-->
@Athias
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOME FACTS ARE "OBJECTIVE"?Once again, where are you getting that?
This is a simple "yes" or "no" question.
Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church
Posts
Total:
563
-->
@3RU7AL
You're going to have to provide more details if you want answers to those peripheral tangents.More to the point,Would you feel better about, "Science renders provisional conclusions with available data. When new data is available those conclusions have the option to be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data."This one's easy, it's just a "yes" or "no".
I don't answer questions about how "I feel." My feelings are irrelevant. That's the final time I'll make that clear.
As for more "detail," you need only go back to your previous comments.
In other words, you can debunk it with a counter-factual. Please present one.
Non sequitur.
I believe you suggested it had equal validity to holy scripture.Please answer with a "yes" or a "no".
Quote where I at least once mentioned the validity of evolution and/or "holy scripture."
Do you believe that creationism and the theory of evolution are of equal validity?
Religion is no less rational than Evolution. If you intend to transmute my arguments with semantic tampering, then I'll leave you to it alone.
Are you kidding me?
No.
You have repeatedly made comments about how scientific consensus is subjective.
And, by reason of consensus, it in and of itself is logically fallaciously when it is used to inform verification.
Are you suggesting that "subjectivity" invalidates scientific theories?
No. I'm stating that consensus doesn't produce substance of any sort.
Are you suggesting anything at all?
Yes.
This is a simple "yes" or "no" question.
I see no reason to answer it at all (since you failed to provide one.) At best, it's tangential.
-->
@Athias
Religion is no less rational than Evolution.
End of conversation.
-->
@Mopac
Yep.
But that's not knowing God.
That's just blind faith and obstinacy.
The bottom line is; you cannot prove that God exists, no matter how much you scream and shout the opposite.
-->
@Athias
Religion is no less rational than Evolution
OYG.
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, you are wrong.
The Ultimate Reality surely exists.
It is not blind faith that gives knowledge.
-->
@zedvictor4
you cannot prove that God exists, no matter how much you scream and shout the opposite.
He cannot prove that God exists? How's that?
-->
@Athias
"Bald assertion"? We are discussing the nature of knowledge, and therefore what proof, other than reason, could I possibly provide which would make my "assertion" less "bald"?
You stated:
A "random" reality necessitates observation of the metaphysical...
Without justification, this is a bald assertion. There is no obvious reason why a random reality requires or needs observation of the metaphysical. Maybe you can reason you way there, but the steps are not at all obvious, so as it is it is an assertion without justification.
And your fallacy of division was not committed when you stated that the theory of evolution came about due to evidence because it is a branch of science, a claim I never claimed you made (not to mention it doesn't make much sense.) Your fallacy of division was committed when you stated:"My point was that evolutionary theory works just like any other branch of science. Theories do not ultimately change because people's ideologies change. Theories change to fit current evidence."You were using a supposed truth of a whole (Science) to inform a supposed truth about its part (evolution.) Your claim has nothing to do with the development of evolutionary theory individually, but more so your generalizations of science. That is textbook fallacy of division. (And I should've mention this before: no one claimed that the theory changed. Evolution is the theory. I claimed that its ideology changed (e.g. orthogenesis to natural selection.))
You have it backwards. My implication was not that evolutionary theory works like other branches of science because it is a branch of science. My implication was that evolutionary theory is science because it works like other branches of science. If it did not work like other branches of science, it would not be science.
The fossil record is evidence only unto itself (not to mention, its riddled with loss of information); and mendelian inheritance is evidence only unto itself. Your reference to them without contextualizing their significance in evolutionary theory (and no, not that sophistry "things change over time") renders your mention as description.
So the fossil record is not evidence of dead organisms? The fact that most species in the fossil record are no longer extant is not evidence of extinction of those species? The distribution of fossils in rock layers is not evidence of species changing over time?
You have an odd definition of evidence.
"Up to the 1930's, the biggest weakness for natural selection was the lack of a mechanism for inheritance. It was only once population geneticists demonstrated mathematically that the variety in evolution could be accounted for with Mendelian inheritance that natural selection became the overwhelming consensus."Or are you going to retroactively suggest that you meant "variety of species in nature"?
What else would "variety in evolution" mean but "variety of species in nature" in the context I used it?
No it did not. That is your interpretation and assumption. If it fit the facts better then a shift in "consensus" would be trivial.
Historical accounts support my position, including the article I cited. Thus far you have provided no source to support your position.
-->
@Stronn
Without justification, this is a bald assertion. There is no obvious reason why a random reality requires or needs observation of the metaphysical. Maybe you can reason you way there, but the steps are not at all obvious, so as it is it is an assertion without justification.
My lack of explanation, for the record, does not render the assertion to be without "justification" or "reason." Randomness as an epistemological construct is necessarily a subjective heuristic. One must always consider that the lack of observed structure or pattern in any given phenomena may be an issue with the observer, whether it be methodology yet to be sophisticated, or inconsistency with a formula. In other words, randomness is an abstract in epistemological considerations much like imaginary numbers are in mathematics (then again, mathematics itself is abstract.) When you are using "random" to state that there is no pattern or structure to the phenomena, this is necessarily an ontological statement. One is stating that there must be no regulation to this phenomena, observation notwithstanding. In order to inform such a statement, one must have the capacity to observe the metaphysical, which in an of itself is contradictory.
You have it backwards. My implication was not that evolutionary theory works like other branches of science because it is a branch of science. My implication was that evolutionary theory is science because it works like other branches of science.
Enough with the sophistry. All branches of science according to your rationale can abandon the "branch" and simply be related directly to science. We are not talking about the scientific method; we're talking about the development of theories and the consensus which informs natural selection. Consensus isn't scientific at all, and that's my point. The evidentiary differences between orthogenesis and natural selection don't match your claims, and the explanations differ prominently through their premises. Once again, had the evidence suited the natural selection explanation better, consensus wouldn't have mattered.
So the fossil record is not evidence of dead organisms? The fact that most species in the fossil record are no longer extant is not evidence of extinction of those species? The distribution of fossils in rock layers is not evidence of species changing over time?
Feel free to state and justify otherwise. Repeating rhetorical questions doesn't strengthen your argument.
What else would "variety in evolution" mean but "variety of species in nature" in the context I used it?
It's not up to me to guess your meaning. And once again, and I've already rebuffed this: evolution isn't merely a statement of change. It's a postulate seeking to delineate the mechanism which regulates change. "Variety in a species" means nothing more or less than "variety in a species."
Historical accounts support my position, including the article I cited. Thus far you have provided no source to support your position.
I have no intention of getting into a contest of citing sources. All you could've done by citing a source is to have listed someone else who parroted your position. Like I've stated many times over, feel free to verify of falsify any of my statements. They're either true or false (in their entirety or in some parts.) And frankly, it's of no consequence whether or not you're convinced.
70 days later
-->
@Stronn
“Religion is the opiate of the people”
*Slow clap*
-->
@Dynasty
.
Dynasty,
Unfortunately, I once heard that our faith was "The diaper of humanity within the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages." Can you believe that statement? Huh?
Just because our ever loving and forgiving Jesus had these attributes of being homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, abortionist, capricious, and malevolent, we TRUE Christians have to accept Jesus as shown within the scriptures and just move on the best way we can.
.
33 days later
-->
@Stronn
Concerning your OP, I have a different view.
"What, then, is the real reason young Christians (and other religious believers) leave the faith? The answer lies in a prior, 2016 Pew Research Center survey which allowed respondents to answer in their own words. In this study, most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true. When asked why they didn’t believe, many said their views about God had “evolved” and some reported having a “crisis of faith.” Their specific explanations included the following statements:"“Learning about evolution when I went away to college”“Religion is the opiate of the people”“Rational thought makes religion go out the window”“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator”“I just realized somewhere along the line that I didn’t really believe it”“I’m doing a lot more learning, studying and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.”
IMO, people like Oz Guinness, Alan Bloom, Ravi Zacharius, and many more have identified why the American mind has shifted and shut down in its position on God. The gatekeepers of society, the intellectual elite, education/colleges/universities (higher learning), the media, Hollywood, the Arts, and politico (i.e., 3. a person who uses public office to advance personal or partisan interests --> mostly in the form of Democrats), all have adopted a somewhat atheistic agenda.
The same hidden agenda and undercurrent that is now taking place and guiding the impeachment process by the Democrats (say the lie long enough and hard enough and in as many different levels of society that can be accessed) can change the thinking of the populous and has regarding Christianity, despite its reasonableness. This mindset is called propaganda or groupthink where an idea is gradually introduced and melded into the hearts and minds of America and the rest of the world so that they can no longer think for themselves or separate truth from fiction.
Start the indoctrination at a young age and you more than likely have a convert.
-->
@PGA2.0
Start the indoctrination at a young age and you more than likely have a convert.
Good point. Perhaps Christians should wait until kids turn 18 before teaching them about the holy scriptures.
-->
@3RU7AL
Start the indoctrination at a young age and you more than likely have a convert.Good point. Perhaps Christians should wait until kids turn 18 before teaching them about the holy scriptures.
Truth is what we fight for, not indoctrination. If God exists, He is good, and He has revealed Himself then we can know the truth. That is the biblical claim, that God does exist, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and has revealed Himself to humanity. Thus, it would be good to teach your children the truth.
As soon as you raise this red flag it brings to mind why what you believe is true and how you teach the truth to children?
Thus, how do you justify your epistemology? To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?
@golfer
Thus, how do you justify your epistemology? To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?
All gods are the creation of men, there is no mention of gods before men invented them.
-->
@PGA2.0
Truth is what we fight for, not indoctrination.
I agree 100% and I do the same myself.
If God exists, He is good, and He has revealed Himself then we can know the truth.
(IFF) god exists (AND) god is good (AND) god has comprehensibly revealed itself to humans (THEN) we can know the truth
You're missing a few definitions here. Please explicitly define god, good, and truth.
That is the biblical claim, that God does exist, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and has revealed Himself to humanity.
I'm actually pretty sure "The Bible" claims no such thing. The "omniscient" claim is extrapolated from "god knows when a sparrow falls" which simply means that god is obsessed with sparrows. The "omnipotent" claim is extrapolated from "our god is an awesome god" which simply means the Jews thought their god was pretty cool. The "omnibenevolent" claim is the weakest of the three "omni" claims because even by "the fount of all gospel truth" god is a vindictive, murderous, and jealous thing. Even the "revealed itself to humanity" is highly suspect, because even the holy scripture itself claims that "no one can know nor has anyone ever known god".
Thus, it would be good to teach your children the truth.
It seems we need to define Standards-of-Evidence.
As soon as you raise this red flag it brings to mind why what you believe is true and how you teach the truth to children?
Precisely.
Thus, how do you justify your epistemology?
With logic.
To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?
I am a logiczombie.
I seek logical coherence in all things.
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth is what we fight for, not indoctrination.I agree 100% and I do the same myself.
I'm sure you believe that. It does not necessarily make what you believe true.
If God exists, He is good, and He has revealed Himself then we can know the truth.(IFF) god exists (AND) god is good (AND) god has comprehensibly revealed itself to humans (THEN) we can know the truthYou're missing a few definitions here. Please explicitly define god, good, and truth.
God - the God revealed in the Bible and described therein, which explains His character, attributes, and nature.
Good - the nature of God and His revelation to humanity that conveys this goodness. The foundation for morality is God. We have a standard to compare what is right and better by - the best, the ultimate, the absolute.
Truth - that which is not false. That which conforms to reality, to things as they are.
That is the biblical claim, that God does exist, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and has revealed Himself to humanity.I'm actually pretty sure "The Bible" claims no such thing. The "omniscient" claim is extrapolated from "god knows when a sparrow falls" which simply means that god is obsessed with sparrows.
On God's being and omnipresence -
Exodus 3:14 (NASB)
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24).
The "omnipotent" claim is extrapolated from "our god is an awesome god" which simply means the Jews thought their god was pretty cool.
It means more than that. It means that God does it. He speaks, and it occurs in His prescribed time for His people. Prophecy is a demonstration of this. He made all created things, everything physical, spiritual beings such as angels, the universe, you, I, nature, His power is omnipotent, above and beyond that of any other being. Genesis 18:14; Isaiah 45:18-21; Isaiah 46:10-11; Isaiah 48:3-7; Jeremiah 32:17; John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17.
-->
@3RU7AL
The "omnibenevolent" claim is the weakest of the three "omni" claims because even by "the fount of all gospel truth" god is a vindictive, murderous, and jealous thing.
You are wrong.
God is pure and holy (in His nature). He demonstrates that we cannot live up to these attributes of His by showing it to the people He chooses to make Himself known to the world through. As a righteous Judge, He judges sin and evil in His time. If He permits it, He allows it for a time and season to demonstrate His purposes. He examines the inner being and the motives of our hearts.
Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference. Preference makes nothing good. All it does is say, this is my view, and you will follow it because I have the power or charism to achieve my desire. Thus you have the monsters of history who exterminate whole classes of people (i.e., the Jews during Hitler's reign; religious factions during Mao's reign; dissidents during Kim Jong Un's reign; Venezuela's corrupt regime; Cubas corrupt regime, and so on). Not only this, with a subjective reference point, you get good being called evil and evil good. Abortion is condemned then permitted. Once it was considered evil, now it is acceptable. Go figure? The laws of identity are circumvented. A=A; A no longer equals A. There is an inconsistency in all subjective judgment. Unless there is an objective, omniscient, absolute reference point to compare "good" to what is "best," we just make it up and label it "good." One man's good is another man's evil/poison.
So, while you live in this world, you say all kinds of things that you do not live by. You can't live consistently within your worldview. You keep stepping into the Christian worldview to make sense of anything. So carry on denying the only Being who can make sense of this and give it meaning and purpose. That is your choice. But don't tell me what you believe is "good" just because you think it. When it comes to the end of the day, you still have to explain why some things are evil from your subjective standpoint. It is worth as much as any other myriad of opinions unless you have an ultimate and unchanging source that is good by nature (because goodness is an attribute of a personal being/Being).
Even the "revealed itself to humanity" is highly suspect, because even the holy scripture itself claims that "no one can know nor has anyone ever known god".
And what that means is we cannot know God comprehensively since we are limited beings. We can know of Him because we live in His creation and are part of His creation - i.e., the physical existence of things displays His mindfulness and information about Him from the macros to the micros. We can know Him to the extent He reveals Himself to us by His Word, Son, Spirit - i.e., His personal revelation of Himself.
Thus, it would be good to teach your children the truth.It seems we need to define Standards-of-Evidence.
Go ahead. I'll take the simple meaning of evidence as a starter.
As soon as you raise this red flag it brings to mind why what you believe is true and how you teach the truth to children?Precisely.Thus, how do you justify your epistemology?With logic.
Where does logic come from? Is it a physical thing?
To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?I am a logiczombie.I seek logical coherence in all things.
Does your worldview/system of belief provide such a standard? If you do not believe God is the answer to why we exist, then the answer would be unintentional, mindless, produced by random chance happenstance. That would eventually create logical and conscious beings. There are a lot of presuppositions here. There would be no ultimate purpose. Is that correct, or would you like to argue otherwise?
-->
@PGA2.0
That is correct.Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference.
(IFF) you define god is an objective absolute universal reference point (THEN) this particular version of god must be incomprehensible (independent of the mind).
Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real. [LINK]
I mean, unless you personally prefer some alternative definition of "objective".
-->
@3RU7AL
God certainly is independent of the mind, and is therefore not noumenon, which by definition is NOT independent from the mind.
-->
@Mopac
God certainly is independent of the mind, and is therefore not noumenon, which by definition is NOT independent from the mind.
NOUMENON = INCOMPREHENSIBLE
The word "incomprehensible" is technically comprehensible, however, the word itself "incomprehensible" demarcates the limits of what you can say about that "thing".
It's an exclusive definition instead of an inclusive definition.
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality is incomprehensible, however likewise, we know what that means. It is because we know God through The Word made flesh, which is God with us in creation, but not circumscribed by creation.
Incomprehensibly is not whhat defines noumenon. Being originate in the mind is what defines noumenon.
-->
@Mopac
I agree 100%.The Ultimate Reality is incomprehensible
I'm not so sure about this fleshy-god-flesh thing you're talking about. I've never seen one of those.
-->
@3RU7AL
Creation itself is the flesh of God, for it is God's incarnation that created everything, and all of creation has been united to divinity. The 2 distinct physis of divinity and humanity united in a single hypostasis, "having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."
-->
@Mopac
Awesome! Spinoza was right!Creation itself is the flesh of God
-->
@3RU7AL
We are panentheists. Spinoza I think was also a panentheist, though he commonly gets called a pantheist. They are different, and we are definitely not pantheists.
-->
@Mopac
I love panentheism!
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, we are panentheists. In fact, Bishop Kallistos Ware even uses that word in his book "The Orthodox Church"(good introduction to the faith by the way, frequently recommend to catechumans), and I was happy he did because it is accurate to our theology, and you don't hear that word often in the church.
-->
@PGA2.0
On God's being and omnipresence -Exodus 3:14 (NASB)God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24).
I've read all of those scripture references and they only support the assertion that god is everywhere-that-humans-are. It never says that god is also on Mars or the Andromeda galaxy for example. It only implies that humans (more specifically the author of that passage) cannot escape god.
The specific claim, "transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now" does not appear in any of those references.
AND, what makes your god a "he"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference.That is correct.
Logically! The question is, why are you or I if there is not objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
(IFF) you define god is an objective absolute universal reference point (THEN) this particular version of god must be incomprehensible (independent of the mind).
It depends on how you define "objective" as the two bolden texts reveal. "Objective" requires a mind to perceive what it means.
adjective
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:an objective opinion.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
Since the biblical God is shown to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and immutable He would not exhibit interpretation or prejudice. What He says would be based on fact, unbiased. Facts are true to what is. Both your and my thinking is influenced by all kinds of things.
Furthermore, to interpret something correctly we would then have to either think God's thoughts after Him via reason or have Him reveal the truth of a matter to know as certain.
Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real. [LINK]I mean, unless you personally prefer some alternative definition of "objective".
See above.