Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

BCP1928 said:

And Christianity began to incorporate more Greek philosophy into it's theoogy. Who said it disappeared?

Click to expand...

Well you seem to think that the same beliefs and ideas that Christians were following during the early church somehow disappeared. They are the same beliefs in the spirit and the flesh, the material world and the immaterial realm.

These beliefs did not come from the Greek. They are uniquely Christian beliefs. They may have been influenced by Hellinistic thought as far as how they were expressed in the language and meanings used. But the fundemental belief is uniquely Christian and the only truth of the Mind and Body problem.

All other concepts in attempts to explain this stem from our knowledge of God and His invisible aspects we see in the world through His creation.

BCP1928 said:

Of course, since it's an unfalsifiable proposition there are many ways to speculate about it.

Click to expand...

Yes and Pauls and Johns and the bibles teachings are the truth when it comes to this natural human inclination to believe in spirits, disembodied souls and a mind that is beyond the physical brain. And you don't have to be a religious person to believe this. We do it naturally/ But we will place our own ideas about what that is.

BCP1928 said:

Back to your perpetual whine and big lie: "Science days no God is required."

Click to expand...

I never said that. Thought its a logical follow on philosophically. There is a fine line between methological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

I said that when people use science to beat down belief in God or any transcedent idea they are stepping from science to a metaphysical belief epistemically that claims there is only one way to know reality (matter and particles). That this is an ontological truth.

By the fact that its using science beyond its parameter to defeat belief. Thus one belief defeating another belief. Which is not science or at least cannot be verified by science.

stevevw said:

Well you seem to think that the same beliefs and ideas that Christians were following during the early church somehow disappeared.

Click to expand...

No they haven't. Christianity still teaches the resurrection of the body.

stevevw said:

Yes and Pauls and Johns and the bibles teachings are the truth when it comes to this natural human inclination to believe in spirits, disembodied souls and a mind that is beyond the physical brain. And you don't have to be a religious person to believe this. We do it naturally/ But we will place our own ideas about what that is.

I never said that. Thought its a logical follow on philosophically. There is a fine line between methological naturalism and metapgstical naturalsim.

Click to expand...

Only to the theologically ignorant.

stevevw said:

I said that when people use science to beat down belief in God or Mind beyond the physical brain they are stepping from science to a metaphysical belief that epistemically there is only one way to know reality (matter and particles) and that this is an ontological truth. By the fact that its using science to defeat belief. Thus one belief defeating another belief.

Click to expand...

So why don't you go and find some scientists who are actually doing that and argue with them? You won't convince us that we are trying to do that.

BCP1928 said:

No they haven't. Christianity still teaches the resurrection of the body.

Click to expand...

Yes but its not in this material realm. Christians believe in Heaven right. Heaven is not this fallen material world. The new earth and bodies will not be the same as our current fallen physical bodies.

If we never get sick or die then that is a completely different realm, a spirtual or transcedent realm or whatever you want to call it. But its clearly not the same. And we know it through our consciousness of God and the afterlife. We give up our physical body to gain this heavenly body.

BCP1928 said:

Only to the theologically ignorant.

Click to expand...

Actually to anyone who uses methological naturalism to defeat belief in God or other transcedent realities like the soul or afterlife. If they demand physical evidence and claim that this belief is false ontologically. Then yes they are declaring a belief and not science.

If you think this doesn't happen then just take a look at this forum lol. Or the old creation v evolution debate. It always comes down to "show me the physical evidence or its all false". Thus using one persons belief to beat down another persons belief.

Its just that the materialist will always win within the parameters of objective sciences and materialism. Which is much easier to show than beliefs. Or at least using methological naturalism.

BCP1928 said:

So why don't you go and find some scientists who are actually doing that and argue with them? You won't convince us that we are trying to do that.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't think a proper scientists would argue such things. They know where to draw the line. Its usually on forums like this where it becomes more philosophical that the lines get blurred.

I mean look at the OP heading "scientist believe life formed on its own" lol. Hum is belief scientific. I don't think so. So even the OP is framed philosophically. Scientist believe just like religious people believe in God. Except they believe its some how self creating and does not need a God or outside influence from an agent.

IMO I don't think we can seperate the scientist from the metaphysics. Because the subject and observer is part of the equation. You canpt take them out no matter what.

Science was designed to be a 3rd party method. Seperate the scientist from the phenomena being observed. But I don't think thats possible on a number of levels. So metaphysical beliefs come into the equation and its hard to untangle them. Or even know whether they are influeeencing things.

This is evident in the fact that even within the sciences there are different paradigms. Where one domain sees physical consitioning and processes. The other sees mind and agency as the fundemental driver. Nevermind the completely different paradigm worlds of spiritual/transcedent and materialism and determinism lol.

stevevw said:

The so called Dark Ages is a conspiracy in itself lol.

Click to expand...

The "Dark Ages" might be a misnomer or mischaracterization, but it is not a "conspiracy".

stevevw said:

Christianity was continuing to grow, new Kingdoms emerging and other developements. Christianity did not just disappear lol.

Click to expand...

No one claims Christianity "disappeared" in the Dark Ages, it was learning and good record keeping that "disappeared" as political systems fragmented into smaller polities. There is a similar "Greek Dark Ages" prior to the Classical period after the Late Bronze Age Collapse where Greek history and culture are hard to track.

stevevw said:

Yes but its not in this material realm. Christians believe in Heaven right. Heaven is not this fallen material world. The new earth and bodies will not be the same as our current fallen physical bodies.

If we never get sick or die then that is a completely different realm, a spirtual or transcedent realm or whatever you want to call it. But its clearly not the same. And we know it through our consciousness of God and the afterlife. We give up our physical body to gain this heavenly body.

Click to expand...

But we will still have a body, not a conscious mind without a body.

stevevw said:

Actually to anyone who uses methological naturalism to defeat belief in God or other transcedent realities like the soul or afterlife. If they demand physical evidence and claim that this belief is false ontologically. Then yes they are declaring a belief and not science.

If you think this doesn't happen then just take a look at this forum lol. Or the old creation v evolution debate. It always comes down to "show me the physical evidence or its all false". Thus using one persons belief to beat down another persons belief.

Click to expand...

Atheism v. theism is never the issue. Those discussions are about the Bible and creationists interpretation of it. Period. The evidence demanded is for the biblical account, not the existence of God.

stevevw said:

Its just that the materialist will always win within the parameters of objective sciences and materialism. Which is much easier to show than beliefs. Or at least using methological naturalism.

Actually I don't think a proper scientists would argue such things. They know where to draw the line. Its usually on forums like this where it becomes more philosophical that the lines get blurred.

I mean look at the OP heading "scientist believe life formed on its own" lol. Hum is belief scientific. I don't think so. So even the OP is framed philosophically. Scientist believe just like religious people believe in God. Except they believe its some how self creating and does not need a God or outside influence from an agent.

Click to expand...

That headline was created by a biblical creationist. It's a misrepresentation of science not written by a scientist. It is not what scientists believe.

stevevw said:

IMO I don't think we can seperate the scientist from the metaphysics. Because the subject and observer is part of the equation. You canpt take them out no matter what.

Science was designed to be a 3rd party method. Seperate the scientist from the phenomena being observed. But I don't think thats possible on a number of levels. So metaphysical beliefs come into the equation and its hard to untangle them. Or even know whether they are influeeencing things.

This is evident in the fact that even within the sciences there are different paradigms. Where one domain sees physical consitioning and processes. The other sees mind and agency as the fundemental driver. Nevermind the completely different paradigm worlds of spiritual/transcedent and materialism and determinism lol.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. It makes no sense either from a theological or a scientific point of view.

Like many Western Christians, I used to believe in an immaterial soul. But, a fair bit of research, including learning a little history, has led to me changing my mind. I do not believe that the scriptures teach the existence of an immaterial soul and I believe that mind body dualism is not a tenable Christian position.

JohnB445 said:

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

Click to expand...

God says the Earth brought forth living things. But it was no accident. He created it with the ability to produce life. And after life started? Darwin's great discovery was that it was no accident. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

It shouldn't be offensive to a believer to accept that God created the world to bring forth life and produce the variety of living things we see today.

BCP1928 said:

But we will still have a body, not a conscious mind without a body.

Click to expand...

This is a false equivelance. Your assuming its the exact same as our state now. It will not be. If it was then we will still be in a fallen state. The fact that we never get sick, suffer or die is fact its not the same. So stop making false comparisons.

But this is not the only way in which early Christians understood the Mind and Body divide. They clearly understood that this physical world was different to the spirit. That the physical world was different to their spiritual knowledge and selves.

BCP1928 said:

Atheism v. theism is never the issue. Those discussions are about the Bible and creationists interpretation of it. Period. The evidence demanded is for the biblical account, not the existence of God.

Click to expand...

But the biblical account demands belief in supernatural ideas. This is when the material atheists or anyone who uses science to beat down God or the bibles stories as unreal and make believe. Theres no difference.

Its still a material paradigm claiming an epistemic and ontological truth by demanding we show evidence. Otherwise its all rubbish. That is the very aim of skeptics when they come onto Christian forums lol. To make the delusion believers enlightened so they can get over their delusion of God and creationism lol.

BCP1928 said:

That headline was created by a biblical creationist. It's a misrepresentation of science not written by a scientist. It is not what scientists believe.

Click to expand...

But its not a misrepresentation of how some use science and naturalism to defeat those who believe in Gods creation. I guarentee skeptics are coming to show how the science is superior and shows that God is not needed for creating life. Thats the who idea on threads like this lol.

Its philosophical in nature and not a misrepresentation. It is exactly highlighting that when it comes down to argueing the case its a matter of belief and not science.

BCP1928 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. It makes no sense either from a theological or a scientific point of view.

Click to expand...

If you have no idea about what I am talking about then I suggest you do some research because this is actually fairly well known within the philosophy of science. Ever heard of Kuhn. Surely you must have.

Naturalism and Science

Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms, introduced in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, revolutionized the philosophy of science by proposing that scientific progress isn't linear but occurs through revolutionary "paradigm shifts," where an established worldview (paradigm) is replaced by a new one, challenging the idea of pure objectivity and highlighting the community's role in defining scientific truth.

Hans Blaster said:

The "Dark Ages" might be a misnomer or mischaracterization, but it is not a "conspiracy".

Click to expand...

It is when its used to claim that knowledge and belief in the mind and body divide within Christianity just disappeared.

Hans Blaster said:

No one claims Christianity "disappeared" in the Dark Ages,

Click to expand...

As far as I can see using the Dark Ages to say that Christianity did not have any views or beliefs on the Mind and Body divide is denying Christian thought. I proposed that the early church understood the Mind and Body divide in their beliefs and teachings.

It was rejected and claimed it was the Muslims and Greek culture that brought this idea. That Christianity when into the Dark Ages and thus was not responsible.

Hans Blaster said:

it was learning and good record keeping that "disappeared" as political systems fragmented into smaller polities. There is a similar "Greek Dark Ages" prior to the Classical period after the Late Bronze Age Collapse where Greek history and culture are hard to track.

Click to expand...

So Christian thought and belief never lost the unique take on the Mind and Body difference. Their doctrine naturally included such ideas and were not the result of the Greeks or Muslim thought.

stevevw said:

It is when its used to claim that knowledge and belief in the mind and body divide within Christianity just disappeared.

Click to expand...

Whether people claim that body/mind thing or not --

1. it is not a conspiracy
2. changing that about Christianity does not define "Dark Ages" (please, learn what that actually is)

and...

stevevw said:

As far as I can see using the Dark Ages to say that Christianity did not have any views or beliefs on the Mind and Body divide is denying Christian thought. I proposed that the early church understood the Mind and Body divide in their beliefs and teachings.

It was rejected and claimed it was the Muslims and Greek culture that brought this idea. That Christianity when into the Dark Ages and thus was not responsible.

So Christian thought and belief never lost the unique take on the Mind and Body difference. Their doctrine naturally included such ideas and were not the result of the Greeks or Muslim thought.

Click to expand...

3. I don't care about philosphy or theology.