The Infinitely lazy God?

[Bill the Cat]

Odd and confusing!

It was your words that prompted my comments.

[shunyadragon]

So the teaching of Moses were infallible for his age? And there ultimately can not be harmony with with science and scripture. Science will never accept that human beings have an immaterial soul. And the soul is the most important aspect of the human being as both our religions teach. And as we know, science can be wrong, so their conclusions are not written in stone.

At every turn science is rejecting the idea of the soul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...anted=all&_r=0

Old turf seer. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify anything beyond the physical nature of existence. The existence of God, the soul and anything of the spiritual realms is beyond the scope of science. Scientists may present anecdotal arguments concerning the existence of God and the soul, but they cannot propose a hypothesis for anything in the spiritual realms that may be falsified.

The moral teachings of Moses, ie most of the ten commandments (5-10), are morals in harmony with science. Commandments 1-4 are a religious commitment to God, and not related to science.

First this is a layman's article soaked with opinion. The bottom line of your reference is the claim that science provides an adequate natural explanation for human morals, ethics and the mind, which is true, but that is as far as science can go.

The Baha'i view that God Created Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence in harmony with the spiritual realms, would agree that, yes, science can come up with an adequate explanation of how God Created our physical existence, but that would be limit of science.

[firstfloor]

... William Lane Craig is a Philosopher.

Thanks for the link. William Lane Craig is perhaps a theologian or an apologist but he is definitely no philosopher.
This guy is though –
“Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

[seer]

Old turf seer. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify anything beyond the physical nature of existence. The existence of God, the soul and anything of the spiritual realms is beyond the scope of science. Scientists may present anecdotal arguments concerning the existence of God and the soul, but they cannot propose a hypothesis for anything in the spiritual realms that may be falsified.

Actually that is incorrect Shuny. I spend a good amount of time reading the Baha'i view of the soul recently - most of which I agree with as a Christian. And your view is that the soul is the seat of the intellect, reason and emotions - it is the immaterial soul that gives rise to these. Science is directly contradicting this - read my link. That the intellect, reason and emotion can be fully explained by the physical brain. This is a clear and direct contradiction, whether you want to admit that or not. Science and your religion are not in harmony on this issue.

The moral teachings of Moses, ie most of the ten commandments (5-10), are morals in harmony with science. Commandments 1-4 are a religious commitment to God, and not related to science.

That was not a question concerning science. So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

[shunyadragon]

The story of original sin I interpret it as the beginning of man realising the difference between right and wrong. Hence before hand they had no knowledge of good and evil. I see it as a progression of human beings coming to a realisation of morality.

This would not be a traditional Christian interpretation. It would be close to the Baha'i view where Adam is the first Manifestation of God (First human spiritually) to know God and right and wrong in God's spiritual Law for humanity.

[shunyadragon]

Actually that is incorrect Shuny. I spend a good amount of time reading the Baha'i view of the soul recently - most of which I agree with as a Christian. And your view is that the soul is the seat of the intellect, reason and emotions - it is the immaterial soul that gives rise to these. Science is directly contradicting this - read my link. That the intellect, reason and emotion can be fully explained by the physical brain. This is a clear and direct contradiction, whether you want to admit that or not. Science and your religion are not in harmony on this issue.

No, science cannot contradict this because science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor determine the nature of the soul in the relationship to the main and body of human. Scientists and others may make anecdotal claims, but concerning the soul science has no ability to falsify the existence nor the nature of the soul.

Science can only observe the relationship between the mind and the brain, which does not deal with the relationship of the soul and the mind. The mind is eternal with the soul, but the mind also has an intimate relationship to the brain, which science can observe directly.

Your efforts to study Baha'i scripture is not one of sincere understanding, but one of a selective adversarial combativeness to demonstrate that the Baha'i Faith and science are false and in conflict.

[seer]

Thanks for the link. William Lane Craig is perhaps a theologian or an apologist but he is definitely no philosopher.
This guy is though –
“Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

How completely stupid...

[seer]

No, science cannot contradict this because science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor determine the nature of the soul in the relationship to the main and body of human. Scientists and others may make claims, but concerning the soul science has no ability to falsify the existence nor the nature of the soul.

This is just double talk Shuny. If the physical brain can fully explain reasoning, the intellect and emotion, then there is no need for the soul. What does the soul do?

The Bahá’í writings explain that such faculties of the mind as thought, reasoning, understanding and imagination are “inherent properties of the soul, even as the radiation of light is the essential property of the sun.”The body of a man is “like unto a mirror, his soul is as the sun, and his mental faculties even as the rays that emanate from that source of light.”

The moral teachings of Moses, ie most of the ten commandments (5-10), are morals in harmony with science. Commandments 1-4 are a religious commitment to God, and not related to science.

That was not a question concerning science. So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

[shunyadragon]

This is just double talk Shuny. If the physical brain can fully explain reasoning, the intellect and emotion, then there is no need for the soul. What does the soul do?

Not double talk at all seer. It is a fact of Methodological Naturalism that the existence and nature of the soul cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science cannot determine whether the soul is necessary or not.

The soul is the supreme Talisman of God's Creation, and beyond the realm of the provenance of science.

That was not a question concerning science. So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

I already answered the question, and you did inject science into the question and I answered it.

[shunyadragon]

It was your words that prompted my comments.

You need to take responsibility for your on hostility throwing rocks, and not pass the buck!

[Darth Ovious]

Thanks for the link. William Lane Craig is perhaps a theologian or an apologist but he is definitely no philosopher.

William Lane Craig /kreɪɡ/ (born August 23, 1949) is an American [3] Christian apologist, theologian and analytical philosopher,.[4]

In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a post-doctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.[citation needed] His studies in Munich led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,[15][17] awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, "The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy" (1985).[[/B],.[4]

and

Dr. William Lane Craig, born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois, is an American Christian apologist, philosopher, and theologian. He received a Bachelor of Arts from the evangelical protestant Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, a summa cum laude Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (England),[2] and a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Munich

This guy is though –
“Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

Yes, there will be individuals who obviously have their own views but what I meant was that it wasn't a problem overall to the field of Philosophy.

[firstfloor]

How completely stupid...

“Kierkegaard believed religious belief to stand at an ‘infinite distance’ from philosophical clarity. He did not believe that such clarity could by itself bring anyone one whit closer to religious faith. I think that Wittgenstein would have taken the same view.” - Peter Guy Winch (another real philosopher)

[Darth Ovious]

“Kierkegaard believed religious belief to stand at an ‘infinite distance’ from philosophical clarity. He did not believe that such clarity could by itself bring anyone one whit closer to religious faith. I think that Wittgenstein would have taken the same view.” - Peter Guy Winch (another real philosopher)

here is another real philosopher.

Rubem Azevedo Alves (15 September 1933 – 19 July 2014) was a Brazilian theologian, philosopher, educator, writer and psychoanalyst.[1] Alves was one of the founders of liberation theology.[2]

1.Assistant professor of Social Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters of Rio Clarourl

[firstfloor]

Yes, there will be individuals who obviously have their own views but what I meant was that it wasn't a problem overall to the field of Philosophy.

I am glad you brought this up. These new (for me) lines of enquiry are very interesting.

[seer]

Not double talk at all seer. It is a fact of Methodological Naturalism that the existence and nature of the soul cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science cannot determine whether the soul is necessary or not.

But "science" is doing just that. If the physical brain can account for all mental function then there is nothing left for the soul to do. So you disagree with with the claim that the physical brain can account for all mental properties?

I already answered the question, and you did inject science into the question and I answered it.

This was a different question having nothing to do with science, so once again: So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?