The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable .

As I perused some of the older threads here, it has become painfully obvious that some people are desperate to prove that deductive reasoning is somehow less valuable, trustworthy or logical than inductive reasoning.

For example, a scientist may say "according to the scriptural accounts, Moses, through God, parted the Red Sea. We theorize that what may have actually occurred is.......", meaning, of course, the parting of that body of water is an obvious myth.

They start with the unproven assumption that miracles cannot happen and based on that presupposition (not anything observable) may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning.

The entire evolution vs. creation debate revolves around deuctive versus inductive reasoning. The neo-Darwinists belief that more complex forms of life like humans evolved from lower, less complex life forms and that all life itself came about solely through the random chance gatherings of matter and energy in the correct ratios, etc. The creationists take the opposite tact, a higher form, namely God, inspired and created life. A higher form creating a lower form. Subsequently their belief is heaven is the higher place, earth the lower.

I believe science is useful for many things but I don't think science will ever help the human race overcome evil, save my soul or yours, let alone prove to be a foundation for all truth.

Originally posted by Bridge
I believe science is useful for many things but I don't think science will ever help the human race overcome evil, save my soul or yours, let alone prove to be a foundation for all truth. Religion has also failed to do these things (except for maybe the soul thing, you can say 'I told you so' when we die).

Bridge,

As I perused some of the older threads here, it has become painfully obvious that some people are desperate to prove that deductive reasoning is somehow less valuable, trustworthy or logical than inductive reasoning. Desperate? Both forms of logic have their appropriate use and are equally valid where used correctly. It makes no sense to say all conclusions must be deductive since that would invalidate 99% of scientific discovery and we know science operates very well. The only way you could remove the need for inductive reasoning is if you become all powerful and know everything.

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. But the foundation of all knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. That is how knowledge is defined. Science doesn’t have to prove anything else. And what is meant by true knowledge? Do you want to claim that knowledge introduced through inductive reasoning is false? If so, then you should realize that most of physics and modern technology operates very well based on those ‘false’ scientific conclusions.

But science is incapable of caring about debates with religion. Perhaps if religion could prove a single case where knowledge could be based on something other than the material, empirical, and quantifiable, then that might cast doubt on science. But to do that you will have to redefine what we mean by knowledge and science.

For example, a scientist may say "according to the scriptural accounts, Moses, through God, parted the Red Sea. We theorize that what may have actually occurred is.......", meaning, of course, the parting of that body of water is an obvious myth.More accurately it is a conclusion based on a preceding 100% record that everything known has a natural cause. There is no precedent that indicates there is value in the consideration of any other approach.

They start with the unproven assumption that miracles cannot happenNo that is not true. If they are using the scientific method, which they must be doing if they are scientists then they will make no assumptions but will look for evidence. If they cannot find anything to support the claim then they could form a theory that explains the event through known and proven causes. The theory will stand until someone can show something more plausible or can show additional evidence.

Note that your story is not describing a scientist but perhaps an uninformed philosopher. I.e. you seem to be trying to discredit science by inaccurately portraying scientists.

and based on that presupposition (not anything observable)But if it not observable then only hypothesis or theory is possible.

may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning. Not to a real scientist.

The creationists take the opposite tact, a higher form, namely God, inspired and created life. A higher form creating a lower form. But again there is no precedent for something intelligent creating/designing something complex. Everything evolves, even computers evolve. Man is the only being we know that is intelligent. Everything man has created/designed has been based on previous simpler discoveries. If a higher form (man) could create something complex (say a modern computer) then cavemen should have been able to create a modern computer. They didn’t because the evolutionary steps that have led to the modern computer had not occurred.

All evidence indicates that everything that exists has evolved, i.e. there is no precedent that would validate the hypothesis for a God creator.

Your conclusions for a God are not deductive since you have no evidence. The only conclusions that can be reached must be based on what is known and since we do not know everything then our conclusion will be inductive.

What we can discuss is the strngth of the inductive arguments, perhaps in terms of probabaility. Yours has zero evidence so the probability must be zero or close to zero, whereas mine has overwhelming evidence and must be close to certainty.

Persol said:

Religion has also failed to do these things (except for maybe the soul thing, you can say 'I told you so' when we die).

At least you realize the potential for spiritual knowledge exists.




Cris said:

It makes no sense to say all conclusions must be deductive since that would invalidate 99% of scientific discovery and we know science operates very well.

I didn't claim that all conclusions must be deductive, you're reading far more into my statement than is there.

But the foundation of all knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. That is how knowledge is defined.

True knowledge. Do we know all truth through science? Your next question acknowledges the answer is no.

And what is meant by true knowledge?

Defining truth can be slippery but lets state it as being "ACTUALITY" or "FACT"....ie. Webster's

1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

Knowledge is being aware of something.


But science is incapable of caring about debates with religion.

You wouldn't know it reading the posts on this forum;)

But again there is no precedent for something intelligent creating/designing something complex. Everything evolves, even computers evolve. Man is the only being we know that is intelligent. Everything man has created/designed has been based on previous simpler discoveries. If a higher form (man) could create something complex (say a modern computer) then cavemen should have been able to create a modern computer. They didn’t because the evolutionary steps that have led to the modern computer had not occurred.

All evidence indicates that everything that exists has evolved, i.e. there is no precedent that would validate the hypothesis for a God creator.

Your conclusions for a God are not deductive since you have no evidence. The only conclusions that can be reached must be based on what is known and since we do not know everything then our conclusion will be inductive.

It's fine that you make those observations about modern man and ancient man. I'll even accept that we have evolved (from our earlier selves) but you have already contradicted yourself. If all "evidence" indicates everything that exists has evolved but yet we do not "know" everything; then you just used deduction to reach that conclusion, not induction.

If I asked you to commit to answering the following questions would your answers be based purely on inductive reasoning and science?

Did the universe arise out of nothing?

How does science answer the problems of the infinite and the finite?....the eternal and the temporal, the absolute and the relative; the continuous and discrete; the simple and the complex?

If so, how did you ascertain that your answer is the truth?

The difference between science and religion is that science starts with problems and looks for solutions, whereas religion starts with a solution (God), and seeks to fit that solution to every aspect of the unknown.

Bridge:

<i>Did the universe arise out of nothing?</i>

I don't know. Nobody knows - yet.

There's a response you'll never get from a religious fundamentalist. They have all the answers already.

<i>How does science answer the problems of the infinite and the finite?....the eternal and the temporal, the absolute and the relative; the continuous and discrete; the simple and the complex?</i>

You'll have to be more specific. What problems of the infinite and finite? What problems with the eternal and temporal? etc.

<i>If so, how did you ascertain that your answer is the truth?</i>

If what is so?

Bridge,

but you have already contradicted yourself. If all "evidence" indicates everything that exists has evolved but yet we do not "know" everything; then you just used deduction to reach that conclusion, not induction.It would have been a deductive claim had I said ‘all evidence proves that everything exists has evolved’. The term ‘indicates’ is an inductive assertion.

Originally posted by James R
I don't know. Nobody knows - yet.


Another notyetter.

James R - what gives you hope, or indication, of ever knowing? The advancement of science? And when you are convinced either way, whether the universe was created out of nothing, or out of something, what will you know?

You say: at least I do not propose to have all the answers. Why has ignorance such a precious commodity? You don't propose to have any answers because you are growing up in a post-modern, relativistic society where it is simply non-PC to claim anything. I call it the 'counter-enlightenment': What we have gained through reason, we are losing by reason.

Aside from what you perceive, there is no reality, right? Then what is history? Why don't we say: "we can't know history - not yet"? We can't trust anybody - not those who report the past, neither those who report the future. We can only trust ourselves, right? Do you see how small our world has become? We have an illusion of unlimited information and accessibility, yet it has desensitized us to such a degree that we can't recognize any truth anymore. We are, truly, caught in the Matrix. Have you ever wondered why the movie had so many Christian imagery? How was Neo resurrected from death? By Trinity's love.

It's alright to be dead. It's OK to believe. Science cannot afford such certainty, because to science, certainty is death. You can't say "you cannot know", because that defies the purpose of science. You can't say "you know" because you aren't permitted. Therefore all you have is "not yet".

God is the elusive knowledge. Why does all wisdom come from God? Because only He "knows". What we know is what we see and experience. The first Christians saw and experienced the fulfilment of Jewish scripture and the resurrection of Jesus. That has become my history and my future. Instead of "not yet", all I can say is "already". It has already been made known, and therefore I know. The only "not yet" is what has not yet happened, not what I do not yet know.

What we know or will know is not even relevant, really. If your existence depends on it, sure - that is why the gospel was preached. But your existence will never become more real or more valid than it already is. In retrospect you might understand more, be able to attribute more meaning, but nothing will change.

God does not exist simply to answer all our petty questions and fill the gaps in our knowledge. That is the atheist god, the god of science - the One Who Fills All Gaps - not Christ, who reconciled us with God, and definitely not his and my Father.

So, not being sure about something yet because it hasn't been proven is somehow worse than being completely sure of something that hasn't been proven?

It's neither better nor worse. It's the "yet" I have a problem with. How can you put your hope in something that can never satisfy that hope?

If it isn't hope, then you are simply dodging the issue by saying "we can't know - yet". You are putting the ball in God's court and hope He doesn't get a shot in.

All I'm pointing out is that my belief is based on something that can't be proven because it won't happen again - past knowledge. Your disbelief is based on something that will never be resolved, because you 'can't know' - future knowledge.

It would have been a deductive claim had I said ‘all evidence proves that everything exists has evolved’. The term ‘indicates’ is an inductive assertion.

In that case, if the evidence only "indicates" everything evolved, then the case for ToE is much weaker than we have been lead to believe isn't it? Would it be an inductive or deductive assertion for me to say all evidence indicates that everything that exists has been designed?

Is it an inductive or deductive claim when science takes apart the DNA molecule, studies it, makes models of the double helix, translates the coded language contained within it and claims it somehow evolved?

Everything evolves, even computers evolve.

Was that an inductive or deductive claim? Suppose someday we build a computer with artificial intelligence that can actually design and assemble more computers. Are we to assume that new computational program enhancements will occur through disk errors, mutations and viruses and these will provide some new functionality that didn't exist before? Ha! That's what we are assuming with evolution isn't it? The evidence for this is what?

Lets assume, for the sake of arguement, everything we've been told about the theory of evolution is true. The probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences, unguided by any intelligence is so infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other branch of science or math.

