» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 75 | | 22 members and 53 guests | | Abd_Yesua_alMasih, BobVigneault, BuddyOfDavidClarkson, CaseyBessette, ColdSilverMoon, CovenantalBaptist, danmpem, DavidinKnoxville, elnwood, greenbaggins, refbaptdude, Reformingstudent, Seb, Southern Presbyterian, staythecourse, TimV | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
01-02-2008, 06:03 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC
Posts: 3,503
Thanks: 624
Thanked 115 Times in 89 Posts
| | | Need help responding to the following "ought to know that despite protestations from religious folks, the criteria for spiritual theory selection and the criteria for rational theory selection are incompatible. Rational theory selection accepts induction is fallible hence science accepts the premise that falsification may nullify what was previously accepted as scientific fact. That is the status of any paradigm in science. Unfortunately, the criteria of spiritual theory selection is infallible! Its truths are eternal verities! Religion acts no other authority but that of its own supposed received wisdom enshrined in its holy texts. It is pure nonsense about "Evidences does not have to be constrained to a particular epistemological construct..." Every religion abides solely on evidence that can be harmonized with what holy writ say of reality and the conception of God"
__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY
Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.
| 
01-02-2008, 06:30 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 491
Thanks: 24
Thanked 25 Times in 15 Posts
| | | Hi Keon:
Can you post the whole citation? I get the gist of what is being said, but it appears some context or additional part of the cite is missing.
__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN
"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14
| 
01-02-2008, 06:44 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 3,941
Thanks: 627
Thanked 496 Times in 323 Posts
| | |
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart
Last edited by Davidius; 04-18-2008 at 12:36 AM.
| 
01-02-2008, 06:44 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,818
Thanks: 827
Thanked 754 Times in 464 Posts
| | Logical positivism/verificationism. It died in the '20s. Even sceptic Anthony Flew ditched the theory. Respectable people now laugh at it. Quote: |
Rational theory selection accepts induction is fallible hence science accepts the premise that falsification may nullify what was previously accepted as scientific fact. That is the status of any paradigm in science.
| Is this statement falsifiable/verifiable? No. More importantly, he has to accept his own starting point "by faith."
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ivanhoe For This Useful Post: | | 
01-02-2008, 11:33 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC
Posts: 3,503
Thanks: 624
Thanked 115 Times in 89 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sotzo Hi Keon:
Can you post the whole citation? I get the gist of what is being said, but it appears some context or additional part of the cite is missing. | that was the whole citation. the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.
Hi Jacob thanks for the help. | 
01-03-2008, 06:45 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lawndale, CA
Posts: 28
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippery Quote:
Originally Posted by sotzo Hi Keon:
Can you post the whole citation? I get the gist of what is being said, but it appears some context or additional part of the cite is missing. | that was the whole citation. the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.
Hi Jacob thanks for the help. | Evidentialism at its worst. Our axiom is God therefore we need not prove his existance to believe in him.
__________________
Julio Perez
Member, Reedemer Prebysterian Church, PCA
South Bay, California
"A good deal of the penetrating power of Calvinism depends upon its intellectualism. The Calvinist knows what he believes, and why he believes it."
--Karl Holl, 1909
Johannes Calvin, Rede zur Feier der 400. Wiederkehr des Geburtstages Calvins, pp. 267
| 
01-03-2008, 07:06 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 491
Thanks: 24
Thanked 25 Times in 15 Posts
| | Quote:
the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.
Hi Jacob thanks for the help.
| My response would be as follows:
"Please show me the scientific test that will prove that only those things exist that can be proven with a scientific test."
If he/she says "I cannot show such a test" than his/her epistemological starting point is then destroyed.
If he/she says "I can show such a test" then tell them every peer-reviewed journal would love to publish the findings of such a study as it would be new territory for science to answer such a question. In fact, this would not be science at all, but the logical conclusion of an a priori position about reality. The sooner he/she admits that, the sooner you can get on with genuine discussion.
I've often wanted to write a satire on science in the vein of Pilgrim's Progress. Have characters like Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible. Then have a character called Materialist who constantly keeps putting Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible into situations where they do not fit. And have them getting annoyed and fed up with Materialist by saying things like, "Have we not made enough progress for your ends?? Why keep asking us to perform miracles we were never intended to do?? Loose us from your service so that we can be free to function as a tool and not a blueprint for the world!" | | The Following User Says Thank You to sotzo For This Useful Post: | | 
04-17-2008, 10:56 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Warren, PA
Posts: 45
Thanks: 8
Thanked 8 Times in 4 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sotzo Quote:
the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.
Hi Jacob thanks for the help.
| My response would be as follows:
"Please show me the scientific test that will prove that only those things exist that can be proven with a scientific test."
If he/she says "I cannot show such a test" than his/her epistemological starting point is then destroyed.
If he/she says "I can show such a test" then tell them every peer-reviewed journal would love to publish the findings of such a study as it would be new territory for science to answer such a question. In fact, this would not be science at all, but the logical conclusion of an a priori position about reality. The sooner he/she admits that, the sooner you can get on with genuine discussion.
I've often wanted to write a satire on science in the vein of Pilgrim's Progress. Have characters like Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible. Then have a character called Materialist who constantly keeps putting Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible into situations where they do not fit. And have them getting annoyed and fed up with Materialist by saying things like, "Have we not made enough progress for your ends?? Why keep asking us to perform miracles we were never intended to do?? Loose us from your service so that we can be free to function as a tool and not a blueprint for the world!" | I'd buy that book!!!
Let me know when it's published!!
__________________
Rev. Toby Holland
Director of Evangelism
Wiltsie Community Church (CCCC)
| 
04-17-2008, 11:02 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 3,353
Thanks: 98
Thanked 589 Times in 349 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Logical positivism/verificationism. It died in the '20s. Even sceptic Anthony Flew ditched the theory. Respectable people now laugh at it. Quote: |
Rational theory selection accepts induction is fallible hence science accepts the premise that falsification may nullify what was previously accepted as scientific fact. That is the status of any paradigm in science.
| Is this statement falsifiable/verifiable? No. More importantly, he has to accept his own starting point "by faith." | Right, as far as philosophy goes. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is standard operating procedure for legal jurisprudence and social policy initiatives in politics.
It takes a while for bad philosophy to reach law and politics. And it takes even longer to get rid of it. |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |