September 26, 2012

Scientism

BTW, vote YES for Prop 37
Scientism: a belief that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth via the scientific method.

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world.

I wanted to point to this term, and article, for the future, as it will be valuable to point this out. So many Atheists are afflicted with this horrible debilitating belief.

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." ~PBS.org

“Scientism claims to be ‘reality based’ but that is precisely what it is not. It recognizes only aspects of reality, and in particular only those susceptible of study via its favored methods. When those methods fail to capture some aspect of reality – God, consciousness, intentionality, free will, selfhood, moral value, and so on – scientism tends to blame reality rather than its methods, and to insist that the reality either be redefined so as to make it compatible with its methods, or eliminated entirely.” ~Ed Feser

"Will Science Disprove God's Existence? No. Written by James Heiser 

 Over the past few centuries, the purported efforts of scientists to come to a better understanding of the natural world have often led to wild variations in their theories. Attempts to arrive at a naturalistic understanding of the origin of the universe — operating with the presupposition of excluding a divine origin — have led to a profound divergence of opinion, with only one common point among those who have created such theories: However the universe came into existence, God did not create it.

As explained in my recent book, A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven, the efforts of scientists to disprove the existence of God is not a pursuit of Science, but Scientism. Since Rene Descartes (1596–1650) there have been men and women who have succumbed to Descartes’ egocentric presentation of the scientist as the master of all knowledge; in the words of Michael Gillespie: “The scientist therefore will be the master not of [a] single area of knowledge but of all knowledge. His knowledge will be a mathêsis universalis, a universal science or universal mathematics. He will thus be not merely the wisest human being but also the best technician and the best lawgiver in both political the [sic] theological matters.” This worldview is often called “Scientism” — a materialistic doctrine that (among other tenets of its creed) axiomatically excludes the possibility of a non-naturalistic origin of the universe, and which interprets all observation data regarding the natural realm only in line with its axiomatic assumption that there is no divine origin to creation.

At the root of such delusional attempts to disprove the divine creation of the universe is an inherent contradiction: attempting to prove that God did not create the universe, the Scientistic theorist assumes the truth of that which he purports to attempt to prove. Theorizing based on the assumption there is no God, the “discovery” that one’s theorizing does not lead to the discovery of God is hardly a shocking result..." [Read More]


bit.ly/DAScientism

83 comments:

  1. Actually, I think that in the not too distant future, it will be science that proves the existence of God. There will no longer be atheists; only people for God and people against God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And how would science "prove" the existence of God? What is the testable hypothesis here?

      Remember that, if something can be proven scientifically, it can be disproven scientifically. That's the whole point of a testable hypothesis.

      Delete
  2. And your alternative to using the scientific method to gain knowledge is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He thinks that something has implanted knowledge directly into his brain although he has no idea how it is done and can't demonstrate how he could be 'absolutely certain' about either the source or the veracity of said 'revelations'.

      He claims the knowledge is being revealed by the Christian God, because that's what he wants to believe. However, once again he's failed to back up this claim in any meaningful manner. He can't even demonstrate that his God exists. Instead he steals all the concepts he needs to build his worldview from the atheist objectivist worldview and then tries to use them to undermine the very thing they rely on.

      Delete
  3. If one intends to write about science and scientism, it's usually best to learn a bit about the topic first.

    Over the past few centuries, the purported efforts of scientists to come to a better understanding of the natural world have often led to wild variations in their theories. Attempts to arrive at a naturalistic understanding of the origin of the universe — operating with the presupposition of excluding a divine origin — have led to a profound divergence of opinion...

    This is, of course, completely wrong. This one quote is enough to invalidate the author as having any credibility in any discussion of science. Why would anyone waste their time on drivel like this?

    Not to mention the irony of claiming that science can't come to a conclusion while using a computer (science) to create a blog post (science) over the internet (science) while probably sitting in a well-lit and ventilated building (science) enjoying a considerably longer (science) and more leisure-filled (science) life than his fairly recent ancestors. Rather than writing a book, a simple 'thank-you' to science would have been sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, was it science or naturalism that created all of that?

      Delete
    2. It would be both. The scientific method was used for all those improvements so its science, and none of them invokes a God or other supernatural beings to explain how they work, so its naturalism.

      Delete
    3. Dan - I would make the same challenge to you that I make to anyone who complains that "science only looks at natural causes" - demonstrate how you would do science differently. Show me even a single example of how my computer would be faster, or my medicine work better, if someone had said "let's make sure we're including supernatural evidence too".

      If including the supernatural in science is a better way of doing things, then it should produce better results. Don't complain about it - *show* your way is better.

