nothing from nothing - Page 7

Beetree,, Flowers for j ,,,,How sweet !!
Leave it to you to think of everything!
What a thoughtful idea :) 
 

Carlin wrote: Shtal - your post screams of epistemological study, specifically epistemic justification. Whether they realize it or not, everyone subscribes to one school of thought or another here. Hume and Descartes for instance, were strict foundationlists who were skeptic of anything which could not be absolutely proven, with the intent of developing a system and method upon which an "ideal" philosophy could be formed. The problem one runs into there is called the infinite regress argument. Personally, I think coherentism is more reasonable. In terms of the creation vs evolution discussion (or any other for that matter), what I think ends up being important is that you are consistent in your epistemic positions. We have to be careful we're not employing a foundationalist approach when confronted the evidences of evolution, all the while enjoying the freedoms of thought inherent to an irresponsible or overly ambitious coherentism when forwarding our own beliefs.




Carlin, here I have a quote from Richard Lewontin who wrote a his article called “Billions and Billions of Demons” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p.31
 
He said that we are forced not by science but by our ape priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation in other words the rules of investigation and such and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive in other words no matter how apparently illogical – irrational, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated, Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Devine Foot in the door. Why Carlin? Because we can prove that there is no God? No…no scientist can prove that there is no God.
 
So why can’t they allow Devine Foot in the door? The answer is because they don’t want it. Now Carlin we live in a free country, under US constitution, first amendment you can believe anything you want, you can even believe things are stupid and it is legal; is that wonderful thing about US. Is legal to believe in stupid things but that does NOT make them true, that does not make them science. And if they want to believe it – I will defend there right in our free country, under our constitution, to believe that if they want to as there religion but they don’t have a right to defined as science, just because somebody supposedly died, someone died and left them authority to redefined science; it doesn’t quite work that way.
 
Now this definition of religion I love by the Random House College Dictionary, 1982, Rev, ed, Edited by Jess Stein, p. 1114.
 
As set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…materialism, naturalism is the presupposition without possibility proof by the scientific method, but the whole of reality is naturalism, there is no supernatural dimension and there certainly no supernatural creator, it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe that says it’s all materialistic, it’s all naturalistic; that is a religion. Evolutionist already have a religion my dear Carlin, they have faith they don’t need Christian faith and Christians need to point out to them is what they have is really faith, you know Carlin, if they want to be honest and say I have this faith I would like to share with you…you and I would say fine, I can understand that but just don’t call your faith science if it doesn’t qualifies as it; don’t mislabeled and expect me to accept that definition because it’s just not correct, not true.
 
Carlin, what is the classic definition of science? Is the search for truth [whatever that truth may be] and the truth just may be that naturalism doesn’t work, that nature by her laws of chemistry and physics did NOT create us and wasn’t responsible for our origin, that maybe truth. And real science Carlin is interesting finding the truth whatever the truth maybe, it doesn’t start by defining, well we are not going to look in this area, it might be true - we can’t prove is not true but we are not going to look in that area and we are going define that area as non-scientific by the definition manly supernatural creation. Guess what Carlin! Supernatural creation just might be true and science can’t prove it – it isn’t true. So science when it redefined as materialism says you may search for truth, only where and how we tell you, ONLY materialistic explanations are allowed and that is my conclusion in regards your last post Carlin. You see even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

bravo shtal you have finally figured it out - if you use supernatural causes to explain things then it is not science, by definition, no way, no where, no how.

or.....by definition, science uses evidence to explain things without  invoking the supernatural or super natural causes, if it does invoke the supernatural it ceases to be science by definition.

congratulations, you are evolving.


BTW i do not believe yr dictionary definition has not been changed by you - dishonest - provide the link.

When we are dealing with an origin VK4, we are dealing with emotional questions? Whenever we deal with the question who are we? Why are we here? What (is) our purpose, meaning and value in life? How do we determine what is right and what is wrong? And what is going too happened to us when we die? These questions really tied up in the issue of our origin, if we just mechanistic products of mindless universe then really there isn’t any right and wrong, when we ask deep questions who am I and why I am here and where I am going and the answer is? Well, you are nothing; nobody and you are not here for any real reason, you happened by chance, when you die, that’s it, you will rot back into plant fertilizer and that would be the end of you and you will never be conscience again…because you VK4 and evolutionist purely materialistic, purely naturalistic. You see it is emotional question, many people want to believe in God because such a believe if true offers a lot; meaning, purpose, value, dignity, hope beyond the undergrave; possibility eternal love relationship infinite being who loves us with an perfect love! The best of all possible worlds for eternity: if the God of the Bible is true, and if his gospel is true, so many people understandably would prefer to believe that and many evolutionist piani dequeuing, you say VK4 to me you believing something because it sounds good and you like to believe it. But there are also people such as our beloved evolutionist on this forum including yourself VK4 when through going evolutionist you really don’t want to believe in God that means there is somebody bigger and smarter then you are, you think you have an corner of open knowledge like I already said this once, you don’t want somebody infinitely superior, such a powerful being to have a right to judge you for how you run your life, and that is the big issue and like I said this once it is your worse nightmare, that’s the reality you hope is NOT true…
 

Geez you ignore all questions you can't copy an answer for and then you just repeat questions so you can answer them yrself. you are insane.


hey i agree we are from dust and to dust we will return.


i have no problem that people are smarter than me, i admire them.


its great some folks want god to be true because they want heaven to be true and an eternal afterlife to be true....who wouldn't, what proof you got such a place exists???


You could make a lot of money selling this promise to people, just pay yr tax so youdon't go to prison like hovind.

the best part is you won't be liable if it is not true, you will just be dead.



caching$$$$$$$$ the greatest con of all...religion, so brilliant only satan could have dreamed this shit up and put it in the bible.




sucker.

Shtal, you don't have to convince me, lol. It seems to me that you are trying to convince others. While I personally am not in the business of "convincing" anyone  of anything (particularly matters of faith),  my opinion is that if you are going to try to do so, that you cannot expect those others to "cross the aisle" philosophically to the extent which some of your posts at least suggest.