|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/31/2008 2:24:09 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Good answer too... If God is God, then His word reigns over man's wisdom.
Does that mean God's Word in creation reigns over man's limited wisdom about scripture? If so, I agree.
Well, in saying that, you are saying that what we "see" in the creation supercedes what we "see" in God's word.
No, since it was made directly by God's Word, it cannot be separated from God's Word. When we see nature truly, we see the immediate effects of God's Word.
What I am saying is that God's Word in nature supercedes human assumptions we make about scripture e.g. that it is a literal history in all passages. That is a human assumption about a text, not something the text itself decrees.
quote:
The error in that is that things are not always as they seem in the physical world, also, man's opinion and assumptions creep in and can create choas in an otherwise straightforeward observation.
Well then we are getting into science, good and bad. But I didn't ask about science. I asked about God's Word in creation i.e. created nature itself, not scientific models of creation.
quote:
What we read in God's word is much more concrete and straightforward than the physical world.
I would say God's Word is always concrete and straightforward whether one is reading it in rocks or ancient Hebrew.
quote:
The words of the Bible were written to a very simple people, don't overcomplicate it by trying to make it say something it never intended to.
Very good advice. I would like to see anti-evolutionary creationists abide by it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/31/2008 2:29:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
(The New Testament cites or alludes to the creation account 60 times!)
A citation is not an interpretation.
quote:
In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."
Does he ever explain why a grammatical meaning must be a historical meaning? I've seen lots of good grammatical writing that is not historical. And I have never seen any reason why a grammatically sensible passage in the bible should be taken to mean the narrative is historical.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/31/2008 2:48:10 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What I am saying is that God's Word in nature supercedes human assumptions we make about scripture e.g. that it is a literal history in all passages. That is a human assumption about a text, not something the text itself decrees.
Well, I never said that Scripture is 100% literal - what then would you do with parables? What I AM saying is that Jesus read the creation account as literal. Jesus read the Jonah account as literal. Jesus read the Noah account as literal. These are well documented. So... If you DON'T read the creation account as literal, then you're not reading it as Jesus read it.
Gluadys: If you worship Jesus, then you should have no problems with God doing miracles. If you've got no problem with God performing miracles, then what is your issue against agreeing with Jesus on the literal creation account? (Is this more of the teaching from that dude with the "Jesus Seminar?" Did he throw out the creation story?)
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/31/2008 3:28:03 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Sorry I missed this one. I will try to respond.
quote:
(theo)
But when it does match the evidence you RELY on the testimony to explain the evidence.
(method) How does one determine if the evidence does match the testimony? That is the whole point. According to you, evidence is rejected or accepted depending on how it matches up with the testimony. This doesn't seem like a very good way of doing things.
(theo) Agreed. But it is what we have to deal with.
quote:
(theo) "Testimony that does not match WHAT evidence?" THAT is the very thing under discussion. It the thing yet to be proved.
(method) Light has been proven, the the extent that we can prove anything, to move a constant speed. The same level of proof shows that there are galaxies far enough away that the light we see from them took billions of years to reach us. That is such solid proof of an old universe that I can't understand how people can deny it.
(theo) Agreed!
quote:
(theo) Anytime you match the testimony of the creator against the theory of science, science will lose every time. It is that simple.
(method) So you are saying that if someone testifies that the evidence does not exist then the evidence does not exist, right? We should just throw out the evidence when it becomes inconvenient.
(theo) Nope! Not what I said at all. What you have described is a situation in which the testimony is given credence contrary to the evidence. I have never said testimony is the only evidence, I said evidence requires testimony in order to share it. Evidence cannot speak for itself. There must be someone knowledgable enough about the scientific experiment, to communicate to others, the significance of the findings, in compliance with the testimony.
Occasionally People will continue looking for a solution to a problem because they do not recognize the solution that is right in front of their eyes. They simply cannot believe the evidence. They assume they have made a mistake, or something somehow has modified their experiment. The reality is that the experiment has resulted in a conclusion contrary to popular belief. But if it is correctly presented, by testimony, it will be recognized as what it is.
_____________________________
The most profound thing I learned in scripture is -
That God, who knows me best -
Loves me anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/31/2008 8:48:33 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
What I AM saying is that Jesus read the creation account as literal. Jesus read the Jonah account as literal. Jesus read the Noah account as literal. These are well documented. So... If you DON'T read the creation account as literal, then you're not reading it as Jesus read it.
We don't know that. All the text says is that he cited them. It doesn't say how he understood them. In one case (Jonah) he interprets it allegorically as referring to his own death and resurrection. Hardly a literal understanding.
quote:
Gluadys: If you worship Jesus, then you should have no problems with God doing miracles.
I don't.
quote:
If you've got no problem with God performing miracles, then what is your issue against agreeing with Jesus on the literal creation account?
First I do not know that I am disagreeing with Jesus, because I don't know what he thought about it. Second, why do you think a problem with miracles would be the only reason to have a problem with a literal interpretation? I expect people like Augustine, John Chrysostom, and Copernicus had no problem with miracles, yet they didn't understand literally much of what you say must be literal.
I will tell you one thing I do have a problem with and that is appealing to miracles of which scripture gives no testimony. Just because God has the power to work miracles doesn't mean he did. So we should be leery of miracles dreamed up to save a literal interpretation of scripture when no such miracle is testified to in scripture.
quote:
(Is this more of the teaching from that dude with the "Jesus Seminar?" Did he throw out the creation story?)
