(1 hour ago)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(3 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What is it about science that frightens you so?

Boru

Jal is afraid that science will disprove his god's existence.

(Scratching my  head). How would science disprove God's existence? 

I think if we're being completely honest, most people, including myself, feel our feathers rustled when confronted with propositions seemingly contrary to our cherished beliefs. It's a little stressful.  But I don't live in fear of science.  Yahweh seems to have confirmed His existence to me personally too many times, and in too many ways, to worry about falsification. 

I have no quarrel with applied science. But I do balk at the scientific dogmatism that potentially and needlessly tends to shipwreck a Christian's faith.

Applied science is cause-effect science and, to insure its rapid advancement, the scientific community repudiates even the mere possibility of additional metaphysical dynamics. 

One problem that Yahweh faces is that, given His commitment to justice, hell is a necessity. And when science hardens unbeliever's hearts to Christianity, the Holy Spirit becomes less likely to reach out and save them, because resistant hearts are too excruciating for Him to bear. In other words, more people go to hell.

Ok in that sense I fear science - not for MY faith, but for YOURS. I don't want YOU to go to hell.

(4 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I'll add 'a priori' to the list of terms you don't understand.  There is no reason determinism would require there to be an a priori correlation.  This is you committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

But that wasn't the argument. It's not that DETERMINISM needs the correlation, i.e., such correlation is not part of determinism's definition.

Which is precisely the problem for the species. To survive the frailty of life and the ravages of Nature, the species NEED such correlations.  Therefore determinism is false. THAT is the argument.

Yeah, I don't know what your argument is. An a priori correlation isn't needed for hunger to work just the way it does under determinism without free will.

(4 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 12:55 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I pointed out in post #265 that your tautology is vacuously true.  Because it is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve, you can put anything on the tail of that and it's still a tautology.  "If it's impossible for me to disbelieve religion X, then God does not exist" is a true tautology.  This stems from the fact that you believe things that are contradictory, that it is impossible to choose to disbelieve, and that it is always possible to choose.  This is what's known as logical explosion, wherein believing contradictory things furnishes the fuel to believe anything no matter how absurd.  Perhaps you should have listened when I pointed it out the first time.  But you didn't, because you're not actually listening, you're just spewing a bunch of bullshit and lies while pretending to be listening and having an open mind.  That is what is known as arguing in bad faith.

Wow. For someone who purports to be so superior to me in logic and argumentation, you've got at least one huge non-sequitur there.

"It is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve." Really? When I am conversating with a circle of friends face to face, I find it impossible to disbelieve in their existence.
And they don't even have direct control over my brain. I have defined saving faith as a facial revelation of Yahweh, PLUS His direct influence on my brain.
Therefore you're being pretty narrow-minded and short-sighted to rule out invincible belief. 


"It is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve." Again, really? What are your thoughts on Descartes' cogito ergo sum?   You find it easy to disbelieve your own existence?

You believe in free will which states that one can always choose. It being hard to do something isn't the same as it being impossible.

Jal Wrote:(Scratching my head).

Better use Permethrin.

Jal Wrote:How would science disprove God's existence?

Like, for example, when evolution disproves Adam and Eve, therefore it disproves Jesus' divine mission of saving humanity from the original sin.

Or when gravity proves that planets move around because of it and not because angels are pushing them.

Jal Wrote:Yahweh seems to have confirmed His existence to me personally too many times, and in too many ways, to worry about falsification.

Another way science disproves god. Psychology describes several disorders of symptoms that you describe of seeing, hearing, and feeling imaginary beings, like: Schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Lewy body dementia, Neurological or Substance-Induced Psychosis, etc.

(1 hour ago)Jal Wrote: ...scientific dogmatism...

If you're in the mood for a deep dive, you might look into the "Third Way of Evolution" people. These are serious scientists who agree that natural selection is insufficient to explain the way plants and animals have evolved. 

You'll see that they are VERY careful not to associate themselves with Creationists or any sort of religious thought. As scientists, of course, they will work only with methodological naturalism. 

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Still, they are calling for a re-evaluation of the standard model of evolution as understood today. 

One of the founders, Denis Noble, has said that unfortunately commitment to the standard model has taken on something of an ideological function. Specifically, he says that scientific researchers with genuine questions about how evolution functions may be denied funding because it is feared that their work will be used by Creationists. 

Here is the page about Dr. Noble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

You'll see from his resume that he knows something about scientific research and how to get funding.

And here is a paper published by the Royal Society challenging the idea that natural selection is sufficient to explain things:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsfs/...iology-and

I was surprised to learn that Darwin himself considered natural selection to be only one of the possible means through which evolution occurs. From the article:

Quote:Ernst Mayr wrote in 1962: ‘Curiously few evolutionists have noted that, in addition to natural selection, Darwin admits use and disuse as an important evolutionary mechanism. In this he is perfectly clear’ [1]. Although Darwin disagreed with Lamarck on whether evolution had a direction (what Lamarck called le pouvoir de la vie [2,3]), he nevertheless acknowledged ‘this justly celebrated naturalist … who upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species' [4]. However, Darwin's multi-mechanism approach to evolution became significantly narrowed with the rise of neo-Darwinism.

As I say, none of these scientists argues for anything like divine will. But they do uphold the accuracy of this thread's title.

(47 minutes ago)Belacqua Wrote:

(1 hour ago)Jal Wrote: ...scientific dogmatism...

If you're in the mood for a deep dive, you might look into the "Third Way of Evolution" people. These are serious scientists who agree that natural selection is insufficient to explain the way plants and animals have evolved. 

You'll see that they are VERY careful not to associate themselves with Creationists or any sort of religious thought. As scientists, of course, they will work only with methodological naturalism. 

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Still, they are calling for a re-evaluation of the standard model of evolution as understood today. 

One of the founders, Denis Noble, has said that unfortunately commitment to the standard model has taken on something of an ideological function. Specifically, he says that scientific researchers with genuine questions about how evolution functions may be denied funding because it is feared that their work will be used by Creationists. 

Here is the page about Dr. Noble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

You'll see from his resume that he knows something about scientific research and how to get funding.

And here is a paper published by the Royal Society challenging the idea that natural selection is sufficient to explain things:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsfs/...iology-and

I was surprised to learn that Darwin himself considered natural selection to be only one of the possible means through which evolution occurs. From the article:

Quote:Ernst Mayr wrote in 1962: ‘Curiously few evolutionists have noted that, in addition to natural selection, Darwin admits use and disuse as an important evolutionary mechanism. In this he is perfectly clear’ [1]. Although Darwin disagreed with Lamarck on whether evolution had a direction (what Lamarck called le pouvoir de la vie [2,3]), he nevertheless acknowledged ‘this justly celebrated naturalist … who upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species' [4]. However, Darwin's multi-mechanism approach to evolution became significantly narrowed with the rise of neo-Darwinism.

As I say, none of these scientists argues for anything like divine will. But they do uphold the accuracy of this thread's title.

"One of the founders, Denis Noble, has said that unfortunately commitment to the standard model has taken on something of an ideological function. Specifically, he says that scientific researchers with genuine questions about how evolution functions may be denied funding because it is feared that their work will be used by Creationists. "

Exactly. Too much dogmatism in the scientific community. Admittedly this problem is much worse in the religious community. Almost every religious person claims to "know" stuff even though he isn't 100% sure.

(32 minutes ago)Jal Wrote:

(47 minutes ago)Belacqua Wrote: If you're in the mood for a deep dive, you might look into the "Third Way of Evolution" people. These are serious scientists who agree that natural selection is insufficient to explain the way plants and animals have evolved. 

You'll see that they are VERY careful not to associate themselves with Creationists or any sort of religious thought. As scientists, of course, they will work only with methodological naturalism. 

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Still, they are calling for a re-evaluation of the standard model of evolution as understood today. 

