Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:53 pm

marcolucco wrote:
DSC wrote:I'm not sure how you could replace religious beliefs with anything anyway. It seems highly implausible to me that you could ever stop anyone believing something.

I'm quite sure you can and I am quite sure I have. The basis of good, rational argument is to aim to be correctly persuasive. When I play chess my first aim if to win and to an extent discussions are chess games. Sadly we don't win every game, though I should immodestly say I have acquired a fair amount of cash from such as The Ruy Lopez or the French. There is little money to be made from God but lots of disappointments.

If you put something reasonable in place of what you are describing as unreasonable, then you persuade. God, of course, as Francis Thompson wrote, is an implacable pursuer. Christian debaters are tough but Muslim debaters require the skill to part the Red Sea, a skill that has (as yet) eluded me. Regards.

Oh I never meant to suggest that some arguments are not more rational, and can therefore refute others, far from it. Merely that if someone chooses to cling to a belief in the face of all reason and evidence you can't force them to give it up. A slow process of education is that answer, why else would every theist I encounter turn pale when I suggest faith schools are tantamount to child abuse and that a child's education should be entirely secular. They can still try to fill their heads with tales of wizardry and magic based on bronze age superstition at home or in church, more's the pity, but they know in their hearts the competition would be on a more level playing field. Children have a way of sniffing out the ridiculous and the irrational, when they have the facts at their disposal and before they have been indoctrinated to subjugate their own reason and simply believe, it is truly humbling.

by marcolucco Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:52 pm

"I get an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I envisage books burning"
Yes, I can understand that. I think the Sibylline books, mentioned by Livy in his History, are as fictional as the Servius Tullius, the boy-miracle who became king.

"using tortured rationalisations to give nuanced explanations to things that are either frankly absurd, or the very definition of moral turpitude"

Tortured rationalisations would detract from their assumed intelligence, DSC, unless they were being Machiavellian. I'm not sure what you mean by this. An example?

by marcolucco Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:16 pm

DSC wrote:Oh I never meant to suggest that some arguments are not more rational, and can therefore refute others, far from it. Merely that if someone chooses to cling to a belief in the face of all reason and evidence you can't force them to give it up. A slow process of education is that answer, why else would every theist I encounter turn pale when I suggest faith schools are tantamount to child abuse and that a child's education should be entirely secular. They can still try to fill their heads with tales of wizardry and magic based on bronze age superstition at home or in church, more's the pity, but they know in their hearts the competition would be on a more level playing field. Children have a way of sniffing out the ridiculous and the irrational, when they have the facts at their disposal and before they have been indoctrinated to subjugate their own reason and simply believe, it is truly humbling.

I was saying that there ARE instances where we persuade people to change their religious views, however firmly held. I am full of admiration for Muslims who become apostates, risking death. Centuries ago the same applied to Christians.

I have experience of "faith" schools. I was brought up in one myself and was thoroughly immersed in Christian lore; I was never prevented from challenging and I am not unhappy that I am conversant with the most obscure parts of Christian theology, for to deny properly is to know properly. I would prefer to be an intelligent believer than an idiot atheist.
Children love stories, such as the Labours of Hercules or the Little Prince. Friends of mine denied their children access to Christmas lore and I felt this was a great pity. As intelligence develops it learns to discard and what it has learned becomes useful material. I am a better person for knowing about Limbo, Orpheus, Knox, the Te Deum or even the filioque debate- I can discard them now in a rational way. I hear people talking about the Immaculate Conception as though it meant Virgin Birth when it refers to Mary's being conceived without stain of Original Sin. To throw things away we must examine them properly.
My problem with faith schools would be the new brand - at least new to Britain - where Muslim children are taught ideas that might make them hate the unbeliever, and prepare them for what is now called "radicalization." Canon White, Vicar of Baghdad, correctly points out that the Koran doesn't mention forgiveness; there is ample justification in that book for doing what ISIS does, and frighteningly millions believe it is the word of God. So yes, you are right that we would solve some problems by denying children access to this text. For here they enter as blind captives and escape is almost impossible.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:28 pm

marcolucco wrote:Tortured rationalisations would detract from their assumed intelligence, DSC, unless they were being Machiavellian. I'm not sure what you mean by this. An example?

The idea that a being with both limitless benevolence and intelligence, would advocate torturing and murdering a baby (as one example) or that the same being would indulge in and advocate genocide, ethnic cleansing, rapine, slavery, etc etc etc... and then that an intelligent person would try to justify such behaviour in any way....as long as it was by their deity....

Is everything god does good, or is it good because god does it or claim's it to be good? Surprisingly some quite intelligent theists don't seem to see where this reasoning is taking them, or what this means.

by marcolucco Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:53 pm

I see how you are arguing. I thought you were dealing with the persuasive abilities of intelligent theists.

Of course making excuses for atrocities committed by God or in his name is one of the horrible sides of religion. Christianity has largely emerged from its wicked infancy while Islam is still passing through. It is a pity we have to endure their growing pains.

Were I arguing on the religious side I would not attempt to excuse what God seems to have done since it is hardly the place of a human to act as counsel or interpreter for a deity. Simply: There is a God and I have no idea what his rhyme or reason is. I can't prove he exists nor discard his existence through moral considerations.
As you say, this stance is hard to rebuff.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:18 am

Hard to rebuff yes, but it destroys any claims such a belief has to moral ascendancy. IMHO.

I'm not sure contemporary apologetics has fully abandoned this position either. William Lane Craig certainly hasn't.

If you simply accept divine diktat irrespective of what it claims is morally good, then to me you're not exercising any kind of morality, and it roundly dismantles the idea of free will. Two choices only, with one ending in everlasting he'll isn't my idea of free will.

Attempting to subjugate one's moral responsibility to a higher power in this way was the text book justification used at the Nuremburg war trials. It wasn't a justifiable moral position then and isn't now. If a person needs divine diktat to desist from things like rapine and murder then they're just a shitty human being.

Pardon my use of common vernacular.

by polyglide Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:55 am

marcolucoo,
As you point out the question is, is there any validity etc;

Of course there is.

Neither side can give a satisfactory and reasonable answer that can be accepted by the other side and there are plenty of examples etc; to go at.

You can go on quoting others till dooms day but all you do is offer others opinions.

I feel within the very near future we will have a better idea of who is right.

by polyglide Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:34 am

marcolucoo,
I feel we tread on dangerous ground when attempting to rationalise the acts attributed to God.

I read and read again certain actions that appear not in accordance with what one could reasonably expect a kind and loving God to undertake but how can we judge when we do not know what the result would be if he had not done so.

I feel we are not realy in a position to judge most of mankind and certainly not God.

Do you honestly think that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? why would anyone write that the God they believed in and worshiped was capable of doing anything other than the right thing at the right time not forgetting we do not know all the circumstances?.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:53 am

polyglide wrote:marcolucoo,
As you point out the question is, is there any validity etc; Of course there is. Neither side can give a satisfactory and reasonable answer that can be accepted by the other side and there are plenty of examples etc; to go at.

We're talking about things science has answered, else there'd be nothing to challenge. The rest is argumentum ad ignorantiam again.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:11 pm

polyglide wrote:marcolucoo,
I feel we tread on dangerous ground when attempting to rationalise the acts attributed to God.

Well you would wouldn't you? You claim to be 100% certain your beliefs are right. That's hardly an objective critical examination of them.

Polyglide wrote:I read and read again certain actions that appear not in accordance with what one could reasonably expect a kind and loving God to undertake but how can we judge when we do not know what the result would be if he had not done so.

We have our free will. I thought this was part of christian beliefs? Otherwise we don't have free will and must simply accept moral terpitude from a divine dictator. This is somewhat contradicting your previous claims.

Polyglide wrote: I feel we are not realy in a position to judge most of mankind and certainly not God.

That's just a very subjective attempt to ignore biblical errancy and morally questionable narratives. Ignoring the problem doesn't answer it.

Polyglide wrote:Do you honestly think that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally?

You do, quite often as well. This thread is precisely designed to question the authority of religious doctrine, so claiming it's open to subjective interpretation is something of an own goal I'd say.

Polyglide wrote: why would anyone write that the God they believed in and worshiped was capable of doing anything other than the right thing at the right time not forgetting we do not know all the circumstances?.

Isn't it the immutable word of God then? I'd say it was reasonable to infer that the immutable word of an omnipotent omni-benevolent deity would be clear and not open to interpretation. Of course if it's entirely man made then the errancy and moral terpitude suddenly make perfect sense.

by marcolucco Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:08 pm

"Hard to rebuff yes, but it destroys any claims such a belief has to moral ascendancy."
Yes, I entirely agree with your line of reasoning and the consequential abandonment of free will.

"Attempting to subjugate one's moral responsibility to a higher power in this way was the text book justification used at the Nuremburg war trials."
Again, wisely put. Abraham, darling of the three GREAT religions, was only following orders when he set off to murder his own son, thus justifying dozens of later psychopaths who also heard a voice telling them to kill a daughter, a sister or a grandson. When I discussed this with a devout Muslim and I asked if he would willingly set about killing his daughter if God asked him to I was told God reserved this special test for his great prophets. We get round every stone, don't we, when we want to justify the unjustifiable. At the end of the day THOU SHALT NOT KILL is the instruction and THOU SHALT KILL is its contradiction. Go well, my friend.

by marcolucco Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:13 pm

" I feel we are not really in a position to judge most of mankind and certainly not God. "

Well, civilised behaviour involves making judgments. They may not be wise or good. We believe God is good and merciful so when he tells us to murder someone we have to question him or our belief.

" Do you honestly think that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? "
No, I don't. I wonder why you ask ME this question as though I had put forward some opposing claim. There are commands in the Bible that are positively evil, such as KILL WITCHES! or take your errant daughter to the "good men" of the city so that she can be stoned. I cannot see how these instructions translate into some metaphor. Best regards polyglide

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:54 pm

Polyglide wrote:I feel within the very near future we will have a better idea of who is right.

I feel within the near future we'll be dead, and it'll be hello darkness my old friend.

by marcolucco Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:43 pm

Here is a challenge for you, polyglide. Find ONE single act of goodness, kindness, mercy that can be attributed to God in the entire course of human history.
In Roman history we have details of people who lived long before Christ; we have physical portraits and psychological portraits; we know exactly what happened to Caesar some fifty years before Christ was born. Yet we don't even know the colour of Christ's eyes, his hair colour, his favourite food, his school progress, his mathematical abilities, his knowledge of geography or science. We know he must have studied Scripture - seemingly exclusively. Why did he not condemn the bad bits of the OT? It looks as if he was deliberately picking bits to make them fit his actions: casting lots for his clothes, riding a donkey...

One single act from God indubitably and indelibly imposed on human history would unite all peoples; many would still act badly, but there would be no inter-religious wars. Is it better to keep folk in doubt, in misery, in suffering - just so that they can "believe" without seeing?

Blessed are those who believe and do not see. In what way is this a logical statement?

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:31 am

marcolucco,
God gave his only beggoten son, can you think of a more precious gift?.

To the last question, it is faith towards what God has promised.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:41 am

I don't call conjuring your supernatural self into human form as your 'son' to satisfy some blood sacrifice to appease a supernatural curse that God commanded himself in the first place as 'precious'.

It's the most irrational illogical warped sadistic thing I can imagine.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:53 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Removed - quite uncalled for and offensive remark
boatlady

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:19 pm

This is a public forum, you dont get to decide who posts and when. Now if you can't keep your obnoxious petty childish insults to yourself I suggest you leave. I might have known you'd return to type here and resort to pure ad hominem when your claims and belifs are challenged. Odd how my opinion gets petty childish insults from you, yet when's you post abusive bigoted homophobic remarks and these are challenged you cry that you're entitled to an opinion.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:51 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
On several occsions I have offered the olive branch and in each occasion you have reverted to personal insults.

