause/experiment by OUTSIDE peers.
This is different than FAITH which does not test it’s BELIEFS or receive outside peer review to validate or disprove it’s teachings.
Please stop saying that people who put their TRUST in science have faith. It is simply the opposite.[/quote]Prove it. With NO begging of questions and NO circular postulations. Prove it. How do you KNOW anything about anything you just said… or anything else for that matter? Don’t bore me with more evidential bluster. I’m talking beneath that. At the most utterly foundational level. How do you know anything even vaguely related to the scientific method means ANYTHING. What tools do you take into your lab to insure that what your mind perceives as fact actually is and more importantly that your interpretation of these facts as self existing metaphysical entities bears any resemblance to reality or that it even matters one way or another. Please do enlighten me.
[/quote]
Tell that to yourself next time you have a heart condition and it’s time to take your medicine.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Tell that to yourself next time you have a heart condition and it’s time to take your medicine[/quote]Please also see long post to Joab above.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Putting your TRUST in the scientific method is very different that putting your FAITH into religion.
The TRUST in science is EARNED through demonstrable and verifiable reproduction of the test clause/experiment by OUTSIDE peers.
This is different than FAITH which does not test it’s BELIEFS or receive outside peer review to validate or disprove it’s teachings.
Please stop saying that people who put their TRUST in science have faith. It is simply the opposite.[/quote]Prove it. With NO begging of questions and NO circular postulations. Prove it. How do you KNOW anything about anything you just said… or anything else for that matter? Don’t bore me with more evidential bluster. I’m talking beneath that. At the most utterly foundational level. How do you know anything even vaguely related to the scientific method means ANYTHING. What tools do you take into your lab to insure that what your mind perceives as fact actually is and more importantly that your interpretation of these facts as self existing metaphysical entities bears any resemblance to reality or that it even matters one way or another. Please do enlighten me.
[/quote]I don’t know everything and neither do you. But that’s the POINT.
The scientific method is a process of refinement to gain knowledge. It’s this process that brought us modern medicine, modern technology, automobiles, and much more. This is the ONLY thing we have in order to gain knowledge that we can VERIFY to some level or degree. If this method did not work, modern medicine would not be effective, modern technology would not work, and we would still be in the stone age believing our ancestor’s stories without every testing if they are true.
[/quote]Allow me please to make this abundantly clear. I believe the scientific method is valid. I believe the laws of logic and non contradiction are valid. I LOVE science. LOVE IT. Can’t get enough. Over and over and over and over people insist on assuming that because I don’t worship man’s imaginary ability to independently discover knowledge it means I deny that knowledge is being discovered. I have reasons for believing in the validity of science and logic. I’m still waiting to hear yours. Now, if you would be so kind as to see if you can tell me why anything you said in this new last post is true for you without ripping off your creator’s bank to finance your campaign against Him.
BTW, no offense, but you have absolutely no idea just how profound your off the cuff remark about none of us knowing everything actually is. Far from being a universally accepted casual truism that goes in one ear and out the other, it is THE thermonuclear warhead on the intellectual bunker of sinful man. For you see my friend without knowledge of EVERYTHING it is not possible to have true knowledge of ANYTHING. Oh no it’s not. That has been the insurmountable conundrum of the thinking unbeliever since the days of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Every God denying work of philosophy in human history ultimately fails right there. Some admit it freely. Science hasn’t earned squat in a self existent vacuum. Please. What is the thought process by which knowledge is even recognized as knowledge at all and why do you trust it. You’ve never once thought about this at this level have you? Don’t feel bad, most Christians haven’t either. That’s changing though.
[/quote]
Pretending that there is a supernatural being that knows everything, based on an emotional experience you had during a pivotal time of your life, doesn’t make it actually true nor does it mean science is incapable of advancing knowledge in the absence of your pretend friend.
Just because we’ll never know everything doesn’t mean we’ll never know anything.
Only an idiot would assert that we know no more today than we knew 5,000 years ago.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Putting your TRUST in the scientific method is very different that putting your FAITH into religion.
The TRUST in science is EARNED through demonstrable and verifiable reproduction of the test clause/experiment by OUTSIDE peers.
This is different than FAITH which does not test it’s BELIEFS or receive outside peer review to validate or disprove it’s teachings.
