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.
)
)If somebody does not feel like responding to your points, this does not render you the Right and Correct Winner.
How impolite. Insulting people is hardly conducive to productive discourse; this demonstrates your inability to make meaningful discussion. Therefore, you are wrong about everything.
Using the quote function makes it easier to read your post; specifically, it makes it easier to skim or review, as well as clearly distinguishing your words from the words you are responding to.
Heh. Hardly. Why are you so suspicious? Why do you think that the only possible motivation an atheist can have is Duplicity and Deceit?
Hahaha. It's a bit too late for politeness.
It says so under a particular interpretation, which may or may not be the most intuitive one. The supposed mapping between the interpretation of the Bible and the current scientific theories is also highly arbitrary, and seems rather like it was decided after the fact in order to produce a supposed connection. Like I have said, this proves nothing.
It is rather rude to talk disparagingly to somebody in the third person. Tone criticism aside, you are noticing that Kylie has claimed to have considered theism, and has also rejected theism. You conclude that the only possible explanation is that Kylie is unreasonably biased against theism. Why do you think that?
You are claiming that religion and science are reconcilable? Interesting. Do you believe that you "hear" God (as in, he can indicate his response to a question, or express what he wishes you to do, or similar)? More generally, do you personally interact with God? Beyond the mind, do you believe that God affects the physical world?Lol! I never said that my (or any) religious viewpoint could explain reality [whatever that is] in full, or that it was ever meant to be used in that way. What I said, Kylie, is that there is a difference between Christian faith in how it is epistemically structured in contrast to the Scientific Investigation of the world [i.e. the universe] around us. So, it would be irrelevant for me to try to show you how a religious viewpoint such as mine explains the world 'better.'
What a religious viewpoint essentially does for a person is enable them to reconfigure his/her understanding and overall outlook on the meaning and purpose of the world; this doesn't imply that one will somehow develop a worldview that also fits together everything one knows both scientifically and religiously like Lego building blocks, piece by fitted piece. It basically means that evidence will be interpreted in different ways, and different artifacts and accidentals of the world will be accorded the status of 'fact'; in my case, Jesus' rising from the dead is a fact, but this doesn't come from the application of Methodological Naturalism, obviously (...and to which you can reply, "Yeah, duh, 2PhiloVoid!"
To me, religious faith is 'additive' to one's already present cognitive outlook upon the world. So, for instance, I could essentially start with the teaching of Carl Sagan and see the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) as a swirling eddy of mass and energy, godless in purpose and form--and then 'add' to that one's religious impressions OVER the previous Sagian matrix and also come to see as "fact" that Christ could also have existed and risen from the dead in an otherwise godlessly structured reality, or one that at least doesn't appear to be divinely directed in a "clear and distinct" fashion. Since the religious sphere of insights about some aspects of reality is separate from the naturalist sphere of scientific investigation, this can be done and, even with variation among its members, is essentially what is found in the thinking of those like me who hold to a religious faith reflected by BioLogos.
However, if one is instead an advocate of the Intelligent Design position (i.e. Dembski), or is an atheist who advocates the flip side of the same epistemic structure that the I.D. advocate holds (i.e. Dawkins), then I suppose the person with that kind of religious view will think their faith actually DOES represent some kind of wholistic expression of reality via observed facts, all supposedly supporting a fully religious conception of the whole cosmic kit and kaboodle.
So, as I hope you can see, in my view, any demonstration to you that my view is somehow 'better' than yours would be an act of EXPECTED futility, because my view also requires an epistemic component that has to be dealt out by God in addition to the one we build ourselves from a human, scientific level. It isn't something someone just orders up at the local McDonald's.
I'm sure that if you talk to an advocate of I.D., they'll be able to tell you how they think their view is 'better' than yours; in fact, they'll likely tell you how their view is better than mine as well. All I can do is tell you that my view on how facts are established is partially 'different' from yours rather than 'better,' and I can invite you to take a closer look at this or that idea at your leisure. God willing, you'll come to a point where you feel you have to say, "Eureka, Jesus is the Risen Son of God!!!"
