Christianity is a real fact which we have faith in!!!! I can't have faith in a big bang theory that's just man abusing science because theories get out a hand !!! Big theory teAches our kids to make up a story and when u get proven wrong make up another story ...
So you want to attach a purpose to evolution, go ahead, that doesn't change a thing, except you made the picture little more complicated for yourself. Science is science and we live by it. If you don't like science get rid of anything electronic, park you car, walk or ride a horse, and live in the wilderness. We eat, live and breath science. Deny it, don't use it, that includes modern medicine!
@awakenedenlightenmnt - Salvation comes by faith, yes...but the God of scripture is the truth and His word is truth. Science consists of some facts....also consists of things that are very far from fact. Much of it is man's best guess...If you can't see that, then you haven't taken a very hard look at science. I do not dislike science by the way. Science and Christianity are not incompatible.
@homeofbrokendreams - where do you get that Christians believe diseases are directly caused and created by the devil? You even go as far as to say there is no doubt about this. I find great doubt in that.
Christians believe that diseases are directly caused and created by the devil. No doubt about that idea. Thus, why still see the doctor, and not do faith healing for serious diseases like aids?
the real problem here is who he has been quoting lately. Dawkins, Darwin, and even Francis Collins. these people rely on the means to discover the How in LIfe rather then the Why. They miss the point entirely in their search for truthful answers.
Here is a fresh thought. How about referring to People like..say.. Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacock, or even John Polkinhorne? they do a much more valid job of relating Science and the Christian Faith both specfically and in general.
I just love reading these comments. There is not a single valid argument for the existence of a personal god/jesus that cannot be explained by natural processes, lack of concrete evidence or the known shortcomings of human reason. Why doesn't the omnipotent, omniscient one simply split the clouds and call a press conference and put the matter to rest. Let me guess, someone will post a biblical explanation for why that hasn't happened yet.
@ernestocastillo62 "Why doesn't God simply split the clouds…" because you still wouldn't believe Him. Humans are inherently self-professors of godlike beings because we want to be the "captain of my ship and the master of my soul". Just like a falsely convicted murderer who is sentenced to the death chamber, if one had "COMPLETE" knowledge of God and His judgements against us, we would likely go insane like the falsely convicted murderer. Hence the requirement for faith.
Modern science was founded because inquiring minds noticed that the world was created in an orderly manner. Many of the scientists were motivatied by the Christian belief that God made an orderly universe and it could be expressed in mathematical terms. Kepler, Newton, Mendal and others. In a sense Christian belief was the incubator for modern science.
Utter absurdity. The universe is not orderly. There are stars, galaxies, and planets constantly imploding and destroying one another and themselves. We just happen to be here at a moment in time when we're safe and able to evolve. The Andromeda galaxy is headed straight for us, but luckily our Sun will burn out before then.
It's easy to say there's order when you're arguing from a point of ignorance.
The fact that you think you can predict if and when heavenly bodies will colide implies you believe in an ordered and predicatable universe. DNA and RNA must be replicated in an orderly manner or life cannot exist. Even one hair growing must have amino acids gathered and fastened together at the rate of 60 every second....and there are often 200 hairs in one square inch of skin. The universe is intelligently designed and operates in an orderly fashion.
DNA and RNA do not always replicate in an orderly fashion--hence, mutations. It's very unintelligent. Errors are the reason there are markers in DNA and that's how we are able to determine relatedness.
So....Mendel, Newton, Kepler and so many others opereated from a point of ignorance. Read Newtons notes and writings...some of it seems strange but it is clear he believed that the universe behaved in and orderly and predictable way. He learned to express this order in a mathematical way. The fact that you believe you can predict if and when heavenly bodies will collide shows you believe in an ordered universe as well.
Yes, we all operate from a point of ignorance, until we choose to learn and see what is actually happening. The universe is not perfectly uniform. It is predictable--to a point. There are errors everywhere.
I get a kick out of your metaphysics...it is so bold and arrogant. You make the statement that "We just happen to be here at a moment in time when we are safe and able to evolve." You are saying human life "just happed" it was not planned, that no one intelligently designed it and ultimately it has no meaning other than its own existence. What a sad theology you have...sad and dangerous too.
Use the term metaphysical if you want, but it is theology. You are stating your belief about God...you doctrinal belief says god or gods do not exist. Yet you have no way of verifying that.
You presume way too much. I am of the opinion that one cannot demonstrate there is or isn't a god. It's called logic. If it can't be demonstrated either way then it is a meaningless statement--like 2+2=yellow. Meaningless and absurd.
But your claim has not that if the supernatural cannot be demonstrated either way it is meaningles....the claim you have madee all along is that if it cannot be demonstrated SCIENTIFICALLY it is meaningless and absurd. There are certainly other kinds of truth than scientific truth.
There is historical truth for example. It cannot be repeated. Each day of life is real, it is unique, yet it cannot be demonstated again. However it is recorded and preserved in various ways.
Did you not say the the concept of diety was meaningless, that God did not talk to men, that miracles do not happen? These doctrines you hold about the metaphysical..where did they come from.? You now admit you cannot demonstrate that god does not exist. On what basis do you believe it something you cannot demonstrate?
I didnt say you used the term metaphysical. But you did make many metaphyscial claims....I just sumerized the statements you made about miacles not happening, that god does not talk to man, that the concept of diety being meaningles as metaphysical statements. You stated your beliefs regarding the metaphysical.....therefore by definition they are metaphysical statements of your beliefs...ie doctrines as Webster would say.
Metaphysics: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. There is nothing "transcendent" about my argument. I am speaking form reality and the natural world. You are being ridiculous.
When you say "Logic tells you that"....it is not a scientifically verifiable statement. It is a statement of your personal belief . You hold a presupossition of antisuprenaturalism. It is a methaphyscial posistion, unprovable, unverifieable by science. It is a religous view.
Logic is not a belief. It is an inherent human standard. Are you questioning the validity of logic? Of course you are. You live in a magic-filled universe of ghosts, goblins, pink unicorns, and talking snakes. I'm not surprised.
Well perhaps you should take a few classes in humanities and expamine the difference between magic and supernaturalism. Your philosophy is very arrogant, your relious views are intolerant.
Fideism, supernaturalism, metaphysics, and the like are mere words. Please demonstrate in an acceptable scientific fashion your evidence for the existence of god. THEN we have something to argue. You've presented nothing.
I'm not surprised when Christians cry "Victim". That's their only position. Christianity has arrogantly trotted through history with nothing to stand on. I long for the day when humans get beyond imaginary friends.
what about evolutionary "science" what claims have they made to evidence? there are huge chunks of "data" missing and no solid foundation. you keep saying you want proof of God, well wheres the proof of evolution. theres plenty of historical evidence for Christ, even biased(against) Him who recorded Him and His actions(Tacitus). all you have is theoretical datum that tries, very weakly, to discredit God with the very science He created. Do you even research history or science before typing stuff
What about evolutionary science? Give me one specific bit of information that is missing and we'll discuss that. Do you realize that with the mapping of genomes being conducted over the past decade, we don't even really need the fossil record? DNA validated evolution long ago. If you knew anything about it, you'd know this. Francis Collins, a devout Christian, is responsible for this groundbreaking work and validated it.
BTW, "proof" is a mathematical term. I'm asking for evidence, not proof.
Again, logic is an inherent tool. It is not TRUTH in and of itself. It is a tool for determining truth.
Origin of Species is not the only book for understanding the fact of evolution by natural selection. There is the fossil record, DNA, and mapping of the genome. There are multiple sources of verification.
The Bible is the only source for knowing about the Hebrew god. It is unauthenticated, unverifiable myth. The Bible does not have an "outside source". It was written by men.
@derhammerman A naturalist can't logically make doctrinal statement like "the Bible doesn ot have an "outside source." When he/she does make a statement that there is no God to inspire the writers of scripture, they are entering the field of theology and stating a theological doctrine. If we say God did not inspire the Bible we are stating a theological belidf that is neither verifiable or non-verifiable by science.Sciene has no way to evaluate that claim.
Science can and should evaluate miracles and revelations that claim to interfere with the natural world. That is the purpose of science--to answer questions regarding occurrences in the natural world. If the Bible says the sun stood still for a battle, science may very well question it.
If a prophet claimed he had the power to make the earth stand still and was going to do it at noon tomarrow you might be able to verify it or prove it wrong...and that would be legitmate area for science to measure. But what about the Christian beliefs that there are spirits Good and Bad in the universe, and they are of spiritual and not material essence...how would you evaluate that?
Your personal belief system, your faith, your religous doctrines teach that the supernatural is meaningless. However science cannot prove or disprove supernatural things...by definition they are beyond examination by science. For millions of people, many holding advanced degrees and many simple people, a faith in God is part of their lives and very meaningful. You cannot based on science say theism is false. Scientists so often want to be theologians and generaly they are very bad at it.
So...now you have shifted from science to your personal views of what metaphysics you seem to believe and like. Some of the doctrines of your sect or religion so far mentioned are. ! God doesnt talk to humans. 2.Miracles do not happen. 3.The supernatural is meaningless to you. You sure make a lot of claims of religious knowledge. None of these can be scientically verified. They are part of your personal religous dogma. Millions of educated and intelligent humans do not believe your religion
This is not a religion. This is common sense and fact. You call it a religion to pigeon-hole it. It's simple non-belief. I don't subscribe to something that cannot be independently verified.
I believe this is true as well. We cant just take a vote of scientists and say the majority has the truth...because science changes so much over time.
Apparently, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Scientists don't just sit around and vote on ideas. They rigorously test and retest their theories. Then, other scientists test and retest for years. Only then is it considered viable. Religion tests nothing.
Hehe...there is a demand for conformity in science. Look at all the dozens of qualified scientists who are demoted or fired from their jobs for considering inteligent design. Often it is a matter religious dogma that drives them from their jobs. Those who hold intolerant and radical views do not allow free inquiry or freedom of thought.. If someone doesnt pass their religious test. If they see patterns of design in the universe, they are destroyed.
I'm sure you're referring to the one individual that was touted in Expelled. Please...name the 12 to whom you refer.
The scientific method has been longed established and accepted by mainstream scientists for years upon years. Now the IDists want to rewrite the rules and broaden the scope to include magic. Read Behe's testimony at the Dover trial. Pathetic.
The only doctrines I know that you hold are the ones you mentioned...Some of them are:
1. There is no diety
2. Miracles do not happen
3.The supernatural is meaningless
4.God does not speak to man
5.All metaphysical claims are nonsense.
You make a pile of metaphysical knowledge claims that do not come from science. Many educated and informed people disagree with your religous and doctrinal views. Those who hold other world views are not necessarily uneducated or unintelligent .
what about theoretical physics and quantum theories. these are metaphysical scientific pursuits. alchemy would be a decent example of metaphysical scientific pursuits.
In what sense are theoretical physics and quantum theories metaphysical? Is it their presupossitions, or questions they are probing about origin of matter or of the univerese? Achemy is an interesting example. Before and during the scientific revolution alchemists were trying to make gold out of brass and other metals by randomly combining them.. Others were starting to develop the periodic table based on research and assumed order in the universe. Which were more productive?
I tell you what, make a video of a human walking on water or being raised from the dead and send it to me. Then we can discuss the supernatural. Until then, there is no evidence for the supernatural besides in your head and dreams.
No, your so-called eyewitness accounts don't amount to much. Do you have any information about the compiling of Scripture? It is common knowledge among scholarly academics that the gospels were written anywhere from 30-60 years after Jesus died. The OT even longer. None of the books are corroborated by outside sources. It is not sufficient evidence. Besides, I question the sanity of a person claiming to speak to a burning bush.
Actualy I have studied biblical introduction some. It is fascinating. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Old Testemant has not changed from 150bc to today. 98% identical and no new teachings. And yes what you say about the gospels being written a few decades after Christs dreath is true. Mark for expample seems to have used Peters written notes. And you are absolutely wrong about outside corroborating sources....there are many.
You mentioned some coroborating evidences for scripture under historical truth..Acheology, and various methods of dating. Sir William Ramsey for instance set out to the middle east not believing the Bible was historically accurate. But after many years of following the New Testament records of distances and directions between towns he became convinced of the accuracy of the New Testament record...based on the accuracy of the distances stated between towns and sties he found.
That's a stale argument. I hear the same one all the time. YES, there are some archeological discoveries that validate this or that city or this or that reign--we're talking the IMPORTANT STUFF--MIRACLES! Validate, please.
I am so glad you are interested in Theology now....hehe. I am not an expert in the area of Christian evidences. But in my 56 year journey I have found nothing to discredit the Ressurection of Christ or the interaction of God with his people. It is a reasonable belief. Billions of people have believed it. And no.....they are not ignorant or idiots as you have called me.
I called you an idiot for referring to my position as "metaphysical". It's utter absurdity. It's as if you don't know the meaning of the word. If you're 56, you should know the meaning.
As for my new-found interest in theology. It's not. I was a Christian for 30 years, studied religion at a Southern Baptist university, and worked for the denomination for 10 years. I know the Bible and it's errors and contradictions.
Josephus of course does count. He talked to many of the eyewitnesses and he believed that they observed Christ after the resurrection, even though it is doubtful if he was a Christian. And as you know the Bible includes a number of accunts of New Testament event from different sources and they do count as well. They do have minor differences but generally are corroborating on the main points.
There was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a doer of wonderful works. He was Christ. Pilate, at the suggeston of the principle men amoung us condemned him to the cross. He appeared to his followers alive again the third day.
It is another non-biblical source that supports not only that Christ lived, but that he did wonderful works (not specified), That he was Christ., that he wsa crucified, and appeared to his followers. It doesnt "prove" anything, but it adds credibility to the total body of Christian evidences.
A man who lived many years after Christ, who did not witness anything first hand cannot claim that this man is "The Christ". He simply said that some people THINK he was Christ doesn't make it so. That is not evidence. I can write down something and say Jesus has followers today and that they think he's Christ. And?
Look at the context of Luke. He was a doctor, he openly says that he got the information from the people who were then and there. He wrote to a people group who were highly educated.
The belief that there is no god is a metaphysical belief that cannot be independently verified. ..Hey..we have just about exhausted useful discourse here. Have a great day. I wish you well in your journey in life.....
Saying there is no god is not a belief. It is far from metaphysical. It is simply a statement that there is no verifiable evidence for a god. Period. It is non-belief. You are a non-believer with regard to other gods. I do not say your non-belief is a belief. That is very faulty logic.
You are redefining science and metaphysics. Athiesm...the metaphysical belief that there is no God is a religious doctrine that is not verifiable. You argue in a logical circle. You say basically that there is no scientific evidence for a subject that is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. It is true, but it simply a statement that the supernatural is supernatural. It does nothing to prove or disprove its existance. It is a true, but usless statement.
Your attempt at redirecting arguments against god is feeble. Basic logic tells us that you cannot prove a negative. There simply is no credible, testable evidence FOR a god. Therefore, there is no discussion.
If you make a claim, "there is no such thing as a pink unicorn" and I claim there is, upon whom does the burden of evidence lie? You or me?
Why doent you admit your religious doctrines that there is no god or gods is a philopsophical and religious question that you cannot verify by science. Your starting point is a religous doctrine. And science has a sad history when it begins with religous doctrines.
Saying that there is no natural evidence for a supernatural reality is true, but logicaly it says nothing. That is the definition of what is supernatural. ...BTW...you quoated from webster....Atheism is the doctrine that there is no diety.
There is no way to demonstrate that a person is "inspired by god". The meaning cannot go beyond mere words. Simply saying it is doesn't make it true. You live in a dream world if you think otherwise.
My point was not that I believed that the writers of scripture were influenced by God (although I do). My point was that deciding if it is possible for an all-knowing, all powerful God to communicate with man is not something that can be proved or disproved by science. A scientist who says he can disprove this believe by science is in a dream world. He can have strong beliefs about it it, but they are not scientificalyly verifiieable beliefs.. They are part of his personal theology.
I disagree with Mohler. There is no reason scientists should EVER have to make metaphysical claims or even have to address those questions. For a scientist, a statement is either true, false, or meaningless. Metaphysical statements are meaningless. Religion fits in that category.
the main issue with your response is that in modern academia, we have, for some good and bad reasons, separated the fields of study (physical sciences, english, philosophy, psychology, etc) when all of these are intimately weaved together. though it helps that we can deal with more specific issues by doing this, the problem is that we forget the other components. the scientific method is founded in the laws of logic, which is a philosophical concept.
In what way is logic a philosophical concept? It stands outside philosophy and is but a mere tool. Logic is a cousin to mathematics. Would you also say that mathematics is a philosophical concept?
There IS objective truth and it can only be discovered through logic.
absolutely mathematics is a philosophical concept, just as the laws of logic are. mathematics had to be created, it is, in a sense, a language created to understand the world. the laws of logic had to be set in place, beforehand, because 2 + 2 = ice cream if we have not a sturdy foundation of reason. and reason, logic, cannot have formed on its' own account. the word 'logic' is only a reference to a human concept, created as a philosophy to, yet again, better understand the world.
and also, when you say that objective truth can only be discovered through logic, you are assuming that the laws of logic are a truth. can you prove the laws of logic using the laws of logic without circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy? my guess is not. in order to trust logic, or to come to any objective truth, by logic or not, you must have a trustworthy outside source, hence, religion, and, more specifically, the God of the bible.
Logic is used to determine truth from fallacy. It is but a tool. You may need to revisit your understanding of the logic.
Further, you actually made me laugh out loud. You say that logic is in and of itself circular. THEN you say there is only one trustworthy source of truth--the god of the Bible. Sir, the only information referencing the Hebrew god is in one book. In other words, it is true because it says it's true. THAT, my friend, is the epitome of circular reasoning.
logic is indeed used to determine truth from fallacy, but it cannot determine its' own truth.
and using scripture to determine Gods' existence is not circular reasoning, because the book is not self-existent, it was created by an outside source. you wouldn't say darwins theory of evolution is false because 'the origin of species' says it's true, you determine its' accuracy based on what the book talks about, or the evidence for it.
@derhammerman Metaphysical statement like you make regarding your doctine of God and the Bible must mean something to you. You state your religous doctrines forcefully....for example you state.."The Bible does not have an outside source." You accept your doctrine by faith I guess. If there is is a God out there inspiring men to write scripture....how can you prove it with science..or disprove it? You cant.....You have just stated your faith...your religous doctrine.
Great video, if you neeed any hope getting your video/ channel exposed i use a site called Tubeviews . Net It has helped 5 of my videos get ranked on the first pages.
Christianity is a real fact which we have faith in!!!! I can't have faith in a big bang theory that's just man abusing science because theories get out a hand !!! Big theory teAches our kids to make up a story and when u get proven wrong make up another story ...
pimpsarefilthy 1 month ago
So you want to attach a purpose to evolution, go ahead, that doesn't change a thing, except you made the picture little more complicated for yourself. Science is science and we live by it. If you don't like science get rid of anything electronic, park you car, walk or ride a horse, and live in the wilderness. We eat, live and breath science. Deny it, don't use it, that includes modern medicine!
ktorch 5 months ago
@awakenedenlightenmnt - Salvation comes by faith, yes...but the God of scripture is the truth and His word is truth. Science consists of some facts....also consists of things that are very far from fact. Much of it is man's best guess...If you can't see that, then you haven't taken a very hard look at science. I do not dislike science by the way. Science and Christianity are not incompatible.
flucobaseball 7 months ago
@homeofbrokendreams - where do you get that Christians believe diseases are directly caused and created by the devil? You even go as far as to say there is no doubt about this. I find great doubt in that.
flucobaseball 7 months ago
Christians believe that diseases are directly caused and created by the devil. No doubt about that idea. Thus, why still see the doctor, and not do faith healing for serious diseases like aids?
homeofbrokendreams 7 months ago
Christianity is a matter of FAITH, Science is a matter of FACTS.
no one is questioning your authority Mr Moler.
just the means by which you assume to base your educated assumptions on.
That's all.
There must be more meaningful ways to accomplish this.
Al needs to reconcile this within himself first, then he can try to convince the rest of us.
awakenedenlightenmnt 10 months ago
the real problem here is who he has been quoting lately. Dawkins, Darwin, and even Francis Collins. these people rely on the means to discover the How in LIfe rather then the Why. They miss the point entirely in their search for truthful answers.
Here is a fresh thought. How about referring to People like..say.. Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacock, or even John Polkinhorne? they do a much more valid job of relating Science and the Christian Faith both specfically and in general.
how about it, Al?
awakenedenlightenmnt 10 months ago
I just love reading these comments. There is not a single valid argument for the existence of a personal god/jesus that cannot be explained by natural processes, lack of concrete evidence or the known shortcomings of human reason. Why doesn't the omnipotent, omniscient one simply split the clouds and call a press conference and put the matter to rest. Let me guess, someone will post a biblical explanation for why that hasn't happened yet.
ernestocastillo62 1 year ago
@ernestocastillo62 "Why doesn't God simply split the clouds…" because you still wouldn't believe Him. Humans are inherently self-professors of godlike beings because we want to be the "captain of my ship and the master of my soul". Just like a falsely convicted murderer who is sentenced to the death chamber, if one had "COMPLETE" knowledge of God and His judgements against us, we would likely go insane like the falsely convicted murderer. Hence the requirement for faith.
Wolffe999 1 year ago 2
@Wolffe999 your so fucking retarded. I wish you knew how stupid you sound.
littlemonkey613 1 year ago
@littlemonkey613 How does one respond who believes he's from a little monkey...need I say more
Wolffe999 1 year ago
Modern science was founded because inquiring minds noticed that the world was created in an orderly manner. Many of the scientists were motivatied by the Christian belief that God made an orderly universe and it could be expressed in mathematical terms. Kepler, Newton, Mendal and others. In a sense Christian belief was the incubator for modern science.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Utter absurdity. The universe is not orderly. There are stars, galaxies, and planets constantly imploding and destroying one another and themselves. We just happen to be here at a moment in time when we're safe and able to evolve. The Andromeda galaxy is headed straight for us, but luckily our Sun will burn out before then.
It's easy to say there's order when you're arguing from a point of ignorance.
derhammerman 2 years ago
The fact that you think you can predict if and when heavenly bodies will colide implies you believe in an ordered and predicatable universe. DNA and RNA must be replicated in an orderly manner or life cannot exist. Even one hair growing must have amino acids gathered and fastened together at the rate of 60 every second....and there are often 200 hairs in one square inch of skin. The universe is intelligently designed and operates in an orderly fashion.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
DNA and RNA do not always replicate in an orderly fashion--hence, mutations. It's very unintelligent. Errors are the reason there are markers in DNA and that's how we are able to determine relatedness.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Is not 99.99% order?
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
So....Mendel, Newton, Kepler and so many others opereated from a point of ignorance. Read Newtons notes and writings...some of it seems strange but it is clear he believed that the universe behaved in and orderly and predictable way. He learned to express this order in a mathematical way. The fact that you believe you can predict if and when heavenly bodies will collide shows you believe in an ordered universe as well.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Yes, we all operate from a point of ignorance, until we choose to learn and see what is actually happening. The universe is not perfectly uniform. It is predictable--to a point. There are errors everywhere.
derhammerman 2 years ago
So you retreated from your "utter absurdity'" comment?
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
I get a kick out of your metaphysics...it is so bold and arrogant. You make the statement that "We just happen to be here at a moment in time when we are safe and able to evolve." You are saying human life "just happed" it was not planned, that no one intelligently designed it and ultimately it has no meaning other than its own existence. What a sad theology you have...sad and dangerous too.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
It's not a theology. The root of "theology" is "theos" meaning god. Idiot.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Use the term metaphysical if you want, but it is theology. You are stating your belief about God...you doctrinal belief says god or gods do not exist. Yet you have no way of verifying that.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
You presume way too much. I am of the opinion that one cannot demonstrate there is or isn't a god. It's called logic. If it can't be demonstrated either way then it is a meaningless statement--like 2+2=yellow. Meaningless and absurd.
derhammerman 2 years ago
But your claim has not that if the supernatural cannot be demonstrated either way it is meaningles....the claim you have madee all along is that if it cannot be demonstrated SCIENTIFICALLY it is meaningless and absurd. There are certainly other kinds of truth than scientific truth.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
There is only objective truth. Anything else must be demonstrated. Provide a solid example of other sorts of demonstrative truth.
derhammerman 2 years ago
There is historical truth for example. It cannot be repeated. Each day of life is real, it is unique, yet it cannot be demonstated again. However it is recorded and preserved in various ways.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Historical truth can be corroborated, validated, and demonstrated through outside sources, archeology, and radiometric dating just to name a few.
Let's deal in reality and not the imaginary world of ghosts, goblins, pink unicorns, and talking snakes.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Did you not say the the concept of diety was meaningless, that God did not talk to men, that miracles do not happen? These doctrines you hold about the metaphysical..where did they come from.? You now admit you cannot demonstrate that god does not exist. On what basis do you believe it something you cannot demonstrate?
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
You keep saying my argument is metaphysical. I want you to define it, because apparently you don't know what it means.
derhammerman 2 years ago
I never used the term metaphysical. Metaphysicalism is absurd.
derhammerman 2 years ago
I didnt say you used the term metaphysical. But you did make many metaphyscial claims....I just sumerized the statements you made about miacles not happening, that god does not talk to man, that the concept of diety being meaningles as metaphysical statements. You stated your beliefs regarding the metaphysical.....therefore by definition they are metaphysical statements of your beliefs...ie doctrines as Webster would say.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Metaphysics: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses. There is nothing "transcendent" about my argument. I am speaking form reality and the natural world. You are being ridiculous.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Comment removed
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
perhaps it would simplfiy it if we just use the term supernatural rather than theology or metaphysical
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Christian "logic" is terribly flawed.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Just because these men claim they were moved by an outside source does not make it true. Logic tells us that.
Without the Bible you wouldn't have the Jewish and Christian religions. Simply saying it's true doesn't make it true.
derhammerman 2 years ago
When you say "Logic tells you that"....it is not a scientifically verifiable statement. It is a statement of your personal belief . You hold a presupossition of antisuprenaturalism. It is a methaphyscial posistion, unprovable, unverifieable by science. It is a religous view.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Logic is not a belief. It is an inherent human standard. Are you questioning the validity of logic? Of course you are. You live in a magic-filled universe of ghosts, goblins, pink unicorns, and talking snakes. I'm not surprised.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Well perhaps you should take a few classes in humanities and expamine the difference between magic and supernaturalism. Your philosophy is very arrogant, your relious views are intolerant.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Fideism, supernaturalism, metaphysics, and the like are mere words. Please demonstrate in an acceptable scientific fashion your evidence for the existence of god. THEN we have something to argue. You've presented nothing.
I'm not surprised when Christians cry "Victim". That's their only position. Christianity has arrogantly trotted through history with nothing to stand on. I long for the day when humans get beyond imaginary friends.
derhammerman 2 years ago
what about evolutionary "science" what claims have they made to evidence? there are huge chunks of "data" missing and no solid foundation. you keep saying you want proof of God, well wheres the proof of evolution. theres plenty of historical evidence for Christ, even biased(against) Him who recorded Him and His actions(Tacitus). all you have is theoretical datum that tries, very weakly, to discredit God with the very science He created. Do you even research history or science before typing stuff
daneandkristybeam 2 years ago
What about evolutionary science? Give me one specific bit of information that is missing and we'll discuss that. Do you realize that with the mapping of genomes being conducted over the past decade, we don't even really need the fossil record? DNA validated evolution long ago. If you knew anything about it, you'd know this. Francis Collins, a devout Christian, is responsible for this groundbreaking work and validated it.
BTW, "proof" is a mathematical term. I'm asking for evidence, not proof.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Again, logic is an inherent tool. It is not TRUTH in and of itself. It is a tool for determining truth.
Origin of Species is not the only book for understanding the fact of evolution by natural selection. There is the fossil record, DNA, and mapping of the genome. There are multiple sources of verification.
The Bible is the only source for knowing about the Hebrew god. It is unauthenticated, unverifiable myth. The Bible does not have an "outside source". It was written by men.
derhammerman 2 years ago
@derhammerman A naturalist can't logically make doctrinal statement like "the Bible doesn ot have an "outside source." When he/she does make a statement that there is no God to inspire the writers of scripture, they are entering the field of theology and stating a theological doctrine. If we say God did not inspire the Bible we are stating a theological belidf that is neither verifiable or non-verifiable by science.Sciene has no way to evaluate that claim.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Science can and should evaluate miracles and revelations that claim to interfere with the natural world. That is the purpose of science--to answer questions regarding occurrences in the natural world. If the Bible says the sun stood still for a battle, science may very well question it.
derhammerman 2 years ago
If a prophet claimed he had the power to make the earth stand still and was going to do it at noon tomarrow you might be able to verify it or prove it wrong...and that would be legitmate area for science to measure. But what about the Christian beliefs that there are spirits Good and Bad in the universe, and they are of spiritual and not material essence...how would you evaluate that?
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
You cannot evaluate the supernatural. The words used to describe the supernatural are just that--words. Meaningless.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Your personal belief system, your faith, your religous doctrines teach that the supernatural is meaningless. However science cannot prove or disprove supernatural things...by definition they are beyond examination by science. For millions of people, many holding advanced degrees and many simple people, a faith in God is part of their lives and very meaningful. You cannot based on science say theism is false. Scientists so often want to be theologians and generaly they are very bad at it.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Based on common sense, metaphysical claims are nonsensical. People can't walk on water. Miracles don't happen.
derhammerman 2 years ago
So...now you have shifted from science to your personal views of what metaphysics you seem to believe and like. Some of the doctrines of your sect or religion so far mentioned are. ! God doesnt talk to humans. 2.Miracles do not happen. 3.The supernatural is meaningless to you. You sure make a lot of claims of religious knowledge. None of these can be scientically verified. They are part of your personal religous dogma. Millions of educated and intelligent humans do not believe your religion
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
This is not a religion. This is common sense and fact. You call it a religion to pigeon-hole it. It's simple non-belief. I don't subscribe to something that cannot be independently verified.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Many intelligent people subscribe to myths and ridiculous beliefs. That doesn't make them true.
derhammerman 2 years ago
I believe this is true as well. We cant just take a vote of scientists and say the majority has the truth...because science changes so much over time.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Apparently, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Scientists don't just sit around and vote on ideas. They rigorously test and retest their theories. Then, other scientists test and retest for years. Only then is it considered viable. Religion tests nothing.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Hehe...there is a demand for conformity in science. Look at all the dozens of qualified scientists who are demoted or fired from their jobs for considering inteligent design. Often it is a matter religious dogma that drives them from their jobs. Those who hold intolerant and radical views do not allow free inquiry or freedom of thought.. If someone doesnt pass their religious test. If they see patterns of design in the universe, they are destroyed.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
I'm sure you're referring to the one individual that was touted in Expelled. Please...name the 12 to whom you refer.
The scientific method has been longed established and accepted by mainstream scientists for years upon years. Now the IDists want to rewrite the rules and broaden the scope to include magic. Read Behe's testimony at the Dover trial. Pathetic.
derhammerman 2 years ago
You said "Many intelligent people subscribe to myths and ridiculous beliefs" ...this is true in science as well as theology.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Merriam Webster definition of Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Science is a natural explanation of what we see and know. By definition, they are entirely different.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Webster also says Athiesm :The doctrine that there is no diety.
You have some strongly held religous doctrines.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Example.
derhammerman 2 years ago
The only doctrines I know that you hold are the ones you mentioned...Some of them are:
1. There is no diety
2. Miracles do not happen
3.The supernatural is meaningless
4.God does not speak to man
5.All metaphysical claims are nonsense.
You make a pile of metaphysical knowledge claims that do not come from science. Many educated and informed people disagree with your religous and doctrinal views. Those who hold other world views are not necessarily uneducated or unintelligent .
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
what about theoretical physics and quantum theories. these are metaphysical scientific pursuits. alchemy would be a decent example of metaphysical scientific pursuits.
daneandkristybeam 2 years ago
In what sense are theoretical physics and quantum theories metaphysical? Is it their presupossitions, or questions they are probing about origin of matter or of the univerese? Achemy is an interesting example. Before and during the scientific revolution alchemists were trying to make gold out of brass and other metals by randomly combining them.. Others were starting to develop the periodic table based on research and assumed order in the universe. Which were more productive?
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
If you can demonstrate any of the above scientifically or even just naturally, I'll concede your point. You cannot.
I never there is definitely no god. That's demonstrating a negative and logic doesn't allow that.
derhammerman 2 years ago
@pharmfarm59538
I tell you what, make a video of a human walking on water or being raised from the dead and send it to me. Then we can discuss the supernatural. Until then, there is no evidence for the supernatural besides in your head and dreams.
derhammerman 2 years ago
We have eyewitness acounts of it.....does that count?
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
No, your so-called eyewitness accounts don't amount to much. Do you have any information about the compiling of Scripture? It is common knowledge among scholarly academics that the gospels were written anywhere from 30-60 years after Jesus died. The OT even longer. None of the books are corroborated by outside sources. It is not sufficient evidence. Besides, I question the sanity of a person claiming to speak to a burning bush.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Actualy I have studied biblical introduction some. It is fascinating. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Old Testemant has not changed from 150bc to today. 98% identical and no new teachings. And yes what you say about the gospels being written a few decades after Christs dreath is true. Mark for expample seems to have used Peters written notes. And you are absolutely wrong about outside corroborating sources....there are many.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Name them. Josephus doesn't count because he was born seven years after Jesus died, which means he wrote at least 20-30 years after that.
Name one eyewitness source outside the Bible that was written by a contemporary who saw Jesus arise.
derhammerman 2 years ago
You mentioned some coroborating evidences for scripture under historical truth..Acheology, and various methods of dating. Sir William Ramsey for instance set out to the middle east not believing the Bible was historically accurate. But after many years of following the New Testament records of distances and directions between towns he became convinced of the accuracy of the New Testament record...based on the accuracy of the distances stated between towns and sties he found.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
That's a stale argument. I hear the same one all the time. YES, there are some archeological discoveries that validate this or that city or this or that reign--we're talking the IMPORTANT STUFF--MIRACLES! Validate, please.
derhammerman 2 years ago
I am so glad you are interested in Theology now....hehe. I am not an expert in the area of Christian evidences. But in my 56 year journey I have found nothing to discredit the Ressurection of Christ or the interaction of God with his people. It is a reasonable belief. Billions of people have believed it. And no.....they are not ignorant or idiots as you have called me.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
I called you an idiot for referring to my position as "metaphysical". It's utter absurdity. It's as if you don't know the meaning of the word. If you're 56, you should know the meaning.
As for my new-found interest in theology. It's not. I was a Christian for 30 years, studied religion at a Southern Baptist university, and worked for the denomination for 10 years. I know the Bible and it's errors and contradictions.
Someone other than Josephus?
derhammerman 2 years ago
Just because a bunch of people believe something does not make it true.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Josephus of course does count. He talked to many of the eyewitnesses and he believed that they observed Christ after the resurrection, even though it is doubtful if he was a Christian. And as you know the Bible includes a number of accunts of New Testament event from different sources and they do count as well. They do have minor differences but generally are corroborating on the main points.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Josephus mentions Jesus twice. He simply says he existed. Cool...he existed. And?
For the sake of this argument, come up with someone other than Josephus who can validate Jesus' claims and miracles.
derhammerman 2 years ago
There was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a doer of wonderful works. He was Christ. Pilate, at the suggeston of the principle men amoung us condemned him to the cross. He appeared to his followers alive again the third day.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Yes, and that validates what? That he lived. And?
derhammerman 2 years ago
It is another non-biblical source that supports not only that Christ lived, but that he did wonderful works (not specified), That he was Christ., that he wsa crucified, and appeared to his followers. It doesnt "prove" anything, but it adds credibility to the total body of Christian evidences.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
A man who lived many years after Christ, who did not witness anything first hand cannot claim that this man is "The Christ". He simply said that some people THINK he was Christ doesn't make it so. That is not evidence. I can write down something and say Jesus has followers today and that they think he's Christ. And?
derhammerman 2 years ago
@derhammerman
Look at the context of Luke. He was a doctor, he openly says that he got the information from the people who were then and there. He wrote to a people group who were highly educated.
shelbynsittig02 1 year ago
The belief that there is no god is a metaphysical belief that cannot be independently verified. ..Hey..we have just about exhausted useful discourse here. Have a great day. I wish you well in your journey in life.....
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Saying there is no god is not a belief. It is far from metaphysical. It is simply a statement that there is no verifiable evidence for a god. Period. It is non-belief. You are a non-believer with regard to other gods. I do not say your non-belief is a belief. That is very faulty logic.
derhammerman 2 years ago
You are redefining science and metaphysics. Athiesm...the metaphysical belief that there is no God is a religious doctrine that is not verifiable. You argue in a logical circle. You say basically that there is no scientific evidence for a subject that is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. It is true, but it simply a statement that the supernatural is supernatural. It does nothing to prove or disprove its existance. It is a true, but usless statement.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Your attempt at redirecting arguments against god is feeble. Basic logic tells us that you cannot prove a negative. There simply is no credible, testable evidence FOR a god. Therefore, there is no discussion.
If you make a claim, "there is no such thing as a pink unicorn" and I claim there is, upon whom does the burden of evidence lie? You or me?
derhammerman 2 years ago
You make so many unverifiable claims of a religous nature. The existance or non existance of God is a religous question.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Answer my question above. Upon whom lies the burden of evidence.
derhammerman 2 years ago
Why doent you admit your religious doctrines that there is no god or gods is a philopsophical and religious question that you cannot verify by science. Your starting point is a religous doctrine. And science has a sad history when it begins with religous doctrines.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
Saying that there is no natural evidence for a supernatural reality is true, but logicaly it says nothing. That is the definition of what is supernatural. ...BTW...you quoated from webster....Atheism is the doctrine that there is no diety.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
There is no way to demonstrate that a person is "inspired by god". The meaning cannot go beyond mere words. Simply saying it is doesn't make it true. You live in a dream world if you think otherwise.
derhammerman 2 years ago
My point was not that I believed that the writers of scripture were influenced by God (although I do). My point was that deciding if it is possible for an all-knowing, all powerful God to communicate with man is not something that can be proved or disproved by science. A scientist who says he can disprove this believe by science is in a dream world. He can have strong beliefs about it it, but they are not scientificalyly verifiieable beliefs.. They are part of his personal theology.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
I disagree with Mohler. There is no reason scientists should EVER have to make metaphysical claims or even have to address those questions. For a scientist, a statement is either true, false, or meaningless. Metaphysical statements are meaningless. Religion fits in that category.
derhammerman 2 years ago
the main issue with your response is that in modern academia, we have, for some good and bad reasons, separated the fields of study (physical sciences, english, philosophy, psychology, etc) when all of these are intimately weaved together. though it helps that we can deal with more specific issues by doing this, the problem is that we forget the other components. the scientific method is founded in the laws of logic, which is a philosophical concept.
beforethecurtain 2 years ago
In what way is logic a philosophical concept? It stands outside philosophy and is but a mere tool. Logic is a cousin to mathematics. Would you also say that mathematics is a philosophical concept?
There IS objective truth and it can only be discovered through logic.
derhammerman 2 years ago
absolutely mathematics is a philosophical concept, just as the laws of logic are. mathematics had to be created, it is, in a sense, a language created to understand the world. the laws of logic had to be set in place, beforehand, because 2 + 2 = ice cream if we have not a sturdy foundation of reason. and reason, logic, cannot have formed on its' own account. the word 'logic' is only a reference to a human concept, created as a philosophy to, yet again, better understand the world.
beforethecurtain 2 years ago
and also, when you say that objective truth can only be discovered through logic, you are assuming that the laws of logic are a truth. can you prove the laws of logic using the laws of logic without circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy? my guess is not. in order to trust logic, or to come to any objective truth, by logic or not, you must have a trustworthy outside source, hence, religion, and, more specifically, the God of the bible.
beforethecurtain 2 years ago
Logic is used to determine truth from fallacy. It is but a tool. You may need to revisit your understanding of the logic.
Further, you actually made me laugh out loud. You say that logic is in and of itself circular. THEN you say there is only one trustworthy source of truth--the god of the Bible. Sir, the only information referencing the Hebrew god is in one book. In other words, it is true because it says it's true. THAT, my friend, is the epitome of circular reasoning.
derhammerman 2 years ago
logic is indeed used to determine truth from fallacy, but it cannot determine its' own truth.
and using scripture to determine Gods' existence is not circular reasoning, because the book is not self-existent, it was created by an outside source. you wouldn't say darwins theory of evolution is false because 'the origin of species' says it's true, you determine its' accuracy based on what the book talks about, or the evidence for it.
beforethecurtain 2 years ago
@derhammerman Metaphysical statement like you make regarding your doctine of God and the Bible must mean something to you. You state your religous doctrines forcefully....for example you state.."The Bible does not have an outside source." You accept your doctrine by faith I guess. If there is is a God out there inspiring men to write scripture....how can you prove it with science..or disprove it? You cant.....You have just stated your faith...your religous doctrine.
pharmfarm59538 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great video, if you neeed any hope getting your video/ channel exposed i use a site called Tubeviews . Net It has helped 5 of my videos get ranked on the first pages.
you're the best
Jordonaweed 2 years ago