|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day?
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
Maybe Rich can invite William Dembski to weight in on this thread. Not having an academic degree in Natural Sciences has never been a prerequisite to join in 'Proof of God' debates on the CF so he would fit right in. Plus, it seems William has resigned all of his professional Creationist positions, subsequent to being fired from a non-paying, non-teaching position at Baylor, so probably he has the time. Could be fun. Note: Rich has had me on 'ignore' for forever so someone will have to quote me so he can see the proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,102 Likes: 6 |
What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.
If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.
This is logic, not arrogance.
No, it's arrogance plain and simple. You apply one standard to religion and another to science, which is an incontrovertible demonstration of your inherent bias. And arrogance. So I'll ask the question ask gain, the one you failed to answer. This time I'll put it in your terms: If two theories are contradictory, are both negated? And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists? SP, it's simple set theory. For practical purposes, all creationist claims are faith-based, but not all people of faith are creationist. As for how do you logically approach two contradictory hypothesis, each must face it's own burden of proof. Proving A wrong does not make B true. It's possible both could be wrong. As an example, if tomorrow the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was proven wrong, that doesn't mean "god(s) did it", after all, there's other hypothesis like magic pixies, the computer simulation, or Gus's favorite, Aliens did it. Disproving any one of these doesn't prove any other, each requires it's own evidence. Thanks for the reply, but it was really a rhetorical question intended to show DBT that contradictions between different faith-based beliefs don't negate all faith-based beliefs.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,930 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,930 Likes: 5 |
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day? But we have new radiotelescopes, and even the Hubble adding data everyday. And we are still conducting experiments to prove and refine Einstein's theories, and make them accepted as laws. New data adds weight to one theory, and sometimes proves another to be wrong. Philosophy and or religion have a bunch of guys sitting around refining opinions. But really, how do we know the opinion espoused today is any more valid than that of Plato, Socrates, or Pythagarus. Where is the data? Not long ago it was taught that God wanted those guilty of sodomy or incest stoned to death in the village square. Today, we are taught God's love is all inclusive, sodomites are welcomed into the congregation. There has been no new data added. No enlightening discoveries which negate the interpretations of just 300 years ago. But the teachings change to refect prevalent attitudes of the population. Is that correction? Or diversion?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,203 Likes: 18
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,203 Likes: 18 |
idaho,
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, it was discovered that many of them were beloved family members who had strayed, some were productive members of society, the world became smaller and we found that in some cases stoning weird family members was not always looked upon as a good thing to do, and generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Would that be considered new data for the philosophical/theological for the discussion of stoning those with alternative sexual preferences?
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,930 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,930 Likes: 5 |
Nah, that is swaying to the whims of public opinion.
We are looking for revelations from God.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day? But we have new radiotelescopes, and even the Hubble adding data everyday. And we are still conducting experiments to prove and refine Einstein's theories, and make them accepted as laws. New data adds weight to one theory, and sometimes proves another to be wrong. Philosophy and or religion have a bunch of guys sitting around refining opinions. But really, how do we know the opinion espoused today is any more valid than that of Plato, Socrates, or Pythagarus. Where is the data? Not long ago it was taught that God wanted those guilty of sodomy or incest stoned to death in the village square. Today, we are taught God's love is all inclusive, sodomites are welcomed into the congregation. There has been no new data added. No enlightening discoveries which negate the interpretations of just 300 years ago. But the teachings change to refect prevalent attitudes of the population. Is that correction? Or diversion? I have posted on several threads the question; what if the Bible authors had a Hubble and someone to explain what they were looking at? Even just a Hubble photo would have changed what they wrote.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you. And one of the authors; ''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity". Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010). Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). '' You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science. Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able. They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided. The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Thanks for the reply, but it was really a rhetorical question intended to show DBT that contradictions between different faith-based beliefs don't negate all faith-based beliefs.
It shows no such thing. What a huge collection of contradictory faith based belief actually shows is that faith is an extremely poor means of sorting fact from fiction. Something that was recognized a long time ago. "Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693) "Faith is believing something you know ain't true." ~ Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] (1835-1910)
Last edited by DBT; 08/01/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you. And one of the authors; ''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity". Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010). Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). '' You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science. Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again: Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,036 |
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you. And one of the authors; ''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity". Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010). Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). '' You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science. Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again: Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.And, as a matter of logic, they don't have to in order for him to make perfectly valid arguments about and against neo-Darwinism. Dembski's arguments stand or fall on their intrinsic merits (on the accuracy of his facts and the validity of his premises and conclusions), not his academic degrees. Once again, apologists for Neo-Darwinism choose to employ a logical fallacy rather than respond on the merits, constituting yet another concession that they are powerless to defeat the underlying argument.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?
Basic logic tells us that if there is a contradiction, there is a problem. Two contradictory claims cannot both be true. One or the other must be false, or both are wrong. If the Hindu belief that Brahman manifests the universe is true, for example, the Christian version of creation cannot be true and vice versa...both can be wrong, but both cannot be right
And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?
Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence, you may be convinced that you'll win the lotto on Saturday, and that belief would be an article of faith. "Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.
Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:
“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.
“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.
And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.
I asked the question because there are different interpretations and different answers that can be made and given. The reply that you gave does not answer my question. It just raises more questions that appear to be resulting in a cycle of futility.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
[quote=smokepole]Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence Um to be picky it should be: Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence proof to an ontological certainty
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[quote=smokepole]Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence Um to be picky it should be: Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence proof to an ontological certainty Proof entails evidence... sufficient evidence to prove a proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994 |
Philosophy is a system of reasoning that is applied to Theology. Self correcting in that with more study and deeper reasoning prior mistakes get corrected. Like relativity correcting Newtonian laws. Einstein did that theoretically, with thought experiments. Lotsa new data. For example the considerations implied by the expanding universe (Lematre). You would say nothing new since Aristotle's day? But we have new radiotelescopes, and even the Hubble adding data everyday. And we are still conducting experiments to prove and refine Einstein's theories, and make them accepted as laws. New data adds weight to one theory, and sometimes proves another to be wrong. Philosophy and or religion have a bunch of guys sitting around refining opinions. But really, how do we know the opinion espoused today is any more valid than that of Plato, Socrates, or Pythagarus. Where is the data? Not long ago it was taught that God wanted those guilty of sodomy or incest stoned to death in the village square. Today, we are taught God's love is all inclusive, sodomites are welcomed into the congregation. There has been no new data added. No enlightening discoveries which negate the interpretations of just 300 years ago. But the teachings change to refect prevalent attitudes of the population. Is that correction? Or diversion? Sometimes you can experimentally prove a philosophy wrong. We've run the experiment of Marxism, and have the 100 million corpses to prove it doesn't work. That was some very expensive data. Hopefully this election doesn't lead America down the path of repeating that failed experiment.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994 |
idaho,
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, it was discovered that many of them were beloved family members who had strayed, some were productive members of society, the world became smaller and we found that in some cases stoning weird family members was not always looked upon as a good thing to do, and generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Would that be considered new data for the philosophical/theological for the discussion of stoning those with alternative sexual preferences?
Geno How can God, who knows supposedly knows EVERYTHING collect new data and learn?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994 |
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you. And one of the authors; ''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity". Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010). Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). '' You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science. Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again: Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.And, as a matter of logic, they don't have to in order for him to make perfectly valid arguments about and against neo-Darwinism. Dembski's arguments stand or fall on their intrinsic merits (on the accuracy of his facts and the validity of his premises and conclusions), not his academic degrees. Once again, apologists for Neo-Darwinism choose to employ a logical fallacy rather than respond on the merits, constituting yet another concession that they are powerless to defeat the underlying argument. Go back and read the quoted exchanges again, and see if you can comprehend the real reason for my post.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,994 |
[quote=smokepole]Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence Um to be picky it should be: Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence proof to an ontological certainty You do not need certainty to hold a belief. "Knowledge" in the ontological sense, requires certainty. That's the origin of the saying "If you can't show it (demonstrate it), you don't know it."
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you. And one of the authors; ''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity". Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010). Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). '' You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science. Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able. They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided. The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt. Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself. Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
525 members (10Glocks, 219 Wasp, 21, 1minute, 1OntarioJim, 54 invisible),
2,399
guests, and
1,197
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,432
Posts18,489,277
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
