What should Christian apologists say?

[katerinah1947]

Science considers philosophy, but apples epistemology and metaphysics in a very particular sense. They aren't opposed, they aren't contradictory, they're complementary

Hi, (edits now done)

Yes, Philosophy and God, are allowed in Science.

Philosophy as a discipline, does not overpower standard science, nor Religion as a substitute for God does it overpower science either.

At least in my experiences.

Always, I and others use some Philosophy, and because of that all of our work is more accurate.

God though, is always in science, but unless quantified or calibrated in some way, is not normally cited or known to exist or not.

Now, if I was back in that research where I had to report all of my results, I would cite God, when and where God directly helped out in a piece of work.

Earlier, about 25 years ago, God gave me an answer in this way. I had calibrated God in a certain way, and accidentally missed one experiment, out of several that were done, for a series of data points, to let a production line, know what to do.

I was going to need three more months to get that one data point, and it is boring, arduous, and draining emotionally, because all emotions are turned off, to not influence the results. Embarrassment was also involved.

But wait, I had calibrated God in this area. I knew what He would do. I just wrote down the numerical answer, but did not cite my source for that, and it was wrong to do that, not cite where the data came from.

At that point in my life, without a proof yet for the existence of God, and not wanting to be fired for mental illness, as no one calibrates God, or gets information from God in science, in those days, disingenuously, I not only did not cite God, but feared for my job, because it seemed like God was the new heresy, not science anymore.

In my profession, Galileo and even Newton, were in fear of heresy calls by the church.

That was called the old heresy. Now, back 25 years ago, it seemed as God was now heresy in science, but, but, but, I just finished using God for a solo answer, put the number down, and was too embarrassed maybe to tell everyone, where that answer came from.

Now, do you think that data point was correct?

Who does that?

No one does that. No one.

People who do that are in mental institutions are they not?

God ain't real, Right?

The point was of course correct. I went on to my next project.

So yes, and I do not think I am alone, God not religion but God, and Practical Philosophy, not full Philosophy are in science, in the sense that I and everyone I knew, allowed both possibilities, and used as much of those as needed, also.

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi, (edits now done)

Yes, Philosophy and God, are allowed in Science.

Philosophy as a discipline, does not overpower standard science, nor Religion as a substitute for God does it overpower science either.

At least in my experiences.

Always, I and others use some Philosophy, and because of that all of our work is more accurate.

God though, is always in science, but unless quantified or calibrated in some way, is not normally cited or known to exist or not.

Now, if I was back in that research where I had to report all of my results, I would cite God, when and where God directly helped out in a piece of work.

Earlier, about 25 years ago, God gave me an answer in this way. I had calibrated God in a certain way, and accidentally missed one experiment, out of several that were done, for a series of data points, to let a production line, know what to do.

I was going to need three more months to get that one data point, and it is boring, arduous, and draining emotionally, because all emotions are turned off, to not influence the results. Embarrassment was also involved.

But wait, I had calibrated God in this area. I knew what He would do. I just wrote down the numerical answer, but did not cite my source for that, and it was wrong to do that, not cite where the data came from.

At that point in my life, without a proof yet for the existence of God, and not wanting to be fired for mental illness, as no one calibrates God, or gets information from God in science, in those days, disingenuously, I not only did not cite God, but feared for my job, because it seemed like God was the new heresy, not science anymore.

In my profession, Galileo and even Newton, were in fear of heresy calls by the church.

That was called the old heresy. Now, back 25 years ago, it seemed as God was now heresy in science, but, but, but, I just finished using God for a solo answer, put the number down, and was too embarrassed maybe to tell everyone, where that answer came from.

Now, do you think that data point was correct?

Who does that?

No one does that. No one.

People who do that are in mental institutions are they not?

God ain't real, Right?

The point was of course correct. I went on to my next project.

So yes, and I do not think I am alone, God not religion but God, and Practical Philosophy, not full Philosophy are in science, in the sense that I and everyone I knew, allowed both possibilities, and used as much of those as needed, also.

LOVE,

God is, at best, part of one's philosophy, not one's science. Trying to insinuate something that, by its nature, is counterintuitive in a scientific rationalist/empiricist epistemology, seems to just obfuscate things.

Religion invokes God, to try to separate the two entirely misses the point of the implication of one to the other. Spirituality and religion overlap as well in that respect, the approaches are what make them distinct

Trying to paint yourself as a martyr isn't helping your position because it seems like you'd just twist anything to justify and rationalize yourself as being wronged somehow.

If you outright admit you pulled a data point out of your butt, how can someone take you seriously? If you don't put the work in, it has no real value to it, esp. in science, where repeated results count, not just incidental agreements to a preconceived conclusion, which wouldn't align with the scientific method, since you don't assume your conclusion, you deduce it from the facts.

Also, if you could measure God, would it really be God in any meaningful sense, theologically? Then again, that's the same question that just further reinforces my skepticism and atheism: if God has a son, that's sharing of power in some sense, thus it isn't a uniquely powerful entity as is postulated.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hey kat...

Thanks so much for that detailed explanation...it was enlightening (I think that's the word for it).

I think you are saying, that you felt something, and in that something, was great truth, greater than me.

I want you to know that, for me personally, your explanations are always a joy to read. I think it's a pity that other christians on here don't seem to pay closer attention to your explanations of all things biblical/christian...they might see something of themselves in your posts.

Then I would say you are Mystical, and you get more out of what is put down, than non Mystical folks do.

Don't ever change.

I did not make myself this way. And one thing, that I cannot get away from, is if I do not regular Commune with Jesus, what you get from God Really here, does not happen.

Father Federico Pinto, who has a heart for God from God also, that is so amazing in that anyone who gets around him is drawn to God, as gentle as the end tips of a fish's fins, but more gentle than that, he told me there is more than one way to Commune. (get close to and know, therefore He rubs off on us in some way or another)

So, to be effective, Communing with Jesus in some way, is needed.

Much love back at you,

Interesting. God loves this way: He loves you as though you are the only person in existence, when you are before Him, and He loves you for you, what you need, but and this is hard, He also loves everyone else in existence simultaneously at the same time He is loving you who is before Him.

Even God ceases to exist to Himself when you are being loved by Him, not in reality, but in God's perception of Himself, when He is loving you. He loves you for you, not for Himself.

I wrote that down as a memory. I try and do that. Once I loved that way too. Now, I do it out of remembrance.

LOVE, is my way of writing that. It is my best remembrance of the way God actually loves, and dear, I am frightfully afraid of ever losing that.

It's wonderful to love that way.

Ana

...Curtis/Mary P.... Heimberg., .... . ,

aka

...katerinah1947., and All and all the gang.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi, (edits now done)

God is, at best, part of one's philosophy, not one's science. Trying to insinuate something that, by its nature, is counterintuitive in a scientific rationalist/empiricist epistemology, seems to just obfuscate things.

God is a proven scientific fact in the research results I got.

Controlled experiments, the data from that, revealed that The Bible is Real, with this definition of Real. It is true Where It Says It Is true, and It is false where it says It Is false.

There is only research in that. No opinions are there. It is subject only to counter proofs, by repeating that work flawlessly, and getting a different answer.

Religion invokes God, to try to separate the two entirely misses the point of the implication of one to the other. Spirituality and religion overlap as well in that respect, the approaches are what make them distinct

Religion says they know something about God.

Each religion invokes a god, Who May or may not be God.

Thus science does not normally allow religion, as most religions do not represent God, rather they represent an idea of God, that in most cases is false.

Trying to paint yourself as a martyr isn't helping your position because it seems like you'd just twist anything to justify and rationalize yourself as being wronged somehow.

I did not realize I was a martyr yet.

I also did not realize martyrs were liars who twisted the facts to fit a false agenda.

And do martyrs also claim righteousness from feigned injury?

If you outright admit you pulled a data point out of your butt, how can someone take you seriously?

God is not my butt.

If you don't put the work in, it has no real value to it, esp. in science,

So, calibrations are not work? They are an arduous form of work.

Most calibrations are handled by teams of people.

All things are calibrated in science.

You are calibrated.
I am calibrated.
All my co workers are calibrated.
Every intrument is calibrated.

That is a lot of work.

where repeated results count,

Controlled experiments.

not just incidental agreements to a preconceived conclusion,

I can see how you might guess that is what was done.

which wouldn't align with the scientific method,

It might if it was an extrapolation.

since you don't assume your conclusion,

You are accusing me of an assumption.

Calibration: One aspect of God.
Input to God: What would God do?
Answer: Put into the results, as a separate, wholly independent data point.

That was no assumption. That was God and It Is What God Would Do.

you deduce it from the facts.

No, You learn it from what the experiments reveal.

Also, if you could measure God, would it really be God in any meaningful sense, theologically?

Yes.

Then again, that's the same question that just further reinforces my skepticism and atheism:

Okay.

if God has a son, that's sharing of power in some sense, thus it isn't a uniquely powerful entity as is postulated.

God Has a Son.

In essence, God Has two Sons, one is not called Only Begotten Son, He is called Sent, or more commonly The Holy Spirit.

Whatever do you mean by uniquely powerful entity, that can have so many meanings?

Also,

"""Christians claim God is Trinitarian, Trinitarian both in Each Person, and in The Three Persons Who Make Up God, Each Separately, Two Together, or All Three Together."""

Your description 'uniquely powerful entity', falls way short of God, in the Christian view of God.


LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

There's a difference between studying religion in a sense of fulfillment and the like and academically. They aren't contradictory, they're different methods of approaching the same subject

Hi,

I do not know what studying religion from a sense of fulfillment means.

I think I know what studying religion academically means.

I do not know what 'and the like means'

I do think I know what you mean by your last sentence.

I never really studied religion. I knew I was supposed to. I was told how bad it could get, if I didn't study religion.

Still. I never ever studied religion.

I wanted proof, that God was Real, or else, I would have no part in a religion, or any concept of a god.

You seem to be saying, all religions are about the same God.

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

I said no such thing: all religions invoke the supernatural.

Studying religion in the sense of fulfillment would be studying it as a student of divinity, of the ministry, of one's own search for truth and the spiritual, those sorts of things. Academically would be analyzing it culturally, sociologically, anthropologically, philosophically, etc.

If you could test the supernatural, it would cease to be supernatural, because it would be within the natural that you can experiment upon. If you test your god, I wonder what worth it really has if it responds in some consistent manner rather than at its whim, its divine will, which knows all and is far beyond human ken

Really stretching credibility here in general, let alone as a supposed scientist. Saying you can just do controlled experiments with a god that supposedly transcends time and space doesn't really jive logically, because it would entail you can constrain the will and knowledge and power of such an entity.

 

[katerinah1947]

I said no such thing: all religions invoke the supernatural.

No, not in my world.

Studying religion in the sense of fulfillment would be studying it as a student of divinity, of the ministry, of one's own search for truth and the spiritual, those sorts of things.

Okay.

Academically would be analyzing it culturally, sociologically, anthropologically, philosophically, etc.

Okay.

If you could test the supernatural, it would cease to be supernatural, because it would be within the natural that you can experiment upon.

The way you said that, yes, otherwise no.

What you call, the supernatural, can allow a test or not.

If you test your god, I wonder what worth it really has if it responds in some consistent manner rather than at its whim, its divine will, which knows all and is far beyond human ken

If God answers a test put to Him, it has great worth.

Really stretching credibility here in general, let alone as a supposed scientist.

Okay, hypothetically for you, let's just say I am no scientist.

Is that the end of the discussion then?

If so, fine. You are right, I am no scientist.

Saying you can just do controlled experiments with a god that supposedly transcends time and space doesn't really jive logically, ...

Okay. You don't understand?

...because it would entail you can constrain the will and knowledge and power of such an entity.

No. It was because I met His conditions. I had to meet His conditions.

Any test given to God has specific requirements.

I met all of those requirements.

1.) There was no other way to find out.
2.) I had to genuinely not know.
3.) I had to have done lots of work trying to find the answer, on my own, without asking God to submit to a test, and still not have the answers.
4.) I have to accept the fact that I may not be answered.
5.) If answered, I have to accept the answer.

There may be more, but that is some of the requirements to ask God, if He will allow a person to test Him.

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

No, not in my world.



Okay.



Okay.



The way you said that, yes, otherwise no.

What you call, the supernatural, can allow a test or not.




If God answers a test put to Him, it has great worth.



Okay, hypothetically for you, let's just say I am no scientist.

Is that the end of the discussion then?

If so, fine. You are right, I am no scientist.




Okay. You don't understand?




No. It was because I met His conditions. I had to meet His conditions.

Any test given to God has specific requirements.

I met all of those requirements.

1.) There was no other way to find out.
2.) I had to genuinely not know.
3.) I had to have done lots of work trying to find the answer, on my own, without asking God to submit to a test, and still not have the answers.
4.) I have to accept the fact that I may not be answered.
5.) If answered, I have to accept the answer.

There may be more, but that is some of the requirements to ask God, if He will allow a person to test Him.

LOVE,

You may be taking "invoke" far too literally. They tend towards some element of the supernatural, people's opinions of whether they're true or not are going to vary

Now you're invoking special revelation to justify your claims. You create all these qualifications for something that still doesn't follow to being verifiable apart from your preconception that explains the events in that particular way

This is little more than a thought experiment, which doesn't constitute a strict scientific experiment anymore than if I imagine you could explain the world through some capricious supernatural entity that answers in riddles and is some divine chaos. It'd make as much sense as your deity in terms of the rules I set in place and you couldn't invoke some counterpoint if we're talking about this involving some degree of faith in the supernatural anyway.

You can't have it both ways: this can't be something that is essentially pseudo science and magical thinking, something involving faith and then claim you have a scientific angle to it by the posturing and pretense of an "experiment" in some specious sense. Where are you even pulling these standards from? The Bible? It's not a scientific textbook anymore than a history or math textbook, you're using circular reasoning here

 

[Chris B]

For crying out loud, give people a chance to change.
Was the Catholic church supposed to change overnight, just because one man ... or maybe a handful of men ... were saying otherwise?
And how many of Galileo's own scientists ... that is, his peers ... disagreed with him on heliocentrism?
Welcome to the world of faith, where churches just don't jump when some scientist tells them to start preaching otherwise.

Agreed, I think.
We all have to start where we are, when facing new information and ideas.
And that will be our current world view, with some things ruled in and some things ruled out.
New information etc. tends to be viewed in the light of the paradigm already in place, whatever it is
(which is where and why a philosophy is unavoidable even if it has not been formally worked through and may be held almost totally unconsciously. It doesn't have to be a good or sound philosophy.)
Up to a point this is simply sensible, and is probably unavoidable.

The point of pressure and difficulty starts to appear when the new information starts failing to sit comfortably with the current pattern of thought.
The new information can simply be rejected, because "it doesn't fit with what I know to be true" ("know", here is a word with it's own complexities).
It can be bent, adjusted and adapted until it does appear to fit the world-perspective already in place,
or at some point the new data, if seeming to test out otherwise sound, may be allowed to challenge the core values heretofore thought true, essential, impossible...

Where that point of needing to re-examine the existing belief structure comes is I'm pretty sure a marked variable.

To some with 100% confidence in their existing beliefs (of any nature: I've tried to be utterly neutral here) it can't occur except perhaps in the most extreme of circumstances. To others beliefs and understandings may be held more provisionally
("the best I know at the moment, so what I am operating with.") There, revision of the core framework, or its complete replacement, may not be so impossible.
I've had to do it more than once and it was rather like moving house:
even though I was convinced I was doing the right thing and going to a better location it was still troublesome hard work and somewhat traumatic.

The part of "faith" in this? It somewhat depends on the usage of the term, unfortunately.
The trust one has in one's current (or new) beliefs..?
The faithfulness one has in one's current beliefs giving reluctance to challenge or change them...?
At one level higher, trust in the process which led to the establishment of the current belief structure and content.

I have met both extremes.
"I have made up my mind, so don't try to confuse me with the facts."
"Oh, is that the new and latest idea? I must have that, now!"
Most people are somewhere between these two.

(Even F. W. de Clerk managed to change his mind concerning Nelson Mandela...)

 

[katerinah1947]

You may be taking "invoke" far too literally. They tend towards some element of the supernatural, people's opinions of whether they're true or not are going to vary

Now you're invoking special revelation to justify your claims. You create all these qualifications for something that still doesn't follow to being verifiable apart from your preconception that explains the events in that particular way

This is little more than a thought experiment, which doesn't constitute a strict scientific experiment anymore than if I imagine you could explain the world through some capricious supernatural entity that answers in riddles and is some divine chaos. It'd make as much sense as your deity in terms of the rules I set in place and you couldn't invoke some counterpoint if we're talking about this involving some degree of faith in the supernatural anyway.

You can't have it both ways: this can't be something that is essentially pseudo science and magical thinking, something involving faith and then claim you have a scientific angle to it by the posturing and pretense of an "experiment" in some specious sense. Where are you even pulling these standards from? The Bible? It's not a scientific textbook anymore than a history or math textbook, you're using circular reasoning here

Hi,

You are making little sense.

I am a scientist. You want to disallow that.

Well that just doesn't work.

Just because you have a desire to negate everything, does not make it negate-able except in your own mind.

If you want to negate my hard science research background, then to do that you can no longer talk logically.

You have been given clear answers above, that you are showing zero signs of understanding.

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

I question your credentials, but more importantly, your epistemology and metaphysics in regards to alleged scientific investigation rather than attempts to appear as such rather than what is both a more common and more verifiable practice

I said no such thing of negating everything, I merely maintain skepticism that you're using anything that could be called scientific except in some fideistic sense of a god that can be reduced to predictable patterns

A background is not a guarantee that you'll maintain perspective or humility, both of which you may very well have already lost in this crusade to find your god through science, which is like finding a black cat in a pitch black room, except the black cat is an illusion. If your god is worth worshipping, it wouldn't be bound by scientific constraints, because such things would make it rendered impotent in terms of alleged omnipotence, etc.

 

[Chris B]

Hi, (edits now done)

God is a proven scientific fact in the research results I got.

Controlled experiments, the data from that, revealed that The Bible is Real, with this definition of Real. It is true Where It Says It Is true, and It is false where it says It Is false.

There is only research in that. No opinions are there. It is subject only to counter proofs, by repeating that work flawlessly, and getting a different answer.

Proven scientific fact? I haven't had a chance to look at your workings, but I reserve doubt.
"It is subject only to..."? I suspect challenging the initial assumptions or the methodology could also be employed.
Any step in the process with a demonstrable flaw or viable alternate interpretation would move "proven" down to "possibility."

 

[katerinah1947]

I question your credentials, but more importantly, your epistemology and metaphysics in regards to alleged scientific investigation rather than attempts to appear as such rather than what is both a more common and more verifiable practice

I said no such thing of negating everything, I merely maintain skepticism that you're using anything that could be called scientific except in some fideistic sense of a god that can be reduced to predictable patterns

A background is not a guarantee that you'll maintain perspective or humility, both of which you may very well have already lost in this crusade to find your god through science, which is like finding a black cat in a pitch black room, except the black cat is an illusion. If your god is worth worshipping, it wouldn't be bound by scientific constraints, because such things would make it rendered impotent in terms of alleged omnipotence, etc.

Hi,

You still making almost no sense to me.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Proven scientific fact? I haven't had a chance to look at your workings, but I reserve doubt.
"It is subject only to..."? I suspect challenging the initial assumptions or the methodology could also be employed.
Any step in the process with a demonstrable flaw or viable alternate interpretation would move "proven" down to "possibility."

Hi,

My work, that resulted in finding out that The Bible is Real is not at issue here.

If you want to make it an issue, you'll have to stay in science, as that was were the work was carried out.

The rough method used was.

1.) Attempt to find a provable error, in the Bible.

If it's man made there should be one.

And, if you find a provable error, that stands up in science and in peer review with the religious folks, you are done.

Alternately, If someone else has done that, you are done.

If that fails, run a series of controlled experiments, to see if they show you anything.

If that fails, quit.

LOVE,

 

[Chris B]

Hi,

My work, that resulted in finding out that The Bible is Real is not at issue here.

If you want to make it an issue, you'll have to stay in science, as that was were the work was carried out.

The rough method used was.

1.) Attempt to find a provable error, in the Bible.

If it's man made there should be one.

And, if you find a provable error, that stands up in science and in peer review with the religious folks, you are done.

Alternately, If someone else has done that, you are done.

If that fails, run a series of controlled experiments, to see if they show you anything.

If that fails, quit.

LOVE,

OK, understood.
That would be an issue for elsewhere, then.
Too long and too off-topic for here.

 

[zippy2006]

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever.

There is an interesting article that was written three days ago that you might enjoy:

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors​

 

[Chris B]

There is an interesting article that was written three days ago that you might enjoy:

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors​

I know these, but I went the other way.
A theist who changed his mind.

 

[Chris B]

I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

Possibly because these can be found with the conclusion being the discovery of ... almost any religion or position of faith.
It is rather special pleading to be struck by the personal stories of one religion but dismissive of those of another.
Unless one knows in advance which one is true, the others being of the Devil or at least of human folly.
But if that is already known then whatever the testimonies may be they cannot be *convincing*, because that issue needs to have already been settled.

 

[Chris B]

Religions and history share some common characteristics. So atheists how you are persuaded with any human history older than 2000 years?

Principally by the holding of provisional beliefs.
Which may have to be changed, even drastically changed, in the light of new information.
Go just a hundred years into the past and it starts to become a real issue, picking out history from popular understandings and re-told mythic accounts of history.

It's more like a message of "there's a bomb near your house" brought out by someone who martyred himself in order for the message to convey.

Of course if there isn't a bomb then any person doing this regularly is, at the least, a public nuisance.

 

[Chris B]

My favorite argument for the existence of God is pointing out Christian hymns, carols, holidays, churches, bumper stickers, debates, martyrs, organizations, and so on.

I never could get the hang of Thor'sdays.