Who Wrote the Bible?

[Redzeppelin]

Well if there was a God who created the universe, He would be as much a part of the natural world black holes, quantum uncertainty and other dimensions, and naturalism would therefore be able to uncover evidence of him, and maybe it will. There's no inherent reason why the hypothesis of a divine being should not produce testable predictions like any other.

No - that is flat-out wrong; God is beyond that which He creates - He exists above, beyond and outside nature - because the creator is not a part of the created (that's pantheism). Nature - in the cohesion and intricacy of its design - gives testimony to His hand and presence, but He Himself cannot be "located" via our observational methods unless He chooses to manifest Himself in such a way. "Testable predictions" are very dependent upon 1) the nature of your measuring devices, and 2) the nature of that which you are measuring. Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you; I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.

[cuppajoe_9]

Nature - in the cohesion and intricacy of its design - gives testimony to His hand and presence...

Fine. There's no reason why that should statement should not lead to something concrete for which evidence can actually be given.

Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you;

Yes. After careful consideration, the term 'supernatural' has no useful meaning.

I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.

Why?

[billyjack]

a quick butt in-- redzeppellins underlying principles seem to be based in the esoteric world, the beyond. cup o joes seemed to be based in the understandable, known, exoteric world.

okay, as you were .

[Redzeppelin]

Fine. There's no reason why that should statement should not lead to something concrete for which evidence can actually be given.

You ignored the part of my post that indicated that the "creator" is not the same as the "created."

Yes. After careful consideration, the term 'supernatural' has no useful meaning.

Yes - to someone who subscribes to the philosophical position of Naturalism, the word has no meaning (which does not mean that it is meaningless; just that people who choose to believe that Naturalism is the foundation of reality have decided that the word has no meaning).

Why?

Because He is a supernatural being.

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes - to someone who subscribes to the philosophical position of Naturalism, the word has no meaning (which does not mean that it is meaningless; just that people who choose to believe that Naturalism is the foundation of reality have decided that the word has no meaning).

No, see, I think it is meaningless, even if deities and ghosts and suchlike do exist.

Because He is a supernatural being.

I'll rephrase: why should the hypothesis that God created the universe not yield anything testable?

[Redzeppelin]

No, see, I think it is meaningless, even if deities and ghosts and suchlike do exist.

OK - fine. You think it's meaningless. Now what?

I'll rephrase: why should the hypothesis that God created the universe not yield anything testable?

Do you not see the irony in your insistence of empiricism and "testable hypostheses"? That in your own way, you are as dogmatic as the Christian is in your insistence that the criteria of YOUR philosophic position (Naturalism) define the rules of what is "real"? I could do the same to you: "Until you accept that there is such a thing as the spiritual realm, I really can't give you any arguments about God's existence." Naturalists kid themselves with the idea that they're "open-minded" and "objective" - they're not, because they - by very nature of the suppostions that Naturalism requires - eliminate God as a possibility - which therefore mitigates the self-proclaimed "open-mindedness" or "objective" nature of their inquiry.

To explain why God is not "testable" would take far longer to write than I think you'd care to read. At issue here are the ideas of faith, freewill, love and the character of God (which Satan has challenged); God cannot be scientifically verified because the limitations of human empiricism and our "tools" of inquiry are insufficient to grasp the presence of God.

To the believer (whose presuppositional mindset begins from the idea that God is real) the universe has loads of evidence that testify to His presence; to the individual proceeding from Naturalism, this same evidence has to be explained in some other way (i.e. evolution).

[billyjack]

i think you two have found where you division lies. as joseph needham suggested, a break between western science and western scholasticism took place quite a while ago. it comes down to this: science subscribes to the book of nature. scholasticism to the bible, aristotle, and st. thomas aquinas. its similar to the split between the confusianism and toaism in b.c. china. confusian authority was based in social tradition. toaism's authority was found in the observation of the natural universe. spirituality for toaist was found in a different realm than redzeppelin finds his--ie, the natural realm, the observable, testable, and knowable world. point being, the spiritual realm and naturalism can go hand in hand. chrsitianity doesnt have a monopoly on what is spiritual.

[Redzeppelin]

chrsitianity doesnt have a monopoly on what is spiritual.

No it doesn't; it merely has the monopoly on who God really is. And that's enough for me

[Babbalanja]

Naturalists kid themselves with the idea that they're "open-minded" and "objective" - they're not, because they - by very nature of the suppostions that Naturalism requires - eliminate God as a possibility - which therefore mitigates the self-proclaimed "open-mindedness" or "objective" nature of their inquiry.

Once again, methodological naturalism isn't atheism: it merely limits the amount of relevant variables in any scientific endeavor to those that can be verified empirically. How could scientific inquiry take place without such a limitation? There could conceivably be an infinite amount of undetectable, supernatural beings or forces that could be proposed as having relevance to a scientific matter: without methodological naturalism, what basis would we have for excluding any of them?

