Origin of God's Morality.

[Root of Jesse]

At which point, their work becomes unscientific.

That was kind of the whole point, once...

In science, the data/evidence takes the lead. Not the faith based beliefs. Those are left at the door (no matter what they are).

AGW types do let their biases take the lead.

 

[bhsmte]

AGW types do let their biases take the lead.

Sure, bias towards evidence.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sure, bias towards evidence.

Bias toward their interpretation of evidence. There's no evidence that man affects climate change.

 

[bhsmte]

Bias toward their interpretation of evidence. There's no evidence that man affects climate change.

Opinion.

 

[Davian]

It can be, today, I guess you can have it that way.

That would make it "fictional" as apposed to "non-fiction". Or would you prefer "myth"?

But Genesis wasn't a scientific text.

Perhaps you could be more descriptive of what it is, rather than repeating what it isn't.

If you wanted to, you would.

I do for many, on a individual basis. I don't think it would be practical to do it for everyone, as their beliefs are all over the place.

Some Christians believe evolution, some don't.

And some accept evolutionary theory. I don't know what you mean by "evolution".

Do you only read science books? The Truth can be told in many ways. I'd call it a story that conveys Truth.

I do not know what you mean by that capitonym.

Believe what you want.

Actually, I am unable to believe what I want. Belief is not a conscious choice.

the whole thing, really. God's not a character,

Of course it is, you are just asserting that it is more than just a character in a book.

and he didn't poof things into existence.

It is a high-level conceptual use of the word "poof".

And so forth.

Be vague if you like.

We can say that, since nobody was there, we don't know how it actually happened.

Yet you accept your religion's version of it as "Truth".

Whatever.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is what I believe. It's as clear as day.

What is not clear is how much of mainstream science you have to toss out to accommodate your beliefs.

I also told you I believe evolution and the Creation accounts to be true.

I still do not know what you mean by "evolution", if it needs to be compatible in some way with a literal Adam and Eve and global flood story.

You're the one being dense in not seeing what I've been saying. That's not my fault.

Sure, all of your evasion and obfuscation is my fault. Hilarious.

If you are unclear on how an ancient story and modern scientific thought can be reconciled, that's your problem.

It is clear how you do it, you just toss out whatever conflicts with your beliefs. It is not a problem for me, as I have no need to reconcile your ancient stories with observations of reality, I just toss them out as fictional.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet, the Church continues to do so...that's where you're wrong.

Moving the goalpost, I see.

Once more:
- LeMaitre comes up with big bang theory
- vatican / pope jumps on it and turns it into a theistic argument
- LeMaitre asks the pope not to do so, because it's a scientific theory, not a theological argument.
- Pope agrees and backs down

 

[DogmaHunter]

A distinction without a difference.

No. Big difference.
Why would any variable be included in a theory, when there is no demonstrable role for that variable in said theory?

Where is the "god variable" in gravity? Germ theory? Atomic theory? Plate tectonics?
Note that god, or any other deity, is not excluded from it. It's just not included in it.
If you can come up with a demonstrable role a deity has in a certain process, the model of that process will happily factor in that role.

But there is none, so why should it be part of it?

http://www.godandscience.org/

Please present arguments in your own words. Common courtesy in a discussion forum...

Gee. Thanks. I needed your permission, of course.

As long as you understand that "belief" and "knowledge" are not the same thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What proof do you have of either?

DNA.

Heliocentrism isn't right either-the sun isn't the center of the universe.

Heliocentrism as it pertains to the solar system, obviously.

Nah, there's evidence against that.

Really now?
I'ld be interested to know what your evidence is that the universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago in its current state with all our (fake) memories implanted in our brains.

Even those who think the Bible is literally true regarding Creation don't believe that.

Even them?

Your choice of words is remarkable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

AGW types do let their biases take the lead.

What are "AGW" types?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For the record, you didn't just say "I believe in God." You said that you are justified in believing and that it would be irrational not to believe. That doesn't require a defence?

What say you @Root of Jesse? Doesn't that require a defence? Wouldn't it be pertinent to present your case now?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What say you @Root of Jesse? Doesn't that require a defence? Wouldn't it be pertinent to present your case now?

