The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

What? lol, science exists under a philosophical framework.

Context please. His musings there are on metaphysical philosophy, not natural which physics is based on.

[meccalli]

So what exactly is your point? He's bad at a particular branch because his work in physics is glorified over the rest of his work? Is it less credible?
whats new..

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

So what exactly is your point? He's bad at a particular branch because his work in physics is glorified over the rest of his work? Is it less credible?
whats new..

He is a famous physicist and well known for his ground work in quantum theory. There are many published and peer reviewed papers to show this. Can you show his published and peer reviewed work in metaphysical philosophy? He was vocal in his musings and deist beliefs, that does not mean he was right.

"Max Planck declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."" - you want to give credibility to his research there?

[meccalli]

Newton is also praised in one breath for principia and shunned for his beliefs. Maybe you should re read the quote posted. It is based on observation and thought. Papers are works of thought, a product of the same mind that perceived all things to be because of an intelligent, conscious spirit.

[Slartibartfast]

So from red herring to appeal to "authority" now?

[meccalli]

belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics

[Habit7]

So from red herring to appeal to "authority" now?

An appeal to authority would be quoting someone saying you are wrong.

However you made a universal statement that belief in the supernatural hampers physics. Therefore me mentioning the many who have made great strides in physics while holding to their belief in a supernatural Creator refutes your universal statement. It is not a fallacy.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

but saying the Bible says so is OK?

belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics

I too disagree. It might rather be the other way around.

[Lance]

but saying the Bible says so is OK?

belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics

I too disagree. It might rather be the other way around.

From a philosophical perspective.

What is your position on science? Is it aligned with verificationism, falsification or one of paradigms and programs?

Just curious to know.

[Slartibartfast]

but saying the Bible says so is OK?

belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics

I too disagree. It might rather be the other way around.

My argument is that believing in the supernatural is basically assuming an answer to whatever the problem or question might be. No belief in tue supernatural forces one to pursue the answer through logical and scientific means.

Idk if you argument is that belief in the supernatural may act as an inspiration for one to continue in the pursuit of knowledge. Personally, that doesnt make sense to me but I am aware that there are cases where that has happened. Care to elaborate?

And habit before you misquote me, belief in the supernatural is not supernatural. It can just be someone being inspired by believing in something that doesnt exist.

[Slartibartfast]

So from red herring to appeal to "authority" now?

An appeal to authority would be quoting someone saying you are wrong.

However you made a universal statement that belief in the supernatural hampers physics. Therefore me mentioning the many who have made great strides in physics while holding to their belief in a supernatural Creator refutes your universal statement. It is not a fallacy.

Belief in the supernatural has hampered physics in the past. There is direct proof that belief in the supernatural can and has hampered the progress of science. I am sure if you look on google you can find current instances of belief in the supernatural hindering progress in science and general development. Your argument is invalid. At least you understand your previous fallacy.

[Habit7]

but saying the Bible says so is OK?

