Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Against Objectivity
Collapse
X
-
. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostScience is not even possible except for the fact of objective truth.
From the previous history of your posts you do not consider science possible. The claim of 'objective truth' is not a criteria for the Philosophy of Science.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-22-2017, 11:32 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, God, none of the thousands of them believed by many to have existed, have made anything about their assumed existence evident within us.
The natural world is evidence of the natural world, and there is nothing about it that evinces the existence of a god regardless of biblical assertions. Stop fooling yourself, whether god exists or not, the natural world is not evidence of his/its existence.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI think this passage was ostensibly speaking about Jews. I'm not quite ready to explain the context behind my observation. As such, I would not find evidence of natural revelation in Romans 1.
As far as the framework for common discussion, I would tend to say there are some things common enough that all mankind can understand things in the same way -- fire is hot, ice is cold.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.
Then there is the origin of life, and the fine-tuning in the universe!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou misunderstand, no one knows if the universe had a beginning. All that is known is that we can only see so far into its past. The big bang was not necessarily the beginning of the universe.
Thats whats called the god of the gaps argument, there are many questions that science has not figured out as of yet and may never figure out, but there is no evidence that god did it. You are free to believe that a god did it of course, but the existence of the natural world itself does not make that evident as the bible asserts.
As a matter of fact, the evidence you bring up was not even known by Paul at the time of his assertion, so that is not even what he was refering to as evidence.
Best wishes,
LeeLast edited by lee_merrill; 09-22-2017, 04:09 PM."What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, that's denying all that science knows of the beginning.
And that's a science-of-the-gaps argument! Saying science will solve the origin of life and the fine-tuning of the universe. But especially the origin of life is based on what we know of nature and cells and DNA and DNA transcription. The problems are simply overwhelming, and this evidence was conclusive enough for Antony Flew.
Well, the need for an "unmoved mover" was known by Aristotle, and the origin of life would be a known question then too. But look up into the heavens and see the glory of God!
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, the universe had a beginning! So there seems to be an immaterial, outside-of-time, first cause.
Then there is the origin of life, and the fine-tuning in the universe!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostScience has not concluded a beginning to the universe, its concluded that the particular spacetime that we are able to observe had a beginning.
No, the need for an unmoved mover was not known by Aristotle because Aristotle was wrong in his philosophical hypothesis. "Conservation of momentum."
And when you look up into the night sky what you see is awsome, no less so for its being natural rather than created.
Best wishes,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWe don't know that the universe had a beginning. There are many scientific models which argue that the universe is infinite.
Originally posted by shunyadragonFalse, science does not "know" there was a beginning.
Originally posted by Tassman"Fine tuning" is an argument from incredulity (i.e. a logical fallacy) reinforced by a range of cherry picked concepts from modern cosmology and other scientific disciplines.
Best wishes,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut those are fringe views, the mainstream of science supports the Big Bang.
Actually no, what is is described as the Big Bang is not considered a beginning by mainstream science even if, and it is an if it began as a singularity, as in the following source:
The reality of contemporary cosmologists and other scientists is the question of beginnings is not resolved, and they do not support the belief that our universe nor all possible universe had any specific beginning in time.
Certainly all our knowledge is probabilistic.
I note that you skipped the origin of life! And fine tuning is not fallacious, it is simply the result of asking what would happen if we varied various physical quantities.
Best wishes,
Lee
The fine-tuning argument is not science, because it requires theistic assumptions as to why our universe is the way it is, and could not exist without intelligent fine-tuning. It fails the same way as all Intelligent Design arguments in that they are not falsifiable in making a fallacious negative hypothesis that our universe could not have come about naturally. This has left the Discovery Institute in the swamp unable to publish scientific research falsifying hypothesis for Intelligent DesignLast edited by shunyadragon; 09-23-2017, 06:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, that's kind of what I mean by the universe.
But the need for an unmoved mover remains, Aristotle was right about that.
It is beautiful, yes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostExactly, but what you mean by universe is not necessarily, most likely not in my opinion, a true definition of universe. We don't know!Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
461 responses
2,056 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 04:17 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,230 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment