Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
Well that’s not God, that’s miracles and provided you have access to them you can test them to one degree or another. There is one in particular that comes to mind and it has been tested, but I am loathed to discuss it with you as I sense you’ll jump on any chance to make mockery.[/quote]
Well, if there is evidence of miracles then that would substantiate the existence of a supernatural power, right? I bet it would be easier to prove the existence of Bigfoot, or Nessie, or Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny, etc.
For the record I’m atheist, however was on the other side of the fence and fully Christian & have a sound feel for that viewpoint. I have had “experiences” of my own. I have come to terms with those in a non super natural way but yet a still unexplained format… Lots of things we dont understand or “see”. Doesnt mean its supernatural or deity.
Wow, those are wicked testable hypothesis and infinitely more fruitful than those shenanigans of those coat wearing eggheads.
[/quote]I have been saying this forever here. There is no person ever spawned on this planet who is more supportive of scientific exploration and discovery than myself. Nobody. I LOVE science. I love swimming in all kinds of scientific inquiry. Science is God’s signature on this universe. I support NASA, medical research, love geology, natural sciences, ESPECIALLY astronomy and physics, quantum included. God’s divine wisdom and infinite genius is more and more revealed under His perfect providence and decree the more and more discovery He allows unbelievers to make to their own condemnation and to the blessing of His church. They are doing His work. Once again, even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His magnificent name. I answered you in the freewill thread finally BTW.
Capped, I’ll answer you later tonight. Ben. Yer a weenie boy. Ya let me down man =[
I said on 07-05-2010, 11:54 AM to by Dear friend Ephrem:
[quote]This does not in any way mean that I reject the relentless pursuit of knowledge. Quite the contrary. When ones sees all of existence as the unavoidable revelation of the wisdom and power of God, knowledge is all the sweeter. People think Christians hide from science in fear they may find something to damage their faith. Not me. I jump in with both feet, whoooopeeee!!! Splash it all over myself. It enhances the focus on just how little I deserve the loving kindness of an uncreated Being, and one that I have fatally offended, who can produce such wonders by fiat command.
Not that I can explain everything. I don’t need to. He is explanation enough. I must confess though that I find unmistakable evidence for the truth of fallen mankind in observing the world of science. It took the world’s most powerful supercomputers a number of years to decode the human genome running calculations 24/7. Scientists are then heralded as representing the pinnacle of reason, logic and erudition for declaring this to have happened by accident. The genome itself and by extension the equipment required to open it’s secrets, but I am an anachronistic moron for believing that somebody ultimately designed both.[/quote]
Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
Well that’s not God, that’s miracles and provided you have access to them you can test them to one degree or another. There is one in particular that comes to mind and it has been tested, but I am loathed to discuss it with you as I sense you’ll jump on any chance to make mockery.[/quote]
Well, if there is evidence of miracles then that would substantiate the existence of a supernatural power, right? I bet it would be easier to prove the existence of Bigfoot, or Nessie, or Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny, etc.
[/quote]
I didn’t give you those links purely for the purpose of being a smart ass. They actually contained the information you needed to not make the statement above. The nucleus of it is based on the cosmological argument from contingency. You can do you’re own research because I’ll just copy and paste. I have argued it so much I really don’t feel I need to type it out in my own words. Look at the argument, understand what it says and why it says what it says, then you will understand the difference between that and a fairy tale as you posit God is. Just because you haven’t bother to look at any arguments or evidence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it means you drew an ill informed conclusion.
No shit? Really?
[quote]
however was on the other side of the fence and fully Christian & have a sound feel for that viewpoint. I have had “experiences” of my own. I have come to terms with those in a non super natural way but yet a still unexplained format… Lots of things we dont understand or “see”. Doesnt mean its supernatural or deity. [/quote]
Based on what you said and your weak grasp of the subject matter, I have serious doubts about what you just said. I could never prove it of course. Perhaps you were on the cusp in like a in a Larry Flynt sort of way. I don’t see you have a Christian understanding of any of this…at all.
What do you need explained that hasn’t been? Like I said, the info is out there. Ignoring it doesn’t count. If you were really interested you would have found it.
