Christianity Versus Science

[Unknown Soldier]

It tells us that your argument is weak.

Logicians have developed definitions of weak and strong arguments. To understand what is meant by arguments described that way, it is necessary to understand what a weak or strong statement is. A statement's strength is determined by how much it says. For example,

'I ate spaghetti and meatballs for supper'.
and
'I ate spaghetti for supper'.

Are two statements in which the first statement is stronger than the second statement because it says more. Note also that the first statement implies the second statement, and statements are generally stronger than the statements they imply. Also, the weakest statements are tautologies like

'I ate spaghetti for supper, or I didn't eat spaghetti for supper.'

And the strongest statements are contradictions like

'I ate spaghetti for supper, and I didn't eat spaghetti for supper.'

Now, since both the premises and the conclusion in an argument are statements, they can be strong or weak. An argument's strength is a measure of how well its premises support its conclusion. For example

Planet A in a star system supports life.
Therefore, planet C in that star system supports life.

is a stronger argument than

Planets A and B in a star system supports life.
Therefore, planet C in that star system supports life.

The second argument is stronger than the first because it has the same conclusion but a stronger premise.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually, a more representative analogy of what I said is that the more closets (plural) you check, the more likely there is a "bear in there." It's one of the most basic principles of probability that the more times you try, the better your chances of success.

Another way to increase your odds of success would be to live in an area where bears are abundant, and bears carrying out b & e are commonplace.

For example, your chances of rolling a 3 on a die increases the more times you roll a die.

Bad analogy. You can check the die and locate an actual 3. You can't check other planets for life.

Actually, since I have no knowledge of a bear ever being in my home, I essentially know that there's no such closeted bear without looking. It's very simple and easy to understand.

No doubt about it.

OK, how about my seeing large paw prints on the floor? If I don't see them, then there's no reason to believe there's a "bear in there."

You don't see paw prints on the other side of the planet either, but it doesn't then follow that there are no bears there.

But the kind of evidence doesn't matter--as long as there's no evidence of any kind for a bear in my closet, then I can rest easy without checking that closet.

Yep.

Of course I would come to the conclusion that there's no bear in my closet without looking.

Have you never looked into your closet?

I would be an idiot to doubt there's no bear because I hadn't looked!

Agreed.

LOL--do you seriously think that a bear getting into my closet is not more noticeable than aliens on a planet?

Much more noticeable which is why concluding that there is no life on other planets makes no sense whatsoever.

I haven't studied it extensively.

It is quite evident that you've never heard of it to begin with.

It's evidently a futile effort on my part to explain why lack of knowledge about A can be knowledge about B.

Given your ignorance of quotes from mystics, it should follow from your logic that you have some knowledge of apophatic theology. The fact is that your ignorance of an apophatic quote spotlights that you can't identify a tell-tale apophatic quotation. You admittedly don't even know of a single apophatic theologian.

No. I assume that life beyond the earth is like earth here.

It's a false assumption just like assuming that bears in someone else's closet must be like bears in your closet.

It's possible to infer a creator from creation. I can, for example, infer a beaver from a beaver's dam.

Bad analogy. We can identify beavers. We can't identify God any more than we can identify Hermes and Aphrodite from hermaphrodites.

Yes, my examples tend to fall on deaf ears,

False. They're being addressed and refuted. Coming up with more analogies doesn't advance the discussion.

but getting back to my question that you just dodged,

I didn't dodge it. I'm pointing out that you're just coming up with more pointless analogies.

there's no reason to look for a live Queen Elizabeth

I'm not.

You'll need to take that up with the logicians whose work I'm studying.

Keep studying.

 

[shnarkle]

Logicians have developed definitions of weak and strong arguments. To understand what is meant by arguments described that way, it is necessary to understand what a weak or strong statement is. A statement's strength is determined by how much it says. For example,

'I ate spaghetti and meatballs for supper'.
and
'I ate spaghetti for supper'.

Are two statements in which the first statement is stronger than the second statement because it says more. Note also that the first statement implies the second statement, and statements are generally stronger than the statements they imply. Also, the weakest statements are tautologies like

'I ate spaghetti for supper, or I didn't eat spaghetti for supper.'

And the strongest statements are contradictions like

'I ate spaghetti for supper, and I didn't eat spaghetti for supper.'

Now, since both the premises and the conclusion in an argument are statements, they can be strong or weak. An argument's strength is a measure of how well its premises support its conclusion. For example

Planet A in a star system supports life.
Therefore, planet C in that star system supports life.

is a stronger argument than

Planets A and B in a star system supports life.
Therefore, planet C in that star system supports life.

The second argument is stronger than the first because it has the same conclusion but a stronger premise.

I provided you with a strong argument as to why your weak argument is pointless.

 

[Ontos]

In a sense Christianity is an epistemology in that it offers knowledge of God...

An IKEA instructional manual is an epistemology in that it offers knowledge of how to put together a dresser drawer.
Grandma's recipe is an epistemology in that if offers knowledge of how to make a cheese cake.

This all confuses the content of knowledge with the acquisition of knowledge - and epistemology is about acquisition, and this is why the whole "Christianity vs science" is just categorically wrong.

 

[Gary Mac]

You are completely ignorant that those born of God are created in Christ Jesus.
Born of Faith
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, 1 John 5:1

Yes because the same anointing Jesus had of the Father is the same anointing in us all who was in Christ Jesus. That is the only way you can know that Jesus was Gods anointed, you cant relate to Christ at all least Christ be in you, you anointed of Gods Spirit as Jesus was.

For the same reason He prayed for Peter, so that your faith should not fail; Luke 22:32

Amen, but his prayer for you is gnostic when he prayed to his God for you to be in Him as Jesus was in Him.

We know that God sent His only begotten Son Jesus and has qualified us to partake of the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light;
In Christ Jesus we have redemption, the atonement of sins. The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created; Col 1, Heb 1:1-4

Jesus wasn't Gods only begotten son at all, He has lots of us, well at least a few of us has found His ways to be born of God, or begotten of Him as Jesus was. You are not begotten, born of God or you would be born of Him yourself but because to be born of the Father who id God is gnostic for you, you are not born of Him to be His son.