Please stop saying that people who put their TRUST in science have faith. It is simply the opposite.[/quote]Prove it. With NO begging of questions and NO circular postulations. Prove it. How do you KNOW anything about anything you just said… or anything else for that matter? Don’t bore me with more evidential bluster. I’m talking beneath that. At the most utterly foundational level. How do you know anything even vaguely related to the scientific method means ANYTHING. What tools do you take into your lab to insure that what your mind perceives as fact actually is and more importantly that your interpretation of these facts as self existing metaphysical entities bears any resemblance to reality or that it even matters one way or another. Please do enlighten me.
[/quote]I don’t know everything and neither do you. But that’s the POINT.
The scientific method is a process of refinement to gain knowledge. It’s this process that brought us modern medicine, modern technology, automobiles, and much more. This is the ONLY thing we have in order to gain knowledge that we can VERIFY to some level or degree. If this method did not work, modern medicine would not be effective, modern technology would not work, and we would still be in the stone age believing our ancestor’s stories without every testing if they are true.
[/quote]Allow me please to make this abundantly clear. I believe the scientific method is valid. I believe the laws of logic and non contradiction are valid. I LOVE science. LOVE IT. Can’t get enough. Over and over and over and over people insist on assuming that because I don’t worship man’s imaginary ability to independently discover knowledge it means I deny that knowledge is being discovered. I have reasons for believing in the validity of science and logic. I’m still waiting to hear yours. Now, if you would be so kind as to see if you can tell me why anything you said in this new last post is true for you without ripping off your creator’s bank to finance your campaign against Him.
BTW, no offense, but you have absolutely no idea just how profound your off the cuff remark about none of us knowing everything actually is. Far from being a universally accepted casual truism that goes in one ear and out the other, it is THE thermonuclear warhead on the intellectual bunker of sinful man. For you see my friend without knowledge of EVERYTHING it is not possible to have true knowledge of ANYTHING. Oh no it’s not. That has been the insurmountable conundrum of the thinking unbeliever since the days of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Every God denying work of philosophy in human history ultimately fails right there. Some admit it freely. Science hasn’t earned squat in a self existent vacuum. Please. What is the thought process by which knowledge is even recognized as knowledge at all and why do you trust it. You’ve never once thought about this at this level have you? Don’t feel bad, most Christians haven’t either. That’s changing though.
[/quote]Pretending that there is a supernatural being that knows everything, based on an emotional experience you had during a pivotal time of your life, doesn’t make it actually true nor does it mean science is incapable of advancing knowledge in the absence of your pretend friend.
Just because we’ll never know everything doesn’t mean we’ll never know anything.
Only an idiot would assert that we know no more today than we knew 5,000 years ago.[/quote]Please keep responding to my posts. You are a living object lesson in exactly what I’m talkin about. LOL! really man. I didn’t say “know” I said “explain” and who has asserted that we know no more today than we did 5000 years ago?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There are some people that do use reason as well as faith in order to prove that things are true. [/quote]<< Give me one example where people use faith in order to prove that something is true.[/quote]The incarnation? Or maybe nobody’s trying to prove that the ONE TRUE self existent unchanging absolute and infinite God was born of a virgin conceived by the Holy Spirit, who is also God and lived among us eating and drinking and doing the will of His Father who was God as well. I know I’m not. Lemme know my dear brother Joab when you have some “gap-less” “proof” for these things that we both are trusting our lives to.
[/quote]
You didn’t understand what I meant.
FAITH in itself cannot prove that things are true. It never was meant to do this.
Definition of faith:
“Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing, or a belief that is NOT BASED ON PROOF.”
You CANNOT PROVE anything with FAITH because it’s a set of beliefs, not a way to any answers.
[/quote]
That’s short changing the word ‘prove.’ Like we already pointed out, you cannot prove the scientific method to be true, because you cannot prove your senses to be reliable. However, we do have faith (or an assumption) that our senses are reliable, and therefore we accept the scientific method.
[/quote]
Do you agree that it’s better to make fewer assumptions than to make more assumptions?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< That’s short changing the word ‘prove.’ Like we already pointed out, you cannot prove the scientific method to be true, because you cannot prove your senses to be reliable. However, we do have faith (or an assumption) that our senses are reliable, and therefore we accept the scientific method.
