# David Berlinski Skeptic/Agnostic on science and religion.



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

This is a bit dated, I feel he has done an honest job of assessing where science currently stands in relation to religion:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

Its not suprising you feel that this is an honest assessment of science in relation to religion.
Anyone with a basic understanding of what science is and isn't sees this for the big pile of steaming carp that it is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not suprising you feel that this is an honest assessment of science in relation to religion.
> Anyone with a basic understanding of what science is and isn't sees this for the big pile of steaming carp that it is.



Maybeeee.  I only have a Masters in Science.  I’m not nearly as qualified as the author.  His resume’ includes the following:



> Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, ....He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.  He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.



Maybe, just maybe, he has an understanding of “what science is”.   And maybe, just maybe, he is one of a rare breed of HONEST agnostics who are actually dedicated to truth and hot a Hack with an axe to grind against anything religious.  I highly doubt you are familiar with such a concept though it does exist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybeeee.  I only have a Masters in Science.  I’m not nearly as qualified as the author.  His resume’ includes the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, he has an understanding of “what science is”.   And maybe, just maybe, he is one of a rare breed of HONEST agnostics who are actually dedicated to truth and hot a Hack with an axe to grind against anything religious.  I highly doubt you are familiar with such a concept though it does exist.


Keep reading about your author's "resume".


> I only have a Masters in Science.


And?
I'm a high school dropout and I can easily see right through his straw man arguments/points.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 22, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

atlashunter said:


>



When the first thing on the list of points is -


> Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.


You know you are in for an intellectual treat.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm a high school dropout and I can easily see right through his straw man arguments/points.




Ohhhhhh.  I’m not sure which astounds me more: the statement that you see a straw man argument above, or the claim you can see through it.  Maybe we should have dropped out during grade school.  I’m sure we could more easily understand your claims then.  

In all honesty it takes more faith to take your comments seriously than it does to believe in God......any God: Thor, Hermès, Cat Woman, Chicken Little.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ohhhhhh.  I’m not sure which astounds me more: the statement that you see a straw man argument above, or the claim you can see through it.  Maybe we should have dropped out during grade school.  I’m sure we could more easily understand your claims then.
> 
> In all honesty it takes more faith to take your comments seriously than it does to believe in God......any God: Thor, Hermès, Cat Woman, Chicken Little.





> Maybe we should have dropped out during grade school.  I’m sure we could more easily understand your claims then.


No I don't think that would have helped you at all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> When the first thing on the list of points is -
> 
> You know you are in for an intellectual treat.



Just a hint: “a proof”, not “proof”.  There’s a difference.  You may want to investigate it, albeit it’s a bit late now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> No I don't think that would have helped you at all.



You’re most certainly correct.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a hint: “a proof”, not “proof”.  There’s a difference.  You may want to investigate it, albeit it’s a bit late now.


Your continual efforts to pound a square peg into a round hole are admirable.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its not suprising you feel that this is an honest assessment of science in relation to religion.
> Anyone with a basic understanding of what science is and isn't sees this for the big pile of steaming carp that it is.



agree - science is a process, a mindset, a technique that (if followed properly) uncovers concrete truths that cannot be denied by people of all cultures, beliefs and faiths. If proof-positive results are not revealed then at least the stage is set for further testing and examination.

Science is not just a collection of facts/achievements that are "set in stone" unchanging. True scientists want to be proven wrong eventually as better ideas, experiences, and techniques are developed and science develops. No scientist should ever use "because this book says so" as the answer to the question "why". A scientists helps you run your own test so you can find out for yourself. I can't see a clergyman doing that.

Yes, there is in the Bible something about "God's word being open to investigation & study & discussion" but only if that study follows the party line and leads to a conclusion that satisfies God. True we can't disprove much of what is in the Bible because there is not much physical evidence to examine especially Old Testament legends. But if you bounce most of it (including New Testament) up against other historical records of the time what evidence does remain is pretty flimsy indeed.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a hint: “a proof”, not “proof”.  There’s a difference.  You may want to investigate it, albeit it’s a bit late now.



Christians have provided neither for their god. Should have been easy to do if their book was true. As it currently stands there is no more reason to believe Yahweh exists than there is to believe in any other god. That's what we should expect of a mythical figure. That's my proof. When you can come to the table with something that changes that let me know. Thus far you got nuthin'.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is a bit dated, I feel he has done an honest job of assessing where science currently stands in relation to religion:
> 
> Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.