We were not baptized into the name of Paul for the atonement of sins, Christ is not divided. 1 Cor 1:13

You are, for Paul is your god.

For we who were baptized into Christ have been renewed in Christ Jesus;

We who has been baptized by God by His Spirit as Jesus was are exactly like him in thew Father. But because to be born of God as Jesus was in Matt 3:16 is gnostic teachings for you you go without.

Now that faith has come we are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:25-29

Now that I have the same faith as Jesus had and obey Him as Jesus did, we are one, He in me and I inHim no different from Jesus being of God. But because to be of God yourself is gnostic teachings, you go without.

 

[shnarkle]

An IKEA instructional manual is an epistemology in that it offers knowledge of how to put together a dresser drawer.
Grandma's recipe is an epistemology in that if offers knowledge of how to make a cheese cake.

This all confuses the content of knowledge with the acquisition of knowledge - and epistemology is about acquisition, and this is why the whole "Christianity vs science" is just categorically wrong.

It may very well confuse the content with the acquisition, but even if we distinguish the two, the doctrines, dogmas, and tenets of Christianity are epistemological, no?

Theologies are epistemologies which is why atheists have no problem getting degrees in theology because they know that none of it has anything to do with any actual gods.

 

[Ontos]

It may very well confuse the content with the acquisition, but even if we distinguish the two, the doctrines, dogmas, and tenets of Christianity are epistemological, no?

They're informative, but they have nothing to do with how we know.

 

[shnarkle]

They're informative, but they have nothing to do with how we know.

We know through the faculty itself, i.e. the intellect. There is no other way to know anything.

However, one may become aware or experience any number of things without knowing anything about them. The intellect can be bypassed altogether, e.g. the mystic experience, or a conscious awareness unencumbered by an intellectual understanding.

 

[Ontos]

We know through the faculty itself, i.e. the intellect. There is no other way to know anything.

Right, senses/intellect, empirical/rational, realism/idealism etc... Those are all "how's" in the realm of epistemology.

But again, that is all categorically different than "Christianity" and pitting it against "science" is wholly misplaced.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Another way to increase your odds of success would be to live in an area where bears are abundant, and bears carrying out b & e are commonplace.

Did a bear ever get into a closet without notice only to be discovered by surprise in that closet later? It would be so much easier for both of us to conclude the obvious fact that lack of evidence of bears in closets is sure evidence that there are no such closeted bears. The obvious reason is that if such closeted bears existed, then the house owners would know without actually seeing a bear in their closet that one's in there.

I'm going to rest my case. I'm just not getting through to you on this "bear in the closet" issue. If you're not aware of bears are in your closets, then go ahead and keep worrying that one might be in there.

Bad analogy. You can check the die and locate an actual 3. You can't check other planets for life.

My analogy assumes that the roll of the die occurs without the tosser's intervention which is not the case when seeking life on planets. This is very basic probability that you should understand before making assertions about it.

You don't see paw prints on the other side of the planet either, but it doesn't then follow that there are no bears there.

Actually, a lack of oxygen in a planet's atmosphere is a sure indicator that that planet harbors no life as we know it.

Have you never looked into your closet?

I rested my case on this issue.

It is quite evident that you've never heard of it to begin with.

Please share your expertise on any theology you like.

Given your ignorance of quotes from mystics, it should follow from your logic that you have some knowledge of apophatic theology.

Yes. I know that so far in my studies to my recollection that that theology has not been an issue. I also know, then, that it's a rather obscure topic that has little relevance to most philosophical and theological topics.

The fact is that your ignorance of an apophatic quote spotlights that you can't identify a tell-tale apophatic quotation. You admittedly don't even know of a single apophatic theologian.

That's correct, but you've yet to demonstrate that what your saying here does not equally apply to you. If you raise a topic, then it is your burden to explain it and its relevance to what we're discussing.

It's a false assumption...

Then you have the burden to show that life exists that is significantly different from life on earth.

Bad analogy. We can identify beavers. We can't identify God any more than we can identify Hermes and Aphrodite from hermaphrodites.

You're moving the goalposts. You originally challenged on post 129 the idea of inferring a creator from creation. My example of a beaver's dam meets that challenge well. You said nothing about whether or not the creator can be empirically known.

In any case, it is very possible to infer the existence of things we have no direct knowledge of. A really good example is that of the "Oort cloud" which is an unobserved collection of predominantly icy planetesimals in the outer solar system. Scientists accept its existence via inference rather than direct knowledge.

False. They're being addressed and refuted.

Addressed in some cases but the refutation part is not so well established.

Coming up with more analogies doesn't advance the discussion.

Yes. Why is that?

I didn't dodge it. I'm pointing out that you're just coming up with more pointless analogies.

You did dodge my question. I saw you do it!

I'm not.

You don't look for Queen Elizabeth alive because you know there's no evidence she's still alive.

Keep studying.

I just started studying mathematical proofs, and I'm pleased to see that my study of logic helps a lot in proving mathematical theorems which is no surprise. As I see it, knowledge rather than ignorance is the true bliss. The more I can think well, the better able I am to sift sense from nonsense.

 

[shnarkle]

if such closeted bears existed, then the house owners would know without actually seeing a bear in their closet that one's in there.

Just like Creationists know there's a God without actually seeing their god. Again, this is not science. This is your religious perspective.

I'm going to rest my case. I'm just not getting through to you on this "bear in the closet" issue.

Perhaps you might try addressing my rebuttal instead.

If you're not aware of bears are in your closets, then go ahead and keep worrying that one might be in there.

You're projecting again. You mustn't forget that these are your arguments.

My analogy assumes that the roll of the die occurs without the tosser's intervention

More nonsense. How does one toss a die without actually tossing a die?

which is not the case when seeking life on planets.

Then why are you making these pointless comparisons to begin with?

This is very basic probability that you should understand before making assertions about it.

I would only point out that you need to do so as well. You can prove there's a three on your die, but you can't even prove there are any other planets in this solar system. You're only going by what the high priests of your religious denomination tell you.

Actually, a lack of oxygen in a planet's atmosphere is a sure indicator that that planet harbors no life as we know it.

False. Cancer THRIVES in anaerobic environments.

I rested my case on this issue.

Correction: you conceded the case on this issue.

Please share your expertise on any theology you like.

Already did, and still waiting for you to address my point.

Yes. I know that so far in my studies to my recollection that that theology has not been an issue. I also know, then, that it's a rather obscure topic that has little relevance to most philosophical and theological topics.

Except of course this one which I explicitly cited for your edification. Instead of addressing the correlation I presented, you became obsessed with the theologians who may have come up with this insight in the first place. How about addressing the point presented first, or are you just going to concede that as well?

That's correct, but you've yet to demonstrate that what your saying here does not equally apply to you.

Where am I excluding myself?

If you raise a topic, then it is your burden to explain it and its relevance to what we're discussing.

You need to follow the argument. I pointed out that they are synonymous claims. Again, your obsession with the theologians is irrelevant to the discussion. You're contrasting Christianity with science. I just pointed out that you're presenting theological claims and claiming that they're scientific. I provided you with a theological example which is IDENTICAL to your supposed scientific claim. Instead of addressing this fact, you claim I need to cite the theologian. I pointed out that it is apophatic theology. You claim that your ignorance of the subject somehow refutes my claim. It doesn't. LOOK IT UP!!! I don't have to prove that mystics exist or that there is a wealth of information on the subject. Gooooggle it!

Then you have the burden to show that life exists that is significantly different from life on earth.

I just did with caner and cancerous tumors. They THRIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN.

You're moving the goalposts. You originally challenged on post 129 the idea of inferring a creator from creation. My example of a beaver's dam meets that challenge well.

Not at all. You can't identify this god you keep referring to.

You said nothing about whether or not the creator can be empirically known.

False. I explicitly pointed out that omniscience, omnipotence, and transcendence cannot be known, and these are well known and synonymous terms/characteristics for the term "God".

In any case, it is very possible to infer the existence of things we have no direct knowledge of.

Of course, but this is beside the point which is that when there is no referent with and no definition that provides us with that as a possibility, then there can be no referent to begin with.

A really good example is that of the "Oort cloud" which is an unobserved collection of predominantly icy planetesimals in the outer solar system. Scientists accept its existence via inference rather than direct knowledge.

This is NOT a good example at all. This is a great example of believing what your high priests tell you to believe which once again spotlights that you're not presenting science at all. You're presenting your religious beliefs.

Addressed in some cases but the refutation part is not so well established.

Yes. Why is that?

Because they're no better than the original which I already addressed and refuted.

You did dodge my question. I saw you do it!

You infer that I dodged the question which proves that your knowledge is false. I addressed and refuted your argument, and instead of addressing my refutation, you chose to simply come up with another example which is practically identical to the previous one.

You don't look for Queen Elizabeth alive because you know there's no evidence she's still alive.

No one is suggesting that she is other than you, and you have a track record of not knowing what you're talking about.

I just started studying mathematical proofs,

There's no real evidence for this claim.

and I'm pleased to see that my study of logic helps a lot in proving mathematical theorems which is no surprise.

What would be surprising is to see that carried out in practice on this forum.

As I see it, knowledge rather than ignorance is the true bliss.

They're effectively synonymous. Knowledge is consciousness veiled in ignorance.

The more I can think well, the better able I am to sift sense from nonsense.

My sense of smell is better at discerning nonsense than your ability to think. Your claims don't pass the sniff test.

 

[Gary Mac]

We know through the faculty itself, i.e. the intellect. There is no other way to know anything.

However, one may become aware or experience any number of things without knowing anything about them. The intellect can be bypassed altogether, e.g. the mystic experience, or a conscious awareness unencumbered by an intellectual understanding.

It doesnt take intellect to know God, it takes obedience to receive from God His gift. It doesnt take intellect to receive a gift. Intellectual study doe not reveal God, God by His Spirit manifests who He is in real time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Just like Creationists know there's a God without actually seeing their god. Again, this is not science. This is your religious perspective.

Actually, there's a lot that scientists know exist without seeing it. Electrons are but one example of this fact.

Perhaps you might try addressing my rebuttal instead.

What rebuttal?

More nonsense. How does one toss a die without actually tossing a die?

Thanks for the belly laugh, but I was referring to the person tossing the die not intervening after the toss.

I would only point out that you need to do so as well. You can prove there's a three on your die, but you can't even prove there are any other planets in this solar system. You're only going by what the high priests of your religious denomination tell you.

You lost me here.

False. Cancer THRIVES in anaerobic environments.

I was referring to oxygen in a planet's atmosphere proving that photosynthesis is taking place on that planet. Only plant life can account for that fact. Cancer cells cannot survive without the nourishment that ultimately comes from plant life.

Correction: you conceded the case on this issue.

No I didn't.

Already did, and still waiting for you to address my point.

What point?

Except of course this one which I explicitly cited for your edification. Instead of addressing the correlation I presented, you became obsessed with the theologians who may have come up with this insight in the first place.

I just want evidence.

How about addressing the point presented first, or are you just going to concede that as well?

What point?

I just did with caner and cancerous tumors. They THRIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN.

That's irrelevant to life in an oxygen deprived atmosphere.

Not at all. You can't identify this god you keep referring to.

I'm saying very little about God, but based on the quality of your argumentation, His existence may be in doubt after all!

False. I explicitly pointed out that omniscience, omnipotence, and transcendence cannot be known, and these are well known and synonymous terms/characteristics for the term "God".

You didn't say that earlier when you first issued that challenge.

This is NOT a good example at all. This is a great example of believing what your high priests tell you to believe which once again spotlights that you're not presenting science at all. You're presenting your religious beliefs.

But inferring the Oort cloud has nothing directly to do with religion.

No one is suggesting that she is other than you, and you have a track record of not knowing what you're talking about.

It is a good idea to know what one is talking about, so we have no disagreement there.

There's no real evidence for this claim.

I've collected tons of proofs that I've come up with. Here's an example:

Prove (a/b)/(c/d) = (a ∙ d)/(b ∙ c)--The Division of Fractions.

1. (a/b) / (c/d) = p by hypothesis.
2. [(a/b) / (c/d)] ∙ (c/d) = p ∙ (c/d) by multiplying both sides of 1 by c/d validated by The Multiplication Property of Equality.
3. [(a/b) ∙ 1/(c/d)] ∙ (c/d) = p ∙ (c/d) by Theorem 1.8.2 applied to 2.
4. (a/b) ∙ [1/(c/d) ∙ (c/d)] = p ∙ (c/d) by The Associative Property of Multiplication applied to 3.
5. (a/b) ∙ [1] = p ∙ (c/d) by applying The Multiplication of a Non-zero Number by Its Reciprocal Property to 4.
6. (a/b) = p ∙ (c/d) by applying The Multiplicative Identity Property to 5.
7. (a/b) ∙ (d/c) = p ∙ (c/d) ∙ (d/c) by multiplying both sides of 6 by d/c validated by The Multiplication Property of Equality.
8. (a/b) ∙ (d/c) = p ∙ (c ∙ d) / (d ∙ c) by The Multiplication of Fractions on 7.
9. (a/b) ∙ (d/c) = p ∙ (c ∙ d) / (c ∙ d) by The Commutative Law of Multiplication applied to 8.
10. (a/b) ∙ (d/c) = p ∙ (1) by The Division of Any Non-Zero Number by Itself is 1 Property.
11. (a/b) ∙ (d/c) = p by The Multiplicative Identity Property applied to 10.
12. (a ∙ d)/(b ∙ c) = p by The Multiplication of Fractions on 11.
13. p = (a ∙ d)/(b ∙ c) The Symmetric Property of Equality applied to 12.
14. (a/b)/(c/d) = (a ∙ d)/(b ∙ c) by The Transitive Property of Equality applied to 1 and 13.

What would be surprising is to see that carried out in practice on this forum.

I just did practice it.

My sense of smell is better at discerning nonsense than your ability to think. Your claims don't pass the sniff test.

You just love these assertions. I hate to think of the dark place they come from.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually, there's a lot that scientists know exist without seeing it.

So do the faithful of most other religions.

Electrons are but one example of this fact.

God is another.

What rebuttal?

Mine.

I was referring to oxygen in a planet's atmosphere proving that photosynthesis is taking place on that planet.

You made no such references.

Only plant life can account for that fact.

Not necessarily. Carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light works as well.

I just want evidence.

Evidence of what???

What point?

The comparison I made between your apophatic knowledge versus the theological observation which is IDENTICAL, thus providing you with yet another example which disproves the thesis of your OP.

That's irrelevant to life in an oxygen deprived atmosphere.

Undoubtedly this would be the case with an atmosphere deprived of CO2 as well, yet your high priests all think we need to sequester CO2. Yet another example of how the claims of your high priests must be taken exclusively on faith.

I'm saying very little about God, but based on the quality of your argumentation, His existence may be in doubt after all!

At last!!! You just conceded your argument! Whether it be life on other planets or God, it must be taken on faith.

You didn't say that earlier when you first issued that challenge.

I've presented that argument to you at least half a dozen times probably in just the last few months alone.

But inferring the Oort cloud has nothing directly to do with religion.

It is taken exclusively on faith. You have no evidence.

It is a good idea to know what one is talking about, so we have no disagreement there.

I've collected tons of proofs that I've come up with. Here's an example:

Prove (a/b)/(c/d)


I just did practice it.

No. You didn't. How about one that supports or proves the thesis of this OP? Presenting a completely irrelevant proof doesn't prove anything.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So do the faithful of most other religions.

Actually, science and Christianity differ in that scientists can know without seeing while Christians believe without seeing.

God is another.

Christians believe in God without seeing, but it's a stretch to say they know God exists without seeing.

Mine.

Can you be more specific regarding what rebuttal of yours you are referring to? Was it your rebutting the basic logic I was posting?

You made no such references.

I was implying that oxygen in a planet's atmosphere proves that photosynthesis is taking place on that planet.

Not necessarily. Carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light works as well.

What do you mean by "works as well"? Are you saying that carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light produces oxygen or that it causes photosynthesis? I did some searching on Google, and here on earth at least oxygen in the atmosphere is caused by life. However, it appears that life is not necessary to produce oxygen in a planet's atmosphere.

Evidence of what???

Anything! You make a lot of assertions with no supporting evidence. Doing so is OK if the assertion is common knowledge, but if you post an obscure fact that may be difficult to find with a Google search, then it's very helpful to cite your source.

The comparison I made between your apophatic knowledge versus the theological observation which is IDENTICAL, thus providing you with yet another example which disproves the thesis of your OP.

Can you be more specific about how "apophatic knowledge" disproves anything I posted in the OP?

Undoubtedly this would be the case with an atmosphere deprived of CO2 as well, yet your high priests all think we need to sequester CO2. Yet another example of how the claims of your high priests must be taken exclusively on faith.

I don't know what you mean by "high priests," nor do I understand what you mean by these supposed high priests "sequestering CO2." Again, many of your posts come out of left field, and I don't know what you're talking about. Please try not to make such odd comments.

At last!!! You just conceded your argument! Whether it be life on other planets or God, it must be taken on faith.

Huh? You get that out of my saying: "I'm saying very little about God, but based on the quality of your argumentation, His existence may be in doubt after all!" I was being facetious here implying that your arguments are so bad that it's hard to believe in a God that would allow them to exist.

I've presented that argument to you at least half a dozen times probably in just the last few months alone.

I don't recall you saying anything until recently that a creator cannot be inferred from a creation. It's simply fallacious to say that a creator cannot be inferred from a creation.

