Jump to content
IGNORED

Science and Bible proves man made of the dust of the ground.


HAZARD

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Bonky said:

 

Ok so the difference here is that the Christian STARTS with a theistic reality, that is a reality above and beyond the natural one.   Not only that I would argue theism implies a personal creator God who wishes to interact with the created.  If inerrancy is a part of the theistic/Bible model then that would be another key difference.  

I don't think from this we can determine who is right about reality [in the end] but I certainly don't see how they are the same in methodology or inherent legitimacy [at least basic presuppositions].

Everyone "STARTS" with a faith premise. You are correct that for Christians, that assumed reality is theistic/Biblical. But assuming a purely naturalistic reality is just as much a faith premise as assuming Biblical reality. The secularist "STARTS" with naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic reality.

The logical methodology is identical - only the STARTing premise differs. But apart from that, in both cases, the facts are interpreted through the presuppositions of the interpreter.

This is readily demonstrated by the existence of alternative interpretations of the same facts. If a fact can be interpreted more than one way, then we can't legitimately claim that the raw fact supports one conclusion over another. We can't assume that one faith premise is more legitimate than another simply because there is one interpretation that is consistent with that premise. The preferred conclusion is influenced by presupposition, and not objectively derived from the fact itself.

Details which are explicit to the premise (like inerrancy and a personal Creator) are not additional differences. they are inherent to the premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

Everyone "STARTS" with a faith premise. You are correct that for Christians, that assumed reality is theistic/Biblical. But assuming a purely naturalistic reality is just as much a faith premise as assuming Biblical reality. The secularist "STARTS" with naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic reality.

The logical methodology is identical - only the STARTing premise differs. But apart from that, in both cases, the facts are interpreted through the presuppositions of the interpreter.

This is readily demonstrated by the existence of alternative interpretations of the same facts. If a fact can be interpreted more than one way, then we can't legitimately claim that the raw fact supports one conclusion over another. We can't assume that one faith premise is more legitimate than another simply because there is one interpretation that is consistent with that premise. The preferred conclusion is influenced by presupposition, and not objectively derived from the fact itself.

Details which are explicit to the premise (like inerrancy and a personal Creator) are not additional differences. they are inherent to the premise.

So it's almost like you're saying over assuming things is just the same as potentially under assuming things.  To me the leap seems bigger to assume there are other realities above and beyond the one we know about [natural], than to assume natural is all we have and possibly be wrong about that.  I personally am not dogmatic about naturalism, there very well may be forces that are not derived from natural energy.  I just think that assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and frankly unwarranted.   I'm not closed off to the supernatural I just think it's an odd thing to assume.

Innerancy and personal creator may be explicit to the premise of the Christian theology but not to a non-theist.  Those are two HUGE assumptions that are added into the Christian faith premise.  So to me it seems that the theist bolts a lot onto their faith premise above and beyond a natural reality.   Keep in mind here I'm not at all talking about who's right or wrong, I personally don't think we can solve that puzzle [at least not yet or now].

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, Bonky said:

So it's almost like you're saying over assuming things is just the same as potentially under assuming things.  To me the leap seems bigger to assume there are other realities above and beyond the one we know about [natural], than to assume natural is all we have and possibly be wrong about that.  I personally am not dogmatic about naturalism, there very well may be forces that are not derived from natural energy.  I just think that assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and frankly unwarranted.   I'm not closed off to the supernatural I just think it's an odd thing to assume.

Innerancy and personal creator may be explicit to the premise of the Christian theology but not to a non-theist.  Those are two HUGE assumptions that are added into the Christian faith premise.  So to me it seems that the theist bolts a lot onto their faith premise above and beyond a natural reality.   Keep in mind here I'm not at all talking about who's right or wrong, I personally don't think we can solve that puzzle [at least not yet or now].

I just think that assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and frankly unwarranted.”

Of course you do. But that is merely an expression of faith bias. We are both trying to comprehend the nature of reality. Biblical creationists, such as myself, observe a rationally-ordered, natural universe (without which the Scientific Method itself would be meaningless) and believe it best reflects the model of reality presented in the Bible (i.e. incorporating a rational Creator). In my opinion, secular naturalism has to interpret the rational order of the universe (and additionally, the inherent complexity of life) in terms of a series of massively, stupendously, unimaginably fortunate circumstances (including the existence of an, as-yet unexplained, uncaused cause of a natural universe defined by causality).

You interpret God as an over-assumption. But I interpret naturalism as a much much larger stretch of credulity. The Biblical model of reality elegantly explains everything we observe in the natural universe – including the uncaused cause (i.e. an eternal Creator Who is not subject to causality), along with the inherent super-complexity of life, but even things such as beauty, mathematics and abstract thought. Many atheists claim free thought itself to be an illusion (which is logically self-defeating).

Ultimately, neither assumption can be quantified in any objective way. Therefore neither can be legitimately considered an over or under assumption. Both are simply faith assumptions regarding the ultimate, and unverifiable, nature of reality.

 

I'm not closed off to the supernatural I just think it's an odd thing to assume.

I don't see why it's “odd” at all. Even avid atheists like Richard Dawkins describes biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose” (The blind Watchmaker). So if anything, seeing “design” and “purpose” in nature is the innate assumption, rather than additive to some other default position.

Many recognise that “appearance”. Christians simply interpret that “appearance” of design (along with all the other facts) to be most consistently represented in the Biblical model of reality.

 

Innerancy and personal creator may be explicit to the premise of the Christian theology but not to a non-theist.  Those are two HUGE assumptions that are added into the Christian faith premise. So to me it seems that the theist bolts a lot onto their faith premise above and beyond a natural reality.

The Christian premise is not simply the existence of God, but the existence of the Biblical God; i.e. the Eternal God described in the Bible; the Creator of the natural universe. “Innerancy and personal creator” are not bolted onto the Christian premise, they form part of the Christian premise. They can't be treated as separate entities apart from the premise.

But they are faith assumptions – though no more “HUGE” than any other faith assumption (unless you can describe for me a way to objectively quantify the level of assumption involved).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.13
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/5/2017 at 6:48 PM, HAZARD said:

What are the scientific proofs that man’s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says?

The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent.

The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust.

This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

Z 66..jpg

This echoes what I have posted myself; God created science and it reflects Him and proves His word to be true.  I heard the argument for the human body containing the elements of the Earth's crust several years ago from someone who has slipped my memory but I never forgot it.  It just makes so much sense.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

Hey Kevin,

You said, “I'd define faith as the belief in a position without evidence.

That is not an accurate definition of “faith”. The term “evidence” means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular conclusion (i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that conclusion). Pretty much every fact in the known universe can be interpreted to support, or at least be consistent with, the existence of God.

Hi tristen. Hope you're well. 

I agree on the evidence definition. Although you need to demonstrate the link from the observational evidence to God did it then your version of god did it...ie Christianity over other religions and their gods and the scientific. This involves a causational link that can be investigatible and falisifiable. So you could interpret to anything .... any God... any religiosity or can you demonstrate causation...null hypothesis ? 

Faith as defined is..

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki

Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible.

This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations.

 So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more. What can I observe to substantiate the God hypothesis and the Christian genesis version thereafter plus I'd need to disprove the scientific of course.

 

 

 

 

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

Some claims about reality cannot be observed (i.e. past claims or supernatural claims). Confidence in such claims is therefore not derived from the facts, but interpreted into the facts. Any confidence in a claim which cannot be observed is faith.

Not observed directly but can be investigated... similar to investigation of a crime scene. Dumping supernatural claims into the past.. where has that ever helped or progressed understanding superseding naturalistic? 

Confidence is predicted then falisifiable by facts ie observable evidence. How do I get to your or any other religious claims other than just assertion?

Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs. Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory. Any unfalsifiable God did it claim...we could just assert magic pixies did it with the same lack of causational evidence. This is again... how religious faith can get us to 1000s of gods. 

When I joined...i did have God notions of not an explanation of initiating a big bang therefore God.. chatting to others realised I've no good reason and worse it's a fallacy to get to a God this way...i thank Enoch for this... he helped me lots. 

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

Does this sound like a good pathway to what's true?

When something cannot be naturally observed, we cannot pursue its truth through natural observation (i.e. by strict adherence to the Scientific Method). To examine such claims, we are forced to depart from the logical robustness of the Scientific Method.

Why are you forced... we aren't warranted in asserting conclusions in the absence of a justifiable warrant. The time to believe something is when we've evidence. Again so if you say your God did anything... what can I accept that on and reject other religions explanations?

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

So pre darwin a default should be I don't have an explanation for diversity

Incorrect. There is no objective “default

Its incorrect if your explanation is just assert God did it. If you really care about the truth the answer is don't know.

This is interesting and highlights your presupposition and bias. There is no forced.. we're not at a pinnacle. Look what we've learned in 400 years. Here's to the next 400? Don't know is a valid answer until then. 

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

Secularists seem to find the billions-of-years-old universe story “compelling”, along with the Standard Cosmology story and Common Ancestry story. But they are just stories about what might have happened in the past to give us the facts we have today; given the premise of a naturalistic reality. The Bible accounts for the same facts with a different story based on a different premise.

The secularists atheist models were lead there by demonstrable levels of evidence. Not an assertion from authority. The evidence discovered contradicts the biblical presupposition that's prior to looking for evidence. 

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

Nevertheless, even that doesn’t represent the logical process of Christians. Like everyone else, we start with a faith premise (Theistic reality). We are given a basic model describing that premise (the Bible). Then we consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. Secularists also start with a faith premise (naturalistic reality).

No...we shouldn't start with faith in a religious and then your particular religions context. I like how you admit it though. Your model I could start with a faith of another religion then fit evidence to it... or just deny the evidence coz it doesn't support my particular religious presupposition. This is leading the evidence rather than being lead by it again. Athiests don't add another claim ie some God or gods did it... science dumped this a long time ago...its not helped our understanding and there is no evidence so not justified to add.

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

I think Christians would readily acknowledge the role faith plays in our conclusions. I would suggest that secularists are far more likely to claim their faith as fact, than Christians (though I have heard it from both, on occasion).

This is an equivocation again. Religious people have decided answers prior to evidence... as an atheists not believing in an extra God claim I'll be lead by the evidence... also I'd believe in a god when I have evidence. Another thread I was told... there is evidence just look around... well that's observation but you'd need to prove or have evidence a god did anything... making a claim gives a burden of proof.

On 15/12/2017 at 12:43 AM, Tristen said:

This is why it kinda feels like a God of the gaps

We all fill the gaps in knowledge with stories that fit our model. For Christians, the story may be natural or supernatural (since theism makes logical provision for supernatural involvement)

Okay how do we demonstrate anything supernatural.  Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence  because of this bpresupposing supernatural. How is supernatural logical minus any evidence whatsoever of it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 18/12/2017 at 11:19 PM, Tristen said:

Everyone "STARTS" with a faith premise. You are correct that for Christians, that assumed reality is theistic/Biblical. But assuming a purely naturalistic reality is just as much a faith premise as assuming Biblical reality. The secularist "STARTS" with naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic reality.

The logical methodology is identical - only the STARTing premise differs. But apart from that, in both cases, the facts are interpreted through the presuppositions of the interpreter.

You assert this equivocation fallacy often. We could say we've same observations.. investigation has never shown supernatural.  however theists then add an additional claim ie a god that atheists see no warrant based on no good evidence to add... unless you have some? The default is to not believe this claim without evidential warrant. 

So basically a theist would test and investigate the natural world the same as an atheist ...a theist then adds the additional claim ie God or gods... the atheist then rejects this... no good evidence... can't investigate the supernatural.. assertions that can't be falisified and so on

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/24/2017 at 4:16 AM, Kevinb said:

Hi tristen. Hope you're well. 

I agree on the evidence definition. Although you need to demonstrate the link from the observational evidence to God did it then your version of god did it...ie Christianity over other religions and their gods and the scientific. This involves a causational link that can be investigatible and falisifiable. So you could interpret to anything .... any God... any religiosity or can you demonstrate causation...null hypothesis ? 

Faith as defined is..

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki

Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible.

This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations.

 So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more. What can I observe to substantiate the God hypothesis and the Christian genesis version thereafter plus I'd need to disprove the scientific of course.

 

 

 

 

Not observed directly but can be investigated... similar to investigation of a crime scene. Dumping supernatural claims into the past.. where has that ever helped or progressed understanding superseding naturalistic? 

Confidence is predicted then falisifiable by facts ie observable evidence. How do I get to your or any other religious claims other than just assertion?

Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs. Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory. Any unfalsifiable God did it claim...we could just assert magic pixies did it with the same lack of causational evidence. This is again... how religious faith can get us to 1000s of gods. 

When I joined...i did have God notions of not an explanation of initiating a big bang therefore God.. chatting to others realised I've no good reason and worse it's a fallacy to get to a God this way...i thank Enoch for this... he helped me lots. 

Why are you forced... we aren't warranted in asserting conclusions in the absence of a justifiable warrant. The time to believe something is when we've evidence. Again so if you say your God did anything... what can I accept that on and reject other religions explanations?

Its incorrect if your explanation is just assert God did it. If you really care about the truth the answer is don't know.

This is interesting and highlights your presupposition and bias. There is no forced.. we're not at a pinnacle. Look what we've learned in 400 years. Here's to the next 400? Don't know is a valid answer until then. 

The secularists atheist models were lead there by demonstrable levels of evidence. Not an assertion from authority. The evidence discovered contradicts the biblical presupposition that's prior to looking for evidence. 

No...we shouldn't start with faith in a religious and then your particular religions context. I like how you admit it though. Your model I could start with a faith of another religion then fit evidence to it... or just deny the evidence coz it doesn't support my particular religious presupposition. This is leading the evidence rather than being lead by it again. Athiests don't add another claim ie some God or gods did it... science dumped this a long time ago...its not helped our understanding and there is no evidence so not justified to add.

This is an equivocation again. Religious people have decided answers prior to evidence... as an atheists not believing in an extra God claim I'll be lead by the evidence... also I'd believe in a god when I have evidence. Another thread I was told... there is evidence just look around... well that's observation but you'd need to prove or have evidence a god did anything... making a claim gives a burden of proof.

Okay how do we demonstrate anything supernatural.  Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence  because of this bpresupposing supernatural. How is supernatural logical minus any evidence whatsoever of it. 

On 12/24/2017 at 4:26 AM, Kevinb said:

You assert this equivocation fallacy often. We could say we've same observations.. investigation has never shown supernatural.  however theists then add an additional claim ie a god that atheists see no warrant based on no good evidence to add... unless you have some? The default is to not believe this claim without evidential warrant. 

So basically a theist would test and investigate the natural world the same as an atheist ...a theist then adds the additional claim ie God or gods... the atheist then rejects this... no good evidence... can't investigate the supernatural.. assertions that can't be falisified and so on

 

Hey Kevin, Sorry it's so big - there was a lot to cover.

Faith as defined is.. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible.

The first definition is incorrect (as one might expect from a wiki). The second definition is correct. Faith is confidence in a claim for which no direct observation exists.
 

This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations.

The limitations on past and supernatural claims are logically identical (i.e. the inability to subject the claim to direct observation). The logical methodology used to investigate such claims are also identical (i.e. compare the current facts to the model making the claim). Whether or not they qualify as “scientific” is a matter you can debate with @Enoch. But they are logically the same approach. There is no equivocation in my claim.

 

So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more

This is all unsupported fluff and bluster. The idea of a Big Bang arose from a thought experiment where we took the available knowledge of an expanding universe, and put the whole system in reverse until it collapsed into a singularity (later, a "quantum fluctuation"). A story was then generated about how this singularity exploded into the super-massive universe we observe today. We also detected local microwave radiation, which some supposed to be residual energy left over from the Big Bang. Based on the assumption of a Big Bang, it was therefore predicted that we would find this energy dispersed throughout the universe – and viola, we found it. But we already knew the radiation existed in the universe. So it was hardly surprising to anyone to find it existed elsewhere. What the Big Bang model of the time did not predict, was the homogeneous saturation of the CMB radiation across all measurements. The model did not provide nearly enough time for the energy to have travelled such distances (even given the 15-or-so billion years allocated). So the Big Bang story needed to be changed. Suddenly, it was a not-so-big, not-so-explody bang, but a more moderate bang followed by a stupendously vast and rapid expansion of space itself (carrying with it all that energy). And thus the Inflation story was added to the Big Bang story.

 

The Big Bang story has not been scientifically “tested” in any legitimate, operational sense, because we cannot perform experiments or make observations in or of the past. We cannot set up controls against which to calculate legitimate mathematical confidence in one story over another. Any such claim of scientific confidence is therefore fallacious (i.e. Affirming the Consequent).

Big Bang theory has made a few, somewhat accurate, predictions (like finding energy we already knew existed, but in places we hadn't detected it before – mainly due to the limitations of technology). In fact, every time the Standard Cosmology model changes (for which there have been many, sometimes massive, revisions), it is because the actual observations undermined the predictions of the model of the time. Since the model itself is based around current facts (e.g. we detect microwave radiation on local scales), it stands to reason that it should make some accurate predictions (e.g. like we should find microwave radiation elsewhere). Accurate predictions don't logically overcome the Affirming the Consequent fallacy.

Creationists have also made accurate predictions based on the Biblical model. None of which undermines the fact that faith is required for confidence in any past claim made by any model.

All claims about the unobserved past are all unfalsifiable. Even directly contrary facts can be explained away in terms of 'we simply don't know yet how these facts fit our story'. That's what happened in the awkward time before Inflation came along. Big Bang wasn't questioned, we just didn't yet have a story to make the homogeneous CMB fit the current model. So claims about attempts to falsify are meaningless in terms of logical confidence.

Red shift only speaks to an expanding universe, and even that is becoming an increasingly questionable way to interpret this property of light.

Nothing in all this bluster logically obligates anyone to the secular Standard Cosmology story.

 

What can I observe to substantiate the God hypothesis and the Christian genesis version thereafter

You have provided no observation whatsoever substantiating a Big Bang. All you have is secondary, indirect evidences which merely demonstrate consistency with the possibility of a Big Bang. I can do, and have done, exactly the same for the Biblical model. I can talk about the ubiquitous observations of order leading to corruption and decay (in terms of matter and energy, or living systems), or the natural law of Biogenesis, or the existence of information in life systems, or the plethora of archaeological finds supporting the Bible's account of history, and many other paths of argument indirectly evidencing God's existence.

 

plus I'd need to disprove the scientific of course.”

They are the same methodology. If one is “scientific”, both are “scientific” - or else neither are. Either way, both are logically unfalsifiable. Therefore any attempt to “disprove” either is folly.

 

Not observed directly but can be investigated... similar to investigation of a crime scene.

That's right – claims which cannot be observed can still be “investigated”; only not by the method which generates confidence by direct observation (i.e. not by the Scientific Method).

And when the facts of the "crime" are made available, the defence team will have equal opportunity to present their story explaining the facts as the prosecution. And the jury will be instructed to convict or acquit based on the standard of reasonable doubt – because without any way to directly observe the claimed events, we cannot unequivocally verify one story over the other. All each party can do is use the facts to generate a story based on the premise of either guilt or innocence.

 

Dumping supernatural claims into the past.. where has that ever helped or progressed understanding superseding naturalistic?

What do you mean by “progressed understanding”. Or are you merely assuming your preferred story to be the correct “understanding”.

It was the Biblical context which gave us the rational framework from which we could assume the validity of the Scientific Method itself. That is, the assumption of a rationally designed, ordered universe where the laws of time and space remain consistent; such that experimentation and repeated experimentation can be logically meaningful. Science, as we understand it today, was originally a Christian pursuit. The first scientific institutions were funded and founded by the church. Almost all of the so-called “fathers” of science were devout Christians investigating their God's creation. Science in other cultures and philosophies stalled because it lacked this logical framework (e.g. the Greek gods could change the rules at any time). Atheism likes the method, and the premise of an ordered universe, but provides no philosophical foundation to base it on (other than the proposal that, of all the possible universes, there had to be one which made sense – and we are just very fortunate to find ourselves in that one).

So Biblical assumptions have contributed quite a lot to the foundational understanding of scientific knowledge.

 

Confidence is predicted then falisifiable by facts ie observable evidence. How do I get to your or any other religious claims other than just assertion?

How can I falsify the claim of a Big Bang, or a Cosmological Inflation, or the claim that all life is descended from a common ancestor? It can't be done without a time machine. Current facts only speak to what currently exists. They cannot tell us how they got there. That information has to be interpreted into the facts based on ancillary presupposition – i.e. we have to make up a story about their past based on ancillary information and faith. If current subsequent discoveries fit the story, then good (it doesn't make the story any more true, but it doesn't hurt it either). But even if new facts don't fit the story, we have options (e.g. tweak the story to make the new facts fit, or throw our hands in the air and say, 'we don't yet know how these facts fit our story'). But it doesn't mean the story itself is necessarily untrue. That's why claims about the past (and supernatural) are empirically unfalsifiable – no matter what current observation (“observable evidence”) we find. All of these stories remain, in your words, “just assertion” - due to the inability to directly observe the claims themselves.

 

Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs.

This is equally true of all belief, including secular beliefs. We all start with an unverifiable premise. The raw, uninterpreted facts don't speak specifically to any story of the past being true. It's only when the facts are interpreted as evidence for a particular story, that they can be said to support that story. But interpreting a fact to support a story about the past requires assuming things which cannot be verified. No one starts with the facts then 'follows the facts' to a claim about history - because the facts themselves don't provide that information. We look at the facts, then speculate about history; given our preferred faith premise.

 

Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory

Not without making naturalistic assumptions they didn't. There are no “laws of physics” obligating belief in a Big Bang. Big Bang is a story about the past generated by interpreting the “laws of physics” in a purely naturalistic context. But the “laws” themselves suggest nothing about the ultimate nature of reality (i.e. theistic or naturalistic), only that we have observe certain rules to apply consistently inside the natural universe.

 

Any unfalsifiable God did it claim...we could just assert magic pixies did it with the same lack of causational evidence.

Any unfalsifiable claim (including Big Bang) can be denigrated as “magic pixies did it”. There is no difference between 'God-did-it' and 'it-did-itself' (or - 'a quantum fluctuation of unknown origin suddenly exploded into a universe').

 

Why are you forced...

We “are forced to depart from the logical robustness of the Scientific Method” because the Scientific Method relies exclusively on observation to generate mathematical (i.e. quantifiable, justifiable) confidence in claims, and we therefore cannot apply the strict Scientific Method to claims which cannot be subjected to experimentation and observation.

 

we aren't warranted in asserting conclusions in the absence of a justifiable warrant

If by “justifiable” you mean scientific, then you have no “justifiable warrant” for any claim about the unobserved past. You can't have one standard for your position and another for opposing positions. Whether past or supernatural – unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable.

Either way your statement here is untrue. You don't need the Scientific Method to make an assertion – so long as you acknowledge the influence of faith in your conclusions. Even in scientific papers, authors are expected to acknowledge assumptions and alternate ways to interpret the facts (though the secular stories are generally considered axiomatic – and therefore often get away with being stated as fact).

 

The time to believe something is when we've evidence

There's that word again. So all we need is a fact which can be interpreted to support (or “evidence”) our position. We're both all good then.

In reality, no one starts with the facts. You've claimed that Big Bang started with the laws of physics, but you still have to presuppose that the entities governed by the laws of physics proceeded through time in a naturalistic, uniformitarian manner. That is, until uniformitarianism becomes inconvenient and we have to add an account of the largest catastrophe in the history of the universe to the story (i.e. a Cosmological Inflation of all of space itself). And you further have to presuppose that the laws of physics have remained constant throughout time and space (i.e. that the universe is rationally ordered) or else even your appeal to the laws of physics are meaningless. You even have to assume that observation can be trusted (which is not necessarily the case). Exactly no one starts with the facts and finds their way into history.

 

Again so if you say your God did anything... what can I accept that on and reject other religions explanations?

You have to assess each model on it's own merits. If you presuppose a rationally ordered universe, then you can compare the current facts against the temporal/historical claims of each model. But if you dogmatically presuppose a naturalistic reality, then you limit your capacity to objectively consider logically possible options. You take away all other possibilities from consideration.

In a slightly different vein, the Bible promises that if you seek God sincerely (i.e. “with all your heart”) you will find Him. The purpose of the cross was to reconcile us into personal fellowship with God. The Biblical God interacts experientially with His people – which is a further evidence to us, but is also available to anyone who seeks Him.

 

Its incorrect if your explanation is just assert God did it. If you really care about the truth the answer is don't know

I agree that “don't know is a valid answer”. But it is not the only “valid answer” - unless you assume that the Scientific Method is the only means of generating confidence (which you clearly don't – since you appeal to the unverifiable naturalistic version of reality). The claim “I don't know” (technically called weak agnosticism) would not take sides at all (i.e. would not prefer naturalism over Biblical theism). I think the personal claim “I don't know” is a rational position (more-so than true agnosticism).

What we can say is that confidence in either position cannot be generated by the Scientific Method.