      Delete
    4. You just don't get it. Science is not the issue here. It is naturalism that is the problem. Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm. Evolution itself is not even science.

      Delete
    5. Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.

      The "evidence" for naturalism in science is that, using naturalist principles, it works. Adding in supernatural principles and ideas does not improve its explanatory power or consistency -- indeed, it opens up huge cans of worms in terms of undefinable and indeterminate questions.

      Evolution itself is not even science.

      I'm not going to watch two hours of video to dig up what claims you make for this -- evolution is science; it is a hypothesis of enormous explanatory power, confirmed through observation and direct experiment (Lenski, et. al.), and so if you have something more concise to make than a two-hour video, let's hear it.

      Mikev6's challenge remains valid -- show how science could work better without naturalism. I can give you many examples of how it would work *worse* without it.

      Delete
    6. >>The "evidence" for naturalism in science is that, using naturalist principles, it works.

      How is that NOT viciously circular?

      Delete
    7. Evolution itself is not even science.

      Sure. So the study of evolution involves gathering data, making hypotheses, testing hypotheses, revision of models when new data is found, consistency with data from other branches of knowledge, collaboration between experts, peer review, etc. etc.

      You can call it anything you want. It's still science and it doesn't go away simply because you don't like the results it comes up with.



      Delete
    8. How is that NOT viciously circular?

      It's not. If I do X, I get verifiable results. If I do Y, I don't get results.

      If we do science and just look at natural data, we get models that predict well. If we do science and use supernatural data, we get squat.

      Your job is to find me an example of a scientific process or endeavor where supernatural data provided a better result.

      Delete
    9. >>It's not. If I do X, I get verifiable results

      If you look for N, examining Data X, under the criteria of N, how is that not viciously circular?

      >>Your job is to find me an example of a scientific process or endeavor where supernatural data provided a better result.

      Data is just that, data. How can it provide "better" or desired results? THAT is the point all along. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. You're making my argument here. Thanks?

      Delete
    10. >>It's not. If I do X, I get verifiable results. If I do Y, I don't get results.

      Also, you said it right there! If Data X appears, or seems, to verify Naturalism it is published, or accepted. Data Y that falsifies Naturalism is determined to be inconclusive, or insufficient data, and tossed. You are TESTING for your desired paradigm and nothing else. You do not see a problem with this of course.

      Delete
    11. If you look for N, examining Data X, under the criteria of N, how is that not viciously circular?

      Your notion of "look for" is odd here.

      Science works with naturalist principles. When you try and import non-naturalist principles, it doesn't work, because it becomes full of non-verifiable, non-testable hypotheses.

      Naturalism is a subset of all possible explanations, and so, if there is no need to look outside that subset, why should one? Unless you can provide me a falsifiable statement about God, it's not in the purview of things science *can* use or explain or test.

      Now, what can be tested is "Only God can explain X", in which case a valid explanation of X using only material causes proves that statement false, and any constructions of God's existence that rely upon it.

      If you look for N, examining Data X, under the criteria of N, how is that not viciously circular?

      When science hits data that repeatedly violates its assumptions, guess what happens? Those assumptions change. See the infinite speed of light, the continuous nature of the universe, and so on, and so on -- including, evolution.

      Data is just that, data. How can it provide "better" or desired results?

      Indeed, I think mikev6 got this a bit wrong -- what's needed is an example of a scientific process or endeavour where incorporating supernatural explanations produces a better, and testable fit to the existing data.

      Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence.

      That's because supernaturalism has never presented a testable hypothesis, probably because to do so would imply the possibility of a *disproof* of the existence of the supernatural.

      Data Y that falsifies Naturalism is determined to be inconclusive, or insufficient data, and tossed.

      This is a very serious, and incorrect, accusation you're levelling. Naturalism, per se, is not tested; it is, as you pointed out, the basic presumption. But the methods working underneath that assumption *work*. And, since it is a subset of the possible methodologies, and does not show problems, why expand to ones that provide no benefit, save to assuage people's religious beliefs?

      Delete
    12. >>Science works with naturalist principles

      Looking for evidence for naturalism. Right.

      Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence.

      >>That's because supernaturalism has never presented a testable hypothesis, probably because to do so would imply the possibility of a *disproof* of the existence of the supernatural.

      But you just said "Science works with naturalist principles" Anything outside of naturalism is rejected. That is why it brings right around to the now famous quote here:

      "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~bit.ly/stillevidence

      "There is no supernatural because there is only natural, as evidenced by our natural principles that there is nothing outside of nature." said the Atheist

      Which brings us 'full circular' to the same place.

      Delete
    13. Looking for evidence for naturalism. Right.

      Give me a way to test for supernaturalism, and we can discuss it.

      Anything outside of naturalism is rejected.

      See above. Give me a falsifiable test for God.

      I belive your quote is from Greg Bahnsen, and he is wrong.
      There can be evidence for God. Of course, no one has ever provided any that did not fit within a naturalist model as well, ascribing to God what can be ascribed to evolution, deep time, and geology, to use some of Bahnsen's examples.

      Evidence for God would be something that cannot be explained materialistically. A test of god would be something that can only be done outside a materialist universe.

      Some atheists will deny this possibility even exists, that the very notion of God is incoherent. Others will say (and this is a live controversy) that sure, there might be evidence -- no one's ever shown any.

      Bahnsen's "evidence" is no such thing, as it does not spring from anything that lacks a naturalist explanation.

      Instead of your strawman atheist, try: "There is no reason to think there is a supernatural,because our evidence can be explained by our theories, so why should we bother adding things that give us no new explanatory power?"

      Delete
    14. Scripture itself is supernatural, (tinyurl.com/LogicBible and evidence for God. QED

      Fin.

      Delete
    15. Scripture itself is supernatural,

      If you want to debate the points raised there here, I can -- the short form is, no, the Bible is a set of material objects, in many different editions and forms. It was written in material ink, on material paper. There's no "test" there, as I asked for. All you have is "here's a book." Or, to be generous, "Here's a set of texts".

      Thus, there is no demonstration, and nothing is shown.

      No end here for you. ;)

      Delete
    16. Scripture itself is supernatural, (tinyurl.com/LogicBible and evidence for God. QED

      No, we're doing science here, remember. You have a text that you hypothesize is supernatural in origin. And it may be potential evidence for a supernatural entity. However, the supernatural claims from the bible don't agree with other evidence we have - there is no other evidence of a worldwide flood, for example, and there is a mountain of evidence showing the world is much older than 6,000 years.

      If you want to include the bible in science, it gets treated like any other source of data, and is tested and compared to other lines of evidence, and discarded if it fails to match all the known information.

      But the ball is still in your court to show some valid science involving the supernatural. As imnotanddrei said, ideally I'd like an example of the use of supernatural data producing a better fitting model, but at this point I'd be happy with anything that shows you're not just repeating an anti-science talking point.

      Delete
    17. Dan is truly an idiot: Gets shot down in the very post (tinyurl.com/LogicBible)he tries to use as evidence to back up his claim.

      Delete
    18. >>Dan is truly an idiot: Gets shot down in the very post (tinyurl.com/LogicBible) he tries to use as evidence to back up his claim.

      Is that absolutely true, or merely your opinion?

      Delete
    19. Is that absolutely true, or merely your opinion?

      I'm impressed that you find no middle ground between the two things here.

      And I'm still waiting; or do you want to go and have this debate over on your post about the alleged "supernatural"-ness of Scripture?

      Delete
    20. >>I'm impressed that you find no middle ground between the two things here.


      Is that middle ground, "I feel it is kind of true"?

      Delete
    21. That middle ground would be "There is evidence that it is true." Or even "It appears to be true."


      I notice that while you claim all truth is absolute, you feel the need to keep asking if things are "absolutely" true.


      Delete
    22. >>That middle ground would be "There is evidence that it is true." Or even "It appears to be true."

      Oh, so you don't know but feel as if you are. Got it.

      >>I notice that while you claim all truth is absolute, you feel the need to keep asking if things are "absolutely" true.

      Yea, just following instructions as commanded.

      "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5

      Delete
    23. Oh, so you don't know but feel as if you are. Got it.

      I know by my own standards. Indeed, I can say 'I know it to be true" and when you ask "Is it absolutely true" I can say "I'm not sure.

      By asking "Are you absolutely sure" you are asking if someone is 100% certain they are neither deceived nor mistaken. And, when dealing with, for example, larger subjects like the existence of God, such certainty is, indeed, folly.

      Delete
    24. >>I know by my own standards.

      So why fight against Christians then? You should be fully accepting for us to say "I know God to be true" and not rail 10,000+ comments against us. That is not the case though.

      >>And, when dealing with, for example, larger subjects like the existence of God, such certainty is, indeed, folly.

      Is that absolutely true? You keep making knowledge claims and then back down to merely subjective. Yes, we get it, in your subjectivity you BELIEVE it to be folly. So what?

      Delete
    25. I see what you're doing. You are just following Scripture:

      "Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men," Colossians 3:23

      I just wished you had read Colossians 3:24-25 also :7)

      Delete
    26. So why fight against Christians then?

      Because when you make claims of logical certainty in error, you mislead people. When you use claims of religious priority to invalidate science, you are harming the human race.

      If you said "I know God to be true" and left it at that, I wouldn't care.

      Is that absolutely true? You keep making knowledge claims and then back down to merely subjective. Yes, we get it, in your subjectivity you BELIEVE it to be folly. So what?

      I refer to the material universe for objective truth; but you refuse to grant even the material universe certain existence. Against that, what is there to do but shrug one's shoulders, and go "That's what we've got?"

      Since all you have is the possibly-deluded view that your God exists, you've got nothing better to offer.

      Delete
    27. Here is your hypocrisy, you want everyone to accept your claim of " I know by my own standards." as a mere subjective position for your knowledge, your worldview has no where else to go. Yet you will not accept others claims. We clear here? I am perfectly satisfied to leave the record stand there. You?

      Delete
    28. I claim "I know by my own standards."

      You claim "I know, and no one else can know, except by my standards."

      I will argue against your position, because it invalidates mine. Your claim of knowledge is less objective than mine, and yet you rail against it as "merely subjective."

      Why do I say it is "less objective"? Because you have, if I recall correctly, set the text of the Bible above repeated scientific experiment and observation, implying that an old, self-contradictory text is more accurate in explaining the real world than things that can be repeatedly tested and verified in the real world.

      So, no, I am not "perfectly satisfied to leave the record" with you claiming some sort of pseudo-objective basis for your worldview, and dismissing others.

      If you want to believe, if you want to have faith, go ahead. But you do more than that -- you try and dismiss other people's positions using flawed logic. That's what I won't accept.


      Delete
    29. And just to be clear:

      I will argue against your position, because it invalidates mine.

      I do not believe that my position is actually invalid. I believe that your position fallaciously claims mine is invalid.

      Delete
    30. >>You claim "I know, and no one else can know, except by my standards."

      Strawman. I claim "I know, and every one else knows also, by God's standards."

      >> I believe that your position fallaciously claims mine is invalid.

      Once again, you bring up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it. How do you account for absolutes in your atheistic worldview?

      >>So, no, I am not "perfectly satisfied to leave the record" with you claiming some sort of pseudo-objective basis for your worldview, and dismissing others.

      Why not? Is there more then one reality? Or do you not understand the term "objective truth"?

      Look, I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for me. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.

      >> But you do more than that -- you try and dismiss other people's positions using flawed logic.

      From what standard of logic are you gauging that against? Like I said, you're suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING.

      >>That's what I won't accept.

      Yes, we understand. But you're proving our position. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

      Delete
    31. "I know, and every one else knows also, by God's standards."


      Which presupposes a being for which there is no evidence that has been presented, and no validation method, and which makes no practical difference in the world. Whether God or the Great Green Arkleseizure allegedly "validates knowledge" makes no practical difference.

      How do you account for absolutes in your atheistic worldview?


      Absolutes are perfectly accountable-for in an axiomatic system; for example, in Russell & Whitehead mathematics, it is absolutely true that 2+2 = 4.

      Why not? Is there more then one reality? Or do you not understand the term "objective truth"?

      And you've given no reason to believe that your truth is "objective". Indeed, all you have is something inside your head, which you cannot validate to anyone else -- that's about as subjective as it gets.

      This is a very serious and real subject for me. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.


      How you understand, I don't know, since you've given no evidence that you're in possession of an understanding of truth. And I believe it's serious and real for you -- but you're doing a terrible job of explaining why anyone should believe what you believe.

      From what standard of logic are you gauging that against?

      As stated in a different post, a logic that we appear to have agreed upon to have any kind of a conversation. That's consensus/coherentist validity, right there; we are in a debate, and have accepted certain rules. If you don't accept them, then that's not my problem.

      God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.

      Again, you assert this, but I have no reason to believe it. You have offered no evidence for it, and it is in direct contradiction of my experience.

      It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

      First: as I said elsewhere, if a being demands belief and obedience and offers no reason to do so, indeed, only allows others who possess that belief to operate on its behalf, then that being is not deserving of respect.

      However, I am not sure it makes sense to speak of contempt towards something you don't even believe exists, if you don't. (And, BTW, my religious faith is a private matter -- unlike your logical fallacies.)

      Delete
    32. >> it is absolutely true that 2+2 = 4.

      Let's get to the point though. If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial. The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?

      >> but you're doing a terrible job of explaining why anyone should believe what you believe.

