Science and religion

[Darkstar]

You are a fool. It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time.

Oooh, argument ad populum!

You appeal to authority every time you say evolutionary theory is true without having a direct experience of the truth of evolutionary theory, that is, everytime you do not see the terms involved involved, that you base your conclusions on propositions you can't see, you are appealing to authority.

Legitimate authority. They can use science to demonstrate their claims. As for god...

[Tonus]

You are a fool. It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time.

And a lot of the time, it's fallacious. Such as your example. No proof, just assertions, but they were authorities of some sort or another, and that's enough for you. As opposed to, say, the Theory of Evolution, which has such a preponderance of evidence that those authorities who are ACTUAL authorities recognize its validity.

You are a fool if you think the witness of western civilization counts for nothing.

Straw man fallacy. When the witness of western civilization provides actual proof to bolster their arguments, call me. Or just continue to guess at my age, motivations, level of holiness, life experience, and so on. I'm sure those details will help you and all of those god-fearing scientists dig up that proof that has been so elusive for so long.

[jstrodel]

Actually, it is still ad populum. Being a scientist and a Christian does not mean you used science to justify being a Christian. If anyone could bring forth scientific evidence of a god, everyone would know about it by now.

Prove the concept of ad populum and its relevance here. Why are the beliefs of millions of people as to Christianities evidential status as it relates to science and natural theology irrelevant?

Do you know what an argument from authority is? You are basically presupposing that there is not possible way that anyone could make a valid argument for authority along theistic lines. You say that and you are ignorant of natural theology.

You are spreading lies because you misunderstand logic and you do not know God. You accept the argument from authority as it relates to the success of evolutionary theory, but you do not accept it as it relates to any issue in natural theology or the interaction between science and religion.

You should see through my eyes. I don't think you realize how dishonest and biased your perception of theology is. If you are a critical thinker, you will look at it carefully.

Your faith is in what you want. If it is ad populum to cite the number of scientists and philosophers who have accepted Christianity based on belief in the success of natural theology and/or other apologetics, it is ad populum to believe that evolutionary theory is true based on the number of scientists that believe it.

No, it is neither in each case. Both are arguments from authority. Whether they are valid hinges on whether the beliefs are true.

You presuppose that Christianity is false so that you can call appealing to authority fallacious. That is fallacious, it is begging the question.

Why can't you put Christianity on the same ground as atheism? What are you so afraid of? What prevents you from giving it an honest assessment?

Just use common sense and stop lying. What does common sense tell you? Does it matter AT ALL, IN THE SLIGHTEST, that the vast majority of the most advanced civilization in the world has been Christian? If you say no, ad populum, I will tell you what, you are brainwashed. You don't understand that concept, you don't know anything about life. You are a child, you reason like a child, you don't understand God because you are brainwashed by atheist delusions that think 2000 years of the most powerful civilization in history can be overturned with an appeal to the authority of a debate tactic.

You are a fool if you think that. Go ask someone over 30, perhaps even someone who doesn't spend a lot of time debating Christians. See if they think that it is fallacious to even mention the fact that Christianity has been the most defining aspect of the most powerful and successful civilization in history. See what they say.

Obviously this doesn't prove that God exists, this is what I mean about reasoning like a child. Reason like a man. Men don't live in a black and white world. Men see nuance. You are seeing the world from a black and white atheist apologetics standpoint.

For God sakes, stand back, stop appealing to the authority of philosophical concepts and use common sense!

---

You are a fool if you think the witness of western civilization counts for nothing.

Straw man fallacy. When the witness of western civilization provides actual proof to bolster their arguments, call me. Or just continue to guess at my age, motivations, level of holiness, life experience, and so on. I'm sure those details will help you and all of those god-fearing scientists dig up that proof that has been so elusive for so long.
[/quote]


There is proof of God's existence, for those who are skillful enough to obtain it.
The unskillful, the slow, and the foolish and the gullible do not obtain it, they obtain a black and white atheist apologetic world in which propositions are either "100% PROVEN" or they are "TOTAL CRAP".

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

[Jackalope]

It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time.

Gotta be the first time I've seen someone try to use a argumentum ad populum to justify an argument from authority.

Incidentally, arguments from authority are not always fallacious. However, many of yours are.

I would strongly urge you to see if you can get a rebate on your tuition expenses, because you got poor value for your money.

[jstrodel]

You are a fool. It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time.

Oooh, argument ad populum!

You appeal to authority every time you say evolutionary theory is true without having a direct experience of the truth of evolutionary theory, that is, everytime you do not see the terms involved involved, that you base your conclusions on propositions you can't see, you are appealing to authority.

Legitimate authority. They can use science to demonstrate their claims. As for god...

[/quote]

You are blind, blind, blind, blind, so blind, so so blind. Evolutionary theory may be true, but you are still blind, blind, blind, blind. Open your eyes! Look at what you are doing!

Don't you realize that you are presupposing what you are trying to prove? You presuppose that science is the way to validate claims, so science can prove that Christianity is true. But Christianity has its own authorities and structures of proof. You start off with the assumption that these are valueless, and you ignore them and push them to the side.

1. Science can verify evolutionary theory, but theology cannot be verified because theological methods do not yield knowledge.

You don't argue this, you assume it, because you are blind, blind, blind, blind, blind, blind, so blind. Darkstar, I like you and think you are a nice person. But OPEN YOUR EYES. Do you realize what you are presuposing.

You don't know anything about theological methods. You don't know the evidential status of Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas or William of Occam because you have never read them. You don't care. You don't care about all of the different movements in theology, so you don't accept their authority.


Give me evidence for 1. So many people have mountains of evidence that 1 is false. I have it. I want to cry to badly I feel so angry when I read the ignorance and lies that prevent people from realizing God's nature and how knowable he is, and seeing all the university politics color peoples understanding of theology. God is knowable. There are good arguments for God's existence, but more than that, if you seek God, you will find God.

I have been in 4 or 5 churches where they regularly see miracles. There is a whole Christian community that has its own authority that is not related to the science world, but why should science be the sole authority in the world? If you want an example of where science was the only authority, look at Communist countries. Science is not everything.

---

It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time.

Gotta be the first time I've seen someone try to use a argumentum ad populum to justify an argument from authority.

You mean, something like this:
"95% of scientists in biological sciences, which is probably tens of thousands of scientists accept evolutionary theory"

[Jackalope]

Gotta be the first time I've seen someone try to use a argumentum ad populum to justify an argument from authority.

You mean, something like this:
"95% of scientists in biological sciences, which is probably tens of thousands of scientists accept evolutionary theory"

That would be a non-fallacious argument from authority (biologists would be the correct people to consult on a question of biology).

Holding up a chemist as your authority (as you did) is fallacious.

Try again.

[Mystic]

I personally am agnostic towards evolution being a possible explanation of life, because of my lack of knowledge (yes I took evolution in high school biology).

However, when it comes to medicine, I trust the authority (doctors), with knowledge they are not infallible but with also knowledge that the system works to in ensure success.

When it comes to religion, I know people trust Islamic scholars to use proper logic to find contradictions in hadiths vs Quran for example, but I find that reality is, they don't use logic often, and fail at it. They also tend to ignore hadiths where it suits them too, and embrace hadiths where it suits them. To say the least, they are not objective as people believe they are.

[Mystical]

Because I have spent years and years and years of my life purifying myself from sin and seeking God and have given up everything to follow Jesus Christ.

Well, you're on a computer. That I assume is not the library's based on your posting frequency.
Which means you probably have a house or an apartment, for electricity access. Then you have the means to pay for an internett providor.
If you have money you probably work, and if you work you probably have a car.

Now. Go tell it straight to a starving indian, african, or south african orphans' face that you've given up everything to follow Jesus Christ.

It is true that evolutionary theory is a very significant paradigm by which people understand biology. There have been other paradigms in the past, such as Newtonian physics that have since been replaced.

There is nothing foolish about suggesting that mans present state of understanding is likely not the final understanding. History has proved that to be the case.

That's all we're saying, sir. No one claims to know how everything began. And I don't know about anyone else but duh as to science being constantly updating itself.

We're not the one's claiming we know with no proof what happened. No where in athiesm does it state that we know what happened for sure. You know why? Because as things are now, it's impossible to know. We're still waiting on the math and science study of our universe to tell us it's story--not the other way around.

This displays an extremely superficial knowledge of the two covenants in scripture. God does change his mind, why else would God give two covenants.

Name one verse where Jesus says everything before is now null and void. Name it.
Very first book of the New Testament states:

(Matthew 5:17-18).
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

There is not a shred of legitimate evidence anywhere against God's existence. What do you have? Post it. Why do you make naked assertions?

I propose the Bible as proof for his non-existance. The god of the bible is susceptible to anger, wrath, hatred, jealousy, spite. These characteristics directly contradict his Just and wise attributes. He is not omnipotent. He is merely a man-made man written character in a book.

---

All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. - 2 Thes 1

What it says about children:
This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles.
The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17

---

[Darkstar]

Actually, it is still ad populum. Being a scientist and a Christian does not mean you used science to justify being a Christian. If anyone could bring forth scientific evidence of a god, everyone would know about it by now.

Prove the concept of ad populum and its relevance here. Why are the beliefs of millions of people as to Christianities evidential status as it relates to science and natural theology irrelevant?

Because none of them can prove that what they believe is true. Scientists conduct experiments and tests, and construct predictive models, with rigorous peer review.

Do you know what an argument from authority is? You are basically presupposing that there is not possible way that anyone could make a valid argument for authority along theistic lines. You say that and you are ignorant of natural theology.

Your authorities can't demonstrate that anything they say is true, so what good is their word?

You are spreading lies because you misunderstand logic and you do not know God. You accept the argument from authority as it relates to the success of evolutionary theory, but you do not accept it as it relates to any issue in natural theology or the interaction between science and religion.

Again, rigorous peer review, demonstrable predictive power, technological breakthroughs. Science has demonstrated its trustworthiness, religion has not.

You should see through my eyes. I don't think you realize how dishonest and biased your perception of theology is. If you are a critical thinker, you will look at it carefully.

Same to you.

Your faith is in what you want. If it is ad populum to cite the number of scientists and philosophers who have accepted Christianity based on belief in the success of natural theology and/or other apologetics, it is ad populum to believe that evolutionary theory is true based on the number of scientists that believe it.

Scientists do science. They don't "believe in" evolution because they feel like it, but because it matches up with the facts, and has been observed. It is the core to understanding biology. And no, this observation didn't come in the form of an unverifiable vision.

You presuppose that Christianity is false so that you can call appealing to authority fallacious. That is fallacious, it is begging the question.

Why can't you put Christianity on the same ground as atheism? What are you so afraid of? What prevents you from giving it an honest assessment?

What prevents you from giving atheism an honest assessment.

---

The voices in your head.
Which obviously have nothing to do with your history of drug abuse. You said marijuana gives you schizophrenia, so what must crack do? I'm not trying to be mean, but this is too big a point for me to ignore.

---

Just use common sense and stop lying.

Make up you mind, am I lying or am I honest?

What does common sense tell you?

That it is ridiculous to think god is real.

Does it matter AT ALL, IN THE SLIGHTEST, that the vast majority of the most advanced civilization in the world has been Christian?

Maybe if Christianity came from that civilization, you might have a case, but it didn't. It is a millennia old artifact of the ancient world that is slowly fading away as we speak...er, type.

If you say no, ad populum, I will tell you what, you are brainwashed.

By whom? I didn't know anything about atheism other than it being a lack of belief in god when I became an atheist. I never read Dawkins or anything like that.

You don't understand that concept, you don't know anything about life. You are a child, you reason like a child, you don't understand God because you are brainwashed by atheist delusions that think 2000 years of the most powerful civilization in history can be overturned with an appeal to the authority of a debate tactic.

I was wondering when this would devolve into you slandering me.

You are a fool if you think that. Go ask someone over 30, perhaps even someone who doesn't spend a lot of time debating Christians.

VIOLET! HE'S APPEALING TO ARBITRARY AGE LINES!

See if they think that it is fallacious to even mention the fact that Christianity has been the most defining aspect of the most powerful and successful civilization in history. See what they say.

Why would that make it true? Want to talk about Judaism and Islam?

Obviously this doesn't prove that God exists, this is what I mean about reasoning like a child. Reason like a man. Men don't live in a black and white world. Men see nuance. You are seeing the world from a black and white atheist apologetics standpoint.

For God sakes, stand back, stop appealing to the authority of philosophical concepts and use common sense!

Common sense tells me not to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. Hence...

There is proof of God's existence, for those who are skillful enough to obtain it.

Ah, so now you don't simply need to seek god sincerely, but you need to be really good at it to. That explains why the people on this board who sought god for decades found nothing, they were just unskilled.

The unskillful, the slow, and the foolish and the gullible do not obtain it, they obtain a black and white atheist apologetic world in which propositions are either "100% PROVEN" or they are "TOTAL CRAP".

So the decreasing religiosity in the world isn't evidence that god might not exist, but just that we're all going over to Satan? Nice double standard.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Curiosity? You honestly expect me to believe you don't just want to slander me for not being above a certain age? If you were so smart, you would already know where to find that information. Just click my username...

[jstrodel]

You mean, something like this:
"95% of scientists in biological sciences, which is probably tens of thousands of scientists accept evolutionary theory"

That would be a non-fallacious argument from authority (biologists would be the correct people to consult on a question of biology).

Holding up a chemist as your authority (as you did) is fallacious.

Try again.

This is the crux of your argument:
1. Arguments from authority based on the number of a population that refers to an authority that I accept are valid
2. Arguments from authority based on the number of a population that refers to an authority that I don't accept are invalid (not only are they arguments from authority which are always fallacious when they refer to anything that refers to the Christian faith, they are ad populum, another fallacy that is attached to anything not friendly to the Christian faith)
3. I do not have to prove why arguments from the authorities that I like are valid and other arguments from other authorities are invalid. It is not necessary for me to understand natural theology or to understand philosophical theology or Biblical apologetic to reject the Christian standards from authority, I can assign the concept of a fallacy to the belief because it does not meet the standards of evidence that presuppose to be the only standard.
4. If anyone makes an argument that does not conform to the standard of authority that I presuppose to be true, or give a testimony or present any evidence, as in miraculous evidence, I can consider their testimony invalid because it is inconsistent with the values that I have presupposed in 3. I can consider the person delusional, since their belief does not conform to the authority that I have presupposed.

Obviously 3 is begging the question, because you have not proven that science is the only standard.

Four resembles the sort of psychological manipulation that happens in totalitarian societies such as Communist societies.

This is a dishonest argument. It is presupposed that science is the only valid means of intellectual authority, even though science itself depends on theistic philosophy, such as that of Newton and Aristotle, who both incorporated theology into their beliefs. Even if science and theology were not inextricable, it would still be necessary to prove that religious authorities are illegitimate, which does not happen through calling religious belief about as "proven" as the truth fairy.

Proof is always understood through the presupposed scientific values, but only the science that is friendly to atheism is accepted. What is happening here is that people are arguing that all arguments other than atheist authorities are invalid. The only valid arguments are those made by authorities friendly to atheism, and none of these need to be proven.

Someone made fun of me because I use the word "epistemology". You know why? Because atheist epistemology is like a cancer that lives inside of peoples minds, deceiving their slightly-above-average IQ's that they are critical thinkers when they are pressuposing the superiority of atheist approaches to theology and ignoring religious ones. Science cannot even broach the question of whether God exists.

An atheist is someone who considers it a mark of pure critical thinking to appeal to the authority of biological science as an absolute mediator of the unconditional absolute importance not only of evolutionary theory, but of evolutionary theory as the central defining characteristic of what it means to be wise.

At the same time, the atheist is someone who is quick to ridicule the much more modest use of the argument from authority, expressed best through large numbers of experts, to make not an absolute claim for the truth of religion, but the much more modest claim that perhaps religion is not the same as believing in the tooth fairy if most of the worlds most influential people have believed in God (by far).

Older atheists who realize they are doing this are dishonest, and will goto hell because they are deliberately deceiving others. Younger atheists are deceived and ensnared by lies and spiritual warfare and are deep into something they really have no business being in. I have nothing but love and concern for all who are blinded by the culture war that is presently taking place.

Christianity will be vindicated, it will survive, as it has for 2000 years. The atheists, however, may not survive and their errors will not go unnoticed by God.