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.
No it doesn't.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
When you have two sides of a coin, and people tend to only work with the side they can see and deny the other side, they're setting themselves up for serious errors.
Just defaulting to it's "An act of God" is not in anyway close to science studying miracles.
I've made it this far in faith since the age of 17, brother AV. I think the Lord is going to carry me beyond the grave as well. And what's more, my understanding of science and of the Bible doesn't require me to "cover over" anything. It's great how it works out that way for me, not that you need to follow suite with me though.That's your prerogative.
But realize that, by choosing to lean toward their 'forms of approach,' you're putting yourself at risk of agreeing with them when they make mistakes and have to cover for them later.
Sure there are. There's more than one form of Creationism that various Christians work by as well.There is no such thing as a scientist working "within creationism."
Unless by that, you meant a scientist working this side of reality, aka the physical realm.
Still does not make the Bible a history book. It's a book OF history, especially the history of the Jewish people as their ancients wrote it, but it's not A history book.
I demonstrated no point whatsoever.
You said: "Science has questions that the Bible answers in spades."
I simply replied: "No it doesn't."
It's not a music book either.
Yet It contains the most beautiful songs on earth.
Yes I'm aware of your views. The problem I have with them is that you're effectively wanting science to pick sides with religion by operating under not just the Bible (to the exclusion of all other religious works), but your particular interpretation of it (to the exclusion of all Christians who disagree with you).This is where I have a major beef with science.
Their "reality" is limited to the physical world, and doesn't include the spiritual.
So when God performs/performed a miracle, and science analyzes that miracle with their myopic viewpoints, then it stands to reason their conclusions will be wrong.
Not necessarily, at least not for want of scientists who know better. To that point I recommend Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg. It was a text for the required Philosophy of Science class I took as a freshman over 60 years ago. I remember that class particularly because as a brash and arrogant freshman I came into it one day and announced, "I've figured it out. You and all of you and the world I see sound me are all figures of my imagination. None of it is real." The class was shocked into silence at my outburst, because Brother Edmund was a crotchety old guy and reputed to be a hard grader. He was quiet for a moment, then he said, "Well, Mr ____, you may be right. What are you going to do about it?" When the meaning of what he said struck me, all I could do was laugh out loud. Brother Edmund just smiled and went on with the class as usual. I reread the Heisenburg book the other day as pertinent to some of your and Philo's comments. The other text was The Aim and Strcture of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem which it appears I have lost, but I recommend it as well.Yes we do conduct science with presuppositions. In the grand scheme of things we presume that our observations reflect reality for example. More specific examples would include presumptions like that tagged organisms behave the same as their untagged counterparts, or that organisms generally behave the same in the lab as they do outside of it.
Yes I'm aware of your views. The problem I have with them is that you're effectively wanting science to pick sides with religion by operating under not just the Bible (to the exclusion of all other religious works), but your particular interpretation of it (to the exclusion of all Christians who disagree with you).
Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?
If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?
Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?
If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?
Yes we do. We talk about our presumptions all the time.Not necessarily
Have to be honest here, none of us care one whit about what any philosophers think about our work. We carry out our studies and publish our results. If anyone thinks we've made errors they're free to contact us and/or the journal and give us their input.To that point I recommend Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg. It was a text for the required Philosophy of Science class I took as a freshman over 60 years ago.
Good story. Thanks for sharing.I remember that class particularly because as a brash and arrogant freshman I came into it one day and announced, "I've figured it out. You and all of you and the world I see sound me are all figures of my imagination. None of it is real." The class was shocked into silence at my outburst, because Brother Edmund was a crotchety old guy and reputed to be a hard grader. He was quiet for a moment, then he said, "Well, Mr ____, you may be right. What are you going to do about it?" When the meaning of what he said struck me, all I could do was laugh out loud. Brother Edmund just smiled and went on with the class as usual. I reread the Heisenburg book the other day as pertinent to some of your and Philo's comments. The other text was The Aim and Strcture of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem which it appears I have lost, but I recommend it as well.
No.Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?
If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?
We can't interpret the book until we have seen it and read it.Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?
If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?
No. The notion you have claimed is conceived by means of a logical deduction which presupposes philosophically believed truths. These are untestable because they are beliefs.It's more a matter of discussion among philosophers of science, so that's where you'll find most of the discussions about it. But it's pretty standard knowledge in my experiences.
Nope .. all those references are based on philosophical positions and not on objectively tested evidence.Yes we do conduct science with presuppositions. In the grand scheme of things we presume that our observations reflect reality for example. More specific examples would include presumptions like that tagged organisms behave the same as their untagged counterparts, or that organisms generally behave the same in the lab as they do outside of it.
Here's an essay from Stanford that explores methodological vs philosophical naturalism: Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Here's one from Dr. Rusbult from the ASA: Philosophical & Methodological Naturalism - Science and Theology)
And here are search results from Google Scholar: Google Scholar
No. The notion you have claimed is conceived by means of a logical deduction which presupposes philosophically believed truths. These are untestable because they are beliefs.
There is nothing in the scientific method which makes the claims you are making.
Nope .. all those references are based on philosophical positions and not on objectively tested evidence.
They are inconsistent arguments when viewed from science's inference based objective method.
This is a crucial matter to understand about science.
Injecting any philosophically held untestable tenets involving the existence of untestable truths, into science, is the most aggregious violation of the principles used in science I can think of.
We can't interpret the book until we have seen it and read it.
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?