Objective Subjective Worldview

[The Barbarian]

It is impossible by the same standard to make anything exist by saying "Let there be the thing" isn't it?

God does that now and again. Without Him specifically saying so, one is just proposing another non-scriptural miracle to fix the flaws in one's argument. But as I said, if you can do that, then all ideas are equally valid.

 

[Queller]

I am not making that point as an argument, I am asking a question in an attempt to understand the argument presented to me that differences in theology and religion prove that it is all subjective.

Who is making that argument?

I don't believe that the existence of differences in religion prove that it is all subjective - and I don't believe that the existence of Young Earth Creationists proves that science is subjective either.

I don't either and I haven't seen anyone else on this thread make that argument.

You may wish to notice that every time I have mentioned this point I am asking a question, not stating that it is my position on the matter.

The way you keep asking the question makes it seem like you are arguing the idea. However, that may just be my interpretation though.

The fact remains that no one is making the argument that you keep asking about.

 

[Queller]

If you regard objective and scientific as one and the same this is true, but not everyone does.

Obviously the physical cannot test the non-physical, the question though is do non-physical objective things exist. Moral standards are not physical, however they can be applied regardless of personal preference/feelings in any given situation. That is not physical and also not subjective.

We aren't talking just about things that are non-physical. We are talking about things that are supernatural. Moral standards are not supernatural. Many moral standards are however, subjective.

 

[Queller]

A supernaturally initiated flood, with just one man and his family warned supernaturally to prepare to survive it, and all the animals from everywhere moving willingly onto a boat together...this is not a story that excludes supernatural intervention. The mainstream scientific conclusions are bound to differ from the YEC ones - because the framework for reality is different. The possibility of a supernatural cause is automatically excluded from the start in mainstream science - the certainty of a supernatural cause (because the Bible says so) is fundamental to Creationists.

The first Flood Geologists set out to find support for the idea of a global flood. All they found was evidence against the idea.

To say that the Grand Canyon was formed by a supernatural flood is to walk all over scientific analysis, but this is coming from people who believe the Bible (as they understand it) actually supersedes science if the two conflict.

They can think that all they want. What they can't do is change the physical evidence. All of the evidence points against the idea. They have to make up unBilical nonsense like God removed all the evidence of a global flood, that God blew all the extra needed water of into space, that Adam's world was subsumed in Lake Van in Turkey and the Flood was a event which brought the Ark through some dimensional gateway into Lake Van to explain the contradictory evidence. Most of it is ridiculous.

You can remain entirely convinced that they are "imagining" it - but that is not something you can prove, it is your philosophical opinion that science represents an objective reality and all theology, faith and religion is subjective or "imaginary".

I don't see anywhere that @KomatiiteBIF claimed or argued that all theology, faith, and religion is subjective or "imaginary".

 

[Queller]

Because they don't use the same philosophical framework as you - and in theirs the scientific measurements are disputable - in yours they are not.

They do use the same physical framework as scientists. Right up until the evidence proves them wrong and their argument fails. Then they pull multiple unscriptural miracles out of their imagination and claim that solves the problem.

 

[Queller]

Impossible according to what? The standards of science - which do not apply to their thinking already because they are already gone as soon as Genesis is included at all.

Maybe you haven't read a lot of creationist "research". They claim there are scientific ways for the Grand Canyon to have formed quickly. While I've talked mostly about new miracles needed for some of their theories, they also make scientific claims, based on the scientific method, for how some things work. For example, they claim that radiometric dating is wrong because we can't know that half-lifes of isotopes weren't incredibly faster in the past. That claim has no basis in the Bible other than they need it to be true for the earth to be only 6,000 years old.

As for whether the Bible refers to a global flood - that is an interpretation issue, but if a Young Earth Creationist says that they interpret it as global then we know that they are including a supernatural event, we know that they are not limiting their thinking to scientific standards, hence arguing that their claim is scientifically impossible is simply to state the obvious and something they have already said themselves in the first place.

