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.
You cared enough to bring it up.I wasn't correcting your reference to Ham.
I was correcting your thinking that Ham did that with his father.
He didn't.
It was with his mother.Rape, in my opinion.
They had no choice.Shem and Japeth had a pretty nonchalant reaction, then... don't you think?
I should have used sense or come to know or something like that.I can't make sense of that - are you equivocating 'see'? We can see the physical world; by definition, we can't see invisible qualities, and seeing is one of our senses; so if we see it, it's not something beyond our senses...
But if we then explain things in scientific terms then its not something beyond science. There are things science cannot explain yet people try to explain this with some idea beyond science like the Multiverse or Dark Matter and energy. So just because science can come up with an explanation doesn't mean they are right about everything. Science only takes one view of reality and cannot explain everything.If the physical world is not independent of these invisible qualities, they must have some influence or effect on it (otherwise it would be independent of them, yes?), so we should be able to explain those effects in terms of invisible qualities (forces?) just as we do in existing similar cases (gravity, electromagnetism, etc).
Agreed!
There are things science cannot explain yet people try to explain this with some idea beyond science like the Multiverse or Dark Matter and energy. So just because science can come up with an explanation doesn't mean they are right about everything.
Science only takes one view of reality and cannot explain everything.
Because there are things that science cannot explain now, does that mean that these things will remain unexplained, or that there is no chance of naturalistic explanations for them? Or merely that our present understanding does not produce an explanation.
It may be that there are phenomena that science will never be able to explain. But that does not justify unevidenced, non-naturalistic explanations of them - it just means they will remain unexplained.
If the natural world is all that exists - or all we can ever have access to - then this may not be true.
If something exists outside the natural world, then this would be true (as science is necessarily bound to analysis/explanations of the natural world).
Then why did Paul say this almost two thousand years ago?Science was virtually nonexistent a hundred fifty years ago.
What do you call predictions that will eventually be known?Predictions about what cannot be known are seriously premature.
Yeah I should have used another word like experience perhaps. But you can see something physical and see with your minds eye that there is something behind it. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.I can't make sense of that - are you equivocating 'see'? We can see the physical world; by definition, we can't see invisible qualities, and seeing is one of our senses; so if we see it, it's not something beyond our senses...
Yes but its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup. Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.If the physical world is not independent of these invisible qualities, they must have some influence or effect on it (otherwise it would be independent of them, yes?), so we should be able to explain those effects in terms of invisible qualities (forces?) just as we do in existing similar cases (gravity, electromagnetism, etc).
Agreed!
We all also somehow know that cars don't grow on trees out in the jungle too. Go figure!.. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.
Only if you completely ignore the knowledge I mention above.stevevw said:Yes but its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup.
Try on: the reality we perceive was also observed to produce regularities which when expressed with rigour, became the laws of physics/nature.stevevw said:Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.
Good post, Steve.Yeah I should have used another word like experience perhaps. But you can see something physical and see with your minds eye that there is something behind it. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.
Yes but its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup. Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.
But we can look at a tree or something in nature and get a similar sense, intuition that there is someting behind it, like a mind or some laws of nature driving things which are the invisible qualities.We all also somehow know that cars don't grow on trees out in the jungle too. Go figure!
But isn't that seeing reality through one lens (methological naturalism) and assuming that the physical world is all there is. So we don't have to ignore science but understand its only a particular description of things and there can be other aspects of what we see and experience that are not physical in nature.Only if you completely ignore the knowledge I mention above.
Try on: the reality we perceive was also observed to produce regularities which when expressed with rigour, became the laws of physics/nature.
They had no choice.
Neither did Noah.
Do you know why?
Genesis 9:1a And God blessed Noah and his sons,
Then why did Paul say this almost two thousand years ago?
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
And Daniel, hundreds of years before that?
Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
So?Because they weren't talking about science in the way we know it today.
I understand what you're saying.I wish someone could explain technical vs common parlance type definitions of words.
So, would you like to rephrase it coherently, using sense or come to know or something like that?I should have used sense or come to know or something like that.
Exactly, that's the point. If these forces have some influence on the physical world, they are amenable to science. If there is no influence on the physical world, the whole idea is purely speculative, without evidence.... if we then explain things in scientific terms then its not something beyond science.
The multiverse, dark matter, and dark energy are not 'beyond science'; the first is a prediction of our best physical theories, the other two are hypotheses to explain very definite observations. IOW, they are the products of science.There are things science cannot explain yet people try to explain this with some idea beyond science like the Multiverse or Dark Matter and energy. So just because science can come up with an explanation doesn't mean they are right about everything. Science only takes one view of reality and cannot explain everything.
For example?SCience only explains what is happening it has no creative ability. But what often happens is many attach a creative ability so that when science explains something it has also accounted for it metaphysically.
But what would that even mean? What does 'exist' mean in that context? And unless it affects the natural world, we can't know whether it 'exists' or not...If something exists outside the natural world, then this would be true...
I wish someone could explain technical vs common parlance type definitions of words.
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?