Someone may object that to say
Scripture proves itself to be God’s words is to use a circular argument: we believe that
Scripture is God’s Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims
because Scripture is God’s Word. And we believe that it is God’s Word because it
claims to be that, and so forth.
It should be admitted that this is a kind of circular argument. However, that does
not make its use invalid, for all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately
appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or
highest authority. This problem is not unique to the Christian who is arguing for the
authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of
circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.
Although these circular arguments are not always made explicit and are
sometimes hidden beneath lengthy discussions or are simply assumed without proof,
arguments for an ultimate authority in their most basic form take on a similar circular
appeal to that authority itself, as some of the following examples show:
“My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.”
“Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so.”
“The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering
what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else:
thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true.”
“I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any such ultimate
authority.”
In all of these arguments for an ultimate standard of truth, an absolute authority for
what to believe, there is an element of circularity involved.9
How then does a Christian, or anyone else, choose among the various claims for
absolute authorities? Ultimately the truthfulness of the Bible will commend itself as
being far more persuasive than other religious books (such as the Book of Mormon or
the Qur’an), or than any other intellectual constructions of the human mind (such as
logic, human reason, sense experience, scientific methodology, etc.). It will be more
persuasive because in the actual experience of life, all of these other candidates for
ultimate authority are seen to be inconsistent or to have shortcomings that disqualify
them, while the Bible will be seen to be fully in accord with all that we know about
the world around us, about ourselves, and about God.
The Bible will commend itself as being persuasive in this way, that is, if we are
thinking rightly about the nature of reality, our perception of it and of ourselves, and
our perception of God. The trouble is that because of sin our perception and analysis
of God and creation is faulty. Sin is ultimately irrational, and sin makes us think
incorrectly about God and about creation. Thus, in a world free from sin, the Bible
would commend itself convincingly to all people as God’s Word. But because sin
distorts people’s perception of reality, they do not recognize Scripture for what it
really is. Therefore it requires the work of the Holy Spirit, overcoming the effects of
sin, to enable us to be persuaded that the Bible is indeed the Word of God and that the
claims it makes for itself are true.
Thus, in another sense, the argument for the Bible as God’s Word and our ultimate
authority is not a typical circular argument. The process of persuasion is perhaps
better likened to a spiral in which increasing knowledge of Scripture and increasingly
correct understanding of God and creation tend to supplement one another in a
harmonious way, each tending to confirm the accuracy of the other. This is not to say
that our knowledge of the world around us serves as a higher authority than Scripture,
but rather that such knowledge, if it is correct knowledge, continues to give greater
and greater assurance and deeper conviction that the Bible is the only truly ultimate
authority and that other competing claims for ultimate authority are false.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 57 & 58 http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16068902/1 ... Grudem.pdf

belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics

I too disagree. It might rather be the other way around.

I am glad to see someone finally speak up against this foolishness. I want to know if atheism blinds its adherents from obvious history. I even agree with the second path of your post, belief in physics can harm the supernatural. But the supernatural that is based on the idea that natural laws are regularly thwarted for some supernatural whim, would counter the ordered study of physics. The supernatural I am referencing is solely with respect to the God of the Bible, His miraculous work to create the world and the few miracles that are limited to the time of Moses & Joshua, Elijah & Elisha and Jesus & the Apostles. The idea of constant and expectant supernatural actions not only counter physics it also counters the significance of the few supernatural miracles that attested some men of God.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics

I too disagree. It might rather be the other way around.

I am glad to see someone finally speak up against this foolishness. I want to know if atheism blinds its adherents from obvious history. I even agree with the second path of your post, belief in physics can harm the supernatural. But the supernatural that is based on the idea that natural laws are regularly thwarted for some supernatural whim, would counter the ordered study of physics. The supernatural I am referencing is solely with respect to the God of the Bible, His miraculous work to create the world and the few miracles that are limited to the time of Moses & Joshua, Elijah & Elisha and Jesus & the Apostles. The idea of constant and expectant supernatural actions not only counter physics it also counters the significance of the few supernatural miracles that attested some men of God.

just to clarify:

You believe the earth is ~6000 years old. So you believe that for ~4000 years, God performed countless miracles almost constantly throughout the historical accounts in the Bible, but then suddenly stopped because of a realisation that such frequency would not only counter physics, it also counters the significance of the supernatural miracles that attested some men of God?

[Habit7]

Belief in the supernatural has hampered physics in the past. There is direct proof that belief in the supernatural can and has hampered the progress of science. I am sure if you look on google you can find current instances of belief in the supernatural hindering progress in science and general development. Your argument is invalid. At least you understand your previous fallacy.

You are backpedaling from your initial position.

To my claim that "nature has to come from a supernatural source" you replied "this assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics." I was able to recount many pioneers in physics who directly correlated their pursuit of science with their belief in a supernatural creator. Now you defaulting to sometime in the indistinct past, some indistinct person, believed in some indistinct supernatural being and it hampered all progress of "science and general development." And if I doubt you, ask Google.

Modern science is built on the backs on men and women who saw an irrevocable link between an ordered creation and a supernatural Creator. Subsequently, the church lead in the education and promulgation of the said scientific truths you claim supersede religious education.
Harvard University
Yale University - Lux et veritas (Truth and Light)
Princeton University - Dei sub numine viget (Under God she flourishes)
University of Oxford - Dominus Illuminatio Mea ("The Lord is my Light")
University of Cambridge - Hinc lucem et pocula sacra (From here, light and sacred draughts)
University of St Andrews
University of Edinburgh

All started by Christians, for the glory of God, and to edify men on the truths of God.

[Habit7]

You believe the earth is ~6000 years old. So you believe that for ~4000 years, God performed countless miracles almost constantly throughout the historical accounts in the Bible, but then suddenly stopped because of a realisation that such frequency would not only counter physics, it also counters the significance of the supernatural miracles that attested some men of God?

Well firstly the Bible spans ~1450 BC (time of Moses) to ~100 AD (time of the last Apostle) which is about ~1500 years. The miracles in the Bible are centred around Moses & Joshua, Elijah & Elisha and Jesus & the Apostles (with a few interspersed exceptions). Miracles in the Bible were never a common occurrence thus the significance of them in serving to authenticate the conduit as coming from God. Even down to the end of the New Testament, after starting the church age with miraculous healings, Paul tells Timothy to take homoeopathic remedy for his stomach illness (1 Timothy 5:23). And John the author of the book of Revelation, the last book, is a blind man, having being part of movement that healed blind men.

There is no frequency of miracles in the Bible, if fact it is quite opposite.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ some or even one is more than none.

[Chimera]

Wait na he just use the words bible and fact in the same sentence? BRB gonna see if it snowing in pos.

[Habit7]

Well physics already can't explain how a nature can come into being by a natural process. So if you want to believe that physics harms the supernatural, you're pushing it into an area where it already threw in the towel, shrugged its shoulders and says "I don't know."

[Slartibartfast]

Habit, I having a hard time picking anything accurate from your last few posts.

First of all, for your own good, please stay away from mentioning stats as it highlights your ignorance

There is no frequency of miracles in the Bible, if fact it is quite opposite.

As long as one miracle happened in the bible (during the 1500 years that the bible covered) then the frequency of miracles in the bible is 1 in every 1500 years. Frequency doesn't mean it happened frequently.

[nareshseep]

[nareshseep]

[nareshseep]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Well physics already can't explain how a nature can come into being by a natural process. So if you want to believe that physics harms the supernatural, you're pushing it into an area where it already threw in the towel, shrugged its shoulders and says "I don't know."

and so God of the gaps is better?

[Habit7]

Well if you want to caricature it as "god of the gaps" then allow me to caricature your alternative as "nature of the gaps." Where we know that matter and energy can't be created yet we know distinctively that they came into being by a process we can't explain naturally.

So by your logic God didn't have to do it, nature could have done it. You just choose to put your faith in nature...in an area nature doesn't claim to be.

[Slartibartfast]

Lol ok

[maj. tom]

perhaps the energy always existed? just like how you think God always existed? Why couldn't energy always have existed the same way?

[Habit7]

perhaps the energy always existed? just like how you think God always existed? Why couldn't energy always have existed the same way?

Because time had a beginning. Energy cannot be eternal because it exists in time.

God is eternal. He dwells outside time. So unlike everything else, God doesn't have a beginning nor a creation.

[nareshseep]

perhaps the energy always existed? just like how you think God always existed? Why couldn't energy always have existed the same way?

Because time had a beginning. Energy cannot be eternal because it exists in time.

God is eternal. He dwells outside time. So unlike everything else, God doesn't have a beginning nor a creation.

Just that gawd is actually energy/matter but without a conscience.

[Habit7]

perhaps the energy always existed? just like how you think God always existed? Why couldn't energy always have existed the same way?

Because time had a beginning. Energy cannot be eternal because it exists in time.

God is eternal. He dwells outside time. So unlike everything else, God doesn't have a beginning nor a creation.

Just that gawd is actually energy/matter but without a conscience.

I thought you were atheist? Where do you get your ideas about God?

[nareshseep]

perhaps the energy always existed? just like how you think God always existed? Why couldn't energy always have existed the same way?

Because time had a beginning. Energy cannot be eternal because it exists in time.

God is eternal. He dwells outside time. So unlike everything else, God doesn't have a beginning nor a creation.

Just that gawd is actually energy/matter but without a conscience.

I thought you were atheist? Where do you get your ideas about God?

There is no gawd. Time has no beginning. Total Energy/Matter in the universe has existed and will continue to exist. Theist say that gawd controls all this, Theist believe that gawd is responsible for dictating the order universe when the truth of the matter is that nothing is controlling the universe, it is devoid of conscience.