tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post1193188127057408328..comments2024-03-27T11:13:34.520-05:00Comments on The Dunamis Word: Does Science Presuppose Atheism?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-69136697913735825632010-01-26T21:09:12.397-06:002010-01-26T21:09:12.397-06:00...Just adding thoughts. Kind of late I know but n......Just adding thoughts. Kind of late I know but nevertheless. Science has always before Darwin, at Darwin, and after Darwin acknowledged God. Men and women who are scientist whether christian or not acknowledge Him all the time in one word and they know it, atheist included. One word...UNIVERSE...It's one of their words. It means One Word spoken methodically poetically <br />purposefully metrically equating the expression of God by meter and specificity. Uni-Verse is a reference to the spoken creative voice of the true and living God. There's more to this.<br /><br />LawrenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-63676745861622973352009-10-23T13:09:40.636-05:002009-10-23T13:09:40.636-05:00And, in case you need your memory jogged...
You ...And, in case you need your memory jogged... <br /><br />You wrote: <b>Laura, <br /><br />You said:"I totally believe the Genesis story lock, stock and barrel." <br /><br />And I say thank you Laura. I agree Genesis doesn't need an excuse. There's a lot in the account that very few even discuss yet alone try to make dogmatic assertions about. There are all kinds of treasures in the account.</b><br /><br />If this is isn't YEC then perhaps you can enlighten us as to how your beliefs differ.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-76266360004419486402009-10-23T10:20:21.614-05:002009-10-23T10:20:21.614-05:00Harvey wrote: You want me to say that soooooooo ba...Harvey wrote: <b>You want me to say that soooooooo bad you can taste it can't you. You're just hoping that's what I'm saying-LOL-U R A Gag!</b><br /><br />I don't have to hope. You've already said it. If these quotes do not refer to creationism, then what do they refer to?<br /><br />Harvey wrote: <b>Modern science and RADICALS such as you hold to philosophical metaphysical natrualism which BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION discounts the notion of supernatural activity in the present world. </b><br /><br />Are you willing to accept Astrology, which is a supernatural means of divining the future prospects one's romantic, financial or heath based on their birth date and the positions of the planet as science. Of course not, you reject it as mysticism, which conflicts with your religious beliefs. <br /><br /><b>However the philosophy of science as directed by atheists always inclused the presupposition that there is no GOd…</b><br /><br />Could God exist, but have chosen to take absolutely no actions at all? <br /><br />Or, to turn the question around, does God have to do anything at all to exist. Does he have to take physical form to exist. Would God be any less great if he had done nothing? Would you conceder God less worthy of worship if he had not created human beings at all? As a theist, I'm guessing you'd say no. <br /><br />Therefore, to say God's existence is dependent on him having taking any action is clearly false. <br /><br />But your claim does not end with God merely existing. Instead, you go on to say that God created the universes from nothing. You say that God created all life, at once, and in final form. And you claim he did it less than 10,000 years ago. This is a claim about the physical world, which is the realm of science. <br /><br />That God did anything in particular which impacted the universe is specific to your religious beliefs. If you actually made any serious attempt to understand what people believe beyond Christianity, you'd know that not all supernatural claims include the a creator God. <br /><br />It is YOUR religious bias that only allows the acceptance of the supernatural as a function of the Christian God. Therefore, you would rant and rave that science was biased if it INCLUDED supernatural claims that excluded theistic notion of God.<br /><br />Do you deny this?<br /><br /><b>You want to address something ADDRESS THAT! Why does the standard of falsifiability NOT apply to "Big Bang" Cosmology for starters?</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=player_embedded" rel="nofollow">A universe from nothing: Lawence Krauss, AAI 2009</a>. While I recommend you watch the entire video, you can jump to 35:00 in to his talk to see just one way we know the Big Bang occurred.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-35891786437960767852009-10-22T21:48:38.919-05:002009-10-22T21:48:38.919-05:00Scott,
You said:"No bearing? You're enti...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>"No bearing? You're entire argument is that science is unfairly biased because it doesn't accept creationism."</i><br /><br />You want me to say that soooooooo bad you can taste it can't you. You're just hoping that's what I'm saying-LOL-U R A Gag!<br /><br />Modern science and RADICALS such as you hold to philosophical metaphysical natrualism which BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION discounts the notion of supernatural activity in the present world. <br /><br />YOU present the premise not based on scientific results, (BECUASE YOU (scientists in general)ADMIT THERE IS MUCH THAT YOU DON'T KNOW- EVEN AFTER OBSERVATION at times)<br /><br />However the philosophy of science as directed by <b>atheists</b> always inclused the presupposition that there is no GOd...<br /><br />I simply point out that what you do to arrive at that point of understanding, even BEFORE invesitigation begins, is and cannot be considered anything but UNSCIENTIFIC. YOU AGREED with the fact that SCIENCE CANNOT DISPROVE GOD...did you not?<br /><br /><b>Scott:Therefore, science could never confirm or deny out the existence of such a being. It's impossible by definition...So, NO. Science does not tell you God does not exist. <br />October 22, 2009 10:06 AM</b><br /><br />Science cannot and does not tell us that God does not exist by your own definition. You go further to claim that IF we say God has moved in the earth then that a scientific calim that must be able to be falsified...<b>I point clearly to the FACT that, that ideaology was not a scientific one but a philosophical one that is INAPPLICABLE to MUCH of what we know as science.</b> <br /><br />It is your RADICAL OBSESSION to make this philosophical construct apply to God when IT DOES NOT APPLY to a great deal of what we call science...There is no NECESSITY that it applies to God simply because HE is GOd.... <br /><br />Yours is a case of SPECIAL PLEADING (as most atheists do) to MAKE Popper's standard apply to God <b>when we can point to SPECIFIC CONCEPTS in modern science to which that same standard DOES NOT APPLY. It is a philosophical necessity for you to apply that standard to God in spite of the FACT that it doesn't apply to other areas of science.</b><br /><br /><b>You want to address something ADDRESS THAT! Why does the standard of falsifiability NOT apply to "Big Bang" Cosmology for starters?</b><br /><br />Thus your Radical BIAS is revealed! Therefore, I REJECT your attemt to make Popper's standards apply to God and his interaction in the world for your arguments are ad-hoc and full of special pleading fallacies. <br /><br /><b>FURTHER, neither this post NOR it's contents have hinged any of it's premises on Young Earth Creationism.</b> You desperately attgempt to create a link that has NOTHING to do with the validity of this argument and <b>your CONCESSION that science is illequipped and not a vehicle to debunk God in any fashion.</b> I also agree that science is illequipped to prove the existence of GOd. <br /><br />Suggestions either way based on science is based on PHILOSOPHICAL constructs. While I believe that the phenomena we observe in the known universe is a PRODUCT of the existence of GOd, my conclusions are based on a philosophical view and not merely a scientific view. <br /><br />Science in the classroom should RECLUSE itself of any atheistic premises based on what you readily agree...Science cannot disprove God! Therefore science SHOULD NOT make any statements that there is no God...those are the wierd prelections of atheists not scientists. <br /><br />In short, modern science has an atheistic presupposition as currently presented in most venues and that in and of itself, is an unscientific proposition and unecessary bias!<br /><br />Scott, I'm finished with you as there is nothing else to add to the enlightenment of either of us or the audience. <br /><br />I think you've stated your positions well. I really don't know what's left except for issues that NOBODY'S arguing.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-80868576235498512862009-10-22T19:52:56.394-05:002009-10-22T19:52:56.394-05:00Look you want me to write one on YEC? I mean so yo...<b>Look you want me to write one on YEC? I mean so you can make all the points you think are significant? Because for this thread they have no bearing.</b><br /><br />No bearing? You're entire argument is that science is unfairly biased because it doesn't accept creationism.<br /><br />Need I remind you? <br /><br />You wrote: <b>Scott what you've done and what science does is construct a world FIRST without God. That is the theorem upon which your theory is constructed to begin with. eg; scientific method has a false basis. </b><br /><br />And you've made it clear that you think God created all life in final form "when Adam sinned" <br /><br />Last, you failed to respond to the following... <br /><br /><i>For example, wouldn't you claim it would be biased for science to INCLUDE the aspect of Intelligent Design that suggests the earth is at least millions of years old?</i><br /><br />Care to answer the question?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-19155550190441286812009-10-22T19:41:16.815-05:002009-10-22T19:41:16.815-05:00Harvey wrote: Since you know so much you tell me, ...Harvey wrote: <b>Since you know so much you tell me, but It's certainly not YEC-LOL!!!</b><br /><br />Harvey, It's really quite simple.<br /><br />Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old?<br /><br />Yes or No. <br /><br />Do you think God created all life in one sitting and in final form? <br /><br />Yes or No.<br /><br />Should you answer yes to both of these questions, you're a YEC.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-37560699500274993042009-10-22T19:35:58.389-05:002009-10-22T19:35:58.389-05:00Harvey wrote: Apparently I do, have answered it an...Harvey wrote: <b>Apparently I do, have answered it and you "think" you're adding something to what's been discussed but you're not..</b><br /><br />Ranting and raving about how science should only accept the particular supernatural claims which do not conflict with your religious views does not constitute an "answer". It's hypocrisy. <br /><br />You've made it clear, multiple times, that your definition of "fairness" is limited to your fundamentalist Christian beliefs. It's an open admission to the ulterior motives of your post, and disingenuous at best. <br /><br />Do I need to copy and paste all of them here in a comment for everyone to see?<br /><br />Furthermore, it's obvious this attack is a desperate move to distract from the failure of YEC. Ignoring the elephant in the room might work when preaching to the choir, but it's isn't working in academia and college campuses. <br /><br />Harvey wrote: <b>As I expressed NONE of that is scientific.</b><br /><br />Huh? Science is not scientific? Or do you mean you just don't happen to agree with the results of science when it conflicts with your religious beliefs?<br /><br />If God created all life in one sitting, less than 10,000 years ago, this is a very specific claim about how God supposedly interacted the material world in a way. It falls under the realm of science. Again, to be crystal clear, it's IS a claim about science because it IS falsifiable. Nor is it being excluded on the grounds that it's NOT falsifiable. It's being excluded because it HAS been falsified. <br /><br />Should you actually understand Popper's philosophy, I'd invite you to write a short summary here in your own words. However, I'm guessing you're merely cutting and pasting from Vox's book without actually understanding it.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-75848336906626407302009-10-22T17:06:51.608-05:002009-10-22T17:06:51.608-05:00Scott,
You said:Do you want me to go back and quo...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>Do you want me to go back and quote where you've claimed that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that God created all living things at once and in final form?</i><br /><br />YES, do that it ought to be a good one. <br /><br />You said:<i>Apparently you can't even remember your own arguments.</i><br /><br />Apparently you have no idea what I'm saying, therefore you don't understand my arguments.<br /><br />Then after offering a supposed confirmation of your imposition on my statements you ask:<i>If this isn't YEC, then exactly what is it?</i><br /><br />Since you know so much you tell me, but It's certainly not YEC-LOL!!!<br /><br />This is scrackin' my side right now...It's a FUNDY party over here isn't it? They have left from arguing what I say, to what I haven't said and don't say...That's a gag!-LOL<br /><br />Look you want me to write one on YEC? I mean so you can make all the points you think are significant? Because for this thread they have no bearing.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-67472813471831279752009-10-22T15:42:32.050-05:002009-10-22T15:42:32.050-05:00Harvey,
Just in case you forgot...
I wrote: Th...Harvey, <br /><br />Just in case you forgot... <br /><br />I wrote: <i>This means that, over a period of millions of years, species were abruptly appearing where none had existed before. To be crystal clear, ID does not think all forms of life were created at once as creationists claim."</i><br /><br />You wrote: <b>What this is called is a misinterpretation of the bible as it pertain to science. How long was the time before Adam sinned? FYI: Creation occured during that period. Can you give me the time line for it? <br /><br />I'll guarantee that most any answer you render will be wrong, if you attempt to say the bible is an inadequate record. </b><br /><br />If this isn't YEC, then exactly what is it?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-12360365277038593012009-10-22T15:35:24.762-05:002009-10-22T15:35:24.762-05:00Harvey wrote: So he was an ATHEIST and that doesn&...Harvey wrote: <b>So he was an ATHEIST and that doesn't mean he was biased against God? YEAAAAAA RIGHT!</b><br /><br />If I am a non-stamp collector, does that mean I'm biased against stamp collectors? <br /><br /><b>SECONDLY...you're arguing a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Nobody's arguing for or against YEC EXCEPT you and that SHADOW you'r boxing...Have I one mentioned YEC on my own? In over 100 comments and retorts i don't believe that I have ever set that concept forth...That's not even on the point or topic of this thread…</b><br /><br />Really Harvey? <br /><br />Do you want me to go back and quote where you've claimed that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that God created all living things at once and in final form? <br /><br />Apparently you can't even remember your own arguments.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-87513169189428230422009-10-22T15:34:54.796-05:002009-10-22T15:34:54.796-05:00Hey Harvey hows it going.Ive been busy elswhere.
...Hey Harvey hows it going.Ive been busy elswhere.<br /><br />I notice old Voxy mostly stays within the safe confines of his own book or blog Harvey.He makes himself look good,with groupys who mostly only dare to lick his toes like he`s some modern day Jesus.<br /><br />Pretty simple to create a win win situation when have it sussed that if somebody asks something you dont want to answer you can simply say,wont answer that.Or you can say i wont allow this or that.<br /><br />But most sane people with even half a brain can see how it really works.Specially the youth!.But with relics who like what they hearing,well then thats a differnt matter.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-67513382524956328712009-10-22T14:25:48.572-05:002009-10-22T14:25:48.572-05:00Scott,
How does this read and sound:"The fac...Scott,<br /><br />How does this read and sound:<i>"The fact that Popper was a non-theist doesn't mean that he is biased against God.</i><br /><br />So he was an ATHEIST and that doesn't mean he was biased against God? YEAAAAAA RIGHT!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-2295608387205923492009-10-22T14:23:37.456-05:002009-10-22T14:23:37.456-05:00Scott,
You said:"Again, apparently you canno...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>"Again, apparently you cannot understand my argument."</i><br /><br />Apparently I do, have answered it and you "think" you're adding something to what's been discussed but you're not...What you're doing is further equivocating over the issue becuase I have presented ample evidence in support of my assertions and it has been found to account for the bias and reason that modern scientific methods do science with an atheistic bias.<br /><br />As I expressed NONE of that is scientific.<br /><br />Popper's methods which YOU espouse have been proven to be bankrupt and flawed adding no NEW dimension to the conversation at hand...As I've stated to you before, repeating, bad, failed, flawed and REFUTED arguments make them no better the 7th 8 and 9th times around as you persist on doing.<br /><br />SECONDLY...you're arguing a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Nobody's arguing for or against YEC EXCEPT you and that SHADOW you'r boxing...Have I one mentioned YEC on my own? In over 100 comments and retorts i don't believe that I have ever set that concept forth...That's not even on the point or topic of this thread...<br /><br />So what are you on???District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-27880490074948597962009-10-22T14:09:18.293-05:002009-10-22T14:09:18.293-05:00Harvey posted: Methodological naturalism has no ne...Harvey posted: <b>Methodological naturalism has no necessity to give way to atheism or metaphysical naturalism, however this is the current condition and confusion of modern scientific method. Science, which is a valuable and needed tool in ordinary life should not be used as a tool to explain away God as in and of itself is not equipped to do so without being a philosophical construct. Science should remain neutral at best and worst even within a Christian or theistic environment.</b><br /><br />Harvey, this appears to be the core of your argument. But as I've mentioned in previous comments, you're continued denial of the overwhelming evidence for evolution seems to explain why you blame science for the decline of young earth creationism. <br /><br />To use a previous analogy, you've assigned yourself as a self-appointed legal defender of young earth creationism (YEC). When presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests it is false, you have several options. <br /><br />A. Acknowledge there is a overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests YEC is false, but state that you hold the Bible as the highest authority and therefore you have faith it is true DESPITE all of the overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise. It's a matter of faith, not science. Or you could simply suggest that the creation account is metaphorical and reveals some other truth about God's involvement.<br /><br />B. Acknowledge there is a overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests YEC is false, but provide a plausible reason why all of the current evidence, including multiple dating methods, transitional fossils, etc, makes it appear that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is true. Perhaps God had a reason why he created the universe so it looked billions of years old as part of a test? Or perhaps Satan use his supernatural powers to plant false evidence which suggests YEC is false?<br /><br />However, you have taken neither of these options. Instead you flat out reject that overwhelming evidence exists. You ignore the elephant in the room. <br /><br />Now, this defense strategy might work when you're preaching to the choir (existing YECs who lack critical thinking skills and do not understand science), but, the actual members of the jury in this case (academia and college students) DO exhibit critical thinking skills and ARE science literate. Nor have they formed a dogmatic faith required to flat out deny the evidence in front of them.<br /><br />Since you've effectively blinded yourself to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you fail to address it in any meaningful way. And by ignoring it you appear dogmatic, which causes you to loose credibility. Dispute your rants and raves to the contrary, the jury still sees the elephant in the room and you loose the case. <br /><br />While It's clear your approach has failed, rather than admit this and change your strategy, you cry foul; claiming science is unfairly biased against God. Trying to pin this on science is transparent and disingenuous.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-82854268187282403482009-10-22T14:08:28.269-05:002009-10-22T14:08:28.269-05:00Harvey wrote: So in short, the strategy that you&#...Harvey wrote: <b>So in short, the strategy that you've bought into is an atheistic premise, full of atheistic bias to begin with. It's not open to further scientific discovery other than materialism.</b><br /><br />Here you reveal actually how little you know and how biased YOU are. <br /><br />If you actually knew anything about the multitude to supernatural claims and even some religions, you'd know that not all of them depend on theism. In fact, a majority of them lack any theistic content. Instead, theism happens to be the most widely accepted form of the supernatural. <br /><br />So, again, your claim of bias against God is show to be clearly false.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-74871259097213906362009-10-22T14:07:45.290-05:002009-10-22T14:07:45.290-05:00I wrote: However, the moment you claim God used hi...I wrote: <i>However, the moment you claim God used his supernatural abilities to effect the material world in a specific way, you've made a scientific claim.</i><br /> <br />Harvey wrote: <b>As I stated previously that's Popper's argumentation and he was a scientific PHILOSOPHER and atheist. </b><br /><br />Again, apparently you cannot understand my argument. <br /><br />Young Earth Creationism claims that all species were created all at once and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is known as empirical content. A such, it should be subjected to criticism and falsification. <br /><br />Furthermore, Popper's theory of falsification falls under the theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism" rel="nofollow">Fallibilism</a> which was developed by a THEIST name<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce" rel="nofollow">Charles Sanders Peirce</a>. <br /><br />The fact that Popper was a non-theist doesn't mean that he is biased against God. <br /><br />Again, your attempts to blame the decline of YEC on science is transparent and disingenuous. <br /><br />For example, wouldn't you claim it would be biased for science to INCLUDE the aspect of Intelligent Design that suggests the earth is at least millions of years old?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-89170455714887271732009-10-22T12:10:55.042-05:002009-10-22T12:10:55.042-05:00Scott,
You said:"Therefore, science could ne...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>"Therefore, science could never confirm or deny out the existence of such a being. It's impossible by definition...So, NO. Science does not tell you God does not exist.</i><br /><br />That's ALL I'm trying to say Scott. Science cannot do this if it remains science, but what we have within science is philosphy as demonstrated by your very next comment:<br /><br />You said:<i> However, the moment you claim God used his supernatural abilities to effect the material world in a specific way, you've made a scientific claim."</i><br /><br />As I stated previously that's Popper's argumentation and he was a scientific PHILOSOPHER and atheist. His argument is only ONE sort of definition for science as stated earlier and is not effective in many scientific subjects. <br /><br />So in short, the strategy that you've bought into is an atheistic premise, full of atheistic bias to begin with. It's not open to further scientific discovery other than materialism. <br /><br />It's interesting what is clearly unvcovered here. Atheistic philosophy exists within science as philosophy. Many, including yourself don't know or have never distinguished the difference. We'll it's revealed now.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-90470075518125442392009-10-22T10:06:45.061-05:002009-10-22T10:06:45.061-05:00Harvey wrote: For science to tell me that God does...Harvey wrote: <b>For science to tell me that God does not exist is an atheistic premise. That is not science it is philosophy based on metaphysical naturalism. </b><br /><br />Harvey, you failed to address my actual argument, again. <br /><br />If God is non-material and uses his omnipotence to elude being observed in a concrete way, then it would be impossible for science to detect him. Therefore, science could never confirm or deny out the existence of such a being. It's impossible by definition. <br /><br />So, NO. Science does not tell you God does not exist. <br /><br />However, the moment you claim God used his supernatural abilities to effect the material world in a specific way, you've made a scientific claim. That science does not presuppose your specific fundamentalist Christian definition of God when studying the natural world is not atheism. <br /><br />Instead, it represents the failure of young earth creationism due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your attempt to blame science for this failure is transparent and disingenuous.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-77303191699867932502009-10-21T23:08:56.439-05:002009-10-21T23:08:56.439-05:00Scott,