Is this clear? (Go ahead, tell me that it's all just handwaviem. It's okay if you do ... kind of.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
It is not that interesting that I jokingly called a science-supporter a fascist for imposing their understanding of truth onto their understanding of another's beliefs, and that you seriously called most scientists fascists. And anyway, noticing a similarity between what I jokingly say and what you seriously say does not in any way support any of your arguments and claims; it may help you exude an atmosphere of Wit to the foolish, and that is all.
And here I was giving you credit for great minds thinking alike!
Essentially, yes.
No. I've never directly 'heard' from God. Nor have I been specifically signaled by God to do this or that. However, in hind sight, I might say that I see in my own life some coalescence of circumstances that seem to be difficult to pawn off as purely coincidental.
Interaction is a relative term. But do I pray TO God? Sure; all Christians do in some way or other. But do I sense some clear and distinct, empirically tangible presence of God; not really.
Yes, I believe He can; but what I don't believe is that any effects He put into play will by all necessity be detectable by us. As I told Kylie, I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. I consider it, but I don't firmly subscribe to it.
I distinguish it by applying as many philosophical considerations that I can muster to EVERYTHING, and not just to religion. I also distinguish it by reflecting upon how I feel about each religion I encounter; what each does it do for me, all things considered, and how I think each aesthetically compares to the other. Kind of like I did with my wife; she isn't the only woman in the world, but now she is the only woman for me. In a similar way, Jesus isn't the only God in the world (theoretically), but now He is the only God for me.
What a religious viewpoint essentially does for a person is enable them to reconfigure his/her understanding and overall outlook on the meaning and purpose of the world; this doesn't imply that one will somehow develop a worldview that also fits together everything one knows both scientifically and religiously like Lego building blocks, piece by fitted piece. It basically means that evidence will be interpreted in different ways, and different artifacts and accidentals of the world will be accorded the status of 'fact'; in my case, Jesus' rising from the dead is a fact, but this doesn't come from the application of Methodological Naturalism, obviously (...and to which you can reply, "Yeah, duh, 2PhiloVoid!"
The relevance is that even BioLogos qualifies as a form of that much vaunted "Creationism," albeit with a Francis Collins or Howard J. Van Till kind of twist.
It means I get to have my cake and eat it too. All you get...is a Twinkie.No, you don't really get to make up your own answers; however, after sifting through upteen numbers of various scholars, you get to come to your own conclusion. Kind of like how all those various String Theorists do.........
What happens then is you make sure to apply the sauce in equal measure to both the Goose and the Gander.
Since I'm not an I.D. proponent, I assume one or both expressions....fail.
Not really. As far as science goes, I'd say that science done with the approach of Methodological Naturalism (like I do) is more sensible than those who do science with the assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism (like Dawkins).
Right, you don't have to care about that. And I made that statement for comparison sake so you can see a difference between how I would 'do' science [if I were a scientist] versus how those other Christians (other Creationist) try to do it.
I don't know. WHAT, pray tell, IS your worldview. [I thought Atheism isn't a worldview.] At some point, you atheists really need to stop requiring Christians to attempt to hit a moving target while blindfolded. Unless.....all of that posturing and jesting just means that...you don't know where or what the target really is that you'd like Christians to hit.
Nice rhetorical flourish there at the end, Kylie. Well Done!!!
The relevance is that even BioLogos qualifies as a form of that much vaunted "Creationism," albeit with a Francis Collins or Howard J. Van Till kind of twist.
No, you don't really get to make up your own answers; however, after sifting through upteen numbers of various scholars, you get to come to your own conclusion. Kind of like how all those various String Theorists do.........
Nice rhetorical flourish there at the end, Kylie. Well Done!!!
You're honestly claiming that the only reason anybody could ever say that "life came from water" is because God told them so?
