So do you agree or not? Are science and philosophy two truly different things or aren't they? You seem to want it both ways.I agree. Philosophy precedes science chronologically and logically. Science requires philosophy, and not the other way around. Science became its own distinct discipline from philosophy, gradually I think at first, kind of beginning as philosophy of nature or natural philosophy.
This too in self-contradictory. There can be no practice of law without a philosophy of law. One is just a different aspect of the same thing.And ethics and morality too. Politics. Law. On the latter, philosophy isn't concerned with law practice, but with what law is, what law should be, such things.
Science and philosophy are not truly two different things. Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental nature of existence and of knowledge itself. They are both (supposed to be) the application of reason toward a particular topic.
The goal in both pursuits is the truth. Any other goal turns them into something other than science and philosophy.
Show me where I'm wrong, or committing any fallacy.
Physical evidence? Or philosophical?We have evidence that is inconsistent with determinacy.
We both agree that science here is blind.
There's no such thing as science that isn't also philosophy.
I hope you agree that we have no evidence that Eden ever existed.
That is what scripture teaches.We don't have any evidence that God created Adam and Eve fully grown and mature either.
Please explain, and I'm being genuine.
My position is that it's not worth arguing about the story that they're telling us from their measurements, but that it is worth arguing whether that story is true. And they have no leg to stand on when the discussion goes this way. It's entirely a matter of interpretation, as to whether the story they're saying is written in the rocks and in the stars, is actually true. And there's no PhDs in this interpretive domain. All our views are of equal authority. My view is that the story is fantastically improbable, and patently so. And again my opponents have no leg to stand on in retort. There's nothing they can do to argue that it's more likely than it appears, because the improbability is elemental to the story they're telling us is written in the rocks and in the stars. It's almost as if it's by design, ironically, that it's so improbable that we can't honestly believe it's a nonfiction account. What would punch through this otherwise basically impenetrable fortress of improbability, would be something like God, a nonlocal hidden variable pulling strings.
I'm not an expert, so at some point I have to yield to experts where experts already exist.
But if I am mistaken in thinking that their views weigh on theology but they really don't, then it's my duty to sort out that problem myself, and if I try to argue that they are overstepping geology, and I am wrong about that, then there must be a coherent explanation that resolves the apparent conflict, that is all on my side. My personal answer to this, is to seek a common ground between a plain reading of Genesis, with a plain reading of nature. I trust the PhDs in the right domain to tell me the plain reading of nature, and compare that with the plain reading of Genesis. The solution that's still working for me, is that the story written in nature is of the fantasy genre. Which is perfectly balanced with what most who believe that story, tell me is also the nature of the plain reading of Genesis. We both believe in apparently fantasy, so the question is, which one is more believable. And that's a question of faith, which is unsurprising and comfortable for us Christians, though it could be uncomfortable for atheists to realize.
I did that. That's where I start.
Being dismissed does mean that you're not going to advance your ideas.
Please inform me of the evidence that you think is inconsistent with fossils being "millions of years" old.
The best way, the only way, according to the story science is telling us, is that you don't generate heat at all, that all the heat that's ever going to be, already exists somewhere, in another form perhaps (fuel for example).
So the best way to generate heat is for God to create it ex nihilo. But if you need a ton of heat, and a very large heat density, I would say some form of either nuclear fusion, or if possible annihilating antimatter and matter?
What do you think?
I'll concede that they are very similar — perhaps indistinguishable — when all we can do is talk about them.
That's a very philosophical statement you just made!Aye, that's the goal. But reaching the goal has prerequisites that neither science nor philosophy can provide.
I'm not sure what you mean. I understand that any use of sound reason tacitly concedes the existence of God but that's a far cry from "the fear of the Lord", right? There are a great many scientific advancements that have been made by people who don't even believe God exists, never mind have any fear of Him. Plato and Aristotle certainly had no understanding of the God who created them but the whole field of philosophy as we know it owes its very existence to them both.Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
"I am the way, the truth and the life."
Ka mea a Ihu: "Ko ahau te huarahi, te pono, te ora."
That's a very philosophical statement you just made!
I'm not sure what you mean.
I understand that any use of sound reason tacitly concedes the existence of God but that's a far cry from "the fear of the Lord", right?
If they were long-lived, what would they believe today? Darwinism? Big bang theory? Or God's word?There are a great many scientific advancements that have been made by people who don't even believe God exists, never mind have any fear of Him. Plato and Aristotle certainly had no understanding of the God who created them but the whole field of philosophy as we know it owes its very existence to them both.
You keep saying things that could mean more than one thing and that I agree with if you mean it one way and that I disagree with if you mean it another way.Guilty!
To arrive at truthful conclusions requires a willingness to accept the truth.
I would say that the concept of wisdom qualifies as a purely philosophical notion. In fact, any pursuit of truth is a philosophical pursuit, especially if that pursuit has as its goal the understanding of not only what the truth is but why (i.e. wisdom).They are similar concepts in some respects. I see them this way:
Presupposionalism is a purely philosophical notion. Fear of the Lord requires a sense of the relationship between us and the Almighty.
I see no evidence that people trend toward righteousness the longer they live so I'd say God's word is the least likely of the three.If they were long-lived, what would they believe today? Darwinism? Big bang theory? Or God's word?
You keep saying things that could mean more than one thing and that I agree with if you mean it one way and that I disagree with if you mean it another way.
I want to avoid talking past one another and so can you unpack that sentence some for me? How would what you're saying there manifest itself in real life?
Yeah.I suspect, however, that you weren't asking me that for a direct answer. It seem like you were making a rhetorical point which I must admit escapes me.
Hmmm. Good question.
It's difficult to express what I'm thinking with an example, which might mean I'm thinking about this too much.
Let me think on it.
Oh well, I agree with that for sure. Half an hour on this website alone would provide all the proof of that anyone would ever need.Yeah.
The rhetoric I was trying to get across is that they can be right on things that do not show them that they are wrong about God.
That doesn't make it something other than philosophical though.
Like with any line of thinking, we are susceptible to error at any point along the line. In addition to just plain old fashioned errors and honest mistakes, there are also hidden presuppositions that we can be completely unaware that we are accepting, not to mention the constant threats of confirmation bias and paradigm blindness that is seems are waiting behind every philosophical bush. But regardless of the many pitfalls one can fall into along the way, the fact remains that sound reason is the only tool we have with which to learn anything, including the fact that we've made an error in our reasoning.
Yeah. I hate it when people use the word "science" as if it automatically excluded God's word.This is the reason science, real science, doesn't present any threat to the Christian worldview. The honest Christian isn't interested in believing fairy tales or any other kind of falsehood. We do not believe for belief's sake nor do we advocate blind faith. In fact, real science is based squarely on, and is a natural outgrowth of, the Christian worldview. Whether a particular person acknowledges that or is even ever made aware of it, doesn't make the truth of it go away, nor does his unwillingness to accept, or even see, the theological implications of his empirical, mathematical or theoretical work.
Evolutionists (particularly of the atheist variety) always try to redefine terms to slant the playing field in their favor. For example, they try to redefine "evolution" to simply mean "change". Or "science" to mean "materialistic science". It's incredibly dishonest, but that's the way that they roll.Yeah. I hate it when people use the word "science" as if it automatically excluded God's word.