You said:Harvey, the claim that a sentient...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>Harvey, the claim that a sentient, non-material being exists cannot be disproven by science.</i><br /><br />Falsifiability is a concept of science that was developed by Economics professor at the London School of economics named Karl Popper. He was considered to be a leader in what is called the <b>Philosophy of science</b>. He came up with the thought that in order for science to take place that it must be theoretically "possible" to make an observation that would disprove the subject.<br /><br />This is how you CONSISTENTLY define science in your writings so I know you believe this hook, line and sinker. Poppers statements and yours contain the same fallacy however. <br /><br />Look, I'll use Vox's example here: If we make the statement that all swans are white, then proceed to see a black swan, under Poppers and your arguments now Swans are a proper scientific matter...another example...I say all lego bricks are red...I observe a blue brick, because I've falsified the statement now all lego bricks are a proper scientific matter...<br /><br />This is one of the most silly propositions in the world, because it lends to nothing and no greater understanding. Either everything becomes a proper scientific matter (because of claims) or nothing becomes one if all things are uniform and there no claim.<br /><br />As Vox says,<br /><i>"But this merely expands the falsifiability test into a haphazard, technology driven definition that dives headlong into tautology, defining science as whatever scientists believe science to be at the moment, or worse whatever scientists are doing"</i>(pg. 31)<br /><br />So I reject the notion that all science is based on this premise. I've stated over and over, NONE of you can observe or falsify the "big bang" but ALL of you call it science. So your whole premise is dead as fas as I'm concerned. <br /><br />I've explained my thoughts here on what science can and cannot say over and over, I can't understand why you're still talking about it...<br /><br />For science to tell me that God does not exist is an atheistic premise. That is not science it is philosophy based on metaphysical naturalism. <br /><br />Methodological naturalism may be good for what it does for the material world but it cannot disprove or exclude God in any fashion. that's beyond what it's designed to do.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-2111477515528855902009-10-21T22:26:04.872-05:002009-10-21T22:26:04.872-05:00Harvey wrote: neither God nor atheistic concepts s...Harvey wrote: <b>neither God nor atheistic concepts should be included in science. So that's the problem I have is that science is hijacked by atheistic dogmas and views and that's uneccessary. </b><br /><br />Harvey, the claim that a sentient, non-material being exists cannot be disproven by science. But you are not merely suggesting such a being exists. Instead, you're suggesting this being is also all knowing, all powerful and actually uses supernatural abilities to effect the material world in very specific ways. <br /><br />That you believe the Christian God created the universe and all life is your specific supernatural claim. The failure of science to "recognize" this is not unfair bias. <br /><br />If God wanted to reveal his part in the creation of the universe, there is a multitude of ways he could do so. <br /><br />For example, he could simply appear to us and create a miniature universe as part of a controlled experiment. Or he could have actually put a "fingerprint" in the cell of every living thing that is biological equivalent of a "Created by the Christian God" signature. <br /><br />But without this sort of explicit means of verification, then any specific claims about what God supposedly did or did not do fall outside the realm of science. <br /><br />I wrote: <i>Supernatural claims that agree with your religious beliefs are OK, but supernatural claims that conflict with your religious viewer should be EXCLUDED...Again, this is clearly hypocrisy on your part.</i><br /><br />Harvey wrote: <b>HARDLY, as I've explained before, when those religious concepts are included within SCIENCE I have a problem, but on their own they are free to teach and beliueve what they like.<br /><br />Now I could not possibly be more clear. I fail to see what you don't understand.</b><br /><br />Harvey, your entire rant is about how science "construct[s] a world FIRST without God." But, according to your beliefs, how did God supposedly create the universe and everything in it? He used his supernatural powers. Right?<br /><br />Again, if science were include creationism, then it would be including the supernatural. But only the particular supernatural belief that you yourself consider true.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-28619306860469367702009-10-21T12:23:02.364-05:002009-10-21T12:23:02.364-05:00Laura,
Just in case you are still around, I wanted...Laura,<br />Just in case you are still around, I wanted to say thanks for directing me to Tipler.<br /><br />I haven't read his book yet but one of my local cronies sent me some excerpts.<br /><br />I have also read some from his followers and crtics. It's all quite interesting, in a science fiction sort of way.<br /><br />"What is the purpose of life in the universe?<br />It is not enough to annihilate some baryons. If the laws of physics are to be consistent over all time, a substantial percentage of all the baryons in the universe must be annihilated, and over a rather short time span. Only if this is done will the acceleration of the universe be halted. This means, in particular, that intelligent life from the terrestrial biosphere must move out into interstellar and intergalactic space, annihilating baryons as they go. (p. 67)"<br />LOLOLOL!!!!!!<br /><br />Better yet:<br /><br />"How did Jesus walk on water?<br />For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward. If we ourselves knew how to do this, we would have the perfect rocket! (p. 200)"<br /><br />So, Jesus had a neutrino beam generator under his robe?<br />Kewl! That explains everything!<br /><br />Finally:<br />"How can long-dead saints intercede in the lives of people who pray to them?<br />According to the Universal Resurrection theory, everyone, in particular the long-dead saints, will be brought back into existence as computer emulations in the far future, near the Final Singularity, also called God the Father. … Future-to-past causation is usual with the Cosmological Singularity. A prayer made today can be transferred by the Singularity to a resurrected saint—the Virgin Mary, say—after the Universal Resurrection. The saint can then reflect on the prayer and, by means of the Son Singularity acting through the multiverse, reply. The reply, via future-to-past causation, is heard before it is made. It is heard billions of years before it is made. (p. 235)"<br /><br />Oh Boy! He's an old earther that promotes praying to the virgin mary!<br /><br />Thanks, Laura. This is side splitting stuff! My wife even wandered by to find the cause of my hilarity!<br /><br />LOL!Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-31299399113820777122009-10-21T12:19:15.938-05:002009-10-21T12:19:15.938-05:00Scott,
You said:I'm comparing a supposed bias...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>I'm comparing a supposed bias of science against God to a supposed bias against Alien Intervention Theory or Astrology. I'm saying that, should science be unfairly biased against God, then it would also be unfairly biased against a vast number of other non-scientific ideas that you reject"</i><br /><br />I understand what you're saying and I guess if I were making the claim that God MUST be included in scientific reasoning and postulations, I would agree with you, but I'm saying teh opposite...neither God nor atheistic concepts should be included in science. So that's the problem I have is that science is hijacked by atheistic dogmas and views and that's uneccessary. <br /><br />You said:<i>"Supernatural claims that agree with your religious beliefs are OK, but supernatural claims that conflict with your religious viewer should be EXCLUDED...Again, this is clearly hypocrisy on your part.</i><br /><br />HARDLY, as I've explained before, when those religious concepts are included within SCIENCE I have a problem, but on their own they are free to teach and beliueve what they like.<br /><br />Now I could not possibly be more clear. I fail to see what you don't understand.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-67572292469562186222009-10-21T11:11:05.953-05:002009-10-21T11:11:05.953-05:00I wrote: You said:Science is no more unfairly bias...I wrote: <i>You said:Science is no more unfairly biases to God that it is to Alien Intervention Theory and astrology.</i><br /><br />Harvey wrote: <b>Oooh, YES it is when it tells me that God doesn't exist or that (in the case of evolution) man descended from a common ancestor along with an ape...NO, man was a creation of God like an ape is also a creation of God. </b><br /><br />Harvey, go back and read my statement again. I'm afraid you either failed to comprehend it or you're trying to avoid the elephant in the room. <br /><br />I'm comparing a supposed bias of science against God to a supposed bias against Alien Intervention Theory or Astrology. I'm saying that, should science be unfairly biased against God, then it would also be unfairly biased against a vast number of other non-scientific ideas that you reject.<br /><br />You're claim of a lack of "fairness" in science is clearly disingenuous as it only extends to the beliefs you personally hold. <br /><br /><b>When will you understand? Anything that doesn't make or extend a worldview or dogma, if it's science is OK. As long as astrology doesn't lead to reading the future or other things that go along with mysticism, it's a valid study. In fact we can only know the dates of certain historical events through the study of astrology. I can't get your hang up and you're being very unreasonable. </b><br /><br />I'm being unreasonable?<br /><br />Are you actually trying to suggest the claim that "God did it" does not "make or extend a world view or dogma?" Really? <br /><br />When you say… <b> As long as astrology doesn't lead to reading the future or other things that go along with mysticism, it's a valid study.</b><br /><br />You essentially said.. <i>As long as astrology doesn't conflict with my religious beliefs, it's a valid study.