Hans, some interesting points made there which I would like to follow up on . I understand in what you have previously said, that meanings and definition does matter. I that regard, firstly would you care to explain why include that #2 scenario as possible, considering your statement preceding it. The Universe would have to be in some form or other before it could evolve into anything else. 2) The Universe came from nothing or from a series of somethings the first of which came from nothing; From there what I gather is, you seem to be suggesting (in a role of God advocate), that everything fits into one category of fantastic (exceedingly great or Ludicrously odd), just when or because it is not known. So a Universe which can be observed and measured and known to an extent which confirms the observations outside of concept only, is as fantastic to the same degree as God, which in comparison cannot be observed or measured or known in that same substantial way and remains only a concept. I don't advocate a Great Fairy cosmogony but do suggest that the concept of a supernatural being as originator of the Universe is on an equal footing with either of the other options in terms of possibility given that they are all fantastic explanations, all defying logic and/or common sense I respectfully suggest you do advocate a 'Great Fairy cosmogony'.whenever a supernatural being as originator is proposed as being possible. Gaps left by unfathomable or scary stuff are readily filled with explanations of the supernatural. But it is trivial surely, and there for the comfort or amusement that provides. Not something to be categorized along with things like a Universe which has a firm basis in much more of a different considerable reality. Many thanks, stu
Speaking of continuing along the same lines...speaking of unable to stop oneself from posting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Profile For ZZZzzzzzzz Date Registered: 06-14-04 Total Posts: 17115 (13.42 posts per day) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Disgusting Troll in fine form after his latest rehab. He scales the heights of hypocrisy so easily...
Depends on the evidences of chronological inconsistencies. Some inconsistencies can be explained and some not. Please write down the inconsistencies so everyone can be his/her own judge.
In other words, you refuse to define a rigid standard a priori. Leaves room to evade. In science, every hypothesis is proposed with some rigid test cases. These are the cases that can unequivocally disprove the hypothesis. If there is wiggle room then the hypothesis is simply untestable. Scientific proofs are not left to individuals' judgement. Based on your post here, it is straightforward to conclude that the statement "the Bible is inerrant" is an untestable statement.
I have seen many so called high standard academic papers that manipulate the statistical data or evidence to support their hypothesis. I don't know there is a rigid test standard accepted by all scientists. Please educate me the rigid test standard. I myself is not a rigid scientist. If "X" is not permitted to be challenged, X is not objective. "X" is a religion. Now you kind of imply that scientific proof is not permitted to be challenged. Scientific proof is a religion to you. It is your faith-based belief that scientific proofs are not left to individuals' judgement.
You are incorrect in stating that scientific proofs are not permitted to be challenged. Quite the contrary. I demanded that only those proofs that can withstand all challenges can be considered acceptible proofs. I also demanded that you present a rigid standard to test "Bible is inerrant" that can withstand all challenges. You refused to do so. Therefore I conclude that "Bible is inerrant" cannot be tested. It is interesting that you would twist the words to mean exactly the opposite of what I said. I wonder whether you are doing this intentionally.
Hello, Stu. Certainly definition is unavoidable if there's to be any discussion. Consider "He is.". There's a great deal of definition in this minimal sentence - as you undoubtedly understand. Alternative explanation 2 addresses the manner of becoming that derives its meaning from and gives meaning to alternatives 1 and 3. If the Universe has not always been or was not conceived in some supernatural manner the only alternative ( that I can see ) is something-from-nothing which some people advocate based on what has been observed by scientists to be the spontaneous appearance of particles in our timespace. So, according to #2 the universe, in some form or other, would spontaneously appear from absolute nothingness and then begin evolving into the Universe we have today. If we define nothing, or nothingness as the absolute absence of anything, including anything not supernatural that could cause the universe to be, #2 would be fantastical but can't be ruled out as a possibility because it can't be proved that it's impossible and because the alternatives are also fantastic. The availability of the Universe to our senses is irrelevant since this is after the fact of the Universe's becoming or being; the question I'm addressing is the manner in which this sensate Universe came to be. The progression from nothingness to Universe is, if anything, even more bizarre than the progression from Divine Will to Universe; I say this because the God explanation at least provides a possible reason for the coming into being of the Universe ( Divine intent ). There's an important difference between the supernatural and nothingness, that difference being that the supernatural allows for a possible cause while nothingness doesn't. I say the alternatives are equally possible because there is no way to judge their respective possibilities, all of them, being as they are, fantastic, and yet at least one of them ( IMO ) explaining the being of the Universe. And no, I don't agree that allowing for the Great Fairy as a possibility is a form of advocacy. GF can't be ruled out for the same reasons 1 and 2 can't be ruled out. Bear in mind that in my argument I define GF in the most minimal terms - namely, as a supernatural cause. GF must be accepted as a possibility because, like the alternatives, it can't be proven to be impossible. If we rule out GF then we also must rule out 1 and 2 as possibilities. IMO given that the Universe exists, at least 1 of the alternatives must be valid. In earlier posts I've defined GF slightly more fully but here I'm reverting to absolute basics in order to provide a base from which to begin again.
I didn't try to twist your words intentionally. I don't have a rigid standard to test "Bible is inerrant". I mentioned in my previous post that I don't know any rigid standard. How come you think I have one. Indeed I don't think we have a rigid standard that everyone here will accept and so we be our own judges. As my previous email implied, most scientific papers offer their own data to support their own hypothesis, but they never claim the method is the rigid standard that can withstand all challenges. Just post your data or your evidence. Let us conclude for ourselves.
I have to assume that you are really not understanding, not doing this intentionally. 1. If you don't have a rigid standard to test a hypothesis, then the hypothesis is not testable. I did not assume that you had a standard and was just asking. 2. Data are not standards. A standard should include ways to compare data and reach logical conclusions. 3. Any scientific paper that is not prepared to withstand all challenges is junk science. OTOH, even when a hypothesis fails a challenge and is proven false, if it is constructed properly (ie, with rigid standard for testing so that it is unequivocally proven false), then it still constitutes part of scientific knowledge. 4. A properly constructed scientific argument leads to the same conclusion no matter who is doing the research. If you want to leave something to your own judgement, then that something is no longer science.
Hi Hans, not trying to be difficult but really, I find that just one of the most convoluted and tortuous responses I have heard for a while. I don't see where you directly addressed the points raised. Looking at this part though to get something of a hold on what you are proposing .... In that comparison, the progression from nothingness to Universe is... an actual Universe. Why should that be bizarre? Whilst the progression from something as undefined and vague a concept as supernatural Divine Will (whatever that might be) requires questions of nothingness to God to Divine Will .to Universe Do you see the problem there? Adding further tiers of what you define fantastic / bizarre leaves nothingness a lot less bizarre, (if at all). And if never nothingness to God but always God, then you are right back to why not always Universe.. Nothingness then, being a less bizarre/fantastic possible cause, at least benefits from the advantage of not carrying the baggage of a begging question... what caused it.. in the way supernatural or God does.