It is taken exclusively on faith. You have no evidence.

Just look up the Oort cloud on Wikipedia to see how wrong you are here.

No. You didn't. How about one that supports or proves the thesis of this OP? Presenting a completely irrelevant proof doesn't prove anything.

You said there's no evidence that I'm studying mathematical proofs. I proved you wrong. So I can prove more than mathematical theorems! Anyway, here's another mathematical proof I came up with this morning to also prove that you're wrong:

Prove that (a + b ∙ c) + (d + f ∙ c) = (a + d) + (b + f) ∙ c

1. (a + b ∙ c) + (d + f ∙ c) = a + (b ∙ c + d) + f ∙ c by The Associative Property of Addition.
2. a + (b ∙ c + d) + f ∙ c = a + (d + b ∙ c) + f ∙ c by The Commutative Property of Addition.
3. a + (d + b ∙ c) + f ∙ c = (a + d) + (b ∙ c + f ∙ c) by The Associative Property of Addition.
4. (a + d) + (b ∙ c + f ∙ c) = (a + d) + (b + f) ∙ c by The Distributive Property of Multiplication Over Addition.
5. (a + b ∙ c) + (d + f ∙ c) = (a + d) + (b + f) ∙ c by the Transitive Property of Equality applied to 1 – 4.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually, science and Christianity differ in that scientists can know without seeing while Christians believe without seeing.

Do scientists believe or disbelieve what they know? Just like your predisposition to confusing science with religion, you also confuse fraudulent forms of Christianity with the genuine Article. Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find anyone who believes without first seeing. Everyone believes in only what they see. Unlike the modern-day poser, their actions backed up their beliefs.

For example, Jesus points out that those who love him will keep his commandments, yet Christianity finds this repugnant, and Christians openly and defiantly justify the profanation of God's commandments.

Christians believe in God without seeing,

False. See above.

but it's a stretch to say they know God exists without seeing.

Correct, and this is right in line with the quote I provided from Paul's letter to the Galatians where he corrects himself by noting that God's chosen people are known by God rather than having the ability to know God.

Can you be more specific regarding what rebuttal of yours you are referring to?

Can you see what I was addressing? I was addressing your claim. That is specifically what I was addressing.

Was it your rebutting the basic logic I was posting?

I was implying that oxygen in a planet's atmosphere proves that photosynthesis is taking place on that planet.

You implied nothing of the sort. You were explicitly claiming that life couldn't not exist without an oxygenated atmosphere. Moreover, I provided you with a refutation which you have yet to even address beyond simply repeating yourself. Cancer cells can tolerate severe metabolic stress and survive under selective pressures imposed by any number of environmental challenges. It is no coincidence and quite appropriate that they're commonly referred to as "immortal".

What do you mean by "works as well"? Are you saying that carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light produces oxygen

That's what scientists are claiming, and you yourself have concluded that we have no reason to doubt them especially when those claims are based in ignorance.

Anything!

False. What you want is evidence of something specific which you can't articulate so no one need take your request seriously in the first place.

You make a lot of assertions with no supporting evidence.

You're projecting again.

Can you be more specific about how "apophatic knowledge" disproves anything I posted in the OP?

I proved that the claims are not just synonymous, but that my quote is from a theologian while yours is the claim of science which disproves your OP. You do remember the claims of your own OP, right? You're saying that they're different, while I'm pointing out that they're practically identical.

You claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence which you claim is the claim of science while I presented you with a theological articulation e.g. "the absence of God' s presence is the presence of his absence". This is the claim of apophatic theology, not science, yet they're practically identical so they're not different at all.

So far, you're only objection is that you don't believe my claims. Anyone peeking in on this thread can verify them for themselves, why can't you?

I don't know what you mean by "high priests,"

I'm not using these terms in any way other than their most commonly known usage.

nor do I understand what you mean by these supposed high priests "sequestering CO2."

The high priests of science have claimed ex cathedra that greenhouse gasses like CO2 are contributing to global warming, global cooling, and/or climate change and that this must stop or we're all going to suffer the wrath of mother earth.

Huh? You get that out of my saying: "I'm saying very little about God, but based on the quality of your argumentation, His existence may be in doubt after all!" I was being facetious

You're not very good at it, but this is also beside the point which is that you've just resorted to pointless facetious comments. You have a talent for stunting a discussion.

here implying that your arguments are so bad that it's hard to believe in a God that would allow them to exist.

Just because you can't refute them it doesn't then follow that God doesn't exist. By definition, God can't objectively exist.

I don't recall you saying anything until recently that a creator cannot be inferred from a creation. It's simply fallacious to say that a creator cannot be inferred from a creation.

It's the fallacy of Begging the Question. One is simply presenting nomenclature that presupposes a Creator. This is why science doesn't use that terminology to begin with.

However, this isn't to say that your religion of science doesn't do the exact same thing with theories like evolution. For example, just as the Creationist will infer or imply a Creator from creation, so too will the Evolutionist infer or imply a "Mechanism" of evolution from "evidence". In this case, evidence is synonymous with "creation" or the created world.

The evolutionist will rightly request the creationist present their god for inspection instead of just inferring a creator from creation, but when the evolutionist is asked to do the same, they balk. They cannot produce the Mechanism of evolution any more than the creationist can produce their gods.

Just look up the Oort cloud on Wikipedia to see how wrong you are here.

You said there's no evidence that I'm studying mathematical proofs.

Correct.

I proved you wrong.

False.

So I can prove more than mathematical theorems!

You're not proving anything by copying and pasting mathematical equations.

Anyway, here's another mathematical proof I came up with this morning to also prove that you're wrong:

See above, and note that you're still ignoring your opportunity to present your mathematical equations to prove your own thesis, and/or disprove mine. No one is fooled by this ruse.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do scientists believe or disbelieve what they know?

Not if they're sensible.

Just like your predisposition to confusing science with religion...

But I've defined them as different since the OP.