This is pretty basic.  Take a look at this and tell me what you think it means:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative


SemperFiDawg said:


> Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.


_Quantum Cosmology

Modern cosmological research concentrates on 'quantum cosmology', which attempts to reconcile the quantum physical conditions just after the big bang with the general relativistic conditions thereafter. _
There's nothing in there that says that they're trying to explain "why".  It also says nothing about what happened before the Big Bang.  Why do you say these things?



SemperFiDawg said:


> Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.


Again, they're not in the "why" business.  How come you don't know that?


SemperFiDawg said:


> Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.


They are willing to believe anything including religious thought.  The same goes for atheists.  Put up some proof.  


SemperFiDawg said:


> Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.


Yes. Rationalism/rationality tells me that much of what is described in religious texts including the Bible is abhorrent and wrong.


SemperFiDawg said:


> Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.


What parts of secularism?  Equality?  High regard for rationality? Science?  Secularism has benefited you greatly. 


SemperFiDawg said:


> Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.


Describe the oppressive orthodoxy.  Tell me something that one could not offer up to the scientific community.  


SemperFiDawg said:


> Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.


All supernatural claims are irrational.  Claiming that the Earths stopped turning is irrational.  


SemperFiDawg said:


> Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.


"Intellectual contempt".  That sounds bad.  Give me an example.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is a bit dated, I feel he has done an honest job of assessing where science currently stands in relation to religion:
> 
> Has anyone provided......


Thank YOU for the list, Semper.
While, for some, it may be 'dated,' as you say .... i am thankful for your posting of it cause i am seeing it for the 1st time.
Have printed it out .....
with the intent of exploring, studying and stumbling my way thru it over the next couple months, fyi.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Thank YOU for the list, Semper.
> While, for some, it may be 'dated,' as you say .... i am thankful for your posting of it cause i am seeing it for the 1st time.
> Have printed it out .....
> with the intent of exploring, studying and stumbling my way thru it over the next couple months, fyi.



The first thing I would look into is "Proving the negative", which is the first thing the author wants to do when he says "They can't prove God _DOESN'T_ exist".  Here's some things that should provide good reading:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Thank YOU for the list, Semper.
> While, for some, it may be 'dated,' as you say .... i am thankful for your posting of it cause i am seeing it for the 1st time.
> Have printed it out .....
> with the intent of exploring, studying and stumbling my way thru it over the next couple months, fyi.



Your welcome, but it isn't my list.  It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion.  David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth.  As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause."   I ignore them for the most part.  I'm
 gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.

Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled 
Evolutions' Achilles Heel.  It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription.  My kids are actually watching it again this week.  I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do.  It takes a honest  look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws.  I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your welcome, but it isn't my list.  It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion.  David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth.  As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause."   I ignore them for the most part.  I'm
> gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.
> 
> Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
> Evolutions' Achilles Heel.  It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription.  My kids are actually watching it again this week.  I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do.  It takes a honest  look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws.  I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.



I addressed each point Berlinski made one by one.  Which of the things that I said are lies or wrong?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

Semper Fi,

I will believe in your god or any god if you can convince me that they're real.  If I need a personal revelation to believe, then I wasn't convinced by rational argument, I will have been convinced by a subjective experience.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Semper Fi,
> I will believe in your god or any god if you can convince me that they're real.  If I need a personal revelation* to believe, then I wasn't convinced by rational** argument, I will have been convinced by a subjective experience.


Please consider the following a non-fake-news news report, NOT an '_opinion_ editorial.' 

i am _not_ saying that you would actually wish to try the following 
(it will only be perceived thru your senses - yet all **rational thought _is_ perceived thru senses, as well); 
however, i KNOW it has provided personal revelation* for some folks who have tried it.
(& i am not saying it applies to me, bro) ......
John 7:17 - [a quote from Jesus Christ] 
"_If_ anyone chooses to do God's will, _he will find out_ whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."  
What said folks decided was that, for them, it was worth a try (one commented, 'Didn't cost me much to try, just a little time, a few days) .... and for them, something happened that they say 'stuck.'


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> The first thing I would look into is "Proving the negative", which is the first thing the author wants to do when he says "They can't prove God _DOESN'T_ exist".  Here's some things that should provide good reading:
> 
> https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative


Thank you.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Please consider the following a non-fake-news news report, NOT an '_opinion_ editorial.'
> 
> i am _not_ saying that you would actually wish to try the following
> (it will only be perceived thru your senses - yet all **rational thought _is_ perceived thru senses, as well);
> ...



You have to be more specific with what you mean by "doing God's will".  That could mean all kinds of things.  I'll assume you mean "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself".  Those seem to be the ones that most Christians agree on, though it gets dicey when you get into the details of what "loving your neighbor" could mean.  Observe how SemperFi sees fit to love his neighbors by "not engaging trolls".  I don't think I'll try that style of doing God's will.  What do you think doing God's will means?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Semper Fi,
> 
> I will believe in your god or any god if you can convince me that they're real.  If I need a personal revelation to believe, then I wasn't convinced by rational argument, I will have been convinced by a subjective experience.



Don't make me use this,


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Don't make me use this,



You are a bizarre example of a Christian.  I must admit I'm thoroughly confused as to how you think that your belief has made you a better person.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your welcome, but it isn't my list.  It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion.  David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth.  As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause."   I ignore them for the most part.  I'm
> gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.
> 
> Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
> Evolutions' Achilles Heel.  It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription.  My kids are actually watching it again this week.  I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do.  It takes a honest  look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws.  I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.


Thanks Semper.
i look forward to it with interest.
Meanwhile ..... so far here are what my views to date have become ~
Based upon the scientific community's own self defined "Scientific Process" aka "Scientific Method" and extensive life long studies on my part on evolution related fossil information + related geological information 'macro-evolution,' aka 'speciation,' fits perfectly as a scientific _hypothesis_, but to grant it the status of _theory_ is utterly inconsistent with the Scientific Process/Method.
Meanwhile, 'micro-evolution' _does _meet the definition of at least a scientific theory.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your welcome, but it isn't my list.  It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion.  David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth.  As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause."   I ignore them for the most part.  I'm
> gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.
> 
> Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
> Evolutions' Achilles Heel.  It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription.  My kids are actually watching it again this week.  I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do.  It takes a honest  look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws.  I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.





> David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth.


Is that what impresses you about him? His dedication the truth?
Or is it this? -


> A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement


.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Thanks Semper.
> i look forward to it with interest.
> Meanwhile ..... so far here are what my views to date have become ~
> Based upon the scientific community's own self defined "Scientific Process" aka "Scientific Method" and extensive life long studies on my part on evolution related fossil information + related geological information 'macro-evolution,' aka 'speciation,' fits perfectly as a scientific _hypothesis_, but to grant it the status of _theory_ is utterly inconsistent with the Scientific Process/Method.
> Meanwhile, 'micro-evolution' _does _meet the definition of at least a scientific theory.



Here's the trailer.  You can rent the movie for 3.99,
I found the parts on genetics and origins of life fascinating and the segment on fossil record was also.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Thanks Semper.
> i look forward to it with interest.
> Meanwhile ..... so far here are what my views to date have become ~
> Based upon the scientific community's own self defined "Scientific Process" aka "Scientific Method" and extensive life long studies on my part on evolution related fossil information + related geological information 'macro-evolution,' aka 'speciation,' fits perfectly as a scientific _hypothesis_, but to grant it the status of _theory_ is utterly inconsistent with the Scientific Process/Method.
> Meanwhile, 'micro-evolution' _does _meet the definition of at least a scientific theory.



How much "guessing" are you willing to accept?

Given that the best that science can do is offer a best guess about anything at any given time, which guesses are you willing to accept?  How about the part that helped create cellphones? At the quantum level we don't REALLY know how that part of cell phone works but we call what we understand about it a theory (in the scientific sense) and use it to predict and innovate.  I feel that the same amount and same type of "guessing" is involved with the Theory of Evolution and it's equally useful for its explanatory and predictive properties.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Is that what impresses you about him? His dedication the truth?
> Or is it this? -
> .


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You have to be more specific with what you mean by "doing God's will".  That could mean all kinds of things.  I'll assume you mean "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself".  Those seem to be the ones that most Christians agree on, though it gets dicey when you get into the details of what "loving your neighbor" could mean .....  What do you think doing God's will means?


