scigirl

Vander,

Yeah it would be better in bibl. crit. If you want to discuss this topic, please start a thread there.

I would rather hear your replies to my questions in various threads here.

Namely, what do you think of my latest post in the chromosome thread?

And what are your reasons for singling out evolutionary biology for being "dogmatic?"

scigirl

ksagnostic

1) Space does not equal "nothing". Space itself is something. True "nothingness" is essentially an incoherent concept.

2) So it applies to partical physics. So what? Vacuum fluctuations are still something, and the Big Bang is believed to have initiated originally on that scale, indeed on the Plank Scale.

What do you mean by "...as distance from your brain"? If you are still trying to argue that the mind is non-physical as if that is an established, agreed upon premise, please stop. And individual minds have beginnings. So what? Obviously, existence predated an individual mind, and will exist after the individual mind.

Gee, do you think people here aren't familiar with the Kalam Argument?

Basically, the argument is for an "uncaused" cause. In other words, there has always been something, which is what HRG is saying when referring to "the default state of reality"!

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Philosoft

Anytime.

<strong> And my experience with armchair psychologists has been that, despite claims to the contrary, they don't know jack squat about psychology. So my frustration with your arrogance is a manifestation of my anger at God. Is that it?

<strong> Why would you expect to notice his previous 'atheistic' anger when reading his reflections as a theist? Granted, I have basically the same amount of evidence that he was an 'angry atheist' but I'm of the opinion that it is nigh impossible to be a completely intellectually honest theist. By that, I mean as soon as one allows one's opinions of fact to be tainted by religious experiences, the ability to divorce feeling from knowing becomes extremely difficult. Armchair psychology, dontchaknow.

<strong> IMO, philosophical objections are worthless by themselves. That's why apologists are able to continue to ply their trade.

<strong> In The Case for Faith, Strobel describes an interview with Charles Templeton, former associate of the Rev. Billy Graham. Whether or not the interview proceeded as Strobel recalls it, it is clear he views Templeton as bitter and angry. In fact, this motif is pervasive throughout the book: the quasi-atheist need not be angry that God allows suffering; he need not be angry that God allows children to be killed, or that God allows people to suffer in hell, or that the church is responsible for a great deal of historical violence. Strobel leaves the various interviews feeling, not so much contemplative or convinced, but relieved that God isn't actually the evil guy Strobel thought he was.


Mods, apologies for the off-topic discussion. Please move as you see fit.

scigirl

I started a thread over at BC&A to discuss details on A Case for Christ, which you can find <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000543" target="_blank">here.</a>

Now, this thread can return to its original topic which is. . . . ?? (some philosophical thingee)

scigirl

ksagnostic

Good question. Something along the lines of "does the fact that you have biological parents detract from the idea that you are a creation of god?"

Really, a kind of odd question for this forum, but I think it flows from Geotheo's perception of Van's arguments on other threads.

Doubting Didymus

The reason I do this is because you are constantly and consistantly contradicting yourself. Anyone who cares to look through some of your previous threads will find more occasions where you say one thing, and go on to say something totally opposite just a few posts later.

I like to point these out because I personally find it amusing. Perhaps you are emulating biblical authorities?

I am hardly making a joke, van. I am only pointing out amusing slip ups.

Philosoft:
That is not what van was saying in those quotes. He takes pains to admit that he does not consider any hypothesis certain, and then makes a very certain statement that science will 'never never never' answer given question. He has contradicted himself quite badly.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

HRG

And particle physics is fundamental to all other disciplines of physics.
My mind is not distinct from my brain, and it is not a thing. It is a process running on it.

Of course, the non-existence of particular things does not mean that non-existence is the general default state.
I am familiar with it. I'm also familiar with the fact that it has been rebutted, and shown to be inconclusive.
My concern is also with #2.
"Default state" does not refer to an actual event or situation, but to our mental construct of what doesn't need an explanation.
Not at all. An infinite series of events happened last minute.

E1: My left finger was in a particular position 1 minute ago.
E2: My left finger was in a particular position 1/2 minute ago.
E3: My left finger was in a particular position 1/4 minute ago.
.....
.....
E_n: My left finger was in a particular position 1/2^(n-1) minutes ago.
....
....

An infinite series of events: QED. Note that there is a finite time interval between every two consecutive events.

You may declare it, but you did not support it at all - and I gave a counterexample to your claim.

Regards,
HRG.

Denis Lamoureux

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin Dorner:
[QB]

My auto mechanic does not blame the troubles with my car on the supernatural... should I complain he is "dogmatically mechanical?" Neither did my dentist pray over my cavity while applying a filling, yet it worked properly. Strange that this "dental dogmatism" could have any success.


HEY!
I really like this last sentence. I just retired from 23 years of practising dentistry. This point regarding "dental dogmatism" is a good one, and Xians should take note.

Dental disease is the most prevalent disease in humanity though in places like Canada and the US it is reasonably well controlled--thanks to science and working with naturalistic presuppositions.

Interestingly, in the middle ages a saint for dental pain was appointed (St Apolliana; sp?). But now with modern dentistry we never hear about anyone praying to her. For that matter, Xians, when is the last time you've been at a prayer service to heal someone's tooth pain?
A Xian gets tooth ache, he/she goes to a dentist and doesn't think twice about it.

So what's my point? Science indeed has put St. Apolliana out of business. History clearly reveals that science erodes religion--specifically supernatural activity.

But, and yes, here's the 'but', does this mean we can extend this historical trend to eliminate all divine activity, and maybe even God's existence? If you say 'yes', I have to raise concern regarding the extrapolation of this trend to such an extent.

As I see it, science certainly has cleaned up a lot of divine interventionism (eg dramatic supernatural action like moving planets to account for retrograde motion). But at the same time, science has given us greater and more amazing pictures of nature's complexity & elegance . . . possibly offering a natural revelation.

Could it be that science is indeed a handmaiden (sorry to the feminists this is a historical notion & language)to theology? If this is the case, then science informs us of how God works through ordained and sustained natural laws. Naturalism is deeply rooted in the Author of Nature.

Denis
DDS retired


was