...you also confuse fraudulent forms of Christianity with the genuine Article.

What is or is not "genuine" Christianity is not the topic.

Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find anyone who believes without first seeing. Everyone believes in only what they see.

That's incorrect. Abraham believed God prior to his seeing God's promise to him fulfilled. And of course Jesus admonished Thomas to believe without seeing.

Unlike the modern-day poser, their actions backed up their beliefs. For example, Jesus points out that those who love him will keep his commandments, yet Christianity finds this repugnant, and Christians openly and defiantly justify the profanation of God's commandments.

I obey those commandments.

False. See above.

What believing Christians ever saw God? I've never seen God.

Correct, and this is right in line with the quote I provided from Paul's letter to the Galatians where he corrects himself by noting that God's chosen people are known by God rather than having the ability to know God.

Let's take a look at a bit more of the context of that verse. Galatians 4:8-10:

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental principles?[a] How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years.

If we read verse 8, Paul clearly implies that his readers now know God. In verse 9 Paul uses the word rather not to negate what he just got done saying but only to shift emphasis from their knowing God to God knowing them. So contrary to your assertion that nowhere does the Bible say we know God, it does indeed say so and very clearly.

Can you see what I was addressing? I was addressing your claim. That is specifically what I was addressing.

I still don't know what you're talking about.

You implied nothing of the sort. You were explicitly claiming that life couldn't not exist without an oxygenated atmosphere.

I said both, actually.

Moreover, I provided you with a refutation which you have yet to even address beyond simply repeating yourself. Cancer cells can tolerate severe metabolic stress and survive under selective pressures imposed by any number of environmental challenges.

Cancer cells need more than oxygen to survive, of course. I already explained that cancer cells cannot survive without the nourishment provided by photosynthesis.

It is no coincidence and quite appropriate that they're commonly referred to as "immortal".

Cancer cells aren't immortal, of course.

That's what scientists are claiming, and you yourself have concluded that we have no reason to doubt them especially when those claims are based in ignorance.

Please cite some scientists who say that carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light produces oxygen.

I proved that the claims are not just synonymous, but that my quote is from a theologian while yours is the claim of science which disproves your OP. You do remember the claims of your own OP, right? You're saying that they're different, while I'm pointing out that they're practically identical.

You're claiming that science and Christianity are "practically identical"?

You claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence...

Actually, I've argued extensively that that maxim is not always true.

...which you claim is the claim of science...

Not necessarily.

...while I presented you with a theological articulation e.g. "the absence of God' s presence is the presence of his absence". This is the claim of apophatic theology, not science, yet they're practically identical so they're not different at all.

Logically, the absence of something's presence is the presence of its absence, but that very obvious fact if agreed upon by both scientists and Christian theologians hardly makes science and Christianity identical.

So far, you're only objection is that you don't believe my claims.

The snake story is plausible.

Anyone peeking in on this thread can verify them for themselves, why can't you?

They can verify there was a snake in your bathroom by "peeking in on this thread"?

I'm not using these terms in any way other than their most commonly known usage.

I still don't know what you mean by "high priests,"

The high priests of science have claimed ex cathedra that greenhouse gasses like CO2 are contributing to global warming, global cooling, and/or climate change and that this must stop or we're all going to suffer the wrath of mother earth.

Yes, What about it?

Just because you can't refute them it doesn't then follow that God doesn't exist.

Yes. I know that. I was joking.

By definition, God can't objectively exist.

I'm not familiar with that definition. Most Christians would not define God that way.

It's the fallacy of Begging the Question. One is simply presenting nomenclature that presupposes a Creator. This is why science doesn't use that terminology to begin with.

Actually, inferring a creator from a creation follows logically. To beg the question on this issue would be to assume God created the world and then conclude He exists (the premise assumes the conclusion).

However, this isn't to say that your religion of science doesn't do the exact same thing with theories like evolution. For example, just as the Creationist will infer or imply a Creator from creation, so too will the Evolutionist infer or imply a "Mechanism" of evolution from "evidence". In this case, evidence is synonymous with "creation" or the created world.

Actually, it is correct that both scientists and Christian theologians make inferences, but that doesn't make science the same as Christianity! They differ in ways I've explained since the OP.

The evolutionist will rightly request the creationist present their god for inspection instead of just inferring a creator from creation, but when the evolutionist is asked to do the same, they balk. They cannot produce the Mechanism of evolution any more than the creationist can produce their gods.

Actually, evolutionary biologists offer evidence for inspection all the time.

You're not proving anything by copying and pasting mathematical equations.

Why thank you for the complement! That's like my painting a copy of the Mona Lisa only to have you accuse me of stealing the original from the Louvre Museum.

...note that you're still ignoring your opportunity to present your mathematical equations to prove your own thesis, and/or disprove mine. No one is fooled by this ruse.

But the OP isn't about math--it's about how science and Christianity differ.

 

[shnarkle]

Not if they're sensible.

So they don't believe their own claims? Please respond with complete sentences if you want to be taken seriously.

But I've defined them as different since the OP.

By definition, this is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

What is or is not "genuine" Christianity is not the topic.

It's relevant to the topic in that if you're pretending to define Christianity as something it isn't then you're just Begging the Question.

That's incorrect. Abraham believed God prior to his seeing God's promise to him fulfilled.

You're inferring that, but there isn't anything in the text to indicate anything more than his obedience to God's commands.

And of course Jesus admonished Thomas to believe without seeing.

Which doesn't negate the fact that he didn't believe without seeing. Q.E.D.

I obey those commandments.

So you say. and your claims are not proof. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What believing Christians ever saw God?

NONE.

I've never seen God.

You've never seen whatever god you're imagining, and whatever god you imagine, isn't God. Those who rely upon their imagination are idolaters. By definition.

Let's take a look at a bit more of the context of that verse. Galatians 4:8-10:

If we read verse 8, Paul clearly implies that his readers now know God. In verse 9 Paul uses the word rather not to negate what he just got done saying but only to shift emphasis from their knowing God to God knowing them.