      But, that is not absolutely true, now is it. :7)

      >> First: as I said elsewhere, if a being demands belief and obedience and offers no reason to do so, indeed, only allows others who possess that belief to operate on its behalf, then that being is not deserving of respect. However, I am not sure it makes sense to speak of contempt towards something you don't even believe exists, if you don't.

      Well, God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.

      Delete
    33. Let's get to the point though. I notice you carefully deleted part of my sentence.
      We'll see if that deletion matters.

      In traditional set theory, "2" is the set of all sets with a certain number of elements, a.k.a. 2. This includes such concrete sets as "the number of eyes in a standard human body".

      Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial.

      One could, if one chose, argue that no, the number 2 is represented in each thinking person's head -- a material representation based on neurons and neurochemicals.

      universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God

      Sure we can; we can conceive of something that applies universally. We can conceive of something immaterial. Therefore, the combination of the two is conceivable, and requires no further accounting than "Our material brains can imagine it; we can use it to produce reliable results."

      How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?

      See above.

      One could equally argue that "2" is the sum of all conceptions of people's notions of two-ness.

      Well, God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.

      A) this whole statement presupposes Hell; and I, for one, have severe issues with eternal punishment for limited sin.
      B) I'm not certain, and I can deny the existence of the Christian God; then I am not bound for hell? How reassuring.

      Delete
    34. A) How are you so certain it is limited sin? ~bit.ly/OneLittleLie

      B)You're certain to rail on this blog, certainly not in the affirmative for His existence.

      Delete
    35. A) How are you so certain it is limited sin?

      Because I am a limited being; and I do not believe that infinite behavior is within my capacity; to do so would be to take on the mantle of a God, which is, as you repeatedly point out, blasphemy. ;)

      B) You're certain to rail on this blog, certainly not in the affirmative for His existence.

      No, I'm not certain to rail on this blog. I suspect at some point, I'll quit. And you're the one who said:

      A does not do B because of C.
      where A=God, B=sending people to hell, and C=denying something they are not certain of.
      Since I am not certain of the existence of God, by your standards, denying it fits under C above. Therefore, by your argument, God does not send me to hell. As I said -- reassuring.

      If that's not what you meant, perhaps you need to be a little clearer.

      Delete
    36. But you are certain of the existence of God, because God has revealed it such we can be certain of it. Self deception does not affect that reality, it just clouds your perceptions. Kind of like what adrenalin does to an injury.

      Delete
    37. But you are certain of the existence of God, because God has revealed it such we can be certain of it.

      Again, you assert this, but there is no reason for me to believe it. We've been here before.

      As a finite being, as someone else here has argued, I cannot verify beyond any doubt an infinite being.

      Delete
    38. But you are certain of the existence of God
      Do you have any evidence for this unsupported assertion?

      Delete
    39. >>Do you have any evidence for this unsupported assertion?

      Yes, revelation from God who cannot lie. Can man, those who deny that, lie?

      Delete
    40. Yes, revelation from God who cannot lie. Can man, those who deny that, lie?

      You have a revelation you believe is from God, who you assert can't lie. But you have no way of verifying it isn't some other being who can lie. In other words, no useful evidence.

      But we've been here before.

      Delete
    41. >> But you have no way of verifying it isn't some other being who can lie.

      You're claiming logic is not a verifier? I certainly can show you why God cannot lie. You deny this?

      Delete
    42. You're claiming logic is not a verifier? I certainly can show you why God cannot lie. You deny this?

      You can show me why the entity you claim exists, with the characteristics you claim exists, cannot lie. What you can't show me is that this entity you claim exists is the one supposedly giving you your revelations, as opposed to some other entity that can lie, or your own internal voices and delusions. *That* is the verification you're missing.

      Delete
    43. >>*That* is the verification you're missing.

      So, once again, you now have an implicitly positive claim. Therefore you own a burden of proof that our Creator God, (who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent) because of the impossible of the contrary, did in fact lie to us when He revealed Himself to us as claimed through natural and special revelations. Also, you have an implicitly, or even explicitly, positive claim that Scripture is false. Again, you own a burden of proof for that claim also.

      I cannot wait to see such proof. *rests chin on fists

      Delete
    44. because of the impossible of the contrary,

      I asked you before to expand on this, responded to it, and you dropped it. Right now, your "impossibility" is no such thing.

      id in fact lie to us when He revealed Himself to us as claimed through natural and special revelations.

      Nonsense; if I had to prove anything, it's that your alleged God didn't reveal himself at all through the simple fact of not existing. But I'm not the one who requires absolute certainty through revelation, so I don't need to prove anything of the sort to you. You are the one who is setting the bar high.