[/quote]Ohhhhh Christopher!!! If you were my son I’d take you over my knee for this. This is a disastrous statement and one I hope represents a position you have abandoned before bedtime tonight. Imagine standing before the throne of He who commanded light to exist and explaining to Him that you accept the scientific method that HE authored because you have faith in your senses. I need to get you some anti Aquinas pills. Oh wait I have some. They’re called holy scripture. Actually Aquinas wouldn’t probably even go along with this. Do you have any idea the concession you just made? The big heavy club you just handed these guys to beat you to death with? The data of the senses is routinely defeated as evidence in pagan courts of law. Please Lord Jesus let me meet this man in person.
You’re an able kid. Get somebody to put a plunger to your ear and get this outta yer brain before it takes hold.
[/quote]
Yeah, get with it dude. Stop thinking for yourself, and just trust Brother Tiribulus to tell you what is real. Calvin got it right and the Pope is a fraud, and Tiribulus knows this because of a special emotional experience he had back in the day. Who are you to question Tiribulus and Calvin!?!
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There are some people that do use reason as well as faith in order to prove that things are true. [/quote]<< Give me one example where people use faith in order to prove that something is true.[/quote]The incarnation? Or maybe nobody’s trying to prove that the ONE TRUE self existent unchanging absolute and infinite God was born of a virgin conceived by the Holy Spirit, who is also God and lived among us eating and drinking and doing the will of His Father who was God as well. I know I’m not. Lemme know my dear brother Joab when you have some “gap-less” “proof” for these things that we both are trusting our lives to.
[/quote]
I didn’t know this was directed toward me but certainly the witness of the Holy Spirit is sufficient for the both of us.
“And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. . . . If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son (1 John 5:6-10).”[/quote]
One small problem with this:
The Holy Spirit told Tiribulus something different than he told Brother Chris and Pat. Who is right?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why don’t you two apply the scientific method to your beliefs in order to determin which set of beliefs is true, and which set of beliefs is not true?[/quote]
What makes something “true?”
All thought whether it be uniformitarianism (with or without godlessness) or faith in an Almighty, requires making fundamental assumptions. No one, even and especially the ardent believers in the scientific method, can begin travel down the philosophical, and scientific for that matter, path without assuming some very basic concepts. These assumptions are synonymous with faith.
Edit: Whatever you do don’t dare make a foolish declaration that the scientific method doesn’t work from a platform of assumptions. Or any school of thought for that matter.[/quote]
Of course science makes assumptions.
The difference between science and religion is that religion makes more assumptions than science, and that these assumptions are less credible.
More importantly, the difference is that science fully recognizes its limitations, including the very assumptions on which it is based. It doesn’t claim to know everything, and it is 100% honest about this fact.
In contrast, you get people like Tiribulus who insist that their particular views MUST be true, and any contradictory views are IMPOSSIBLE.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Putting your TRUST in the scientific method is very different that putting your FAITH into religion.
The TRUST in science is EARNED through demonstrable and verifiable reproduction of the test clause/experiment by OUTSIDE peers.
This is different than FAITH which does not test it’s BELIEFS or receive outside peer review to validate or disprove it’s teachings.
Please stop saying that people who put their TRUST in science have faith. It is simply the opposite.[/quote]Prove it. With NO begging of questions and NO circular postulations. Prove it. How do you KNOW anything about anything you just said… or anything else for that matter? Don’t bore me with more evidential bluster. I’m talking beneath that. At the most utterly foundational level. How do you know anything even vaguely related to the scientific method means ANYTHING. What tools do you take into your lab to insure that what your mind perceives as fact actually is and more importantly that your interpretation of these facts as self existing metaphysical entities bears any resemblance to reality or that it even matters one way or another. Please do enlighten me.
[/quote]I don’t know everything and neither do you. But that’s the POINT.
The scientific method is a process of refinement to gain knowledge. It’s this process that brought us modern medicine, modern technology, automobiles, and much more. This is the ONLY thing we have in order to gain knowledge that we can VERIFY to some level or degree. If this method did not work, modern medicine would not be effective, modern technology would not work, and we would still be in the stone age believing our ancestor’s stories without every testing if they are true.
[/quote]Allow me please to make this abundantly clear. I believe the scientific method is valid. I believe the laws of logic and non contradiction are valid. I LOVE science. LOVE IT. Can’t get enough. Over and over and over and over people insist on assuming that because I don’t worship man’s imaginary ability to independently discover knowledge it means I deny that knowledge is being discovered. I have reasons for believing in the validity of science and logic. I’m still waiting to hear yours. Now, if you would be so kind as to see if you can tell me why anything you said in this new last post is true for you without ripping off your creator’s bank to finance your campaign against Him.
