thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Those words with you standing by them just really mean nothing. How about a little bit of evidence? Rob has the "supernatural special" ability to read other people's minds and to tell them exactly what they believe. Despite everything they say they believe..
Ahab Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Rob has the "supernatural special" ability to read other people's minds and to tell them exactly what they believe. Despite everything they say they believe.. Reading someone's mind really isn't that hard, especially when they give you words you can read which reflect what they are thinking. Apparently Rob is equating what some scientists say about leaving God out of the picture, which is what you call an agnostic approach, with what atheists say about how there is no God in their picture, or what we might call their view of reality. Some might say that's a very fine line of distinction while others, like Rob and maybe me too, would say it basically amounts to the same thing. Edited March 26, 2014 by Ahab
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Reading someone's mind really isn't that hard, especially when they give you words you can read which reflect what they are thinking. Apparently Rob is equating what some scientists say about leaving God out of the picture, which is what you call an agnostic approach, with what atheists say about how there is no God in their picture, or what we might call their view of reality. Some might say that's a very fine line of distinction while others, like Rob and maybe me too, would say it basically amounts to the same thing. Atheist demand that there is no God.Theists demand that there is a God.Agnostics claim they don't know.Science can't put any God or Godlike force into science. So it is Agnostic on questions of God.
Ahab Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Atheist demand that there is no God.Theists demand that there is a God.Agnostics claim they don't know.Science can't put any God or Godlike force into science. So it is Agnostic on questions of God.Yeah, just like I said, not much if any real difference between an atheistic and an agnostic mindset. No God vs No God as far as they know.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Yeah, just like I said, not much if any real difference between an atheistic and an agnostic mindset.No God vs No God as far as they know. Not really. For a host of reasons. Science can't claim a God, and it can't claim a no God. IE; Say I am a farmer. I grow corn. I want to see the effect of a particular fertilizer on my corn. So I put on my science hat and plant half my corn with that fertilizer and half I don't. All other conditions being equal for both. IF I see any difference. I must of necessity attribute that difference to the fertilizer. IF I see no difference why spend the extra money?
Rob Osborn Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Those words with you standing by them just really mean nothing. How about a little bit of evidence? What is the purpose of the NCSE? Its to kepp the Creator out of his creation and instead teach a purely naturalistic approach to nature that MUST be void of God. Th eACLU says they fight for freedom of religion but in reality they fight for freedom from religion. They pretty much back every agenda in the public to remove any and all mention of God. The NAS is just another secular institution whose agenda it is to remove God from all things in science.
Ahab Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Not really. For a host of reasons. Science can't claim a God, and it can't claim a no God. IE; Say I am a farmer. I grow corn. I want to see the effect of a particular fertilizer on my corn. So I put on my science hat and plant half my corn with that fertilizer and half I don't. All other conditions being equal for both. IF I see any difference. I must of necessity attribute that difference to the fertilizer. IF I see no difference why spend the extra money?Please continue with your science hat on, and maybe eventually you will figure out which part God has played and is playing in all of that.You'd be wrong to think God has nothing to do with any of it.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Please continue with your science hat on, and maybe eventually you will figure out which part God has played and is playing in all of that.You'd be wrong to think God has nothing to do with any of it. I never said God had nothing to do with it. The question is which result did God have to do with?
Ahab Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I never said God had nothing to do with it. The question is which result did God have to do with?God is involved in every good thing, and even the bad things use some of the good things God has done or provided, so God is involved, somehow, in all of it.Looks to me like you just need to gather more data if you really, truly, don't know how God is involved in all of that.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 God is involved in every good thing, and even the bad things use some of the good things God has done or provided, so God is involved, somehow, in all of it.Looks to me like you just need to gather more data if you really, truly, don't know how God is involved in all of that. Which ones were the good and bad in my example?
Ahab Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Which ones were the good and bad in my example?Is this how you usually do your scientific research? Why ask me? Go figure that out!Sheessh. Why do people seem to need me to figure everything out for them.(and yes that was a rhetorical question)
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Is this how you usually do your scientific research? Why ask me? Go figure that out!Sheessh. Why do people seem to need me to figure everything out for them.(and yes that was a rhetorical question) That is known as avoiding the question, a logical fallacy. Science is all about asking questions, and getting consistent answers. With my example: If there is difference between the two results what was the cause?Was it a good or bad result? If there was no difference why spend the money?
Ahab Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) That is known as avoiding the question, a logical fallacy.Humor. I sense it. I know it's around here somewhere.Science is all about asking questions, and getting consistent answers.You can sometimes see some people agree on something, but you never will see everybody agree with everyone else on everything. With my example: If there is difference between the two results what was the cause?Was it a good or bad result? If there was no difference why spend the money?If everything was equal except for the fertilizer, as you claim it was, the difference is some of the corn had that fertilizer and some did not. Good and bad is sometimes relative depending on the desired results. For example if both turned out the same, and both were good, and you were hoping the one with the added fertilizer would turn out much better than the other so people would want to add the fertilizer, even though all the corn was good the result would be bad because there would be no incentive to add the fertilizer.Someone might still want to pay money for the fertilizer though if they valued the fertilizer more than the money. Edited March 26, 2014 by Ahab
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Humor. I sense it. I know it's around here somewhere.You can sometimes see some people agree on something, but you never will see everybody agree with everyone else on everything.If everything was equal except for the fertilizer, as you claim it was, the difference is some of the corn had that fertilizer and some did not.Good and bad is sometimes relative depending on the desired results. For example if both turned out the same, and both were good, and you were hoping the one with the added fertilizer would turn out much better than the other so people would want to add the fertilizer, even though all the corn was good the result would be bad because there would be no incentive to add the fertilizer.Someone might still want to pay money for the fertilizer though if they valued the fertilizer more than the money. I like humor. It makes for more pleasant social interactions. But I was being serious. Avoiding the question is a logical fallacy. I've never expected universal agreement on much of anything. Disagreements are the thread of progress. Knowing something about what is being disagreed about is just as important. Now we're getting some where. When there is an observable difference then it must be because of the fertilizer, and not some other factor. Whether that observable difference is good or bad depends on the results. For instance a fertilizer too high in Nitrogen can kill the plant or while it produces plenty of green vegetation it isn't so good for seed production. Such a farmer won't be in business very long. There is an old saying: You want to be a millionaire doing farming? Start with two million dollars.
Recommended Posts