~candice~ Posted July 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 8, 2013 Right. The ToE doesn't have a position on God. Anyone who tells you that is incredibly ignorant about the division between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism, what science is, and what scope science has. To continue to claim that ToE claims there is no God just makes it even more clear that there is not an understanding of what science "claims". Science makes physical claims and NOTHING more, by fiat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Right. The ToE doesn't have a position on God. Anyone who tells you that is incredibly ignorant about the division between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism, what science is, and what scope science has. To continue to claim that ToE claims there is no God just makes it even more clear that there is not an understanding of what science "claims". Science makes physical claims and NOTHING more, by fiat. ~ And Yet We Have Science Verses Science And The Followers Of The ToE Who Are Without The LORD Of The Sabbath Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11 Will Stub Their Toe Soon Enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 8, 2013 Hi Joe, I'm not sure I fully understood your post. I hope you know my position by now: that Genesis doesn't attempt to age the earth (and I don't even think it gives details of the mode of creation) and that Jesus Christ is the (intelligent) Creator of Heaven and Earth. Questions of "how" (science) are not as important to me as "who" (philosophy). God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Hi Joe, I'm not sure I fully understood your post. I hope you know my position by now: that Genesis doesn't attempt to age the earth (and I don't even think it gives details of the mode of creation) and that Jesus Christ is the (intelligent) Creator of Heaven and Earth. Questions of "how" (science) are not as important to me as "who" (philosophy). God bless Yes Beloved I Know And When You Have A Little Time Check Out The Video Links And See If You Can Find And Follow His Peer Reviewed Papers And His Math You Owe Me No Explanation For A Position I Held For Over Thirty Years While Trusting In The Same Mighty Creator Shown Busy At Work In Genesis Chapter One For Both My Healing And Salvation And I Am Blessed By Your Posts As I'm By The Others So Post Early Post Often Love To The Girls Trusting In His Indescribable Power And In His Precious Blood Shed For My Sins I Bow To Jesus And Bless Bless His Holy Name Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 8, 2013 OK - I shall watch the videos... when I get the girls into bed that is, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Right. The ToE doesn't have a position on God. Anyone who tells you that is incredibly ignorant about the division between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism, what science is, and what scope science has. To continue to claim that ToE claims there is no God just makes it even more clear that there is not an understanding of what science "claims". Science makes physical claims and NOTHING more, by fiat. OK, that describes every middle school and high school teacher I had, every atheist and agnostic I debated with on the astronomy message board, . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I've bolded the parts I refer to. Shiloh, where does the ToE state that it is naturalistic, rather than, that some atheists use it as part of a naturalistic framework? You should ignore scientists who make philosophical or metaphysical claims about the world - they are stepping outside of their expertise. I am just saying what scientists have told me. They claim that evolution has no intelligent causality. The ToE according to them is wholly naturalistic and as such does not depend on God or anyone else. That is not a philosophical statement they are making. If they wanted to get philosophical, they would use evolution to prove that God doens't exist, but they are smart enough not to do that, as that would not be a scientific endeavor. The ToE is not designed to do anything other than explain observations. Which is its weakness, as evolution has not ever been replicated and observed in a laboratory, and has never been intuitively observed in nature in the entire history of man. The scientific method cannot be applied to Evolution. The steps going from hypothesis, prediction, experiment, observation, and theory simply cannot be applied to something that doesn't even have enough support from the fossil record to make its claims. The ToE is not designed to contradict Genesis, LOL. It is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are limited to inferences about the physical world. It is custom designed to contradict Genesis. Look at the facts. The Bible tells us that all life has its origins and development in a personal Creator. The ToE is wholly naturalistic. It offers nothing that even comes close to agreeing with Genesis. The ToE tells us that life owes its development to an unguided, unplanned, impersonal and naturalistic process known as natural selection. To an ardent adherent of the ToE, that precludes any intelligent impetus or causality. If the ToE is limited to the natural world, then it can't be sanitized by claiming that God used it. The Bible teaches that creation teaches us about God, but the ToE doesn't teach us about God at all and it doesn't even act like God. An all-knowing God who creates perfectly would not create imperfect creatures in need of evolution to become higher and more sophisticated creatures. That implies that what God originally created wasn't "good." When the ToE is used to boulster naturalistic worldviews, it is being used in a philosophical naturalism sense, and is going beyond what ToE actually is. Stating that the ToE is naturalistic is making the same error that some (most) atheists make - taking a physical statement and using it to make inferences about the metaphysical. Very frustrating. How can that be an error on their part if it is , as you say, a scientific theory that only addresses the physical (natural world)? If it is limited to the natural world, then it is by virtue of that limitation naturalistic and only naturalistic. The point is that is unreasonable