Yes, consistent with your above .... "doing God's will" is typically _summarized_ with direct _summary_ quotes from the Bible as:
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind & strength. +  Love your neighbor as yourself/aka, do to others as you would have them do to you.
Then :- ) the question becomes .... "Okay, Mac, what is that supposed to mean?"
i am not saying i have it figured out; however, i will say that by slowly reading the Bible a page at a time over a 3 or 4 years i gained _my own_ collective perspective (not that of some TV evangelist) .....
A way to gain one's own perspective with no Bible thumper influence is using a manageable schedule such as the type found at www.TheBible.bz, for example.
The Bible disappointed me &, i anticipate, will continue to do so in this regard .... 
i expected it to answer all my questions.  
It did not.  
I ended up with probably lots more; 
however, no religious texts or physics/chemistry/astronomy manuals or astrology books answered all my questions either.
The following is not i saying i am a Christian or a Martian or a boll weevil or an agnostic .... 
i will say the Bible answered more questions _for me_ than any other reference source(s).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2018)

or perhaps


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


>


Not interested.
The ridiculousness of his points that you posted is all I need to see.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Yes, consistent with your above .... "doing God's will" is typically _summarized_ with direct _summary_ quotes from the Bible as:
> Love God with all your heart, soul, mind & strength. +  Love your neighbor as yourself/aka, do to others as you would have them do to you.
> Then :- ) the question becomes .... "Okay, Mac, what is that supposed to mean?"
> i am not saying i have it figured out; however, i will say that by slowly reading the Bible a page at a time over a 3 or 4 years i gained _my own_ collective perspective (not that of some TV evangelist) .....
> ...



What were your questions and what were the answers?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How much "guessing" are you willing to accept?
> the .... of Evolution and it's equally useful for its explanatory and predictive properties.


i am fully/entirely willing to accept all that is prescribed_ by the scientific community_ within _their own_ self defined process that they entitled "The Scientific Process, aka The Scientific Method."


----------



## ky55 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> The Bible disappointed me &, i anticipate, will continue to do so in this regard ....
> i expected it to answer all my questions.
> It did not.
> I ended up with probably lots more;
> however, no religious texts or physics/chemistry/astronomy manuals or astrology books answered all my questions either.



Yeah it disappointed me too. 
I expected more from a book that was supposed to be the inerrant and inspired product of a divine being. 
It always seemed to generate more questions, and produced no more answers than the other books you mentioned.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> i am fully/entirely willing to accept all that is prescribed_ by the scientific community_ within _their own_ self defined process that they entitled "The Scientific Process, aka The Scientific Method."



By your use of italics it seems to me that you believe there are phenomena that the scientific method can't reveal anything about.  Is that right?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Please consider the following a non-fake-news news report, NOT an '_opinion_ editorial.'
> 
> i am _not_ saying that you would actually wish to try the following
> (it will only be perceived thru your senses - yet all **rational thought _is_ perceived thru senses, as well);
> ...


Wasn't John the last of the gospels that was written? How did that author quote Jesus?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 24, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> i am fully/entirely willing to accept all that is prescribed_ by the scientific community_ within _their own_ self defined process that they entitled "The Scientific Process, aka The Scientific Method."



the scientific method can be used very effectively by everyone of all education levels and occupations and cultures in nearly every scenario we can conceive of. 
In my opinion it's the cornerstone of rational thought and common sense problem solving and innovation.

That said no one major religion today has much applicable spill-over into any other major religion - or at least not enough to keep us from going to that religion's version of eternal torture for not making the grade.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 24, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> That said no one major religion today has much applicable spill-over into any other major religion - or at least not enough to keep us from going to that religion's version of eternal torture for not making the grade.



When I first read this I thought you meant that religions are too dissimilar which prevents people from going back and forth between religions. Then I re-read it and it looks like you're saying the opposite. Which is it?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's the trailer.  You can rent the movie for 3.99,
> I found the parts on genetics and origins of life fascinating and the segment on fossil record was also.



I looked into this movie a little bit.  Here's Dr. Rob Carter, one of the scientists that's highlighted in the movie:



At one minute in he says that he starts with a set of assumptions.  He says that every world view has to start with a set of assumptions.  His assumptions are that God exists and that He speaks to us through the Bible.  He then goes on to say that the assumptions underpinning the Evolutionary World View starts with the assumption that there's no God and that natural processes explain _"EVERYTHING"_ (his emphasis).  He says that evolutionists claim that "God is not active in the Universe and is therefore unnecessary".

Anybody else see anything screwy yet?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's the trailer.  You can rent the movie for 3.99,
> I found the parts on genetics and origins of life fascinating and the segment on fossil record was also.



Hey SFD,

I'm not gonna give $3.99 to the Creation Ministries Institute and buy this movie but if you buy it I'll watch it with you and then we can talk about it.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> By your use of italics it seems to me that you believe there are phenomena* that the scientific method can't reveal anything about.  Is that right?


If it is okay for you and me to start with the assumption that all knowledge is not yet known by humans, & that .....
the Scientific Process/Method is a means by which it is studied and figured out, then.....
at this point i have no basis to anticipate that all knowledge 
(i think this is what you are entitling *phenomena - but i could be misinterpreting your intended definition/dunno)
will be revealed thru the Scientific Process/Method.
i am not saying this as any kind of supposed discredit to the Scientific Process/Method .... i love the Scientific Process/Method for all its wonderful worth.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Wasn't John the last of the gospels that was written? How did that author quote* Jesus?


Please forgive me for not exactly understanding your question.
Also, btw, I do not know if John was the last of the Gospels written.
All of the Gospels were written after the mortal death of Jesus.
All of the Gospels convey *quotations from earlier when Jesus was alive.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What were your questions and what were the answers?


The biggest most important question(s) for me was 2 fold:
*1.*  Why should i believe that which is reported in The Bible is valid or invalid; &
*2.*  How will i ever be able to decide this _for myself_ until i objectively read The Bible word for word _for myself._
All other questions and answers where related to and a function of the above.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 26, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's the trailer.  You can rent the movie for 3.99,
> I found the parts on genetics and origins of life fascinating and the segment on fossil record was also.


Thank you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Please forgive me for not exactly understanding your question.
> Also, btw, I do not know if John was the last of the Gospels written.
> All of the Gospels were written after the mortal death of Jesus.
> All of the Gospels convey *quotations from earlier when Jesus was alive.


John is believed to have been written as early as the year 100 and some estimates think it is 120 to 140.
Who was there to hear the quotes 90 years earlier and was still alive for the author of John to quote at least 2nd hand quotes?
How did the author of John know they were accurate?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> If it is okay for you and me to start with the assumption that all knowledge is not yet known by humans, & that .....
> the Scientific Process/Method is a means by which it is studied and figured out, then.....
> at this point i have no basis to anticipate that all knowledge
> (i think this is what you are entitling *phenomena - but i could be misinterpreting your intended definition/dunno)
> ...



What kind of knowledge can't be revealed or described by the scientific method?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> John is believed to have been written as early as the year 100 and some estimates think it is 120 to 140.
> Who was there to hear the quotes 90 years earlier and was still alive for the author of John to quote at least 2nd hand quotes?
> How did the author of John know they were accurate?


Don't know.
Please keep in mind that my comment included with John7:17 was specifically " (& i am not saying it applies to me, bro)  "  
i am not on this forum defending The Bible or otherwise....  The Bible is what it is .... all of us can take it or leave it.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 26, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Don't know.
> Please keep in mind that my comment included with John7:17 was specifically " (& i am not saying it applies to me, bro)  "
> *i am not on this forum defending The Bible or otherwise.... * The Bible is what it is .... all of us can take it or leave it.




“Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending or attempting to prove the truth of religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.[1][2][3] Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.[4] In 21st century usage, 'apologetics' is often identified with debates over religion and theology.“

Maybe you aren’t in the right forum?

*


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 27, 2018)

ky55 said:


> “Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending or attempting to prove the truth of religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.[1][2][3] Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.[4] In 21st century usage, 'apologetics' is often identified with debates over religion and theology.“
> 
> Maybe you aren’t in the right forum?
> 
> *


Ok. 
Uhmmm .... would you _allow_ me to be agnostic on this forum?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What kind of knowledge can't be revealed or described by the scientific method?


A far better information source for you than i is the Encyclopedia Brittannica ....
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method


----------



## Israel (Jan 28, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> or perhaps



Thanks Semper.

This fellow speaks well of mystery.
His quoting Hamlet reminds me of another:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
And his obvious love of Gerard Manley Hopkins, to be so fluid, also comforted me.

God's Grandeur

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
    It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
    It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
    And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
    And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
    There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
    Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
    World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.


----------

