Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
If we take the claim that the holy spirit exists but is incapable of correcting religion's mistakes then what conclusions do we get from it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
I agree with you. Religions seem to be for proving God. From my point of view, they do the opposite of proving.
It is why I might be a very bad person with other people who witness against Religion.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
From what criteria do you recommend we view the holy spirit?
Holy Spirit thinks that is funny! How so? LOL
Spirits aren't for "viewing".
In all seriousness though, I have to think about that because I do not know what you mean.
Do you mean by? By what criteria do.....?
It is my opinion The Holy Spirit can't be judged which is what I think criteria means. Or, you have to help me with that word too.
How has Holy Spirit been proved to me? It is a job.
How has Holy Spirit been proved to me? It is a job.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I don't meen see with my eyes. But in what way does it interact with our world? If I want to view something unseen and untouchable like a magnetic field I set up magnets or metals to interact with it. I can see it. I can know it is real. By what means does the holy spirit manifest itself in the world?
Love first, faith, hope, and wisdom. I know you didn't mean to see with your eyes.
Puppies? I don't know.
If someone wanted The Holy Spirit to be proved to them, it must be for life, in my opinion.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
So anecdotes is your answer?
I might call it experience.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Other people's experiences are anecdotes.
That is correct.
Shad
Veteran Member
Empty claim repeated as if fact.
Such as?
You missed my point. An iron age text claiming creationism is true does not make it so especially in light of modern knowledge.
I never made such a claim based only on biology thus you have made your own strawman. Ironic. It also has other claim such as historical claims that do not align with the data we have. Such as the Exodus. Cosmology such as the Earth before the Sun. Jonah in his whale which violates biology and physics. Isaiah being flying by aid of an angel. Plant created before the Sun yet a majority of plant require the sun due to photosynthesis. Treating the Moon as a source of light. Disabilities are caused by God nothing else.
I think I made my point.
Empty claim.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
This is abject foolishness, does your god also tell you that you can measure with a ruler but not with a yardstick or a construction tape or an odometer?
Science often makes empty claims that cannot possibly be verified by observable experimentation. So assumption is substituted and presented with wonderful video graphics, as if it were irrefutable "evidence". Something presented as fact isn't always true.
Modern knowledge has added to our appreciation of how nature functions and how complex even "simple" life forms actually are. Yet scence has yet to "prove" that organic evolution ever took place. There is no way to link their fossils together with evidence that is nothing but assumption, driven to translate "evidence" according to a pre-conceived idea. Evolution is a theory...unproven by any other method of testing scientific facts.
All of those are explainable when you understand the unlimited power of the Creator. Only a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually teaches would result in such ignorant statements.
Only to others of like mind.....does preaching to the converted count?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
So in the face of incredible evidence evolution is still obviously false but the bible which has zero evidence is obviously true?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
"Historical science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data (e.g., cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology). The term is often abused by creationists and applied by them to any science that:
"Operational science" (not to be confused with Operations Research) is a term coined by creationists for any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites." Ken Ham admits that this distinction is entirely a creationist invention, and (as far as I know) no scientist who is not on the Answers in Genesis (AiG) payroll agrees with it.
Discovery Institute fellow Charles Thaxton is cited as the one who coined the phrase “historical and observational science,” but the concept is older that that. It is a Logical Positivist argument – or better described as a caricature of one. Thaxton (and his fellow travelers) argue that only scientific results that can be replicated in the lab are “observational science.” Or to put it another way, only those results that we can experience – that impinge directly on our senses – are "scientific" results.
Thus by implication, only these verifiable results are “true” science that produces true, certain knowledge, and by inference, any other form of scientific reasoning is “historical science,” which is uncertain and, by implication, crap. At least, it’s crap whenever it doesn’t square with their creationism.
This is truly weird. Logical Positivism is no friend of religion. After all, the claims of Christian tradition, including creationism, are not verifiable in the lab. Lacey essentially acknowledges that: "… we have stated that neither creationism nor cosmic evolution nor Darwinian biological evolution is observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events. Therefore, we would state that you cannot “empirically prove” them". Lacey argues that it all comes down to worldview. Our presuppositions guide our reasoning. My presuppositions guide me towards evolution, Lacey’s guide him towards creationism. It is clear to me that this dog doesn't hunt, but is it not strange that after years of watching fundamentalist Christians and Creationists sneer at post-modernism, we now find that they are lying down with the post-modern dogs? Seems they want it both ways, fleas and all.
In her 2001 paper, "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method," Dr. Carol Cleland of the Department of Philosophy and Center for Astrobiology at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote:
”Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."
The National Center for Science Education points out on their website that:
“Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims."
Michael Shermer writes in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things, that:
“Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science."
History is not the only barrier to direct viewing and repeating in science. Many of the famous examples of solid scientific discoveries were, and are, not open to direct viewing and repeating. Things which are too small or too big, too fast or too short, or too distant or too hard to get to, are all subjects in science.
Newtonian science discovered that gravity applied to all of a space, not only to the surface of the Earth. Not until the 20th century was it possible to make repeatable tests of Newton's laws more than a few miles above the Earth. (And even today we can dig only a few miles down to learn first-hand about the interior of the Earth.) An opponent of Newton's physics could ask, "Are you there?" (only God is in outer space to see what is doing there).
