Divine revelation

[seer]

That depends on your reasons for rejecting science. I do not put the discoveries of science above the Revelation of God, neither does Methodological Naturalism. Need more explanation from your part to be meaningful.

I don't reject science. And I'm glad that you too hold Revelation in higher esteem.

So what?!?!?!? There are more then one atheist scientist. That still does not address the problem at hand. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism, not the human assumptions of Metaphysical Naturalism. This is the issue you have failed to respond to.

Are you saying ALL or most scientists are atheists?!?!?!? Are you arguing the fallacy of popularity or false consensus. Can you some how provide some evidence that ALL or most scientists are atheist?

Shuny, it was a simple question - do you agree that these scientists are misusing science to support their bias?

[shunyadragon]

I don't reject science. And I'm glad that you too hold Revelation in higher esteem.

This has been repeated many times. I still do not think you have a good comprehension or distrust of Methodological Naturalism.

Shuny, it was a simple question - do you agree that these scientists are misusing science to support their bias?

It would be nice if your questions were simple and your responses were simple, but communications remain difficult. It has already been clearly stated many, many times. Those that interpret Methodological Naturalism for either Theist nor Atheist evidence are not only biased, but making claims that are illogical, and out of the scope and purpose of Methodological Naturalism.

[Doug Shaver]

And if scientists like Sam Harris claimed that no such thing as a soul we can dismiss their opinions - they are wrong - correct?

I don't know how you distinguish between disagreeing with an opinion and dismissing that opinion.

If I believe X, and if anyone, scientist or otherwise, claims not-X, then of course I believe that they are wrong. Whether they are wrong in fact has nothing to do with my own opinion the matter.

[seer]

This has been repeated many times. I still do not think you have a good comprehension or distrust of Methodological Naturalism.

Shuny, when are you going to get it. Again Methodological Naturalism is just a term, a method, it is and does nothing. I question sinful and fallible men.

It would be nice if your questions were simple and your responses were simple, but communications remain difficult. It has already been clearly stated many, many times. Those that interpret Methodological Naturalism for either Theist nor Atheist evidence are not only biased, but making claims that are illogical, and out of the scope and purpose of Methodological Naturalism.

My point Shuny goes along with my above response. Here are scientists (some very well known scientists) using the results of their scientific investigation to claim that the soul does not exist. Using science to confirm a bias. Just as Stephen Hawking recently stated that "Science makes God unnecessary." So you can talk about Methodological Naturalism all you want but you can't divorce the scientific method from the bias and prejudice of fallible men doing the science. And that colors everything.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, when are you going to get it. Again Methodological Naturalism is just a term, a method, it is and does nothing. I question sinful and fallible men.

False seer, I could say Theism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam are just words, right. You may question sinful fallible men, but the problem is that this rather pessimistic negative view needs to considered universally to ALL humans to be valid, and question ALL world views and justification of knowledge, including Mr. Black and you.

Is their some rational and logical reason the justification and knowledge believed by Mr. Black and you is superior to all others, other then an assertion?

My point Shuny goes along with my above response. Here are scientists (some very well known scientists) using the results of their scientific investigation to claim that the soul does not exist. Using science to confirm a bias. Just as Stephen Hawking recently stated that "Science makes God unnecessary." So you can talk about Methodological Naturalism all you want but you can't divorce the scientific method from the bias and prejudice of fallible men doing the science. And that colors everything.

I have made no effort to divorce scientific method from the bias of individuals. You are basing your argument clearly on fallacies, and excluding yourself from the universal problem of the justification of knowledge by fallible humans like Mr. Black and you.

Methodological Naturalism is clearly defined and is not dependent on the personal metaphysical beliefs of Individuals. Your clearly ignoring the fact that scientist of many different metaphysical world views share the common world view based on Methodological Naturalism. There are Theists, like Glen Morton and I, Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, and many others. It remains the problem that you have failed to justify that the world view held by Mr. Black are above the sinful fallible human nature and represent the only rational justification of knowledge. Still waiting . . .

[seer]

False seer, I could say Theism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam are just words, right. You may question sinful fallible men, but the problem is that this rather pessimistic negative view needs to considered universally to ALL humans to be valid, and question ALL world views and justification of knowledge, including Mr. Black and you.

What I said is fact. Science is in the hands of sinful and fallible men. And since I believe that God is quite able to use fallible men to reveal accurate truths I escape your objection. In other words, Revelation does not depend on men but on God.

I have made no effort to divorce scientific method from the bias of individuals. You are basing your argument clearly on fallacies, and excluding yourself from the universal problem of the justification of knowledge by fallible humans like Mr. Black and you.

Methodological Naturalism is clearly defined and is not dependent on the personal metaphysical beliefs of Individuals. Your clearly ignoring the fact that scientist of many different metaphysical world views share the common world view based on Methodological Naturalism. There are Theists, like Glen Morton and I, Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, and many others. It remains the problem that you have failed to justify that the world view held by Mr. Black are above the sinful fallible human nature and represent the only rational justification of knowledge. Still waiting . . .

Again Shuny, Methodological Naturalism is a value neutral term - science is always done by fallible men, men with agendas and worldviews. And I have offered a number of very clear examples where scientists use science to justify their bias. And these are just the most obvious ones - who knows what other assumptions and prejudices they are justifying with the scientific method.

[shunyadragon]

What I said is fact. Science is in the hands of sinful and fallible men. And since I believe that God is quite able to use fallible men to reveal accurate truths I escape your objection. In other words, Revelation does not depend on men but on God.

The key here is 'I believe' which is a 'bald assertion' without a coherent argument. Yes, Revelation depends on God, but this does not represent a coherent argument beyond the simple fact that you believe it so. I need a more coherent argument, not just 'bald assertions.' Still waiting. . .

Again Shuny, Methodological Naturalism is a value neutral term - science is always done by fallible men, men with agendas and worldviews. And I have offered a number of very clear examples where scientists use science to justify their bias. And these are just the most obvious ones - who knows what other assumptions and prejudices they are justifying with the scientific method.

have made no effort to divorce scientific method from the bias of individuals. You are basing your argument clearly on fallacies, and excluding yourself from the universal problem of the justification of knowledge by fallible humans like Mr. Black and you.

Methodological Naturalism is clearly defined and is not dependent on the personal metaphysical beliefs of Individuals. Your clearly ignoring the fact that scientist of many different metaphysical world views share the common world view based on Methodological Naturalism. There are Theists, like Glen Morton and I, Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, and many others. It remains the problem that you have failed to justify that the world view held by Mr. Black are above the sinful fallible human nature and represent the only rational justification of knowledge. Still waiting . . .

[seer]

The key here is 'I believe' which is a 'bald assertion' without a coherent argument. Yes, Revelation depends on God, but this does not represent a coherent argument beyond the simple fact that you believe it so. I need a more coherent argument, not just 'bald assertions.' Still waiting. . .

Nonsense Shuny. Nothing you can say changes the fact that science is always colored by fallible and sinful men. And if don't believe that God is powerful enough to get His point across even through fallible men then you have a very low view of God - and that is not my problem.

have made no effort to divorce scientific method from the bias of individuals. You are basing your argument clearly on fallacies, and excluding yourself from the universal problem of the justification of knowledge by fallible humans like Mr. Black and you.

I'm glad you agree that science is in the hands of fallible and bias men. But my worldview does not depend on men but on God.

[Doug Shaver]

And if don't believe that God is powerful enough to get His point across even through fallible men then you have a very low view of God

When fallible men talk to me about God and whatever point they say he wants to get across, my response has nothing to do with my opinion of God's capabilities.

[seer]

When fallible men talk to me about God and whatever point they say he wants to get across, my response has nothing to do with my opinion of God's capabilities.

Well since you are an atheist...

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny. Nothing you can say changes the fact that science is always colored by fallible and sinful men. And if don't believe that God is powerful enough to get His point across even through fallible men then you have a very low view of God - and that is not my problem.

I'm glad you agree that science is in the hands of fallible and bias men. But my worldview does not depend on men but on God.

Have no delusions seer, we do not agree on the role of fallible humans in science.

ALL world views are dependent on fallible humans regardless of whether they believe in God or not. appealing to 'I believe in God,' remains an assertion and not an argument.

Like Mr. Black, it appears you cannot present a coherent argument beyond 'I believe it so.' Your misrepresentation of science and Methodological Naturalism continues.

Did not respond to the questions, still waiting . . .

[Truthseeker]

Shuny, 1) you believe in something like God of the Holy Bible, though you are neither Jewish convert nor Christian. 2) Your Source provides an ontic base like what Mr. Black says the God of the Holy Bible does provide. Therefore, you must think that your religion has an ontic base. As for Doug Shaver . . . ???

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, 1) you believe in something like God of the Holy Bible, though you are neither Jewish convert nor Christian. 2) Your Source provides an ontic base like what Mr. Black says the God of the Holy Bible does provide. Therefore, you must think that your religion has an ontic base. As for Doug Shaver . . . ???

The problem with the Claims of Mr. Black and seer's claim of a unique ontic base, is that all world views define an ontic base for their own world view. Atheists assert a purely physical natural ontic base for metaphysical naturalism. Methodological Naturalism defines its ontic base as the natural physical world only without making any Metaphysical hypothesis nor presuppositions. Just because they differ does not make any one nor all wrong. Simply asserting that one ontic base is the only one, and all others are false, or all others lack an ontic base, will get you a coffee for two dollars at McDonalds, unless your over sixty.

[Doug Shaver]

Well since you are an atheist...

If I'm an open-minded atheist, I could change my mind if you gave me a good reason to believe that God is talking to me through you or through any other believer.

[seer]

If I'm an open-minded atheist, I could change my mind if you gave me a good reason to believe that God is talking to me through you or through any other believer.

I have no reason to assume that you are open minded.