Please prove this claim.

So contrary to your assertion that nowhere does the Bible say we know God, it does indeed say so and very clearly.

Paul corrects himself as I've already proven with the definition, usage, and context.

I still don't know what you're talking about.

I said both, actually.

Cancer cells need more than oxygen to survive, of course. I already explained that cancer cells cannot survive without the nourishment provided by photosynthesis.

You explained nothing. You simply made the claim and claims are not proof.

Cancer cells aren't immortal, of course.

They don't age like normal cells. The telomeres don't shorten after cell division.

Please cite some scientists who say that carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light produces oxygen.

Google it yourself.

You're claiming that science and Christianity are "practically identical"?

Yep.

Actually, I've argued extensively that that maxim is not always true.

Correction: claimed, not argued. Waffling would be more accurate.

Not necessarily.

Logically, the absence of something's presence is the presence of its absence, but that very obvious fact if agreed upon by both scientists and Christian theologians hardly makes science and Christianity identical.

It most certainly does

The snake story is plausible.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

They can verify there was a snake in your bathroom by "peeking in on this thread"?

No, they can verify apophatic theology and theologians.

I still don't know what you mean by "high priests,"

You're unfamiliar with the Christian gospel narratives? Are you telling me that you've read the Christian gospel narratives, and still don't know what a high priest is? They're quite frequently referred to in the Old Testament as well.

Yes, What about it?

It's not science.

Yes. I know that. I was joking.

No one need be reminded that your thesis is a joke.

I'm not familiar with that definition. Most Christians would not define God that way.

Most Christians would objectify God? Perhaps, but this only spotlights how far afield Christianity has strayed from its roots. Jesus points out that the kingdom does not come by observation. How does one objectively see God without his kingdom???

Actually, inferring a creator from a creation follows logically.

Sure, but beside the point.

To beg the question on this issue would be to assume God created the world and then conclude He exists (the premise assumes the conclusion).

The premise is also assumed.

Actually, it is correct that both scientists and Christian theologians make inferences, but that doesn't make science the same as Christianity!

When they're the same exact inference it kinda does.

They differ in ways I've explained since the OP.

And they're the same as I've pointed out as well.

Actually, evolutionary biologists offer evidence for inspection all the time.

They have yet to produce the Mechanism of evolution itself.

Why thank you for the complement! That's like my painting a copy of the Mona Lisa only to have you accuse me of stealing the original from the Louvre Museum.

When we're asking for a portrait of Christ and his disciples at the Last Supper, it's irrelevant. No one is impressed with your ability to post irrelevant equations. Post equations that prove the point of your OP or refute mine.

But the OP isn't about math--it's about how science and Christianity differ.

Then why do you insist on bringing it up?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So they don't believe their own claims?

I don't know what scientists believe. Ask them what they believe.

By definition, this is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I'm not assuming the differences between science and Christianity I posted in the OP but know those differences from my study of both.

It's relevant to the topic in that if you're pretending to define Christianity as something it isn't then you're just Begging the Question.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" definition. All definitions are arbitrary. Definitions only need to be meaningful.

You're inferring that, but there isn't anything in the text to indicate anything more than his obedience to God's commands.

Actually, the Bible spells out that Abraham believed what God told him. Romans 4:3:

For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

So you erred when you asserted: "Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find anyone who believes without first seeing."

Which doesn't negate the fact that he didn't believe without seeing. Q.E.D.

True, but the story of "doubting Thomas" clearly implies that Thomas obeyed Jesus' injunction that he needed to believe to be blessed.

So you say. and your claims are not proof. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

That's why I dismiss so many of your claims!

Those who rely upon their imagination are idolaters. By definition.

You must use an awfully whacky dictionary. Here's a Google definition:

idolater - 1 : a worshipper of idols. 2 : a person that admires intensely and often blindly one that is not usually a subject of worship.

There's nothing in there about relying on imagination.

You explained nothing. You simply made the claim and claims are not proof.

What proof do you need that cancer cells need nourishment to survive? Do you want to see some cancer cells starve before you believe it happens?

They don't age like normal cells. The telomeres don't shorten after cell division.

That's not immortality as I understand it.

Google it yourself.

I did but found nothing about carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light produces oxygen.

Yep.

I suppose apples are oranges too in your dictionary.

It most certainly does

So you say. and your claims are not proof. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

You posted that you found a snake in your house. That plausible.

No, they can verify apophatic theology and theologians.

It looks like nobody cares.

You're unfamiliar with the Christian gospel narratives? Are you telling me that you've read the Christian gospel narratives, and still don't know what a high priest is? They're quite frequently referred to in the Old Testament as well.

I know what a "high priest" is in the context of religion. You used that phrase in a different context.

It's not science.

So you say. and your claims are not proof. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

No one need be reminded that your thesis is a joke.

Is there a fallacy that you haven't committed on this thread? Add a straw-man fallacy to your collection.

Most Christians would objectify God? Perhaps, but this only spotlights how far afield Christianity has strayed from its roots. Jesus points out that the kingdom does not come by observation. How does one objectively see God without his kingdom???

I can objectively see a lot of people without their kingdoms. God is no different in that regard.

When they're the same exact inference it kinda does.

Besides myself, a lot of people make inferences, but we are hardly identical otherwise. Your obvious fallacy here is to conclude that if two things share one property, then they share all properties.

And they're the same as I've pointed out as well.

I've read a lot of whacko ideas posted in online forums, but to assert that science and Christianity are identical is one of the wackiest.

They have yet to produce the Mechanism of evolution itself.

Just learn to sequence DNA. You'll see that "mechanism."

When we're asking for a portrait of Christ and his disciples at the Last Supper, it's irrelevant. No one is impressed with your ability to post irrelevant equations. Post equations that prove the point of your OP or refute mine.

You said you have no evidence for my ability to prove mathematical theorems! That's why I posted my proofs.

Then why do you insist on bringing it up?

You have a strange habit of raising issues, and when I respond to those issues, you complain that my response isn't relevant.

