(September 5, 2018 at 4:14 pm)SteveII Wrote: Wait, what? Peter, James and John were certainly eyewitnesses and authors of books of the NT. Luke wrote Luke and Acts by speaking to eyewitnesses. So...there's that. No one thinks that the apostle with the name actually took up the pen.

b-mine

Wait, what..indeed...and that's before we even begin to mention that the statement above is an article of your faith - not a historical fact.  Acts, is known fiction..and this is known even to the fundy asshats.  You're referring to eyewitnesses to fairy tales, here.  

Quote:It was understood that the other three gospels were the accounts from three different groups surrounding the apostles and undertaken by three editors ALL WITHIN the lives of eyewitnesses --including any rebuttal witnesses.

Understood by whom, nutballs with beliefs that need buttressing?

Quote:Further, there is no reason to suspect the content of the gospels because the content was already believed decades earlier in the churches as well as referred to in ALL the epistles. 

That would, at best demonstrate that someone believed the contents - but..ofc, that's not necessarily the case.

Quote:So, over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. Even further--there are no coherent alternate theory that explains the books AS WELL AS the churches across the Roman Empire that believed that Jesus rose from the dead PRIOR TO 50AD. 

You missed a zero on that one.  There were churches and temples all over rome that believed in all sorts of silly shit, in any case. Get back to me the next time you make a sacrifice to jupiter.

Quote:So, it would seem that your "the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses" is not only an assertion, it is plain false. 

You don't seem to think they were written by eyewitnesses either, even though you believe that somebody just must have witnessed this stuff...even and especially the shit that never happened.

Is StuntedSteve still pushing that 50 year spread as if that helps his case any 

-There was more then enough time for Jesus to be mythologized and more then enough evidence he was 

- No early churches did practice the same beliefs as later ones 

- No the first Jesus was not a historical Jesus he was a mystic one 

- The spread of Christianity is total possible with zero eyewitnesses 

-27 books of mythology and legends is still 27 books of mythology and legends the number does not make the events or characters historical

- And he should stop trying to Bayesian probability theory he sucks at it about as much as church history (the non apologist version)

---

And no it was not written by eyewitness of any kind

---

All Steves shit is Case For Christ level idiocy

(September 5, 2018 at 4:14 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 2:57 pm)polymath257 Wrote: On the contrary, the books of the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses. Except for some writings attributed to Paul (but not all of them!), we have little knowledge of who actually wrote the texts. They were certainly not written by the attributed authors. So, no, they did not have personal knowledge. They were reporting what others said.

Wait, what? Peter, James and John were certainly eyewitnesses and authors of books of the NT. Luke wrote Luke and Acts by speaking to eyewitnesses. So...there's that. No one thinks that the apostle with the name actually took up the pen. It was understood that the other three gospels were the accounts from three different groups surrounding the apostles and undertaken by three editors ALL WITHIN the lives of eyewitnesses --including any rebuttal witnesses. Further, there is no reason to suspect the content of the gospels because the content was already believed decades earlier in the churches as well as referred to in ALL the epistles.  So, over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. Even further--there are no coherent alternate theory that explains the books AS WELL AS the churches across the Roman Empire that believed that Jesus rose from the dead PRIOR TO 50AD. 

So, it would seem that your "the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses" is not only an assertion, it is plain false.

Unfortunately, the actual evidence doesn't support your traditional views. Except for some of the wiritings attributed to Paul, there is no reason to think *any* of the apostles had *anything* to do with the gospels attributed to them. In fact, most scholarship specifically denies that possibility.

Quote:

Quote:Let's ask the question: what does it mean to 'exist'? Give me an answer to *that* and we can then define the 'universe' and only then deal with your question.

Exist: have objective reality or being.

Sorry, that only pushes the definition off to the concept of 'reality', which is ultimately equivalent. How do you avoid circular definitions here?

Also, 'objective' requires observation, which limits us to the scientific realm.

Quote:

Quote:How exactly does science say that contingent magical beings are impossible? What, precisely, is the role of contingency here?

Because science is in the business of explaining things by way of physical laws and processes--yet you need the universe to have produced 'magic' which then goes on to violate the laws of the universe that created it. You cannot logically hold together a theory that magical creatures exist as part of this universe. As such, belief in such creatures is delusional.   