Science is a gift of God, it's just that some of us haven't said thank you yet.

Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. ~Sir William Bragg

Originally posted by Bridge
Science is a gift of God, it's just that some of us haven't said thank you yet. Cute. Baseless and vacuous, but cute.

Cute. Baseless and vacuous, but cute.


Thank you, coming from you I take it as a compliment. I designed that statement just to lure you out of hiding.

Lets assume, for the sake of arguement, everything we've been told about the theory of evolution is true. The probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences, unguided by any intelligence is so infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other branch of science or math.

How would you know? Such values are incalculable.

They start with the unproven assumption that miracles cannot happen and based on that presupposition (not anything observable) may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning.

I'd say its inductive reasoning. We have observed absolutely no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, absolutely no evidence suggesting the ability of the supernatural to cause or shape events. From this we formulate the more general theory that there is no supernatural.

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable .

oh is that it? i can do that before lunch.

science will never disprove god. maybe they can disprove some tidbits about whether there was a flood or something, but religion will just adapt to any new informantion and create some sort of spin or story. do you really think that thosands of pious believers will just drop something they hold so dearly based on what science says?


and are we talking about God in the general sense or the christain version?

Spacemanspiff regarding a presentation proving the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable.
oh is that it? i can do that before lunch.

Better hurry, you have a lot of information to present.

do you really think that thosands of pious believers will just drop something they hold so dearly based on what science says?

What does science say?

and are we talking about God in the general sense or the christain version?

Actually, we were talking about science being able to prove that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. Why are you asking so many damn questions if you claim you can spit out the answer before lunch, I'm starving over here.

Voodoo Child regarding probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences:
How would you know? Such values are incalculable.

Try Bayes Theorem, even someone as clueless as myself could figure it out.

I'd say its inductive reasoning. We have observed absolutely no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, absolutely no evidence suggesting the ability of the supernatural to cause or shape events. From this we formulate the more general theory that there is no supernatural.

We haven't observed any blackholes either, should we rule them out too?

Jenyar:

I would have thought it to be a very obvious statement that we don't know everything right now. Similarly, it seems to me to be quite obvious that there are some things we don't know now but which we will know some time in the future.

Take the weather three weeks from now. None of our current climate models can accurately predict the weather that far in advance, but we will nevertheless know exactly what that weather will be in exactly three weeks time. More to the point, as our computational power and climate modeling improves, we will most likely gain the ability to predict the weather 3 weeks in advance at some stage in the future.

So, what will the weather be like in three weeks - I don't know - yet. That is a perfectly reasonable response, given my current knowledge.

So, maybe God knows right now what the weather will be like in 3 weeks time. He's omniscient, right? How does that help me, a lowly human being? Answer: not at all. God won't tell me the answer. I have to either wait and see, or develop methods to find out for myself.

The same thing applies to the start of the universe, which led to this conversation in the first place. Did the universe come from something or nothing? Suppose there is a God, and he knows the answer. That doesn't help me in the slightest. The best I can do is to refine my scientific models of the early universe until I can find the answer for myself.

The bottom line is: unless you have a direct line to this God of yours, you're in the same position as the Godless. You must search for answers to practical questions yourself. It's irrelevant that God knows everything if he doesn't tell you everything.

Now, to your post...

<i>what gives you hope, or indication, of ever knowing? The advancement of science? And when you are convinced either way, whether the universe was created out of nothing, or out of something, what will you know?</i>

Yes, the advancement of science does give me hope. Science has shone a candle through the darkness in a way that religion has never done. The practical knowledge we have from science far outweighs anything religion has provided.

<i>You say: at least I do not propose to have all the answers. Why has ignorance such a precious commodity? You don't propose to have any answers because you are growing up in a post-modern, relativistic society where it is simply non-PC to claim anything.</i>

This is a straw man. I have never claimed that we cannot know anything, or that we don't have <b>any</b> answers. We have lots of answers - just not <b>all</b> the answers.

<i>Aside from what you perceive, there is no reality, right?</i>

That's a philosophical argument. Actually, whilst I appreciate both sides of this one, I tend to come down on the side of the realists, but that is neither here nor there.

<i>It's OK to believe.</i>

Is it ok to believe anything you like, or just some things? Because if I can believe anything I like, that's just another form of extreme relativism. I can believe in my purple dragon Herbert, who lives in my garage. Why is your belief in your God more justified than my belief in Herbert?

I argue that it is ok to believe <b>provided that belief is well-founded</b>. By well-founded, I mean there should be objective evidence which supports the belief.

<i>Science cannot afford such certainty, because to science, certainty is death. You can't say "you cannot know", because that defies the purpose of science. You can't say "you know" because you aren't permitted. Therefore all you have is "not yet".</i>

Wrong. Many things are as certain as they can be in science. It is a practical certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, at the time predicted by science. There probably are certain things which cannot be known in a scientific way, and many scientists who have thought about such things would agree with this.

<i>God does not exist simply to answer all our petty questions and fill the gaps in our knowledge. That is the atheist god, the god of science - the One Who Fills All Gaps - not Christ, who reconciled us with God, and definitely not his and my Father.</i>

So, you agree that God can't help answer our questions, then, and we're on our own. Well, that clears that up.

Bridge:

You seem confused about induction and deduction and the difference between the two. Would you like me to explain it to you? I don't want to waste my time if you're not interested.

Bridge, all knowledge is probably not quantifiable(what do you mean by that? If you mean impossible for our human brains to understand than I agree with you) but some things are known, and from those things we can gather that the bible was a bunch of beloney.
All you need is a little more knowledge about the planet. Having us type derogatory things at you probably won't sway your beliefs.
I seriously think that learning about animals is the best indication of exactly how wrong the bible was. How wrong the very concept of organised religion is.
If you can read the book "the trials of life" by sir david attenborough and still believe the bible than I will have to hand it to you.
That book is what made me suspicious of christianity when I was 10 and I still have it today and think of it as my bible.
:)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
"
But again there is no precedent for something intelligent creating/designing something complex. Everything evolves, even computers evolve. Man is the only being we know that is intelligent. Everything man has created/designed has been based on previous simpler discoveries. If a higher form (man) could create something complex (say a modern computer) then cavemen should have been able to create a modern computer. They didn’t because the evolutionary steps that have led to the modern computer had not occurred.

All evidence indicates that everything that exists has evolved, i.e. there is no precedent that would validate the hypothesis for a God creator.
"
Computers "evolving" and the theory of evolution are incredibly different things. People had ideas, tried different things, and created them. Your argument is completely invalid unless you are arguing for a God who created us in different ways to see what worked.

Boygenius,

Computers "evolving" and the theory of evolution are incredibly different things. Why?

People had ideas, tried different things, and created them.Are you sure? Could an ancient caveman conceive the idea of a modern computer and then create it? People work with things they know and can manipulate and then transform them very slightly into improvements or something else. People aren’t creators they are catalysts causing existing objects to combine, interact and evolve. People are just a part of nature as everything else. We just happen to interact with the rest of nature by using our intelligence.

Your argument is completely invalid unless you are arguing for a God who created us in different ways to see what worked.The Christian story is that God created us intact as we are now. I believe there is no precedent for anything completely new and complex ever having been designed and created. Everything we know and experience are the result of a long preceding set of adaptations, improvements, and adjustments.

We are, truly, caught in the Matrix. Have you ever wondered why the movie had so many Christian imagery? How was Neo resurrected from death? By Trinity's love.

==========

Jenyar, you responce about science being the "counter-enlightenment" was well-spoken.
Satan is the "god of this evil age"
And science is a tool in his hand to deceive men.
The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"
By this they "lean to their own understanding" and try to reason against God, because Satan is the prince of the power of the air, for a short time yet, and he has access to the human mind.
The spirit of man is fallen scince Adam, at emnity with God.


The Matrix....yes,
It could be used as a training manual for the sons of God.
The "types" are all through that movie, if you know what to look for.

What's he doing...?
He's starting to believe........Yes!

Science is the devil? :p
Do you know what science is? It wasn't designed to debunk christianity, that just naturally happened, science figures out how and why things are. It turns out the truth is nothing like the bible would have had us believe. Thats a real bummer(for some) but thats the way it is. Deal with it.

Science is nothing. It is human observation. It is an empirical tool. Is electricity good or bad? Depends on how you use it. Are people good or bad? Depends on how they apply themselves.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Science is nothing. It is human observation. It is an empirical tool. Is electricity good or bad? Depends on how you use it. Are people good or bad? Depends on how they apply themselves.For those answers you need to look to philosophy, not science. You're asking the wrong questions of science if you are asking it to assign value.

I notice that you claim science is nothing yet you seem to be enjoying at least part of what it has to offer. I'm just wondering if your computer is in a cave and you snack on raw nuts and berries in the buff or do you, in fact, enjoy innumerable benefits from science (like cooked food, clothing, a house, air conditioning, etc.)

Do I call you hypocrite or were you perhaps mistaken or overstating the case?

~Raithere

Bridge: You seem confused about induction and deduction and the difference between the two. Would you like me to explain it to you? I don't want to waste my time if you're not interested.

What I'd really like for you to do is elucidate where I confused the two, maybe post a quote or two of mine for examples and then you can explain away.

Note that your story is not describing a scientist but perhaps an uninformed philosopher. I.e. you seem to be trying to discredit science by inaccurately portraying scientists.

Darling Cris, you may want to read this very timely article (4/22/03) about a gent named Professor Colin Humphreys (Cambridge University's Goldsmith's Professor of Materials Science)... he actually proves my point to a "T".

Enjoy! :D I know I did!!!!:p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/2967039.stm

Bridge:

Ok. Here's why I think you're confused. You asked Cris:

"Would it be an inductive or deductive assertion for me to say all evidence indicates that everything that exists has been designed?"

and

"Is it an inductive or deductive claim when science takes apart the DNA molecule, studies it, makes models of the double helix, translates the coded language contained within it and claims it somehow evolved?"

and when Cris said "Everything evolves, even computers evolve" you asked:

"Was that an inductive or deductive claim?"

Now, it seems to me that if you actually understood what induction and deduction were, then you would realise that none of these claims are either inductive or deductive in themselves. Rather, they are conclusions which might result from inductive or deductive reasoning, or a combination of both.

No <b>claim</b> is inductive or inductive. An <b>argument</b> for a particular conclusion can be based on induction or deduction. Induction and deduction refer to particular methods of reasoning, not to claims.

Would you like some examples?

Dr. Lou Natic said:
Science is the devil? :p

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

I never said that, you did.......

But it is the result of man's choise to "lean upon his own understanding" instead of trust in God, from the beginning.

Satan is more intelligent than man.
He will control mankind if they try to use reason.....

Thats why The word of God tells us to "cast down reasonings or affections or anything that exalts itself against the word of god

Even Jesus Christ Himself, did not defeat the devil by the powers of His own human reasoning..
He defeated the devil at his every move, with the Word of God.
He said: it is written....ect..

Because of man's desision to follow Satan's lead given to Eve, and choose unbeleif in God's Word, accepting the devil's lie....,
Man will gain power from the tree of good and evil, but lack the character that only comes from God to control such power.
Power without character is Satanic.
This is why our world was foretold being "destroyed" by fire..
God doesn't destroy the world, man does.

TheVisitor,

Satan is more intelligent than man. He will control mankind if they try to use reason.....

Thats why The word of God tells us to "cast down reasonings or affections or anything that exalts itself against the word of god



Ok finnally understand why you never make any sense, you don't try and use reason.

Only kidding :D

Seriously how are we supposed to understand religion and even the world around us if we don't use reason?

Seriously how are we supposed to understand religion and even the world around us if we don't use reason

===========

Revelation.
Revelation is given directly to the soul of a born again christian.
First you must believe Jesus Christ died for you and rose again.
Then get baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the nameless titles the churches use.
And then you shall receive the promise of the Holy Ghost...

Then you are born "a spirit babe".....in the kingdom of God.
Like any baby, you have to start with milk, the simplier things to "digest"
You must be born again to "see" or "understand" the kingdom of God.
God teaches His children from His Word through types and shadows....and uses an vindicated five-fold ministry of God called men...prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, and evangelists.
He has a provided place of worship....and correction to learn truth and understanding.
Thats the place He put His name, in Jesus Christ, the Word of God.
Not some creed or tradition, mixing mans words with God's.
This makes the Word of none-effect.

Learn how to crawl, walk, stand, and have your spiritual senses exercised in the disernment of good from evil.
You must put on the whole armor of God.
Your new spirit creation is Christ in you...the hope of glory.

This soul man is fed from the Word of God and grows in strength and power.
Also in revelation....by this you will come to know "all things"
Jesus said my Words are meat indeed....
Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you will have no life in you;.

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter.
He said "who do men say I the son of man am..?
Peter answered: some say elias, jerimiah, or one of the prophets.
Jesus said: who do you say that I am...?
peter said: "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Then Jesus said: "Flesh and blood has not REVEALED this to you...but my Father in heaven has REVEALED it."
On this "Rock" (meaning revelation) I will build my church (or actually "the called out ones"), and the gates of hell (the false worldly churches who use mens words and reasoning, the so-called "christian" denominations...) will not prevail against it.
Read Revelations 18:1-4
The Son of Man is being revealed today, and is calling out from these Himself a bride.
Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived to His day....and he did not get this wisdom from his own human reasoning, but from the Spirit of God, and the disernment of "all things" It brings....
The "christian" examples you have known in this "age" are religions that have "mixed" the Word of God with their own creeds and dogmas, making the Word of none-effect.

This is a fresh move of God, the visitation promised in the scriptures for this day, that said: "when He puts forth another "branch" it will be just like the first one,.. Jesus Christ Himself"...
When He comes the scriptures said, we shall be like Him.
We are brought up into His image in the stature of a perfect man.
God, chose the "foolishness" of preaching, that by the "foolish" things of this world, He might confound the "wisdom" of the wise....


" For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.



They that are led by the Spirit of God, they shall be called the Sons of God.

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable .

I don't understand this statement. What is 'all true knowledge'?

Originally posted by Raithere
For those answers you need to look to philosophy, not science. You're asking the wrong questions of science if you are asking it to assign value.

I notice that you claim science is nothing yet you seem to be enjoying at least part of what it has to offer. I'm just wondering if your computer is in a cave and you snack on raw nuts and berries in the buff or do you, in fact, enjoy innumerable benefits from science (like cooked food, clothing, a house, air conditioning, etc.)

Do I call you hypocrite or were you perhaps mistaken or overstating the case?

Sorry for not making myself clear. Those were rhethorical questions demonstrating the fallacy of asking science questions. If it were ever possible to answer a rhethorical question, you did: that is the realm of philosophy (which is what we're doing here - we're philosophizing about science).

Is my computer the product of science? No. It is the product of (very rich) people who applied what we learned from science. I did not see science get out of bed at 5am to drive to the factory. Science is observation and implementation - a tool.

God is concerned with our lives as people, not our enterprises and advances in science. Let me put it another way: Trying to prove God from the perspective of empirical science alone, is like trying to hit Him while swinging a stick with your eyes closed, and then saying that He does not exist because you struck only air.

the false worldly churches who use mens words and reasoning, the so-called "christian" denominations...
So you are not a Christian? Or are you the only "true" Christian? I smell a rat...


The "christian" examples you have known in this "age" are religions that have "mixed" the Word of God with their own creeds and dogmas, making the Word of none-effect.
As you have demonstrated yourself above.

