Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, Ed, so today we are not going to divert this thread into a discussion of Hitler, gay sex, or the cause of the Big Bang. Today's topic is the thermodynamics of planets. Well, uh, OK then.

No, the specific reference that states and explains how the earth has a constant overall reduction of entropy.

That is not my claim, but for the record, here is the formula for the change in entropy of a system such as planet earth:

source: Entropy production - Wikipedia

(edit: it appears I cannot copy this formula here. If you want to see the formula, click on the link and look at the first formula under the heading First and Second Law.)


This tells us that there are 3 things that can change the entropy of a system, such as planet earth: heat transfer, mass transfer, and internal processes.

The middle term relates to mass transfer. This is basically zero for planet earth. So we can ignore it. We are left with the first term (heat transfer to and from the earth) and the third term (internal processes on earth). You are correct that the net result of the third term always increases the entropy of earth. But the first term can be either positive or negative depending on the dynamics of the heat flow. For earth, the first term is negative, and tends to balance out the last term which is positive.

Is there a net change of the entropy of earth? For most of the earth's history, the earth has been in steady state and at a near constant entropy. However, the addition of carbon dioxide to the earth's atmosphere has reduced the efficiency at which the earth radiates heat to space. Because of this, the first term of the equation is not radiating heat and decreasing entropy as fast as it used to. The earth is getting warmer. As the earth warms, the thermodynamic entropy increases. For instance, if ocean water evaporates at 70 deg F, the entropy (S) changes from 0.0745 to 1.7566 BTU/lbm, which is a huge increase in entropy. Were the oceans all to evaporate, earth would become one hot mess of high entropy steam with no life. But we digress.

My point was not that the net entropy of the planet decreases, but that the flow of heat into and out of the planet causes decreases in entropy (first term of our equation). However, the last term of our equation degrades this low entropy source to high entropy waste. But in the process, some of that low entropy material can be converted to other low entropy materials that humans consider organized. That is allowed by the second law. As long as the internal processes are causing a net increase of the planet's entropy, some parts of the process are allowed to decrease in entropy. Examples of low entropy products made this way include diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, snowflakes, and trees. All these processes proceed naturally on planet earth and need no intervention of a mind to cause them to happen. Although these objects are low in entropy, they happen because the first term in our equation lowers the net entropy of the earth, and because there are natural mechanisms to do the transformations.

Notice that nowhere in the equation is the presence of a mind postulated. No mind is needed to drive the processes. And no mind can violate the second law. But if a mind finds a mechanism that can use a low entropy source to create other low entropy materials, that is allowed, as long as the net result including the generated waste is a net increase in entropy.

So, no the laws of thermodynamics do not prove that minds must be lowering entropy. And no, minds cannot even lower entropy in violation of the equation above.

So anyway, that is our lessen in thermodynamics for today. Class is dismissed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Historical analysis has shown that ancient genealogies often have a mixture of direct descendents and descendents many generations into the future. For example verse 24 could be translated to mean Nahor lived nine and twenty years and became the ancestor of Terah. But verse 26 could be translated that Terah had Abram when he was 70 years old.

You said this before and I responded. Why are you repeating it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, now you are back on one of your three favorite subjects: the cause of the Big Bang.

The fact that the laws of physics break down at t = 0, points to something beyond the laws of nature and physics, ie supernatural.

Wait, we don't understand something, therefore it is supernatural?

That makes no sense to me. Since we are finite people on a finite planet, and the universe is immense, I am not surprised that there are some things we cannot yet figure out. The fact that we do not know the cause of the Big Bang does not prove the cause was supernatural.

The BB theory has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and according to the laws of logic, it must therefore have a cause. And by studying the characteristics of this universe, ie the effect, we can determine the characteristics of the Cause. And those characteristics fit the Christian God the best.

Please explain to me what characteristics of this universe indicate the Christian God explains it the best.

What we do know is that quantum forces seem to be everywhere, even in what we call empty space. We find that particles of matter and anti-matter are springing into existence all the time in "empty space" only to annihilate each other a split second later. It happens all the time, even in the "nothingness" of space.

We also know that all of space time collapses to nothing when we trace back to the Big Bang. Beyond that there could be some sort of space time that may differ considerably from ours. What is that space time like? How do quantum effects work there? We simply don't know.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: In 2 million years most of it would have eroded away, so that it would look like multiple small floods.

dm: Uh, no, that's not how it works. If all the earth's crust is eroding everywhere, where is it all going?

Into lakes, rivers, and oceans.

dm: The fact is that there is continual erosion some places, and continual buildup other places. If there was a global flood 2 million years ago, there would have been a global flood layer. Some of it would have eroded away, and some of it would have been covered up. We would expect to see a global layer of flood debris in rock that was dated 2 million years old. We do not see that.

If the flood was relatively tranquil, then the layer would not be very thick and would have the evidence of it more easily eroded away. There are the signs of the hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at places like Gibraltor.

ed: It [the flood water] came from the atmosphere and under the earths crust thru hydraulic vents on the ocean floor. Probably God removed most of it supernaturally.

dm: Uh, no, if the atmosphere was completely saturated, it would only cover the earth with a few inches. And if vast amounts of water came up form the earth, it would leave huge caverns where it left. We see none of this. So how did there get to be enough of water to cover Mount Everest?

Some caverns may have collapsed, some refilled with water, and some may have been filled with magma. In addition, Mount Everest was not as tall 2 mya.

ed: That was the last major ice age and probably the largest, most likely due to the weight of the water causing greater perturbations than previous motions of the axis.

dm: Uh, no, there was no unusual ice age 2 million years ago. The earth's axis has been regularly shifting, setting up ice age cycles for millions of years. I found the following chart, for instance:

It may not have been the largest, but even your chart shows it started around the time of the earliest humans which is what the bible teaches. Not all axis shifts are caused by the same forces. The flood just happened to be the cause of the Pleistocene Ice age.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If the flood was relatively tranquil, then the layer would not be very thick and would have the evidence of it more easily eroded away. There are the signs of the hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at places like Gibraltor.

Some caverns may have collapsed, some refilled with water, and some may have been filled with magma. In addition, Mount Everest was not as tall 2 mya.

It may not have been the largest, but even your chart shows it started around the time of the earliest humans which is what the bible teaches. Not all axis shifts are caused by the same forces. The flood just happened to be the cause of the Pleistocene Ice age.

No, sorry, there was no global flood 2 million years ago. The problems with a global flood are insurmountable. See Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition (talkorigins.org) . If you will take a look at that and still come back and say you think such a flood occurred, then lets start another thread to discuss it.

In the meantime, I find Genesis as a book of errors. It says trees were made before the sun, which is wrong. It says creation took six days, which is wrong. It has two accounts of creation, one which says beasts were created before man, and one which says beasts were created after man. Genesis says stars are in a "firmament" with water above the firmament. Genesis says God gave us every plant to eat, but we know some are poisonous. Genesis says Adam named all the animals, but there are millions of species. Genesis says people lived to be over 900 years old, which is impossible. It says languages were created instantaneously, but we know they evolved over time. Genesis refers to people with camels long before camels were domesticated.

Let's face it. Your claim that the extraordinary science of Genesis proves it is written by God is wrong. Not only is the science far from extraordinary, but it is often flat out wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course, if the belief infringes on other peoples rights then it would not be allowed. There is no right to have a wedding cake made by a certain store.

If you refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, are you being fair to them? If you refuse to let them eat at your restaurant, shop in your store, ride on your airline, or serve on your school board, are you being fair to them? If you are not fair to them, will they want to be fair to you?

Taking it further, if you refuse to let women, gays, people of color, Jews, or any other minority buy your cakes, eat at your restaurant, shop in your store, ride on your airline, or serve on your school board, are you being fair to them? If you are not fair to them, will they want to be fair to you?

On the other hand, if we don't allow you to practice your religion that excludes certain minorities from your services, are we being fair to you?

These are actually hard questions, with no easy answer.

My point is that we cannot allow religion to be a trump card that overrides all other laws. If we say you can discriminate because you are religious, what about the non-religious? If I wanted to, can I discriminate too? If you can discriminate but I cannot, how is that fair? And if everybody can discriminate anytime they want, will society stay cohesive?

Many people on both sides consider that the other side has no valid argument, and refuse to listen. But these are actually legitimate questions. In a proper democracy, people would hear each other out, and come up with rules that are as fair as possible to all.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Atheism has absolutely no rational foundation for morality. It is non existent.

dm: And you really expect atheists to read this, slap there foreheads, and say, "By golly, he is right, I cannot think of a reason to be good"? Of course not. Atheists are generally of high moral character, and have a solid rational foundation for morality.

I subscribe to the humanist ethic, which places a high value on humans, and seeks a moral code that benefits humans. We have a solid foundation for our morality: we love people, and seek moral principles that help people. See, for instance, Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association .

We have a deep love for humanity, and seek to make wise moral decisions to help humanity.

You do have a reason but it is not objectively rational, it may be subjectively rational, but it is based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens.

dm: And what is your moral foundation? The writings of ancient sheep herders and fishermen? OK, those ancients often had good moral advice but sometimes, not so much. For instance, we have looked at Luke 6:30. That tells us to give to everyone that asks. When I pointed that out to you, you mentioned that acting wisely overrides the letter of the command in Luke 6:30. I agree. Acting wisely is better than following the letter of the law that was written in ancient times.

Christian morality is based in the objectively existing moral character of the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Not pure emotion as humanism is. No, everything I said was based on the correct interpretation of the revealed moral character of God. It was revealed objectively in His word and His word gives us objectively true wisdom. Your wisdom is just based on personal preference. How is your personal preference better than someone like Jeffrey Dahmer?

dm: When you say to act wisely in moral decisions, you are basically telling me to do what Humanists teach--act wisely.

But human wisdom is just based on emotion for homo sapiens, not anything objectively rational.

dm: You keep on asking me if I have a good reason to be opposed to the Holocaust. Do I have a good reason to oppose it? Absolutely! The Holocaust devastated millions of people. As one who loves people, and builds my moral foundation on love for people, the Holocaust goes against everything I value.

Yes, but your opposition has the same foundation as those that committed it. Irrational Human emotion. Why are your brain chemicals that caused your emotion to oppose it "better" than the chemical reactions causing the emotions by the Nazis that implemented "bad". How can chemical reactions before an act cause that act to be moral or immoral if the chemical reactions are basically the same? How can condemn someone for acting their emotions just like you do but they just have a different conclusion from you on which homo sapiens deserve to live and which deserve to die? Even you believe that some unborn humans deserve to die.

dm: What about you? What is your reason for opposing the Holocaust? Do you have a better reason than me for opposing it? If so, please state why you are opposed to the Holocaust, and why you think your reason is better than mine.

I have an objectively rational basis for condemning the Holocaust and murder in general, the moral law of God which is based on His objectively existing moral character.

dm: And if you say because the Bible condemns it, then what about all the verses in the Bible that approve of events that resemble the Holocaust. For instance, I Samuel 15:2-8 says:

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley.

6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

Do you think that this is a good and moral way to treat people? Do you approve of this command to kill infants and nursing children?

This was capital punishment not murder. Ancient Israel was the hand of judgement for the Amalekites. Their time of punishment of their sin had arrived and it was Israel's duty to mete it out. God gave them 400 years to repent but they refused.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: But if recognizing truth does not promote survivability among all the animals prior to humans then we would never reach that point.

dm: And if developing a long giraffe neck does not promote survivability among all the other animals prior to giraffes, then they would never reach that point? That is simply not how it works. Evolutionary forces work different ways in different animals, leading some to have a long neck, some to have sonar, some to have the beautiful feathers of a peacock, and some to have a concept of truth. The forces work different ways in different species.