      Also, you have an implicitly, or even explicitly, positive claim that Scripture is false

      I have presented ample evidence elsewhere that Scripture is not inerrant -- and being not inerrant is sufficient weakness to mean it can't ground "absolute truth".

      And an "impliclity positive" claim does not generate a burden of proof over an explicitly positive one: that you have somehow received a revelation of absolute truth from an entity that fits the definition of your God. That's your claim; that's explicitly positive, rather than "I don't think you can do that."

      So, Dan, you still have a very high mountain to climb, and little evidence to do it with.

      Delete
    45. >>But I'm not the one who requires absolute certainty through revelation, so I don't need to prove anything of the sort to you.

      You say the God of the universe did NOT do as He revealed what He has done, through natural and special revelation, and Scripture. That is a positive claim. Right? Understand?

      >>I have presented ample evidence elsewhere that Scripture is not inerrant...

      Hardly. I gave you ample evidence that what you perceived as "contradictions" we not in the least. You deny that I have provided that proof.

      >>and being not inerrant is sufficient weakness to mean it can't ground "absolute truth".

      Equivocation fail. No one is claiming everything in the Bible are indeed absolute truth, with the obvious hyperbole, parables, and poetry. You're being silly.

      But when Scripture states that Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", in John 14:6. That indeed is absolutely true. You doubt that under what proof or evidence?

      Let me break it down further. Proof presupposes the absoluteness of truth. Bottom line is you can't account for the absoluteness of truth, without God, or in an atheistic worldview. So you're demanding for something, i.e. proof, that you do not believe in. I can leave it all right there. How do you account for absolute truth?

      Delete
    46. You say the God of the universe did NOT do as He revealed what He has done, through natural and special revelation, and Scripture. That is a positive claim. Right? Understand?

      That is not the claim I am making. I am saying that there is insufficient evidence to assert that the being you claim revealed things exists, let alone that he made the revelations you claim he did.

      Hardly. I gave you ample evidence that what you perceived as "contradictions" we not in the least. You deny that I have provided that proof.

      How, then, do you reconcile multiple creations, multiple lines of descent for the theoretical "Jesus", and so on and so forth? If you start arguing "metaphor", then you have to make clear to me how you distinguish between "Metaphor because otherwise things contradict" and "fact."

      Equivocation fail. No one is claiming everything in the Bible are indeed absolute truth, with the obvious hyperbole, parables, and poetry. You're being silly.

      Yet when you cite examples, you expect us to accept them as true. Perhaps they're just metaphor, hyperbole, poetry, or anthropomorphization.

      But when Scripture states that Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", in John 14:6. That indeed is absolutely true. You doubt that under what proof or evidence?

      Again -- why should I believe this bit is true reportage when other bits aren't, and bits that might be are redefined as "metaphor" to get around problems of contradiction? You're cherrypicking, as you try to do with "True Christians", and so forth.

      Proof presupposes the absoluteness of truth.

      Proof presupposes the existence of a system of statements, and a proof-process. Within a closed system, you can speak to absolute truth, because you can define the entirety of the system.

      in an atheistic worldview.

      Sure you can; you can speak of relevance and accuracy to either a) the axiomatic systems you're working in, or b) the material universe. Most atheists are honest enough to admit that there is the theoretical possibility of deception, unlike presuppositionalist Christians, who deny it despite having no evidence that they can do so in a grounded and accountable fashion.

      Delete
    47. >>Again -- why should I believe this bit is true reportage when other bits aren't, and bits that might be are redefined as "metaphor" to get around problems of contradiction?

      Because Scripture is to be read literary, not literally. Study up on your literary devices if you're confused as to how to determine which is which.

      >>Proof presupposes the existence of a system of statements, and a proof-process. Within a closed system, you can speak to absolute truth, because you can define the entirety of the system.

      Wait...what? Proof is defined as "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

      THIS presupposes the absoluteness of truth.

      >> Most atheists are honest enough to admit that there is the theoretical possibility of deception,

      Men you mean? Of course there is deception among men. Including the peer review system, as I pointed out earlier.

      >>unlike presuppositionalist Christians, who deny it despite having no evidence that they can do so in a grounded and accountable fashion.

      Are we talking about God now? No, it is LOGICALLY impossible for God to lie. God's abilities does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. You deny this? Go reread what was written about "omnibenevolence."

      Delete
    48. Because Scripture is to be read literary, not literally. Study up on your literary devices if you're confused as to how to determine which is which.

      I've taken scriptural classes before, Dan. And the point that was made clear at the time was that which are which are not universally agreed upon. And if you're going to try and make absolute truth claims, that lack of universal agreement is highly problematic.

      Wait...what? Proof is defined as "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

      THIS presupposes the absoluteness of truth.


