PB wrote: Science deals solely with nature and not all of nature but only that part of nature that human senses can encounter.
Peebs, you really ought to leave it at "Science deals with nature" since there is no evidence that there is anything but nature. This, BTW, isn't to say that there is nothing but nature (or the natural as opposed to the supernatural). It's only to say that we SEEM to have no way of knowing anything about the supernatural even if were the supernatural to exist.
Do you see my point here? We encounter the natural world through our perceptual organs just as you point out. Sometimes our perceptions lead us to error; that is to say, the reality we believe that we perceive is not necessarily the way reality is. A straight twig plunged partly into water is a good example of this. The twig, that we know is straight, appears to be bent at an angle at the waterline. Our perceptions, in this instance, are in error. Without anyway to detect and account for these kinds of error our perceptual senses would be of little value to us. Fortunately we have discovered methods by which we can verify the perceptions of our senses to determine whether those perceptions are accurate.
Unfortunately, we have discovered no such methods, that I know about, to determine whether our intimations about a possible supernatural world are correct.
For example, some take revelation to be a method of discovering or of learning some things about a world beyond the natural. However, since many revelations are contrary to other revelations and since we have no method by which to determine the accuracy of revelation, we have no way to determine which revelations may be true and which false.
The problem, then, is not as you see it to be. The problem is not one of believing that only a natural world exists. The problem is to discover some method of reliably knowing anything about a possibly existing supernatural world. In the absence of our finding such a method or methods, the existence or nonexistence of a supernatual world is pretty much beside the point.
To illustrate the point in a slightly different way . . . Some folks, like my friend Peter, are impressed by the fact that many, many people over the centuries have claimed to have had religious experiences. They take this to be at least some evidence that a world beyond the natural exists.
However, there is an alternative take on these same experiences that leads to quite a different conclusion. The alternative take is this: Yes, people undeniably have claimed to have had religious experiences over the centuries. However, many of these religious experiences run contrary to the religious experience claims made by other people.
What this tells us with absolute certainity is that some of these religious experiences are false.
When put in context with other information that we believe to be true about the world, what it also suggests is that ALL of these claims of religious experience are probably false, although it cannot rule out the possibility that some of them are true.
In short, the problem isn't in believing or disbelieving in the existence of a supernatural world. The problem is in finding a reliable method that will allow us to determine what is or is not probably true about that possibly existing realm.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2010 04:34PM by Henry M. Paulson.
Peebs, you really ought to leave it at "Science deals with nature" since there is no evidence that there is anything but nature. -- go
Hank,
That may be the most epistemologically naive sentence I've ever read on this board. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that anything exists but the nature that science is capable of evincing.
If Curt hands out a Circular Reasoning Award, you should win it for all time!
Ant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians have yet to explain the miracles of
> Osiris, Zeus and countless other deities. HA!
>
> What an incredibly STUPID post.
My guess, ant, is that you are not much of a reader of Christian literature. How is it that you make this claim?
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that anything
> exists but the nature that science is capable of
> evincing." -pb
>
> So what evidence of any kind is there that
> anything exists other than the nature that science
> is capable of evincing?
"Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so."
ant
among the MANY enormous differences between jesus and the mythological beings you name, are that the enemies of jesus never said "no he didn't", they attributed them to evil.
ponderer
demonstrate scientifically that science is th eonly valid means to knowledge or truth.
Before we went too far off the mark, misrepresenting what Hank have initially stated, What's wrong with this statement Pb?
Hank: "Science deals with nature" since there is no evidence that there is anything but nature.
I believe you mistakenly misinterprete it (again) to be making the claim that nothing exists beyond what is accessable to scientific observations.
Further, do note that by "Science" we do not restrict it purly to Science as a profession, but it applies too to our daily practice of making observations and extracting information (with different levels of confidence) accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Juni {^á´¥^}
"Don't judge other people just because they sin differently from you!" ~ Anon
Three things you (probably) don't know about Islam
[www.youtube.com]
Welcome To Belgistan -- The New Muslim Capital Of Europe
[www.youtube.com]
Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we went too far off the mark,
> misrepresenting what Hank have initially stated,
> What's wrong with this statement Pb?
>
> Hank: "Science deals with nature" since there is
> no evidence that there is anything but nature.
>
> I believe you mistakenly misinterprete it (again)
> to be making the claim that nothing exists beyond
> what is accessable to scientific observations.
>
> Further, do note that by "Science" we do not
> restrict it purly to Science as a profession, but
> it applies too to our daily practice of making
> observations and extracting information (with
> different levels of confidence) accordingly.
Wade,
He's saying that there's no evidence for the existence of anything but nature. That's hogwash.
You say, "...it applies too to our daily practice of making observations and extracting information (with different levels of confidence) accordingly."
It applies to our daily practice of making observations and extracting information that are accessible through out senses of sight, smell, taste hearing and touch. That's very limited.
I suspect, though, that the two of us are about to travel down a trail that has led nowhere many times before.
What's that got to do with the fact that Christians have not been able to explain the miracles of the Buddha and other religious figures, Robagain? There was no kind of distinction made in the original post. There is plenty of evidence that the Bible is a very very old book, but nothing that proves any kind of miracle described within it, except in the desperate fantasies of the likes of Duffus.
Ant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's that got to do with the fact that
> Christians have not been able to explain the
> miracles of the Buddha and other religious
> figures, Robagain? There was no kind of
> distinction made in the original post. There is
> plenty of evidence that the Bible is a very very
> old book, but nothing that proves any kind of
> miracle described within it, except in the
> desperate fantasies of the likes of Duffus.
Just curious, ant, what's your take on the views of Karl Barth and Paul Tillich?
These 'miracles' cannot be explained because they are written on paper and most probably did not happen.
How exactly do you prove these miracles ever happened?
Anonymous User Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These 'miracles' cannot be explained because they
> are written on paper and most probably did not
> happen.
> How exactly do you prove these miracles ever
> happened?
Believe it or not it did happen. Your Creator God is telling you it did happen. He gave instructions to holy men of God to write His Book and it did happen. It is a choice to believe God - the Creator God - Jesus Christ.
The Bible declares, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)."
God bless.
“Believer is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes. Believer encourages everyone to read study and dissect the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, verse-by-verse to know the whole counsel of God and His attributes and His ways that you may have a personal and loving relationship with the true and living God - the Creator - the infinite God - Jesus Christ."
"Believe it or not it did happen. Your Creator God is telling you it [miracles] did happen."---Believer
If you are going to be honest about it, you cannot deny that it was men (not God) who told you that miracles happened.
Your "choice" is believing these men, or not believing these men.
Until you can acknowledge this simple fact, whatever you believe to be true (whether it is or is not true) will be based on a falsehood. The first step in any search for truth is acknowledging the basic facts.
Who told you that "[God] gave instructions to holy men of God to write His Book and it did happen"
The same men that told you about the miracles? Be honest.
DO NOT BELIEVE IN LÜGENPRESSE!!! HAIL TRUMP!!! OUR MESSIAH, THE SECOND COMING OF LORD JESUS CHRIST!!!
God took the trouble to sacrificed Himself to Himself to circumvent a rule He Himself made, because He loves us. But unappreciative Atheists chooses to reject God because they like to sin and like to be immoral despite of all that God has done for them! INGRATES!
islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Believe it or not it did happen. Your Creator God
> is telling you it did happen."---Believer
>
> If you are going to be honest about it, you cannot
> deny that it was men (not God) who told you that
> miracles happened.
God used holy men to write His words and they are in harmony from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible says,
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)."
> Your "choice" is believing these men, or not
> believing these men.
>
> Until you can acknowledge this simple fact,
> whatever you believe to be true (whether it is or
> is not true) will be based on a falsehood. The
> first step in any search for truth is
> acknowledging the basic facts.
JESUS SAID: I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me (John 14:6)."
> Who told you that " gave instructions to holy men
> of God to write His Book and it did happen"
God said in His Book...He used holy men to write His Book. Believe it or not.
> The same men that told you about the miracles? Be
> honest.
The question is...God has given a CHOICE to believe or not to believe in His Son. I believe in His written word. You do not believe Why? Satan has blinded you not to believe because SATAN agenda is to kill, to destroy and to steal because when he speaks; he speaks for lies because He is the father of lies and his time is short and he wants to get more followers to go the hell then to the lake of fire (The Bible declares). Remember that these are not my words. I am warning you that when you die without Jesus Christ in your heart (GOD FORBIDS)...you will end up in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15), God said His word and He said it and I believed it.
It is a choice.
God bless.
“Believer is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes. Believer encourages everyone to read study and dissect the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, verse-by-verse to know the whole counsel of God and His attributes and His ways that you may have a personal and loving relationship with the true and living God - the Creator - the infinite God - Jesus Christ."
"Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!!! Atheists sure feel dumb and stupid when they can't explain his miracles.
Ok, first of all, never declare victory before the ball even starts moving. It just adds to the humiliation when you fail, and win or lose you come off as an arrogant p***k.
Jesus' miracles are eyewitness accounts that cannot be proven false.
If you don't have actual proof other than "you can't disprove it" you have thing.
Atheists try hard to disprove jesus but jesus keeps owning them time and time again.
Can atheists explain any of these miracles thru science? HAHA
the New Testiment is a compilation of stories about some cult leader, the earliest of which was written 100 years after the fact, assuming it happened at all. Whe don't have to explain HOW it happened, you have to explain THAT it happened. I'm not convinced any of it did. St. Peter was definitely real, I fully accept his skeleton under the Vatican as proof that the Vatican was built on top of the grave of some cultist who died the same way St. Peter is said to have died, but you'll have to do better than that to convince me the magic tricks happened. The book does not count.
In general, when debating with Atheists, I sugest you refrain from using logic that can also be used to prove the existance of the Cat in the Hat.
Dudes you guys should really study the historicity of the gospels. Anyone that views the gospels as gospels can't call themselves a historian. Claiming that fourth hand eye witness testimony is credible evidence is just laughable. Even in todays court first hand eye witness testimony is considered sub par. Your basing your evidence on a fanatic with possible epilepsy who never met the Nazarean and is a probable self hating homosexual and the writing of authors who you can't prove ever met the nazaearn and whose event were written thirty years after the alleged fact at least. And every historian of the time in the levant doesn't mention him and the fact that the historical figures in the gospels have no resemblance to the figures portrayed by actual historians of the time.
And test me... I @#$%& go into details.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2016 05:51PM by Fascinated_foreigner.
COME STUDY THE BIBLE WITH ME @ [www.selectsmart.com] !!! 