Yes, if plants never grew a certain height that required a long neck to reach for food, then it would be extremely unlikely that any animal would ever have evolved a long neck. And if knowing whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 or being able to know if the theory of evolution is true or not does not increase survivability then it would not be chosen for by natural selection. IOW, the content of a belief is not visible to natural selection and therefore could not be selected for. In so far as a belief enters the causal chain leading to a behavior it is by its neurophysiological properties, not its content that it is selected for.

dm: Again, I explained the development of human cognition at the opening post of Why are there still apes? | Christian Forums . There was a step by step process that led to humans. Why didn't it happen to all other animals? Because they did not go through all of the preliminary steps that made the future steps possible. Please read and reply to that post.

I believe I did.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf,

The process you are referring to is called methodological naturalism. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Methodological naturalism requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify. It is a self-imposed convention of science.

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. Source: Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I find it interesting that you credit Christianity with promoting methodological naturalism. Actually it is the opposite. Among atheist scientists, methodological naturalism flows naturally from their naturalistic world view. Christians that are scientists use prayer and the spiritual world on Sunday, and methodological naturalism on Monday. It works, but sometimes the cognitive dissonance between Sunday and the rest of the weeks can tug at their souls.

Uhh No, I am not claiming Christians came up with methodological naturalism, they knew that MN was self refuting. Since the bible teaches that at least 99.9% of the time God uses natural law to accomplish His purposes as seen in Jeremiah 33:25 and by looking at how rare in the bible supernatural events occur, they knew that making a determination that God intervened in nature had to be the last resort conclusion and backed up with strong evidence that the event could not be explained by natural processes. Methodological naturalism was created by atheists that wanted to exclude God from science by definition, which only occurred relatively recently, not realizing that they were shooting themselves in the foot, because without God science is not possible.

dm: I know. I used to be a Christian. I experienced the thrill of Sunday. But Monday was always a drag, switching my mind from the Sunday mode to the Monday mode. There is an unsettling cognitive dissonance between the two worlds.

That is another piece of evidence that even as a Christian your knowledge of the deeper things of God was somewhat limited. With God Mondays could be just as good or even sometimes better than Sundays. Maybe that is why you didnt persevere.

dm: Nevertheless, you not only say Christians can easily practice methodological naturalism, but you somehow credit Christians with the concept.

No, see above.

ed: No, the greek and roman intellectual elite believed that engaging in manual labor was only for slaves, so they never engaged in systematic scientific experimentation. Conducting experiments would have been considered manual labor and beneath their station in life. So ongoing self correcting systematic experimental science was not invented until biblical Christianity became widespread in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries

dm: True, the Greeks were more interested in mathematics and theory rather than experiments. And true, the experimental method did not become widely used in Europe until the 16th and 17th century. And true, the rise of the experimental method correlates with the rise of Protestant Christianity.

But correlation does not prove causation. I contend that the cause for both Protestantism and experimental science was the widespread use of the printing press. The printing press allowed a wide dissemination of information--we could perhaps call it Internet 1.0--and this led to a rapid expansion of ideas. Science and Protestant Christianity were two of the ideas that got a big boost. But I don't think you can say the rise of Protestant Christianity caused methodological naturalism to be more prevalent. Rather, both had the same cause, the printing press.

No, we have the writings of some of the greatest scientists of those centuries and they say themselves that they wanted to study nature in order to "think God's thoughts after Him" and learn more about His creation as the bible teaches. Also, they knew that only if there was an intelligent and orderly Creator, would it mean that nature was intelligible and orderly so that it could be systematically studied.

dm: Ethnographic Evidence for Unbelief in Non-Western Cultures: Unbelief in Latin America | Free Inquiry (secularhumanism.org)

And again as I stated earlier those unbelieving cultures never came up with science for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I missed it. Where did you show that the Christian God probably exists? If the Christian God "probably exists", what are the odds that he does exist?

I stated His existence can be shown by utilizing logic and the BB theory. I would say there is a 90% chance He exists given how much His existence explains so much so well.

dm: All I have seen from you is that certain ancient writers say that the Christian God exists. When I ask you how you know they were telling the truth, you tell me that 1) they had accurate science; 2) they had accurate prophesies; and 3) they were early proponents of methodological naturalism. Even if all 3 of your claims are true, that is hardly proof that the writers were probably correct when they said the Christian God exists.

The strongest evidence He exists is the existence and characteristics of the universe, life, and human beings.

dm: Regarding your claims, 1) Muslims also make claims that their book has highly accurate science. Both claims of highly accurate science are dubious. When I asked you about this, I saw no response.

Only the Christian bible teaches many of the most important characteristics of the universe. Such as that it had a definite beginning from what appears to be nothing, is expanding, and is running down energetically.

dm: 2) The Bible is notorious for unfulfilled prophesies or dubious claims of fulfilled prophesies (see Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled (infidels.org) ).

Fraid not, when understood in context.

dm: 3) The Bible is not a leading proponent of methodological naturalism. For instance it credits demons with creating diseases, and credits Yahweh with locust invasions.

See above I never claimed that. The Bible does not teach that demons created diseases. God does cause locust invasions but only indirectly, the direct cause is usually natural.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And where did that pre-existing morality come from? Is it turtles all the way down?

The character of the Creator.

dm: My morality is based on love. As I look inside myself I see love: love for myself, for my family, for my community, for all. Based on that love, I react in moral ways to other people.

That seems to me like a very good basis for morality.

Hitler claimed that what he did was out of love too for the German people. Whose love is right and what is the objective reason for it being right?

dm: And what is your basis for morality? Is your morality simply based on whatever God says to do? OK, suppose you were to someday hear what the Bible says that Abraham heard. Suppose that you were to hear a voice claiming to be God and telling you to kill your son. What would you do? I would strongly recommend that anybody who hears such a voice to not obey that command. If there is no physical explanation for the voice, probably he should see a doctor. But he should not obey a voice from heaven telling him to sacrifice his son on an alter. How would you react to that situation?

My basis for morality is God and His objectively existing character. Now that we have God's written word and law, if any voice that said to kill your son you would know it was not from God, since He said "You shall not murder."

dm: Evolution has led many species to develop cooperative relationships. It is one of the things evolution does, and does quite well.

Cooperative relationships are not the same as a morality. Does the animal punish another animal for not cooperating? No, so this is hardly the same thing as morality. It is irrational to believe that morality can come from an amoral process. Evolution and nature may tell us what is, but it doesnt tell us what ought to be. The Nazis thought evolution did tell us morally what to do, ie eliminate the unfit. Why do you disagree with what evolution taught the Nazis?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over when they have been answered in detail? What is your strategy? Are you hoping we all walk away shaking our heads in sorrow, while you pound your chest in victory?

You do have a reason but it is not objectively rational, it may be subjectively rational, but it is based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens...Your wisdom is just based on personal preference. How is your personal preference better than someone like Jeffrey Dahmer?...But human wisdom is just based on emotion for homo sapiens, not anything objectively rational....Yes, but your opposition has the same foundation as those that committed it. Irrational Human emotion. Why are your brain chemicals that caused your emotion to oppose it "better" than the chemical reactions causing the emotions by the Nazis that implemented "bad".

Are you done yet?

How can chemical reactions before an act cause that act to be moral...

Now are you done? I get a turn? Thank you.

As you should know, I responded to this in detail in two lengthy posts last week. Instead of responding to those posts, you just keep rambling on with the same thing you have been saying for months.

There are at least two motivations for moral behavior. First, we admire other humans and want to help them. Second, we need other humans, and can only reach a state of fulfilling existence by cooperating fairly with others. If we choose fulfilling existence, then we need to cooperate. If we were to seek fulfilling existence, but not choose cooperation, then we are not being fair. Those who choose not to be fair can and should be condemned for their choices.

The second reason is not subjective. It is a matter of life or death. If we want to live, then certain rules of fair behavior need to exist.

Christian morality is based in the objectively existing moral character of the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Not pure emotion as humanism is. objectively true wisdom.

