Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The omniscience of god?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 46 of 70 (531573)
10-18-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jaywill
10-18-2009 4:48 PM


Re: a few glitches
The Atheist has a need to convince herself that any supposed God has no need to exist or do anything.
I disagree. The Atheist simply rejects the idea of a mystical, supernatural entity. I don't have to convince myself because I see no evidence to indicate there is such an entity. If could show evidence of such then I might question my rejection of the concept.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 10-18-2009 4:48 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 10-19-2009 7:58 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 47 of 70 (531639)
10-19-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluescat48
10-18-2009 7:41 PM


Re: a few glitches
I disagree. The Atheist simply rejects the idea of a mystical, supernatural entity. I don't have to convince myself because I see no evidence to indicate there is such an entity. If could show evidence of such then I might question my rejection of the concept.
I don't think you are being completely honest with your own self here.
Rather than just reject the idea of a mystical supernatural entity, you reinforce your rejection with a challenge to the theist to show complete consistancy with some doctrine of divine omniscience.
Hoping to expose logical inconistancies with taking an idea to the Nth degree accomplished for you (or so you think) justifying belief in God is unjustified.
Anyway, not everyone thinks no evidence for a supernatural source of the universe exists.
For instance, the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and former director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory, Robert Jastrow, an astrophysicist, himself being a confessed agnostic wrote this about the Big Bang Theory:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover .... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
Expected Pushbacks:
"Oh that quote is too old."
"Oh, Jastrow is not qualified."
"He didn't say that."
"He's a pro crypto Fundamentalist."
"Yea, But that is not your Christian God of the Bible."
etc. etc.
The quote is reminscient of Einstien's contemporary Arthur Eddington who though considered the idea of evoking the supernatural "repugnant" also admited:
"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
This is off the topic. But I submit reasonable evidence for a Creator God is the very existence of the universe. A agnostic astrophysicist, Robert Jastrow, seems to at least agree "supernatural forces" have been proven to have operated if anyone is frank enough to admit that that is where the evidence points.
On evidence for God, if you disagree you and I might go elsewhere on the Forum and we could kick around the question "Why is there something rather than nothing ? "
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2009 7:41 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 10-19-2009 9:29 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 51 by Drosophilla, posted 10-19-2009 5:28 PM jaywill has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 70 (531644)
10-19-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blzebub
10-14-2009 6:40 PM


Re: a few glitches
Blzebub writes:
Rather than try to reconcile the innumerable and often ridiculous contradictions in the bible, wouldn't it be easier to accept that different parts of it were written by different people who had different ideas from one another at different times?
We could accept that, yes. Personally, I prefer dealing with these types of questions on a hypothetical philosophical level rather than a Bible Study. But that would run us off topic, so I digress.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 6:40 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 49 of 70 (531657)
10-19-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jaywill
10-19-2009 7:58 AM


Re: a few glitches
I don't think you are being completely honest with your own self here.
Rather than just reject the idea of a mystical supernatural entity, you reinforce your rejection with a challenge to the theist to show complete consistancy with some doctrine of divine omniscience.
Hoping to expose logical inconistancies with taking an idea to the Nth degree accomplished for you (or so you think) justifying belief in God is unjustified.
The point I am making is not that the supernatural idea is wrong, but this supernatural entity is given every human quality, good & bad.
The point I am making is that there is no evidence that a supernatural "being" exists. Given a supernatural force could explain the situation, but gods are not stated as forces, but as thinking, acting beings that happen to be above life and above the forces with control the universe. Look at the concept itself. When did man start believing in gods? When he couldn't explain the existance of something, like the sun, moon, rain, the seasons, animals etc.
He invented the anthropomorphic being or beings, giving them human, with superhuman qualities. That is the concept I reject. That is the concept that there is no evidence of.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 10-19-2009 7:58 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 50 of 70 (531751)
10-19-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jaywill
10-18-2009 4:48 PM


Re: a few glitches
The Atheist has a need to convince herself that any supposed God has no need to exist or do anything.
This atheist has no such need. There are many other preposterous possibilities which fall into the same category as the existence of a god. Invisible pink unicorns, etc.
It is not surprising that some sinners would seek refuge in this kind of philosophy. Some of us rather look to God's salvation and purpose to discover how He has made plans to reconcile sinners to Himself.
There's a phenomenon, in the UK at least, of convicted criminals who are serving long prison sentences suddenly converting to christianity, as if it was a good thing. The cynic in me is not impressed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 10-18-2009 4:48 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 51 of 70 (531766)
10-19-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jaywill
10-19-2009 7:58 AM


Re: a few glitches
Rather than just reject the idea of a mystical supernatural entity, you reinforce your rejection with a challenge to the theist to show complete consistancy with some doctrine of divine omniscience.
But if I told you I knew a pink unicorn was orbiting somewhere between Earth and Mars, and that it should be worshipped as a deity wouldn't you (reasonably) demand evidence of said creature? The burden of proof has to lie with the advocate of these statements not with those who are being preached upon.
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover .... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
I'm afraid all Dr. Jastrow's science background (of which he admittedly had plenty) does not mean he was immune to making rash statements. No scientist should ever make a statement that effectively says we will never discover something...egg on the face (even if posthumously) is a very real possibility.
For example in 1835 the celebrated French philosopher Auguste Comte said of the stars "We shall never be able to study, by any method, their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure".
Yet even before he had written down those words Franunhofer was using his spectroscope to do exactly that...determine the chemical composition of the sun via spectroscopy. We now routinely can analyse the chemical composition of stars so far away as would blow Comte's mind!
It's a rash scientist who nowadays dares to put hard limits on science knowledge and progress...and progress breeds progress. There have been more advances in scientific knowledge and technology in the past century than in the whole of human history added together before that...and still the speed is relentlessly increasing - we now use computers for their speed to push boundaries back faster and farther than ever before...never, say never!
Anyway, falling back on a personal statement (which is all Jastrow's comment can be)is known as the fallacy of 'Argument from Authority'....so and so says it must be right....so it must be right. Since when? Evidence please!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jaywill, posted 10-19-2009 7:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jaywill, posted 10-20-2009 9:48 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 52 of 70 (531869)
10-20-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Drosophilla
10-19-2009 5:28 PM


Re: a few glitches
But if I told you I knew a pink unicorn was orbiting somewhere between Earth and Mars, and that it should be worshipped as a deity wouldn't you (reasonably) demand evidence of said creature? The burden of proof has to lie with the advocate of these statements not with those who are being preached upon.
Hi. We are drifting from the topic, and I take responsibility for my contribution to that.
But, when I hear complaints like this, speghetti monters, unicorns, lepercons, for some reason they don't impress me too much. They come off as efforts to force absurdity upon a soberly and realistic, even historically founded rational belief , ie. that of God.
I think you should consider what William L. Craig discusses as this kind of a parody - The Flying Speghetti Monster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqBa8b5BIqU&feature=related
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover .... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
I'm afraid all Dr. Jastrow's science background (of which he admittedly had plenty) does not mean he was immune to making rash statements. No scientist should ever make a statement that effectively says we will never discover something...egg on the face (even if posthumously) is a very real possibility.
I agree that in the future knowledge is likely to encrease. But what is wrong with Jastrow speaking of his own contemporary time ?
And your own statement that "No scientist should ever" speak in this or that way is kind of self refuting. I think you are doing the same thing. I think acording to your own view you should allow the possibility that some last piece of knowledge will be scientifically obtained so that science is finished and they can speak in such an absolute way.
I think the argument is a bit self contradictory.
Anyway, speaking for his own generation, I don't think is necessarily perculiar to Jastrow as a scientist. He did put it this way "I or anyone else would call supernatural forces". He seems to be speaking of his contemporaries mainly.
For example in 1835 the celebrated French philosopher Auguste Comte said of the stars "We shall never be able to study, by any method, their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure".
I think the same could apply to scientists who hoot down Intelligent Design saying that it is not or never could be considered science? I think they get a little of this egg on the face too, say in the next 50 years? Or is that different ?
Yet even before he had written down those words Franunhofer was using his spectroscope to do exactly that...determine the chemical composition of the sun via spectroscopy. We now routinely can analyse the chemical composition of stars so far away as would blow Comte's mind!
I respect that.
It's a rash scientist who nowadays dares to put hard limits on science knowledge and progress...and progress breeds progress. There have been more advances in scientific knowledge and technology in the past century than in the whole of human history added together before that...and still the speed is relentlessly increasing - we now use computers for their speed to push boundaries back faster and farther than ever before...never, say never!
Do you think that offering competing theories in science curriculum then allows for the possibility of progress? Or do you feel that weaknesses with current science theories should be suppressed ? Do you feel that teaching ID (when no particular designer/Designer is postulated) as a competing theory to contemptorary biological theories is "anti - progress"?
About the progress of scientific knowledge -
I sometimes wondered if that is what the bible meant when Daniel the prophet is told that in the end times "knowledge will be encrease" -
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end; many will go here and there, and knowledge will be increased." (Dan. 12:4)
Anyway, falling back on a personal statement (which is all Jastrow's comment can be)is known as the fallacy of 'Argument from Authority'....so and so says it must be right....so it must be right. Since when? Evidence please!
Jastrow comment served very well to demostrate that a scientist sees evidence for supernatural (and I say God is a reasonable source of that supernatural power) forces at work, and thinks such a matter has been scientifically proven. At least in terms of his contemporaries, they should admit it.
And your challenge "Evidence please!" will most likely only be met by your own appeals to "argument from authority". Sure it will. You've probably got your authorities lined up already.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Drosophilla, posted 10-19-2009 5:28 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 12:04 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 56 by Drosophilla, posted 10-20-2009 6:12 PM jaywill has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 53 of 70 (531900)
10-20-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jaywill
10-20-2009 9:48 AM


