Nice, warpspeed! :thumbsup:That will teach someone to think twice that the science is the “ultimate source of knowledge.” Inductively, we could even infer that the science is a very poor source of knowledge because all theories so far proposed up to our current ones have been discarded as false.
aw…shucks.Nice, warpspeed! :thumbsup:That will teach someone to think twice that the science is the “ultimate source of knowledge.” Inductively, we could even infer that the science is a very poor source of knowledge because all theories so far proposed up to our current ones have been discarded as false.
Dear me, see you make it out as if science updating is a BAD thing. When in actual fact that is the BIGGEST strength of science.Nice, warpspeed! :thumbsup:That will teach someone to think twice that the science is the “ultimate source of knowledge.” Inductively, we could even infer that the science is a very poor source of knowledge because all theories so far proposed up to our current ones have been discarded as false.
I’d be a christian if there was, say, a short proof of Fermat’s last theorem in the bible, or perhaps something like “energy is mass multiplied by the speed of light unto itself”, or the location of several black holes.Exactly what have any religious dogmas given us, did the bible have anything to say about the atom?
“Updating” is not a bad thing. And I have nothing against science whatsoever. I just don’t think empirical science has any more of a priviledged access to the nature of reality than other disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, and religion. Each discipline simply has a differnt field of study. Science deals with empirical contingent truths. Mathematics and philosophy deal with *a priori *necessary truths. And religion deals with *a priori *human, spiritual, and transcendent truths.Dear me, see you make it out as if science updating is a BAD thing. When in actual fact that is the BIGGEST strength of science.
The point is clear, if it was not for science, you would all STILL be believing the world is flat etc etc etc. Sure, we when we get new evidence if it deepens our understandings, lol and thats a bad thing? Science HAS given us this knowledge, **every eample you showed the understanding of these things was deepened by SCIENCE! **Exactly what have any religious dogmas given us, did the bible have anything to say about the atom?
haha! I hope you’re being facetious
That’s hilarious!you make out as though thoses superseded theories werent mistakes. they were, hence their vulnerability to later observations.
it was “scientific empiricism” that created those theories. which is the reason we use them as an example to counter the notion that it is the ultimate source of knowledge.
yes, the scientific method is a great toolset for the practice of the physical sciences. we arent disputing that.
we might say that all the scientific progress in the world matters less than the Truth that is Christ. what does an atom truly matter? life is a journey, not the destination. we will spend eternity with or without G-d.Exactly what have any religious dogmas given us, did the bible have anything to say about the atom?
No. I’m being completely serious. If god wrote a tome, the least he could do was help science in a tangible way, if only a token gesture to show that the bible was divinely inspired. Such a trivial cost to convert large swathes of scientific thinkers. It is illogical to exclude.haha! I hope you’re being facetious
why do you think those things should be in the Bible?
It would be a mark of authentic divine inspiration. Including something that could not possibly be known at the time is evidence of divine inspiration.
Google isn’t giving a straight answer. A pointer, if you please?
the Bible isnt a science manual. men at the time didnt know anything about science, and as its unimportant to the process of Salvation, i can see why such strange things that would have driven of a great many believers prior to the present age, werent included.
It is absurd to think God’s giving us mathematical or scientific theories were somehow going to make the God of Christianity suddenly self-evidently true to atheists. After all, Jesus is reported to perform numerous miracles in his lifetime, including rising from the dead, but most Jews at the time refused to accept these reported miracles as evidence for his divinity whatsoever. They thought he had supernatural powers, but they explained away all these powers as all coming from the devil. Likewise, I can just see the atheistic scientist standing next to Christ’s tomb after three days witnessing his resurrection, but then explaining it away as a freak-incident that has some perfectly plausible natural explanation–and a natural explanation for which the scientist would completely lack, but for which he still believes is available, because of his over-reliant faith in science. I guarantee no matter what God does to to reveal his existence, it will never be enough for the atheist.
I just want one token thing that couldn’t possibly have been known except from a divine source.
As I said, I’d need a pointer to that.
Absurd? Why? Is it not logical to suppose scientific thinkers will be more aligned to your view if advanced mathematical or scientific theories were discovered in the bible?
A bold claim for a theist. Since most atheists think objectively, objective evidence such as divine knowledge would be most appreciated, don’t you think?
This is not necessary. All that is required is a few (preferably, although even one strengthens your case) advanced mathematical or scientific theries.
I do not believe it is spoiled to request verification that the relationship exists at all.
it would be to us, but that same purpose is fulfilled by Messianic Prophecy. but to all the people between then and now however it would be non-sensical. wouldnt you find it strange if you opened a scientific text at school and found within it a treatise on theology? especially if you had never heard of religion before?
sure. this a diverse selection of theist views from Messianic Jews to protestants. its a good place to start. Josh Mcdowel also wrote a book “evidence that demands a verdict” if its available too you.
Let me ask you this: what makes you think God is so concerned about giving all the answers to our scientific questions anyway? Did you ever consider that perhaps he wants us to pursue Him by pursuing to understand his creation, the very thrill of scientific search and discovery being the very thrill of drawing closer to God? Isn’t this very pursuit part of the beauty of existence, growth, and change? After all, God is passionate lover who enjoys the thrill of the chase Himself, not a carefully calculating rather droll scientist. If God merely existed to satisfy all of our speculating curiosities, our existence would be rather dull and spoiled, and perhaps people would reject God’s love just as spoiled children reject their parent’s love because they get everything they want when they ask for it. God is a god of relationship, not a God of spood-feeding everyone. In fact, I am glad God doesn’t give me all the answers. It makes my continual philosophical search so exciting!! I mean that! I love discovering something new! And these discoveries always draw me closer to Him in Love.
I don’t retract this bold claim at all. In fact, the one challenge I have for all atheists, for which none of them will accept, is to start making prayer to God a continual part of their everyday existence. One is guaranteed to find God by opening the heart to Him. That’s the best “evidence” available out there, since that’s how God wants us: in relationship. But most atheists either won’t accept the challenge at all, or don’t open their hearts when they do try–while giving some shallow lip-service prayer as if challenging God to perform some kind of magic trick for them. A person’s constant need for signs shows that he can be a very poor lover.
If you want verification that there is a relationship really there, then start praying. Prayer is the very act of engaging in this relationship, in this communion with God.
Oh, I’m sure a footnote somewhere stating e = mcc or something wouldn’t be too hard.
Firstly, were these prophecies written before the events occurred? Secondly, how can I be objectively certain that they did occur?
You’re beating a strawman. I never said god is “so concerned about giving all the answers to our scientific questions”. I merely stated that any correct advanced mathematical or scientific theories in the bible would lend credence to it’s claim of divine inspiration.
As you have openly admitted here, prayer is not objectively predictable, it is unfalsifiable. That is, if prayer is reported to not work, you just say it wasn’t long / open hearted / often / deep enough. That one will believe in god once they have opened their heart to him is self fulfilling and circular. Effectively, you are saying “believe in God, then you will believe in God”.I don’t retract this bold claim at all. In fact, the one challenge I have for all atheists, for which none of them will accept, is to start making prayer to God a continual part of their everyday existence. One is guaranteed to find God by opening the heart to Him. That’s the best “evidence” available out there, since that’s how God wants us: in relationship. But most atheists either won’t accept the challenge at all, or don’t open their hearts when they do try–while giving some shallow lip-service prayer as if challenging God to perform some kind of magic trick for them. A person’s constant need for signs shows that he can be a very poor lover.
If you want verification that there is a relationship really there, then start praying. Prayer is the very act of engaging in this relationship, in this communion with God.
Sure. But so what? I am saying God’s intentions would certainly change the validity of your expectations that the Bible ought to give you the pythagorean theorem.
Sure. But so what? All relationships presuppose the existence of the other. And relationship in prayer being “unfalsifiable” is not vice of prayer, but a virtue. Your empirical categories have no applications in relationships. This is exactly my point about taking up the challenge. You either won’t do it, or you treat it as a way of testing whether or not God exists.
Prayer isn’t science, prayer is engaging in a relationship that is potentially there waiting to be consummated.You should have read the whole thing. Here is the correct quotation:
I highlighted the pertinent part: “SOME”. This is the **existential operator **(∃), and not the **universal operator **“ALL” (∀). The philosophical stance you disagree with (and I would concur) is properly called “logical positivism” (sometimes it is called neo-positivism) which is a variant of empiricism - but **not **the same.
At least we have a definition of “faith” that we can agree upon. Now do you offer “faith” as an “alternative” epistemological tool to arrive at knowledge?
Correct. So what tool do you use to separate the wheat from the chaff? And more importantly, why do you offer your epistemological method on something which is not part of the past, which allegedly exists today?
ditto
Well firstly many of the “theories” on our list are were not derived from the scientific method. In fact most of them were not, however the ones that were, were not mistakes they were the best explanation given the available evidence. I mean how on earth can you call Newtons Laws mistakes? Are you kidding?
Then name a better one?
I would call it the method actually.
Well the thing is when we die were are dead, so your bet your last dollar it matters what happens in this life.