Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An Infinite Past?
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by JimL View Post
Of course there is seer, you see it in the courthouses and in the character of people every day. Ultimate and certain justice is what you are looking for and even in this universe that doesn't exist. Logic is a different case.
Okay, then what exactly is tunneling through what? Is nothing tunneling through nothing?
Makes no sense seer. You may be misinterpreting him.
We don't see it seer, life began long ago in conditions that were suitable for it to begin in and it has evolved over millenia to the rational conscious life that exists today. Did I see it? No. Are you denying evolution?Last edited by seer; 09-17-2014, 07:46 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.
The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution."Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-17-2014, 08:40 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution."
If you mean do I buy the idea that unaided nature created life on earth and all the complex interrelated biological systems we see today - NO!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIf you mean do I buy the idea that unaided nature created life on earth and all the complex interrelated biological systems we see today - NO!
Again, The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThat was not the question seer.
Again, The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution"?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea what you mean then.
Seer, it is not hard to understand. The methodological naturalism science of "evolution" is neutral to any religious belief it is simply science. Again, it is the metaphysical philosophical naturalism that assumes a natural cause for everything. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumption concerning religious belief, it is simply neutral to religious preferences and science as it is regardless.
Again, The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution"?
Do you not consider Theistic Evolution a valid view?
Is it possible you consider "evolution" only an atheist science?
This a little off topic, but relates to how you view science in general including physics and cosmology.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-17-2014, 09:25 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostDo you understand 'Methodological Naturalism?'
Seer, it is not hard to understand. The methodological naturalism science of "evolution" is neutral to any religious belief it is simply science. Again, it is the metaphysical philosophical naturalism that assumes a natural cause for everything. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumption concerning religious belief, it is simply neutral to religious preferences and science as it is regardless.
Do you not consider Theistic Evolution a valid view?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI can not accept that since nothing, no scientific model of investigtion, is assumption free. As soon as human beings are involved you have bias. Methodological Naturalism is just a term, with no meaning in reality since no man, or men, can practice science free of predilections.
Yes, it is easy to accept the fallible human bias in everything. This does not really answer the question concerning the nature of Methodological Naturalism and science. Scientific investigation and research does ta.ke tis into account by the redundant nature of research, peer review and skepticism. This how fraud, poor research, and personal bias. Science is progressive over time
Depends, there are many different views.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Jim, logic is not a different case. If there are no objective moral standards then morality is reduced to absurdity - completely subjective and relative. Just as rationality would be reduced to absurdity is the laws of logic were not universal.
Then read the link for goodness sake, I am not misinterpreting him.
Yes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Jim, logic is not a different case. If there are no objective moral standards then morality is reduced to absurdity - completely subjective and relative. Just as rationality would be reduced to absurdity is the laws of logic were not universal.
Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every instance and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals and our community values and legal codes are based on them.
Then read the link for goodness sake, I am not misinterpreting him.Yes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/op...hind.html?_r=0
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes, it is easy to accept the fallible human bias in everything. This does not really answer the question concerning the nature of Methodological Naturalism and science. Scientific investigation and research does ta.ke tis into account by the redundant nature of research, peer review and skepticism. This how fraud, poor research, and personal bias. Science is progressive over time.
Simply, "evolution" is an accurate scientific description of how God Created life. This I believe takes into account all variations. If you know of another, please enlighten me.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThats an assertion seer, not an argument. Why would moral laws be reduced to absurdity unless they are objective and universal? Do they not work unless they are objective and absolute? The laws of logic are fact based, we don't, we can't, decide that A=A. But we do have that option when it comes to moral law.
Sorry, I have very little time to spend on tweb as it is and can't go scurrying through threads looking for links to read. I'm just saying that common sense will tell you that in order to tunnel through, then something has to be doing the tunneling and something has to be that which is tunneled through. "It can't be that "nothing is tunneling through nothing". In quantum mechanics tunneling means that if you wait long enough a particle can tunnel through a steel barrier and appear on the other side. For the creation of universes i believe it has to do with the energy levels in the quantum vacuum tunneling through the barrier of higher energy fields. Can't explain it in detail, but i don't believe they are talking about "nothing tunneling through nothing." I'll try to read the link if i get the chance.
Well, what are you claiming then, that genesis is a literal rendering or that life came to be according to evolution but that it was designed to occur that way?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou have been misunderstanding him throughout this entire thread. You persist in misunderstanding the word “beginning” as if it is the theological notion of an “absolute beginning” when this has never been argued. Science does not think in these terms. In physics beginnings arise from preexisting, very possibly eternal, conditions. There is no good reason at this stage to assume an absolute beginning.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd? Shuny, how many times have you said that we can not know anything in an absolute sense? Is Methodological Naturalism the correct method of investigation? How do you know that? Not in an absolute sense - correct? And no matter how many tests or research we do bias is always there. Whether individual or collective.
If you are saying that God guided the process, created the process, then it is possible.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
638 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment