Selective Analysis valid for Believers

[Lawdog]

The pseudo-Scientists select the data they wish to use and omit anything else. Then they style themselves as objective and use there degrees to publish findings that support evolutionary or an atheistic world view. A good scientist will give up his position before stooping to this level.

Religious folk also are selective, and they dont try to sound objective because they know that they are not. So indeed they are justified in this, because Faith is more important than Science. WHY?: Faith pertains to the supernatural and eternal, but Science only to the natural and time-bound ephemeral.

This thread is for discussing the issue of Selectivity in your position on faith, morals, science and related interests. Use my opinion to begin discussion.

Please no bad talk, mere statements without explanation, or mere attacks. Thank you.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Faith is more important than Science.

A good example of your topic. You are being subjective and selective here and offer no rational explanation for this personal opinion.

Faith pertains to the supernatural and eternal,

No that is incorrect. Faith means nothing more than a belief in something that has no evidential basis. Trying to assign the term other properties is either naïve, delusional, deceitful, or simply ignorant.

but Science only to the natural and time-bound ephemeral.

No one has yet shown that there is anything other than the natural. The supernatural remains purely a fantasy product of human imagination.

 

[Lawdog]

We define faith as a knowledge of things hoped for, a certainty not reliant on evidence. Look at the word "evidence"
Its from the Latin verb e-videns, which refers to the act of seeing. But faith does not rely on sensory experience for validation. WHY?

Faith is not possible for natural-living men.
Faith is supernatural, a virtue infused into the person by God.
It is an act of God. You cant just say, "now Im going to have faith" and it comes. It doesnt work that way. objectivity is not really important here because it is a subjective experience that illumines ones world view. Pseudo scientists would say that it causes selectivity. But selectivity will exist even in one who attempts to be non selective, because subjective experience and subconscious motive always is active.

Yet many in the science field say they are objective. This must not be the case, since if one cannot be objective when it comes to smaller things, such as the validity of data to support Evolution or the need to devise cloning, how can they be trusted in important things such as the existance of God or purpose of Man?

 

[superluminal]

This must not be the case, since if one cannot be objective when it comes to smaller things, such as the validity of data to support Evolution or the need to devise cloning, how can they be trusted in important things such as the existance of God or purpose of Man?

This makes me mad.

Evolution has as much evidence to support it as ANY other physical phenomena or branch of science. Christians need to stop lying about this. And the need to "devise" cloning is a societal issue as well as scientific. Science just tells us that cloning of human cells for the growth of compatible organs and tissues is possible. Should we do it or not (YES!!!) is up to society. If you are talking about cloning whole humans, no reputable scientist today is advocating that.

And who are these "Pseudo scientists" you are talking about?

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

We define faith as a knowledge of things hoped for, a certainty not reliant on evidence.

Who is we? You are being selective again.

“A certainty not reliant on evidence” - in the field of logic this is known as irrationality. It is not something to be commended or sought.

But faith does not rely on sensory experience for validation. WHY?

Because there is no other way other than to imagine the evidence.

Faith is not possible for natural-living men.

So you are unnatural then?

Faith is supernatural, a virtue infused into the person by God.

And you know this because of faith, which makes for a wonderful circular argument.

Yet many in the science field say they are objective.

If they are following the scientific method then objectivity will be the result.

This must not be the case, since if one cannot be objective about important things such as the existance of God or purpose of Man,

But science is entirely objective concerning God – it cannot be detected and hence cannot be studied. Your issue with that is that you subjectively and selectively don’t like the conclusion. The fault is not that of science, or those who work at science.

And why should a fantasy about gods be considered important?

The question of a purpose of man only has meaning if a god exists that assigned a purpose. This issue is moot until a god is detected and becomes worthy of scientific study.

then how can they be trusted in smaller things, such as the validity of data to support Evolution?

Because evolution is already a fact, it is not an issue except for those who selectively don’t like the conclusion.

 

[§outh§tar]

Faith is supernatural, a virtue infused into the person by God.
It is an act of God. You cant just say, "now Im going to have faith" and it comes.

In that case you can't blame the nonbelievers, for your God has declined to bestow faith.

EDIT: (And neither can He)

 

[Lawdog]

This makes me mad.

Evolution has as much evidence to support it as ANY other physical phenomena or branch of science.

We know that the evidence for Evolution is wrongly interpreted. This is assured by the fact that Evolutionary theory was designed BEFORE the fossil record was fully analyzed. The so called evidence was analyzed in a way that supported the theory, but theory was never signifigantly adjusted.

Consider the 4.5-6 Billion years old garbage. This date was assigned to the geologic record on the basis that simple life forms would need that length of time to evolve into complex ones. True science would attempt to evaluate strata by some other method than the fossils.

The simpler answer is the true; God created all life, over a period of time, seperately, and finally created Man. Evolution is far too clumsy a theory.

 

[Lawdog]

In that case you can't blame the nonbelievers, for your God has declined to bestow faith.

EDIT: (And neither can He)

God bestows Faith on those who are ready for it.

HEY, you took my LATIN!!!

 

[§outh§tar]

No one has yet shown that there is anything other than the natural.

This is specious since if you were to "show" that there is a supernatural, then it would have to be categorized under 'natural'. What I'm trying to say is that the 'supernatural' cannot be shown by definition. I think you both need to define what you mean by 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

 

[Lawdog]

South star, you are very brilliant in your mind. I had this concept lurking in the back of my mind for a while, but I could not expess it. If i understand you correctly, you are saying that by "proving" anything supernatural, it would immediately be discounted as such since only natural things are proper to observable scientific scrutiny.

 

[Cris]

This is good - so we can agree finally that the supernatural does not really exist.

 

[superluminal]

Lawdog:

Consider the 4.5-6 Billion years old garbage. This date was assigned to the geologic record on the basis that simple life forms would need that length of time to evolve into complex ones. True science would attempt to evaluate strata by some other method than the fossils.

You sir, are ignorant of current science and should stop talking about it.

"True" science uses isochron dating (various radioactive isotope decay rates) for minerals. Also, strata are compared to known deposition rates, among others.

Microbial life is now known to be at least 3.5by old BECAUSE of the minerals it is found in.

Does god punish liars? Because I think you know this stuff and are desperate to support your position no matter what.

 

[Lawdog]

It is a LIE!!!! The techniques they are using are based on preconcieved notions, for example, that the earth is billions of years old.

Also, they have never directly observed the effects of billions of years upon matter because they have not been around even thousands of years.

According to EVOLUTION we should have evolved into THIS:

 

[§outh§tar]

This is good - so we can agree finally that the supernatural does not really exist.

You would first have to prove logically that things which are not 'natural', that is, things which are not "proper to observable scientific scrutiny", do not exist.

You would also have to provide an objective method of determining whether or not something exists and demonstrate why it is non-circular.

 

[§outh§tar]

God bestows Faith on those who are ready for it.

HEY, you took my LATIN!!!

How can one prepare oneself to receive faith if God bestows faith only at His own discretion?

I took 'your' LATIN because I figured if I needed to become more like Jesus, I should necessarily emulate Him by calling myself so.

You are beginning to also remind me of a certain Proud Muslim whom we have not heard from in a long time.. But you still have a ways to go to match him.

 

[Cris]

Southstar, Lawdog,

My comment was somewhat facetious, but whatever…I was using your assertion that if it became observable then it would be classed as natural. But the act of observation doesn’t make something natural; it would always have been natural but not observed. I was teasing both of you – if your assertion were true then the supernatural is really natural and there is nothing supernatural.

 

[Lawdog]

Faith is a virtue, a good habit, but supernaturally infused. Still, it takes a little human effort at first, which is motivated by God.

In order to be a smoker you must first have your first cigarette. God made tobacco and made it good, therefore he is the indirect cause of ones smoking habit. Thats what I mean when I say that God causes.

The same with faith, you must make an initial act of belief, God causes it because you recognize it to be a good thing, and so you desire it, and unlike smoking, its good for you, but then you must keep doing it, cooperating with God's graces and with the Holy Spirit, just like a smoker must keep lighting up cigarettes. Its an active thing.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Lapdog: According to EVOLUTION we should have evolved into THIS:

*************
M*W: We're not finished yet.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

The simpler answer is the true; God created all life, over a period of time, seperately, and finally created Man. Evolution is far too clumsy a theory.

You exemplify the true nature of religious perception – we don’t know how things really occurred so it must have been done by magic (a god did it). This has been the epitome of religious thinking from the beginning of mankind.

Even if evolution were to be considered non-simple, the substitution of a god capable of immense power, timelessness, all powerful and capable of creating universes is hardly a simpler solution.

Only the explanation is simpler to say – a god did it. This of course provides no indication of truth of your assertions.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Faith is a virtue, a good habit, but supernaturally infused.

This believed on faith of course.

Still, it takes a little human effort at first, which is motivated by God.

This says a lot for God that he chooses only the superstitious, the ignorant, the less well educated, and those with lower intelligence to infuse such ability.

Your analogy with smoking is somewhat bizarre so it is best ignored.

The same with faith, you must make an initial act of belief, God causes it because you recognize it to be a good thing, and so you desire it,

This conflicts with your earlier statement ” it takes a little human effort at first, which is motivated by God.”

So which is it – do you start it or does God start it?