[_ Old Earth _] God must be scientifically verifiable or He doesn't exist.

[TanNinety]

Jayls5 - You seem to have married empirical evidence with truth-value where you cannot have/know one without the other.

Let's take General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Do they both have empirical evidence?

If no, should we chunk the concepts?

If yes, QM quite comfortably contradicts GR in a lot of aspects, which we can go into if need be. What "truth" value do you assign in this case to empirically strong contradictory concepts?

 

[Jayls5]

Jayls5 - You seem to have married empirical evidence with truth-value where you cannot have/know one without the other.

Let's take General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Do they both have empirical evidence?

If no, should we chunk the concepts?

If yes, QM quite comfortably contradicts GR in a lot of aspects, which we can go into if need be. What "truth" value do you assign in this case to empirically strong contradictory concepts?

Yes, General Relativity and Special Relativity both have empirical evidence supporting it. In fact, if our current GPS systems didn't take into account these factors, they would be completely inaccurate within a few hours.

Quantum Mechanics has been supported by experimentation with extremely predictable results. The fact that some things are contradictory between theories could mean we haven't got the whole picture yet. We're always trying to find out.

I suppose you're asking what kind of empirical evidence I'm talking about then. Technically, we don't have DIRECT empirical evidence of electromagnetic radiation outside of the visible spectrum of light. However, when we got to the doctor with a broken arm, we certainly use "X-rays" as a real thing. We believe in radio waves when we turn on the tuner in our car. We believe in microwaves when we heat our food. These are all products of an understanding of something that is very real yet not directly observed in a traditional sense by the human eye. We do have experiments and instruments to record it though, and in that sense, it is quite empirical.

A theory can be empirically supported even if we cannot traditionally sense it with the narrow range of perceptions we were born with. We, however, do not rush to say it exists until experimentation and/or instruments demonstrate a theory has merit.

 

[Relic]

.


1 Peter 2:6-10
6Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

"Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"

8 and

"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.


Isaiah 40:6-8
. . . 6 "All flesh is grass,
And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades,
Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it;
Surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever."


.

 

[Relic]

.


Spiritual Wisdom

1 Corinthians 2:6-14
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

.

 

[Jayls5]

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/color]

In logic, we call that a tautological statement, geared towards circular reasoning.

I cannot receive spiritual things because I am not spiritual, and I cannot believe in God because I am not spiritual. If I were spiritual (ie believed in God), I would believe in God. Tautology.

I imagine a lot of Christians would get annoyed if I told them they couldn't understand evolution unless they believed in it.

 

[TanNinety]

These are all products of an understanding of something that is very real yet not directly observed in a traditional sense by the human eye. We do have experiments and instruments to record it though, and in that sense, it is quite empirical.

The experiments and the recording instruments give us data. We by induction assume the data to be true. Then we take that "truth" in the data and are applying it to the "concepts" that explain them successfully. GR is true, QM is true. QM contradicts GR. So we now need a theory that will explain GR and QM without a contradiction thereby superseding the two theories. Once we have this new theory, how true indeed is GR? The truth that we try to interpret the empirical evidence with, can change and it is more of a strong assertion than an absolute. Yes, I know we can reach a comfortable level of objectivity with inductive experiments. But we also know that it leads to GR being objectively true and QM being objectively true, and we are left with direct violation of the laws of logic. A way to resolve this like you said, is to acknowledge the incompleteness of what we understand.

The issue now becomes, will Gödel's incompleteness ever let us know anything completely and consistently? The more we know every day, doesn't necessarily mean we are ever even coming close to complete consistent knowledge. So when it comes to science, I do not assign "truth" to scientific models and concepts that describe phenomena. However I acknowledge the strength with which one theory can better explain a given set of data over other. The truth I do acknowledge is of the data.

Here comes the interesting part for me. It has become an axiom of QM to say that reality is not independent of the observer. Every scientist who has indulged in QM will attest to this. Even in GR the frame of reference of the observer is quite important in how you interpret data. You are part of the system you are trying to interpret. So you cannot really detach data from the observer. When it comes to theology, we find the same. We cannot detach the "personal experience" of the believer from the believer, but we also find ourselves not being a part of the system we want to empirically interpret. So the data doesn't make any sense to us. We can discard it as invalid, scientifically, but cannot scientifically deny the "truth" value to the observer. However I do admit that there are many circumstances where the religious observer can infer something from his system that can overlap with what science can evaluate.

 

[Relic]

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/color]

In logic, we call that a tautological statement, geared towards circular reasoning.

I cannot receive spiritual things because I am not spiritual, and I cannot believe in God because I am not spiritual. If I were spiritual (ie believed in God), I would believe in God. Tautology.

I imagine a lot of Christians would get annoyed if I told them they couldn't understand evolution unless they believed in it.