The only time I have responded in a manner I do not like doing is when a reply has been personal rather than applicable to the subject in question.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:12 pm

I addressed the topic and only the topic. It was you who resorted to childish ad hominem yet again. If you persist in lying about me like this then I will start quoting the many instances of ad hominem you have used to multiple posters on here.

I have gone to great lengths to avoid using ad hominem in the face of extreme provocation like the one above. Perhaps you for once ought to stop playing the martyr and acknowledge your rather obnoxious post.

If you can't handle an adult discussion where critical views of your beliefs are expressed then don't bring them into a public forum.

by polyglide Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:52 pm

marcolucco,
As you no doubt are aware according to the Bible Satan is in control of the world at the present time and so the only time God will take any action is when Satan oversteps the mark.

In which case if God started doing mankind favours Satan could cry foul.

There are numerous occasions listed in the Bible where through God, indirectly and directly, his people have been helped and saved the Exodus from Eygpt being just one.

The point is that you either accept that the Bible contents need some clarification that we are unable to sort out at the present time or you do not.

When I say I accepet the Bible contents I did not say that I understand all that is involved.

When I have a problem regarding some event that appears at odds with a loving God I consider the fact that as God knows what would happen if he did not take action then it is obvious that he did the correct thing under the circumstances this allays all my fears regarding the events that may come under scrutiny.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:24 pm

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
As you no doubt are aware according to the Bible Satan is in control of the world at the present time and so the only time God will take any action is when Satan oversteps the mark. In which case if God started doing mankind favours Satan could cry foul.

He can cry like a girl for all it matters, if your god existed and was omnipotent then Satan could only be in charge and causing untold suffering because such a deity willingly allows it.

Polyglide wrote:There are numerous occasions listed in the Bible where through God, indirectly and directly, his people have been helped and saved the Exodus from Eygpt being just one.

There are numerous occasions in the bible where god advocates rapine, genocide, slavery and infanticide.

Polyglide wrote:The point is that you either accept that the Bible contents need some clarification that we are unable to sort out at the present time or you do not.

Wrong again, it's not two choices that you arbitrarily pick for everyone. See I have reasoned that the cause of errancy and moral turpitude in the bible, just like the koran and all other so called divine messages, is because they're very probably entirely man made, and no deity exists.

Polyglide wrote:When I say I accepet the Bible contents I did not say that I understand all that is involved.

So an omnipotent deity can't communicate an unequivocal message, or alternatively chooses not to and is not benevolent.

Polyglide wrote:When I have a problem regarding some event that appears at odds with a loving God I consider the fact that as God knows what would happen if he did not take action then it is obvious that he did the correct thing under the circumstances this allays all my fears regarding the events that may come under scrutiny.

I see, so mass kidnapping and rapine, well you just relax and reason this MUST be ok, genocide not to worry, you just relax and reason this must be ok, a child being tied crying to a funeral pyre about to have it's throat slit, not to worry Polyglide is ok with this as God has his reasons. Ethnic cleansing that wipes out entire cities, including babies and animals, and then steals their female children to be raped later, thaaaat's ok, Polyglide is relaxed about this because god has his reasons.

Do you even hear yourself?

by marcolucco Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:55 pm

polyglide wrote: There are numerous occasions listed in the Bible where through God, indirectly and directly, his people have been helped and saved the Exodus from Eygpt being just one.

I don't object to the stance you have taken, basing your thoughts on unwavering faith. That is a choice people are entitled to make. Because I jump in another direction doesn't mean others must.

The concept of a male triad, Father, Son and something else is of course termed a mystery, a truth that is above reason but revealed by God. I cannot get over the similarity between the old gods of Rome and Greece and this new one that still has Father and Son - all within a monotheistic religion (courtesy of early Church Councils.) Allah, speaking in the Koran, says amusingly "Allah forbid that Allah would have a son." The only time the Great One displays any humour. Angels replace the demi-gods of the old ways.
God's presenting his "only begotten son" is just a riddle wrapped in a conundrum. In the Nicene Creed Christ is said to be "consubstantial" with the father whatever that might mean. I don't see it as an act of love for God to have his "son" tortured by ignorant humans. It is an incomprehensible act of savagery. And I don't see this event as a historical one. God helped the Israelites to escape but he certainly took his time about it and caused the escapers to wish they hadn't escaped. But I follow the justifications. Again I don't see that as historical fact when it involves the Red Sea miracle.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:52 am

marcolucco I don't see it as an act of love for God to have his "son" tortured by ignorant humans. It is an incomprehensible act of savagery.

I concur, why people think torturing a human to death is anything but the worst kind of sadism is a mystery to me. The fact they assign this act to a being purportedly with limitless choice just makes the act far worse, and the analogy of it being a loving act of sacrifice all the more baffling.

At this point when you start to question why a deity with limitless power and knowledge and supposedly benevolence cursed humans in the first place, then bizarrely demanded a blood sacrifice of himself/son to appease his own anger it goes from mystery to absurdity.

Talking of absurdity, if you can convince yourself to belief a triumvirate of deity, holy ghost and son of deity represents a monotheistic you can surely believe anything. One wonders if the original authors of this might have been testing our sense of humour.

by polyglide Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:06 am

marcolucco,
I recently watched a programme on the Red Sea saga if saga is the correct word for someone who believes it to be an actual event.

The outcome being that there was reasonable evidence to suggest that it did in fact occur.

I can well understand your comments regarding other religions etc; I have had all the same thoughts, human thoughts.

Humans are restricted because we are of limited ability regarding the universe in general.

If, as I believe, Satan and his equally evil sidekicks are at large then one can expect numerous diversions covering every possible aspect that turns one away from the truth.

I can see how you feel that God is not shown in a good light when he allows his son to be subjected to what we feel (WE) is unseemingly conduct, however, how can we judge when we are unaware of what would be the consequence of God not doing so.

We have no real idea what is involved in the place God resides nor of his actual make up.

by polyglide Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:19 am

marcolucco,
I have to make my posts seperate, they sometimes just disappear as one has just done.

I have looked at the beliefs of many religions and I believe that the only true one is based on the Bible in which it clearly indicates that there will be false religions, if one has opposite views to another either one is wrong or both etc;

It is difficult to come to terms with mankind as a whole and the universe is beyond our comprehension we can only go by what we have available for consideration and use our limited means to come to conclusions.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:28 pm

polyglide wrote:marcolucco, If, as I believe, Satan and his equally evil sidekicks are at large then one can expect numerous diversions covering every possible aspect that turns one away from the truth.

It's impossible to discern truth if you can't even tell whether you're being deceived by some supernatural demon. However since we have an excellent method that shows a remarkable record for objectively testing hypothesis and evidence there is no reason whatever not to use this method, and it is of course science.

Polyglide wrote: I can see how you feel that God is not shown in a good light when he allows his son to be subjected to what we feel (WE) is unseemingly conduct, however, how can we judge when we are unaware of what would be the consequence of God not doing so. We have no real idea what is involved in the place God resides nor of his actual make up.

"unseemingly conduct" is a fairly poor metaphor for torturing someone to death in one of the most barbaric fashions ever devised. We can judge right now as your religion claims your deity is omnipotent and has limitless choice, so it could by definition have avoided any consequences, by will alone. The point however is that either things like torture and murder are immoral or they are not, if they can be either at the whim of a deity then nothing is immoral or moral, and our own reason is redundant. We subjugate that reason and our ability to discern what is moral to an arbitrary set of rules, originating from bronze age societies. That's a recipe for disaster, and of course it kills any notion of free will stone dead, as two mutually exclusive choices is hardly representative of free will.

It's odd how religious apologists make endless claims about their deity, it's nature, what it wants, and what it can and can't do, and then when these claims are scrutinised and logical objections raised they suddenly declare they they can know nothing about god, as you have done here of course, again.

