Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AveChristusRex]

Effect, not cause. You also cannot be there to test and repeat miracles. You're hooped any way we look at it

Apparently you havent read Pellegrino Ernetti's work, eh? Don't forget the chronovisor! (joking )

 

[BCP1928]

Effect, not cause. You also cannot be there to test and repeat miracles. You're hooped any way we look at it

Hooped? What happened to your assertion that the natural effects of a supernatural cause cannot be examined by science? That's what started this whole argument.

 

[River Jordan]

The Biblical claim that pray can result in a mountain throwing itself into the sea, as presented in Mark 11:23. "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith."

That the prayer will not cause the mountain to be thrown into the sea.

Miriam Webster defines a mountain as, "a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill."

The Bible doesn't give a time frame. I'd say the timeframe should be faster than we can reasonably expect the mountain to make such a movement through natural means (such as erosion, plate tectonics, etc).

As for distance, the Bible's claim says, "into the sea." So, the nearest sea/ocean.

Mechanism is irrelevant, as long as it is not by the hand of humans. For example, if someone uses explosives to dislodge the mountain, and it falls into the sea that way, then I wouldn't count that, as it happened as the result of explosives, not prayer.

No, I'm testing the claim in the Bible.

It's perfectly possible for God to exist even if the claim I am looking at fails the test.

Oh, I thought the whole point was about testing the supernatural. What you're describing is something different. Never mind.

 

[River Jordan]

That's correct and what we've been trying to tell you all along. Science can test the supernatural by discovering an event or phenomenon for which there appears to be no natural cause.

That's not testing the supernatural. It wasn't that long ago that things like droughts and lightning were inexplicable by what we knew about natural causes, but that was just a result of our own state of knowledge at the time rather than having anything to do with the supernatural.

 

[truthpls]

Apparently you havent read Pellegrino Ernetti's work, eh? Don't forget the chronovisor! (joking )

 

[BCP1928]

That's not testing the supernatural. It wasn't that long ago that things like droughts and lightning were inexplicable by what we knew about natural causes, but that was just a result of our own state of knowledge at the time rather than having anything to do with the supernatural.

I agree, but if an event took place that would ordinarily be expected to have a known natural cause and the expected cause was absent, that another thing altogether.

 

[River Jordan]

I agree, but if an event took place that would ordinarily be expected to have a known natural cause and the expected cause was absent, that another thing altogether.

Scientifically it would mean we have a gap in our knowledge, which would hopefully be justification for additional research.

 

[truthpls]

Hooped? What happened to your assertion that the natural effects of a supernatural cause cannot be examined by science? That's what started this whole argument.

It can't. Anyone thinking it could would be hooped

 

[Kylie]

Well, since your married, lets use a different example: How do you know a husband truly loves their wife? You can observe his actions like gifting, protecting, and nurturing, but those actions themselves aren't proof of love. They could be done out of duty, habit, or expectation. The belief that he truly loves his wife, and is not cheating, or doing it out of habit or expectation, or anything else, ultimately rests on faith.

But that kind of faith is very different from religious faith, isn't it?

And isn't it funny that we go from "evidence" to "proof"?

All of those things are indeed evidence that my husband loves, me, but you try and shift it to talk of proof in order to make your point deceptively.

 

[Kylie]

And I'm saying that if we apply fuller applications of reading and interpreting----------like your and my English teachers taught us in English class in high school------------no one would think that when Jesus says "faith can move mountains" that He was actually referring to geological upheavals.

Okay.

So Jesus was saying, "If you pray for the mountain to move, it will move through the action of plate tectonics, which has been going on for millions of years already, and would happen regardless of whether or not you prayed for it!"

What's next, showing that prayer is real by holding up a ball, letting it go, and praying that it falls to the ground?

That's a lot of questions, Kylie? They can be answered by those who study both History and Hermeneutics. Differences of interpretation infest almost EVERY field of human life, and Christianity is no exception. For the life of me, I'm not sure why anyone would expect Christianity to be easily amenable to agreement among every person who either hears or reads about the Gospel Message.

Yes, that is a whole lot of questions, because you decided to lump them all into one bit.

And all you can do is claim that they CAN be answered.

Nevermind the fact that you don't actually provide the answers. In fact, it seems like your response is what I would expect for someone who doesn't have any answers at all, but wants to make me think they do.

Ok........................ Well. I apologize for my apparent patronizing. But I think the Bible is a more complex book historically and culturally than what you've been told.

So complex that there are countless different sects of Christianity.

When Christians can't even agree amongst themselves, how do they expect others to agree?

Also, please note, Kylie, that hardly anyone here on CF, even among your fellow atheists, think that Methodological Naturalism is optional.

Seems to me that methodological naturalism would be impossible if there really were supernatural influences on our world...

In any case, I think I've been very clear.

I am talking about what can be tested in a repeatable and verifiable way.

I see no reason for you to start throwing different viewpoints and claiming that an idea goes against such a viewpoint and therefore is invalid.

May I suggest you expand your academic horizons? Wouldn't the folks at Starfleet Academy suggest that you do the same?

This may surprise you, but Starfleet Academy isn't real. Perhaps you need to expand your horizons past sci fi TV shows.

 

[Kylie]

Nothing they can determine by using only the natural. Sad

Which doesn't change the fact that they would still see the event occur.

 

[Kylie]

Big deal, all that means is science would have no explanation at all. Add that to the long list. Five mysteries the Standard Model can’t explain

But that doesn't change the fact that science would agree that the event did occur.

Science can only test the natural

How many times are you going to repeat this lie?

Science can test whatever makes a testable claim.

No one we know about. Maybe you know a few you could point us to?

Do you have faith?

Not having faith to make MT Everest fly thousands of miles does not means people are faithless or not faithful.

This directly contradicts what you just said.

You can't even get your own story straight. How do you expect me to believe you?

 

[Kylie]

Oh, I thought the whole point was about testing the supernatural. What you're describing is something different. Never mind.

If a person prays for the mountain to move, and as a result of the prayer it does move, how is that NOT supernatural?

I mean, there's no rational natural explanation, is there? The process of elimination leaves only the supernatural, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay.

So Jesus was saying, "If you pray for the mountain to move, it will move through the action of plate tectonics, which has been going on for millions of years already, and would happen regardless of whether or not you prayed for it!"

What's next, showing that prayer is real by holding up a ball, letting it go, and praying that it falls to the ground?

Not exactly. What's Jesus was actually referring to as "mountains" was a metaphor for demonic oppression, and He was strongly implying that if any of us has faith, then demons who oppress us will, at some point, be forced to pick up their bags and haul ass ...............

But of course. You knew this already.

Yes, that is a whole lot of questions, because you decided to lump them all into one bit.

And all you can do is claim that they CAN be answered.

Nevermind the fact that you don't actually provide the answers. In fact, it seems like your response is what I would expect for someone who doesn't have any answers at all, but wants to make me think they do.

So complex that there are countless different sects of Christianity.

When Christians can't even agree amongst themselves, how do they expect others to agree?

Seems to me that methodological naturalism would be impossible if there really were supernatural influences on our world...

In any case, I think I've been very clear.

I am talking about what can be tested in a repeatable and verifiable way.

I see no reason for you to start throwing different viewpoints and claiming that an idea goes against such a viewpoint and therefore is invalid.

This may surprise you, but Starfleet Academy isn't real. Perhaps you need to expand your horizons past sci fi TV shows.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And all you can do is claim that they CAN be answered.

Nevermind the fact that you don't actually provide the answers. In fact, it seems like your response is what I would expect for someone who doesn't have any answers at all, but wants to make me think they do.

Right. Exactly. I'm not going to provide many answers to those hostile to the Christian Faith. I don't have that kind of time or that level of patience.

So complex that there are countless different sects of Christianity.

So what? That's the case for many things in life. It should be expected that human beings will have to wrestle with the meaning of anything that's ancient and foreign. That's just how it is. Too bad. So sad.

When Christians can't even agree amongst themselves, how do they expect others to agree?

There's a fallacy for that.

Seems to me that methodological naturalism would be impossible if there really were supernatural influences on our world...

What????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

In any case, I think I've been very clear.

No. No. You really haven't.

I am talking about what can be tested in a repeatable and verifiable way.

Did you bother to even look at the links I gave you from Berkeley? I bet you didn't.

I see no reason for you to start throwing different viewpoints and claiming that an idea goes against such a viewpoint and therefore is invalid.

I can't help how you see it.

This may surprise you, but Starfleet Academy isn't real. Perhaps you need to expand your horizons past sci fi TV shows.

Yes, Starfleet Academy is a pipe dream and pseudo token for "secular, pluralistic intellectualism," but we all enjoy it just the same.

 

[Juvenal]

You're apparently new-ish to Christian Forums, aren't you?

I've done some lurking, but I'm busy and the threads move too fast. Joining a conversation that's already thousands of posts long risks recycling points that have already been discussed in depth.

But I get it. You're telling me to put a damper on my chosen rhetoric and my boldness of statement against your criticisms about Christianity.

I hope to never criticize Christianity. After enough years of deep discussion with my brother and others, I've long since accepted that there are no actual "defeaters" for the faith writ large. If you've been involved in creation/evolution discussions for long enough, you'll have encountered Glenn Morton, an irascible character who lived his truth that there is no conflict between an old earth, human evolution, and biblical literalism.

The point being that contentious doctrines are rarely considered essential even among Christians.

I can do that. But, with that said, I'd like to know what your goal on CF is. Are you here to educate me about math and science? Or are you wanting to disabuse me of my Christian faith? What is your purpose here?

Do you merely seek to have a civil discussion with me as a fellow academic? If so, I can do that. In fact, I prefer it.

Civil discussion works for me. And while I have had thousands of students, in my experience, education only occurs when it's driven by students themselves. No matter how sumptuously the table is set, if your company isn't hungry, they won't eat.

 

[AV1611VET]

When Christians can't even agree amongst themselves, how do they expect others to agree?

Would it matter to you if we did?

Doesn't every Christian ever born, alive today, and will be here tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING GOD?

You'd think -- with your logic -- there wouldn't be any atheists around.

But the fact of the matter is, people couldn't care less if we agree or not.

 

[truthpls]

Which doesn't change the fact that they would still see the event occur.

They would not know what they saw or what caused it. They could not repeat it. Basically we might as well ask a mushroom

 

[truthpls]

But that doesn't change the fact that science would agree that the event did occur.

If God allowed them to be near it which is unlikely. More unlikely still is them admitting God did it.

Science can test whatever makes a testable claim.

No, it tests the natural only. Give it up. I can do this all day

Do you have faith?

Yes

This directly contradicts what you just said.

No, faith is like water, we can have a cup or we can have a river or we can have a tiny bit of condensation.

You can't even get your own story straight. How do you expect me to believe you?

My story is straight as an arrow. You just keep dancing all over the ballroom floor and can't remember what corner is what

 

[Kylie]

Not exactly. What's Jesus was actually referring to as "mountains" was a metaphor for demonic oppression, and He was strongly implying that if any of us has faith, then demons who oppress us will, at some point, be forced to pick up their bags and haul ass ...............

But of course. You knew this already.

Ah, of course.

There is only one objectively true interpretation of the Bible.

That's why there are no disagreements among Christians as to what the Bible means, which parts are literal and which parts are figurative and metaphorical.