</i><br /><br />Supernatural claims that agree with your religious beliefs are OK, but supernatural claims that conflict with your religious viewer should be EXCLUDED.<br /><br />Again, this is clearly hypocrisy on your part.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-68762975803465067972009-10-20T22:44:33.490-05:002009-10-20T22:44:33.490-05:00On thing I find interesting in Vox Day's book,...On thing I find interesting in Vox Day's book, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/7682654/The-Irrational-Atheist-by-Vox-Day" rel="nofollow">The Irrational Atheist</a> he says tha atheism predates Christianity by 400 years dating back to Plato in "apology" in 399 BC.(pg. 7)<br /><br />The interesting thing is that atheism is like the little engine that could...it's trying so hard for so long and not making any sense or progress. the New atheists think they have so much going for their arguments and approach with such a new fervor only it's meaningless and powerless...He states on pg. 8 that for 278 years athesist have been singing the fight song that our friend Gandy espouses waiting for the day when religion is done away with, and reverberating the same "I see no miracles, I hear no miracles, I speak no miracles" that Scott has been pouting about too. It's really interesting to see...<br /><br />Sad shame to waste so much energy on something that states, you die, you rot and that's it at least in most cases because Barna did a poll and some atheists think they'll even go to heaven too-LOLDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-12243061716812691222009-10-20T21:58:40.216-05:002009-10-20T21:58:40.216-05:00Gandy,
You said:Oh yeah... christianity is just s...Gandy,<br /><br />You said:<i>Oh yeah... christianity is just so full of this absolute moral that never ever change,</i><br /><br />Certainly it is...it's always been wrong to steal, murder and committ adultery etc...those things haven' cahnged, whereas we're living in a culture tha says there are "reasons" for certain actions and people shouldn't be held accountable for certain things. <br /><br />You said:<i>"which is why they needed to write a whole new load of gibberish in the second testament."</i><br /><br />You just like to say silly and unreasonable things... do you, but don't exopect to get by with it for long over here. <br /><br />You asked:<i>"And lots more changed too between the first and second testament why?"</i><br /><br />FOR NO REASON other than Jesus and what HE did...it's called GRACE and MERCY which was presnet on the OT and revealed in the New...that's teh ONLY reason. <br /><br />You said:<i>"well you will try fooling folks it was because of god changing his mind."</i><br /><br />One thing that's clearly affirmed in both the OT and the NT is that God is unchanging. So your sentiment is inaccurate. What GOd does is reveal various aspects of his nature. In the OT there was no propitiation of sin, just a revealing of it. In the NT Jesus became sin for us and a substitutionary atonement for the sins of the world. So there's a big difference.<br /><br />You said:<i>"Harvey you can dream all you like that your faith can revolve around absolutes,but like i say thankfully there is still many open minded folk out there in this world including youth!!"</i><br /><br />Let';s see, what has atheism EVER done for humanity and moral values? it hasn't added to the sense of morality because morality is already established BEFORE it's rise...atheism, very rarely has done anything to better the condition of humanity...really atheism is sort of a leach...it rides of the accolades of the church and what the church has successfully done through generations and claims that it has some "better path" to follow...it's really hillarious, when you think about it. Atheism is a sort of armchair quarterback, that's never played the game and then in a pickup game plays like he's in the professional leagues only it's really in his mind...that's atheism. <br /><br />You said:<i>"And the very silly bit is, its actually the closed minded folks that will cause (themselves) to become like the dodo bird in the end."</i><br /><br />I'll give you that..,.you're mind is soo open ANYTHING can flow through it and EVERYTHING has fallen out... Now that the truth. <br /><br />You stated<i>"...making themselves to look and seem so stubborn and blind and even foolish.</i><br /><br />To do right these days one needs to be stubborn...resist foolishness stubbornly...That's the example our children need and if one ever hold a gun to your face and threatens you with it, you'll be glad I was teaching them to stubbornly do the right thing in life and no bow or yield to every foolish idea that comes along. <br /><br />You said:<i>"Reminding them to not give to faith charities any more,but to give instead to secular charity</i><br /><br />And NOTHING will get done and it'll all end in scandals if Christian people aren't actively engaged in those charities...there are plenty of secular crooks to go around...4 sure. <br /><br />I guess when you have no retort for the current argument you go off on benges like you do. I'll end it soon enough I guess.<br /><br />BTW: EVERYDAY with Jesus is sweeter that the day before!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.com