Again I'm not sure what relevance this has to the thread question, you seem to be suggesting that truth is what you claim it is based on your beliefs, dismissing every who disagrees, even other believers, as being in error, and then claim that everything can and is being distorted to deceive us by a Satanic conspiracy. How does this seem like a reasonable cogent means of challenging the rigorous and objective scrutiny that science uses to such remarkable success? After all whenever science and religion have arrived at different conclusions it is science in every instance that the evidence supports, and religion has repeatedly had to revise it's beliefs or deny scientific facts as you do.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:37 pm

polyglide wrote:marcolucco, I believe that the only true one is based on the Bible in which it clearly indicates that there will be false religions,

Well it would wouldn't it, that's hardly compelling evidence for anything, all the other religions make the same claims.

Polyglide wrote: the universe is beyond our comprehension we can only go by what we have available for consideration and use our limited means to come to conclusions.

It certainly isn't beyond our comprehension at all, science has amassed a great deal of evidence that stands up to scrutiny. As for using our limited means, we have science, so lets take a look at the big bang theory and some of the evidence that supports it.

" In 1948, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman predicted that if the big bang theory was correct, and the universe had gone through a period of massive rapid expansion involving intense heat and radiation, then there should be some thermal radiation leftover bouncing around all over the universe. As this radiation was predicted to be in the microwave range, they called it Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). They even made predictions on what temperature this thermal radiation would be. The temperature predictions were later revised several times, but there was no great appetite to investigate it further in the following decade. The original predictions were rediscovered in the early 1960s and in 1964 some soviet scientists called A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov made an investigation and discovered CMB as predicted 16 years earlier. A number of American astrophysicists also investigated it that year and not only did they find the CMB, but they also measured its temperature and found it to be very close to what Alpher, and Herman had predicted."

by polyglide Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:57 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Silly boy.

You are miles behind, having realised certain gasses do not react as SCIENTISTS THOUGHT they did they now say that the universe could have started off in a very gentle manner.

So we understand the universe do we? then just how large is it?

Where is it going? what is at the other side? where did it come from and from what?

Just answer those and I will give you a few more.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:25 pm

Where exactly have I said we understand the universe? You're dishonestly misrepresenting me again. I'll let the ad hominem go as you clearly don't understand what it is. If you want to ask scientific questions then direct them at science. Though even I can see those questions show a level of ignorance that would probably negate you understanding any answers.

I'm not sure why argumentum ad ignorantiam has to be explained to you in almost every post either. Claiming anything because you don't have an evidenced answer is fallacious logic.

The thread topic asks on what grounds religious dogma and doctrine think they can challenge scientific empiricism?

Do you actually have anything salient to say? Or is making absurd arguments from ignorance it?

by polyglide Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:08 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
IT IS NOT BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION, your post.

I have said several times science cannot explain many things and is often proven wrong, Christianity explains everything and although you may dispute it you cannot disprove it.

So the answer is YES.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:32 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
IT IS NOT BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION, your post.

That doesn't mean we fully understand it, your grasp of English really is execrable. Do you really not see that something doesn't have to be fully understood to stop it being beyond our comprehension? Dear dear me, I once fancied I'd make a tolerable teacher and enjoy it, you have cured me completely of that idea forever.

Polyglide wrote:I have said several times science cannot explain many things and is often proven wrong,

Yes you have, and each time I point out it's a straw man polemic as we would hardly need science if we could explain everything, yet on and on and on you go trotting this bullshit out time and again. Just as I have pointed out that a method for gathering knowledge that couldn't admit and therefore correct a mistake would be useless and teach us nothing at all, but instead cling to dogma that was laughably erroneous, as you do using religion.

Polyglide wrote:So the answer is YES.

So your answer to " Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?"

is 'YES'? Dear sweet Jesus, WHY AM WASTING MY TIME........ Rolling Eyes

I really need to have a word with myself....

by marcolucco Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:36 am

" I have said several times science cannot explain many things and is often proven wrong. Christianity explains everything and although you may dispute it you cannot disprove it. "

Well, polyglide, let's have a try, shall we? Science, in the person of Galileo, said that the Earth moved round the Sun. Christianity, taking its view from Genesis, saw the Earth as the centre of the Universe and regarded any other idea as heretical. Science was right.

You will say - we now KNOW all that and Christians believe in a heliocentric system. But it was Science that turned the tables, not religion; had we not listened to science we'd still have the wrong idea.

Science can perfectly explain the rainbow; religion suggested that the rainbow was a sign of God's covenant, planted clearly in the sky. But of course millions of rainbows appear in a variety of ways and places, nothing to do with Noah and God or covenants. Religion offered a simple, mythical explanation; science gave the true explanation. Religion OFFERS an explanation for everything and when science addresses the issue, the scientific explanation is invariably the right one. Why wouldn't it be?

Yes, there are many things that science still cannot explain, which is perhaps another way of saying that man is still experimenting, still searching. The Roman writer Lucretius spoke of "atoms" and the void in his work "De Rerum Natura" and it was considered heretical, yet it offered an early insight into what we have discovered today.

by polyglide Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:52 am

marcolucco,
Nice try and I agree with the majority of what you say but scientists thought the earth was flat and also that it was the centre of the universe etc;

This I appreciate does not invalidate that which they have done.

I will take one matter at a time.

The Bible does not say it is the centre of the universe it says it is unique.

If you read Allen J. Epling up to date it will explain the present ideas regarding this matter.

by polyglide Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:56 am

marcolucco,
Where in the Bible does it suggest that the rainbow is indicative of anything?

You may also consider what Pythagoras thoughts were regarding the earth.

by polyglide Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:01 am

marcolucco,
I have gone through the atom scenario long ago, all things in my opinion are as result of energy that has been transformed into atoms and atoms into everything else.

Please do not ask where the energy came from because I have no idea.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:03 am

by polyglide Today at 11:52 am
marcolucco,
Nice try and I agree with the majority of what you say but scientists thought the earth was flat and also that it was the centre of the universe etc;

No they didn't, that was religion, repeating this lie doesn't make it any more true. The Christian church used the Inquisition to imprison Galileo for life when he published evidenced to show their religious doctrine was wrong about a geocentric universe. How you have the nerve to complain about being accused of lying when you repeat such obvious lies is beyond irony.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:04 am

Polyglide wrote: I have no idea.

A far more concise and accurate response.

by marcolucco Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:37 pm

Thanks for commending my try in which I said that religion not science took the earth as the centre of the universe. Regarding the Earth as flat is a natural, primitive premise ; it was thought that at the rim of the Earth dragons lived. None of this is science.
Science makes a hypothesis and proves, amends or discards it in time. Religion makes bare claims.

"The Bible does not say it is the centre of the universe it says it is unique." Well it isn't unique unless you mean trivially that there is no other identical body, though there may be millions of other "Earth-like" celestial bodies.

polyglide wrote:If you read Allen J. Epling up to date it will explain the present ideas regarding this matter.

Mr. Epling will not explain - he will postulate theories of his own creation and I concede that he has cleverly used the most modern ideas to act as a backdrop to his theories. He sees what he wants to see. I'm afraid that his personalisation of God doing a bit of work for Genesis 1, then returning a few hundred years later in Genesis part 2 to sprinkle birds and beasts on the Earth is more like the Sumerian and Egyptian tales he disparages. This attempted biography of the deity strikes me as nonsensical. But it is an entertaining read.

by marcolucco Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:47 pm

polyglide wrote:Where in the Bible does it suggest that the rainbow is indicative of anything?

Genesis 9.

polyglide wrote: You may also consider what Pythagoras thoughts were regarding the earth.

He believed in the transmigration of souls, certainly. Which thoughts do you want me to consider and why? Are you trying to illustrate that scientists make wrong assumptions? That is the nature of science. Even Newton's work failed in certain situations but in finding discrepancies, Einstein went on to even greater scientific discoveries. You can't possibly claim the same is true for religion. When religion errs it ERRS and that's an end to the matter.

by marcolucco Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:51 pm

polyglide wrote:Please do not ask where the energy came from because I have no idea

I know you don't. Our personal views on matters of physics may be of passing interest but they don't add anything to the topic under discussion.

by Sponsored content