I did and I certainly am nothing special.
Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
Well that’s not God, that’s miracles and provided you have access to them you can test them to one degree or another. There is one in particular that comes to mind and it has been tested, but I am loathed to discuss it with you as I sense you’ll jump on any chance to make mockery.[/quote]
Well, if there is evidence of miracles then that would substantiate the existence of a supernatural power, right? I bet it would be easier to prove the existence of Bigfoot, or Nessie, or Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny, etc.
[/quote]
I didn’t give you those links purely for the purpose of being a smart ass. They actually contained the information you needed to not make the statement above. The nucleus of it is based on the cosmological argument from contingency. You can do you’re own research because I’ll just copy and paste. I have argued it so much I really don’t feel I need to type it out in my own words. Look at the argument, understand what it says and why it says what it says, then you will understand the difference between that and a fairy tale as you posit God is. Just because you haven’t bother to look at any arguments or evidence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it means you drew an ill informed conclusion.
No shit? Really?
[quote]
however was on the other side of the fence and fully Christian & have a sound feel for that viewpoint. I have had “experiences” of my own. I have come to terms with those in a non super natural way but yet a still unexplained format… Lots of things we dont understand or “see”. Doesnt mean its supernatural or deity. [/quote]
Based on what you said and your weak grasp of the subject matter, I have serious doubts about what you just said. I could never prove it of course. Perhaps you were on the cusp in like a in a Larry Flynt sort of way. I don’t see you have a Christian understanding of any of this…at all.
What do you need explained that hasn’t been? Like I said, the info is out there. Ignoring it doesn’t count. If you were really interested you would have found it.
I did and I certainly am nothing special.[/quote]
Wasn’t being a smart ass… seen no “links”. You must have me confused with someone else.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Did you believe this same thing before you were elected. >>>[/quote]There’s no such concept as “before I was elected”. God’s election of those He would save and those He would not is eternal. Read here for instance: Ephesians 1 NASB 1995 please. However I think you mean before I KNEW I was elected. The answer is no. I said to Cortes a few months ago :[quote]<<< The bottom line for me is this. I’ve said many times here that Jesus Christ raised me from death to life in Himself. John Calvin (in his institutes, commentaries and articles all revolving around the holy scriptures), gloriously showed me what that meant and Cornelius Van Til taught me how to think like that was true. Once I had a solid grip on how the comprehensive system of thought/life/morals and practice provided from the reverent and painstaking examination of the scriptures was constructed and surrendered to, there was no turning back… EVER . That concrete hardened over 20 years ago. >>>[/quote] [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< It makes perfect sense that the Westminster assembly described a God which is the same one described in their religious texts? Well, yes… yes it would.
However, that’s…hardly a miracle.[/quote]I never said it was. I merely acknowledged the fact. Because all manner of damnable, heretical butchery has been and is being perpetrated upon the scriptures in various forms. Many of which have been on neon display right here in these forums. I have been accused of all kinds private weird “rogue” theology when the fact is every single thing I believe is present throughout the history of the world. The truth is, the specific Calvinistic system of doctrine that I see plainly gracing the pages of scripture is the very one that was most popular when this nation was founded. Look it up fer real. Denying that doesn’t even pass the snicker test.
Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
[quote]Christine wrote:
…like the ass needs another hole.
I’m sorry. Continue.[/quote]
I seem to notice Christine, you’ll drop some vitriol and hatred, but when the conversation gets serious, you run away. Why are you afraid to stand up for your beliefs?[/quote]
Ha! Sorry, I just meant that this argument had been done to death and never goes anywhere.
I didn’t think that was hating.
Whatever ya’ll believe is cool with me. Faith requires no proof, so what is the point of arguing it?
[/quote]
Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.
If you take a stance on an issue, I think you should know about your stance, why it’s your stance and have stuff that defends that stance otherwise how do you know if you’re right? I am not satisfied with a guess are you?
If that’s the worst thing you have to fear, your life is awesome.[/quote]
One of the definitions of faith is the belief in something without any proof. I’m not attempting to insult anyone with this statement.
