A True Scientist [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otrqzITuSqE]
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 I confess that your statetment made me smile, perhaps for the first time along your boring words.
If God created science, as it is, why are you arguing with Science dyscoveries?
Or are you the one delegated by God to say what part of his creation is right and wich one is wrong?
Oh, plese, don´t even answer me.
I find amusing two sides of your arguments.
- That coming from a school of...(be kind, Charlie)...of "thought" that states that privileges rationality, you are so prone to logical inconsistencies like commented above.
- That you stronly emphasize in one argument and when it shows to be false (was or not a debate b.e) you say: "However, whether that be true or not doesn't change...", on the SAME.
If God created science, as it is, why are you arguing with Science dyscoveries?
Or are you the one delegated by God to say what part of his creation is right and wich one is wrong?
Oh, plese, don´t even answer me.
I find amusing two sides of your arguments.
- That coming from a school of...(be kind, Charlie)...of "thought" that states that privileges rationality, you are so prone to logical inconsistencies like commented above.
- That you stronly emphasize in one argument and when it shows to be false (was or not a debate b.e) you say: "However, whether that be true or not doesn't change...", on the SAME.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]He is right because his arguments are true. But he is also right when his arguments are wrong.[/quote]
That doesn't make sense. If my arguments are wrong, then they're wrong and I'm willing to admit. But if they're right and true, why do you say that I'm being double minded?
That doesn't make sense. If my arguments are wrong, then they're wrong and I'm willing to admit. But if they're right and true, why do you say that I'm being double minded?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Let´s make a distinction, please.
My opinions on the core debate are written in other posts, you are free to read them.
On them you may see that I am NOT debating the existence of God.
Which is not what was proposed by the initiator at all.
What I will contend is that Science may be a source of validation for faith, when it´s NOT.
So if someone believes because of his faith I´ll make no oposition to that.
But if someone says that Science is what is NOT, or that Science says what Science don´t, or that Science is not the better description of the nature of the Universe, I´ll strongly disagree.
Specially when it comes from ones that pretend to redefine what Science is from outside Science itself.
But my previous post was not about the core of the debate.
Not about if your arguments are wright or wrong.
Not even about if you are honest enough to say "I was wrong".
What I´m saying (please read this) is that you are saying cleary that you are right so if and because your words reflect realitity and also right if they don´t.
And that excedes a personal attitude.
Is the way a whole group of people think an talk.
They feel right no matter what external reality says (when they say that same relity was created by God.
So they use "logic" and "rationality" same way as Greek Sophists.
My opinions on the core debate are written in other posts, you are free to read them.
On them you may see that I am NOT debating the existence of God.
Which is not what was proposed by the initiator at all.
What I will contend is that Science may be a source of validation for faith, when it´s NOT.
So if someone believes because of his faith I´ll make no oposition to that.
But if someone says that Science is what is NOT, or that Science says what Science don´t, or that Science is not the better description of the nature of the Universe, I´ll strongly disagree.
Specially when it comes from ones that pretend to redefine what Science is from outside Science itself.
But my previous post was not about the core of the debate.
Not about if your arguments are wright or wrong.
Not even about if you are honest enough to say "I was wrong".
What I´m saying (please read this) is that you are saying cleary that you are right so if and because your words reflect realitity and also right if they don´t.
And that excedes a personal attitude.
Is the way a whole group of people think an talk.
They feel right no matter what external reality says (when they say that same relity was created by God.
So they use "logic" and "rationality" same way as Greek Sophists.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]What I´m saying (please read this) is that you are saying cleary that you are right so if and because your words reflect realitity and also right if they don´t.[/quote]
Forgive me if I mislead you in anyway. What I'm saying is is that the Truth has me and not the way around. Correct me if I'm wrong but are not debates formed to get at the truth rather than who's right and wrong? Does not belief always follow truth and not the other way around?
Forgive me if I mislead you in anyway. What I'm saying is is that the Truth has me and not the way around. Correct me if I'm wrong but are not debates formed to get at the truth rather than who's right and wrong? Does not belief always follow truth and not the other way around?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 "...debates formed to get at the truth rather than who's right and wrong..."