I have never thrown out the creation story. I don't know if the Jesus Seminar did or not and I don't care. As for Marcus Borg, I told you to read him for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/31/2008 11:08:54 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Gluadys: If you worship Jesus, then you should have no problems with God doing miracles. If you've got no problem with God performing miracles, then what is your issue against agreeing with Jesus on the literal creation account? (Is this more of the teaching from that dude with the "Jesus Seminar?" Did he throw out the creation story?)
For me, accepting the creation story as a literal account would require that I also believe God set out to decieve His creation by planting fossils and sedimentary layers and countless other bits of evidence for an old earth. I can't think of a good reason for God to do this. What reasons I do come up with amount to "testing our faith" and that's childish, so it's not a way I would want to imagine God to be.
Are there really still young earth christians? I honestly thought that was a done deal now. Last one I talked to was like 10 years ago and he tried to tell me that carbon dating was obviously false because scientists carbon dated a seal and it turned out to be 14 million years old. Well, it was 1400 years first of all but there was also a perfectly good explanation. The guy did laugh at me for thinking the earth was old, which I simply found jaw droppingly ludicrous, but after that I was never faced with another such person.
I thought it had actually fallen out of favor. Do people really still contend that the earth is 6000 years old?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/1/2008 5:13:09 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 354
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(theo)That was a "quote" from YOUR post #53.
quote:
(BVZ) "Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural."
(theo) It was not my assumption.
(BVZ) Assume my conclusion to be true. Then make your own argument with that conclusion in place, until you reach a contradiction. This contradiction was that God is natural, where he clearly is not. This then means that the assumption (that all things with scientific evidence supporting it are natural) is false.
(theo) Since God created nature, and references Nature as our teacher, how can you assert that God is not "natural?" 1 Cor 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you...?"
The "Natural" facts are, Man's nature is flesh; God's nature is Spirit.
I Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
If God tells us before the fact, that the scientist (the "natural" man) can't
discern "the things of the spirit" why is everyone so surprised when scientists and theologians don't agree on the evidences dealing with the "spiritual?"
How is it possible for you to disagree with scientists about the spiritual, if scientists have made no comment on the topic? You do realise that you can only disagree with someone if they have actually said something. If they have not, there is nothing to disagree with.
quote:
James 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
To deny God's spirit nature because it cannot be "scientifically" measured, does not make God's nature any less true. It simply makes the scientist inadequate to study the most important part of nature; i.,e., the spirit nature. But the clues are there, and the evidence is there. It is not lack of evidence that makes science deny it, it is lack of adequacy to investigate what they cannot hold and contain and control.
Not true. The lack of evidence is the only thing that stands in the way of science investigating God. I repeat: THE ONLY THING.
quote:
The solution to the problem becomes one of allowing only Christian scientists to represent the natural spiritual world, and allow natural scientists to represent the natural fleshly world.
You are talking nonsense. Are you making it up as you go along? No scientist can even investigate ANYTHING without evidence derived from nature and call what he/she is doing science.
quote:
This would eliminate entirely, the continual arguments that arise every time a "naturalist" complains that "spiritual nature" is beyond his ability to examine, therefore does not exist.
If a scientist sais that something does not exist becuase there is no evidence, that scientist is not doing science. In ALL such cases, the scientific answer would be 'we don't know'. If you ask a scientist within a scientific context if God exists, the answer (at the moment) would HAVE to be: "I don't know." Lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist. All it proves is that science cannot investigate it.
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) So, you don't have to agree with something to assume that thing when using it in this kind of argument.
By the way, since you HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THIS, I am not sure why I have to explain this to you. You are a very very confused.
(theo) It is called arguing from the absurd. I simply showed the value of your conclusion when reduced to its most absurd position. It is a legitimate use of argument. Sorry, I did not mean to demean or belittle, or confuse. I assumed it was a widely known tactic in debate.
So you used this form of argument. I pointed out the flaws in your argument. Your defense against this? You point out that it was my conclusion you assumed to be true, so that you can make the argument.
How does that make the flaws in the argument go away?
quote:
quote:
(theo) Yeah! I would say there is "testimony" for the existence of God in scripture.
(BVZ) Me too. Which is why I said it.
I said something about 'testimony without evidence'. Am I not allowed to introduce things into the discussion?
Anyway, that is what you have in the bible. Testimony without evidence. Which is why you need faith. Faith is when you believe something without evidence to support that thing. But remember, when doing science, the faith of the scientist should not affect his results.
(theo) I don't know where this fallacy got started, but the facts reported in scripture constitute evidence. They are not matters of faith. They are eye-witness reports.
The matters of "faith" to Christians, has nothing to do with whether the facts of scripture happened. The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ are the basis for a Christian's faith that we will also be resurrected, based upon God's promise, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." [Rom 8:11]
THAT is the FAITH once for all delivered to the saints. NOT the facts witnessed and established through centuries of eye witness testimony.
Wrong.
Without faith in the accuracy of the bible, there is nothing supporting it. Faith is the only thing that gives the bible meaning. If you can support the testimony found in the bible using something from OUTSIDE the bible, that would be a good start.
quote:
(BVZ) So are you NOT claiming that the testimony in the bible should be considered as scientific evidence?
(theo) Yes. I AM claiming that testimony in scripture should be considered as "scientific evidence." the reason is simple. Every time a new scroll or document is discovered, (as for example the Dead Sea Scrolls) they are subjected to Scientific study to determine, from the evidence contained in the material of the find, as to age of the material, kind of material, authenticity of claims ABOUT the material within the material itself, and various and sundry other scientifically measurable findings. The scientist stops short of delving into the "spiritual" claims contained within the document/scrolls, which is proper until the scientific world learns that they DO have a proper niche in the spiritual world.