[/quote]
That is one definition, but there is many more definitions are available too. More generically and more accurately describing religious faith is trust in someone or something. For instance, I look I the scriptures, I take it on faith that God does or will do what he says he does. It’s less applied to existence and more applied to the man-God relationship.
I didn’t think I was being defensive, I merely asked why you ridiculed the belief system. I have read the other things you have said to. You cannot claim to have been neutral or benign in your statements.
My main point is why do you mock, but never really carry the argument out to the end and defend it. You’ve done this several times, I think is a fair thing to ask. Do you believe in God and just hate religion or are you an atheist and hate religion too?[/quote]
You have trust in it. No problem. Proof is not a necessary part of faith. You may think that you have some proof, but I am simply skeptical of your proof.
[/quote]
At some point, what you have faith in has to bear some kind of fruit or your faith will cease. It’s simple opperant conditioning. There has to be a basis or foundation for faith to be maintained. You can believe in anything for a little while, but on going faith or trust is built on the basis of things.
I sense that non-believers have this notion that religion particularly Christianity is full of ‘abracadabra’ and ‘hocus pocus’, I see none of that and no need for that. It’s a very natural, not super natural thing.
I would figure you’d be skeptical of religion otherwise you’d be religious.
But you’re ridiculing things you don’t understand.
They do lead to some interesting places at times. It’s not futility, it’s about discourse. Perhaps if understood my positions, you would not find them ridiculous.
That’s a curious statement, what do you find interesting about them?[/quote]
I think that all religions, including Christianity have lots of elements of supernatural. Let’s start with Jesus rising from the dead.
Of course I will never understand it. I would have to be a Christian (insert any other religion) to fully understand it. It doesn’t matter how much I know or don’t know about Christianity, I will always be observing it from an outsider’s point of view.
I find the overall mythology and ceremonies surrounding religions to be fun to learn about. For instance, Semana Santa in Antigua, Guatemala in an interesting event to observe. I spent several months there living with a family (even went to church with them… and didn’t spontaneously combust). I also learned quite a bit about Mayans and their religion.
Why not be interested in learning a bit about religions?
[/quote]
What makes you think I haven’t? I have been to a worship service in a Mosque for Friday prayers. Been to various denominations of Christians, discussed faith in worship with Hindus.
You make the same mistake all other non-believers make in that you think we’re all the same and we all do the same things.
For instance, you can easily see tirib and I a light years apart. I have more in common with yall than I do with him. Ironically, he shares many of the same logical beliefs as yall. He just subscribes to the fallacy of ‘God of gaps’…Something thing I thought we did away with thousands of years ago. You people accuse us of it, he actually fulfills your stereotype.[/quote]
I honestly have no idea what you are attemping to infer from what I have typed. But I think that we are discussing two different things.
So, I will agree with you on this: The Grateful Dead rules!
Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty interesting point.
I think I remember reading Darwin struggled with his Christian beliefs when he uncovered evolution.[/quote]
I have to look that up. I cannot see what discovering Evolution had to do with Christian belief and why that would invalidate the other.[/quote]
The field of biology initially started as the study of god’s creation. The idea was, because god created nature, understanding it would bring you closer to god.
So every discovery that’s been made which opposes what you find in a Bible was most likely set into motion by someone who started researching with the goal of trying to know god better through his works.
It’s incredibly ironic that religion now views science, especially biology, as a threat. It’s even more ironic that less people are religious because of science. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and never seeing it coming.
Ya know Oleena. One day (or week actually) I just may put on my old autonomous evidentialist hat jist fer you. I don’t prefer arguing that way, but I promise you I can and I might. There has been no discovery that really opposes the bible if science were practiced consistently. Even by your standards. But not today, (or very soon) sorry.
Thanks to you I will fall asleep tonight wondering what glorious God honoring discovery God denying pagans will bless me with next. Don’t look now but there’s a hole in your foot. You are right about one thing though. Macro, bio-evolution and the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the pages of the bible are entirely irreconcilable mortal enemies. I don’t care what kinda insolent mind job people inflict upon themselves trying to believe otherwise.
Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
Well that’s not God, that’s miracles and provided you have access to them you can test them to one degree or another. There is one in particular that comes to mind and it has been tested, but I am loathed to discuss it with you as I sense you’ll jump on any chance to make mockery.[/quote]
Well, if there is evidence of miracles then that would substantiate the existence of a supernatural power, right? I bet it would be easier to prove the existence of Bigfoot, or Nessie, or Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny, etc.
[/quote]
I didn’t give you those links purely for the purpose of being a smart ass. They actually contained the information you needed to not make the statement above. The nucleus of it is based on the cosmological argument from contingency. You can do you’re own research because I’ll just copy and paste. I have argued it so much I really don’t feel I need to type it out in my own words. Look at the argument, understand what it says and why it says what it says, then you will understand the difference between that and a fairy tale as you posit God is. Just because you haven’t bother to look at any arguments or evidence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it means you drew an ill informed conclusion.
No shit? Really?
[quote]
however was on the other side of the fence and fully Christian & have a sound feel for that viewpoint. I have had “experiences” of my own. I have come to terms with those in a non super natural way but yet a still unexplained format… Lots of things we dont understand or “see”. Doesnt mean its supernatural or deity. [/quote]
Based on what you said and your weak grasp of the subject matter, I have serious doubts about what you just said. I could never prove it of course. Perhaps you were on the cusp in like a in a Larry Flynt sort of way. I don’t see you have a Christian understanding of any of this…at all.
What do you need explained that hasn’t been? Like I said, the info is out there. Ignoring it doesn’t count. If you were really interested you would have found it.
I did and I certainly am nothing special.[/quote]
Wasn’t being a smart ass… seen no “links”. You must have me confused with someone else.[/quote]
You skimmed. I said I was being a smart ass, as I was. Here are the links I presented earlier. They are not everything, but is gives you a very good back ground to the argument form. It makes it clear that aside from scripture, religion and everything else ‘divinly’ revealed, you still have to deduce a Necessary Being.
Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]
No.
God is by definition untestable. [/quote]
Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?
Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]
You would be testing assumptions about God.
Not God himself. [/quote]
Not even that, you’d be testing anomalies to see if they could be explained by scientific laws first. If the events defy science and a divine origin is claimed, it’s something that needs to be considered.
To say you would not consider it in any event ever, means that a miracle would be a waste on you, because no matter how remarkable, you won’t believe it.
Further, if you had miracles all the time, they would become common place and subsquently disregarded. So if your wondering why you don’t ever see miracles, that’d be why.
Look at it this way, even in the Bible, (if you don’t believe it, suspend you disbelief for the sake of the example, then go on disbelieving) Jesus would perform miracles right in the face of people, the pharisees in particular, and people still didn’t believe him.
So the point about miracles is that even if you saw the dead raised, cottage cheese turned to gold, and ocean dried up, or what ever, it doesn’t mean you’ll believe.
Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty interesting point.
I think I remember reading Darwin struggled with his Christian beliefs when he uncovered evolution.[/quote]
I have to look that up. I cannot see what discovering Evolution had to do with Christian belief and why that would invalidate the other.[/quote]
The field of biology initially started as the study of god’s creation. The idea was, because god created nature, understanding it would bring you closer to god.
So every discovery that’s been made which opposes what you find in a Bible was most likely set into motion by someone who started researching with the goal of trying to know god better through his works.
It’s incredibly ironic that religion now views science, especially biology, as a threat. It’s even more ironic that less people are religious because of science. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and never seeing it coming.[/quote]
A threat? LOL!
Where the hell did you get that notion? Unbelievable. Don’t let facts get in the way you hate filled bigotry.
Apparently you don’t know shit about religion except what you read on those idiotic atheist propaganda websites. Besides, if atheism isn’t a belief, why does it need propaganda in the first place?
I do find it irronic that all you little atheists all say the same thing like you all read the same book, but them claim it’s about 'independent thought. But you all babble on about fair tales, Sky God, Magic Sky fairy and yes the inevitable and venerable flying spaghetti monster.
There is no conflict between religion and science. Save for some little out post sects on the outskirts of Christianity. Plenty of scientists also happen to be Christian.
But no, go on being complete ignorant and to you little ignorant hate filled rants, despite the fact that they have no basis in fact.
OR, maybe you should do some research and find out what verious religions really believe before you come here and say stupid shit that has no validy…
“Oooooooo, look at me! I can copy and paste from atheist web sites and mock these stupid Christians. I am soooo smart and they are like sooooo stupid!”
[quote]Christine wrote:
So, I will agree with you on this: The Grateful Dead rules!
[/quote]
Really? Was it that unclear? Well it doesn’t actually seem like your all fired interested in the discourse, so I’ll leave it at that.
And yes they sure as hell do. To bad Bobby had all the sound boards pulled off the internet. It’s hard to find a good quality '80’s show. That clown they had in the booth (I forgot his name) at that time massacred the recordings, so good '80s shows are hard to find. Know anybody with and FTP site? Now the want the $$ for them…Some hippies they turned out to be!
Many words have been used to describe me, but “clever” is not one of them.
My post is inspired by my opinion that Christian faith is symptomatic of a masochistic need to be punished, to be continuously observed and so on. You all tell me I don’t have a firm grasp of the scriptures and fair enough, I accept that. However, it doesn’t take more than perusing the NT to see that Jesus would convict us of thought crime, for example. And lest ye forget, I can see how Christians act and speak, how their minds work (no they are not all the same I’m not saying that).
Pat,
I appreciate what your saying, but coming to the logical conclusion of there being an ultimate, omnipresent, omnipotent being doesn’t validate the belief you have in the life and teachings of Jesus. My own father tells me he believes in God because he believes in Jesus. Well… I don’t. See, it doesn’t matter if Aristotle and Socrates ever lived, because their logic and methods stand on their own without help of virgin births or any other incredulous claims.
[/quote]
One step at a time. Don’t you need to believe in God first before you can know anything about him?
I appreciate the respectful tone. If you are, I will be too.[/quote]
Civility is a little over rated I find, but I’ll give it the old college try
Believing in God… well all of us and all that is must certainly reside SOMEWHERE. Amirite? And there must be an ultimate truth to everything. The question becomes: how much do you trust your senses, which is basically all that we are, a bundle of sensations associated with the self (to quote David Hume).
[/quote]
Hume is one of my favorite philosophers of all time. His insights in to causation pretty much gave me the certainty I hold today.
Now it’s interesting they you say ‘There must be an ultimate truth to everything’. A lot of atheists hold fast to relativity rather than absolutes, save for Kamui. Actually, it’s that very notion that led to Kant and his ‘Argument for the existence of God’. Such notions are the basis for the afore mentioned ‘Cosmological argument’ It’s worth a look because it take that idea and puts it in to deductive argument that is pretty much solid. People have been trying to blast holes in the for 2000 years and it still holds up unrefuted. Of course, that alone doesn’t speak to it validity, it just means that some really smart fuckers, including Hume, has tried to debunk it and never has. If you look it up the one I am speaking of is the ‘argument from the point of contingency’. It deals with causation as dependencies, versus sequential cause and effect relationships. I posted some good links in on page 12, to ‘Holdon’ that describe what it is, and with some attempted refutations, if your interested.
It is on this basis from which I operate. It’s not the basis for my faith per se, but it shows that God isn’t stuck soley between the pages of a book and if no book existed, he would still have too.
Yeah, in the summer after my back surgery, I am on all these drugs, I had a dream, with in in a dream, with in a dream, with in a dream. I kept waking up in my dream to say I was dreaming, in my dream. It was also one of those super real dreams.
It’s good point you bring up, it’s why I say, sense are not trustable. You never know you are not hallucinating. BUT and it’s a HUGE BUT, deductive truths are still true even in dreams, alternate realities, different dimensions, etc.
Math is a forn of deductive reasoning, so look at 2+2=4, ← there is never a scenario where that statement isn’t true, it doesn’t matter if your dreaming, or not.
So I start with deductive truths because they are constants.
