Can we trust what God says?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, I'm making the claim that we can not know if nature is uniform universally, if it was in the past or will be in the future. Apart from God's revelation. If you think that claim is wrong please show how you can know these things.

I simply know by the practical knowledge of science beyond a reasonable doubt. You have failed to answer: Could you be wrong about that?"

What?

Does not answer, please read again and respond. I see no viable logical argument here only assertions from Mr. Black and you.

Acknowledging the absolute knowledge of God does not detract from the certainty (certainty here does not mean absolute certainty, it reflects the human knowledge as in the definitions I provided.) and practicality of human knowledge about our physical existence.

[seer]

I simply know by the practical knowledge of science beyond a reasonable doubt. You have failed to answer: Could you be wrong about that?"

Shuny you know what beyond a reasonable doubt? That is just silly, you know no such thing, it is a pure guess. And wrong about what? That we can not know if nature is uniform universally, if it was in the past or will be in the future apart from God? If you think otherwise please feel free to prove it.

Acknowledging the absolute knowledge of God does not detract from the certainty (certainty here does not mean absolute certainty, it reflects the human knowledge as in the definitions I provided.) and practicality of human knowledge about our physical existence.

What is the difference between absolute certainty and certainty - that makes no sense.

Certain: Known for sure; established beyond doubt

[whag]

You've misunderstood. Science is fine. I love it in fact.

You love that it delivered you creature comforts, that's certain. It's far less likely you love the methodologies that extract reliable knowledge from nature. You're at extreme tension with the general revelation.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you know what beyond a reasonable doubt? That is just silly, you know no such thing, it is a pure guess. And wrong about what? That we can not know if nature is uniform universally, if it was in the past or will be in the future apart from God? If you think otherwise please feel free to prove it.

Methodological Naturalism has determined that our physical existence is uniform beyond a reasonable doubt. The observations throughout the history of science has confirmed. this with 100% of all observations. If you ,like Mr. Black, would like to offer another scenario where there is evidence that our physical existence is not uniform, please do, but at present you have only made assertions, and arguments from ignorance, i.e. we do not know the future. Still waiting . . .

You have also failed to answer the question: Could you be wrong?

[seer]

Methodological Naturalism has determined that our physical existence is uniform beyond a reasonable doubt. The observations throughout the history of science has confirmed. this with 100% of all observations.

So you have observed nature at the far edges of our universe? You have observed nature 10 billion years back? You have observed the nature of the future?

You have also failed to answer the question: Could you be wrong?

Again, wrong about what?

[shunyadragon]

So you have observed nature at the far edges of our universe? You have observed nature 10 billion years back? You have observed the nature of the future?

This again represents the fallacy from ignorance, which again and again and again the arguments Mr. Black and you are pleading fallacies here.

Again, wrong about what?

Here for starters . . .

No God, no certainty. No ground for human rationality or the uniformity of nature

[NormATive]

Shuny,

I think Mr. Black is practicing presuppositional apologetics, ala; Van Til.

Didn't know Seer bought into that brand of philosophy.

NORM

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

I think Mr. Black is practicing presuppositional apologetics, ala; Van Til.

Didn't know Seer bought into that brand of philosophy.

NORM

Well at times he stone walls like Mr. Black, but at other times tries to selectively cites science to support his agenda.

I do not believe presuppositional apologetics via the transcendental argument is actually a logical argument. It simply an absolute statement of belief saying:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing.

© Copyright Original Source

[NormATive]

Well at times he stone walls like Mr. Black, but at other times tries to selectively cites science to support his agenda.

I do not believe presuppositional apologetics via the transcendental argument is actually a logical argument. It simply an absolute statement of belief saying:

[/cite=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics]

a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing. [/cite]

So, that could apply to just about any other religion that is based on strict adherence to a religious text, such as Islam or Judaism.

Game over.

NORM

[whag]

So you have observed nature at the far edges of our universe? You have observed nature 10 billion years back? You have observed the nature of the future?

You observed Moses speaking to a burning bush? You observed Jesus speaking to Satan on a rooftop?

Again, wrong about what?

Could you be wrong about the age of the universe reliably determined? Could you be wrong about evolution being a grand conspiracy?

[seer]

This again represents the fallacy from ignorance, which again and again and again the arguments Mr. Black and you are pleading fallacies here.

Shuny, you don't even know what you are talking about. So again: So you have observed nature at the far edges of our universe? You have observed nature 10 billion years back? You have observed the nature of the future?

Tell me Shuny, how can you know these things?

Here for starters . . .No God, no certainty. No ground for human rationality or the uniformity of nature

Ok, then tell me how can you have certainty apart from God. Be specific please.

[seer]

You observed Moses speaking to a burning bush? You observed Jesus speaking to Satan on a rooftop?

Not an answer whag. The fact is you can not know that nature is uniformed, universally, in the past or future. The only one that can know that is an all knowing Being, and we could only know that if He communicated that information to us.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you don't even know what you are talking about. So again: So you have observed nature at the far edges of our universe? You have observed nature 10 billion years back? You have observed the nature of the future?

Simply the aboce confirms your fallacy of pleading ignorance.

Tell me Shuny, how can you know these things?

100% of all observations of our physical existence by scientific evidence confirms it's uniformity. This is by far more substantial evidence then supports the claims concerning the 'truth' of the Bible in the belief system by Mr. Black and you. The fact is the evidence of your claims are completely anecdotal with no objective verifiable evidence. The comparison is stark and extreme.

Ok, then tell me how can you have certainty apart from God. Be specific please.

There is far more objective verifiable evidence concerning the uniformity of our physical existence and the scientific knowledge based on this ontic base than anything based on ancient scripture.

Again, how can you know these things with certainty concerning the Bible? Where is the objective evidence? be specific please!!

[seer]

100% of all observations of our physical existence by scientific evidence confirms it's uniformity. This is by far more substantial evidence then supports the claims concerning the 'truth' of the Bible in the belief system by Mr. Black and you. The fact is the evidence of your claims are completely anecdotal with no objective verifiable evidence. The comparison is stark and extreme.

All you have is anecdotal evidence since all you have is our collective knowledge, which is finite, lacking and particular. Yours is an inductive argument: all the swans I have examined are white, therefore it follows that all swans are white. Your claim is stupid on its face.

There is far more objective verifiable evidence concerning the uniformity of our physical existence and the scientific knowledge based on this ontic base than anything based on ancient scripture.

Then prove it, prove that the future will be like today, or the distant past. Or that the laws of nature are consistent universally?

Again, how can you know these things with certainty concerning the Bible? Where is the objective evidence? be specific please!!

This is a Presuppositional argument.

[Doug Shaver]

prove that the future will be like today, or the distant past. Or that the laws of nature are consistent universally?

Suppose I decide to assume it until I'm confronted with evidence to the contrary. Am I being unreasonable if I do that?