The Religion Discussion

[megadoc1]

that cannot be a slight oversight on allah's behalf, I cant believe an all knowing God would make such an error
unless he is not really God

[chasemeifyoucan]

There are no words of Allah, there are just words of a man that used a bunch of people to pseudo worship him in the name of what they think is a god.

[nareshseep]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Honestly Duane, with your prior gaffes with science here on this thread (humans not at the top of the food chain, equating archeology with paleontology) you are in no position to determine what is pseudo-science.

You are equating "scientific knowledge and evidence" which is empirical, repeatable and testable with scientific theory which is our best explanation based off of empirical evidence. So when you say that the Bible may not support billion of years or human evolution, those are theories, not "scientific knowledge and evidence." These theories are ever changing and I am glad the Bible doesnt support them, especially with Darwins racist view of human evolution.

Furthermore, there are wide dissensions with the theory you are relying on. Remember when I posted:

"There are no universally accepted fossil remains which demonstrate the evolution of man." The Science Journal of Nature, vol. 412, 2001, p. 131.

Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.
The Science Journal of Nature, vol. 412, 2001, p. 131.

Dont you think that it is duplicitous that when men who probably forgot more science than you have ever remembered, disagree with these theories you call them pseudo-scientists, but when someone puts forward a positive affirmation of a biblical doctrine, you run to look up an opposing view just to say that they are both equal in their claim therefore the truth is indiscernible?

I think the word you like to use is "bias" but I like to call it "inconsistent worldview."

my gaffes have no effect on the credibility of the scientific method

what you are saying then is if science has a theory based on a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, we should discard it in favour of a supernatural story that has even less evidence or cannot be proven?

[Habit7]

What I am saying that naturalistic science, which stands on axiomatic principles, cannot point to the supernatural God. Furthermore, fluid scientific theories cannot be a measuring stick for absolute truth.

While scientific theory can lead to absolute truth by the scientific process, there are instances where it has lead to error. While not all supernatural explanations are equally valid, the supernatural explanations I proposed were not void of empirical evidence, but well based in empirical truth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ that doesn't make either one true!

And what empirical truth?

The scientific method is based on observation and testing. The scientific method does not depend on or subscribe to supernatural or faith based claims.

Nothing is wrong with saying "I don't know", however it is not scientific to take up a supernatural claim as an explanation in the interim.

[Habit7]

The response of "I dont know" comes because naturalistic science, cannot by observation and testing explain how nature came to exist through natural process.

The Bible gives us a historical narrative of how the Eternal One created time, energy and space which He allows to operate by naturalistic processes.



And to end this back and forth, explain what observation and testing could the scientific method use to explain how nothing became an organised something.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ it has not other than postulate based on empirical evidence.

But what makes the supernatural story you believe in true?

"We have no explanation, therefore God."???

[AdamB]

There are no words of Allah, there are just words of a man that used a bunch of people to pseudo worship him in the name of what they think is a god.

Aren't you the one who worships a man that you think is GOD?

[AdamB]

I cant believe an all knowing God
unless he is not really God

Yeah I know, Allah leaves you in your misguidance because you desire to worship other than HIM!!

[Habit7]

^ it has not other than postulate based on empirical evidence.

But what makes the supernatural story you believe in true?

"We have no explanation, therefore God."???

I can equally ask you what makes the your naturalistic theory true seeing that there is no empirical evidence to support 'nothing" becoming an organised 'something?'

The historical narrative which gives an explanation of a supernatural creation is true because the source of the narrative speaks truthfully about other areas we can observe and test empirically.

The scientific method cannot authenticate every truth claim especially a historical or supernatural event. If you are authenticating those events by the scientific method then you will have to say "I don't know."

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ it has not other than postulate based on empirical evidence.

But what makes the supernatural story you believe in true?

"We have no explanation, therefore God."???

I can equally ask you what makes the your naturalistic theory true seeing that there is no empirical evidence to support 'nothing" becoming an organised 'something?'

science has terminology. Science will not claim something true if it has no empirical evidence to support the claim; that is not how science works.

You really need to stop over simplifying life as explained by science as 'nothing" becoming an organised 'something'. that is NOT what science claims. Science is based on observation and testing and the observation and testing carried out thus far suggests Big Bang and Evolution among others. However observation and testing has NOT suggested the literal biblical account of creation to be true.

The historical narrative which gives an explanation of a supernatural creation is true because the source of the narrative speaks truthfully about other areas we can observe and test empirically.

the book is true about some things, therefore it must be true about ALL things? that logic makes no sense.

The scientific method cannot authenticate every truth claim especially a historical or supernatural event.

how do you expect science to authenticate a supernatural event?
Science only deals with fact.

If you are authenticating those events by the scientific method then you will have to say "I don't know."

so will you.