A scientific investigation does not increase the credibility of what it is investigating. Only the CONCLUSIONS of the scientific investigation has the POTENTIAL to increase the credibility of what has been investigated.
Just because it is possible to launch a scientific investigation to see if the testimony in the bible is true, does not mean that the testimony in the bible is true. Only if the investigation CONCLUDES that they are true can they be considered to be.
quote:
It is in analyzing the claims made, and subjecting them to historical and cultural considerations. When a civilization is changed suddenly by an historical AND cultutal upheaval, it is subject to scientific evaluation.
quote:
(BVZ) Not a problem. As long as you agree that God cannot be 'natural' simply because there is testimony that confirms his existence. For God to be natural, you will need scientific evidence.
(theo) There is plenty of "scientific" evidence for the "nature" of God being spiritual. You cannot see, hear, weigh, measure, contain, or control anything about him. Yet you can see, hear, weigh, measure, contain and control many of the things declared by Him to be true. THAT becomes evidence that the Spiritual God rules in the Material world, which is what He claims.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you?
You say this: There is plenty of "scientific" evidence for the "nature" of God being spiritual.
And then, in the very next sentence, you say this: You cannot see, hear, weigh, measure, contain, or control anything about him.
How can you say that there is evidence in one sentence, and then turn around and say that there isn't any?
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) Also, do you understand why 'testimony' is not scientific evidence?
(theo) Not if it is understood that ANYTHING that materially exists is subject to scientific analysis, and evaluation. And testimony materially exists. It can be both seen and heard, sometimes measured and weighed. It most certainly should be considered as "scientific evidence."
Just becuase something can be investigated does not make it true. Little Red Ridinghood in book form can be investigated, does this mean that she really existed?
quote:
quote:
(theo) And if you think sticking a label on evidence to call it "scientific" makes it more correct, you still have a bit to learn.
(BVZ) What is it that I have to learn? Scientific evidence is BY DEFINITION more reliable.
(theo) Not really. It is only "more reliable" in a scientific setting.
"Scientific settings" are not all that life is about. There is MUCH more evidence out there than just that of a scientific bent.
Examples please.
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) Are you saying that scientific evidence is NOT more reliable than testimony? If you do, then YOU have a lot to learn.
(theo) Not what I said at all. I said Scientific evidence REQUIRES testimony, in order to be shared. You can have all the scientific evidence you want, and without testimony as to its significance, it is just private knowledge. Testimony has nothing to do with making or breaking scientific evidence, it has to do with EXPRESSING its significance. Why is it significant? What is its significance? What is the purpose of the experiment? What are its results? What are the conclusions drawn from its results? All these and other questions are only dealt with through the application of testimony.
Testimony can be true or false. The evidence determines if it is true or false. If there is no evidence, we cannot know if it is true or false.
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) Here is a list of questions that I want you to answer:
1) Why do you find fulfilled prophecies in the Koran unconvincing?
(theo) Precisely and because they are not prophecies. They are naratives written years after the fact, and demonstrably so. The Hebrew scripture however, have been demonstratedly proven to be of a different category, i.,e., written well before the facts contained in the prophecies. All you have to do is look at the prophecies, look at the date of the Koran, look at the wording of the alleged "fiulfillment" and draw your own conclusion.
Ok.
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) 2) Do you think that scientific evidence is less reliable than testimony? If not, why?
(theo) Scientific evidence is as reliable as scientific evidence. Testimony is as reliable as the understanding of the testifier. The scientific evidence can be completely misrepresented by the testimony and be a waste of time. Or it can actually be enhanced by the testimony and improve the strength of the experiment. Suppose for example, a student works an experiment, following the instructions of the professor. The experiment ends, has results, presented by the student as "inconclusive."
The professor, being more knowledgable than the student, may well salvage the experiment BECAUSE he can see results the student is not qualified to evaluate, by reason of inexperience. The testimony results in a stronger understanding by the studentbody as a result of the testimony, not as a result of the experiment nor the scientific evidence.
You did not answer the question.
I was not asking how testimony can be useful in science.
This was my question: Do you think that scientific evidence is less reliable than testimony? If not, why?
Could you answer it please?
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) 3) Do you agree that something is natural when it is supported by scientific evidence? If not why?
(theo) I had to think about this one a while. I remember "scientific investigations" about poltergeists, and similar phenomena; "extra-sensory perception;" "ghosts;" and etc.
You did? Is this the first time you think about it? That would explain your confusion earlier in the thread. This is what we were talking about ALL THIS TIME, and this is the first time you 'think about it'?
quote:
I would have to say it depends upon science's own definition of its findings.
AND it would depend upon people's agreement with its purported findings; i.e., the Rosswell, N.M. UFO investigation for example. Some people do not trust the alleged "scientific reports" but rather suspect a government cover-up.
I really cannot be more specific on this one, but it is an excellent question, perhaps deserving a better response. I wish I was qualified to give it proper due.
For goodness sake man! Why have you been arguing with me then? This is the only thing I was talking about all this time. I repeatedly stated this. And then, in this post, after a LOT of posts going back and forth, you respond with this: I wish I was qualified to give it proper due.
This begs the question, if you are not 'qualified' to comment, why did you? Not only did you comment, you argued with me about it!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/1/2008 10:05:06 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Are there really still young earth christians?