Except that's not how they work. They claim that there findings are scientifically valid, not just scripturally valid and they want their findings taught in science classes.

 

[Job 33:6]

The first Flood Geologists set out to find support for the idea of a global flood. All they found was evidence against the idea.

They can think that all they want. What they can't do is change the physical evidence. All of the evidence points against the idea. They have to make up unBilical nonsense like God removed all the evidence of a global flood, that God blew all the extra needed water of into space, that Adam's world was subsumed in Lake Van in Turkey and the Flood was a event which brought the Ark through some dimensional gateway into Lake Van to explain the contradictory evidence. Most of it is ridiculous.

I don't see anywhere that @KomatiiteBIF claimed or argued that all theology, faith, and religion is subjective or "imaginary".

I remember hearing one person also describe Noah's ark as a sort of TARDIS booth as well. .

That is to say that the doorway of Noah's ark was like a doorway to another dimension of infinite space (the inside of the ark being of more space than the outside of the ark). This way, it was feasible that all of the animals could fit.

I must have missed those verses of scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

"hence arguing that their claim is scientifically impossible is simply to state the obvious and something they have already said themselves in the first place."

Of course it just isn't this simple. In some cases they argue for the scientifically impossible and acknowledge it. But often, they also argue for things that could be scientifically possible, but run contrary to what is measured.

Not only are they arguing for supernatural occurances, but they are also misconstruing the natural. All the while, they are producing radical and non-scriptural ideas to reach their goals. Such as a TARDIS booth Noah's ark and koala bears pulling a Michael Phelps across the Pacific. Baby dinosaurs traversing thousands of miles to the ark, beginning their journey years before Noah was ever warned so that they could be there on time for the boarding. Regarding the mighty t rex, nevermind it's serrated (like a sawing knife) railroad spike sized teeth and massive jaw muscles. Nevermind finding t Rex teeth and tooth marks in the skeletons of fossilized prey. In the old days, t rex lived off of coconuts.

The world of yecism is a strange place for those who dare to peer into it's dark depths of cognitive dissonance, denial of evidence and perversion of scripture.

 

[RC Tent]

and they want their findings taught in science classes.

This I do not believe they have the right to. I think it is important that what is taught in science lessons is whatever the leading scientists believe should be taught.

 

[RC Tent]

"
The world of yecism is a strange place for those who dare to peer into it's dark depths of cognitive dissonance, denial of evidence and perversion of scripture.

Other people's minds often look strange when peer in too deep and start applying unscientific ideas like "cognitive dissonance" which can only ever be subjectively perceived.

 

[RC Tent]

The fact remains that no one is making the argument that you keep asking about.

No, but I have the explanation that I was seeking now. Some people think that a consensus in religion does not count as evidence of objectivity, but a consensus in science does and that different perspectives and opinions demonstrate the subjectivity of religion, not it's shortfalls of knowledge, but in scientific research differences of opinion are on account of shortfalls in knowledge.

It is a matter of different standards being applied to different subjects.

Science is the study of the physical - it therefore obviously has solid evidence to study by definition. Some people think that makes it more "real" than our actual experience of living our lives.

I wanted to know what the reasoning was, and now I know. Thanks.

 

[RC Tent]

God does that now and again. Without Him specifically saying so, one is just proposing another non-scriptural miracle to fix the flaws in one's argument. But as I said, if you can do that, then all ideas are equally valid.

It doesn't make all ideas equally valid, but it does mean the person presenting their point of view on an issue needs to explain why they reckon whatever they are saying.

God did tell Noah that a flood was coming, that is a supernatural intervention, but then I already mentioned God, so there already the thinking is unscientific. At that point I would say that all ideas are equally unscientific - I will continue to say that Creationists should admit that the Bible is a religious text and that their convictions about it are religious, they are beyond physical explanations for physical things there.

What framework they are using and why, including their reasoning for how they have interpreted the Bible needs to be shared, so that people can see how it contrasts with the way that mainstream science operates.

 

[RC Tent]

They claim that there findings are scientifically valid,

By redefining science - not by participating in it according to the standards everyone in mainstream science works to. It is pretty clear that they are following and advocating a different way of thinking to me, as in - not the way that science does it, some other way.

 

[RC Tent]

So you believe that the Holy Spirit will enter into man without being asked?

I do not see how you got that question from what I said there.

My point was that living as a Christian and adopting the principles of Christian thought can be a way to invite the Holy Ghost to enter us, asking by doing. Add to that any prayer that He interprets as an invitation to enter a person, and you have asked.

I also said that the Holy Spirit is the judge of who has accepted Him into their life.

How did that suggest that the Holy Spirit might enter someone uninvited?

I apologise if I was unclear about this point.

 

[The Barbarian]

It doesn't make all ideas equally valid,

Of course it does.

A miracle can clean up anyone's faulty reasoning. That's why creationists use non-scriptural miracles.

God did tell Noah that a flood was coming, that is a supernatural intervention, but then I already mentioned God, so there already the thinking is unscientific.

Of course, but "unscientific" doesn't mean "faulty." I am often unscientific myself. I'm only pointing out that God is not there to clean up faulty thinking.

At that point I would say that all ideas are equally unscientific

As I said, "unscientific" is not a synonym for "faulty." If one may freely invent new miracles to make a belief work, then anyone's ideas would work.

 

[RC Tent]

Of course, but "unscientific" doesn't mean "faulty." I am often unscientific myself. I'm only pointing out that God is not there to clean up faulty thinking.

I think God is quite capable of fixing faulty thinking, although I agree that does not make God a stop gap to enable anything per se.

As I said, "unscientific" is not a synonym for "faulty." If one may freely invent new miracles to make a belief work, then anyone's ideas would work.

If there are other restrictions applied then this is not the case. However again, I do think you have something of a point. My point is that if you start to add miracles then scientific restrictions have already been breached, if there are any other limits on the possibilities then they need to be cited and explained. If there are no limits at all, then yes I agree, everyone's case becomes equally valid.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course, but "unscientific" doesn't mean "faulty." I am often unscientific myself. I'm only pointing out that God is not there to clean up faulty thinking.

I think God is quite capable of fixing faulty thinking, although I agree that does not make God a stop gap to enable anything per se.

I can only observe that He doesn't fix faulty thinking, in most cases. Except to perhaps enroll the thinker in the School of Hard Knocks.

Barbarian observes:
As I said, "unscientific" is not a synonym for "faulty." If one may freely invent new miracles to make a belief work, then anyone's ideas would work.

If there are other restrictions applied then this is not the case. However again, I do think you have something of a point. My point is that if you start to add miracles then scientific restrictions have already been breached, if there are any other limits on the possibilities then they need to be cited and explained. If there are no limits at all, then yes I agree, everyone's case becomes equally valid.

Then we aren't that far apart.

 

[Queller]

By redefining science - not by participating in it according to the standards everyone in mainstream science works to. It is pretty clear that they are following and advocating a different way of thinking to me, as in - not the way that science does it, some other way.

Behe admitted, on the stand and under oath, that under the Intelligent Design/Creationist definition of science, astrology is also a science.

You don't get to redefine terms just because the present definition doesn't adhere to your subjective beliefs.

 

[Queller]

I do not see how you got that question from what I said there.

My point was that living as a Christian and adopting the principles of Christian thought can be a way to invite the Holy Ghost to enter us, asking by doing. Add to that any prayer that He interprets as an invitation to enter a person, and you have asked.

You said this:

"People can decide to follow a set of principles, join a church, and live as if Christianity is true before the Holy Spirit has entered them. Doing so can work as a way to find out if the Holy Spirit will do as Christians claim, and enter them."

How do you "live as if Christianity" is true without asking the Holy Spirit into your heart? How would you know if it did?