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.
It is impossible by the same standard to make anything exist by saying "Let there be the thing" isn't it?
Who is making that argument?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.
I don't either and I haven't seen anyone else on this thread make 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.
The way you keep asking the question makes it seem like you are arguing the idea. However, that may just be my interpretation though.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.
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.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.
The first Flood Geologists set out to find support for the idea of a global flood. All they found was evidence against the idea.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.
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.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.
I don't see anywhere that @KomatiiteBIF claimed or argued that all theology, faith, and religion is subjective or "imaginary".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".
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.Because they don't use the same philosophical framework as you - and in theirs the scientific measurements are disputable - in yours they are not.
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.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.
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.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.
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".
and they want their findings taught in science classes.
"
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.
The fact remains that no one is making the argument that you keep asking about.
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.
They claim that there findings are scientifically valid,
So you believe that the Holy Spirit will enter into man without being asked?
It doesn't make all ideas equally valid,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Behe admitted, on the stand and under oath, that under the Intelligent Design/Creationist definition of science, astrology is also a science.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.
You said this: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.
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?