god, life + creation

Originally posted by Halitose
It do. It's either that or Scientific Magik (TM) [pre-biotic chemicals and the magic wand of random energy and time]. Neither have empirical (and scientific-method validated) proof.

So then we reasonably ask, why would God not have set things up for evolution to work. And in the end we are no better off at all. Drat your skepticism!

Originally posted by Halitose


Allow me to quote myself:

"As is quite obvious, empiricism [i.e. observation] is assumed in step (1) and (4) of this simplified version of the scientific method."

Obviously step (2) and (3) do not necessarily include observation, thus I didn't contend it to be the only ingredient of the scientific method.

Allow me to quote a line between you and twhitehead:

twhitehead - "Are you possibly saying that observation is not a source of knowledge ?"

You - "For science, it is the only source of empirical knowledge."

And on a side note..... what other kind of base could there be for the scientific method aside from that which is observed?
Observe - To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention - Which includes all of the senses.....Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling - if you cannot observe something with any of the senses....how is is a detectable thing to be used to further a theory or body of evidence?

---------------------------

That totally aside. I think what is getting me is that you are using the qualifier that you are a skeptic to refute scientific principle and theory, even where there are bodies of evidence to support the theory, yet you profess to be a YEC and Christian which is entirely based upon faith. There is no evidence to support your belief. There is just your faith in your belief.
You can accept something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, yet find difficulty in believing something for which there are several large bodies of evidence?

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Allow me to quote a line between you and twhitehead:

twhitehead - "Are you possibly saying that observation is not a source of knowledge ?"

You - "For science, it is the [b]only source of empirical knowledge."

And on a side note..... what other kind of base could there be for the scientific method aside from that which is observed?
[i] ...[text shortened]... yet find difficulty in believing something for which there are several large bodies of evidence?[/b]

[/i]And on a side note..... what other kind of base could there be for the scientific method aside from that which is observed?

Yes!!! You finally got my point - and re-stated it much more eloquently. Kudos.

I think what is getting me is that you... profess to be a YEC...

Na-ah. As stated on pg 1 or 2 of this thread, I was only taking the pi$$.

You can accept something for which there is no evidence whatsoever

Yes. There cannot be scientific evidence for God as the naturalistic/materialistic premises on which the scientific-method functions, rule out the possibility of the supernatural - hence you need to rely on philosophical arguments for/against the existence of such a Being.

Originally posted by Halitose
[/i][b]And on a side note..... what other kind of base could there be for the scientific method aside from that which is observed?

Yes!!! You finally got my point - and re-stated it much more eloquently. Kudos.

I think what is getting me is that you... profess to be a YEC...

Na-ah. As stated on pg 1 or 2 of this thread, I was only taki ...[text shortened]... l - hence you need to rely on philosophical arguments for/against the existence of such a Being.[/b]

Yes!!! You finally got my point - and re-stated it much more

Your point? This is something that was obvious to me long before now. You point, or so it seems, was that scientific method is not valid because observation is the only tool used.

If that is not your point, please clarify, because that is the way it reads (I went back and read the thread to make sure I did not miss something) - And I caught the pi$$ about YEC again 🙂

Yes. There cannot be scientific evidence for God as the naturalistic/materialistic premises on which the scientific-method functions, rule out the possibility of the supernatural - hence you need to rely on philosophical arguments for/against the existence of such a Being.

This is where your statement is flawed. There is evidence, based upon that which has been observed, for those things supernatural. I, with my own eyes, have witnessed a light switch turn off and back on again, with no one within 10 feet of it. In the same home, I also witnessed a humanish shape move from one side of a room to another at a slow, meandering speed (The room was about 25' across) The house was suspect of hauntings. There are millions of others that have observed, science that has recorded things that cannot be explained and that appear to be of a supernatural origin. Stating that God is supernatural is fine, but stating that scientific methid cannot prove he exists is wrong. Scientific method had been used to prove other supernatural phenomenon.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
[b]Yes!!! You finally got my point - and re-stated it much more

Your point? This is something that was obvious to me long before now. You point, or so it seems, was that scientific method is not valid because observation is the only tool used.

If that is not your point, please clarify, because that is the way it reads (I went back and read the ...[text shortened]... rove he exists is wrong. Scientific method had been used to prove other supernatural phenomenon.[/b]

Your point? This is something that was obvious to me long before now.

Well, of course I can't take the credit for something that already existed. I was just pointing out the philosophical ramifications to twhitehead.

You point, or so it seems, was that scientific method is not valid because observation is the only tool used.

Huh? I was pointing out the philosophical axioms and presuppositions of the method - this in no way invalidates it.

Scientific method had been used to prove other supernatural phenomenon.

Really? How could it? [Natural] Science deals with natural phenomenon - supernatural phenomenon are by definition incompatible with the scientific method.

Is your mobile ring-tone by any remote chance Ghostbusters? (Just a stab in the dark at your expense) 😉

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So then we reasonably ask, why would God not have set things up for evolution to work. And in the end we are no better off at all. Drat your skepticism!

Drat your skepticism!

😏 😵


Point taken.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Your point? This is something that was obvious to me long before now.

Well, of course I can't take the credit for something that already existed. I was just pointing out the philosophical ramifications to twhitehead.

You point, or so it seems, was that scientific method is not valid because observation is the only tool used.

Huh? I ...[text shortened]... mobile ring-tone by any remote chance Ghostbusters? (Just a stab in the dark at your expense) 😉[/b]

Really? How could it? [Natural] Science deals with natural phenomenon - supernatural phenomenon are by definition incompatible with the scientific method.

There are sciences that specifically deal with the supernatural - paranormal psychology, for example. Scientfic method has been stated here ad nauseum, so I wont define it again - Observation, not observation of things natural, is the core of it, and supernatural phenomenon can be observed. The other steps of scientific method try to hypothosize WHAT it could be, but the methodology is still scientific.

Ghostbusters...lol... All I can say about what I saw is that I know it happened, confirmed that someone else saw what I saw, and I cannot explain what I saw. It was a supernatural phenomenon and it was observed.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
[b]Really? How could it? [Natural] Science deals with natural phenomenon - supernatural phenomenon are by definition incompatible with the scientific method.

There are sciences that specifically deal with the supernatural - paranormal psychology, for example. Scientfic method has been stated here ad nauseum, so I wont define it again - Observatio ...[text shortened]... at I saw, and I cannot explain what I saw. It was a supernatural phenomenon and it was observed.[/b]

I think there may be a communications glitch with that word “supernatural” here. From Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:

su.per.nat.u•i-al . (soo/par nach/ar i)l, -nach'raJ)~ adj. 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainab1e by natura1 law or phenomena; abnormal 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, . pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts or other unearthly beings; eerie; occu1t. 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is outside the natural order. 6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings. 7. direct influence or action of a deity on earth1y affairs. 8. the supernatural. a. supernatura1 beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively. b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of- the supernatural. [1520-30; < ML supernaturalis. See SUPER-, NATURAL] -su/per-nat/ural-Iyo adv. -su/per-nat'u-ral-ness. n.
---:-Syn. 1. See miraculous. (my bold)

Now, if we mean “that which is outside the natural order,” then it would not be subject to perception (observation) by our senses which are part of the natural order. The term “supernatural theism” is often used in this sense—i.e. a God who is outside the created order. This is different from monistic philosophies, where the natural order is manifest of God (or Brahman, or the Tao, or Ein Sof, etc.); pantheistic philosophies in which God is simply the sum total of everything in the natural order; or panentheism, which is generally described as “God in everything and everything in God.” In these systems (at least the first two), there is really no need to talk about the supernatural at all with regard to the “ineffable ground of being.” In supernatural theism, there tends to be a greater emphasis on written revelation—e.g., “We can’t know God from nature, only through the revelation given by God in the inspired word.” In the other systems, there tends to be more emphasis on contemplation of nature, meditation, non-supernatural mystical experience of the ineffable ground, etc.

In speaking of things religious, I use the word supernatural as being strictly and radically outside the natural order. When I use the G-word (Hal, isn’t that your term?), unless I am referring to some other religious viewpoint than my own, I mean it monistically and non-supernaturally (e.g., the ein sof of Jewish mysticism). But I have realized recently that even that usage can be confusing (although it remains in some traditions).

Note: You’re not using the term supernatural incorrectly. I don’t think Hal is either. But I think he is using a more particular definition than you are.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think there may be a communications glitch with that word “supernatural” here. From Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:

su.per.nat.u•i-al . (soo/par nach/ar i)l, -nach'raJ)~ adj. 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainab1e by natura1 law or phenomena; abnormal 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or ...[text shortened]... n’t think Hal is either. But I think he is using a more particular definition than you are.

I agree - we are using the terms to contain different meanings.... However, by the definition you provide for supernatural - it is that which is outside the natural order.
Natural Order is defined as:
The natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. It encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another, in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce.
Natural Law is defined as:
A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

Given the above, it is not true that things supernatural cannot be observed. The light switch incident I witnessed, for example. There is no explanation for it that fits within nature, yet I observed the switch flip off and back on.

Funny about the definition of things. The meaning is explained, but the explanation of the meaning is interpreted differently by each that reads the definition. Being that the meaning of the explanation of a word can be interpreted differently by each that reads it, does anything actually have a true definition?

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Funny about the definition of things. The meaning is explained, but the explanation of the meaning is interpreted differently by each that reads the definition. Being that the meaning of the explanation of a word can be interpreted differently by each that reads it, does anything actually have a true definition?