And yet you make the subjective decision that "the Creator" (all three of them) has "objectively existing moral character". How is your subjective view that the Creator is objective better than my subjective view that people are great?

And if you cannot accept my subjective view that people are great, what about the objective argument that certain rules are required in order for us to live?

everything I said was based on the correct interpretation of the revealed moral character of God. It was revealed objectively in His word and His word gives us

Who gets to decide which interpretation of the Bible is correct? Is killing in war acceptable? It depends on which Christian you ask. Is alcohol, marijuana, cussing, gambling, gay sex, or abortion acceptable? Again, depends who you ask.

If you say your interpretation is right, and all who disagree are wrong, how is that not subjective?

I have an objectively rational basis for condemning the Holocaust and murder in general, the moral law of God which is based on His objectively existing moral character.

Ah, your subjective view that God is objective is better than my subjective view that people are great. Why?

If God condemns the Holocaust, why did Christians play the role they did in the rise of Nazi Germany? See The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis (churchandstate.org.uk)
Numbers 31

This was capital punishment not murder. Ancient Israel was the hand of judgement for the Amalekites. Their time of punishment of their sin had arrived and it was Israel's duty to mete it out. God gave them 400 years to repent but they refused.

How can this be capital punishment? The alleged event occurred 400 years earlier. I Samuel 15:2 says, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt." I doubt if that accusation is based on an event that actually happened. The base Exodus account of millions of Jews wandering Sinai clearly did not happen. So most likely the priests made this up. But even if it really happened, and the Amalekites had a war with Israel 400 years earlier, how can their descendants 400 years later deserve "Capital Punishment" for that? And if you think killing in war is acceptable, how can the Amalekite soldiers be condemned for doing what their commanders commanded? And even if the adults 400 years later deserved punishment for those soldiers' acts of obeying their commanders, how can the babies 400 years later deserve to be killed for this? See Exodus 17:8-16 and 1 Samuel 15:1-9.

And if that is not enough, look at Numbers 31, and the reported slaughter of the Midianites. In that slaughter they reportedly obeyed the command to kill all including the babies, but exempted the virgins, which they captured. Can you figure out why they kept only the virgins? Numbers 31:4 tells us, "and the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons." Pray tell me, what did the Lord need thirty two captive virgins for?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, if plants never grew a certain height that required a long neck to reach for food, then it would be extremely unlikely that any animal would ever have evolved a long neck. And if knowing whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 or being able to know if the theory of evolution is true or not does not increase survivability then it would not be chosen for by natural selection. IOW, the content of a belief is not visible to natural selection and therefore could not be selected for.

Hominids advanced to the point where, knowing 2 plus 2 equals 4 was an advantage. Once hominds had advanced to the point where counting, story telling, and logical arguments were useful to survival, any hominid that could count further, tell more meaningful stories, and make more detailed logical arguments had better survival odds than those who didn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Uhh No, I am not claiming Christians came up with methodological naturalism, they knew that MN was self refuting.

Again, here is the way Wikipedia defines methodological naturalism

Methodological naturalism requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify. It is a self-imposed convention of science.

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge.​

I know you don't like the words "Methodological naturalism" but the paragraphs above are consistent with everything you are saying about the scientific process used by Christians. Do you or do you not agree with the process described above? If you disagree, please tell us how you disagree. If you agree, your difference is only with the word I use.

Your arguments keep coming down to your claim that dictionaries don't have the right definitions for English words like "wrong" and "Methodological naturalism".

Sigh.

Since the bible teaches that at least 99.9% of the time God uses natural law to accomplish His purposes as seen in Jeremiah 33:25 and by looking at how rare in the bible supernatural events occur, they knew that making a determination that God intervened in nature had to be the last resort conclusion and backed up with strong evidence that the event could not be explained by natural processes.

Excuse me, have you ever read the whole Bible? That is not a rhetorical question. I would like know your answer. I have read the bible 6 times. One thing is clear to me, that this is largely about God and others in the spiritual world interfering with nature. I am curious how one can read the Bible and not see that.

If any Christian is following this thread, I suggest you read the Bible to see if Ed or I are telling you the truth about what is there. I think if you will read the Bible, you will see it is constantly talking of supernatural interventions.

Methodological naturalism was created by atheists that wanted to exclude God from science by definition, which only occurred relatively recently, not realizing that they were shooting themselves in the foot, because without God science is not possible.

Uh no, Methodological naturalism was not created to exclude God. Naturalism, by contrast, does exclude God.

Methodological naturalism deals with the fact that, in their daily work, both Theistic and Atheist scientists view nature as though no supernatural acts are involved. Methodologically, they work as though naturalism is true. They don't need to believe it is true. But methodologically, if they want to accomplish something in science, they need to set the supernatural aside and study nature as though nature is all there is.

That is another piece of evidence that even as a Christian your knowledge of the deeper things of God was somewhat limited. With God Mondays could be just as good or even sometimes better than Sundays. Maybe that is why you didnt persevere.

Got it. You don't think I was a real Christian.

I assure you that I was a real Christian. I was a dedicated fundamentalist back in the 70s. In college I was active in a fundamentalist Baptist church (led by a student of Jack Hyles), while balancing the study of engineering on other days. I thoroughly enjoyed the "supernatural" experience of seeing people get "saved" on Sunday. Switching my mind from the supernatural mode on Sunday to the natural mode on Monday was never easy for me.

No, we have the writings of some of the greatest scientists of those centuries and they say themselves that they wanted to study nature in order to "think God's thoughts after Him" and learn more about His creation as the bible teaches. Also, they knew that only if there was an intelligent and orderly Creator, would it mean that nature was intelligible and orderly so that it could be systematically studied.

Yes, yes, they were in a predominantly Christian culture and said things the Christian culture wanted. Maybe they themselves believed it. I don't know.

But I don't think it was Christianity that caused them to accept the method that is listed in the paragraphs about Methodogical naturalism above.

And again as I stated earlier those unbelieving cultures never came up with science for the reasons I stated earlier

Understood. You have stated over and over that primitive cultures accepted belief in the spiritual world controlling nature. When I post a link showing this is often not the case, you simply ignore the link and state your claim over again.

Well OK then. Like they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[Rachel20]

Switching my mind from the supernatural mode on Sunday to the natural mode on Monday was never easy for me.

When I realized I was compartmentalizing my "modes" I made the conscious effort to stop and what a difference. But for me that didn't mean a change in behavior, just mindfulness.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You missed the point. The point is that, the New Testament speaks of a "person" called God and a "person" called Jesus. When I read the word "God" in the New Testament, it seems to refer to a person who is different from the person called Jesus.

It is referring to a different person but not a different being.

dm: You have already admitted that, in John 3:16, when it says God loved the world, it does not mean the triune God loved the world. It means that one "person", God, sent another person, Jesus.

No, all three members of the Trinity loved the world but only the Father could send his son.

​

dm: Look at some more examples. In all these verses the word God means a person distinct from Jesus. It does not mean the three persons.

Mar 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?​

In this case it is referring to the Father and the Spirit, because only the Son is being forsaken.

Luk 2:52

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Again this is referring to the Father and the HS.

Jhn 13:3

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

Obviously refers to the Father.


Act 2:22

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

The Father and the HS.

Rom 1:7
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

God the father obviously. This verse also equates Jesus and the God the father because only God can bestow grace.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

God the father raised him.

1Ti 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

God in this verse is referring to the entire Trinity.

​

dm: It is obvious to me that these writers thought God and Jesus were different "persons". They would not have written like that if they thought "God" was the combination of three persons.

They are different persons but not different beings. See above how you can tell which person is being referred to.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I gave you a link with specific examples of the crimes that Trump is likely guilty of. Once again, How Donald Trump Is Vulnerable to Prosecution (theintercept.com) .

So far there is no evidence he has committed any of those things.

 

[Ed1wolf]

When we point something out to you in the Bible, it seems that you keep adding things that we don't find there. For instance, when I point out the years that Genesis indicates were between the flood and Abraham, you throw in 2 million additional years out of whole cloth.

No, scholars have studied ancient genealogies written around the same time as Genesis and they all have significant gaps because they are not exhaustive, they generally only show notable individuals. And also since the bible also teaches that Nature is His other revelation, it points to a much older earth than the interpretation of the YEC.

dm: When I point out the Bible says to give to every man that asks of you, you throw in the clause that we are to do so only when wise.

No, God in His word throws it in, not me.

dm: Now we turn to John. Here is John 3:18 with the words that you appear to be adding shown in red: "He that believeth on him is not judged: he that [ 1) hath the ability to believe; and 2) hath the ability to sin; and 3)] believeth not[,] hath been judged already, because he hath [the ability to believe and also he hath] not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Once again the words in red are words that I need to add to get this verse to say what you claim it says.

May I make a suggestion? You may want to make your own version of the Bible which includes all the things you add to it.

The Bible says those who don't believe will be judged. Infants don't believe. I think the Bible is mistaken. Infants will not be judged.

No, the evidence in Samuel about David and his infant son meeting again after death point to my interpretation being correct.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I stated His existence can be shown by utilizing logic and the BB theory. I would say there is a 90% chance He exists given how much His existence explains so much so well.

I didn't ask you if you stated that his existence can be shown. I asked you you where you have shown that the Christian God probably exists. There is a difference between stating something and giving evidence for that claim.

The strongest evidence He exists is the existence and characteristics of the universe, life, and human beings.

That's odd. For the scientists who understand the universe and life the best are more likely to be atheist than the general population. How is the universe and life evidence that the Christian God exists? What did those scientists miss?

Only the Christian bible teaches many of the most important characteristics of the universe. Such as that it had a definite beginning from what appears to be nothing, is expanding, and is running down energetically.

Same argument I hear for the Quran. You and I can both see through the argument for the Quran. Only one of us can see through the argument for the Bible.

The Bible does not teach that demons created diseases.

Here is a list of all the verses in the New Testament that refer to demons. NKJV Search Results for "demon" (blueletterbible.org) and NKJV Search Results for "demons" (blueletterbible.org). These verses describe a demon haunted world. It baffles me when you claim that Christianity laid the foundation for a science based on natural law with little effect from demons, angels, or three God persons.

God does cause locust invasions but only indirectly, the direct cause is usually natural.

Read Joel 1-2. Joel goes on an endless rant about a locust invasion. Here is his recommended solution: “Turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning.” (Joel 2:12)
That does not sound like an explanation that events have natural causes. It does not tell us we can find solutions by studying nature.

Wikipedia says nothing about fasting, weeping, and mourning being an effective solution to locust invasions. Instead it says that certain weather conditions trigger grasshoppers to lay vast amount of eggs, and then gather in swarms to form a locust invasion. Modern countermeasures include, "cultivating the soil where eggs were laid, collecting hoppers with catching machines, killing them with flamethrowers, trapping them in ditches, and crushing them with rollers and other mechanical methods." Source: Locust - Wikipedia

Instead of Joel going on an endless rant about his bogus fasting and weeping prevention tactic, why not spend a few verses introducing the ancients to natural causes, the scientific method, and the need to study the locusts?

Or if the writer was omnipotent, why not tell them that, when you see these specific conditions, then you should do the following to find locust eggs, and do the following to get rid of the eggs?

 

[doubtingmerle]

They are different persons but not different beings.

What does this even mean? How is claiming that God is three persons different from claiming that God is three beings?

Let's suppose somebody is questioning a native pastor who teaches that God is three xylia. This pastor is using his natural language, which does not have the words "being" or "person" but does have the word "xylia". He was told that "xylia" is the correct way to translate the concept from English. Others think he is teaching the heresy that God is three beings, rather than the truth that God is three persons.

Your job is to figure out if he is teaching heresy or truth. How are you going to tell the difference. Ready? Set? Go!