As I explained before, nothing is wrong with saying "I don't know", however it is not scientific to take up a supernatural claim as an explanation in the interim.

understand though that the scientific theories that you dismiss and claim are false are actually made based on extensive observation and testing and it is supported by other observation and testing and rigorous peer review made by all branches of science including paleontology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology etc etc. it is far more coherent than one religion making a supernatural claim that is contradictory to another religion's supernatural claim when there is no way to disprove either supernatural claims because they are... supernatural! It would be like trying to figure out which superhero would win in a battle when both are claimed to be undeafeatable by each side.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Habit7, on another note, I came across this PDF from a US court and I wanted to get your comments on it:

http://www.texastribune.org/2010/06/22/institute-creation-research-science-degree-nixed/

On its website, the Institute for Creation Research promises an education that is "Biblical. Accurate. Certain." But there's one thing they can't promise: a master's degree in science education.

In 2008, after the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board denied their request for a state certificate of authority to offer such a degree, the Dallas-based Christian institution took the THECB to court. On Friday, a U.S. District Court ruled against the ICR, upholding the THECB's right to refuse them certification.

According to the judge's summary of the case, Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes refused the request because he "found the proposed program’s curriculum was inconsistent with the standards or conventions of science and science education, and secondly, he found the program’s curriculum was inconsistent with the Board’s standards ... relating to curriculum."

It seems the ICR may have acted as their own worst enemy as the case proceeded. In his ruling (available on the right) the judge writes, "It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information."

that last part seems very familiar in here!

You can read the PDF here
http://www.trinituner.com/UPLOADS/20100618_W_order.pdf

In the PDF:

Dr. Stafford quoted the following excerpts from
ICRGS’s program catalog:
1. “It is the position of the institute that...all genuine facts of science support the Bible.”
2. “The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator.”
3. “All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis...[.] The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false.

The court concluded:

In conclusion, the Court finds ICRGS has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the totality of ICRGS’s claims against them in this lawsuit.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School’s Final Motion for Summary Judgment [#53] is DENIED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Commissioner Raymund Paredes, Lyn Bracewell Phillips, Joe Hinton, Elaine Mendoza, Laurie Bricker, A.W. Riter, III, Brenda Pejobich, and Robert Shepard’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#54] is GRANTED in full.

[bluefete]

Well Duane - That is just part of the continuing battle by the courts of the USA against anything having to do with God. Go check the facts!

[AdamB]

Habit7, on another note, I came across this PDF from a US court and I wanted to get your comments on it:

http://www.texastribune.org/2010/06/22/institute-creation-research-science-degree-nixed/

On its website, the Institute for Creation Research promises an education that is "Biblical. Accurate. Certain." But there's one thing they can't promise: a master's degree in science education.

In 2008, after the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board denied their request for a state certificate of authority to offer such a degree, the Dallas-based Christian institution took the THECB to court. On Friday, a U.S. District Court ruled against the ICR, upholding the THECB's right to refuse them certification.

According to the judge's summary of the case, Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes refused the request because he "found the proposed program’s curriculum was inconsistent with the standards or conventions of science and science education, and secondly, he found the program’s curriculum was inconsistent with the Board’s standards ... relating to curriculum."

It seems the ICR may have acted as their own worst enemy as the case proceeded. In his ruling (available on the right) the judge writes, "It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information."

that last part seems very familiar in here!

You can read the PDF here
http://www.trinituner.com/UPLOADS/20100618_W_order.pdf

In the PDF:

Dr. Stafford quoted the following excerpts from
ICRGS’s program catalog:
1. “It is the position of the institute that...all genuine facts of science support the Bible.”
2. “The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator.”
3. “All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis...[.] The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false.

The court concluded:

In conclusion, the Court finds ICRGS has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the totality of ICRGS’s claims against them in this lawsuit.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School’s Final Motion for Summary Judgment [#53] is DENIED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Commissioner Raymund Paredes, Lyn Bracewell Phillips, Joe Hinton, Elaine Mendoza, Laurie Bricker, A.W. Riter, III, Brenda Pejobich, and Robert Shepard’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#54] is GRANTED in full.

The land of the free...

Maybe they should try a "Christian" country to which they can send their scholars to do their degrees. Muslims study in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and Pakistan among others.

Which are the christian countries again???

[bluefete]

AdamB - ^^Best point you have made. The Christian countries are fighting amongst themselves to remove God.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ name a Christian country

[Habit7]

Firstly, there is no such thing as a Christian nation.

Secondly, Duane I once remember a man who vehemently said "I've never said that truth is based on the largest consensus"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Duane I once remember a man who vehemently said "I've never said that truth is based on the largest consensus"

I agree truth is NOT based on the largest consensus, what is your point?

[AdamB]

Firstly, there is no such thing as a Christian nation.

Secondly, Duane I once remember a man who vehemently said "I've never said that truth is based on the largest consensus"

Islam is Allah's (Almighty GOD's) religion.
Allah (Almighty GOD) is Truth, so Islam is the Truth.
In Islam, Ijma' (Consensus of the Scholars) is one of the sources of knowledge for rulings.
It is impossible that ALL of the Scholars would agree on something that is not the truth (ie falsehood).
(And now for the point of evidence:)

NO CONSENSUS (AGREEMENT, BROTHERHOOD, TOGETHERNESS) IS PROOF OF FALSEHOOD!!