 

The secularists atheist models were lead there by demonstrable levels of evidence

The idea that anyone is objectively lead by the facts to claims about the past is empty, rhetorical myth. Even calling them “secularists atheist models” acknowledges the influence of presupposing a secular, atheistic reality.

 

Not an assertion from authority

This is a bit silly. Our model was originally penned in an ancient manuscript. The secular model is more recent – and so was originally penned on a more contemporary manuscript. None of which speaks to the validity or invalidity of either model.

 

The evidence discovered contradicts the biblical presupposition that's prior to looking for evidence

What fact “contradicts the biblical presupposition”? If there is a fact that can only be interpreted to support the secular atheistic models of reality, then you should have led with that.

In reality, both models have been challenged by the discovery of new facts subsequent to the model's inception. The secular cosmology model has been forced to undergo several major revisions in light of new discoveries. The Biblical model has not.

 

we shouldn't start with faith in a religious and then your particular religions context. I like how you admit it though.

Every human has faith in a particular version of reality. Therefore, every human interpreter views the facts through the lens of their faith. Facts can only reveal the present to us – not the past. The past is a story made up to explain the current facts (i.e. not derived from the facts but read into them). But that story is influenced by one's take on reality. There is no logical way around it. As eager as you are to present your preferred story as the default, objective account, you can't circumvent the reality that there are logical limitations to what objective information we can derive from the facts. Everything else is interpretation – a subjective process heavily influenced by the presuppositions of the interpreter.

The logical process required to generate stories beyond what the facts can tells us requires faith. There is no objective choice but to “admit it”.

 

I could start with a faith of another religion then fit evidence to it

I consider atheism a faith rather than a "religion". Otherwise, what you have described is exactly what the secular models do – i.e. “start with a faith” in an atheistic/naturalistic reality, then interpret the facts to be consistent with that reality.

 

or just deny the evidence coz it doesn't support my particular religious presupposition

Facts don't “support” any faith “presupposition”. No one has the rational right to deny the facts. Have I denied any fact?

But there are other options for inconvenient facts; e.g. 1) the story can be tweaked/changed/updated to reflect the new facts (where the faith premise provides for that option), or 2) we can simply claim to not yet know how the facts fit the model – after all, “Look what we've learned in 400 years. Here's to the next 400”.

 

This is leading the evidence rather than being lead by it again

Well “again”, no fact can tell you its history, only its present. The history of the fact has to be read into the fact based on assumptions which are ancillary to the fact itself. When it comes to claims about the past, every interpreter pulls the facts in the direction of their preferred presuppositions.

 

Athiests don't add another claim ie some God or gods did it.

Atheism is an unverifiable faith premise regarding the ultimate nature of reality. It is no more or less a faith premise than theism. God is not an additional claim to atheism, but an opposing claim (i.e. a logically valid alternative). You are again trying to set up atheistic faith as the logical default, but that position is not justified in logic.

 

science dumped this a long time ago

The Scientific Method never incorporated God. But the first scientists presupposed the Biblical God as their faith premise. Over time, the Biblical faith premise has been largely replaced with the secular/atheistic faith premise. But the preference for one faith premise over another remains an issue of faith, not "science". Regardless of which story you prefer, if you are making claims about the unobserved past, you are viewing the facts through the lens of faith.

 

Okay how do we demonstrate anything supernatural.

How do we “demonstrate” a Big Bang, or Cosmological Inflation, or our relationship to other creatures through a common ancestor? All we have are current facts and stories about how they might have got there. The same is true, whether making a past claim or supernatural claim (i.e. for any claim that can't be observed). This same limitation (the inability to observe the claim) is common to both.

 

Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence because of this bpresupposing supernatural

What “knowledge and evidence” have I denied? Critical reasoning provides me with every rational right to question any interpretation of any fact, but not the right to deny the existence of the fact (unless maybe the source of the observation is questionable – but generally not).

 

How is supernatural logical minus any evidence whatsoever of it

Even though you claimed to agree with my definition of “evidence”, you continue to claim we have no “evidence”, when in reality, every known fact in existence can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality. You don't like when we use facts indirectly to support our unobservable claims, but you are happy to accept the methodology when used to support unobservable secular claims.

 

You assert this equivocation fallacy often

The only difference between both positions is the starting faith premise. We both interpret the available facts to be consistent with our preferred faith premise. Until you can demonstrate a methodological difference, your claim of fallacy is specious.

