How has scientific knowledge affected your faith?

[DogmaHunter]

No, my argument is I believe in God, who acts as my Absolute point to reference scientific propositions on and therefore I can use it to say that Potterism is wrong.

That's exactly the same thing as I said, only using different words.

Let's rephrase my statement to match your own jargon:
Your evidence against Potterism is "I already believe something mutually exclusive".

This is downright bizar.

What I think you miss is that to hold to science you must accept that matter exists and is observable.

You don't accept that matter exists and is observable?

In the same manner a faith based system has to assume that its God/s etc. exist.

Let me get this straight............................

You are really comparing "assuming god exists" with "assuming matter exists"?
And you really consider both assumptions to be of equal value and validity????

That's no just bizar, that's downright disturbing.....

Our only evidence for matter is our sometimes (or always?) faulty senses. For faith it is our sense of the divine (or 'beliefs') which are sometimes (or always?) faulty.
So the evidence for both matter existing or any belief I at all hold, are functionally the same. We can try and organise it in nice systems like theology or Scientific method, but at heart its truth is equivalently unknowable and therefore equally valid, but again they need not be exclusive one to the other.

Yeah. Ok. Sure.


I think you're done now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No my friend, you are the confused one as again you don't seem to understand what Science IS. Science is a method of testing hypothesis by applying falsifiability and repeatability

And the claim that the planet was completely flooded at some point and that during this flood ALL species were reduced to a handfull of individuals is a falsifiable claim.

It does not exclude bias at all, hence additional systems like randomised control trials and their ilk were introduced

Errrr, yes that's what I said. That the method is developped specifically to rule out such bias. Through double blind experiments with control groups etc, yes. Derp.

It does not test physical reality but hypotheses of what will be found in physical reality.

...and claims.
Anything that makes testable predictions.

There seems to always be a step missing in your thought which you just assume without evidence.

You just stated that "assuming matter exists" is of equal value as "assuming god exists".

I think you should examine your own thought patterns before commenting on mine.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Here's the bottom line dude...

Science is the single most successfull method to find out how stuff works.
When claims are made about physical reality (wheter they are made by religious books, the pope or captain kirk), and when no evidence exists for these claims and when the evidence that DOES exist contradicts the claims.... then the claims are wrong.

The "alternative" you are proposing here, amounts to nothing more or less then "I just believe it".

When the evidence contradicts a claim, the sensible thing to do is reject (or adjust) the claim in relation to the evidence. Not just assume that the evidence is wrong, like you seem to be doing......

The bottom line is you cannot say anything is wrong absolutely based solely on science and therefore even probability fails.
Basically your argument would be I just believe it, since Science has not and cannot be proven to be valid itself, but needs an additional variable, which in your case seems to be an absolute belief in science's validity. Which is just that, a belief, as valid as any other, whether Christianity or Potterism or Pastafarianism.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And the claim that the planet was completely flooded at some point and that during this flood ALL species were reduced to a handfull of individuals is a falsifiable claim.




Errrr, yes that's what I said. That the method is developped specifically to rule out such bias. Through double blind experiments with control groups etc, yes. Derp.




...and claims.
Anything that makes testable predictions.



You just stated that "assuming matter exists" is of equal value as "assuming god exists".

I think you should examine your own thought patterns before commenting on mine.

Please read my above posts. To old testament Creation it is not falsifiable as it is a belief. I never said I believe in a flood, did I?
Yes, I think I am done. I am tired trying to reason with someone who doesn't follow the argument but just responds to each post in and of itself. Besides, it doesn't seem as if you read what I write anyway, as you just quote segments out of context and then make silly remarks thereon. Besides, your arguing for using Science alone for reality testing while having no idea what Science even is. No, I've had enough.

PS Of course I accept matter exists. Do you not understand how propositions or logical consequence works in English?

 

[Ophiolite]

. Do you not understand how propositions or logical consequence works in English?

I understand this, I just don't see evidence of their employment in your posts. The same difficulty may be occurring to Dogma Hunter.

If so, there are three obvious explanations:
1. Neither Dogma Hunter or myself lack the skill set or the intellect to appreciate your use of these devices.
2. You are not using them effectively, though your argument is sound.
3. You are using them incorrectly, because your argument is flawed.

I dare say we shall each reach our conclusions as to which explanation is the more likely.

 

[KWCrazy]

And you think that bothers me?

No you, particularly, but it's a reminder to others.

Apparantly, the pope does not. How come he can accept rational science, and not you?

Rational is your word. Mine is naturalism; the believe that only natural forces control what happens on earth. This pope embraces many things which are contrary to the teaching of the Bible, which is why he is so controversial. It's a good reminder that there are NONE righteous on earth. That includes religious leaders.

That's entirely irrelevant to what the facts of reality are.

Your interpretation of reality leaves out most of that which exists. You deny the existence of the supernatural. Many of us here have experienced the supernatural. That is a clear illustration that you are completely wrong. Like Thomas, you refuse to believe until you see it with your own eyes. It's not likely to happen, though. Evidence of the supernatural is all around us and you can't see it.

I don't "choose" what I believe.

We all do. What you feed your mind is what you get out of it. Feed it disbelief and you get more disbelief. Fed it a hunger to discover the truth and it opens up to new possibilities.

All this preaching is irrelevant to the point at hand.
The facts of reality are what they are, wheter there are deities or not.

You're on a Christian website attacking the Bible and Christianity. Reaction is not only relevant, but not expecting the reaction shows an incredible lack of reasoning. Science teaches cause and effect, but it can't answer the question of first cause. It can't account for origination. It can't explain the encounters with the supernatural that millions of people report and it can't explain the miracles that 25% of Americans believe they've experienced. Your version of reality is simplistic and blind to much of the world around you. That's hardly a logical, well reasoned world view.

 

[Hetta]

Spurred by a recent comment by AV, I present a poll.

It has somewhat changed the way I see the Bible, but then my (European) Christian school taught evolution anyway, so meeting for the first time the American/Christian rejection of evolution was very strange.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has somewhat changed the way I see the Bible, but then my (European) Christian school taught evolution anyway, so meeting for the first time the American/Christian rejection of evolution was very strange.

No wonder then you're seeking a Christian church.

Evidently Europe doesn't have what you're looking for?

Or am I wrong?

 

[Hetta]

No wonder then you're seeking a Christian church.

Evidently Europe doesn't have what you're looking for?

Or am I wrong?

You're definitely wrong. We are working on returning to Europe.

 

[lesliedellow]

..... my (European) Christian school taught evolution anyway, so meeting for the first time the American/Christian rejection of evolution was very strange.

Jaw dropping, one might say.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're definitely wrong. We are working on returning to Europe.

Then your faith preference will become ... what?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

And that's where faith comes in.

Faith in God or faith in Apollo? It seems you are suggesting they are equally likely or unlikely to be real.

 

[Hetta]

Then your faith preference will become ... what?

Who knows? It is a couple of years away, and we will decide which church - if any - we attend when we get there.

ETA: I expect it to be easier, back on home soil. Churches here are so strange and cause stress, rather than peace.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith in God or faith in Apollo? It seems you are suggesting they are equally likely or unlikely to be real.

What makes you think they aren't?

Ever heard of Shoko Asahara and his Aumshinri Kyo sect?

He wanted to get back to worshipping Shiva, the god of destruction, in "supreme truth."

Thus the 1995 Tokyo subway attacks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who knows?

God does.

It is a couple of years away, and we will decide which church - if any - we attend when we get there.

In the meantime, you'll badmouth churches in America as "strange"?

ETA: I expect it to be easier, back on home soil. Churches here are so strange and cause stress, rather than peace.

You do know some believe the Antichrist will come from Europe, don't you?

Or is that "strange" too?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

What makes you think they aren't?

Ever heard of Shoko Asahara and his Aumshinri Kyo sect?

He wanted to get back to worshipping Shiva, the god of destruction, in "supreme truth."

Thus the 1995 Tokyo subway attacks.

So if a person is seeking, why should they become or remain Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if a person is seeking, why should they become or remain Christian?

Because true faith is generated and solidified by the word of God.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[lesliedellow]

In the meantime, you'll badmouth churches in America as "strange"?You do know some believe the Antichrist will come from Europe, don't you?

When we hear phrases like "pre-trib," "post-trib," and all the other jargon of American Christianity, we European Christians get the impression that we are living in an alternative reality.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Because true faith is generated and solidified by the word of God.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

And how does that work exactly? I have heard the word, read the word, and haven't received faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

When we hear phrases like "pre-trib," "post-trib," and all the other jargon of American Christianity, we European Christians get the impression that we are living in an alternative reality.

Doctrine can affect people like that.

Especially those who are allergic to it.