Posted on 10/21/2009 1:09:52 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I look forward to your specific answers to my specific questions in the morning.
ir·rel·e·vance
n.
1. The quality or state of being unrelated to a matter being considered.
2. Something unrelated to a matter being considered.
Is this the same church as the Clergy Malpractice case?
Nally vs. Grace Community Church
Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278 [763 P.2d 948; 253 Cal.Rptr. 97]
[No. S002882.
Supreme Court of California.
The church was exonerated. What’s your point?
Be sure to ping him so he will know which of your 14 threads you will be on tomorrow.
No point, I was just wondering if they were the same.
“So therefore it is a religious conference and not remotely scientific”
You are asserting an unsupported philosophical position that anything religious is automatically unscientific. Your assertions are also ambiguous because they blur the line between something not being science versus something being anti-science. Science is not everything. It is not the only way of knowing something. If I know something through my trust in a reliable and credible witness, I do not derive my knowledge by science; yet this is a far cry from my approach being anti-science.
For example, I know George Washington to be a historical figure, not due to scientific testing of a theory, but due to a consistent, credible, historical record in this regard.
“By definition science can only consider naturalistic explanations, this conference will be based on supernatural explanations.”
By whose definition? Science is defined by philosophy, particularly a philosophy of science. Philosophies are not derived from scientific principles but vice versa. Further, philosophies, including a philosophy of science, make axiomatic assumptions that cannot be scientifically tested. For example, causation is an assumption. It is, without any contention on my part, a reasonable assumption. But it is an assumption.
Or mathematics. Science relies on math, yet math is a logical construct not based on “naturalistic” experiments, but the reverse. Math is derived from axioms which is why math equations can be proved while scientific theories cannot.
Science must make a leap of faith to rely on simple math equations such as 2+2=4. While this equation may seem to be an obvious “truth”, it is not. Our natural experiences and scientific observations tend to support the “truth” of math, but this is not proof. Math is only proved in relation to the assumptions, not in relation to observations.
I take issue with your assertion that science can only address natural explanations. That is not true. Scientific theories are testable explanations of observable data, i.e. facts. What is observable and measurable is in the natural realm, but not necessarily the explanation.
We are all well aware of the scientific experiments which tested the popular assumptions at the time of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation would or at least could be a supernatural phenomenon. By showing that it was not even occurring, this possible explanation was eliminated.
This is an example of an extremely common error of logic and a frequent argument put forth by promoters of evolution. On the one hand it is argued that supernatural explanations are not falsifiable and are therefore unscientific (because they cannot be tested). On the other hand it is argued that science has disproved (i.e. falsified) some specific supernatural claim. Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
It is similar with supernatural claims of the Bible, whether it is creation or the resurrection from the dead. There were eye witness accounts of people who saw Christ crucified and verified to be dead. Then subsequently these same people witnessed Him to be alive as He was present over a period of many days.
John describes the experience in I John 1 empirically: “that which we have seen, that which we have heard, and that which our hands have handled”. This is empirical evidence of what has no natural explanation. To look for some other explanation would only be for philosophical reasons in which a person is unwilling to accept that some natural events have a cause that exists outside the bounds of the laws of nature. For those who concede the possibility of this philosophically, it only matters that the resurrection of Christ is a credible historical fact as documented by eye witnesses.
The desire to find some natural explanation is not driven by science but by philosophy. The willingness to accept the evidence presented is not anti-science.
1. something like that cannot happen,The answer to the above is, of course,
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where there is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
Here are my specific answers to your specific questions. After reading them, kindly answer my questions.
Are you a Christian, Gumlegs? Meaning, do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
“A” claims authority on the meaning of the Bible. “B” also claims authority on the meaning of the Bible. “B” then attacks “A’s” authority, understanding, integrity, and, for all I know, personal grooming habits. How does one decide objectively who is right, “A” or “B?”
My personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with what should be an objective answer.
If you wish, assume I am the worst possible person on earth using any criteria you chose. Ignore me. Can you answer the question for the honest, believing Christians reading this who might be confused by a doctrinal dispute?
Also, how much do you know about the person who wrote all those things about John MacArthur?
Is that an ad hominem attack, or do you have some evidence that David J. Stewart, to whose website I linked, is wrong?
Another who disagrees with Dr. MacArthur’s theology is Ian B. Johnson. John E. Ashbrook appears to have some problems with Dr. MacArthur, although the link goes to a website quoting Ashbrook. (I don’t know whether the website accurately reflects Ashbrook’s views).
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries professes problems with what they describe as Dr. MacArthur’s, um, phychoheresy. I don’t know whether this is a lesser or greater offense than plain, every day heresy, but heresy is heresy, isn't it?
Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin defends John H. Armstrong from an attack by Dr. MacArthur. Needless to say, Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin believes Dr. MacArthur is in error.
The folks at Jesus-is-Savior.com don’t seem to care much for Dr. MacArthur, either, accusing him of preaching false doctrines.
One could go on listing these objections to Dr. MacArthur’s words almost indefinitely. It seems that even among those who would superficially appear to be in Dr. MacArthur’s camp don’t agree with him. By now it should be obvious that experts within his area of expertise dispute Dr. MacArthur’s authority. What is the objective measure to know whether Dr. MacArthur writes with any authority within his field, and further, why should one care what he thinks about matters outside of his field?
I forgot to bring this up - in one of my medical school courses we learned about a form of cell death called 'apoptosis'. During development, there is a massive amount of apoptosis. Does this square with Genesis? I am really confused, and was even thinking about bringign it up with the prof, but I am afraid he would think I was some kind of Bible thumping kook. LOL.
I dont think the snake actually *talked* since it has no vocal chords. It was probably some form of telepathy.
CASE DISMISSED!
Perhaps its vocal cords were in its feet.
Well said.
The bottom line is naturalism is a tautology, not science.
Its like I always say: Naturalism is for birdwatchers.
And Naturism is for people without binoculars.
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.