There are plenty here.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/1/2008 2:27:49 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Well, I've done all I can to present the truth of scripture to the best of my ability. It will forever break my heart that people latch on to ideas that run so adamantly against the teachings of God's Word. It is not my task to convince you, it is only my task to present it to you to the best of my ability and I have done that. So if you feel affirmed by beleiving that man evolved from lower life forms, then go ahead. It certainly dos not square in any way with "God created man in His own image" in any way that you choose to interperet the text. If you feel that the physical universe is zillions of years old, then go ahead. But in no way does that square with the creation story of the Bible OR the accurate geneologies kept from the beginning of time. It is a giant leap that even Evil Keneivil couldn't bridge to get from the Biblical texts to evolution...
At any rate, I won't bug you any more about it. I'm through arguing.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/1/2008 3:07:31 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Gluadys: If you worship Jesus, then you should have no problems with God doing miracles. If you've got no problem with God performing miracles, then what is your issue against agreeing with Jesus on the literal creation account? (Is this more of the teaching from that dude with the "Jesus Seminar?" Did he throw out the creation story?)
For me, accepting the creation story as a literal account would require that I also believe God set out to decieve His creation by planting fossils and sedimentary layers and countless other bits of evidence for an old earth. I can't think of a good reason for God to do this. What reasons I do come up with amount to "testing our faith" and that's childish, so it's not a way I would want to imagine God to be.
Are there really still young earth christians? I honestly thought that was a done deal now. Last one I talked to was like 10 years ago and he tried to tell me that carbon dating was obviously false because scientists carbon dated a seal and it turned out to be 14 million years old. Well, it was 1400 years first of all but there was also a perfectly good explanation. The guy did laugh at me for thinking the earth was old, which I simply found jaw droppingly ludicrous, but after that I was never faced with another such person.
I thought it had actually fallen out of favor. Do people really still contend that the earth is 6000 years old?
There's probably just as many Young Earthers that participate here as there are (I hate using this term) evolutionists. Most of them seem to advocate ID, or at least ally themselves with the ID movement as well. Then there are a couple non-YEC (as far as I know) ID'ists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/1/2008 11:27:38 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Gluadys: If you worship Jesus, then you should have no problems with God doing miracles. If you've got no problem with God performing miracles, then what is your issue against agreeing with Jesus on the literal creation account? (Is this more of the teaching from that dude with the "Jesus Seminar?" Did he throw out the creation story?)
For me, accepting the creation story as a literal account would require that I also believe God set out to decieve His creation by planting fossils and sedimentary layers and countless other bits of evidence for an old earth. I can't think of a good reason for God to do this. What reasons I do come up with amount to "testing our faith" and that's childish, so it's not a way I would want to imagine God to be.
Are there really still young earth christians? I honestly thought that was a done deal now. Last one I talked to was like 10 years ago and he tried to tell me that carbon dating was obviously false because scientists carbon dated a seal and it turned out to be 14 million years old. Well, it was 1400 years first of all but there was also a perfectly good explanation. The guy did laugh at me for thinking the earth was old, which I simply found jaw droppingly ludicrous, but after that I was never faced with another such person.
I thought it had actually fallen out of favor. Do people really still contend that the earth is 6000 years old?
There's probably just as many Young Earthers that participate here as there are (I hate using this term) evolutionists. Most of them seem to advocate ID, or at least ally themselves with the ID movement as well. Then there are a couple non-YEC (as far as I know) ID'ists.
I did not expect that. Thanks for the heads up. I'm quite frankly not sure how to take that. I make a point of respecting another person's right to formulate his own opinions about the world, but I don't know if I can find a way to tolerate such blatantly purposeful self deception. I'll have to give it some thought. I don't want to give up on anyone but holding that position implies a level of "surrender" to God that very well may be unrecoverable. I can't even imagine the amount of effort it must take to consciously avoid the information that would contradict with your views. Every day some new piece of information is made readily available that makes that stance utterly baseless. To continue to embrace it would require a constant barrage of self induced fantasy and mysticism. I would liken it to a disease worthy of regular psychological treatment, and I would not expect good results. I hope I've made it clear that I will not engage a young earth Christian on ANY level whatsoever. If that means my membership is not welcome here then I will cancel it. We must simply begin to ignore these people.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/2/2008 10:28:54 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(BVZ) How is it possible for you to disagree with scientists about the spiritual, if scientists have made no comment on the topic? You do realise that you can only disagree with someone if they have actually said something. If they have not, there is nothing to disagree with.
(theo) What used to be common knowledge is now commonly denied, i.e., scientific scrutiny into the "spiritual" world. Scientists have made plenty of comment on the topic.
In a lecture by Rudolf Steiner; Berlin, March 6, 1913; found at http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ErrInv_index.html ; the following is stated;
"Just as it is of great significance in every realm of human endeavor and investigation to know not only the path of truth but also the sources of error, so it is especially the case in the realm dealt with by our lectures here, the realm of spiritual science, of spiritual investigation. In this realm one has to do not only with sources of error that can be eliminated to a certain extent through judgment and reasoning but with sources of error that accompany every step of the spiritual investigation of truth
(theo) Scientists have not only made plenty of comments on the topic, they have even invented categories of science for the data collected.
And there is now a concerted effort to gather all the scientific studies of the "spiritual" into one category.
http://www.metanexus.net/spiritual_transformation/conference/research_conf_2002/index.html
"Finally, I want to acknowledge the enormous help and leadership of the John Templeton Foundation in providing the funds necessary to support significant field formation in the scientific study of religious and spiritual phenomena."