BTW, no offense, but you have absolutely no idea just how profound your off the cuff remark about none of us knowing everything actually is. Far from being a universally accepted casual truism that goes in one ear and out the other, it is THE thermonuclear warhead on the intellectual bunker of sinful man. For you see my friend without knowledge of EVERYTHING it is not possible to have true knowledge of ANYTHING. Oh no it’s not. That has been the insurmountable conundrum of the thinking unbeliever since the days of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Every God denying work of philosophy in human history ultimately fails right there. Some admit it freely. Science hasn’t earned squat in a self existent vacuum. Please. What is the thought process by which knowledge is even recognized as knowledge at all and why do you trust it. You’ve never once thought about this at this level have you? Don’t feel bad, most Christians haven’t either. That’s changing though.
[/quote]Pretending that there is a supernatural being that knows everything, based on an emotional experience you had during a pivotal time of your life, doesn’t make it actually true nor does it mean science is incapable of advancing knowledge in the absence of your pretend friend.
Just because we’ll never know everything doesn’t mean we’ll never know anything.
Only an idiot would assert that we know no more today than we knew 5,000 years ago.[/quote]Please keep responding to my posts. You are a living object lesson in exactly what I’m talkin about. LOL! really man. I didn’t say “know” I said “explain” and who has asserted that we know no more today than we did 5000 years ago?[/quote]
In your case, claiming to know that everything man has learned is a result of your Calvanist Puppet God pulling our strings fails to recognize that men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.
[quote]forlife wrote:
In your case, claiming to know that everything man has learned is a result of your Calvanist Puppet God pulling our strings fails to recognize that men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]
forlife - I applaud your efforts using REASON and LOGIC but you know that those concepts DON’T WORK ON MYSTICS! The blinded believers here don’t give a shit about the TRUTH and fact, only the fantastical world of the bible and THEIR god. THEY are correct - not the other billions of worshippers of other forms of mysticism.
It’s just amazing that these guys are so fucking dialed-in to Jesus and the bible -
YET NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION! - HOW COME GOD HAS NEVER HEALED A FUCKING AMPUTEE?
Answer the question ye mystics! Or hath your god forsaken you the useth of your brain?
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
In your case, claiming to know that everything man has learned is a result of your Calvanist Puppet God pulling our strings fails to recognize that men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]
forlife - I applaud your efforts using REASON and LOGIC but you know that those concepts DON’T WORK ON MYSTICS! The blinded believers here don’t give a shit about the TRUTH and fact, only the fantastical world of the bible and THEIR god. THEY are correct - not the other billions of worshippers of other forms of mysticism.
It’s just amazing that these guys are so fucking dialed-in to Jesus and the bible -
YET NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION! - HOW COME GOD HAS NEVER HEALED A FUCKING AMPUTEE?
Answer the question ye mystics! Or hath your god forsaken you the useth of your brain?
[/quote]
Dude, get a new act.
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
In your case, claiming to know that everything man has learned is a result of your Calvanist Puppet God pulling our strings fails to recognize that men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]
forlife - I applaud your efforts using REASON and LOGIC but you know that those concepts DON’T WORK ON MYSTICS! The blinded believers here don’t give a shit about the TRUTH and fact, only the fantastical world of the bible and THEIR god. THEY are correct - not the other billions of worshippers of other forms of mysticism.
It’s just amazing that these guys are so fucking dialed-in to Jesus and the bible -
YET NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION! - HOW COME GOD HAS NEVER HEALED A FUCKING AMPUTEE?
Answer the question ye mystics! Or hath your god forsaken you the useth of your brain?
[/quote]
Some of them believe their religious convictions are consistent with logic and reason, and on the surface I can see where they’re coming from. I used to see things the same way. Unfortunately, they rarely take a step back to evaluate WHY they believe what they do, and sincerely question whether they might actually be mistaken. It’s easy for them to see the logical flaws in believers that disagree with them, but it’s rare for them to see the same flaws in their own beliefs.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Why don’t you two apply the scientific method to your beliefs in order to determin which set of beliefs is true, and which set of beliefs is not true?[/quote]
Already have, Catholic Church is historically the first Church and it’s still around in it’s original form. I win.