What would you like us Christians to do, theVisitor? You have preached fire and brimstone to Christian and non-Christian alike since you got here, and have provided no resolution - except certain non-biblical interpretations - the very thing Christians are criticized for.

I think it is time you provide a step-by-step plan of salvation for us (and please point out how this differs from the church). No doubt there are hypocrites and false prophets out there, but even a prophet pointing out false prophets could be false, don't you agree?

The one who can point out the most falseness isn't necessarily also the most right.

Jenyar said
What would you like us Christians to do, theVisitor? You have preached fire and brimstone to Christian and non-Christian alike since you got here, and have provided no resolution - except certain non-biblical interpretations - the very thing Christians are criticized for.

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

Im sorry if I've offended your denominational beliefs, but the Word of God is clear on the subject.....And if your offended, it is by the Word of God I speak.
Does the Words of Jesus Christ offend you...?

You said I've offered only non-biblical interpretaions.....
They are only that to you, because you are unfamiliar with the revealed Word of God...
Jesus Christ has come and made His Word clear to His bride in this day.

Everything I've said is in the bible.
Christ comes with the little book open in this day, not to add to or take away, but to REVEAL that which was there all along which was sealed,
To be revealed to the Sons of God, to destroy the works of the enemy.
It is the glory of God revealed in us...The true sayings of God.
When the day star arise in your heart.....
This is the rising of the sun..Now today
Your cold, dead, denominations cannot keep His people in the grave. Or His words from coming to life.
When he comes, and He has...we shall be like Him.
The denominations of the anti-Christ have blinded the eyes of men to the Word and rendered their false interprtations of the scriptures in every age.

The denomination of the anti-Christ have blinded the eyes of men to the Word and rendered their false interprtations of the scriptures in every age.

Agreed. So maybe you should get out of it while you can still think for yourself. Because I assure you that

neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate me from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus my Lord.

You ask for a step - by - step plan of salvation, that "differs" from that of the church.
================

The two spirits in the last days, are so close it would deceive the very elect, if it were possible.
Thats why you must have revelation from God to know the difference.
Revelation is given directly to the soul of a born again christian.
First you must believe Jesus Christ died for you and rose again.
Then get baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the nameless titles the churches use.
And then you shall receive the promise of the Holy Ghost...

Then you are born "a spirit babe".....in the kingdom of God.
Like any baby, you have to start with milk, the simplier things to "digest"
You must be born again to "see" or "understand" the kingdom of God.
God teaches His children from His Word through types and shadows....and uses an vindicated five-fold ministry of God called men...prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, and evangelists.
He has a provided place of worship....and correction to learn truth and understanding.
Thats the place He put His name, in Jesus Christ, the Word of God.
Not some creed or tradition, mixing mans words with God's.
This makes the Word of none-effect.

Learn how to crawl, walk, stand, and have your spiritual senses exercised in the disernment of good from evil.
You must put on the whole armor of God.
Your new spirit creation is Christ in you...the hope of glory.

This soul man is fed from the Word of God and grows in strength and power.
Also in revelation....by this you will come to know "all things"
Jesus said my Words are meat indeed....
Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you will have no life in you;.

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter.
He said "who do men say I the son of man am..?
Peter answered: some say elias, jerimiah, or one of the prophets.
Jesus said: who do you say that I am...?
peter said: "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Then Jesus said: "Flesh and blood has not REVEALED this to you...but my Father in heaven has REVEALED it."
On this "Rock" (meaning revelation) I will build my church (or actually "the called out ones"), and the gates of hell (the false worldly churches who use mens words and reasoning, the so-called "christian" denominations...) will not prevail against it.
Read Revelations 18:1-4
The Son of Man is being revealed today, and is calling out from these Himself a bride.
Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived to His day....and he did not get this wisdom from his own human reasoning, but from the Spirit of God, and the disernment of "all things" It brings....
The "christian" examples you have known in this "age" are religions that have "mixed" the Word of God with their own creeds and dogmas, making the Word of none-effect.

This is a fresh move of God, the visitation promised in the scriptures for this day, that said: "when He puts forth another "branch" it will be just like the first one,.. Jesus Christ Himself"...
When He comes the scriptures said, we shall be like Him.
We are brought up into His image in the stature of a perfect man.
God, chose the "foolishness" of preaching, that by the "foolish" things of this world, He might confound the "wisdom" of the wise....


" For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


God's provided place of worship is where He chose to put His name...Jesus Christ.
And He is The Word of God...I will lead no one to a certain church, but God has the truth here for those who are looking, he always has had a small group to speak the words of life.
Life is passed through the body, the Body of Jesus Christ....
They that are led by the Spirit of God, they shall be called the Sons of God.

Originally posted by Bridge
The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable .


quantification is not an essential characteristic of science

and the function of science is not to give meaning to life. Science could influence the outlook on life, which could influence the meaning an individual would give to life. But not always.

The reason I asked whether it was inductive or deductive is because atheists have different approaches to ideas than theists. Take for example Cris' approach and attitude towards a scientist who attempts to explain biblical miracles. In reference to my claim that this is a "disguised" form of deuctive reasoning she totally fell in head first.

Note that your story is not describing a scientist but perhaps an uninformed philosopher. I.e. you seem to be trying to discredit science by inaccurately portraying scientists.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and based on that presupposition (not anything observable)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But if it not observable then only hypothesis or theory is possible.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to a real scientist.

Then I proceeded to show her an article in which A REAL SCIENTIST did EXACTLY what I said he would do!!!

So you tell me I don't understand the difference between inductive and deductive claims? How about you lecture Cris?

Voodoo Child regarding probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences:


Try Bayes Theorem, even someone as clueless as myself could figure it out.



Good idea! If, that is, you know all forms life can take, you know all possible methods of construction for these forms and can assign them meaningful probabilities. You can only use Bayes' once you define the events(and other stuff, as well).


We haven't observed any blackholes either, should we rule them out too? [/B]

No, we have observed substantial evidence for blackholes. I didn't say we had to observe anything directly. Further, blackholes don't violate the fundamental laws of the universe and spit in the face of Ockham.

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable

It occurs to me that science only conflicts with religion when religion makes statements that can be tested or investigated scientifically. All science would have to do to win this debate is show that empirical knowledge of the world is best determined by naturalistic investigation.

We have an illusion of unlimited information and accessibility, yet it has desensitized us to such a degree that we can't recognize any truth anymore. We are, truly, caught in the Matrix. Have you ever wondered why the movie had so many Christian imagery? How was Neo resurrected from death? By Trinity's love.

Can't lose something you never had. Neo didn't lose the truth, he found out that he never had it. The real question is whether Zion is real or whether the Matrix is actually real.

The real question is whether Zion is real or whether the Matrix is actually real.

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

Zion is real......It is the Bride of Christ.
The many membered body of believers that make up His elect.
They are "the city".
Christ dwells there with them on the throne of their hearts.
The kingdom of heaven is in you.

Originally posted by Jenyar


You say: at least I do not propose to have all the answers. Why has ignorance such a precious commodity? You don't propose to have any answers because you are growing up in a post-modern, relativistic society where it is simply non-PC to claim anything. I call it the 'counter-enlightenment': What we have gained through reason, we are losing by reason.



Jenyar, what exactly do you hope to accomplish with this? You'er barking up the wrong tree. I know exactly what sort of mentality you're trying to describe her, as Ayn rand put it those who claim that man can not have knowledge, while at the same time completely ignorant of the fact that they have just professed knowledge. This is not at all what James R is doing, though.

He is saying that for something to be known we have to have enough evidence to draw a conclusion on it. On matters such as the begining of the universe, guess what, there just isn't enough evidence of anything that we can yet measure or observe which can possably lead us to any sort of relyable conclusion. There is a lot of wisdom in being able to say that you just don't have enough information to make a judgement. Man CAN know anything if he has enough information to work with, because all events have causes and all causes have effects, and all are observable in one way or another, as such we can conseiveably know anything so long as we can find out it's cause, or observe enough about the effect. Without either of those things we just have to throw up our arms and, for the time being, say that we don't know, and that's all James R is doing.

If you think that mankind should, for some reason, have the answer to every single question in existance right now at this very moment, then you're going to be pretty dissapointed, the world is a big and complicated place, and though we're doing a pretty good job of it, we still have a lot of learning to do.

Originally posted by Jenyar
God is the elusive knowledge. Why does all wisdom come from God? Because only He "knows". What we know is what we see and experience. The first Christians saw and experienced the fulfilment of Jewish scripture and the resurrection of Jesus. That has become my history and my future. Instead of "not yet", all I can say is "already". It has already been made known, and therefore I know. The only "not yet" is what has not yet happened, not what I do not yet know.


This is belief without knowledge, a condition known as faith. It's a disease of the mind, but it's treatable, all you have to do is understand critical thinking, and understand how man gains knowledge. I'll give you a hit, it's not through god, and even the most dementedly religious devout will have to admit that if he has any hold left on his sanity.

Mystech - let me correct you: faith is belief based on knowledge that you reject. Subtle difference.

I know how people gain knowledge. I have seen my share of children growing up. And I have seen a kid learn more about life from Faerie Tales and mythology than from test tubes. Does that make the knowledge they gained unsubstantiated dribble? What if they start to apply it - hard work, honesty, trustworthiness, love. Useless knowledge, is it?

Yes, you don't need the Bible or any religion to teach you those ethics. Which just shows you how valid they are.

A child who knows what love is, IMO, is far wiser - and sane - than a brilliant critical mind who doesn't.

Well said Jenyar.
I agree

we have observed substantial evidence for blackholes. I didn't say we had to observe anything directly.

That's the approach many of us theists use. We haven't seen God directly but we have observed substantial evidence for Him.

Originally posted by Cris
Boygenius,

Why?


Are you sure? Could an ancient caveman conceive the idea of a modern computer and then create it? People work with things they know and can manipulate and then transform them very slightly into improvements or something else. People aren’t creators they are catalysts causing existing objects to combine, interact and evolve. People are just a part of nature as everything else. We just happen to interact with the rest of nature by using our intelligence.

Computers would not be quite advanced as they are today if rather than having people create them, they just didn't exist until all the wires just happen to fall into the right order. Your comparison of animals getting new systems and organs without an intelligence behind it to the growth of computers, who have intelligent creators, is illogical. And no, people a few thousand years ago could not think of the ideas necessary for a modern computer. And did they have modern computers back then? No. Computers begin and 'evolve' because there are people making them and thinking of new ideas. Why should we believe that animals just randomly suddenly have a new bodily system or organ, rather than something set them up this way? Computers only 'evolve' because there are people that think of new ideas for them and create them. Even computers weren't around until someone thought of them and made them.



The Christian story is that God created us intact as we are now. I believe there is no precedent for anything completely new and complex ever having been designed and created. Everything we know and experience are the result of a long preceding set of adaptations, improvements, and adjustments.

Sounds to me like you start off with the assumption that the universe came from absolutely nothing, but it is possible for things to 'slightly evolve.' What would be more unbelievable: someone telling you they walked into a room and found a computer, or someone telling you they walked into a room, and a piece of the ceiling fell off, and part of the table cracked off, and the wind blew, and it happened to make a computer?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Mystech - let me correct you: faith is belief based on knowledge that you reject.

Just so we're on the same page, what knowledge would that be, exactly? If you're talking about anything in the bible, you sure as hell can't KNOW that anything in there is true, and though certain locations and people may have existed, there's not a damned scrap of evidence that any of the events happend even remotely as described, and in fact there is good evidence wich runs quite to the contrary.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Those were rhethorical questions demonstrating the fallacy of asking science questions. If it were ever possible to answer a rhethorical question, you did: that is the realm of philosophy (which is what we're doing here - we're philosophizing about science).As I attempted to point out; it depends on the questions you're asking. Science is the best system we have for answering certain types of questions. For other questions, such as ethical values, science does not provide answers (although sometimes the knowledge it can provide can be a useful part of answering those questions).

Is my computer the product of science? No. It is the product of (very rich) people who applied what we learned from science. I did not see science get out of bed at 5am to drive to the factory. Science is observation and implementation - a tool.It depends upon how you view it. Strictly speaking, you are correct. Science manufactures no products except data and knowledge. However, without science technology would not exist, therefore things like your computer, your car, and the factory are the indirect products of science.

God is concerned with our lives as people, not our enterprises and advances in science. Let me put it another way: Trying to prove God from the perspective of empirical science alone, is like trying to hit Him while swinging a stick with your eyes closed, and then saying that He does not exist because you struck only air.It depends upon how God works. If God works through randomly distributed miracles or only through influencing people's actions, you are right; science will never be able to 'detect' him. However, if as some suggest, God's actions have reliable and measurable effect upon people or things then it should be quite easy to demonstrate a statistical effect. Thus far, the results are negative.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Jenyar
I know how people gain knowledge. I have seen my share of children growing up. And I have seen a kid learn more about life from Faerie Tales and mythology than from test tubes. Does that make the knowledge they gained unsubstantiated dribble? What if they start to apply it - hard work, honesty, trustworthiness, love. Useless knowledge, is it?

Yes, you don't need the Bible or any religion to teach you those ethics. Which just shows you how valid they are.
Useless? No. Not at all.
But it IS "Faerie Tales and mythology".

So, what your logic implies is that the Bible is not more factual or important than a children's Faerie Tale.
I agree 100%!!


Originally posted by Jenyar
A child who knows what love is, IMO, is far wiser - and sane - than a brilliant critical mind who doesn't.
Who is arguing that?
Have that child design the computer you are sitting in front of, however.
The Bible is just as valid as the next collection of parables designed to teach philosophy.
And just like all other colletcions of parables, it is not based on fact intended to spread "knowledge" but it is based in ideas intended to spread "wisdom".

There IS a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Do you agree?

Without wisdom, knowledge is worthless at best and destructive at worst.
Without knowledge, however, wisdom is worthless at best and destructive at worst.
The Bible (just as all other books of the type) does not share knowledge, rather wisdom.

Science, is the source of ALL knowledge.
The Bible is one source of wisdom.

Wisdom, by the way, is entirely subjective.
What you see as wise, I may see as naive and vice versa, and NO ONE can prove either standpoint using science.
Knowledge is objective.
Either it is true, or it is not.

Originally posted by Bridge
That's the approach many of us theists use. We haven't seen God directly but we have observed substantial evidence for Him.

For example?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bridge
That's the approach many of us theists use. We haven't seen God directly but we have observed substantial evidence for Him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For example?

The fine tuning in the universe.

In his book, The Cosmic Blueprint, Professor Paul Davies argues that:

This "...is to me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming." [p. 203]
Emeritus professor, Jay Roth says:

It is "the piling of coincidence on coincidence, everyone of which is vitally necessary for the development of a stable star with a planet that can support life. These physical properties of the universe lead me to favor a Designer or Creator..." [Cosmos..., p. 198]
Astronomer George Greenstein inquires:

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural ...Agency must be involved. Is it possible that... we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who... crafted the universe...?" [The Symbiotic Universe, p. 27]
Cosmologist Edward Harrison concludes:

"Here is the ... proof of the existence of God... The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of [God's] design..."
After reviewing Ross' book, The Creator and the Cosmos, Dr. Kyle M. Cudworth of Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago writes:

"Current research clearly indicates the universe was created with many characteristics fine-tuned for our life. ... the Creator implied by the scientific evidence is exactly consistent with the God revealed in the Bible."





http://www.evolutionoftruth.com/images/dilbsci2.gif

Holy shit! My hand is the same shape as this glove. My hand must have been designed for it. This is freakin' me out... omigod.. omigod.. omigod...