Solomon Katz, Ph.D.
President, Metanexus Institute
Principal Investigator, Spiritual Transformation Scientific Research Program
quote:
(BVZ) The lack of evidence is the only thing that stands in the way of science investigating God. I repeat: THE ONLY THING.
(theo) Actually it is the DENIAL of evidence that stands in the way of scientific investigation of the existence of God. YOU are focusing on "scientific investigation of God." I am addressing scientific investigation of "THE existence OF God." That may be where we differ, but I don't think that is all of it. "God's ways are past finding out," pretty well covers trying to investigate God. But the EXISTENCE OF God is something else. And there is plenty of evidence for THAT.
(BVZ) No scientist can even investigate ANYTHING without evidence derived from nature and call what he/she is doing science.
(theo) I am presenting some things I remember from my younger days, when science seriously studied the "spiritual" aspect of reality. The movement that started in the nineteen-forties and resulted in scientists turning away from sudying the spiritual side, began as a joke, by a man named "astruc," many years earlier, in the seventeen-hundreds. It was picked up by colleges and universities during WWII and taught to service men returning from the War, who carried it into more colleges and universities, AND HIGH SCHOOLS. And it has been carried by students, into every cravass of the learning system till it now is entering into the legal systems in the form of suits over teaching creationism and Darwinian Evolution. Surely you did not think this was the way things have always been?
quote:
(theo) This would eliminate entirely, the continual arguments that arise every time a "naturalist" complains that "spiritual nature" is beyond his ability to examine, therefore does not exist.
(BVZ) If a scientist says that something does not exist becuase there is no evidence, that scientist is not doing science. In ALL such cases, the scientific answer would be 'we don't know'. If you ask a scientist within a scientific context if God exists, the answer (at the moment) would HAVE to be: "I don't know." Lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist. All it proves is that science cannot investigate it.
(theo) There is NOTHING Science cannot investigate. There may be some things science cannot reach conclusions over, but that is not lack of investigation, that is lack of understanding the results of the investigation. Experience is sometimes necessary to proper understanding of the results of an investigation. If a result is beyond the investigator's experience, he will honestly say "I don't know." But he will NOT say, "we cannot ask."
quote:
(BVZ) So, you don't have to agree with something to assume that thing when using it in this kind of argument.
(BVZ) By the way, since you HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THIS, I am not sure why I have to explain this to you. You are a very very confused.
(theo) It is called arguing from the absurd. I simply showed the value of your conclusion when reduced to its most absurd position. It is a legitimate use of argument. Sorry, I did not mean to demean or belittle, or confuse. I assumed it was a widely known tactic in debate.
(BVZ) So you used this form of argument. I pointed out the flaws in your argument. Your defense against this? You point out that it was my conclusion you assumed to be true, so that you can make the argument.
It is a legitimate form of argument. David Deutsch used it in his book explaining his theory of "The Multi-verse." "Assume, for the sake of the discussion, there is no chaos in Earth." And he proceeds to build his case for a multiverse complex.
I have used the "assume it to be true" argument to show its natural absurdity. If physical nature is the only nature, your premise would be correct, and we would not be discussing it. BUT your premise "assumes" the only "nature" is "physical." It neglects entirely, the "spiritual nauture" of things. The premise is therefore flawed by its own parameters. I have simply showed it to be so.
quote:
(theo) Yeah! I would say there is "testimony" for the existence of God in scripture.
(BVZ) Me too. Which is why I said it.
I said something about 'testimony without evidence'. Am I not allowed to introduce things into the discussion?
Anyway, that is what you have in the bible. Testimony without evidence. Which is why you need faith. Faith is when you believe something without evidence to support that thing. But remember, when doing science, the faith of the scientist should not affect his results.
(theo) I don't know where this fallacy got started, but the facts reported in scripture constitute evidence. They are not matters of faith. They are eye-witness reports.
The matters of "faith" to Christians, has nothing to do with whether the facts of scripture happened. The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ are the basis for a Christian's faith that we will also be resurrected, based upon God's promise, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." [Rom 8:11]
THAT is the FAITH once for all delivered to the saints. NOT the facts witnessed and established through centuries of eye witness testimony.
(BVZ) Wrong.
Without faith in the accuracy of the bible, there is nothing supporting it. Faith is the only thing that gives the bible meaning. If you can support the testimony found in the bible using something from OUTSIDE the bible, that would be a good start.
(theo) Archeology, Anthropology, manuscripts (i.e. Historical documents, scrolls, etc.) cultural and psychological influences; there are a myriad of supports from natural studies that support the teachings of scripture. Many ancient sites of cities, water ways, forts, trade routes, etc. have been unearthed by Archeology, after "Naturalists" had declared them "erroneous reports." Look it up in your histories.
quote:
(BVZ) So are you NOT claiming that the testimony in the bible should be considered as scientific evidence?
(theo) Yes. I AM claiming that testimony in scripture should be considered as "scientific evidence." the reason is simple. Every time a new scroll or document is discovered, (as for example the Dead Sea Scrolls) they are subjected to Scientific study to determine, from the evidence contained in the material of the find, as to age of the material, kind of material, authenticity of claims ABOUT the material within the material itself, and various and sundry other scientifically measurable findings. The scientist stops short of delving into the "spiritual" claims contained within the document/scrolls, which is proper until the scientific world learns that they DO have a proper niche in the spiritual world.
