Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[dlamberth]

Rev 20 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

Which would include randomness as it sits in the middle of Alpha and Omega. We see it in action with in the essence of our everyday lives. It's one of those activities that is the knowledge and knowing of God as He lets His Creation play out on it's own.

 

[Diamond72]

Which would include randomness as it sits in the middle of Alpha and Omega.

Nothing exists between the Omega and the Alpha. In our solar system nothing is random. Even if the gravity is different due to the configuration of the planets in proportion to each other.

Gravity plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance and order of celestial bodies. The gravitational forces between planets, the Sun, and other objects in the solar system create a dynamic equilibrium that governs their orbits and movements. This delicate balance is far from random and is a testament to the underlying principles of physics that shape our cosmos.

It's incredible how these gravitational interactions result in predictable patterns, from the orbits of planets to the formation of galaxies. The study of these interactions helps us understand the complexities and the beauty of the universe.

 

[dlamberth]

Nothing exists between the Omega and the Alpha. In our solar system nothing is random. Even if the gravity is different due to the configuration of the planets in proportion to each other.

Gravity plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance and order of celestial bodies. The gravitational forces between planets, the Sun, and other objects in the solar system create a dynamic equilibrium that governs their orbits and movements. This delicate balance is far from random and is a testament to the underlying principles of physics that shape our cosmos.

It's incredible how these gravitational interactions result in predictable patterns, from the orbits of planets to the formation of galaxies. The study of these interactions helps us understand the complexities and the beauty of the universe.

All of existence, both the seen and unseen exist between Omega and Alpha. Your focus is only on the physical. There's also the everyday life the we live through. Much of what happens during the day that you and I live through is random.

 

[Diamond72]

Much of what happens during the day that you and I live through is random.

Psalm 139:16 expresses the idea that God is intimately involved in our lives, knowing us even before we were born. The verse states:

"Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This verse signifies that God has a plan and purpose for each of us. It reflects the belief that our lives are known and guided by God from the very beginning

 

[NxNW]

"Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This verse signifies that God has a plan and purpose for each of us. It reflects the belief that our lives are known and guided by God from the very beginning.

Free will cannot exist if the above is true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Free will cannot exist if the above is true.

What exactly is "free will"?

From the way some of you atheists talk, you make make it sound like a slave master has control over every thought of a slave.

 

[NxNW]

What exactly is "free will"?

From the way some of you atheists talk, you make make it sound like a slave master has control over every thought of a slave.

If there is an omniscient god, then your every thought and action is preordained. There is nothing you can think or do that was not put in motion far before your birth. You make no choices whatsoever, though you may have the illusion of making them. You are nothing but an automaton.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there is an omniscient god, then your every thought and action is preordained. There is nothing you can think or do that was not put in motion far before your birth. You make no choices whatsoever, though you may have the illusion of making them. You are nothing but an automaton.

Where in the Bible are you getting this perspective of "all-knowing" from? Your definition sounds more like one that fits solely within a "God-of-the-Philosophers" schemata that is entrenched and rigid rather than within a Biblically inclined schemata that is absolute but mysterious.

The fact is, none of us knows what superlative qualia actually are, if they exist, or how they work. Sure, we can make up words like "omniscient" and think we're making a firm reference to some specific idea or quality, but we're not actually obtaining any information from 'outside' ourselves to inform us either empirically or rationally as to what exactly Omni-science can do, will do or has to do.

I don't think anyone has to accept what you're saying here since it doesn't seem sound. No one has to agree with Calvin. In fact, I gave you the beginnings of an alternative view and you simply dismissed it, and your dismissal doesn't do anything of an analytical nature. It especially doesn't delineate with any precision which of us might (or might not) be the one committing a Modal Fallacy.

Foreknowledge and Free Will | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[dlamberth]

What exactly is "free will"?

From the way some of you atheists talk, you make make it sound like a slave master has control over every thought of a slave.

Please, I don't mean what I'm about to say as disrespectful at all. But...sometimes the way some people throw references to the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives to justify one thing or another does comes across like they do believe they are under control by a type of slave master. That's been my observation is all and I have no desire to argue the point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please, I don't mean what I'm about to say as disrespectful at all. But...sometimes the way some people throw references to the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives to justify one thing or another does comes across like they do believe they are under control by a type of slave master. That's been my observation is all and I have no desire to argue the point.

Well, that's good that you don't want to argue the point, dlamberth, because my earlier statement about slave masters and slaves in connection to free will and foreknowledge had absolutely nothing to do with any reference to the Holy Spirit.

My point in addressing the issue in the way I did was to infer that slaves always have their own person, their own thoughts, their own perceptions, their own goals, and their own desires for autonomy, free from the totality of the Master's will. Why? Because they can be.

So, my apologies if my metaphor was confusing.............. and no offense taken.

 

[Ophiolite]

Where in the Bible are you getting this perspective of "all-knowing" from?

Well, there is God's awareness of the fall of a single member of the Passeridae. Are you suggesting His omniscience is confined to ornithology?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, there is God's awareness of the fall of a single member of the Passeridae. Are you suggesting His omniscience is confined to ornithology?

I appreciate your humor here.

 

[Ophiolite]

I appreciate your humor here.

While couched lightheartedly, it is also a serious question/objection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While couched lightheartedly, it is also a serious question/objection.

I'm not sure how it can be, hermeneutically speaking. That verse has almost nothing to do with the topic of God's all-knowing status. If anything, it focuses on His Sovereignty and Authority, but people seem to extrapolate out of it a bunch of other connotations that, for the life of me, I don't read in it.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not sure how it can be, hermeneutically speaking. That verse has almost nothing to do with the topic of God's all-knowing status. If anything, it focuses on His Sovereignty and Authority, but people seem to extrapolate out of it a bunch of other connotations that, for the life of me, I don't read in it.

I quite understand that this is your view, but you surely acknowledge that such a view is not held by all theologians (clerics, ministers, believers, etc.)? You seem tobe trying to bolster a disputed position by adopting an authoratative tone. It's a neat rhetorical trick, but it doesn't really do anything for your argument. I'm quite happy if you just wish to conclude by noting your position is shared by many others, but by no means all.

My position is that, semantically, while omniscience is not explicitly referenced, the implicit recognition is strong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I quite understand that this is your view, but you surely acknowledge that such a view is not held by all theologians (clerics, ministers, believers, etc.)? You seem tobe trying to bolster a disputed position by adopting an authoratative tone. It's a neat rhetorical trick, but it doesn't really do anything for your argument. I'm quite happy if you just wish to conclude by noting your position is shared by many others, but by no means all.

My position is that, semantically, while omniscience is not explicitly referenced, the implicit recognition is strong.

If anything, I've now learned from Matthew 10:27-31 and Luke 12:4-7 that I need not fear anyone in this world because...........God knows how many sparrows can be sold for a copper coin or two (or five apparently) and how many hairs are on my head.

Somehow, though, that doesn't sound right; but I acknowledge the fact that other people may read something in the Bible differently than I do.

I could also be wrong or incomplete in my assessment. That sort of thing does happen, from time to time.

 

[Radagast]

Free will cannot exist if the above is true.

Depends on what you mean by "free will."

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Many fundamentalist theists want to reject particular scientific claims because they are not convinced by the available evidence to believe it has been proven true (Spoiler Alert: Nothing is ever proven absolutely true in science). These theists tend to reference skeptical counter-arguments from apologists and/or so-called "experts" who operate under the notion that divine intervention should be the default position until the evidence they are demanding for a particular scientific claim is provided as proof. The problem with demanding proof for a scientific claim is that science does not function to prove any of its hypotheses are absolutely true, and there are very good reasons for this.

To begin with, science requires its hypotheses to be falsifiable. Every time a qualified and reputable scientist conducts an experiment in a relevant field, there is an opportunity for the results to disprove the corresponding hypothesis. In fact, the exact purpose of every scientific experiment is to try and disprove a proposed explanation. So, what justification do scientists have for not attempting to prove their hypotheses are true? Isn't the primary purpose of evidence collection to prove a claim is true? No, such a perspective on the role of evidence would consistently leave scientists and their conclusions susceptible to Confirmation Bias. Accordingly, the Falsifiability criterion has been instituted as a mitigation for the possible influence of confirmation bias.

To understand how the falsifiability criterion secures the unmatched credablity and reliability of all currently accepted scientific theories, it is necessary to explore a little bit of philosophy. Let's begin with the Problem of Induction. Inductive reasoning is demonstrably unreliable when evaluating a claim because the resulting conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the supporting evidence. An example of this fact is the inductive argument for the claim that all swans are white. At one point in history, swans had only ever been observed to be white in color. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to inductively infer from the evidence available at the time that all existing swans must be white. But how could the truth of this claim be verified to rule-out the possibility of confirmation bias?

To verify the claim's truth, every individual swan in existence would have to be observed to determine if all are white in color. Obviously, this evidence is not reasonably obtainable. Consequently, the possibility for a different colored swan existing somewhere unobserved could not be reliably ruled-out. So, the truth of the claim that all swans are white turned out to be Underdetermined by the available evidence. Therefore, the possibility of confirmation bias could not be ruled-out. However, it is important to note that a single observation of a different colored swan would function to reasonably falsify the claim.

As it happened, someone did eventually observe a black swan in Australia. This discovery reasonably demonstrated that the claim, "all swans are white," was a product of confirmation bias after all. So, while it wasn't possible to observe every individual swan in existence at the time to determine the claim's truth value, it was possible to reasonably falsify it. It logically followed from this outcome that falsifiability was a more reliable and justifiable criterion for scientific claims than the verifiability of their truth given the problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination.

The fact of the matter is that these problems are not unique to science but apply universally. Science may have uniquely solved these problems by implementing the falsifiability criterion for its hypotheses, but nothing seems to logically prohibit this solution from functioning in non-scientific contexts as well. If theists want to reject the solution provided by the falsifiability criterion, then they must provide a justifiable alternate solution to the universal problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination that equally apply to their religious claims. Otherwise, despite the quantity and quality of the supporting evidence theists might have for their unfalsifiable claims about the supernatural, the unresolved problems of confirmation bias, induction, and underdetermination will provide a reasonable justification to dismiss their corresponding apologetic arguments as logically fallacious.

Meanwhile, the currently accepted falsifiable scientific claims continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove them. Please note that the acceptance of a scientific claim does not necessarily correspond to any assertions about it being absolutely true. Sure, many science communicators may colloquially refer to various scientific claims as being "proven true," but such phrasing should be understood to mean that those explanations are falsifiable yet have never been disconfirmed by any quanity or quality of evidence discovered to date. Therefore, all arguments rejecting a scientific claim on the grounds that the available evidence is insufficient to prove it is true are fallacious and should be immediately dismissed.

At the same time, any suggestion that some quantity or quality of newly discovered evidence will function to falsify a particular scientific claim should be carefully examined and considered. However, anyone defending a scientific claim must be mindful to identify and expose where intellectual dishonesty exists in the objections they encounter. In all previous circumstances where such invalid objections have been made by duplicitous individuals, the proposed disconfirming evidence turned-out to be either manipulated or misrepresented.

 

[DennisF]

You have given a good summary of the view of scientific epistemology from Karl Popper. The problem with the Popperian view of how science works is that it is an oversimplified textbook-like understanding of science. Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist, and did not have the direct experience with scientific work that Michael Polanyi had, a physical chemist whose son John won the Nobel prize in chemistry. Polanyi's book Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy is an intellectually mature and historically grounded explanation of how scientists actually think, how their patterns of belief are formed, and why the somewhat naive view of Popper is refuted by actual important instances in the history of science.

 

[timewerx]

In the context of physics, for example, many phenomena can appear random or chaotic but are actually governed by underlying laws and principles.

Of course, if you can track every particle motion, every vacuum fluctuation, every energy flux and in the whole universe with 100% working math of these things, then nothing would appear to be random anymore and almost everything can be predicted with nearly 100% certainty.