The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

[Grumblenuts]

no doubt, everything in the universe is alive from the level beginning with the elements of the periodic table - to molecules - to compounds and eventually - physiology, where disparate interaction requires interconnections to function that led to the creation of a metaphysical spiritual content that made physiology into the matter as perceived today, a living organism. it is the spiritual content of physiology that began the evolution of life, not the material composition of physiology alone.

If that's how you define physiology then fine. I would only add that "the level beginning" seems to have involved a lot of heat due to compression like a piston compressing a fuel / air mixture until it diesels, producing massive expansion (an explosion, a "singularity").

diesel (third-person singular simple present diesels, present participle dieseling, simple past and past participle dieseled)

1. To ignite a substance by using the heat generated by compression

Note that black holes are regions undergoing tremendous compression. So what then comprises the "fuel" and the "air" in this analogy? Regarding our "known Universe" and the Big Bang,.. Stripped of its negative charge, a hydrogen atom consists of a single proton. Two protons = a helium. That's apparently about as far as things got during the first few hundred thousand years. It remained too hot to sustain anything else periodic table-wise. Seems to me then that this great expansion, explosion, "singularity," is all about spontaneous production of protons. From what? Nothing? No. Black holes are dense meaning packed with mass. Heavy relative to everything else. Too dense to be filled with protons? That's my guess. So when allowed to expand, protons emerge, some producing light. This all takes place constantly at the junction between space and counterspace. In the dielectric plane. Driven by the ever comingled field pressures of genuine electricity, namely magnetism and dielectricity, which exist due to geometry and probability, which are obviously materially independent, "no matter" how much that tweaks Ringtone's titties. And dat's da whole twoof, faict.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

You putatively find no evidence for God's existence, though it be right in front of you, because you don't believe in the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic, that is, until you unwittingly do, by necessity, believe in them everytime who make any assertion whatsoever.

So what is this evidence for God's existence, that is right in front of me? I trust it is more than semantic spaghetti. Eschew obfuscation.

I don't obfuscate, alang. I leave that sort of thing to atheists. I get right to the point.

The existence of the Universe, in and of itself, is the preeminent evidence for God's existence, but you claim not to believe in the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics—namely, those of ontology—alang, except when you unwittingly do every time you open your mouth to assert anything. You know the truth, for God has showed it to you. But you hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Can actual infinities (contradiction) possibly exist, alang, or are you just pulling on our legs when you unwittingly assert that they do, or, alternately, is it rational to assert that the physical world caused itself to exist before it existed (contradiction) or that it came into existence from an ontological nothingness sans a sufficient cause (contradiction)?

That's the stuff of your religion, along, not mine.

 

[Hollie]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

You putatively find no evidence for God's existence, though it be right in front of you, because you don't believe in the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic, that is, until you unwittingly do, by necessity, believe in them everytime who make any assertion whatsoever.

So what is this evidence for God's existence, that is right in front of me? I trust it is more than semantic spaghetti. Eschew obfuscation.

I don't obfuscate, alang. I leave that to atheists. I get right to the point.

The existence of the Universe, in and of itself, is the preeminent evidence for God's existence, but you claim not to believe in the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics—namely, those of ontology—alang, except when you unwittingly do every time you open your mouth to assert anything. You know the truth, for God has showed it to you. But you hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Can actual infinities (contradiction) possibly exist, alang, or are you just pulling on our legs when you unwittingly assert that they do, or, alternately, is it rational to assert that the physical world caused itself to exist before it existed (contradiction) or that it came into existence from an ontological nothingness sans a sufficient cause (contradiction)?

That's the stuff of your religion, along, not mine.

All the stuff of religious extremists. The Christian version of the Taliban.

I do appreciate that you acknowledge belief in the supernatural remains in the realm of metaphysics and not the relevant sciences. Fortunately, it was the inertia of knowledge and learning, brought about by the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of fear and superstition that has been supplanted by the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. It was the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment which left less and less room for literal interpretations of creation tales and fables.

It's unfortunate that obfuscation and bellicose commands from religious extremists are the preferred method of making issuing edicts claiming 100% certainty to supernatural gods while possessing 0% facts to the existence of those gods.

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

You putatively find no evidence for God's existence, though it be right in front of you, because you don't believe in the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic, that is, until you unwittingly do, by necessity, believe in them everytime who make any assertion whatsoever.

So what is this evidence for God's existence, that is right in front of me? I trust it is more than semantic spaghetti. Eschew obfuscation.

I don't obfuscate, alang. I leave that sort of thing to atheists. I get right to the point.

The existence of the Universe, in and of itself, is the preeminent evidence for God's existence, but you claim not to believe in the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics—namely, those of ontology—alang, except when you unwittingly do every time you open your mouth to assert anything. You know the truth, for God has showed it to you. But you hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Can actual infinities (contradiction) possibly exist, alang, or are you just pulling on our legs when you unwittingly assert that they do, or, alternately, is it rational to assert that the physical world caused itself to exist before it existed (contradiction) or that it came into existence from an ontological nothingness sans a sufficient cause (contradiction)?

That's the stuff of your religion, along, not mine.

As an agnostic I don't know if the universe had a creator, I'm fine admitting that. However, when you go from 'creator' to 'God' (capital 'G') you've, literally, taken a leap of faith. There is no evidence that the God of the OT or NT is the creator of the universe.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Given gods need not apply, why invite and entertain them?

 

[Ringtone]

The sun's creation four days after the earth's creation is not scientific in nature (Gen 1:14-19).

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The ancient's apparent belief that the Sun was created after the heavens and the earth is not scientifically accurate. Notwithstanding, they believed they were making an assertion of fact regarding the physical world, hence, an assertion of a scientific nature. Assertions of a scientific nature are not necessarily equal to assertions of scientific accuracy. These are not categorically synonymous terms as you would mistakenly have it. That's all I'm saying. Hello! There's nothing controversial about that. Why does this have to be re-explained to you?

Further illustration. . . .

Copernicus' cosmology, that of a heliocentric universe, was in fact an assertion of a scientific nature, but it was not scientifically accurate. Why? Because the Sun is not the center of the Universe either! It's the astronomic center of our solar system. Notwithstanding, the mathematical calculi of his intuition were brilliant and moved man's understanding of things forward. He simply didn't know just how vast the Universe is.

My observation that the Bible is not a scientific text at all, but does entail claims of a scientific nature, both right and wrong, stands and stays, despite your apparent inability to grasp the categorical distinction in the above and, perhaps, the process of scientific falsification.

 

[Ringtone]

And I did not write, "Its not either or."

I see that now. surda did. I misremembered. That's all. Thanks. I'll ask him what he means by that.

This is what entered the minds of the Hebrews as they wrote their scriptures. Not abiogenesis, not plasma, not red shift, none of that. Heaven and earth were created with Adam, and again after Noah, and Babylon, and Assyria. And finally and permanently after Rome (or everlastingly after Rome, as the Israelites liked to say). Creation is covenant, even "in the beginning."

Ah! I see what you're getting at now in terms of covenant. That's interesting. I've never quite grasped the totality of the matter in those terms until now. Thank you.

Christians need not rebut science to save face or explain the Scriptures in scientific terms.

I strongly disagree with this. Leaned Christians do not argue against science at all! The true imperatives of theology, philosophy, science and mathematics are one continuous explication of the same reality. The pagan extrapolations from the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism are the stuff of fantasy, myth, fable. . . . They are not the stuff of scientific truth.

As for the more allegorical aspects of scripture, they cannot be entirely explained in scientific terms as they are not the stuff of scientific truths, but that of metaphysical and theological truths. That's all.

Notwithstanding, the Bible incontrovertibly asserts that the physical world began to exist in the finite past per revelation. The theological ramifications of that are manifest. Actual infinities of any kind are absurd. It cannot be otherwise. The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics affirmed all of this centuries before science, as it were, did. Moreover, the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, and the evidence for this is both rational and empirical.

 

[Ringtone]

Given gods need not apply, why invite and entertain them?

Given that the term gods denotes created beings of a material essence, what do the hackneyed, pagan notions of divinity have to do with that of classical theism, which necessarily follows from the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics?

 

[Hollie]

Given gods need not apply, why invite and entertain them?

Given that the term gods denotes created beings of a material essence, what do the hackneyed, pagan notions of divinity have to do with that of classical theism which necessarily follows from the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics?

Can you describe the hierarchy of creator gods who created the lower echelon gods? I’m curious to know if there are ultimate uncreated gods who created the current material gods.

The ramifications of the first principles of logic and reason would suggest that asserted material gods are present and extant. Which gods are present and extant?

 

[Ringtone]

However, when you go from 'creator' to 'God' (capital 'G') you've, literally, taken a leap of faith.

False. Contextually, the terms Creator and God are synonymous. It doesn't take a leap of faith, whatever you mean by that, to know that God the Creator must be. The existence of the Universe and, the logical and metaphysical ramifications thereof are readily self-evident.

There is no evidence that the God of the OT or NT is the creator of the universe.

It is at this point that faith comes to the fore. I don't know what you mean by a leap of faith. I can't at this point know, precisely, what's going on in your head. But assuming by this you mean blind faith—i.e., fideism, which the Bible condemns as foolish and sinful—there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. No evidence?! Hogwash! You just don't know what the evidence for it is and, in any event, probably wouldn't really care.

 

[alang1216]

However, when you go from 'creator' to 'God' (capital 'G') you've, literally, taken a leap of faith.

False. Contextually, the terms Creator and God are synonymous. It doesn't take a leap of faith, whatever you mean by that, to know that God the Creator must be. The existence of the Universe and, the logical and metaphysical ramifications thereof are readily self-evident.

There is no evidence that the God of the OT or NT is the creator of the universe.

It is at this point that faith comes to the fore. I don't know what you mean by a leap of faith. I can't at this point know, precisely, what's going on in your head. But assuming by this you mean blind faith—i.e., fideism, which the Bible condemns as foolish and sinful—there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. No evidence?! Hogwash! You just don't know what the evidence for it is and, in any event, probably wouldn't really care.

It is clear to me, that Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified. It is also clear that at least a few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death. Hard evidence for the resurrection? None. Contradictions in the story of the resurrection? Plenty. I actually do care and I actually do know a bit about the evidence we have of Jesus' life and the birth of Christianity. I wonder if you do?

 

[surada]

And I did not write, "Its not either or."

I see that now. surda did. I misremembered. That's all. Thanks. I'll ask him what he means by that.

This is what entered the minds of the Hebrews as they wrote their scriptures. Not abiogenesis, not plasma, not red shift, none of that. Heaven and earth were created with Adam, and again after Noah, and Babylon, and Assyria. And finally and permanently after Rome (or everlastingly after Rome, as the Israelites liked to say). Creation is covenant, even "in the beginning."

Ah! I see what you're getting at now in terms of covenant. That's interesting. I've never quite grasped the totality of the matter in those terms until now. Thank you.

Christians need not rebut science to save face or explain the Scriptures in scientific terms.

I strongly disagree with this. Leaned Christians do not argue against science at all! The true imperatives of theology, philosophy, science and mathematics are one continuous explication of the same reality. The pagan extrapolations from the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism are the stuff of fantasy, myth, fable. . . . They are not the stuff of scientific truth.

As for the more allegorical aspects of scripture, they cannot be entirely explained in scientific terms as they are not the stuff of scientific truths, but that of metaphysical and theological truths. That's all.

Notwithstanding, the Bible incontrovertibly asserts that the physical world began to exist in the finite past per revelation. The theological ramifications of that are manifest. Actual infinities of any kind are absurd. It cannot be otherwise. The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics affirmed all of this centuries before science, as it were, did. Moreover, the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, and the evidence for this is both rational and empirical.

Surada?? I 'm a girl. I meant the Bible is not either historically and scientifically accurate or nothing. I think the stories are important morality tales.

 

[Grumblenuts]

there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

From deep in "the dustbins of history":

The Sophists were orators, public speakers, mouths for hire in an oral culture. They were gifted with speech. They were skilled in what becomes known as Rhetoric. They were respected, feared and hated. They had a gift and used it in a manner that aroused the ire of many. They challenged, questioned and did not care to arrive at the very best answers. They cared about winning public speaking contests, debates, and lawsuits and in charging fees to teach others how to do as they did. To be able to speak well meant a great deal at that time. As there was no real paper available, there were no written contracts or deeds and disputes that would be settled today with a set of documents as evidence back then they would need to be settled through a contest of words: one person's words against another's. Whoever presented the best oral case would often prevail. To speak well was very important. The Sophists were very good speakers. Indeed, they had reputations for being able to convince a crowd that up was down, that day was night, that the wrong answer could be the right answer, that good was bad and bad is good, even that injustice is justice and justice would be made to appear as injustice! {-More-}

 

[Ringtone]

I do appreciate that you acknowledge belief in the supernatural remains in the realm of metaphysics and not the relevant sciences.

I didn't and do not now acknowledge any such stupid thing. Your interpretation of my prose comes to you as filtered through your dunderheaded and unwitting conflation of your metaphysics and what you mean in this instance by "the relevant sciences."

Ah! Looky here, everybody. Another opportunity to enlighten the benighted.

Are you paying attention to this, orangecat? I know this is wasted on Hollie, but. . .

I have a newsflash for you. I don't know about alang yet, but all of the other atheists and most of the agnostics I've encountered on this board do not grasp the actual nature of metaphysics, just like Hollie, and, subsequently, its foundational place to all the sciences, including what she means by "the relevant sciences" . . . as if the former could be done sans a logical and factual rendering of the former. You, orangecat, are the very first atheist I've ever encountered on this board who has a general grasp of the matter . . . though as we both know you pretended not to understand me, when we all know that the term science in common parlance is generally used to denote, primarily but exclusively, the physical and, by the way, biological sciences of empirical methodology. (I like many thinkers actually regard mathematics as the fourth major division of the sciences.) When we use the term science in that context, we do not literally mean that the physical and biological sciences, for example, are the only branches of scientific knowledge proper. It's merely used as a categorical distinction per the major divisions of the various sciences relative to its primarily inductive nature. We have all been using the term science in that very categorical context in this very thread, including you, orangecat.

(As an aside, orangecat, are you going to attach a laughing smiley to Hollie's idiocy as you did on my accurate exposition of the matter? You just pretended that you and I disagree on the matter, didn't you, orangecat? She actually does disagree with you, orangecat. LOL! She actually thinks that the physical and biological sciences are just floating in midair, as it were, sans a metaphysical presupposition of any kind. You're such an obvious phoney, orangecat,)

Back to Hollie's truncated and shallow understanding of things. . .

Of the various branches of philosophy (or is it the leaves of philosophy relative to the major divisions of science and their subcategories) metaphysics and epistemology foundationally inform the physical and biological sciences. Of course, mathematics, however one regards it in the scheme of things, comes to the fore as well, as it does concerning all of the major divisions and their subcategories. The realities of the contingently overlapping nature of the sciences in general per the major divisions thereof flies right over her head.

 

[Ringtone]

Surada?? I 'm a girl. I meant the Bible is not either historically and scientifically accurate or nothing. I think the stories are important morality tales.

Okay. I didn't look your profile up. Still not sure what you're saying in the sentence regarding the Bible. Would you reword that for me? Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

However, when you go from 'creator' to 'God' (capital 'G') you've, literally, taken a leap of faith.

False. Contextually, the terms Creator and God are synonymous. It doesn't take a leap of faith, whatever you mean by that, to know that God the Creator must be. The existence of the Universe and, the logical and metaphysical ramifications thereof are readily self-evident.

There is no evidence that the God of the OT or NT is the creator of the universe.

It is at this point that faith comes to the fore. I don't know what you mean by a leap of faith. I can't at this point know, precisely, what's going on in your head. But assuming by this you mean blind faith—i.e., fideism, which the Bible condemns as foolish and sinful—there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. No evidence?! Hogwash! You just don't know what the evidence for it is and, in any event, probably wouldn't really care.

It is clear to me, that Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified. It is also clear that at least a few of Jesus' followers truly believed he was resurrected after death. Hard evidence for the resurrection? None. Contradictions in the story of the resurrection? Plenty. I actually do care and I actually do know a bit about the evidence we have of Jesus' life and the birth of Christianity. I wonder if you do?

Just a few believed? That alone tells me that you either do not know the extent of the evidence or don't really care.

Define hard evidence. What contradictions? By the way let's do one alleged contradiction at a time, please, so things don't get lost in the confusion of a list.

 

[Ringtone]

Can you describe the hierarchy of creator gods who created the lower echelon gods? I’m curious to know if there are ultimate uncreated gods who created the current material gods.

Are you implying that an actual infinite can exist after all? that an infinite regress of causation can be traversed after all? If so, let's have your argument.

The ramifications of the first principles of logic and reason would suggest that asserted material gods are present and extant. Which gods are present and extant?

They do?! Explain.

 

[Ben Thomson]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

They say science requires proof through experimentation and unbiased analysis and review by peers. Belief in God only requires blind faith. Blind faith dictates that your belief requires no proof, just unquestioned devotion. If you are told God flooded and drowned everything on the entire planet for 40 days and nights and the only survivors were a guy named Noah and his family, along with a pair of every animal on earth on a boat, than that's what happened, don't question it.

 

[Crepitus]

"Scientism"?

We just making up words now?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hey you guys, stop making sense this instant!