Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Did you have a point to go along with the link?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then why are you even conversing with me? We have nothing in common to go on. I have charitably tried to find common ground, but you just want to play in your sandbox. Have at it, buddy.

Let's not pretend that you're "trying to find common ground." Be honest and call it what it is - obfuscation. You have no case to present, so you're obfuscating. You've been doing so for pages and pages. In fact, I called your bluff many pages ago, noting that you should either put up or shut up. civilwarbuff couldn't do the former, so he opted for the latter.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

See what I mean? You don't believe anything.Science can't prove against Adam and Eve and a global flood.

It's up to you to present a case for them, rather than demanding that science disprove them. In any case, science can discredit the notion of a global flood quite easily, and indeed it already has.

They cast doubts, but the evidence is dependent on the point of view of the viewer.

Not if it's objective.

I don't go to science for religious belief. I don't go to religion for my knowledge of science.

Yes you do. Your objection to evolution is motivated primarily (or entirely) by religion. Your insistence on a literal Adam and Eve and a global flood is completely driven by your religious convictions, not by any scientific motivation to understand the principles of biology or geology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe biology, as a whole to be accurate for what it holds. I don't see any contradiction between any biology and Adam and Eve.

Then you don't know enough biology.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are citing online sources that are largely creation-science sites, which are largely bogus science. If I were you, I'd chose sites that were solid science.

Buddy, I'm going to be charitable here. If I wanted someone's advice, I'd ask for it. For someone to be worthy of me asking them advice, they'd either need to have expertise in the advice I'm seeking, or be a trusted person. I don't know you from anyone else, so you can stop offering your advice to me.
The fact that there is a point of view that includes Genesis counters the point of view the excludes Genesis. I'm not trying to say that the site is correct, because I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. How do you know it's bogus? Are you a geologist?
Once again, I don't get my science knowledge from religion and I don't get my religion knowledge from science. I believe that the account of the beginning of the earth in Genesis is correct, and I believe in evolution. For you, or anyone to say differently, you would need to prove that what I've presented is patently false. Your advice, on the other hand, nope.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not if it has to work with your religion.

I understand that it holds that we share a common ancestor with all other living things on this planet, in a manner that is incompatible with the concept of humans being descended from only a few, or a pair, or individuals.

I will grant you that, if your understanding of biology is comparable to your understanding of cosmology, and the concept of falsifiability.

...but you reject it out of hand, I know. If you ever do come up with something that has not been addressed by plate tectonic theory, in the absence of a global flood, be sure to post it here. Or, in the Physical and Life Sciences forum.

So do the Christian atheists and Christian pantheists.

"Christian atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed."

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The apostle Paul quotes a pantheist poem about Zeus in Acts 17:28, turning it into a panentheist statement about their "unknown God" when he quotes, "'In him we live and move and have our being' as some of your poets have said."

Panentheism is also a feature of some later Christian thought, particularly in mystical Orthodox Christianity, Catholic philosophy, and process theology. In order to avoid confusion with pantheism some panentheists now use the doublet "unitheism.""

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you mean by that capitonym? Is that short for 'religious opinion'?

So, Jesus was a nice guy, but he was off a bit. I don't buy that, either.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Once again, I don't get my science knowledge from religion and I don't get my religion knowledge from science.

You keep saying that, despite it clearly being untrue.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It seems you had a formatting error in your post, which deleted half of it in the reply.

I know about the 'saving' bit.

Knock Knock

• Davian
• Jan 1, 2015

Not yourself, from what I have seen. You toss out what does not reconcile.

I don't toss out anything. Especially God.

No, it is far more interesting to see what individuals actually say they believe, in a venue such as this.

In other words, you're too lazy to read the book.

I suppose the purpose of this forum is to see if you can prove it to the satisfaction of anyone that is not already a believer.

I will prove it to the satisfaction of anyone who wants to know. Apparently, that's not you.

and from that you extrapolate to the [alleged] weakness of evolutionary theory? Does it stop there? Do you also doubt atomic theory? Germ theory? Semiconductor theory?

No, because they aren't the theory of how the universe began.

Funny, coming from the guy that uses meteorology as a guide stick for evaluating scientific theory.

I do not think it is totally false. However, even if I were to grant that the bible contained accurate archeological references, and historical stories that - in part - correlate with external references, if the key events remain myth, and unsubstantiated (the resurrection, etc), and the concept of "God" lacks a robust, testable falsifiable definition, I will remain unconvinced.

I suppose that would be the job of the astrophysicists that study this stuff.

I love this one. You'll use it on scientific explanations, but exempt your own beliefs from it.

I'll read it if you can post it.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

You may not have done so intentionally, but you did. You said "God is an absolute, he is the definition of unfalsifiable."

I didn't do so at all.

Strange then that such a god would inspire religious adherents that are so anti-science, and be undetectable by that same science.

My faith is the farthest thing from anti-science.

An apt analogy. To Hamlet, Shakespeare is non-existent.

And yet he exists.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Apparantly, you are not aware that geology as a field, was born when a couple of christians said out to find evidence of the biblical flood. And subsequently failed.

a couple of Christians? So what? Christians have been wrong. Other Christians have succeeded.

 

[Root of Jesse]

False. Science annihilates both claims as literal truths.
Both these claims make testable predictions.

Where did I claim LITERAL truth?

If those predictions don't check out, then the claims are disproven / false / debunked / refuted / in error.

Guess what? The predictions don't check out.......




And yet, you cite articles from answers in genesis, of all things...



What about it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's up to you to present a case for them, rather than demanding that science disprove them. In any case, science can discredit the notion of a global flood quite easily, and indeed it already has.

Not if it's objective.

Yes you do. Your objection to evolution is motivated primarily (or entirely) by religion. Your insistence on a literal Adam and Eve and a global flood is completely driven by your religious convictions, not by any scientific motivation to understand the principles of biology or geology.

But I don't have any objection to evolution. I don't have any objection to Genesis, either. They convey one truth in different ways.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Let's not pretend that you're "trying to find common ground." Be honest and call it what it is - obfuscation. You have no case to present, so you're obfuscating. You've been doing so for pages and pages. In fact, I called your bluff many pages ago, noting that you should either put up or shut up. civilwarbuff couldn't do the former, so he opted for the latter.

If I've made it harder for you to understand what we believe, part of the problem is you. I say that with all charity, but civilwarbuff, myself, and I'm sure there are others, aren't the problem.

 

[Davian]

Many Christians

Can you not simply state it as your opinion, without this [fallacious] appeal to popularity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

More religion. Is there no scientific evidence for this "soul"?

No need.

There is, if you wish to state it as more than just opinion.

Go take some theology classes, otherwise, you'll stay 'ig'nostic.

I already have a working description of "God" for the purposes of this thread. If you have a testable, falsifiable definition for your "God", feel free to present it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Can you not simply state it as your opinion, without this [fallacious] appeal to popularity?

If it was "my" opinion, I would say it's my opinion. But it's not my opinion.

More religion. Is there no scientific evidence for this "soul"?

Considering that Theology is the science of the divine, yes, there is.

There is, if you wish to state it as more than just opinion.

I already have a working description of "God" for the purposes of this thread. If you have a testable, falsifiable definition for your "God", feel free to present it.

If I could prove God, it wouldn't be God. I have evidence, which I've pointed out, but you don't accept it as evidence. I believe we're done here.

 

[Hoghead1]

Buddy, I'm going to be charitable here. If I wanted someone's advice, I'd ask for it. For someone to be worthy of me asking them advice, they'd either need to have expertise in the advice I'm seeking, or be a trusted person. I don't know you from anyone else, so you can stop offering your advice to me.
The fact that there is a point of view that includes Genesis counters the point of view the excludes Genesis. I'm not trying to say that the site is correct, because I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. How do you know it's bogus? Are you a geologist?
Once again, I don't get my science knowledge from religion and I don't get my religion knowledge from science. I believe that the account of the beginning of the earth in Genesis is correct, and I believe in evolution. For you, or anyone to say differently, you would need to prove that what I've presented is patently false. Your advice, on the other hand, nope.

I know creation-science is bogus, because I have long studied the literature. I could cite you a litany of complaints I have about it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Name your biggest complaint.

 

[Davian]

Apparently little belief in some of the most widely held scientific beliefs either.

Certainly not in the way you use the word 'believe'. Do I 'believe' in stellar nucleosynthesis? No, I accept is as a plausible scientific theory supported by evidence. If it were falsified tomorrrow, and replaced with a more accurate theory, I would not lose sleep over it.

Yes, I can.

Great.

You go up into the Himalayan mountains, dig, and you find fossils of sea creatures.

To rephrase, can you present this evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that might be in support of your religious beliefs?

My understanding changed. I was once a young earth creationist, but am no longer.

Other than timescales, did anything really change?

I don't get my news from either of those, either.

Neither do I.

See above.

See above.

Exploring scientific belief is more like it.

I do not know what you mean by this. Are you trying to equate scientific 'belief' with religious belief? I do not see how they compare.

 

[Davian]

You are citing online sources that are largely creation-science sites, which are largely bogus science. If I were you, I'd chose sites that were solid science.

Perhaps he cannot find "solid science" sites that support the conclusions he is starting from.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I've made it harder for you to understand what we believe, part of the problem is you. I say that with all charity, but civilwarbuff, myself, and I'm sure there are others, aren't the problem.

I understand well what you believe; that's not the issue. The issue is that you refuse to present a case justifying what you believe as true, even though this forum is suited to that purpose. Moreover, despite implying that we are intellectually obligated to share your theological commitments, you have done nothing to establish this obligation. Neither has civilwarbuff, who left the conversation when this was pointed out to him. Unfortunately, apologists like yourself often shift the blame for this onto their audience, conjuring a litany of excuses on the fly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But I don't have any objection to evolution. I don't have any objection to Genesis, either. They convey one truth in different ways.

In mutually incompatible ways.