Much of quantum mechanics relies on the reality of electrons and other sub-atomic particles and forces which cannot be directly observed. The chemical bond, electronics, and nuclear physics make sense only by these unobservables.
An early scientific discovery is that the Evening Star ("Hesperus") and the Morning Star ("Phosphorus") were observations of the same object, Venus. Direct observations of the transition change was not possible because the Sun would hide it, either as it happens on the far side of the Sun, or as it happens on the near side, in the glare of the Sun. The shadow was not seen until a transit of Venus was observed in 1639. (Of course, the identity was so accepted by everyone that this "confirmation by operational science" was not worth remarking).
In the early 19th century, August Comte wrote in The Course in Positive Philosophy (Cours de Philosophie Positive) that we could never determine the chemical structure of the stars.
(thanks to Index to Creationist Claims, rationalwiki, patheos)
It is interesting to note the the Creationists worship a fairy tale recounted in a book that so badly fails the standard historical tests that special less rigorous tests had to be promulgated and entire field of excuse making (er ... apologetics) needed to be developed for fear of having to admit it was all a fraud.
- they disagree with, and
- they claim interpret evidence from the past.
"Operational science" (not to be confused with Operations Research) is a term coined by creationists for any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites." Ken Ham admits that this distinction is entirely a creationist invention, and (as far as I know) no scientist who is not on the Answers in Genesis (AiG) payroll agrees with it.
Discovery Institute fellow Charles Thaxton is cited as the one who coined the phrase “historical and observational science,” but the concept is older that that. It is a Logical Positivist argument – or better described as a caricature of one. Thaxton (and his fellow travelers) argue that only scientific results that can be replicated in the lab are “observational science.” Or to put it another way, only those results that we can experience – that impinge directly on our senses – are "scientific" results.
Thus by implication, only these verifiable results are “true” science that produces true, certain knowledge, and by inference, any other form of scientific reasoning is “historical science,” which is uncertain and, by implication, crap. At least, it’s crap whenever it doesn’t square with their creationism.
This is truly weird. Logical Positivism is no friend of religion. After all, the claims of Christian tradition, including creationism, are not verifiable in the lab. Lacey essentially acknowledges that: "… we have stated that neither creationism nor cosmic evolution nor Darwinian biological evolution is observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events. Therefore, we would state that you cannot “empirically prove” them". Lacey argues that it all comes down to worldview. Our presuppositions guide our reasoning. My presuppositions guide me towards evolution, Lacey’s guide him towards creationism. It is clear to me that this dog doesn't hunt, but is it not strange that after years of watching fundamentalist Christians and Creationists sneer at post-modernism, we now find that they are lying down with the post-modern dogs? Seems they want it both ways, fleas and all.
In her 2001 paper, "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method," Dr. Carol Cleland of the Department of Philosophy and Center for Astrobiology at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote:
”Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."
The National Center for Science Education points out on their website that:
“Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims."
Michael Shermer writes in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things, that:
“Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science."
History is not the only barrier to direct viewing and repeating in science. Many of the famous examples of solid scientific discoveries were, and are, not open to direct viewing and repeating. Things which are too small or too big, too fast or too short, or too distant or too hard to get to, are all subjects in science.
Newtonian science discovered that gravity applied to all of a space, not only to the surface of the Earth. Not until the 20th century was it possible to make repeatable tests of Newton's laws more than a few miles above the Earth. (And even today we can dig only a few miles down to learn first-hand about the interior of the Earth.) An opponent of Newton's physics could ask, "Are you there?" (only God is in outer space to see what is doing there).
Much of quantum mechanics relies on the reality of electrons and other sub-atomic particles and forces which cannot be directly observed. The chemical bond, electronics, and nuclear physics make sense only by these unobservables.
An early scientific discovery is that the Evening Star ("Hesperus") and the Morning Star ("Phosphorus") were observations of the same object, Venus. Direct observations of the transition change was not possible because the Sun would hide it, either as it happens on the far side of the Sun, or as it happens on the near side, in the glare of the Sun. The shadow was not seen until a transit of Venus was observed in 1639. (Of course, the identity was so accepted by everyone that this "confirmation by operational science" was not worth remarking).
In the early 19th century, August Comte wrote in The Course in Positive Philosophy (Cours de Philosophie Positive) that we could never determine the chemical structure of the stars.
(thanks to Index to Creationist Claims, rationalwiki, patheos)
It is interesting to note the the Creationists worship a fairy tale recounted in a book that so badly fails the standard historical tests that special less rigorous tests had to be promulgated and entire field of excuse making (er ... apologetics) needed to be developed for fear of having to admit it was all a fraud.
Last edited:
LOL.....what incredible "evidence" are you talking about?
There is verifiable evidence for adaptation, but there's is not one single shred of verifiable evidence for macroevolution. It's all smoke and mirrors.
You have been led to believe that one automatically proves the other.....that I say pure fiction.
You have as much "real" evidence as we do.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It's called Presupposition.
- Status