(BVZ) A scientific investigation does not increase the credibility of what it is investigating. Only the CONCLUSIONS of the scientific investigation has the POTENTIAL to increase the credibility of what has been investigated.
Just because it is possible to launch a scientific investigation to see if the testimony in the bible is true, does not mean that the testimony in the bible is true. Only if the investigation CONCLUDES that they are true can they be considered to be.
(theo) THAT is NOT the scope of scientific investigation into spiritual matters. It is the proper scope into the matters of the documents themselves, i.,e., are the document of the correct age; correct language; correct socio/economical level; correct level of articulation for the claims of the author; and etc. Many of the claims made by the meddlers of the middle centuries (dark ages) are made evidentially false, because they use language that belongs to the wrong timeframe. This is discernable by critical document examination. And it is proper scientific study. And yes, it done by scientists.
But scientific investigation of spiritual matters would focus more on probability based upon fulfilled prophecies, than on the reality of the documents themselves. It is a different scope and focus of examintaion. But it has been offered in the past, and will be again. It is only in the present that it is said, "That is not within the scope of scientific investigation."
quote:
(theo) It is in analyzing the claims made, and subjecting them to historical and cultural considerations. When a civilization is changed suddenly by an historical AND cultutal upheaval, it is subject to scientific evaluation.
(BVZ) Not a problem. As long as you agree that God cannot be 'natural' simply because there is testimony that confirms his existence. For God to be natural, you will need scientific evidence.
(theo) There is plenty of "scientific" evidence for the "nature" of God being spiritual. You cannot see, hear, weigh, measure, contain, or control anything about him. Yet you can see, hear, weigh, measure, contain and control many of the things declared by Him to be true. THAT becomes evidence that the Spiritual God rules in the Material world, which is what He claims.
(BVZ) You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you?
You say this: There is plenty of "scientific" evidence for the "nature" of God being spiritual.
And then, in the very next sentence, you say this: You cannot see, hear, weigh, measure, contain, or control anything about him.
How can you say that there is evidence in one sentence, and then turn around and say that there isn't any?
(theo) Well there you go again, limiting the parameters of scientific investigation to "empirical evidence." "Thomistic evidence" is also scientific evidence. The EFFECT of things about which testimony is given, is measurable, whether the author can be seen, heard, weighed, measured, or not. If A Spirit authors a tome dealing with prophecies, or eye witness accounts, the results can be verified by scientific investigation. When the eye-witness accounts serve to verify why some social upheaval took place in history, there is good scientific reason to tie one to the other. It is called "cause and effect" which is another scientific tool not mentioned in these pages. When prophecies find fulfillment and the fulfillment is tied to the event by the author, it serves as scientific evidence in the form of "cause and effect" AND can be compared with historical accounts for authenticity; Cause and Effect.
quote:
(BVZ) Also, do you understand why 'testimony' is not scientific evidence?
(theo) Not if it is understood that ANYTHING that materially exists is subject to scientific analysis, and evaluation. And testimony materially exists. It can be both seen and heard, sometimes measured and weighed. It most certainly should be considered as "scientific evidence."
(BVZ) Just because something can be investigated does not make it true. Little Red Ridinghood in book form can be investigated, does this mean that she really existed?
(theo) I think you just demonstrated why we are still at odds over this issue. MY reference was to "scientific evidence; its analysis and evaluation" while YOU referenced "does not make it true." I did not say it is true because of scientific analysis and evaluation. I said testimony must be considered when studying such issues.
There are two issues discussed in scripture, One where the author makes an observation detailing what the just preceding event was to prove. The other, in which the author corrects a misunderstanding about the testimony.
The first is found in John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John goes on to explain the significance of this written account testimony: 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The second is found in John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus SAID NOT unto him, He shall not die; BUT, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Thus John uses testimony to CORRECT an untruth, similar to one that actually made the rounds, i.e., the legend of the wandering Jew; which legend I was still hearing in my youth.
quote:
(BVZ) Are you saying that scientific evidence is NOT more reliable than testimony? If you do, then YOU have a lot to learn.
(theo) Not what I said at all. I said Scientific evidence REQUIRES testimony, in order to be shared. You can have all the scientific evidence you want, and without testimony as to its significance, it is just private knowledge. Testimony has nothing to do with making or breaking scientific evidence, it has to do with EXPRESSING its significance. Why is it significant? What is its significance? What is the purpose of the experiment? What are its results? What are the conclusions drawn from its results? All these and other questions are only dealt with through the application of testimony.
(BVZ) Testimony can be true or false. The evidence determines if it is true or false. If there is no evidence, we cannot know if it is true or false.
So can findings from a scientific investigation. THAT is precisely why scientific investigation does not stop with one analysis, or one evaluation, or one theory. Too many false readings to depend upon accuracy, therefore, many tests are required even if they result in the same findings. THAT simply becomes "vindication."
A map can be true of false. A newspaper account can be true or false. A scientific experiment can have true or false results, true or false conclusions drawn from true or false results. Your own conclusions drawn from your own experiences can be true or false. True and false are not determiners, they are determined. Testimony is not tested for whether it is true or false, it is tested to see if it is plausable or not plausable. There have been many mistakes made because testimony was found to be plausable, but not true. That is not the scope of scientific
investigation.