Re: a few glitches
But, when I hear complaints like this, speghetti monters, unicorns, lepercons, for some reason they don't impress me too much. They come off as efforts to force absurdity upon a soberly and realistic, even historically founded rational belief , ie. that of God.
The whole point which you have somehow missed, is that belief in god is nowadays absurd and irrational. You might as well believe in the FSM as any god.
The historical basis for the god-belief is well-documented, but so is belief in a flat earth, the sun and stars orbiting the earth, dare I say it - the creation myth, and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jaywill, posted 10-20-2009 9:48 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jaywill, posted 10-20-2009 2:57 PM Blzebub has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 54 of 70 (531934)
10-20-2009 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blzebub
10-20-2009 12:04 PM


Re: a few glitches
The whole point which you have somehow missed, is that belief in god is nowadays absurd and irrational. You might as well believe in the FSM as any god.
This attitude of yours is the thrust of what some call "The New Atheism".
That is the argumemt that to believe in God, especially "nowdays," is obsolete. The popularized books by Dawkins and Hitchens that belief in God is outdated rationally are not good philosophical arguments according to some scholars for whom debate of this type is their life long discipline.
What is it about "nowadays" which makes my faith in Christ and God obsolete. Do you have some new rigorous mathematical formula the proves without a shadow of doubt the non-existence of God?
Christian philosopher Dr. William L. Craig critiques the central thesis to The God Delusion a stalewart popular book of the "New Atheism":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=related
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 12:04 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 3:40 PM jaywill has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 55 of 70 (531945)
10-20-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jaywill
10-20-2009 2:57 PM


Re: a few glitches
That is the argumemt that to believe in God, especially "nowdays," is obsolete. The popularized books by Dawkins and Hitchens that belief in God is outdated rationally are not good philosophical arguments according to some scholars for whom debate of this type is their life long discipline.
This looks a bit like "appeal to anonymous authority"!
What is it about "nowadays" which makes my faith in Christ and God obsolete. Do you have some new rigorous mathematical formula the proves without a shadow of doubt the non-existence of God?
Nowadays we know what causes earthquakes, floods, plagues of locusts, boils, etc. We no longer need to view these as supernatural events, as might have seemed logical in Bronze-Age times. You cannot prove a negative, but you can say "there is no evidence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jaywill, posted 10-20-2009 2:57 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jaywill, posted 10-20-2009 6:59 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 56 of 70 (531977)
10-20-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jaywill
10-20-2009 9:48 AM


Re: a few glitches
Jaywill replies to me:
But, when I hear complaints like this, speghetti monters, unicorns, lepercons, for some reason they don't impress me too much. They come off as efforts to force absurdity upon a soberly and realistic, even historically founded rational belief , ie. that of God.
...And that IS the whole point of the comparison - to make our statements about FSM et al seem as ludicrous to you as your God appears to us rational folk. We really do find your God idea as realistic as the FSM is to you.
I agree that in the future knowledge is likely to encrease. But what is wrong with Jastrow speaking of his own contemporary time?
Only that he spoke from unsupported fact - i.e. opinion. nothing wrong with that we all have opinions but ultimately without empirical evidence for a viewpoint (and on this he had none for there is none - you'd have to have a time machine that could extend into future's infinity to hold that opinion on future progress). But just because he was a scientist doesn't make him an all-knowing person...as I said the logical fallacy of 'Argument from Authority'.
And your own statement that "No scientist should ever" speak in this or that way is kind of self refuting. I think you are doing the same thing. I think acording to your own view you should allow the possibility that some last piece of knowledge will be scientifically obtained so that science is finished and they can speak in such an absolute way.
This is nonsense! Are you seriously unaware that NO science is ever ‘finished’? Science always finds the 'best fit' and continually reviews and amends as appropriate. That’s why Newton's laws which were taught for nearly 300 years were overturned by Einstein's equations. How was this possible if Newton was 'proved' and 'finished'? The answer is Newton's laws were never proved/finished - they offered a very good fit to the observable universe...so good that we could develop lifts, build rockets etc....but then Einstein improved the fit even further. Einstein is also not 'proved' and relativity is simply the next step in defining the universe in the best possible way - it is bound to be improved in time.
So you see you just cannot say something as complex as laws of the universe (or the Theory of Evolution)is defined and now there is no more science....no thinking scientist would go down that route in the name of science. When individuals like Dr Jastrow says what he did then it is personal human perspective coming out (often due to religious influence) and cannot be taken as science reporting.
I think the same could apply to scientists who hoot down Intelligent Design saying that it is not or never could be considered science? I think they get a little of this egg on the face too, say in the next 50 years? Or is that different ?
No...For the reason that I.D has absolutely NO scientific merit at all. Science requires observations, theory, mechanisms, predications, and must be falsifiable. I.D has NO mechanisms, there is NO working theory, it makes NO predications nor can it of any kind. In short it is 'Goddidit' dressed up in a clown’s suit.
No scientist worth his salt would give I.D the time of day - for it just isn't science (check up on Dr. Behe's annihilation at the Dover trial here
Dover becomes intelligent design’s Waterloo | Ars Technica
Do you think that offering competing theories in science curriculum then allows for the possibility of progress? Or do you feel that weaknesses with current science theories should be suppressed? Do you feel that teaching ID (when no particular designer/Designer is postulated) as a competing theory to contemptorary biological theories is "anti - progress"?
If you really knew how science worked you'd know that science encourages all competing theories, weak and otherwise, to be aired in the scientific public forum...but the theories have to have a base scientific value to get them off the starting block. I.D is not, as I said, a scientific theory with any workable parts to it - there is simply nothing there to do anything with...
And your challenge "Evidence please!" will most likely only be met by your own appeals to "argument from authority". Sure it will. You've probably got your authorities lined up already.
We don't need 'argument from authority' - our authority is EVIDENCE. You know - that which exists in the real world, that can be touched, seen, felt, measured, on which we can perform tests, experiments, theories, predications etc....at the end of the day reality trumps wanton imagination.
To return to our OP, why would anyone want to have anything to do with an entity who invents an eternal hell? The hate level implicit in that entity is frightening beyond imagination!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jaywill, posted 10-20-2009 9:48 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 AM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 60 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 9:31 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 57 of 70 (531987)
10-20-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Blzebub
10-20-2009 3:40 PM


Re: a few glitches
Nowadays we know what causes earthquakes, floods, plagues of locusts, boils, etc. We no longer need to view these as supernatural events, as might have seemed logical in Bronze-Age times. You cannot prove a negative, but you can say "there is no evidence".
I only need to know I am on the right track. I do not have to prove God's existence with mathematical rigor and exactitude. I witness what I believe as the Holy Spirit operating in my life and in other's, to conform us into the image of my Lord Jesus. And my New Testament tells me up front that it is written so that I may have faith.
Now this rationale you submit above seems to assume that the only reason people in the past believed in God was because of natural phenomenona like earthquakes, floods, plagues of locusts and boils.
And the Heavenly Father meets people where they are. You may have misunderstanding about natural phenomenon and still be in communion with God. A sense of the need for divine forgiveness, communion, fellowship is not dimenished because of greater understanding of the natural world.
The man who cheated on his wife may have been convicted to seek God's forgiveness regardless of whether he understood that the sun was the center of the solar system or that the earth was. Some things causing us to reach out to God are not effected by our knowledge of how natural world goes.
I also notice that moderns in one case boast of the rediscovery of ancient knowledge of remedies, medicines, disciplines which rival the faulty knowledge of modern medicine. Then in other cases they boast that because ancients knew so little of course they had only superstition.
I find New Age enthusiasts want it both ways. In antiquity they understood little and in antiquity they understood better than moderners certain things.
Which is it? They knew little so they believed in God? Or they were more sophisticated so we need to adopt ancient knowledge to advance civilization?
One gospel writer was a physician, Luke. Paul tells Timothy to take some wine for medical reasons. Paul did not just advize him to receive a prayer cloth to be healed though such miracles had occured, ie. items of clothing in contact with the Apostle's body were used to heal diseases. There is no indication that because of these miracles Paul was too unsophsticated to advize a sick Timothy to seek a medical solution.
Jesus informs the people of one town that they knew how to interpret the weather, so why should they not apply theit wits to interpret the moral climate of the times as well?
" But He answered and said to them, When evening falls, you say, There will be fair weather, for the sky is red; And in the morning, It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and gloomy. The face of the sky you know how to discern, but you cannot discern the signs of the times." (Matt. 16:2,3)
The skill of interpreting weather today is largely dependent on satellites. The people in Jesus's day did it by reading the sky so they were not as unsophisticated as you would like to generalize.
The Bible says that God hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). We could intepret this as God suspending the earth in space. The prophet did not say that the earth was on the backs of turtles.
Some language of the Bible is not unscientific. It is however pre-scientific or the language is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards. But then it could be argued that the modern expression "sunrise" or "sunset" could also be scientifically imprecise. One could argue that the expression is superstitious because the sun did not rise but the earth rotated.
Your generalization is not enough for me to assume that belief in God is obsolete "nowadays".
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 3:40 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 58 of 70 (532012)
10-20-2009 8:32 PM


Topic Drift
Please try to get back to the topic of the thread.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 59 of 70 (532096)
10-21-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Drosophilla
10-20-2009 6:12 PM


Re: a few glitches
Are you seriously unaware that NO science is ever ‘finished’? Science always finds the 'best fit' and continually reviews and amends as appropriate.
Which is all Jastrow did, speak of the best fit. Read the quote again. Notice the expression "Astronomers have now found that they have painted themselves into a corner ... etc.". The best fit for the moment. Ie. at the present time the evidence points here.
And it doesn't seem to occur to you that advancement of the knolwedge could concievably be further confirmation of his observation. Oh no! You seem to assume advancement has to be denial of it. Curious.
Well, drifting back to "The ominscience of god?"
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Drosophilla, posted 10-20-2009 6:12 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Drosophilla, posted 10-21-2009 5:08 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 60 of 70 (532098)
10-21-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Drosophilla
10-20-2009 6:12 PM


Re: a few glitches
To return to our OP, why would anyone want to have anything to do with an entity who invents an eternal hell? The hate level implicit in that entity is frightening beyond imagination!
Is this suppose to be more related to the OP?
This line in the discussion might go well over on the Forum where someone asked how could any saved person live with knowing loved ones had perished. I made a contribution.
And I can address this comment there if you wish. I think it is under Faith and Belief.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Drosophilla, posted 10-20-2009 6:12 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Drosophilla, posted 10-21-2009 5:10 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024