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.
How do you get information from evangelists without using your senses?
Right. His claim was that he learned something about reality without relying on his senses and his reason because he learned it from the Bible. Which is, you know, wrong.His information would be derived from.his senses. Only he would be acquiring the information, second hand.
Right. His claim was that he learned something about reality without relying on his sense and his reason because he learned it from the Bible. Which is, you know, wrong.
So are you suggesting that man created life originally?
aren't i so happy to see tax money go to those whom believe in aliens. Once more they are against a biblical creator not a creator constant with naturalism [aliens who evolved]
So as stated "science" has been degraded to the religious worldview of naturalism.
You have taken it to mean something other than i quoted it for.
Sure; ultimately, we don't know what anything really is - and it's not clear that question can ever have a meaningful answer if we can only describe things in terms of what we already know - but our understanding of the roles they play and how they interact with each other is constantly increasing. For gravity, the equivalence principle, its role as cosmological negative energy, gravitational time dilation, etc., are major steps in understanding how it all 'hangs together'.We still don't know what it is anymore than we did then. Same with electric and magnetic fields. All we can do is describe how things behave in each of those three fields, but what they are is the biggest unknowns in science still.
Really? This is news to me - please elaborate, or give some references.... darwin suggested that natural selection was the mechanism by witch new organism and new traits, could develop, of course we know this false today and i think he even gave up on it in The Descent of Man if i am not mistaken.
I think one of us is rather confused about Darwinian evolution, and I'm pretty sure it's not me...He suggested all life shared a common ancestor, this of course is far different than simply natural selection. And this is what my op is about, common decent of all life forms.
What about evidence?
Science operates by what is called methodological naturalism. This is whereby hypotheses can only be formed and tested around natural phenomena. The reason is that such hypotheses are inherently bound by the laws of the universe and therefore can be objectively compared. In contrast, supernatural explanations are unbounded and therefore cannot be tested or objectively compared.
If you think otherwise feel free to answer my challenge in this thread: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?
Methodological naturalism should not be confused with philosophical naturalism. The latter is the world-view that there is nothing but the natural world.
This is what Todd's expanded quote was referring to: that scientists are restricted by methodological naturalism when doing science. But they are free to believe whatever they otherwise want because their world views are not restricted in that same manner. Many scientists are also theists.
Because you don't seem to understand the meaning behind it. That's the danger of quoting a single sentence from a larger body of text. I would urge you to go back and read the full text: https://www.nature.com/articles/46661
I would also recommend learning the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. They are not the same thing and you appear to have them mixed up.
Really? This is news to me - please elaborate, or give some references.
I think one of us is rather confused about Darwinian evolution, and I'm pretty sure it's not me...
“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “
-enzyme expert Dr matti Leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature
Why would a biblical worldview be necessary? I've been getting along just fine accounting for science by juggling a couple of updated classical Greek metaphysics: Neo-Aristotelianism when I feel like sticking as close to the manifest image of reality as possible and Platonic idealism when I don't.
You've set up a false dichotomy between biblical creationism and whatever caricature of materialism you're positing as the alternative. Some of us don't have much use for either option.
Which does not explain why the vast majority of Christians, who most definitely believe in a creator outside of creation, also reject biblical creationism.Once more i dont fully disagree, thus biblical creation is auto left out of naturalistic world view not because it cannot be tested, but because it demands a creator outside of creation.
Most likely they just share them, as having arisen from a common source.Great point. I am more interested in the creation vs evolution [atheistic] debate than nay other. But i am more than willing and interested to hear you out, make your case for the justification from your worldview. However my op does not say evolutionist cannot be great scientist or do science, only they must steal biblical assumptions about the world to do so.
Great point. I am more interested in the creation vs evolution [atheistic] debate than nay other. But i am more than willing and interested to hear you out, make your case for the justification from your worldview. However my op does not say evolutionist cannot be great scientist or do science, only they must steal biblical assumptions about the world to do so.
Does a more biblical view have anything going for it? I actually think it does, in that it's the only ancient approach I'm familiar with that denies that the universe is eternal, but we have never needed the belief that the universe had a beginning to do science.
Those that believe in the Big Bang just might disagree about needing that beginning, since their entire theory rests upon the assumption the universe had a beginning.
But we know from science that his view is incorrect. That matter has a finite existence. That only Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely changes form - of which all matter is made. But unlike Aristotle we understand the substrate is nothing at all like the matter that exists.
Meh.Will do glad your interested and it does show the indoctrination of the education system and how we accept what we are told without questing said authority. Future thread will get into it in full.
I like what creationist said of debates, you can win every debate on evolution by defining it right off the bat. I will show why you are indeed confused on purpose, it was by design. That should at least intrigue you my friend. Ever herd of bait and switch tactics ? me and you both swallowed the bait.
Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true?
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?