I agree with this, of course.
And because of the same:
- Being "truth" or "false" are not attributes of what is described but alterntive attributes of what someone (no matter who) says about what is described.
- An assertion is true IF it´s description is an aproximate good one, being the nature of the stuff described the ultimate criteria (an attribute of a thing in itself).
- So, before evaluating what we say as true or false we must define what is what we are talking about..
- This debate is NOT about the existence of God.
- It´s about if Science (by it´s own means) says about God or not.
- Then, what would make true (not God, but someones arguments) is pointing to a serious scientific refference to God. (NOT a one FROM a scientist but a refference that accomplish scientific criteria from INSIDE Science).
- NO verifiable evidence of such claim was provided along this debate.
- Again, the notorious lack of assertions within Science validating or denying God don´t say that God don´t exist.
- And neither proves his existence.
- But what shows to be false is that Science may be used to prove or dispove about God.
- The core of this debate is the nature of the material Universe.
As either described by Science or by religious texts and believes.
- Lot of scientists (but not all of them) believe in God based in faith.
But few, very few of them, not even the religious ones, can say that Science should discard (by example) Evolution. And if they say so, they are NOT doing Science AT ALL.
What I´m saying is that no matter if I do believe in God, I must say that Dembski math WRONG, and his conclutions are false IF based in his math. And his attitude is not a scientific one.
- Finally, as long as it doesn´t matter "WHO's right and wrong", please stop to judge what is said ´cos of the ones who say so.
And focus in the themata of the debate.
I agree with this, of course.
And because of the same:
- Being "truth" or "false" are not attributes of what is described but alterntive attributes of what someone (no matter who) says about what is described.
- An assertion is true IF it´s description is an aproximate good one, being the nature of the stuff described the ultimate criteria (an attribute of a thing in itself).
- So, before evaluating what we say as true or false we must define what is what we are talking about..
- This debate is NOT about the existence of God.
- It´s about if Science (by it´s own means) says about God or not.
- Then, what would make true (not God, but someones arguments) is pointing to a serious scientific refference to God. (NOT a one FROM a scientist but a refference that accomplish scientific criteria from INSIDE Science).
- NO verifiable evidence of such claim was provided along this debate.
- Again, the notorious lack of assertions within Science validating or denying God don´t say that God don´t exist.
- And neither proves his existence.
- But what shows to be false is that Science may be used to prove or dispove about God.
- The core of this debate is the nature of the material Universe.
As either described by Science or by religious texts and believes.
- Lot of scientists (but not all of them) believe in God based in faith.
But few, very few of them, not even the religious ones, can say that Science should discard (by example) Evolution. And if they say so, they are NOT doing Science AT ALL.
What I´m saying is that no matter if I do believe in God, I must say that Dembski math WRONG, and his conclutions are false IF based in his math. And his attitude is not a scientific one.
- Finally, as long as it doesn´t matter "WHO's right and wrong", please stop to judge what is said ´cos of the ones who say so.
And focus in the themata of the debate.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ I hope I will never sound like a ' know it all,' because I do not know it all but I do know the One who does. What He shares with me, I share with others. I am a lover of the truth, not what I believe to be true, but the actual truth; this truth cannot be refuted. I do not place faith and trust in belief alone but what is actually true. This is a faithful saying, "Freedom and Responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other lest your life turns into chaos." We have the freedom to believe what we wish but the responsibility to believe in the truth rather than the lie. We must never trade the truth for a lie. Never! We have the freedom of speech but are responsible for speaking truth rather than lie. We have the freedom to live out our lives as we choose but the responsibility to live our lives according to the truth. We also have the freedom to worship God but the responsibility to worship Him in deed and in truth. Our very lives are a worship to Him when we walk in the character that He created us in.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 I have no objection on what your last post says.
I believe in God, as well.
But, that´s a matter of faith.
If we are talking about Science and the nature of the material world as the scope of Science, I will NOT accept any worldview based on authorithy, not religious nor a political one.
Your post talks about responsability and freedoom.
So understand that I will confront any social or poltical power that may constraint freedom.
There never was an Inquisition supported by scientists, for good reasons.
But religious leaders, in the past and now, trend to feel entitled to dictate and force what others should think, say or do, based on what they think to be true.
Free people, includding religious ones will never accept that.
I believe in God, as well.
But, that´s a matter of faith.
If we are talking about Science and the nature of the material world as the scope of Science, I will NOT accept any worldview based on authorithy, not religious nor a political one.
Your post talks about responsability and freedoom.
So understand that I will confront any social or poltical power that may constraint freedom.
There never was an Inquisition supported by scientists, for good reasons.
But religious leaders, in the past and now, trend to feel entitled to dictate and force what others should think, say or do, based on what they think to be true.
Free people, includding religious ones will never accept that.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]If we are talking about Science and the nature of the material world as the scope of Science, I will NOT accept any worldview based on authority, not religious nor a political one.[/quote]
Who's asking to? Don't you know that God created science for the benefit of mankind and that He's not just some religious figure? He's a person in the triune Godhead like Jesus and Holy Spirit. He is the creator of all things, science included. Now, you may disagree with me on that, that's your choice. Whether your disagreement is true or not is a different story.
Who's asking to? Don't you know that God created science for the benefit of mankind and that He's not just some religious figure? He's a person in the triune Godhead like Jesus and Holy Spirit. He is the creator of all things, science included. Now, you may disagree with me on that, that's your choice. Whether your disagreement is true or not is a different story.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 uffffff...this is a "merry go r a ound".
I have faith based believes.
But the core of this debate, as was posed, is not about that.
Is about the scope and validity of Science as best set of descriptions of the natural world.
And about if Science says something in it´s own terms that may be used as validatation for the supernatural.
If we focus on that horizon for the debate, some clarity may be best served.
Being coherent with the above, I will not discuss with you, not even if I agree with some points, what is about faith.
Back to the proposed scope of the debate, Science being "for the benefit of mankind" says that evolution is a fact.
No authority founded argument is acceptable in Science.
Neither is if based in a vague rethorical "rationality".
So, if you want to disprove any scientific assertion, you have only two alternatives to choose and not a third one.
- To do it with the resources intrinsic to Science, if you are able to.
- Or to do it from outside Science, honestly recognizing that the source of your thoughts don´t belong to Science and is alien to it.
- What would be malitious is to redefine Science and still claim that a distorted and mutilated Science validate your worldview. As was implicitely said by the content of the posted movie.
I have faith based believes.
But the core of this debate, as was posed, is not about that.
Is about the scope and validity of Science as best set of descriptions of the natural world.
And about if Science says something in it´s own terms that may be used as validatation for the supernatural.
If we focus on that horizon for the debate, some clarity may be best served.
Being coherent with the above, I will not discuss with you, not even if I agree with some points, what is about faith.
Back to the proposed scope of the debate, Science being "for the benefit of mankind" says that evolution is a fact.
No authority founded argument is acceptable in Science.
Neither is if based in a vague rethorical "rationality".
So, if you want to disprove any scientific assertion, you have only two alternatives to choose and not a third one.
- To do it with the resources intrinsic to Science, if you are able to.
- Or to do it from outside Science, honestly recognizing that the source of your thoughts don´t belong to Science and is alien to it.
- What would be malitious is to redefine Science and still claim that a distorted and mutilated Science validate your worldview. As was implicitely said by the content of the posted movie.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ This old world of ours is like one big fence with those pointed fence posts. On the right side of the fence is truth that leads to life, on the left side is the lie that leads to death. You can't straddle the fence for very long with those points digging their way into your butt. You need to make a decision to go to the right or to the left. We humans have the overwhelming desire to be right and truth be hanged. Now, there's nothing to have the desire to be right, it's when it gets out hand that we wind up hanging the truth and trouble comes our way.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ I have great respect for science and its interpretation. Science itself is not the issue here. What is the issue is how scientists interprets their discoveries. How they interpret science is what determines the validity of their discoveries. Understand this, no science degree or science award makes the true scientist, what makes the scientist is what's in his/her heart.
