Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[shunyadragon]

We seem to be arguing over word choice again.

Fine... WLC is using scientific descriptions of the universe to support a philosophical argument.

I think that you think being this pedantic makes you appear intelligent, it doesn't.

If Mr. or Mrs. Shuny tells you its raining cats and dogs outside...do you run to the window to see which breed of dog is hitting your front lawn?

No need for name calling, facts are facts as the claimm of WLC.

Let's take a look at the definition of scientific evidence and WLC's claim

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=scientific%20evidence%20definition

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

© Copyright Original Source

WLC's claim;

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4LZcPH6Rz

Conclusion

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation. The conclusion of the argument involves no demonstrable incoherence and, when subjected to conceptual analysis, is rich in theological implications. On the basis of the kalam cosmological argument it is therefore plausible that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

© Copyright Original Source

Please note: WLC claims ". . . both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, . . . "

[shunyadragon]

Since Shuny is unable or unwilling to describe the scientific method, I will try to do so.

The classic scientific method is a circular (or better, a spiral) endeavor with four elements as shown in the diagram below. The four elements are 1) putting forth a (testable) theory or hypothesis, 2) devising an experiment (or observation) to test the theory, which has the potential to disprove the theory, 3) doing the experiment (or making the observation), and 4) observing (and analyzing) the results. The results may disprove the theory, or they may suggest generalizations, modifications, improvements, or extensions to the theory.

Ian Barbour makes a strong case that modern science did not start until Galileo. Modern science required three elements: 1) the experimental methodology of Bacon, 2) the mathematical rigor of Kepler, and 3) Galileo's ability to generate general, abstract theories from observations. Without all three, we don't have modern science or the modern scientific method.

Did Ibn al-Haytham have all three of these elements? Did he really invent the modern scientific method? Possibly, but this has not yet been shown, and I doubt it. Somewhere I've got a copy of a book by Taner Edis, "An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam". I think he discussed Ibn al-Haytham; I'll post what he said when I locate the book.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18809[/ATTACH]

The scientific method is more than just observation. It is more than just experiment. It involves formulation of abstract, general theories, which Barbour argues did not occur until Galileo.

(The above diagram is my own, which I've used in numerous science-faith lectures.)

Source: https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method

The Muslim Influence On the History of the Scientific Method

The early Islamic ages were a golden age for knowledge, and the history of the scientific method must pay a great deal of respect to some of the brilliant Muslim philosophers of Baghdad and Al-Andalus.

They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers.

The first, and possibly greatest Islamic scholar, was Ibn al-Haytham, best known for his wonderful work on light and vision, called 'The Book of Optics.' He developed a scientific method very similar to our own:

(1)State an explicit problem, based upon observation and experimentation.
(2)Test or criticize a hypothesis through experimentation.
(3)Interpret the data and come to a conclusion, ideally using mathematics.
(4)Publish the findings

Ibn al-Haytham, brilliantly, understood that controlled and systematic experimentation and measurement were essential to discovering new knowledge, built upon existing knowledge.

His other additions were the idea that science is a quest for ultimate truth and that one of the only ways to reach that goal was through skepticism and questioning everything.

Other Muslim scholars further contributed to this scientific method, refining it and preserving it. Al-Biruni understood that measuring instruments and human observers were prone to error and bias, so proposed that experiments needed replication, many times, before a 'common sense' average was possible.

Al-Rahwi (851 - 934) was the first scholar to use a recognizable peer review process.

In his book, Ethics of the Physician, he developed peer review process to ensure that physicians documented their procedures and lay them open for scrutiny. Other physicians would review the processes and make a decision in cases of suspected malpractice.

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

I think if you look at the texts, it should be clear that the resurrection of Jesus is not really presented as a reanimation of a corpse. For Paul, the resurrection is described as being re-clothed in a spiritual celestial body. Mark does not describe the resurrected body at all, but it may be prefigured in the transfiguration. Thus the significance of the resurrection, among other things, is seeing the significance of Jesus and his teaching differently: 'this is my beloved son, listen to him'. While Mark does not describe Jesus' resurrected body, certainly not as a reanimated corpse, Matthew does try to portray the resurrected Jesus, but not without some ambiguity. For example, Jesus is already raised and gone before the stone is rolled away and while he is already going to meet the disciples in Galilee, he is nonetheless suddenly also present to the women at the tomb. This is not the behavior of a reanimated corpse. And when the disciples see him, they worship him, but some doubted. Why would one worship a reanimated corpse? When a little girl had been previously raised from the dead in Matthew's gospel (also in Mark and Luke), they do not worship her reanimated corpse. I've already mentioned Luke's account of the disciples not recognizing Jesus on the road to Emmaus, but in the breaking of the bread, when he vanishes before their eyes. The obvious point is that Jesus is recognized in the celebration of the Eucharist, a continuing memorial celebrated to this very day. When they tell this story to the other disciples, Jesus suddenly appears in their midst. Does a reanimated corpse do this? And yet, Luke's view is not that Jesus was a ghost, nor a reanimated corpse, but a much greater physical and spiritual, heavenly reality. Luke illustrates this greater reality with the Jesus being lifted up into heaven, either later that day or 40 days later. The beloved disciple in the gospel of John believes without seeing the resurrected body. Mary Magdalene does not recognize a reanimated corpse, and Jesus does not want to be touched until he has ascended to the Father. Later on he appears behind locked doors. My point is not that these literary portrayals must be seen as literal historical events that prove what the nature of the resurrected body was like, but rather that these writers did not portray the resurrected Jesus as a corpse that had been reanimated, but as something very different. And in each of the gospels, the significance is not placed on a corpse being reanimated but the message of the resurrected Jesus. For example, in Luke, the message that the witnesses of the resurrection are to take away is not that they saw a reanimated corpse eating food, but that 'repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in the name of the Messiah'. This is not a reanimated corpse and then some other things added on, but all of these narratives are trying to point to a present but transcendent reality that is very different and very much beyond what one might attempt to describe as a reanimated corpse. The story of the resurrected Jesus raises questions, but it is the message of Jesus and the felt presence of God as a loving father that embraces us as his own children, as brothers of Jesus, that lead to belief in my experience.

[robrecht]

Would you summarize the life and work of Socrates as a guy who killed himself and wasn't able to be resuscitated? Is that the point of the Socrates story?

[Tassman]

Would you summarize the life and work of Socrates as a guy who killed himself and wasn't able to be resuscitated? Is that the point of the Socrates story?

False equivalence!

The Socrates story comes to an end at his death and although his work lives on his corpse remains a corpse. By contrast the Jesus story gains it's impact from what allegedly occurs after his death, i.e. the significance concerns a corpse that is no-longer dead.

[robrecht]

False equivalence!

The Socrates story comes to an end at his death and although his work lives on his corpse remains a corpse. By contrast the Jesus story gains it's impact from what allegedly occurs after his death, i.e. the significance concerns a corpse that is no-longer dead.

We disagree on the basis of the significance of the Jesus story. Simple assertion does not make your opinion correct and mine wrong. Personally, I would have little to no interest in the Jesus story were it not for his teachings and the reasons for his execution. Same with Socrates.

[Tassman]

We disagree on the basis of the significance of the Jesus story. Simple assertion does not make your opinion correct and mine wrong. Personally, I would have little to no interest in the Jesus story were it not for his teachings and the reasons for his execution. Same with Socrates.

OK! I don't disagree about Jesus the exemplar. But I think you would acknowledge that the main significance of the Jesus story for most Christians is the hope through the Atonement of Christ to be raised unto life eternal. And this is more than Socrates' is offering.

[robrecht]

OK! I don't disagree about Jesus the exemplar. But I think you would acknowledge that the main significance of the Jesus story for most Christians is the hope through the Atonement of Christ to be raised unto life eternal. And this is more than Socrates' is offering.

I don't think many Christians want to become reanimated corpses. Life eternal is not the zombie apocalypse.

[element771]

No need for name calling,

Can you please indicate where I called you a name (other than Shuny, of course).

[One Bad Pig]

Can you please indicate where I called you a name (other than Shuny, of course).

He doesn't like being called pedantic, is my guess.

[element771]

He doesn't like being called pedantic, is my guess.

Eh... fair enough

[shunyadragon]

Can you please indicate where I called you a name (other than Shuny, of course).

Pedantic, and still waiting for you to respond coherently concerning the difference concerning evidence in science and philosophy, and the issue of the lack of falsification in philosophical claims, particularly as the address WLC's claims.

[Tassman]

I don't think many Christians want to become reanimated corpses.

No doubt. Nevertheless most Christians have more interest in Jesus than just his teachings and the reasons for his execution, which you put forward as your primary interest in him. And whilst life eternal with Jesus is supposedly a lot more than a mere reanimation of the flesh it is at least that which is the point.

Life eternal is not the zombie apocalypse

Well does wonder about the Matt 27 passage whereby the Were they zombies?

[robrecht]

No doubt. Nevertheless most Christians have more interest in Jesus than just his teachings and the reasons for his execution, which you put forward as your primary interest in him. And whilst life eternal with Jesus is supposedly a lot more than a mere reanimation of the flesh it is at least that which is the point.

Well does wonder about the Matt 27 passage whereby the Were they zombies?

Well, let's see, no mention of these resurrected saints being soulless corpses, incapable of rational thought, feeding on human flesh, eating brains, unable to be stopped by machine guns, etc, so probably not zombies.

[Tassman]

Well, let's see, no mention of these resurrected saints being soulless corpses, incapable of rational thought, feeding on human flesh, eating brains, unable to be stopped by machine guns, etc, so probably not zombies.

Thanks for the clarification.