I don't believe it does.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Opinion.

Yes, their interpretation of statistics is opinion.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That would make it "fictional" as apposed to "non-fiction". Or would you prefer "myth"?

Myth. But myth doesn't entail falsehood. Myth conveys truth, much as a fable or a parable does.

Perhaps you could be more descriptive of what it is, rather than repeating what it isn't.

Already done.

I do for many, on a individual basis. I don't think it would be practical to do it for everyone, as their beliefs are all over the place.

And some accept evolutionary theory. I don't know what you mean by "evolution".

I do not know what you mean by that capitonym.

There is only one Truth.

Actually, I am unable to believe what I want. Belief is not a conscious choice.

Of course it is, you are just asserting that it is more than just a character in a book.

It is a high-level conceptual use of the word "poof".

Be vague if you like.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yet you accept your religion's version of it as "Truth".

I also accept the Big Bang theory as truth. Can't prove it. I also accept some theory of evolution, but can't prove it. Neither can you.

What is not clear is how much of mainstream science you have to toss out to accommodate your beliefs.

What's "mainstream science", to you? Anthropomorphic Global Warming? The Catechism doesn't throw out any science.

I still do not know what you mean by "evolution", if it needs to be compatible in some way with a literal Adam and Eve and global flood story.

I don't think there's a theory of evolution, which is unprovable, that can be compatible with Adam and Eve. When one does, I'll take a look. I've already proven, to my satisfaction, the global flood.

Sure, all of your evasion and obfuscation is my fault. Hilarious.

It is clear how you do it, you just toss out whatever conflicts with your beliefs. It is not a problem for me, as I have no need to reconcile your ancient stories with observations of reality, I just toss them out as fictional.

I don't have to reconcile them, either. They speak of the beginning of the universe from different points of view. That explains it all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Moving the goalpost, I see.

Once more:
- LeMaitre comes up with big bang theory
- vatican / pope jumps on it and turns it into a theistic argument
- LeMaitre asks the pope not to do so, because it's a scientific theory, not a theological argument.
- Pope agrees and backs down

And after further study, the Church decides it DOES make a theistic argument.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. Big difference.
Why would any variable be included in a theory, when there is no demonstrable role for that variable in said theory?

The problem for you is, God is in everything. As the Creator of all, he can't not be in something. Even when you try to remove him.

Where is the "god variable" in gravity? Germ theory? Atomic theory? Plate tectonics?

As the creator of all of them, I think the question is moot.

Note that god, or any other deity, is not excluded from it. It's just not included in it.

OK, but as the creator of it, He cannot be excluded, or not included.

If you can come up with a demonstrable role a deity has in a certain process, the model of that process will happily factor in that role.

Creator is not a role? The creator of the iPhone had a role.

But there is none, so why should it be part of it?



Please present arguments in your own words. Common courtesy in a discussion forum...

Too lazy to read, I see.

As long as you understand that "belief" and "knowledge" are not the same thing.

Knowledge is in the head. Belief is in the heart.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't believe it does.

Why not? You are claiming that we are intellectually obligated to share your theological commitments. Such an assertion does not require justification?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think there's a theory of evolution, which is unprovable, that can be compatible with Adam and Eve. When one does, I'll take a look. I've already proven, to my satisfaction, the global flood.I don't have to reconcile them, either. They speak of the beginning of the universe from different points of view. That explains it all.

It would seem that you do have quite a bit to reconcile given that claims of a global flood are considered dubious on the basis of both biology and geology.

 

[Root of Jesse]

DNA.

Darwin had DNA at his disposal?

Heliocentrism as it pertains to the solar system, obviously.

But he wasn't talking just about the solar system, was he?

Really now?
I'ld be interested to know what your evidence is that the universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago in its current state with all our (fake) memories implanted in our brains.

You can't prove otherwise, and I can prove my age.

Even them?

Your choice of words is remarkable.

Yes, even they who believe in a young solar system.

Believe what you want. And you don't need my permission.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What are "AGW" types?

Those who believe AGW is true.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why not? You are claiming that we are intellectually obligated to share your theological commitments. Such an assertion does not require justification?

Are you saying that there is not a general thought in the world that we are obligated to do and be good?