Creationists, I'd be interested in learning about your knowledge o

[gdemoss]

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

 

Actually that’s a category error.

 

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

 

Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are.

 

Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience.

 

But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions?

 

See how it's just different categories?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

===================================================================

 

 

I'm not sure why you are accusing me of fallacies

 

Because this is a Fallacy..... Jerry: "Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says"; Specifically, Reification as noted.

 

 

tell me what the majority of scientsts say regarding evolution

 

First define Scientists? Then Identify where this Majority is...?

 

Second, Majority or Consensus doesn't = TRUTH....so again, Irrelevancy.

 

 

I don't want to get wrapped around the axle on language as nature does not care what we say.

 

Words....they mean things.  And yet another Reification (Fallacy): "Nature" does not care, because "Nature".... is not alive. 

[Enoch2021]

 

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

 

Actually that’s a category error.

 

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

 

Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are.

 

Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience.

 

But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions?

 

See how it's just different categories?

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

 

[gdemoss]

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

Actually that’s a category error.

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are.

Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience.

But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions?

See how it's just different categories?

I figured someone would use this type of a rebuttal because logic dictates that it must be errant if it cannot be applied in every facit of the creation.

Pendulums have two extreme ends where the truth lies in the middle somewhere. The greatest logical errors are made by the smartest people.

Gravity only applies to those whom God says it applies. Jesus was not one of them. He had abilities far surpassing everyday people based not only on what he believed but his faithfulness to those beliefs. Faith without works is dead. Jesus did not believe a man could not walk on water. Or that fish and bread could not be multiplied by his hands.

It is very dangerous territory to tread upon. Do I have any real proof to substantiate the claim either way? No. My faith and faithfulness has never been to a place where I have personally had power to make the material world obey my commands. Every time I have attempted any such thing I have seen doubt within my self that has caused my so called act of faith to become a test instead and therefore has negated my results.

I repeat. I do not have the answer.

[gdemoss]

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

Actually that’s a category error.

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are.

Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience.

But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions?

See how it's just different categories?

==========================================================================

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

The error here is that one is arguing that material and immaterial do not affect one another which is an obvious fault.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

 

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

Actually that’s a category error.

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are.

Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience.

But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions?

See how it's just different categories?

I figured someone would use this type of a rebuttal because logic dictates that it must be errant if it cannot be applied in every facit of the creation.

Pendulums have two extreme ends where the truth lies in the middle somewhere. The greatest logical errors are made by the smartest people.

Gravity only applies to those whom God says it applies. Jesus was not one of them. He had abilities far surpassing everyday people based not only on what he believed but his faithfulness to those beliefs. Faith without works is dead. Jesus did not believe a man could not walk on water. Or that fish and bread could not be multiplied by his hands.

It is very dangerous territory to tread upon. Do I have any real proof to substantiate the claim either way? No. My faith and faithfulness has never been to a place where I have personally had power to make the material world obey my commands. Every time I have attempted any such thing I have seen doubt within my self that has caused my so called act of faith to become a test instead and therefore has negated my results.

I repeat. I do not have the answer.

 

 

Hey Gary,

 

Gravity did apply to Jesus - just not during a miracle.

 

I don't think it's all as dangerous as you might think - check it out.

 

God transcends nature. He created it.

 

God is logical and orderly, and creation is a testamony of the nature of the Creator (Romans 1:20-25) - with me so far?

 

So nature is orderly and consistent.

 

God, who transcends nature, can suspend nature. He could make us do so too.

 

We, however, can't transcend nature, so our will can't effect anything outside our bodies, without God.

 

These kinds of answers aren't all that big a deal and don't do anything to contradict scripture.

 

God bless.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

 

 

There are spiritual truths that make what we call empirical evidence flawed and unreliable at best.

For example, according to scripture a person who goes against their conscience and does that which they believe they should not receives for their error even if the truth is against what they believe.

There is therefore a great deal of grey area with plenty of room for error and skewed results based solely upon what people do versus what they believe.

If this is truth then it is no wonder that we cannot agree on a great many things.

I simply do not know the answer.

Actually that’s a category error.

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

Just because our moral obligations are subject to our perceptions doesn't mean that material things are.

Like, it may be wrong for some people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but not for others, depending on their perceptions and therefore conscience.

But is the law of gravity subject to our individual perceptions?

See how it's just different categories?

==========================================================================

Spiritual truths are immaterial and empirical evidence is material.

The error here is that one is arguing that material and immaterial do not affect one another which is an obvious fault.

 

 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm a substance dualist but my immaterial will has only been given jurisdiction over my body.

 

See, I'll prove it. I'm going to make gravity stop working now.

 

See, it didn't work.

 

But I can raise my arm just by thinking about it, and my thoughts are immaterial.

 

Anyways, you probably get the idea, but I think we've cluttered this thread up with tangents enough.

 

God bless.

[jerryR34]

 

And as far as what you said about "The only thing that can be proven is math.  Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven."

 

You'll notice that I didn't use the word "proven" at all, so you seemed to have been responding to what you assumed I said instead of what I actually said.

 

How do you define "confirm[ing]" a hypothesis?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

 

And as far as what you said about "The only thing that can be proven is math.  Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven."

 

You'll notice that I didn't use the word "proven" at all, so you seemed to have been responding to what you assumed I said instead of what I actually said.

 

How do you define "confirm[ing]" a hypothesis?

 

 

 

That's a standard term in science - When the findings are consistent with the projections of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is confirmed to have empirical support.