I could accuse someone of "bias" merely because he refuses to allow me to define something as visible unless it can be seen. Could I claim that my opponent is unfairly limiting what can be considered visible due to the flaws in his foundational assumptions? Or would everyone see how ridiculous that accusation of bias is?

So why are "naturalists" being so unfair in expecting empirical evidence before they consider something real? Isn't this what we expect in every argument? The evidence against a defendant must be presented, not merely assumed. The evidence for a conspiracy theory must be presented, not taken for granted.

God cannot be scientifically verified because the limitations of human empiricism and our "tools" of inquiry are insufficient to grasp the presence of God.

Okay. So why don't we accept scientific evidence for phenomena like evolution and the age of the Earth (since our tools of inquiry are quite sufficient for grasping natural phenomena) and leave God out of it?

[Redzeppelin]

Once again, methodological naturalism isn't atheism:

I'm sorry - any methodology that limits reality to only that which is material automatically excludes the existence of Spiritual beings; that sounds a lot like atheism to me.

it merely limits the amount of relevant variables in any scientific endeavor to those that can be verified empirically. How could scientific inquiry take place without such a limitation? There could conceivably be an infinite amount of undetectable, supernatural beings or forces that could be proposed as having relevance to a scientific matter: without methodological naturalism, what basis would we have for excluding any of them?

Good point. I have no problem setting limits - but naturalism provides only a partial picture of reality - and that is too limited.

I could accuse someone of "bias" merely because he refuses to allow me to define something as visible unless it can be seen. Could I claim that my opponent is unfairly limiting what can be considered visible due to the flaws in his foundational assumptions? Or would everyone see how ridiculous that accusation of bias is?

I must be tired - I'm not sure I follow this.

So why are "naturalists" being so unfair in expecting empirical evidence before they consider something real? Isn't this what we expect in every argument? The evidence against a defendant must be presented, not merely assumed. The evidence for a conspiracy theory must be presented, not taken for granted.

It's not that naturalists are "unfair" it's that they're arrogant; they think they have all the answers and fancy themselves to be the models of objective analysis; they're not. To suggest that all of reality can be apprehended through empirical evidence only is absurd.

Okay. So why don't we accept scientific evidence for phenomena like evolution and the age of the Earth (since our tools of inquiry are quite sufficient for grasping natural phenomena) and leave God out of it?

Because that "evidence" (or at least a percentage of it) exists due to the interpretations provided by naturalist scientists whose methodological "filter" excluded the possibility of a divine agent. We can't leave God out because He claimed credit and the limitations of naturalistic science cannot adequately account for much of what evolution hypothesizes to be true.

[Babbalanja]

I'm sorry - any methodology that limits reality to only that which is material automatically excludes the existence of Spiritual beings; that sounds a lot like atheism to me.

In that case, you must think plumbing is atheism as well, since it favors explanations that involve natural forces like hydraulic pressure and physical material as the source of clogs and other problems. Should we be concerned with the unfairly naturalistic foundational assumptions of the plumbing industry? Should we demand that plumbers investigate supernatural causes for frozen pipes, clogged drains, and the like?

It's not that naturalists are "unfair" it's that they're arrogant; they think they have all the answers and fancy themselves to be the models of objective analysis; they're not. To suggest that all of reality can be apprehended through empirical evidence only is absurd.

Like I've said before, scientific methodology and inductive reasoning will only give us the best available picture of reality, one that is constantly improving with new methods and information. Does that rival the arrogance of the believer who feels that scientific inquiry should pander to his metaphysical wishful thinking? Is it humble of you to assume that the amateur can handwave away mountains of geological, genetic, and historical evidence and accuse scientists of fraud and conspiracy? Is it humble to expect everyone to accept that "God did it" is a sufficient scientific explanation for natural phenomena?

Because that "evidence" (or at least a percentage of it) exists due to the interpretations provided by naturalist scientists whose methodological "filter" excluded the possibility of a divine agent.

Nah. There are plenty of scientists who are believers. They just look at the naturalistic basis of scientific methodology realistically, and don't let it conflict with their personal beliefs.

[Redzeppelin]

In that case, you must think plumbing is atheism as well, since it favors explanations that involve natural forces like hydraulic pressure and physical material as the source of clogs and other problems. Should we be concerned with the unfairly naturalistic foundational assumptions of the plumbing industry? Should we demand that plumbers investigate supernatural causes for frozen pipes, clogged drains, and the like?

Is this supposed to be funny, condescending, or just plain silly?