[AdamB]

AdamB - ^^Best point you have made. The Christian countries are fighting amongst themselves to remove God.

Thanks Bluefete,

This thread which you have started may be of immense benefit to many persons in that it may provide the means of guidance to the truth. May GOD reward you for your effort and may you keep your intention sincere for the sake of GOD.

May GOD guide you to the understanding of the point concerning the fate of those who associate partners with HIM in Lordship and Divinity (worship). What you choose to do after that determines your fate in the next life...for no one will have anyone else to blame (GOD included) but his own self!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

NO CONSENSUS (AGREEMENT, BROTHERHOOD, TOGETHERNESS) IS PROOF OF FALSEHOOD!!

but there is clearly no absolute consensus on the beliefs you hold or any religious beliefs at all.

there are various religions and various sects within each religion. there are also varying beliefs within each sect.

[metalgear2095]

Firstly, there is no such thing as a Christian nation.

Secondly, Duane I once remember a man who vehemently said "I've never said that truth is based on the largest consensus"

Islam is Allah's (Almighty GOD's) religion.
Allah (Almighty GOD) is Truth, so Islam is the Truth.
In Islam, Ijma' (Consensus of the Scholars) is one of the sources of knowledge for rulings.
It is impossible that ALL of the Scholars would agree on something that is not the truth (ie falsehood).
(And now for the point of evidence:)

NO CONSENSUS (AGREEMENT, BROTHERHOOD, TOGETHERNESS) IS PROOF OF FALSEHOOD!!

That's probably why you Muslims don't condemn other Muslims for the heinous acts they commit

[rspann]

NO CONSENSUS (AGREEMENT, BROTHERHOOD, TOGETHERNESS) IS PROOF OF FALSEHOOD!!

but there is clearly no absolute consensus on the beliefs you hold or any religious beliefs at all.

there are various religions and various sects within each religion. there are also varying beliefs within each sect.

Does the variations in a religion (one bible one koran,but thousands of sects)reflect on the religion(or book)or on the differences in peoples thinking and their interpretations?This is why there could never be consensus.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

NO CONSENSUS (AGREEMENT, BROTHERHOOD, TOGETHERNESS) IS PROOF OF FALSEHOOD!!

but there is clearly no absolute consensus on the beliefs you hold or any religious beliefs at all.

there are various religions and various sects within each religion. there are also varying beliefs within each sect.

Does the variations in a religion (one bible one koran,but thousands of sects)reflect on the religion(or book)or on the differences in peoples thinking and their interpretations?This is why there could never be consensus.

who were the books written for?

[rspann]

I'll speak of what I know.The bible is supposed to be interpreted to the reader through the holy spirit,so if a Doctor of philosophy or a menial laborer reads it they are supposed to get the same meaning if they are under the same influence of Gods spirit.When a man reads it in his own wisdom and interprets it then you will have differences in understanding.So although it is meant for man,it is leaning on his own understanding that causes the difference.

[AdamB]

I'll speak of what I know.The bible is supposed to be interpreted to the reader through the holy spirit,so if a Doctor of philosophy or a menial laborer reads it they are supposed to get the same meaning if they are under the same influence of Gods spirit.When a man reads it in his own wisdom and interprets it then you will have differences in understanding.So although it is meant for man,it is leaning on his own understanding that causes the difference.

This is not the way it was meant to be. Jesus is reported to have said, "I am the way..." Allowing every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane to "interpret" and express their opinion (disguised as understanding), leads to deviation / misguidance.

The dilemma in Christianity is that the source of knowledge, Jesus, is reported in parables. So basically, it's an open door for interpretation, an open door for corruption of knowledge, an open door for misguidance.

In Islam, after the prophet, the people of knowledge (scholars) are the ones who are authorized to transmit the "understanding" from the prophet down generation after generation. So, the correct knowledge is taught from scholar to scholar and thereby preserved.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ so the Bible should only be read by people who are influenced by the Holy Spirit? Because everyone else will misinterpret it?

[rspann]

No, it can be read by everybody,the first interpretation is literal so it should be fairly easy to understand,but there are other meanings that have to be studied.Do you think without God(I believe he exists and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,according to the bible)you can grasp the true meaning of his words that he has put there for you?I am not speaking of the holy spirit that some people say is the third person in the godhead,as a matter of fact, I believe that God is one,it says so in the bible.The holy spirit I speak of,is God's spirit ,the part of God that interacts with man and speaks to him.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ would the holy spirit NOT come to a person reading the bible?

Also can you give me a part of the bible that has a different meaning when read without and then with the holy spirit?

In Islam, after the prophet, the people of knowledge (scholars) are the ones who are authorized to transmit the "understanding" from the prophet down generation after generation.

authorized by whom?