One of the founders, Denis Noble, has said that unfortunately commitment to the standard model has taken on something of an ideological function. Specifically, he says that scientific researchers with genuine questions about how evolution functions may be denied funding because it is feared that their work will be used by Creationists. 

Here is the page about Dr. Noble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

You'll see from his resume that he knows something about scientific research and how to get funding.

And here is a paper published by the Royal Society challenging the idea that natural selection is sufficient to explain things:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsfs/...iology-and

I was surprised to learn that Darwin himself considered natural selection to be only one of the possible means through which evolution occurs. From the article:


As I say, none of these scientists argues for anything like divine will. But they do uphold the accuracy of this thread's title.

"One of the founders, Denis Noble, has said that unfortunately commitment to the standard model has taken on something of an ideological function. Specifically, he says that scientific researchers with genuine questions about how evolution functions may be denied funding because it is feared that their work will be used by Creationists. "

Exactly. Too much dogmatism in the scientific community. Admittedly this problem is much worse in the religious community. Almost every religious person claims to "know" stuff even though he isn't 100% sure.

Like "such and such is mumbo jumbo" or "such and such is gibberish." Religious people claiming to know more than they know is a problem.

(1 hour ago)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Jal Wrote:How would science disprove God's existence?

Like, for example, when evolution disproves Adam and Eve, therefore it disproves Jesus' divine mission of saving humanity from the original sin.

(Scratching my head). First you'd have to prove evolution. The fossil record is presumably consistent with old-earth creationism (my position).
After Yahweh spent 4 billion years learning how to create and manage the species, He special-created Adam and Eve. In other words Adam and Eve lacked human parents.

Quote:Or when gravity proves that planets move around because of it and not because angels are pushing them.

Well I don't think angels administer that push. But I opine that Yahweh does.

Jal Wrote:Another way science disproves god. Psychology describes several disorders of symptoms that you describe of seeing, hearing, and feeling imaginary beings, like: Schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Lewy body dementia, Neurological or Substance-Induced Psychosis, etc.

Sure. Anything is possible. You do know the difference between possibility and proof, right?

(24 minutes ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(32 minutes ago)Jal Wrote: "One of the founders, Denis Noble, has said that unfortunately commitment to the standard model has taken on something of an ideological function. Specifically, he says that scientific researchers with genuine questions about how evolution functions may be denied funding because it is feared that their work will be used by Creationists. "

Exactly. Too much dogmatism in the scientific community. Admittedly this problem is much worse in the religious community. Almost every religious person claims to "know" stuff even though he isn't 100% sure.

Like "such and such is mumbo jumbo" or "such and such is gibberish."  Religious people claiming to know more than they know is a problem.

Fair point, but at one juncture or another, I always eventually qualify my claims with, "This is my opinion."  I'm not really 100% sure of anything, whether in religion or science. 

But I'm pretty sure that 2 + 2 = 4, and I'm pretty sure that the intangible won't push tangible matter, and that the shortest distance is a straight line.

(1 hour ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(4 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Wow. For someone who purports to be so superior to me in logic and argumentation, you've got at least one huge non-sequitur there.

"It is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve." Really? When I am conversating with a circle of friends face to face, I find it impossible to disbelieve in their existence.
And they don't even have direct control over my brain. I have defined saving faith as a facial revelation of Yahweh, PLUS His direct influence on my brain.
Therefore you're being pretty narrow-minded and short-sighted to rule out invincible belief. 


"It is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve." Again, really? What are your thoughts on Descartes' cogito ergo sum?   You find it easy to disbelieve your own existence?

You believe in free will which states that one can always choose.   It being hard to do something isn't the same as it being impossible.

No I don't assume that. In fact it clashes with one of my most fundamental beliefs, namely that in heaven God will inflame our hearts with passions too intensely holy for any further violation of conscience. Sin will be impossible in heaven. Radical freedom is only for the here and now and, even here it is not always absolute, for example an addict suffers a severely reduced freedom to resist the drug.

In heaven we'll be free to choose among various good options (e.g. chocolate or vanilla ice cream) but we'll be too holy to opt for sin.