      You're defining proof that way. To a mathematician, proof is a matter of following a process within an axiomatic system. To a prosecuting attorney, proof is demonstrating a case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

      There is nothing about "absolute" truth in your definition. Truth in that is always a matter of framework, rather than some simple "absolute."

      Men you mean? Of course there is deception among men. Including the peer review system, as I pointed out earlier.

      Or the possibility of some greater force providing the deception. You are being, I presume, deliberately obtuse here.

      Are we talking about God now? No, it is LOGICALLY impossible for God to lie.

      You assert this repeatedly. I gave you an example where such a thing was possible, given one definition of God. You choose to claim a slightly different one, and then go back to say "This God can't lie."

      Whether or not that's true, that's not evidence that that God exists, or that you are receiving revelation from such a God. It's irrelevant to the larger point.

      Delete
  4. Oh, and in an article that includes this little gem:

    Science owes its origin to a distinctly Judeo-Christian understanding of the nature of mankind.

    I counted 21 arabic numerals and several scientific terms that come from Greek roots.

    Just putting that out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan quoted...

    "Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by Atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

    Lol, so it's not just iron chariots that defeat your God, he's also undone by tinfoil hats. Not really a surprise though - imaginary things really would struggle to overcome things that actually exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And yet another attack on science.

    Happy to use it when you think it supports your ridiculous beliefs but just as happy to deny it's efficacy when it shows your worldview to be the absurdly contradictory mess you're desperate to continue believing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth
    That sounds awful. Good thing no one actually sees science this way.

    ReplyDelete
  8.      Hmmm. Well, I think (large-scale) evolution suffers from the same problem Dan's god does. It's not testable. It makes no predictions. I have come to think that the game is rigged. And simply telling me that it is not rigged or attempting to ridicule me for not falling into line will not dissuade me.
         Now, the problem with evidence for the supernatural is that everything we can see (even with our instruments) is, by definition, natural. Still, Dan is quite wrong. If evidence were presented, people would accept it. I gave an example of something that would convince me. unsurprisingly, Dan wasted no time in his path to claiming that I was trying to play god. As even Dan does not believe his god is there, he did not bother praying to have that evidence brought to reality.
         The example I gave wasn't even specific to me. It would be generally observable. And I'm sure that it would convince many more people than Sye lying. But Dan knows it's not going to happen -- because his god isn't there. If Dan believed his god were real, he would be trying to give us real evidence. He would not be claiming that Presuppositional Baloney was in any way "biblical." He would not be claiming that our ability to reason was somehow evidence for his god. His actions testify that he does not believe.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmmm. Well, I think (large-scale) evolution suffers from the same problem Dan's god does. It's not testable. It makes no predictions. I have come to think that the game is rigged. And simply telling me that it is not rigged or attempting to ridicule me for not falling into line will not dissuade me.

    How do you define "large-scale" evolution? We've seen speciation events, even under lab circumstances (Lenski, for example.) We've had many predictions of what sort of fossils would be found -- which were then found. We've had predictions of what sort of genetic connections one would find -- and they were found. The precise mechanisms can't be easily tested -- but the predictions certainly could be, and were.

    So, that's the situation with regards to large-scale evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So many Atheists are afflicted with this horrible debilitating condition

    Name one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan goes down in flames again.

    Fin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You absolutely certain about that? If so, HOW?

      Delete
    2. I'm as certain as I can be -- you repeatedly ignored questions, challenges, etc. That's a pretty good definition of "down in flames".

      Delete
    3. Now, is that the truth or merely your opinion?

      Delete
    4. The fact that you repeatedly ignored questions, challenges, etc. is a fact.
      The idea that that qualifies as "down in flames" is my opinion, but I have not seen you presenting any evidence to change it. After all, I strongly suspect Froggie was speaking metaphorically, and did not actually mean you were up in the air, caught on fire, and crashed into the ground. ;)

      So, it's a combination of the two, resting unchallenged. if you'd like to explain why leaving a bunch of questions unanswered for nearly a week doesn't qualify, by all means, go ahead.

      Delete
    5. Your unwillingness to defend yourself in any way, Dan, speaks volumes about your sincerity here.

      By all means, keep demanding omniscience from your critics.

      Delete
    6. I am not demanding omniscience, they are claiming omniscience without God. I only ask how they get there.

      Delete
    7. I am not demanding omniscience
      Demanding absolute certainty is demanding omniscience, and it is a lie to pretend otherwise.

      Delete
    8. >>Demanding absolute certainty is demanding omniscience, and it is a lie to pretend otherwise.

      That sure is a giant leap, are you certain of even that?

      So you do not know anything because you're not omniscient? Erm,...OK.

      While we're here, is lying wrong? The foundationless judging the foundation. The farce continues.

      Delete
    9. >>Demanding absolute certainty is demanding omniscience, and it is a lie to pretend otherwise.

      That sure is a giant leap, are you certain of even that?

      Yup. Absolute certainty = omniscience, and you only need to honestly read a dictionary to know why.

      So you do not know anything because you're not omniscient?
      I sure hope you give your children better reading comprehension skills than you have yourself.

      Delete
    10. Wem,

      >>Yup. Absolute certainty = omniscience, and you only need to honestly read a dictionary to know why.

      I am not certain what you mean. Can you explain? Is absolute certainty possible with revelation from God (omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being) to satisfy this criteria "Absolute certainty = omniscience"? If not, why not?

      >>I sure hope you give your children better reading comprehension skills than you have yourself.

      I completely agree with you. We digress. Now, back to the subject, how can you claim knowledge without being certain?

      Or, please give an example of something which is KNOWN for certain to be true, which is in fact not true.

      Delete
    11. Is absolute certainty possible with revelation from God
      No, and you know why. No matter how powerful God is, YOU are unable to tell the difference between true divine revelation and false divine revelation. You are the weak link. The only way for you to be absolutely certain, to be able to recognize a truth that holds true in all places and times, is for God to make you omniscient.

      Absolute certainty = omniscience. Demanding either as the prerequisite for knowledge is dishonest.

      Delete
    12. >>No matter how powerful God is, YOU are unable to tell the difference between true divine revelation and false divine revelation.

      It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?

      Delete
    13. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.

      Well, or it would be arguable that since that is not possible, and that is mandatory for God to exist (according to you) this is proof of the non-existence of God, since there is no way for a person to be sure that their revelation is from God, or something pretending to be so.

      Now, I don't happen to think that that particular ability is mandatory -- but if you do, well...

      Delete
    14. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.

      Well, you're dishonest, so I'm not overly worried about your opinion on this.

      More importantly, though, no one claimed it would be impossible. To the contrary, several of us have told you explicitly how it might be done:

      By making us omniscient.

      You're demanding omniscience as a prerequisite for certainty, and given that you're not God, that too is dishonest.

      Delete
    15. >>You're demanding omniscience as a prerequisite for certainty, and given that you're not God, that too is dishonest.

      Listen Sybil. It was YOU who claimed that. Remember this:

      >>Absolute certainty = omniscience, and you only need to honestly read a dictionary to know why.

      Now, of you do not have omniscience, you cannot know "Absolute certainty = omniscience" under YOUR own criteria.

      TGIF, otherwise you would be annoying. :7)

      Delete
  12. they are claiming omniscience without God.

    I, at least, am claiming no such thing. Which is why I don't claim "absolute certainty." You do, and you're the one who believes it's required for knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Which is why I don't claim "absolute certainty."

      But that is not absolutely true is it?

      >>You do, and you're the one who believes it's required for knowledge.

      But you're absolutely certain it isn't?

      You're right, we've been here before.

      Delete
  13. But you're absolutely certain it isn't?

    So long as you want absolute certainty, Dan, you're not going to get it from me, and I'm not going to claim it.

    I've told you why. If all you have is "are you absolutely ", then the answer will always be "no", and you can stop asking. You can try and wedge your God into the thin slivers of possibility, but that seems to be to be an unpersuasive and pointless endeavour.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A Comprehensive Scientism Worldview

    “Henis Worldview” Database

    I’m nearly 88 yrs old. Circa twenty years ago I intensified my universe-life pondering and scrutinizing of relevant scientific publications, gradually crystallizing and compiling a comprehensive worldview distinctly different in several aspects from the 21st century generally accepted scientific worldview. A compilation of most of the brief inter-related inter-twined chapters of this “worldview” is now displayed at http://universe-life.com/ .

    In answer to occasional readers’ comments-remarks I have been asserting that none of the scientific matters stated in or implied by the “worldview“ contradicts the now generally accepted science. Some pedants, though, are not satisfied with this assertion even when ascertained correct. They demand presentation of “new subject specific data”.

    To this I posit :

    A.
    http://universe-life.com/2013/01/26/science-comprehension-derives-from-data-assessment/

    B.
    ALL data, wherever published, that conform with the materials presented in “Henis Worldview” chapters are scientifically ”Henis Worldview” database.

    Dov Henis
    (comments from 22nd century)
    http://universe-life.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dov,

      Like science, the position may be updated with future evidence, so could the same happen to you? Could you be wrong about what you currently know?

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>