Nostradamus, for example, published many prophecies. They have been under scientific scrutiny for many years. The conclusion reached is limited by the understanding of exactly what it was he is purported to have said. In other words, his prophecies were so vague they could have almost any application, as was often claimed by adherents. Not so with Hebrew and Cristian scripture.
quote:
(BVZ) Here is a list of questions that I want you to answer:
1) Why do you find fulfilled prophecies in the Koran unconvincing?
(theo) Precisely and because they are not prophecies. They are naratives written years after the fact, and demonstrably so. The Hebrew scripture however, have been demonstratedly proven to be of a different category, i.,e., written well before the facts contained in the prophecies. All you have to do is look at the prophecies, look at the date of the Koran, look at the wording of the alleged "fiulfillment" and draw your own conclusion.
(BVZ) Ok.
(BVZ) 2) Do you think that scientific evidence is less reliable than testimony? If not, why?
(theo) Scientific evidence is as reliable as scientific evidence. Testimony is as reliable as the understanding of the testifier. The scientific evidence can be completely misrepresented by the testimony and be a waste of time. Or it can actually be enhanced by the testimony and improve the strength of the experiment. Suppose for example, a student works an experiment, following the instructions of the professor. The experiment ends, has results, presented by the student as "inconclusive."
The professor, being more knowledgable than the student, may well salvage the experiment BECAUSE he can see results the student is not qualified to evaluate, by reason of inexperience. The testimony results in a stronger understanding by the studentbody as a result of the testimony, not as a result of the experiment nor the scientific evidence.
(BVZ) You did not answer the question.
I was not asking how testimony can be useful in science.
This was my question: Do you think that scientific evidence is less reliable than testimony? If not, why?
Could you answer it please?
(theo) You are asking me to compare beans with oranges. They are not even within the same category of significance, importance, or reliablity. You can have good testimony and bad investigative technique, resulting in a right or wrong conclusion. You can have bad testimony and bad investigative technique, resulting in a right or wrong conclusion. You can have any mix of good and bad as regards testimony and investigative technique, and any mix of conclusion, whether good or bad. Testimony and scientific evidence are not comparable, they are necessary each to the other in investigation. Testimony may BE scientific evidence, or it may be ABOUT scientific evidence, or scientific evidence may be about testimony. I think you are misunderstanding my application ABOUT testimony because you fail to see it as a separate but necessary addendum TO evidence.
quote:
(BVZ) 3) Do you agree that something is natural when it is supported by scientific evidence? If not why?
(theo) I had to think about this one a while. I remember "scientific investigations" about poltergeists, and similar phenomena; "extra-sensory perception;" "ghosts;" and etc.
(BVZ) You did? Is this the first time you think about it? That would explain your confusion earlier in the thread. This is what we were talking about ALL THIS TIME, and this is the first time you 'think about it'?
(theo) Don't go berserk on me. I did not say that. I said "I had to think ABOUT THIS ONE awhile. Your question is asking for a conclusion with a limiting parameter, leaving out any reference to the nature of spirits. I have to think about whether my answer should include the spiritual nature, or if your question provided for that. It does NOT. THAT is why my response included poltergeists, esp, and etc. I do not know if those things are natural because I don't know if they are "supported" (the key word) by "scientific evidence." And it certainly DOES explain YOUR confusion earlier and later in the thread. We are not discussing the same things.
quote:
(theo)(continuing) I would have to say it depends upon science's own definition of its findings.
AND it would depend upon people's agreement with its purported findings; i.e., the Rosswell, N.M. UFO investigation for example. Some people do not trust the alleged "scientific reports" but rather suspect a government cover-up.
I really cannot be more specific on this one, but it is an excellent question, perhaps deserving a better response. I wish I was qualified to give it proper due.
(BVZ) For goodness sake man! Why have you been arguing with me then? This is the only thing I was talking about all this time. I repeatedly stated this. And then, in this post, after a LOT of posts going back and forth, you respond with this: I wish I was qualified to give it proper due.
This begs the question, if you are not 'qualified' to comment, why did you? Not only did you comment, you argued with me about it!
(theo) Get real. You are asking questions not even considered in the rest of the thread.
YOUR QUESTION:(BVZ) 3) Do you agree that something is natural when it is supported by scientific evidence? If not why?
MY RESPONSE: "I would have to say it depends upon science's own definition of its findings."
I cannot "agree" with you if your definitions differ from mine. I am not qualified to be more specific, BECAUSE we differ as to definitions of "natural." Have you not read my references that allude to "spiritual nature?" I cannot tell from your question whether you are asking aobut MY understanding of "natural" or YOUR understanding of "natural." YOUR understanding of "natural" has a limiting parameter of "Physical" while MY understanding of "Natural" included the parameter of "spiritual Nature."
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about THAT. Be careful how you develope your questions.
_____________________________
The most profound thing I learned in scripture is -
That God, who knows me best -
Loves me anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 8/6/2008 8:52:43 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 354
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(BVZ) 2) Do you think that scientific evidence is less reliable than testimony? If not, why?
(theo) Scientific evidence is as reliable as scientific evidence. Testimony is as reliable as the understanding of the testifier. The scientific evidence can be completely misrepresented by the testimony and be a waste of time. Or it can actually be enhanced by the testimony and improve the strength of the experiment. Suppose for example, a student works an experiment, following the instructions of the professor. The experiment ends, has results, presented by the student as "inconclusive."
The professor, being more knowledgable than the student, may well salvage the experiment BECAUSE he can see results the student is not qualified to evaluate, by reason of inexperience. The testimony results in a stronger understanding by the studentbody as a result of the testimony, not as a result of the experiment nor the scientific evidence.
(BVZ) You did not answer the question.
I was not asking how testimony can be useful in science.
This was my question: Do you think that scientific evidence is less reliable than testimony? If not, why?
Could you answer it please?
(theo) You are asking me to compare beans with oranges. They are not even within the same category of significance, importance, or reliablity. You can have good testimony and bad investigative technique, resulting in a right or wrong conclusion. You can have bad testimony and bad investigative technique, resulting in a right or wrong conclusion. You can have any mix of good and bad as regards testimony and investigative technique, and any mix of conclusion, whether good or bad. Testimony and scientific evidence are not comparable, they are necessary each to the other in investigation. Testimony may BE scientific evidence, or it may be ABOUT scientific evidence, or scientific evidence may be about testimony. I think you are misunderstanding my application ABOUT testimony because you fail to see it as a separate but necessary addendum TO evidence.
So you concede that scientific evidence is not the same thing as testimony? Then... what on earth have you been going on about all this time? You really ARE confused. Since you have conceded this point... theres not much to talk about further. Your entire argument falls apart.
How do you maintain your position that God must be natural assuming my defition of 'natural', when testimony and scientific evidence is not the same thing?
quote:
quote:
(BVZ) 3) Do you agree that something is natural when it is supported by scientific evidence? If not why?
(theo) I had to think about this one a while. I remember "scientific investigations" about poltergeists, and similar phenomena; "extra-sensory perception;" "ghosts;" and etc.
(BVZ) You did? Is this the first time you think about it? That would explain your confusion earlier in the thread. This is what we were talking about ALL THIS TIME, and this is the first time you 'think about it'?
(theo) Don't go berserk on me.
Well I am SO sorry, but you are wasting my time. You start a debate on this issue (weather or not something can only be considered natural when it has scientific evidence supporting it), and then continue the debate for quite a while.
THEN, when I ask you a direct question, a question regarding WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING DIRECTLY, in fact THE ONLY THING I WAS DISCUSSING, you respond with 'I have to think about it.'
WHY oh WHY did you start the discussion then, if you have to think about it? What were you doing then before you 'had to think about it'?
quote:
I did not say that. I said "I had to think ABOUT THIS ONE awhile.
This is what we have been discussing ALL THIS TIME. How can you say you have to think about it, AFTER we have been discussing it all this time?
quote:
Your question is asking for a conclusion with a limiting parameter, leaving out any reference to the nature of spirits.
What? What on earth are you blathering about? The 'nature of spirits'? I didn't even mention spirits. I simply stated the following: If something has scientific evidence supporting it, then it must be natural.
Thats it. Nothing more.
quote:
I have to think about whether my answer should include the spiritual nature, or if your question provided for that. It does NOT. THAT is why my response included poltergeists, esp, and etc. I do not know if those things are natural because I don't know if they are "supported" (the key word) by "scientific evidence." And it certainly DOES explain YOUR confusion earlier and later in the thread. We are not discussing the same things.
If there is scientific evidence supporting the existance of poltergeists, then poltergeists must be natural. You will have a hard time supporting thier existence with scientific evidence though. But lets imagine that there IS such evidence. What will happen is that they will become another NATURAL phenomena that science has not explained 100%. Much like lightning and tornadoes for example. Science have theories and models that predict thier behavious, and explain them to a certain extent, but they cannot explain them 100%. (For not anyway.)
quote:
quote:
(theo)(continuing) I would have to say it depends upon science's own definition of its findings.
AND it would depend upon people's agreement with its purported findings; i.e., the Rosswell, N.M. UFO investigation for example. Some people do not trust the alleged "scientific reports" but rather suspect a government cover-up.
I really cannot be more specific on this one, but it is an excellent question, perhaps deserving a better response. I wish I was qualified to give it proper due.
(BVZ) For goodness sake man! Why have you been arguing with me then? This is the only thing I was talking about all this time. I repeatedly stated this. And then, in this post, after a LOT of posts going back and forth, you respond with this: I wish I was qualified to give it proper due.
This begs the question, if you are not 'qualified' to comment, why did you? Not only did you comment, you argued with me about it!
(theo) Get real. You are asking questions not even considered in the rest of the thread.
Perhaps you should pay attention. I don't understand why you debate here, if you cannot even remember what we are talking about. Read post 53 again. That is where I make my original statement, and you decide to discuss the matter with me.
THEN, after quite a few posts going back and forth, I ask the question:
Do you agree that something is natural when it is supported by scientific evidence? If not why?
Read post 53 again. Then look at the question. Do you understand why I am irritated with you for having to 'think about it' after all this debating ABOUT THIS VERY TOPIC?
quote:
YOUR QUESTION:(BVZ) 3) Do you agree that something is natural when it is supported by scientific evidence? If not why?
MY RESPONSE: "I would have to say it depends upon science's own definition of its findings."
I cannot "agree" with you if your definitions differ from mine. I am not qualified to be more specific, BECAUSE we differ as to definitions of "natural." Have you not read my references that allude to "spiritual nature?" I cannot tell from your question whether you are asking aobut MY understanding of "natural" or YOUR understanding of "natural." YOUR understanding of "natural" has a limiting parameter of "Physical" while MY understanding of "Natural" included the parameter of "spiritual Nature."
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about THAT. Be careful how you develope your questions.
Its a simple question. And I don't understand why you say that I limit it to the 'physical'. I don't care if it is physical or spiritual. It can be ANYTHING. As long as you have scientific evidence supporting it.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