for us to expect that a naturalistic theory like the ToE would not shape their worldview. That is has been my point all along. Those who subscribe wholly to the ToE are going to view the world through that naturalistic paradigm. Their conceptualizations of life issues, values, morals and ethcis, etct. would be shaped by their naturalistic view of the world. Someone who views man as wholly natural, having no soul would not be inclined to accept concepts like sin or feel a need to be redeemed by a God that they have no evidence even exists, much less has the right to define sin, right and wrong, etc. The ToE as is, definitely has an effect on how people view the world and how they view God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 8, 2013 Right. The ToE doesn't have a position on God. Anyone who tells you that is incredibly ignorant about the division between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism, what science is, and what scope science has. To continue to claim that ToE claims there is no God just makes it even more clear that there is not an understanding of what science "claims". Science makes physical claims and NOTHING more, by fiat. OK, that describes every middle school and high school teacher I had, every atheist and agnostic I debated with on the astronomy message board, . . . . Conversations I've had with atheist philosophers tell me they are very frustrated with the vast majority of "popular" atheism for this very reason. Have you heard of the new new atheist movement? It is one example of schisms in the atheistic community because of this kind of popular misunderstanding. I recall listening to a debate between two atheists, one a "new atheist" and the other a philosopher... tear into each other because the "new atheist" asked a Christian "who made God?", and the philosopher knew it was such a stupid question to ask that he was embarassed about how new atheism reflected on his beliefs. So, it isn't that I don't believe you - I DO believe you that a majority of atheists would make ToE philosophically naturalistic. It is just that I don't grant atheists any special authority when it comes to understanding philosophy. I don't just accept what they say! I don't understand why people do this so much, makes me scratch my head LOL. The ToE is methodologically naturalistic. Any time we are looking for physical explanation, we can't reply with "God did it", because that explains nothing. Lets take something we know Jesus did - healed a blind man. If I want a physical explanation of what happened, I can't say "Jesus did it" because that has no explanatory power in the physical realm. I need to say something like "placing mud on the man's eyeslids caused cells in the optic nerve to multiple, resulting in optic nerve growth and reattachment of the optical nerve to the retina". When I say that, I am being methodologically naturalistic. That is science at it's heart. I am not being unChristian when I do so. Note, I am also not being atheistic when I say so. Now the mistake that the vast majority of atheists make (and it is a very novice mistake) is they conclude that because God was not required in the methodological explanation of how something happened, that God does not exist. Clearly, it is an obvious logic error. And atheists do it about evolution all the time, and as we can see in this thread, Christians believe what the atheists say as if their word on the matter is final. It isn't!!! Another subtle thing to watch is whether or not the atheist is making a philosophical inference from ToE (evolution, therefore, no God), or including philosophical statements within Toe (evolution is an explanation for the diversity of species in the absense of a god or God(s)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 8, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 8, 2013 I've bolded the parts I refer to. Shiloh, where does the ToE state that it is naturalistic, rather than, that some atheists use it as part of a naturalistic framework? You should ignore scientists who make philosophical or metaphysical claims about the world - they are stepping outside of their expertise. I am just saying what scientists have told me. They claim that evolution has no intelligent causality. The ToE according to them is wholly naturalistic and as such does not depend on God or anyone else. That is not a philosophical statement they are making. If they wanted to get philosophical, they would use evolution to prove that God doens't exist, but they are smart enough not to do that, as that would not be a scientific endeavor. All methodological naturalistic explanations do not involve God or depend on God. But that doesn't mean there is no God. That is just proper Science and it is exactly what I would do too. The ToE is not designed to do anything other than explain observations. Which is its weakness, as evolution has not ever been replicated and observed in a laboratory, and has never been intuitively observed in nature in the entire history of man. The scientific method cannot be applied to Evolution. The steps going from hypothesis, prediction, experiment, observation, and theory simply cannot be applied to something that doesn't even have enough support from the fossil record to make its claims. I disagree with you about the lack of evidence for it. Have you seen the lab experiments where they are observing evolution in action? Not at the level of mammals, for example, but single cellular organism that have become anaerobic in how they consume foods? It is replicatable at that level, observable etc. The ToE is not designed to contradict Genesis, LOL. It is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are limited to inferences about the physical world. It is custom designed to contradict Genesis. Show me where a set of scientific observations has any design in it at all? By definition science has no agenda, so it can't be designed for a particular conclusion. Or are you changing your position and now agreeing that the rubbish these atheists have sold you is not ToE at all? Look at the facts. The Bible tells us that all life has its origins and development in a personal Creator. The ToE is wholly naturalistic. ToE is wholly methodologically naturalistic, as it should be. It is not philosophically naturalistic, though it is used that way (in error) by many. It offers nothing that even comes close to agreeing with Genesis. The ToE tells us that life owes its development to an unguided, unplanned, impersonal and naturalistic process known as natural selection. To an ardent adherent of the ToE, that precludes any intelligent impetus or causality. What kind of causality are you talking about? Ultimately the ToE requires a cause and that cause cannot be contained within itself. So what kind of causality are you after? It cannot have any, and this is why I think the majority of atheists are in serious error when they use it in a philosophically natural sense. But just a caution, again, that methodological naturalism is impersonal and without goal or agenda or direction and you seem to be reacting when people describe physical processes in that manner. If the ToE is limited to the natural world, then it can't be sanitized by claiming that God used it. Why? The Bible teaches that creation teaches us about God, but the ToE doesn't teach us about God at all and it doesn't even act like God. It isn't trying to. Natural processes don't do that. That is like saying - I have a chemical formula to explain why a cake rises in the oven, but it doesn't teach us about God, so it is wrong. Methodological naturalism, once again, is not trying to teach anything. I expect this formula to be "unguided, unplanned, impersonal and naturalistic". And entirely valid for a Christian to accept. An all-knowing God who creates perfectly would not create imperfect creatures in need of evolution to become higher and more sophisticated creatures. That implies that what God originally created wasn't "good." Finally something valid to address. And this is not about what ToE is, but about what inferences you draw from it. Happy to discuss this with you. I think it depends on what good is. When the ToE is used to boulster naturalistic worldviews, it is being used in a philosophical naturalism sense, and is going beyond what ToE actually is. Stating that the ToE is naturalistic is making the same error that some (most) atheists make - taking a physical statement and using it to make inferences about the metaphysical. Very frustrating. How can that be an error on their part if it is , as you say, a scientific theory that only addresses the physical (natural world)? If it is limited to the natural world, then it is by virtue of that limitation naturalistic and only naturalistic. See above the claim you made about ToE, and how it messes up with "and God said it was good"? How are YOU able to take a natural process, and use it to determine something philosophical, that is, define what God says is good? The point is that is unreasonable for us to expect that a naturalistic theory like the ToE would not shape their worldview. That is has been my point all along. Those who subscribe wholly to the ToE are going to view the world through that naturalistic paradigm. Some kinds of naturalism are good. You mean philosophical naturalism. Their conceptualizations of life issues, values, morals and ethcis, etct. would be shaped by their naturalistic view of the world. Values morals and ethics are not shaped by methodological naturalism. It is shaped by philosophical naturalism, and since ToE isn't philosophically naturalistic, I think we are ok. Someone who views man as wholly natural, having no soul would not be inclined to accept concepts like sin or feel a need to be redeemed by a God that they have no evidence even exists, much less has the right to define sin, right and wrong, etc. No Christian I know believes such things. Regardless of their view on the ToE. I'm confused. The ToE as is, definitely has an effect on how people view the world and how they view God. I think this is nothing more than correlation. Most people who believe the ToE also are philosophical naturalists. Philosophical naturalism has an effect on how people view the world and how they view God. But this isn't ToE causing anything, I think the root cause is philosophical naturalism, which I have always opposed. Shiloh, since I am not succeeding communicating my point to you above, let me change tact. Is it wrong for a Christian, when asked "how did Jesus heal the blind man" to reply as I did to Neb above? Is it wrong for a Christian to be methodologically naturalistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted July 9, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,322 Content Per Day: 7.99 Reputation: 21,529 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Right. The ToE doesn't have a position on God. Anyone who tells you that is incredibly ignorant about the division between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism, what science is, and what scope science has. To continue to claim that ToE claims there is no God just makes it even more clear that there is not an understanding of what science "claims". Science makes physical claims and NOTHING more, by fiat. The purpose of lie it establish a plausible reality where there is none! Effecting a true state of lost... Candice if this were true then this could not be Rom 1:20-21 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, NKJV We know the eternal power and Godhead 'IS' Spirit as described as invisible attributes! How are they clearly seen: 1. The natural which testifies of end (entropy) cannot be the infinite. 2. We see infinite testified to and experience its probable reality in all the creative discourses of science, math, astrology etc. 3. Mutation is loss of information not genetic gain. 4. Death is not the source of life. 5. All power seen in the cosmos is not rectifiable by what is seen. (causality) 6. The apologetics of God's Word in the self evident truth in archeology. 7. What is the purpose of seeing a distant star yet by all that is presently known- physical presence is impossible- yet under the creative laws we are held what is seen cannot be examined by scientific means to establish reality. A visible reality of the need of faith... if that which is visible can testify of that outside of physical capabilities of sensual perception fulfilling the verse above. Then that which is invisible must be to answer what 'IS'... that beyond sight! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts