mdmathis6 to bwest:
"The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology.
The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument.
Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost." Right, by definition of the term "natural science", it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes.
If you bring God into it, then you are "thinking outside the box" of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.
However, from Enlightenment times "natural philosophy", today's science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God's creation works, not to find ways to deny God's existence.
The important point here then is to maintain clear distinctions between methodological assumptions on the one side and ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic assumptions on the other.
Consider: a valid religious complaint is that atheists have hijacked methodological naturalism (aka "science") to promote their own agendas.
But that cannot justify a theological counter-hijacking of natural science to promote a religious agenda.
That's because, between such hijacking and counter-hijacking traditional ideas of God & nature would all but disappear.
Now our FRiend Kalamata here has addressed this issue by claiming, astoundingly, that God Himself and His miracles are "natural".
I've never before heard such a claim and doubt if it would withstand even theological scrutiny, much less pass scientific muster.
So we are left to defend the traditional idea of methodological naturalism and oppose ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic naturalism. ![]()
“Right, by definition of the term “natural science”, it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes.
If you bring God into it, then you are “thinking outside the box” of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.
>However, from Enlightenment times “natural philosophy”, today’s science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God’s creation works, not to find ways to deny God’s existence.”
Right which was classical rationalism(not today’s debauched notion of what is rational thought or notions that if one is not being “rational”, one is crazy) Operating from a given or accepted notion, supportive rationales are developed to buttress support of the original a priori thought.
Modern scientific thought seeks to derive knowledge directly from what is observed versus the employment of a priori bias in trying to understand that same observed object. Thus the tension points between deductive and inductive reasoning..... Hume vs Descartes. The mistake being made is that I believe both methods may be used and that it is indeed true to our humanity that we should do so.
Old age rational and deductive reasoning is looked upon with suspicion now a days for it quite frequently draws upon apriori bias, even when such reasoning has been shown to lead to testable and repeatable results. Suspicions especially arise against such a researcher who confesses to a belief in the Living God. His science might be good but the Anti-deity Inquisition must ignore that reality for his thinking is tainted by all that untestable God business. His work product is to be declared tainted; all respectable atheistic scientists who are grounded in materialism and the inductive method must ignore such a creature, they must see him vilified...even if the antigravity car he just invented actually works!
>>mdmathis6 to bwest: "The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology. The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument. Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost."
>>Joey Denier: "Right, by definition of the term "natural science", it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes. If you bring God into it, then you are "thinking outside the box" of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.
Always take the whole armour of God:
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." -- Eph 6:12-16 KJV
******************
>>Joey Denier: "However, from Enlightenment times "natural philosophy", today's science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption. It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God's creation works, not to find ways to deny God's existence."
The worn-out canard that the study of science requires the absence of God hinders science, rather than advance it. Spending time and resources trying to prove Charlie right is not science, regardless of whether God is brought into the picture, or not. Bring God into the picture and you instantly get rid of the parasites -- those pretending to be scientists, whose only claim to fame is hating Christians, God, and traditional morality.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "The important point here then is to maintain clear distinctions between methodological assumptions on the one side and ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic assumptions on the other. Consider: a valid religious complaint is that atheists have hijacked methodological naturalism (aka "science") to promote their own agendas. But that cannot justify a theological counter-hijacking of natural science to promote a religious agenda. That's because, between such hijacking and counter-hijacking traditional ideas of God & nature would all but disappear."
The advancement of science went quite well under the auspices of the great scientists named Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and other devout Christians, prior to the atheist takeover and suppression of all things not atheistic. And if you really stop and think about it, not one thing from the works of Lyell and Darwin has contributed to the advancement of science. Not one! Evolution was never about science, but power.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "Now our FRiend Kalamata here has addressed this issue by claiming, astoundingly, that God Himself and His miracles are "natural"."
Joey has trouble with the truth. I never claimed a miracle to be "natural." God, on the other hand, has revealed himself via his Word to be both natural and spiritual. He took on the seed of Abraham to teach us the way of salvation. The last time I checked, the seed of Abraham were and are "natural"; therefore, Jesus was a natural seed of Abraham during his ministry.
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -- Heb 13:8 KJV
Heretics are defined in this manner:
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." -- 2Pet 2:1 KJV
Jesus said:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV
There is at least one poster on this thread who denies those words of the Lord, and it is not me.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "I've never before heard such a claim and doubt if it would withstand even theological scrutiny, much less pass scientific muster."
You are ignorant of both science and theology, Joey, so your opinions are little more than bluster. We know that your religion of evolution will not pass either theological scrutiny, nor scientific muster.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "So we are left to defend the traditional idea of methodological naturalism and oppose ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic naturalism."
I am here to defend both science and the Bible.
Mr. Kalamata