And by “demonstrate”, I don't just mean tell me it's different. Give me an example of a fact that can onlylead” to your conclusions about history – irrespective of the influence of faith assumption.

 

We could say we've same observations.. investigation has never shown supernatural. however theists then add an additional claim ie a god that atheists see no warrant based on no good evidence to add... unless you have some?

Neither has any “investigation” ever “shown” a Big Bang, or a Cosmological Inflation, or a history of Common Ancestry. None of these historical claims has ever been observed through “investigation”. If God is additional to our model, then these stories are additional to the atheistic model.

 

The default is to not believe this claim without evidential warrant.

Both atheism and theism are unverifiable claims. Your belief in a purely naturalistic reality is just as empirically unverifiable as my theism. So the objective “default” is no belief about the ultimate nature of reality. But without any faith premise, we would be incapable of using the facts to generate stories about the past. Adopting such a “default” takes out Big Bang, Inflation and Common Ancestry, as much as it takes out God. Such a standard really would render the past impossible to investigate.

 

So basically a theist would test and investigate the natural world the same as an atheist ...a theist then adds the additional claim ie God or gods... the atheist then rejects this...

No – that is not the process.

The actual process is: All humans have faith in a particular, empirically unverifiable, version of reality. When investigating history, that faith influences how each human interprets the facts. Stories about the past are thus generated showing how the facts fit the faith premise. Those starting from a different faith perspective “reject” (or question) the interpretation which conflicts with their own faith perspective, instead preferring an interpretation of the same facts which is consistent with their own faith.

 

no good evidence... can't investigate the supernatural.. assertions that can't be falisified and so on

Whether or not the “evidence” (i.e. an interpretation of facts) is “good” is entirely subjective. The only objective standard is whether or not a fact can be interpreted to be rationally consistent with the premise.

We can, absolutely “investigate the supernatural”, but only indirectly – since supernatural claims are beyond the logical scope of natural observation (as are all claims about the unobserved past). We cannot generate scientific, mathematical confidence in either past or supernatural claims.

No historical or supernatural claim can be “falsified”. No fact can logically obligate a rejection of any such claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/19/2017 at 8:37 PM, Tristen said:

You interpret God as an over-assumption. But I interpret naturalism as a much much larger stretch of credulity. The Biblical model of reality elegantly explains everything we observe in the natural universe – including the uncaused cause (i.e. an eternal Creator Who is not subject to causality), along with the inherent super-complexity of life, but even things such as beauty, mathematics and abstract thought. Many atheists claim free thought itself to be an illusion (which is logically self-defeating).

I remember you once telling me that we shouldn't necessarily object to something just because it goes against our sensibilities.   I think you're betraying your own advice potentially.   There is so much we don't know, to toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations is extremely premature based on our position in the Universe.  I believe my position is grounded more in humility and caution.   There are so many things that we've discovered in the natural world that are bizarre, crazy, weird, etc etc.   What else could there be that we have absolutely no clue about yet?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a being that created our Universe and everything in it, I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't.

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.13
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

37 minutes ago, Bonky said:

I remember you once telling me that we shouldn't necessarily object to something just because it goes against our sensibilities.   I think you're betraying your own advice potentially.   There is so much we don't know, to toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations is extremely premature based on our position in the Universe.  I believe my position is grounded more in humility and caution.   There are so many things that we've discovered in the natural world that are bizarre, crazy, weird, etc etc.   What else could there be that we have absolutely no clue about yet?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a being that created our Universe and everything in it, I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't.

You have been given answers repeatedly, Bonky, and you continue to reject them.  If you don't want a person's evidence, the evidence that makes sense to them, you are spinning your wheels here.  Believers are not going to change their beliefs and give you what you want to hear.  Why do you think the human body mirrors the composition of the Earth's crust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

You have been given answers repeatedly, Bonky, and you continue to reject them.  If you don't want a person's evidence, the evidence that makes sense to them, you are spinning your wheels here.  Believers are not going to change their beliefs and give you what you want to hear.  Why do you think the human body mirrors the composition of the Earth's crust?

You may misunderstand my motives.  I'm not trying to change Tristen [or anyone else's] mind, I'm merely explaining my position.  

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last question other than maybe Genesis and man being made from the "dust" of the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...