Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh it's a dead section!! Didn't even notice that!Theists kept losing arguments so they shut it down.
At least that’s how I remember it...
Yes, I think delving into the Philosophy of Science would definitely be a plus for you. Just don't get too frustrated to see that, after you've learned a good deal of that topic, you get little response from atheists in regard to it. They often don't give a mouse's patoot about that subject--they tend to think that since science "works" then that's all that needs to be said.Ok thanks a lot for putting up with the philosophically handicapped lol, I never had any philosophy training and except for the past few months (in here) I'm guilty of being one of the people who thought it was just plain boring. Even the course (WLC) I bought years ago I watched for 10 minutes than threw in my closet and forgot about. I never saw it's fun side before, I'm so interested now...also, why am I not allowed to post in the Philosophy section???
Anyway, I get it now, there's a ton of sub disciplines of philosophy and you have to just choose one of the rabbit holes and dive in. I wanna dive into the philosophy of science rabbit hole. I just mentioned metaphysics because I read that it's the basement level cornerstone of philosophy, and learning at least the basics of it will make philosophy of science easier to grasp. Is that true?
Oh, I'm sure you gave the professor something substantive to think about.
That's a good point. Russian Orthodoxy is a different approach to faith than Danish Lutheranism, even from the more pietistic type of Lutheranism that informed Kierkegaard when he was young.
Y'know, it just dawned on me that with Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, you have a fi-deistic trifecta: a bit of Catholicism (Pascal), a bit of Protestantism (Kierkegaard), and a bit of Orthodoxy (Dostoevsky). Interesting to me, but I'm sure you already noticed this.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
Yes, I think delving into the Philosophy of Science would definitely be a plus for you. Just don't get too frustrated to see that, after you've learned a good deal of that topic, you get little response from atheists in regard to it. They often don't give a mouse's patoot about that subject--they tend to think that since science "works" then that's all that needs to be said.
Ok thanks, I might disappear in here for awhile, I'm going to wind up with a mountain of material that I have to get to work on. Then again this site is so addicting, Silmarien said she was going away and that never happened lol.then also check out the sub-disciplines of the Nature of Science and the Function of Science. These topics also come into play in the overall discussion along the way.
Ok got it, I read a biased author then, metaphysics is not a prerequisite! Metaphysics is still interesting, maybe that's step 2.As to metaphysics being the cornerstone of philosophy, that might depend on which philosopher you ask ...
That's ok, if there's nothing off the top of your head then it probably answers my question, I was just wondering if in your opinion there was anything Earth shattering that was a must read in metaphysics/ontology that was on the level of a Brothers Karamazov recommendation.I'm more into ontology than metaphysics, but I'll take a look at what I can recommend once I get home next week.
Well I wasn't on the level of hostile but I just thought it was nothing but wild speculation on deep things that can never be known. I thought the same thing about Christianity. I dug deeper into Christianity however, that didn't happen in philosophy. What interests me most is the ability to classify any person into their philosophical position (most of whom don't even realize that they have a position) and to expose (articulately) how they too are not standing on the solid ground that they thought they were. I went my whole life just giving a free pass to materialism, it's as if not knowing your philosophy exposes you to being a sucker for special pleading, and you don't even realize it's happening.You'll run into a lot of hostility towards philosophy in general. Not always, but surprisingly often. At least online.
That's okay. I know that in the future, when I'm being surrounded and about to be beaten down by all the atheists, I can look to the East and see the coming of the arms and Christian standards that accompany the forces of ... Dirk the Valiant!Ok thanks, I might disappear in here for awhile, I'm going to wind up with a mountain of material that I have to get to work on. Then again this site is so addicting, Silmarien said she was going away and that never happened lol.
I don't know...........maybe metaphysics (of some kind) IS the cornerstone.Ok got it, I read a biased author then, metaphysics is not a prerequisite! Metaphysics is still interesting, maybe that's step 2.
Well, you have warned me before that philosophy has a dark side. So before your prophecy can come true I first have to choose Yoda over Vader lol.That's okay. I know that in the future, when I'm being surrounded and about to be beaten down by all the atheists, I can look to the East and see the coming of the arms and Christian standards that accompany the forces of ... Dirk the Valiant!
I was atheist and scientific. Then suddenly, I don't know why, I became obsessed with yoga, eastern religion/philosophy, then the new age movement. (Perhaps if I heard of Christianity I would have done that instead?)Why are you a Christian? ... What about Christianity makes you believe it's true?
My statement was not offered as evidence for God, I was just stating that I did not decide how many unusually Holy people there are, I determined it from what I believe is His communication to us and my experience.
pos: And yet you started your sentence by saying...
I didn't decide, God did...
When making such opening statements, you should first present proof of god.
It could be any number of things, such as martyrdom, great faith in a difficult situations, showing great courage in horrific situations, taking great moral actions while under great temptation not to do them, and etc.ed: Yes, but from the context and the specific mentioning of these particular believers being Holy and being resurrected, points to an unusual holiness beyond the ordinary believer.
pos: What is unusual holiness ?
Actually the major point of the gospel is Christ's death as the atonement for our sins so that we can live forever with God in the next life, the physical resurrection is actually just a "side effect" of that great act.ed: I didn't say it was hardly worth mentioning, I said it was probably mentioned so often in the oral stories especially to the jews (Matthew was writing primarily to jews which is one reason why these were specifically mentioned since these were Jewish holy people not Christian holy people) that the other writers decided not to mention these events. His mentioning of the temple curtain being split also was directed specifically to the jews. The writers of the other Gospels were not specifically targeting jewish believers, that may be also why it was not mentioned. There are many very important statements made by Jesus that were only written down by John and not the other gospel writers and probably for the same reasons but as John got older he felt it was important to write these statements down though probably early Christians were very familiar with these statements because of their uniqueness and John's long oral ministry.
pos; I would have thought that people being resurrected would be of utmost importance to Jew and non Jew alike given that the major attraction and selling point of the gospel is the resurrection and eternal life.
ed: How does it not? You have not refuted a single one of my points.
pos:That's just the point, you are the one claiming a god (one of many such made up claims claims in the world), you have to prove necessity of a god when making a leap between the two. So far you haven't, i don't need to refute a lack of evidence, it speaks for itself.
I know why, it is because of an a priori commitment to the philosophy of Naturalism.pos: And do you ever wonder why mainstream science does not agree with your 'only logical solution' answers ?
ed: No, the evidence for Christianity in the areas of science, history, and philosophy is greater than all other religions and worldviews.
pos: Okay, the show me some credible evidence, that Christianity itself is responsible for the majority (or at least a greater share) of these things. In other words where the science is directly related to the uniqueness of the Christian faith.
The church yes, the teachings of Biblical Christianity, no, unless the science jeopardizes human lives.pos: I can certainly show you examples of where the church has opposed scientific progress on issues of dogma and faith claims.
No, we can know, as I have demonstrated earlier.ed: We don't know for certain, but we can come to the most likely logical conclusion,
pos; Which is, we don't know
No, the problem is that there IS evidence for a specific God.ed: but of course most scientists are not going to admit this or acknowledge it because then they would be blacklisted as a crazy fundie.
pos: Well when people start claiming one of many gods. or gods at all did these things, all without any evidence whatsoever you can see their point I'm sure.
See above why.ed: See above why.
pos: And yet, mainstream science does not follow your reasoning.
You have yet to demonstrate that I have not spoken with knowledge.ed: I am a biologist. How are scientists supposed to speak?
pos: With knowledge.
Yes, the Greeks certainly made some contributions and Aristotle's were very important, but the Greek society as a whole would probably never have started what we know as modern science due to the problems I mentioned.I have to point out the monotheism of much of Greek philosophy and some of its later religion (e.g., Neoplatonism). I do agree that modern science has its roots in Christian theology, but it's certainly worth examining the question of to what degree this is due to Greek rather than Judaic influences upon Christianity (assuming the two can even be separated at all). You cannot overlook the role played by Aristotle's observational based approach to science.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, these are isolated cases and the church never executed anyone for their scientific discoveries. And the persecution of Galileo was a case of the corrupt church leadership at the time placing Aristotle above God's Word.
pos: Got ya, the old 'not real Christians' rule'
ed: Nowhere in the bible does it teach that the earth is the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth.
pos: It teaches a sky, sun moon and stars created round the earth though. To say that the creation story (one of many) is not earth centric is not really honest.
pos: We have Joshua's account of god stopping the sun, which we know is utter nonsense now, it's the earths rotation that would have to be stopped.
No, the moon plainly acts as a light after the sun goes down. And the stars help in that process and also govern how we and many animals navigate at night.pos: We know that the moon as a light is also utter nonsense, as are the stars to govern the night.
ed: And Galileo was a devout Christian
pios: Okay
ed: that understood how to interpret the bible better than most of these theologians at the time. He knew that there were two books from God, the bible and nature and nature helps us to understand which definitions of the greek and Hebrew words we should use.
pos: I get it, everyone else was was not a real Christian and ignorant.
In actual fact Galileo was influenced by the works of Nicholas Copernicus (who lived around a 100 years before Galileo) Who had already proposed a heliocentric model. much to the dismay of the church.
True, but just because we can do something does not mean we should do it. Just because the Nazis developed the technology to kill 6 million jews does not mean that they should do it.ed: But throughout most of the history of modern science Christianity has accepted it and encouraged it as long as it was moral.
pos: The morality of any issue has little to do with it's truth.
Maybe a few of their intellectual elite did so, but not their society as a whole, and that needed to occur in order for modern science to come into existence.ed: No, it proves that the bible teaches that the universe operates according to fixed laws, which became an impetus for the invention of modern science. No other holy book teaches this unless borrowed from the bible.
pos: No it proves that a man saw that things seem predictable, and attributed that predictability to his god (one of many) , both the Babylonians and Greeks had already worked out that things worked in a predictable way.