It looks like your closets are missing some bears!

 

[shnarkle]

I don't know what scientists believe. Ask them what they believe.

They've already been asked, and openly admit that they believe their own claims as well as the claims of many of their peers as well thus proving your claims false. Scientists believe what they know without seeing which is effectively no different than believing without seeing.

I'm not assuming the differences between science and Christianity

You most certainly are, and you just admitted it as well.

I posted in the OP but know those differences from my study of both.

Keep studying.

There's no such thing as a "wrong" definition.

Christianity:
"VERB

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

LOL. Your argument just caved in on itself. Q.E.D.

All definitions are arbitrary. Definitions only need to be meaningful.

This isn't logic. This is your meaning of logic which isn't logical at all.

Actually, the Bible spells out that Abraham believed what God told him. Romans 4:3:

Why wouldn't he, he's actually talking to God. Unlike you and your cohorts who are talking to yourselves, the text explicitly states that Abraham is talking with God. Nowhere does it say that Abraham is imaging a conversation with his imaginary deity or idol. Abraham believes what God tells him because he has no reason to believe God is a liar as this would negate the meaning of the term. A god who lies is no god at all.

So you erred when you asserted: "Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find anyone who believes without first seeing."

False See above. The text clearly points out that he is talking with God, and this same god that actually exists is talking to him.

True, but the story of "doubting Thomas" clearly implies that Thomas obeyed Jesus' injunction that he needed to believe to be blessed.

Nonsense. Thomas believes what he already sees just like everyone else in the bible. The only real exception would be Zacharias because he DID NOT believe what the angel said to him. The injunction is for those reading the gospel narrative who have NOT yet seen.

That's why I dismiss so many of your claims!

And yet you only come up with this as a reason now? Again, no one is fooled by your inability to come up with anything original.

You must use an awfully whacky dictionary. Here's a Google definition:

Google? This is you idea of a resource??? LOL. smh.

idolater - 1 : a worshipper of idols. 2 : a person that admires intensely and often blindly one that is not usually a subject of worship.

Let's look at the etymology and actual meaning of the word.

idol (n.)​

mid-13c., "IMAGE of a deity as an object of (pagan) worship," from Old French idole "idol, graven IMAGE, pagan god" (11c.), from Latin idolum "IMAGE (MENTAL or physical), form," especially "apparition, ghost," but used in Church Latin for "false god, IMAGE of a pagan deity as an object of worship." This is from Greek eidolon "MENTAL IMAGE, apparition, phantom," also "material image, statue," in Ecclesiastical Greek," a pagan idol," from eidos "form, shape; likeness, resemblance" (see -oid).



A Greek word for "IMAGE," used in Jewish and early Christian writers for "IMAGE of a false god," hence also "false god." The Germanic languages tended to form a word for it from the reverse direction, from "god" to "false god," hence "image of a false god" (compare Old English afgod, Danish afgud, Swedish avgud, Old High German abgot, compounds with af-/ab- "away, away from" (source of off) + god).



The older Greek senses sometimes have been used in English. Figurative sense of "something idolized" is first recorded 1560s (in Middle English the figurative sense was "someone who is false or untrustworthy"). Meaning "a person so adored, human object of adoring devotion" is from 1590s.

There's nothing in there about relying on imagination.

See above, and note that one cannot construct an idol without using theirs or someone else's imagination.

What proof do you need that cancer cells need nourishment to survive? Do you want to see some cancer cells starve before you believe it happens?

Fallacy of the hasty generalization. Just because some cancer cells die, it doesn't then follow that all other cancer cells are unable to adapt to their surrounding environment. Regardless, you're still moving the goalposts as well as this doesn't really address the fact that cancer cells THRIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN which refutes your claim that they must have oxygen to support life.

That's not immortality as I understand it.

Your understanding is false and stems from ignorance of the commonly accepted definition of the word. There are cancer cells which are alive today from people who are long dead and gone and they continue to live due to the fact that they CANNOT AGE. Ageless is synonymous with immortality.

I did but found nothing about carbon dioxide interacting with ultraviolet light produces oxygen.

Try google scholar.

I suppose apples are oranges too in your dictionary.

So you say. and your claims are not proof. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And since it was in response to your baseless claim, it's a moot point.

It looks like nobody cares.

Correction. It looks like YOU don't care.

I know what a "high priest" is in the context of religion. You used that phrase in a different context.

False. I used it in that exact same context because most all of their claims are accepted without evidence or proof. Case in point: YOU.

So you say. and your claims are not proof. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

False. All of my posts provide evidence using the definition, meaning and usage of words which you are continuing to ignore. Dismissive hand waving doesn't address much less refute the evidence presented.

I can objectively see a lot of people without their kingdoms. God is no different in that regard.

False. Present your god. Again, claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Besides myself, a lot of people make inferences, but we are hardly identical otherwise. Your obvious fallacy here is to conclude that if two things share one property, then they share all properties.

When that property negates the definition of science, then it's appropriate to my argument. Science relies on observation, and to then claim that no observations are necessary is to negate or ignore the definition of science. You've wandered off into theories that are based on nothing more than suppositions and your acceptance of them is a clear indication that you're approaching them with all the faith of a religious saint.

I've read a lot of whacko ideas posted in online forums, but to assert that science and Christianity are identical is one of the wackiest.

Be that as it may, your personal opinion doesn't refute any of my ideas.

Just learn to sequence DNA. You'll see that "mechanism."

False. Sequencing DNA doesn't present any evolutionary theories much less the "Mechanism" itself.

You said you have no evidence for my ability to prove mathematical theorems!

False. I pointed out that your ability to prove mathematical theorems has nothing to do with proving the claims of your OP. You've admitted as much already.

That's why I posted my proofs.

False. You posted them because you're incapable of following an argument.

You have a strange habit of raising issues, and when I respond to those issues, you complain that my response isn't relevant.

See above.

It looks like your closets are missing some bears!

And your brand of science is no different than Christianity in that they're both based upon belief in what you know isn't seen.