On that same token -

As each person sees the definition of things differently, even if but a slight amount, then would that not suggest that God, religion, theism, atheism is defined differently by each individual, therefore completely negating the plausability of organized religion, philosophy or belief?

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
On that same token -

As each person sees the definition of things differently, even if but a slight amount, then would that not suggest that God, religion, theism, atheism is defined differently by each individual, therefore completely negating the plausability of organized religion, philosophy or belief?

Two things (and I’m really thinking this as I go along, so&hellip😉:

(1) Again, I am using a very strict definition of supernatural—perhaps artificially so, I admit. I would have to say that happenings like you describe fit somewhere in the natural order, even if we have no “explanation for it that fits within nature,” and may never have. I suppose I am defining the “supernatural” out of existence as a category, and I am doing so because of past confusions. I can speak of “the ineffable;” that does not mean I assign it the status of supernatural—in terms of my strict usage of that term.

(2) I don’t know if the “plausibility of organized religion, philosophy or belief” is completely negated. I think not—though I would probably be a heretic in any organized system (seems that way so far at any rate). We are communal, as well as individual, beings—and our individual needs for community vary (probably a Bell curve). The religious traditions can provide maps, even if they are bounded and limited and provisional maps. (You might want to check out the discussion begun in LH’s “Map & Territory” thread.)

There is a tradition in Judaism, for example (it is a tradition, not the tradition): there are as many interpretations of Torah as there are individuals; Torah is incomplete until every individual’s torah is added to it; as long as the world continues, therefore, Torah is expanding…

Thanks for making me grind at my own thinking on this stuff…

Originally posted by vistesd
Two things (and I’m really thinking this as I go along, so&hellip😉:

(1) Again, I am using a very strict definition of supernatural—perhaps artificially so, I admit. I would have to say that happenings like you describe fit somewhere in the natural order, even if we have no “explanation for it that fits within nature,” and may never have. I suppose I am def ...[text shortened]... therefore, Torah is expanding…

Thanks for making me grind at my own thinking on this stuff…

(1) Again, I am using a very strict definition of supernatural—perhaps artificially so, I admit. I would have to say that happenings like you describe fit somewhere in the natural order, even if we have no “explanation for it that fits within nature,” and may never have. I suppose I am defining the “supernatural” out of existence as a category, and I am doing so because of past confusions. I can speak of “the ineffable;” that does not mean I assign it the status of supernatural—in terms of my strict usage of that term.

True...I am using the term supernatural to define that which is unexplainable by science. These occurances could (and in my opinion, likely) be very much within the boundaries of that which is natural.

2) I don’t know if the “plausibility of organized religion, philosophy or belief” is completely negated. I think not—though I would probably be a heretic in any organized system (seems that way so far at any rate). We are communal, as well as individual, beings—and our individual needs for community vary (probably a Bell curve). The religious traditions can provide maps, even if they are bounded and limited and provisional maps. (You might want to check out the discussion begun in LH’s “Map & Territory” thread.)

There is a tradition in Judaism, for example (it is a tradition, not the tradition): there are as many interpretations of Torah as there are individuals; Torah is incomplete until every individual’s torah is added to it; as long as the world continues, therefore, Torah is expanding…

So, Judaism, in a sense, takes the consideration that each person will have their own unique perception of things and folds that into the belief structure of the religion itself? If I am reading what you are saying correctly....

Thanks for making me grind at my own thinking on this stuff…

And thank you for making me grind my own sysnapses together.... very thought provoking stuff....

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
[b](1) Again, I am using a very strict definition of supernatural—perhaps artificially so, I admit. I would have to say that happenings like you describe fit somewhere in the natural order, even if we have no “explanation for it that fits within nature,” and may never have. I suppose I am defining the “supernatural” out of existence as a category, a ...[text shortened]... And thank you for making me grind my own sysnapses together.... very thought provoking stuff....

So, Judaism, in a sense, takes the consideration that each person will have their own unique perception of things and folds that into the belief structure of the religion itself? If I am reading what you are saying correctly....

[/b]Just to err on the side of being careful, I would say it is a very strong stream in Judaism; it may not be universal.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]So, Judaism, in a sense, takes the consideration that each person will have their own unique perception of things and folds that into the belief structure of the religion itself? If I am reading what you are saying correctly....

[/b]Just to err on the side of being careful, I would say it is a very strong stream in Judaism; it may not be universal.[/b]

That is very interesting, thank you for the perspective.

Originally posted by trevor33
If god created the earth as we know it in 7 days then why is there so evidence to support that life evolved over millions of years. Or is it that the 7 days quoted in the bible is actually a metaphor and that it was created over 7 million or billoin years, or that its all a lie and god dosen't exist ant that everything in the bible is fake.

People make mistakes in creating things that can tell you how old something is.