As I already stated according to the Bible He created a primarily natural law operating universe.ed: Hurricanes definitely increase the diversity of life, and they provide water to areas that sometimes rarely get any rain
pos: Then why didn't your god simply make it rain there.
ed: and they spread nutrients to areas that don't get as many nutrients during other times of the year.
pos: England gets few hurricanes and is not nutrient deficient, but regardless it's a bit silly to say that your god could not have made a less damaging way to do it.
You are making your god the slave of physics rather than the other way around.. almost like either god is the creation of physics, or simply does not exist.
Just saying so doesn't advance rational discourse, you need to give reasons why.ed: No, see my post about the purpose of the universe and the biblical definition of omnipotence.
pos: I have but find nothing convincing, as I don't find a god convincing.
God wants us to use our brains to solve things, that is why He gave us such big ones.ed: and often the deaths are the result of humans doing stupid things like building houses too close to the ocean and flood prone areas.
pos: That's the point, why should there be destructive areas at all, and of course that does not apply to earthquakes, large objects smashing into the earth, disease and the like.
NDEs and in the future, AI.ed: A better answer would be a mind working since there is evidence that a personal being can exist without a brain.
pos: I look forward to seeing that
See above.ed: No see above that there is evidence that personal beings don't need brains.
pos: Evidence ? again, I look forward to seeing evidence of a personal being with no brain.
Actually many religions do not claim personal relationships with their gods, such as Islam, the Greek gods, and pantheistic religions.ed: There is evidence that the writers had a personal relationship with God
pos: Yes in all religions, But those alleged relationships are all in a persons brain, are they not ?
ed: There is evidence for God, it is called the universe as I explained earlier.
pos: You did mention you though that you thought in that the universe is evidence for a god, along with many other religions. but that thought process took place in your brain.
There is absolutely no evidence aside from trickery in your brain that god exists.
For rational discourse, you need to explain why.ed: Yes, it does combined with its corollary, the law of Sufficient cause, see above about how personal beings must come into existence.
pos: I'm sorry Ed, you keep repeating this but oddly I remain totally unconvinced.
Most of what you know comes from authority. Where have my logical fallacies been explained?If that's true, then that's two examples of equivocation.
And now you've introduced an argument from authority.
I'm pretty sure everyone here, well... the non theists anyway, see the logical fallacies in your statements. They've been explained to you in the past.
Where have my logical fallacies been explained?
Because i SERIOUSLY sought truth, and this is where the evidence lead me to.Why are you a Christian? Why aren't you a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu? Why aren't you an atheist? A humanist? Even a Satanist? What about Christianity makes you believe it's true? I honestly cannot understand how people can be so sure of Christianity when they're literally atheistic about every single religion except theirs. So, please explain. For those who don't remember me, you are assured that this is not a trap, though I am eager to discuss.
I didn't say no one here, I was referring to Possibilitarian. But now that you mention it, I don't remember anyone else refuting what I have written here either. If I have missed it, please enlighten me.Hmmm, I would challenge you to show one piece of evidence that no one here has refuted...
Actually we do know pretty much the totality of the data set for universes like this one. If there are other universes out there with different data sets, they are basically irrelevant because there is no empirical evidence that they exist and even if they do exist there is no evidence that they have any effect on our universe and its origin. Even the multiverse theory does not rule out God as the creator of the multiverse.Your opinion is not borne out by reality. And as has been pointed out to you over and over, without a way to know the totality of the data set, there's no way to judge how likely something is to happen.
Actually we do know pretty much the totality of the data set for universes like this one.
If there are other universes out there with different data sets, they are basically irrelevant because there is no empirical evidence that they exist and even if they do exist there is no evidence that they have any effect on our universe and its origin. Even the multiverse theory does not rule out God as the creator of the multiverse.
Fraid so, see research by Brandon Carter and Frank Tipler and the Anthropic Principle.Patently false. Since we don't know if other universes exist, we can't compute the likelihood that this universe, in the manner that it exists, is so unlikely (given the data set of all universes) that it warrants a belief in a supernatural entity. And even if the data set has only one member, that doesn't amount to evidence of a supernatural entity, it only shows a very unlikely occurrence.
I'm not saying that the existence of other universes precludes some type of god, I'm saying that the unlikelihood of this universe being as it is can't be used as evidence that a god does exist.
It's just wrong-headed thinking.
Fraid so, see research by Brandon Carter and Frank Tipler and the Anthropic Principle.
I don't claim to be a physicist or a mathematician. You have to read the books by the ones I mentioned.If you’re unable to actually post your own rebuttal to what I’ve said, I’m just going to assume that you don’t actually have a real objection.
And so we are left with a universe in which statistics have no bearing on the likelihood of a god existing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?