Quote:My position is that any talk about contingency is a red-herring. It isn't something science actually *ever* deals with.

Wow. Science as it's core requires the concept of contingency. That's what cause and effect are.

Find *one*modern science text that even mentions the philosophical idea of contingency. That is simply no longer a concept that is relevant for modern science. It is founded on a false and silly metaphysics that has been thoroughly discredited.

Also, while the notions of cause and effect are mostly operative for the macroscopic wolrd, they fail at the subatomic level and below. Causality as classically understood is simply not a part of modern science.

Quote:

Quote:And my knowledge of the first 500 years of the Bible is decent (but certainly not perfect).  I stand by what I said until you can give specific reasons to think otherwise.

Really? You are not even referring to it correctly. I think you mean Church History.

No, I mean the history of how the Bible was written, collected, voted upon, and why it is what we now see. The church history is different and an interesting study of how a religion grows in its initial stages from a local cult to a belief dictated by an emperor.

---

(September 5, 2018 at 3:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: No, you don't get it. The *evidence* for evolution comes from testable hypotheses and observations. The evidence for neither deities nor garden gnomes is testable. THAT is partly why they are both delusional.

Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.

Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable.  Those which are arrived at through inductive logic.  We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional.  This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional.   Would this work for you?

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

(September 6, 2018 at 8:15 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 5, 2018 at 4:14 pm)SteveII Wrote: Wait, what? Peter, James and John were certainly eyewitnesses and authors of books of the NT. Luke wrote Luke and Acts by speaking to eyewitnesses. So...there's that. No one thinks that the apostle with the name actually took up the pen. It was understood that the other three gospels were the accounts from three different groups surrounding the apostles and undertaken by three editors ALL WITHIN the lives of eyewitnesses --including any rebuttal witnesses. Further, there is no reason to suspect the content of the gospels because the content was already believed decades earlier in the churches as well as referred to in ALL the epistles.  So, over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. Even further--there are no coherent alternate theory that explains the books AS WELL AS the churches across the Roman Empire that believed that Jesus rose from the dead PRIOR TO 50AD. 

So, it would seem that your "the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses" is not only an assertion, it is plain false.

Unfortunately, the actual evidence doesn't support your traditional views. Except for some of the wiritings attributed to Paul, there is no reason to think *any* of the apostles had *anything* to do with the gospels attributed to them. In fact, most scholarship specifically denies that possibility.

You are making statements claiming facts with not a shred of reasoning or evidence behind them. Notice when I make a statement, I connect it to other things. I give reasons why two different things seem to be connected. I give context. You just simply assert things in such a simplistic manner that it is clear you are just repeating things you think other people have proven and you don't have to even understand what you are talking about.

You glossed over that Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses AND they wrote epistles. You seem to need clarification, epistles are not gospels. The Gospel of John can be clearly and certainly tied to the three epistles in content and style so while the actual writer of the words were not the same people, no one believes they originated from different places. 

I does not even matter at this point. The fact that we are arguing about different interpretations of facts MEANS that I have PROVEN your 'delusion' charge is total and utter crap. In case you need the dots connected, there is a body of evidence/reasons for my belief that is literally impossible for you to prove wrong. You don't actually have positive reasons that my beliefs are obviously wrong WHICH IS the threshold of 'delusional'. 

Quote:

Quote:Exist: have objective reality or being.

Sorry, that only pushes the definition off to the concept of 'reality', which is ultimately equivalent. How do you avoid circular definitions here?

Also, 'objective' requires observation, which limits us to the scientific realm.

You are moving the goal post here. You said that only things inside the universe can 'exist'. That is simply not true. Many scientists posit a multiverse. What do you do with that? Even the fact that we are discussing the concept of a multiverse PROVES that the concept of existing outside the universe is coherent.  Pointing out that definitions are regressive in nature is not a point in your favor. 

'Objective' does not require science. You are really confused on how science works. Science REQUIRES a philosophy of science to even exist. Does the number 4 objectively exist? Does a triangle or the statement p-->q; p therefore q objectively exist? None of these requires science--in fact, the are presupposed by science. Science has nothing to say about God--at all--by definition, by logic. 

Quote:

Quote:Because science is in the business of explaining things by way of physical laws and processes--yet you need the universe to have produced 'magic' which then goes on to violate the laws of the universe that created it. You cannot logically hold together a theory that magical creatures exist as part of this universe. As such, belief in such creatures is delusional.   

Wow. Science as it's core requires the concept of contingency. That's what cause and effect are.

Find *one*modern science text that even mentions the philosophical idea of contingency. That is simply no longer a concept that is relevant for modern science. It is founded on a false and silly metaphysics that has been thoroughly discredited.

Also, while the notions of cause and effect are mostly operative for the macroscopic wolrd, they fail at the subatomic level and below. Causality as classically understood is simply not a part of modern science.

Just wow. I don't even have to go find a scientific text. I just can point to definitions:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/
adjective

1. 2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

Can you see that the whole enterprise of science DEPENDS on the concept of contingency and that without it, science could not happen? 

What is with atheists and quantum mechanics? How many metaphysical truths can be derived from something a) we don't understand and b) is constantly mischaracterized. Quantum particles require (are contingent upon) the quantum energy field. 

Therefore cause/effect (contingency) is CERTAINLY part of 'modern science'. 

Quote:

Quote:Really? You are not even referring to it correctly. I think you mean Church History.

No, I mean the history of how the Bible was written, collected, voted upon, and why it is what we now see. The church history is different and an interesting study of how a religion grows in its initial stages from a local cult to a belief dictated by an emperor.

Your understanding/knowledge of that history is what is being called into question. You don't seem to understand the difference between gospels and epistles and who wrote what. Yet you are so certain our belief is delusional. Your lack of knowledge of what we actually believe AND a charge of 'delusion' are not actually compatible. You ignorance exempts you from even offering an opinion. 

Quote:

---

(September 5, 2018 at 3:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.

Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable.  Those which are arrived at through inductive logic.  We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional.  This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional.   Would this work for you?

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

This is great!! The actual example you use, Evolution, is an entirely inductive enterprise!!!!!!

(September 6, 2018 at 10:09 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 6, 2018 at 8:15 am)polymath257 Wrote: Unfortunately, the actual evidence doesn't support your traditional views. Except for some of the wiritings attributed to Paul, there is no reason to think *any* of the apostles had *anything* to do with the gospels attributed to them. In fact, most scholarship specifically denies that possibility.

You are making statements claiming facts with not a shred of reasoning or evidence behind them. Notice when I make a statement, I connect it to other things. I give reasons why two different things seem to be connected. I give context. You just simply assert things in such a simplistic manner that it is clear you are just repeating things you think other people have proven and you don't have to even understand what you are talking about.

You glossed over that Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses AND they wrote epistles. You seem to need clarification, epistles are not gospels. The Gospel of John can be clearly and certainly tied to the three epistles in content and style so while the actual writer of the words were not the same people, no one believes they originated from different places. 

I does not even matter at this point. The fact that we are arguing about different interpretations of facts MEANS that I have PROVEN your 'delusion' charge is total and utter crap. In case you need the dots connected, there is a body of evidence/reasons for my belief that is literally impossible for you to prove wrong. You don't actually have positive reasons that my beliefs are obviously wrong WHICH IS the threshold of 'delusional'. 

An example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

The Petrine epistles were almost certainly NOT written by Peter.

Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.[1][2][3]

Quote:

Quote:Sorry, that only pushes the definition off to the concept of 'reality', which is ultimately equivalent. How do you avoid circular definitions here?

Also, 'objective' requires observation, which limits us to the scientific realm.

You are moving the goal post here. You said that only things inside the universe can 'exist'. That is simply not true. Many scientists posit a multiverse. What do you do with that? Even the fact that we are discussing the concept of a multiverse PROVES that the concept of existing outside the universe is coherent.  Pointing out that definitions are regressive in nature is not a point in your favor. 

In this context, a multiverse *would* be considered the universe. it is the sum of all physical things.

Quote:'Objective' does not require science. You are really confused on how science works. Science REQUIRES a philosophy of science to even exist. Does the number 4 objectively exist? Does a triangle or the statement p-->q; p therefore q objectively exist? None of these requires science--in fact, the are presupposed by science. Science has nothing to say about God--at all--by definition, by logic. 

No, the number 4 does NOT objectively exist. Nor does a triangle nor an implication. Those are *all* language constructs and have no independent existence.

Quote:

Quote:Find *one*modern science text that even mentions the philosophical idea of contingency. That is simply no longer a concept that is relevant for modern science. It is founded on a false and silly metaphysics that has been thoroughly discredited.

Also, while the notions of cause and effect are mostly operative for the macroscopic wolrd, they fail at the subatomic level and below. Causality as classically understood is simply not a part of modern science.

Just wow. I don't even have to go find a scientific text. I just can point to definitions:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/
adjective

1. 2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

Can you see that the whole enterprise of science DEPENDS on the concept of contingency and that without it, science could not happen? 

No, and quite the contrary. In fact, the way that modern science actually works simply doesn't fit into your philosophy.

Quote:What is with atheists and quantum mechanics? How many metaphysical truths can be derived from something a) we don't understand and b) is constantly mischaracterized. Quantum particles require (are contingent upon) the quantum energy field. 

What you don't seem to understand is that we *do* understand QM. The 'quantum energy field' isn't anything that *actual* quantum mechanics mentions. You may find it in some popular accounts, but that phrase doesn't appear in, say Peskin&Schroder, one of the standard texts for fundamental particle physics.

What *does* appear is the concept of a quantum field (not a quantum *energy* field). And those quantum fields are fundamentally *non-causal*. They are probabilistic and do NOT obey any law of classical causality.

Before we go on, just how much quantum mechanics have you studied? have you ever solved a differential equation? Gone through the solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom? Calculated a reaction cross section for QED?

I have.

Quote:Therefore cause/effect (contingency) is CERTAINLY part of 'modern science'.

Simply false.

Quote:

Quote:No, I mean the history of how the Bible was written, collected, voted upon, and why it is what we now see. The church history is different and an interesting study of how a religion grows in its initial stages from a local cult to a belief dictated by an emperor.

Your understanding/knowledge of that history is what is being called into question. You don't seem to understand the difference between gospels and epistles and who wrote what. Yet you are so certain our belief is delusional. Your lack of knowledge of what we actually believe AND a charge of 'delusion' are not actually compatible. You ignorance exempts you from even offering an opinion. 

Quote:

---

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

This is great!! The actual example you use, Evolution, is an entirely inductive enterprise!!!!!!

[/quote]

Again, testability is the crucial aspect. Evolution is, in fact, a testable theory which is *why* it is a scientific one. it is NOT purely inductive in any way that isn't true of any area of science. In fact, it is precisely the issues surrounding the problem of induction that force the requirement of testability and repeatability to be a valid scientific theory.

And StuntedSteves desperation to defend his unsupported traditionalist views  though the evidence does not support them grows .

He's thinking of a 4 iron and a triangle wedge

(September 6, 2018 at 11:51 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 6, 2018 at 10:09 am)SteveII Wrote: You are making statements claiming facts with not a shred of reasoning or evidence behind them. Notice when I make a statement, I connect it to other things. I give reasons why two different things seem to be connected. I give context. You just simply assert things in such a simplistic manner that it is clear you are just repeating things you think other people have proven and you don't have to even understand what you are talking about.

You glossed over that Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses AND they wrote epistles. You seem to need clarification, epistles are not gospels. The Gospel of John can be clearly and certainly tied to the three epistles in content and style so while the actual writer of the words were not the same people, no one believes they originated from different places. 

I does not even matter at this point. The fact that we are arguing about different interpretations of facts MEANS that I have PROVEN your 'delusion' charge is total and utter crap. In case you need the dots connected, there is a body of evidence/reasons for my belief that is literally impossible for you to prove wrong. You don't actually have positive reasons that my beliefs are obviously wrong WHICH IS the threshold of 'delusional'. 

An example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

The Petrine epistles were almost certainly NOT written by Peter.

Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.[1][2][3]

Quote:You are moving the goal post here. You said that only things inside the universe can 'exist'. That is simply not true. Many scientists posit a multiverse. What do you do with that? Even the fact that we are discussing the concept of a multiverse PROVES that the concept of existing outside the universe is coherent.  Pointing out that definitions are regressive in nature is not a point in your favor. 

In this context, a multiverse *would* be considered the universe. it is the sum of all physical things.

Quote:'Objective' does not require science. You are really confused on how science works. Science REQUIRES a philosophy of science to even exist. Does the number 4 objectively exist? Does a triangle or the statement p-->q; p therefore q objectively exist? None of these requires science--in fact, the are presupposed by science. Science has nothing to say about God--at all--by definition, by logic. 

No, the number 4 does NOT objectively exist. Nor does a triangle nor an implication. Those are *all* language constructs and have no independent existence.

Quote:Just wow. I don't even have to go find a scientific text. I just can point to definitions:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/
adjective

1. 2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

Can you see that the whole enterprise of science DEPENDS on the concept of contingency and that without it, science could not happen? 

No, and quite the contrary. In fact, the way that modern science actually works simply doesn't fit into your philosophy.

Quote:What is with atheists and quantum mechanics? How many metaphysical truths can be derived from something a) we don't understand and b) is constantly mischaracterized. Quantum particles require (are contingent upon) the quantum energy field. 

What you don't seem to understand is that we *do* understand QM. The 'quantum energy field' isn't anything that *actual* quantum mechanics mentions. You may find it in some popular accounts, but that phrase doesn't appear in, say Peskin&Schroder, one of the standard texts for fundamental particle physics.

What *does* appear is the concept of a quantum field (not a quantum *energy* field). And those quantum fields are fundamentally *non-causal*. They are probabilistic and do NOT obey any law of classical causality.

Before we go on, just how much quantum mechanics have you studied? have you ever solved a differential equation? Gone through the solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom? Calculated a reaction cross section for QED?

I have.

Quote:Therefore cause/effect (contingency) is CERTAINLY part of 'modern science'.

Simply false.

Quote:Your understanding/knowledge of that history is what is being called into question. You don't seem to understand the difference between gospels and epistles and who wrote what. Yet you are so certain our belief is delusional. Your lack of knowledge of what we actually believe AND a charge of 'delusion' are not actually compatible. You ignorance exempts you from even offering an opinion. 


This is great!! The actual example you use, Evolution, is an entirely inductive enterprise!!!!!!

Again, testability is the crucial aspect. Evolution is, in fact, a testable theory which is *why* it is a scientific one. it is NOT purely inductive in any way that isn't true of any area of science. In fact, it is precisely the issues surrounding the problem of induction that force the requirement of testability and repeatability to be a valid scientific theory.
[/quote]

Wait Steve honestly thinks 
Accepts Mystic Quatums 
Thinks evolution is inductive 
Thinks triangles exists in reality 
Thinks modern science relies on contingency
Thinks the Petrine epistles were actually written by Peter 

I knew he was i'll informed but by the Kraken this is absurd

---

(September 6, 2018 at 11:58 am)robvalue Wrote: He's thinking of a 4 iron and a triangle wedge

Speaking of cause and effect, this came up on my science news feed, and I thought it was both interesting and relevant:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-quantum-we...radox.html

(September 6, 2018 at 11:51 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(September 6, 2018 at 10:09 am)SteveII Wrote: You are making statements claiming facts with not a shred of reasoning or evidence behind them. Notice when I make a statement, I connect it to other things. I give reasons why two different things seem to be connected. I give context. You just simply assert things in such a simplistic manner that it is clear you are just repeating things you think other people have proven and you don't have to even understand what you are talking about.

You glossed over that Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses AND they wrote epistles. You seem to need clarification, epistles are not gospels. The Gospel of John can be clearly and certainly tied to the three epistles in content and style so while the actual writer of the words were not the same people, no one believes they originated from different places. 

I does not even matter at this point. The fact that we are arguing about different interpretations of facts MEANS that I have PROVEN your 'delusion' charge is total and utter crap. In case you need the dots connected, there is a body of evidence/reasons for my belief that is literally impossible for you to prove wrong. You don't actually have positive reasons that my beliefs are obviously wrong WHICH IS the threshold of 'delusional'. 

An example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

The Petrine epistles were almost certainly NOT written by Peter.

Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.

Notice the path of this point you were trying to make in defense of your 'delusion' claim. You moved from NO eyewitnesses to 2 epistles out of 27. I could cut and paste the next paragraph after the one you quoted that explains why a minority of scholars think Peter did write it. Can you see how far you have actually moved from anything resembling support of your 'delusion' claim? You have lost all ground you were so sure about. 

Quote:

Quote:You are moving the goal post here. You said that only things inside the universe can 'exist'. That is simply not true. Many scientists posit a multiverse. What do you do with that? Even the fact that we are discussing the concept of a multiverse PROVES that the concept of existing outside the universe is coherent.  Pointing out that definitions are regressive in nature is not a point in your favor. 

In this context, a multiverse *would* be considered the universe. it is the sum of all physical things.

First, that's called equivocating.

Quote:

Quote:'Objective' does not require science. You are really confused on how science works. Science REQUIRES a philosophy of science to even exist. Does the number 4 objectively exist? Does a triangle or the statement p-->q; p therefore q objectively exist? None of these requires science--in fact, the are presupposed by science. Science has nothing to say about God--at all--by definition, by logic. 

No, the number 4 does NOT objectively exist. Nor does a triangle nor an implication. Those are *all* language constructs and have no independent existence.

Hmm. 'Objective' is not the opposite of 'independent'. The number 4 is objective because it refers to a concept this is the very opposite of subjective. The same for a triangle, it is very much objective. So I will restate my answer to your assertion that "objectiveness requires science": that's bunk. There is nothing incoherent with the concept of God "having objective reality or being" aka: exist.  

Quote:

Quote:Just wow. I don't even have to go find a scientific text. I just can point to definitions:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/
adjective

1. 2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

Can you see that the whole enterprise of science DEPENDS on the concept of contingency and that without it, science could not happen? 

No, and quite the contrary. In fact, the way that modern science actually works simply doesn't fit into your philosophy.

You keep saying that. Since you don't expound, I will ignore it. 

Quote:

Quote:What is with atheists and quantum mechanics? How many metaphysical truths can be derived from something a) we don't understand and b) is constantly mischaracterized. Quantum particles require (are contingent upon) the quantum energy field. 

What you don't seem to understand is that we *do* understand QM. The 'quantum energy field' isn't anything that *actual* quantum mechanics mentions. You may find it in some popular accounts, but that phrase doesn't appear in, say Peskin&Schroder, one of the standard texts for fundamental particle physics.

What *does* appear is the concept of a quantum field (not a quantum *energy* field). And those quantum fields are fundamentally *non-causal*. They are probabilistic and do NOT obey any law of classical causality.

Before we go on, just how much quantum mechanics have you studied? have you ever solved a differential equation? Gone through the solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom? Calculated a reaction cross section for QED?

I have.

Congrats. But my point is perhaps you should have taken the time to study philosophy before trying to derive philosophy from QM. The indeterminacy of quantum particles does not turn the idea of cause and effect in the macro world on its ear. You would have to show how quantum indeterminacy affects the macro world. Do you have those conclusions? In their absence we have every reason ever, always, forever to think that cause/effect are objective features of reality. 

Quote:

Quote:Therefore cause/effect (contingency) is CERTAINLY part of 'modern science'.

Simply false.

Quote:Your understanding/knowledge of that history is what is being called into question. You don't seem to understand the difference between gospels and epistles and who wrote what. Yet you are so certain our belief is delusional. Your lack of knowledge of what we actually believe AND a charge of 'delusion' are not actually compatible. You ignorance exempts you from even offering an opinion. 

This is great!! The actual example you use, Evolution, is an entirely inductive enterprise!!!!!!

Quote:Again, testability is the crucial aspect. Evolution is, in fact, a testable theory which is *why* it is a scientific one. it is NOT purely inductive in any way that isn't true of any area of science. In fact, it is precisely the issues surrounding the problem of induction that force the requirement of testability and repeatability to be a valid scientific theory.

This is amazing. Evolution is entirely about observing effects and inferring causes. We don't know what caused any major change from a deductive process, ever. We infer big changes from observing small changes--it is the very foundation of the theory from the beginning. In fact, your own worldview relies on vast stretches of inductive reasoning. To say that someone else's inductive reasoning is 'delusional' because it is inductive is just plain spouting nonsense while you ineffectually try to rescue a failed premise: religious beliefs are delusional.