Skip to comments.
Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design
Discovery Institute ^
| June 22, 2007
Posted on 06/23/2007 12:21:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 1,621-1,635 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
he showed that a combination of simple self-evident axioms demands that we acknowledge the existence of true supernatural theorems No, he didn't.
541
posted on
07/02/2007 12:32:24 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
To: GunRunner
quod erat demonstrandum
To: cornelis; Alamo-Girl
Wouldn't the distinction "possible" and "actual" be sufficient? The terms of negation work too quick to efface the participatory nature of all things. That's certainly true; and the words "possible" and "actual" might be good substitutes. But the term "non-existent reality" -- which I'm sure you're aware is Voegelin's and Sandoz's -- is proposed in order to draw a distinction between what is accessible to direct sense perception ("existent" i.e. physical reality) and what is not ("non-existent" reality), the latter being accessible to apperception (or noesis). It has a limited usefulness in that sense.
I really liked this, from Gilson:
Even abstract knowledge is not the mere copying of an essence by an intellect; it is the intellectual becoming of an actual essence in an intellectual being.
In short, via a noetic experience -- the sort of thing that belongs to "non-existent reality," in Voegelin's sense.
Thank you so much for writing, cornelis!
543
posted on
07/02/2007 12:34:47 PM PDT
by
betty boop
("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
To: Stultis
The universe is finite and unbounded.
—What Poincare’s conjecture comes to.
544
posted on
07/02/2007 12:36:07 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
To: Alamo-Girl
I also am concerned about any suggestion to end a line of research. In my view, "Nature did it!" is just as much an artificial boundary as "God did it!" The difference being that having said nature did it, one is obligated to describe and explain the processes involved.
Second Law formulations, whether entropy or information theory, do not imply that stepwise accumulations of order cannot occur.
545
posted on
07/02/2007 12:38:10 PM PDT
by
js1138
To: GunRunner; Alamo-Girl
Hi GunRunner!
You seem to be suggesting that somehow logic and reason are antithetical to faith and the divine. Jeepers, if it weren't for the divinity, there would be no logic or reason. There is nothing more "logical" than the Logos.
I would urge you to think through your supposition....
546
posted on
07/02/2007 12:40:28 PM PDT
by
betty boop
("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
To: Stultis; betty boop; cornelis
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts about God!
Of course both of these aspects, among others, are found in God's incarnation as Christ.
I would add that those who anthropomorphize God by insisting He must comply with the Law of Identity would have a problem with God as the Father of "all that there is" - and also as God enfleshed in Jesus Christ - and also as the indwelling Holy Spirit. IOW, the Trinity.
To: GodGunsGuts
Sounds like religion to me-GGG Me too, in spades! Thanks, GGG!
548
posted on
07/02/2007 12:41:37 PM PDT
by
betty boop
("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
To: betty boop
Excellent.
To: js1138
The difference being that having said nature did it, one is obligated to describe and explain the processes involved.
Either way, we must subject every theory to additional or expanded tests, especially attempts to falsify the theory. Theories should not be considered "settled."
To: RightWhale; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine
[.. Those who remained in France began to doubt their own existence, and that trend continues. ..]
"To do is to be."<-- Nietzsche
"To be is to do."<-- Sartre
"Do be do be do."<-- Sinatra
551
posted on
07/02/2007 12:49:56 PM PDT
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
To: Diamond
And since the notion of "crippled" cognitive equipment is unintelligible without the presupposition of it having being designed for some purpose...I have never said that cognitive equipment is not designed for a purpose.
552
posted on
07/02/2007 12:50:03 PM PDT
by
js1138
To: betty boop
I would urge you to think through your supposition....Over many years I have.
But the divine that springs forth from logic is just as easily rebuffed using the same tools. I've yet to find any real logical explanation for the very short list of problems I have with the Judeo-Christian God in post 537, but it is not for the faithfuls' lack of trying.
My problem with their arguments to me is that they seem stuck to the fact that I'm not "seeing" something that they are "seeing". They try logic and reason (even science sometimes, which makes it real fun), but they always come back to the non-empirical and esoteric dictums of faith and salvation.
If slavery is wrong, and God is always right, why did God not say "Free your slaves, no matter how much it costs you". The believers can twist themselves into all types of knots trying to explain this, but a much more believable explanation to me is that the writers of the Bible had no problem with slavery, and as such, neither did the God they created.
553
posted on
07/02/2007 12:50:58 PM PDT
by
GunRunner
(Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
To: Alamo-Girl
Either way, we must subject every theory to additional or expanded tests, especially attempts to falsify the theory.Does that apply to religion also?
554
posted on
07/02/2007 12:51:39 PM PDT
by
js1138
To: GunRunner
555
posted on
07/02/2007 12:51:43 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
To: hosepipe
LOLOL!
To: tacticalogic
[.. Which means what, in the context of testing observations? That we don't really test our observations, or that there's no more basis to trust the results of the test than there was to trust the initial observation in the first place? Something else altogther? Nothing at all? ..]
Have a little faith man.. always with those negative vibes.. - Oddball/"Kellys Heros"
557
posted on
07/02/2007 12:54:04 PM PDT
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
To: js1138
There is so much theological discussion in writing in the past 2000 years that if we had to read it all before dying and going wherever we would live forever, especially if we misplaced our Latin grammars.
558
posted on
07/02/2007 12:55:19 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
To: js1138
Doctrines and traditions are not considered "theory" - but indeed, it is the tendency of groups to splinter off - usually based on greater/lesser/different emphasis on specific doctrines or traditions.
To: Stultis
Godel proved that no finite system is sufficient in itself. And while Godel’s theorem demonstrates that the finite infers something greater than itself, it is also true that the finite cannot prove the infinite. It must be inferred. Moreover, yet another implication of Godel’s theorem is that faith is ultimately the only possible response to reality. So, in so far as Godel is concerned, it would appear that faith and science are not strictly incompatible.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 1,621-1,635 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson