X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
On June 28th:
June 29th:
- Status
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
:banghead:
Do you agree with this statement:
“The only thing that exists is matter. …]Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance.”?
We cannot test his existence under any paradigm. All we can do is argue for or against his existence using appeals to cosmology, teleology, ontology, “mind-body” paradoxes, and “the hard problem of consciousness” as we call it in neuroscience. Since we theists are postulating that God is sentient, he cannot be bound by an experiment and so by his very definition is untestable.
Of course I believe in miracles, but testing miracles isn’t going to conclude anything scientific about God.
Yet what you’re not admitting here is that you, just like everyone else including myself, are approaching our experience of reality with assumed philosophical axioms. The axioms themselves cannot be scientifically proved or disproved, only argued. Your acceptance of only that which is physical is in of itself philosophical and non-scientific. Did you click the link Buffalo gave you about “Brain in a Vat”? How would you go about scientifically proving that “Brain in a Vat” is wrong and your materialism is correct?
What you should be saying is that there’s zero physical evidence to support supernatural claims. This is a correct statement, though it still shows your inherent materialistic foundation. I repeat for the bazillionth time: One cannot argue the spiritual claims of dualists using a scientific paradigm as such is not equipped to falsify them.
You keep moving the goalposts here Charlie. First you’ll say that science can prove or disprove one thing or another, then its pointed out to you that it can’t, and finally you employ your CAP-LOCK talent to scream that you’re doing nothing of the sort.
Of course because the cosmos and the evolution of life are inherently physical questions! Science, being bound by matter, is capable of answer questions about matter.
Who ever said you had to exchange science for faith? More straw men Charlie. I’ve been consistently arguing that science and philosophy explain two completely different aspects of existence. They are not mutually exclusive. Your rhetorical question makes about as much sense as “Why on earth, given the track record of plumbing, would I want to dismiss its method in exchange for landscaping?”
And it has been, and continues to be used to answer questions about the human experience that science will forever be unable to answer by its very nature. Just to give three examples; science will never be able to explain free will, purpose or morality.
What’s deliciously ironic about this statement is that unlike the Fundamentalists and you, I can actually see the distinction between philosophy (of which theology is a subset) and science.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Proving life can arise naturally is NOT the same as generating life???
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
**Do you agree with this statement:
“The only thing that exists is matter. …]Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance.”?**
No, i would say…
The only thing that we have evidence for is matter. …]Fundamentally, everything **we know of **is composed of material and all phenomena we know of (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions"
We cannot test his existence under any paradigm. All we can do is argue for or against his existence using appeals to cosmology, teleology, ontology, “mind-body” paradoxes, and “the hard problem of consciousness” as we call it in neuroscience. Since we theists are postulating that God is sentient, he cannot be bound by an experiment and so by his very definition is untestable.
How covenant.
Of course I believe in miracles, but testing miracles isn’t going to conclude anything scientific about God.
Well since we have no recorded evidence to suggest there has ever been a miracle i don’t agree. If you could provide evidence of miracles then that would be supporting evidence for the supernatural. However there is none.
Yet what you’re not admitting here is that you, just like everyone else including myself, are approaching our experience of reality with assumed philosophical axioms. The axioms themselves cannot be scientifically proved or disproved, only argued. Your acceptance of only that which is physical is in of itself philosophical and non-scientific. Did you click the link Buffalo gave you about “Brain in a Vat”? How would you go about scientifically proving that “Brain in a Vat” is wrong and your materialism is correct?
Didnt see the link.
What you should be saying is that there’s zero physical evidence to support supernatural claims. This is a correct statement, though it still shows your inherent materialistic foundation. I repeat for the bazillionth time: One cannot argue the spiritual claims of dualists using a scientific paradigm as such is not equipped to falsify them.
No, what i should be saying is there is zero evidence of ANY type that supports supernatural claims.
**You keep moving the goalposts here Charlie. First you’ll say that science can prove or disprove one thing or another, then its pointed out to you that it can’t, and finally you employ your CAP-LOCK talent to scream that you’re doing nothing of the sort. **
Science doesn’t “prove” anything. I have never said such a thing.
Who ever said you had to exchange science for faith? More straw men Charlie. I’ve been consistently arguing that science and philosophy explain two completely different aspects of existence. They are not mutually exclusive. Your rhetorical question makes about as much sense as "Why on earth, given the track record of plumbing, would I want to dismiss its method in exchange for landscaping?"
If you want me to believe in miracles and supernatural claims i would be be basing my belief on nothing but blind faith. I require evidence to form beliefs.
And it has been, and continues to be used to answer questions about the human experience that science will forever be unable to answer by its very nature. Just to give three examples; science will never be able to explain free will, purpose or morality.
Free will does not pose a problem. Purpose is an irrelevant question. Morality is easily explained.
What’s deliciously ironic about this statement is that unlike the Fundamentalists and you, I can actually see the distinction between philosophy (of which theology is a subset) and science.
I see the distinction i’ve just never had much respect for philosophy, and theology… well its for the weak minded.
“The only thing that exists is matter. …]Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance.”?**
No, i would say…
The only thing that we have evidence for is matter. …]Fundamentally, everything **we know of **is composed of material and all phenomena we know of (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions"
We cannot test his existence under any paradigm. All we can do is argue for or against his existence using appeals to cosmology, teleology, ontology, “mind-body” paradoxes, and “the hard problem of consciousness” as we call it in neuroscience. Since we theists are postulating that God is sentient, he cannot be bound by an experiment and so by his very definition is untestable.
How covenant.
Of course I believe in miracles, but testing miracles isn’t going to conclude anything scientific about God.
Well since we have no recorded evidence to suggest there has ever been a miracle i don’t agree. If you could provide evidence of miracles then that would be supporting evidence for the supernatural. However there is none.
Yet what you’re not admitting here is that you, just like everyone else including myself, are approaching our experience of reality with assumed philosophical axioms. The axioms themselves cannot be scientifically proved or disproved, only argued. Your acceptance of only that which is physical is in of itself philosophical and non-scientific. Did you click the link Buffalo gave you about “Brain in a Vat”? How would you go about scientifically proving that “Brain in a Vat” is wrong and your materialism is correct?
Didnt see the link.
What you should be saying is that there’s zero physical evidence to support supernatural claims. This is a correct statement, though it still shows your inherent materialistic foundation. I repeat for the bazillionth time: One cannot argue the spiritual claims of dualists using a scientific paradigm as such is not equipped to falsify them.
No, what i should be saying is there is zero evidence of ANY type that supports supernatural claims.
**You keep moving the goalposts here Charlie. First you’ll say that science can prove or disprove one thing or another, then its pointed out to you that it can’t, and finally you employ your CAP-LOCK talent to scream that you’re doing nothing of the sort. **
Science doesn’t “prove” anything. I have never said such a thing.
Who ever said you had to exchange science for faith? More straw men Charlie. I’ve been consistently arguing that science and philosophy explain two completely different aspects of existence. They are not mutually exclusive. Your rhetorical question makes about as much sense as "Why on earth, given the track record of plumbing, would I want to dismiss its method in exchange for landscaping?"
If you want me to believe in miracles and supernatural claims i would be be basing my belief on nothing but blind faith. I require evidence to form beliefs.
And it has been, and continues to be used to answer questions about the human experience that science will forever be unable to answer by its very nature. Just to give three examples; science will never be able to explain free will, purpose or morality.
Free will does not pose a problem. Purpose is an irrelevant question. Morality is easily explained.
What’s deliciously ironic about this statement is that unlike the Fundamentalists and you, I can actually see the distinction between philosophy (of which theology is a subset) and science.
I see the distinction i’ve just never had much respect for philosophy, and theology… well its for the weak minded.
B
buffalo
Guest
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I heard him speak and met him at the Rome conference in March. Brilliant scientific communicator; solid on the science but with distorted views about the range of Catholic theological opinion. He sometimes attacks a straw man, and was pleased when I set him straight on the theology of evolution, although he is not likely to return to the Church.Thanks for the title and author. Dr. Futuyma is a rather distinguished biologist in academic circles. If I’m not mistaken, he’s still a professor of evolutionary biology at UM Ann Arbor. There’s a good chance that either you, I, or both of us misunderstood what he was saying.
StAnastasia
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What road is that? I’m Roman Catholic, and I accept both the scriptures and the scientific view of an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe.
[/quote]
B
buffalo
Guest
I
InNomineDomini
Guest
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
B
blortog
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
buffalo;5395353:
Uh no! Teaching children about God gives them the foundation for truth and how to seek it. I know several who left the church for atheism.
I believe in it proudly. I experience it daily. On Sunday I experience even more when I receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I make no apologies. Call me deluded.
I love it and fulfilled by it and experience joy and hope.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
^that
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
blortog;5396066:
Doesn’t make it correct.buffalo;5395353:
Uh no! Teaching children about God gives them the foundation for truth and how to seek it. I know several who left the church for atheism.
I believe in it proudly. I experience it daily. On Sunday I experience even more when I receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I make no apologies. Call me deluded.
I love it and fulfilled by it and experience joy and hope.
Some care that their beliefs are true, others care what feels good. I’m the first.
B
blortog
Guest
blortog;5396066:
What you call a foundation of truth I call a foundation of lies and superstition. Children not know anything when they are born are more susceptible to brainwashing, If Christianity were really true then Christians wouldn’t have to prey on the minds of young people and those who are emotionally unstable. That’s fine that it works for you, but don’t even try to claim that children who’s parents force their religion on them have a choice in the matter. Some might be lucky enough to discover Atheism but it’s obvious that the vast majority are stuck in a belief system that was forced upon them in childhood.buffalo;5395353:
Uh no! Teaching children about God gives them the foundation for truth and how to seek it. I know several who left the church for atheism.
I believe in it proudly. I experience it daily. On Sunday I experience even more when I receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I make no apologies. Call me deluded.
I love it and fulfilled by it and experience joy and hope.
- Status