Posted on 06/27/2008 2:04:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
And do you still beat your wife?
“You don't even give me a chance, you just set right in to kicking my @ss.”
Why would I ever make anything less than the best move that I see?
That's where you run into problems, where the text of the Bible disagrees with reality. It gets a lot easier to reconcile if you realize the Bible was put to paper by flawed men. Note that inerrancy is different than infallibility, which means the Bible is true for all issues regarding faith.
Simply take the Parable of the Mustard Seed. It has a good theological lesson, and the seed is as stated probably the smallest seed known to those people at the time. So the Bible is correct in meaning and correct in that limited context. But there's an orchid with a seed much smaller than mustard, and the giant sequoia probably has the biggest difference between seed and final plant size than mustard and thus would have been more appropriate for the parable, but Jesus would have known of neither of these plants growing across the Atlantic.
It's easy to reconcile if you sit back and be rational rather than sticking to inerrancy dogma.
Because you don't like sleeping on the couch?
That might depend on whether you'll want to try to get her to play again, and what kind of wager might be riding on it.
LOL! Sometimes the smartes move isn’t always the smoothest move!
“I suggest a new strategy R2, let the nookie win.”
ROTFLMAO!!!
I almost didn’t post that, but figured the laughs would be worth it! It had me cracking up as well. First thing to pop in my head replying to your observation.
Philosophical naturalism is the over-arching philosophical belief that nature is all that there is. Carl Sagan demonstrated this when he said, "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." That is a philosophical statement and is unprovable.
Metaphysical naturalism is the subset of philosophical naturalism that is in opposition to methodological naturalism. It makes claims that are unprovable like abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang, heliocentrism, the origin of mind, etc.
Methodological naturalism is basically technology. Things that can be repeated and observed through the natural laws. It is very limited and invokes no entities that are not observable.
"The type of naturalism is mainly in the attitude. Do you make a statement about the existence of the supernatural? That's philosophical/metaphysical. Do you simply ignore the supernatural possibility and make no claim to its existence or non-existence? That's methodological. People such as Dawkins will make the philosophical/metaphysical claim on top of the methodological work that is being done in these areas."
The philosophical assumptions extend deep into what you would call 'methodological'. When a geneticist proposes an experiment to test lineages across primate groups, this sounds methodological but the philosophical assumption is that a relationship exists. When a paleontologist proposes to date various objects, this sounds methodological but the philosophical assumption is that the timeline exists. Invariably, data is included or discarded based on whether it fits the pre-existing philosophical assumption.
This is why much of what passes for methodological naturalism is still based on philosophical naturalism even before it gets extended into what you would obviously recognize as the metaphysical realm. Recognizing the underlying philosophical naturalism is more important than distinguishing between metaphysical and methodological naturalism. Science crosses over into the philosophical much more than not, and if you don't recognize that you end up believing many things that can't actually be demonstrated through methodological naturalism. They are philosophical.
Here is an excellent example:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Note that he wanted to bring into the open the *fact* that astronomers are using philosophical criteria to choose their models and that a lot of cosmology tries to hide that. Ellis is exactly correct and this applies to most of science.
Philosophical criteria are used ubiquitously to choose models and the discipline tries to hide it.
That is the problem.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,”
I have to agree with that. In methodological naturalism many models will be proposed, some will gain prominence on their merits, and some won't. There is a problem that some models will become so prominent that people will stop looking for others, and Ellis' proposition serves as a good warning against that. I guess you could try to call this problem one of philosophy, but I just call it laziness.
For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”
Ellis' model explained very well why we would see redshift due to gravitation. But where does Andromeda blueshifting fit into this?
Words to live by.
We're safe, it never has, and never will.
Keep on posting your strawmen.
I’m sure you noticed that nobody has jumped in to defend your ludicrous position.
Why haven’t you defended AMD’s ignorant position? You do agree with him, don’t you?
There is definite evidence against the idea that man was formed whole. There is definite evidence against the idea that the Earth...and Universe are only a few thousand years old.
It doesn’t.
Perhaps that’s why you can’t understand the physics?
No, not really; it’s because you are blinded by your ideology.
He doesn't seem to have an ignorant position that needs defending. The position he does have looks reasonable, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job of defending it against what looks like a simple attempt to declare it false by appeals to the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
You do agree with him, don’t you?
I think it's a pretty safe bet I'm a lot closer to agreeing with him than I am with you.
You think the Sun is less massive than the Earth?
Or you do not think the Sun orbits a motionless Earth?
Please explain your model.
Not even an appeal to any interpretation of any particular passage in the Bible! And the appeal to authority is the ‘frame of reference’ quotes that says either system is acceptable as a coordinate system. But as I point out, having an entire building moving towards a motionless truck at 60 mph doesn’t make nearly as much sense as a truck going 60 mph into a motionless building; seeings as we can calculate that the engine (gravity) provides enough energy to the truck to move it 60 mph, while there is no explanation provided for what could move an entire building 60 mph while leaving the truck motionless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.