Like I've said before, scientific methodology and inductive reasoning will only give us the best available picture of reality, one that is constantly improving with new methods and information. Does that rival the arrogance of the believer who feels that scientific inquiry should pander to his metaphysical wishful thinking? Is it humble of you to assume that the amateur can handwave away mountains of geological, genetic, and historical evidence and accuse scientists of fraud and conspiracy? Is it humble to expect everyone to accept that "God did it" is a sufficient scientific explanation for natural phenomena?

I disagree. My position has nothing to do with my personal humility. I have never claimed that my belief system was superior. Naturalists do claim, however, that theirs is.

Nah. There are plenty of scientists who are believers. They just look at the naturalistic basis of scientific methodology realistically, and don't let it conflict with their personal beliefs.

None of that changes what I said by even a degree.

[Babbalanja]

Is this supposed to be funny, condescending, or just plain silly?

You said your problem is with any methodology that only deals with natural forces, because that's de facto atheism. Plumbing only deals with natural forces, so I assume you condemn the entire industry of hydraulic engineering as an atheistic conspiracy.

Hey, if it's silly, so is your objection to the "atheism" of naturalistic biology.

My position has nothing to do with my personal humility. I have never claimed that my belief system was superior. Naturalists do claim, however, that theirs is.

When it comes to increasing our understanding of the universe and its history, yes, methodological naturalism has proven its worth. The scientific method is the basis of what we know about the world we live in.

But the scientific method works because it removes the subjective element of inquiry. Cognitive biases and wishful thinking are obstacles to objective inquiry. We have to be humble enough to realize that what we believe isn't the end of the story: despite what our eyes tell us, the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Despite what we think, humanity isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

None of that changes what I said by even a degree.

Well, it doesn't change it, but it does contradict it.

You accused scientists of engaging in a vast conspiracy to exclude God from science. I pointed out that lots of scientists are believers, but realize that God doesn't belong in science. Pasteur's experiments didn't use God as a variable, so why aren't you railing against the atheism of germ theory?

[Redzeppelin]

You said your problem is with any methodology that only deals with natural forces, because that's de facto atheism. Plumbing only deals with natural forces, so I assume you condemn the entire industry of hydraulic engineering as an atheistic conspiracy.

As I thought: silly

Hey, if it's silly, so is your objection to the "atheism" of naturalistic biology.

That's fine. I wouldn't expect you to feel otherwise.

When it comes to increasing our understanding of the universe and its history, yes, methodological naturalism has proven its worth. The scientific method is the basis of what we know about the world we live in.

Certainly - and there is no arguing against the value of scientific naturalism as a valid tool for examination of the world and the universe. No argument here. I am asking you to accept that - despite its usefulness and considerable ability to bring us understanding, that scientific naturalism has its limits - it cannot fully answer for the totality of reality, and it cannot explain all phenomenon in reality. It is the refusal of people to accept the limitations of scientific naturalism that reveals its flaws. It is a limited tool - it has value, but it is not the sole arbiter of what is "real."

But the scientific method works because it removes the subjective element of inquiry. Cognitive biases and wishful thinking are obstacles to objective inquiry. We have to be humble enough to realize that what we believe isn't the end of the story: despite what our eyes tell us, the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Despite what we think, humanity isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

False - and clear proof that you are unaware of the presuppositions that drive your interpretations. Naturalism is not objective in nature; it claims objectivity, but it is simply another subjective filter used by people to assess the world; it is subjective because it presents a bias - a bias towards observable reality - but only very ignorant people would insist that only what is observable or measurable is the standard by which we should evaluate reality. Naturalism limits its view by choosing to make only material reality the standard.

Well, it doesn't change it, but it does contradict it.

It doesn't do that either.

You accused scientists of engaging in a vast conspiracy to exclude God from science. I pointed out that lots of scientists are believers, but realize that God doesn't belong in science. Pasteur's experiments didn't use God as a variable, so why aren't you railing against the atheism of germ theory?

No - I claimed no "conspiracy" - that is your term and I request that you be more careful and precise in your restatement of my position, thank you. I indicated that some scientists have chosen the world-view of Naturalism through which to view the world; other scientists choose the world-view of Christianity. There is no difference: both are equally influenced by the philosophic outlook they have chosen.

Germ-theory is not the same as evolution. Germs are here, now - and we can observe them here, now. Evolution is not here, now - and we cannot observe the primordial soup and all the so-called "transitional life forms" here, now. Certainly you can see the difference between the two. I can.

[Babbalanja]

only very ignorant people would insist that only what is observable or measurable is the standard by which we should evaluate reality. Naturalism limits its view by choosing to make only material reality the standard.

Sorry, Red, it seems I'm wasting my time here. Arguing with someone whose knowledge of scientific methodology comes from whatever Phillip E. Johnson tells him is the very definition of futility.

I'm sorry that you expect scientific methodology to pander to your religious biases. Perhaps you'll read up on the philosophy of science and get a more realistic perspective on empirical inquiry.