So, you say, circular reasoning is being used, do you. Tautology? Sorry my dear, Spirit is not based upon needless repitition. God Spirit is that which created all things, God(Father) Spirit is, was, and will always be. God Spirit IS the Alpha and the Omega, and everything inbetween. Admit it, you just don't understand what Spirit is, do you? Just because you can't stick it in a test tube or put it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very fact that anything is in existence is because of God Spirit. JHVH. (Jod,He,Vau,He) The breath of Life. Self evident.

Does the sun rise and set every day? Do the seasons come and go each year? Do crops grow each year? God even gave a menstral cycle to women for a reason. Does the moon have a cycle? Do the stars in the sky have a cyclical orbit?

Cyclical reasoning... Tautology? : Give me a break.
What "God created" is not in any way based upon needless repitition.

Do you even know what Spirit is? You can't put it in a test tube or under a microscope.

Evolution is based on faulty science of man. God (Father) Spirit is the revealer of all truth. Man only discovers what God (Father) Spirit has already set in place. Spirit is an entity, a fact of existence, something that exists, without a doubt. You can't put it in a test tube or under a microscope, But you sure cannot deny it's existence.

God is Spirit. God's Holy Spirit is revealed to those who have faith in "Holy" Spirit of Father God. "Father" God, is the " Highest authority" of SPIRIT. "Holy" Spirit, reveals that which is Holy and that which is unholy spirit.

Can't put that in a test tube or under a microscope.

Can you put holy under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put mercy under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put grace under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put faith under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put hope under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
So many more things of the spirit, that cannot be put in a test tube or under a microscope, way too many too mention here.

You cannot even compare the theory of evolution(based upon man's science) with the things of the Spirit. There is no comparison at all! Evolution is not based upon things of the Spirit. However, it is the God Spirit that reveals all truth of and in anything!

You don't have to be a "Christian" in order to have the Spirit of Truth reveal itself. As well, you don't have to be a "Christian" in order to have the spirit of lies reveal itself. However, you DO have to have the Spirit of a HOLY God reveal the corruption of any kind. Yes, even the Spirit of a HOLY, (holy mean pure) God will reveal that which is unholy (impure) . No test tube or microscope can reveal things of the spirit. Only The HOLY SPIRIT reveals the things of spirit, SPIRIT. Father,Son, Holy Spirit.... without those three, living in you, you will not understand, ever. Why do you think there are so many evil/wicked/twisted/perverted things in this world? Surely, NOT because there is a HOLINESS about. Can't put evil in a test tube or under a mcirscope. Can't put HOLINESS in a test tube or under a microscope. Can't put SPIRIT in a test tube or under a microscope.

Some things just can't be seen with the human eye, nor with the instruments of man! But some men of the religion called "science" refuse to acknowledge that! Einstein, at least, was wise enough to not doubt.


The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."


Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Jayls5]

So, you say, circular reasoning is being used, do you. Tautology? Sorry my dear, Spirit is not based upon needless repitition. God Spirit is that which created all things, God(Father) Spirit is, was, and will always be. God Spirit IS the Alpha and the Omega, and everything inbetween. Admit it, you just don't understand what Spirit is, do you? Just because you can't stick it in a test tube or put it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very fact that anything is in existence is because of God Spirit. JHVH. (Jod,He,Vau,He) The breath of Life. Self evident.

Does the sun rise and set every day? Do the seasons come and go each year? Do crops grow each year? God even gave a menstral cycle to women for a reason. Does the moon have a cycle? Do the stars in the sky have a cyclical orbit?

Cyclical reasoning... Tautology? : Give me a break.
What "God created" is not in any way based upon needless repitition.

You took one definition of tautology. I was referring to the definition from logic, which I actually specified to avoid this ambiguity. The argument was formed redundantly, essentially stating that I had to be spiritual and believe in God in order to have spirit and believe in God. In a very strict logical sense, it is quite redundant.

Do you even know what Spirit is? You can't put it in a test tube or under a microscope.

The signature was supposed to be satirical. That was the whole point of it; you can't find it in a test tube or under a microscope.

Evolution is based on faulty science of man. God (Father) Spirit is the revealer of all truth. Man only discovers what God (Father) Spirit has already set in place. Spirit is an entity, a fact of existence, something that exists, without a doubt. You can't put it in a test tube or under a microscope, But you sure cannot deny it's existence.

God is Spirit. God's Holy Spirit is revealed to those who have faith in "Holy" Spirit of Father God. "Father" God, is the " Highest authority" of SPIRIT. "Holy" Spirit, reveals that which is Holy and that which is unholy spirit.

Can't put that in a test tube or under a microscope.

Can you put holy under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put mercy under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put grace under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put faith under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
Can you put hope under a microscope? It has nothing to do with evolution.
So many more things of the spirit, that cannot be put in a test tube or under a microscope, way too many too mention here.


You cannot even compare the theory of evolution(based upon man's science) with the things of the Spirit. There is no comparison at all! Evolution is not based upon things of the Spirit. However, it is the God Spirit that reveals all truth of and in anything!

You don't have to be a "Christian" in order to have the Spirit of Truth reveal itself. As well, you don't have to be a "Christian" in order to have the spirit of lies reveal itself. However, you DO have to have the Spirit of a HOLY God reveal the corruption of any kind. Yes, even the Spirit of a HOLY, (holy mean pure) God will reveal that which is unholy (impure) . No test tube or microscope can reveal things of the spirit. Only The HOLY SPIRIT reveals the things of spirit, SPIRIT. Father,Son, Holy Spirit.... without those three, living in you, you will not understand, ever. Why do you think there are so many evil/wicked/twisted/perverted things in this world? Surely, NOT because there is a HOLINESS about. Can't put evil in a test tube or under a mcirscope. Can't put HOLINESS in a test tube or under a microscope. Can't put SPIRIT in a test tube or under a microscope.

In logic, we call this argument ad nauseum. At this point, you're not actually discussing much with me. You're just reiterating the same thing over and over. I received it fine the first time you said it, so no more is necessary. Your argument does not get any stronger by this repetition.

Some things just can't be seen with the human eye, nor with the instruments of man! But some men of the religion called "science" refuse to acknowledge that! Einstein, at least, was wise enough to not doubt.

Einstein was not a Christian, nor was he Jewish, nor was he any theist. He was a pantheist. His religion was metaphorical, where he expressed his appreciation of the structure of the world so far as science could reveal it. That was all. You probably should name-drop a different famous scientist to make your case. By the way, Newton won't work either.

In the sense that the world has predictable patterns, yeah, we do seem to have that. We wouldn't be around if this were not the case.

The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I can honestly appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think you're going about it in a very good way.

We all share human emotions and a wonder of what we cannot understand. Many of us, including me, share a hunger for finding out what we cannot see. If you want to substitute "God" as part of this language, then that is fine. However, I do think I am usually speaking about a traditional moral theistic deity who watches over us, preaches morals in the bible, and all of that jargon.

 

[Free]

Of course not but appearances have little to do with beliefs. People act based on what they believe, not what they look like.

The mustache analogy was just used because I figured you didn't know what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" meant - it's not a common term. Let me elaborate then.

I do know what the term means. My ability in philosophy has slipped somewhat but I have taken a couple of courses.

Beliefs in communism don't even necessitate atheistic beliefs. There are communist Christians, believers in that economic system while not adhering to the Marxist view that religion is an "opiate of the masses."

My point is that every communist state that has existed, and is in existence, has it's roots in atheism--something that communist Christians seem to overlook, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

I don't think it's fair to say that godlessness leads to communism or vice versa. I'm not a theist, and I happen to believe in free market capitalism while generally supporting a lot of Christian morals. I'm a direct example of how you're not correct in your assertion.

Again, my point had nothing to do with saying "that godlessness leads to communism or vice versa", but that history has shown that godlessness has been foundational to all communist states.

 

[Jayls5]

Beliefs in communism don't even necessitate atheistic beliefs. There are communist Christians, believers in that economic system while not adhering to the Marxist view that religion is an "opiate of the masses."

My point is that every communist state that has existed, and is in existence, has it's roots in atheism--something that communist Christians seem to overlook, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

There has never existed a communist state. There have been (and are) socialist states that call themselves communist while not practicing the basic tenets of communism. There is no centralized state in a communist society, and somehow these "communist leaders" let this slip their mind. They have no intention of abolishing a centralized control of the economy.

I don't think it's fair to say that godlessness leads to communism or vice versa. I'm not a theist, and I happen to believe in free market capitalism while generally supporting a lot of Christian morals. I'm a direct example of how you're not correct in your assertion.

Again, my point had nothing to do with saying "that godlessness leads to communism or vice versa", but that history has shown that godlessness has been foundational to all communist states.

The Aztecs believed in a Sun god and made tens of thousands of human sacrifices to appease Him. The fact is, you have a much larger sampling pool of religious nations - of which many have done bad things as well as good things. The fact that there have been a few crappy socialist nations that happen to have some naive atheistic views does not speak negatively of the whole of atheism or agnosticism. If it does, then we can equally assert that there have been countless bad nations as a direct result of God. You can't have your cake and eat it too here.

Also, a lot of the reason those socialist nations sucked and collapsed had nothing to do with their Godlessness. It had everything to do with their crappy economic system. Their system is inefficient, there was no incentive to be productive, and they let inflation run wild. These factors, not a lack of belief in God, were why many of these nations collapsed. Socialism is an inferior economic system, and if you combine it with ridiculous notions of conquest while not expecting the currency to deteriorate, you're going to fail.