Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[2PhiloVoid]

I always had the impression that Aquinas depended not on Aristotle.

And to think I wasn't going to say anything to him about it. I guess that's why you're here............

 

[AveChristusRex]

I always had the impression that Aquinas depended not on Aristotle.

Scholastic thought is based on Aristotle yes, but the ideas of the Platonic soul was adapted similarly without associating the reason/intellect with a corporeal organ like Plato thought; moreover, he [as he did with the theory of participation] formulated his understandings based off of the notion that created beings participate in the being and goodness of God like Augustine did

 

[AveChristusRex]

And to think I wasn't going to say anything to him about it. I guess that's why you're here............

Let me rephrase then: there would be no Aquinas without Plato [and Aristotle], but the message I was quoting did not mention Aristotle, so I did not mention him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, I very much disagree with heliocentrism, so I cannot say these things done by Copernicus were "improvements", rather an apparent error that became science by nominal measure.

The Keplerian model improves on the Copernican one, but the Sun is in the middle of our stellar system. What came before Copernicus was junk. Today we have modern ephemerides that take their place with great accuracy.

The Vulgate was infallible in faith and morals, and an argument could be made (see Is the Vulgate a 'Divinely Inspired' Translation? Is the Douay-Rheims its Faithful English Counterpart?) that it is perfect in all apparent ways; as such, I meant in my post [in the brackets] that philologically there was no need for scholarship after the Vulgate, however science would continue so long as it did not contradict the Vulgate or its message

Science is unconcerned about bible translations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is unconcerned about bible translations.

Could'a fooled me.

With their constant appeals to the scientific method to substantiate every jot and tittle in It.

 

[AveChristusRex]

The Keplerian model improves on the Copernican one, but the Sun is in the middle of our stellar system. What came before Copernicus was junk. Today we have modern ephemerides that take their place with great accuracy.

I disagree, but I'm happy to show why I can do that and still abide in the confines of the modern scientific narrative.

Science is unconcerned about bible translations.

I concur with AV, with the constant appeals to the scientific method, science seems to be translating the laws of nature into formulas, much like what theologians would consider Bible translations (or, in this situation, could be considered a "formula" to understand the Word) to be. Likewise, the scriptures aren't concerned with scientific formulas.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree, but I'm happy to show why I can do that and still abide in the confines of the modern scientific narrative.

Reality cares not about your "opinions".

I concur with AV, with the constant appeals to the scientific method, science seems to be translating the laws of nature into formulas, much like what theologians would consider Bible translations (or, in this situation, could be considered a "formula" to understand the Word) to be. Likewise, the scriptures aren't concerned with scientific formulas.

Your ignorance seems almost as great as his.

 

[dlamberth]

I concur with AV, with the constant appeals to the scientific method, science seems to be translating the laws of nature into formulas, much like what theologians would consider Bible translations (or, in this situation, could be considered a "formula" to understand the Word) to be. Likewise, the scriptures aren't concerned with scientific formulas.

With the geology of the Earth, because that's what I'm most familiar with, geologist work with what the Earth is showing them. How are they to do otherwise?

 

[Kylie]

The point is to explain the mistake that many people made by interpreting the Bible literally when it comes to reading God's Word.

Which leads to the question I often raise but never get an answer to: How do you determine of a particular part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally or not?

I didn't add a paragraph to say that while prayer verses are words of encouragement, there is a real God that help us -- because your posts show vehement determination not to believe in God.

Why is it that Christians so often believe that atheists are just determined to not believe in God. The vast majority of atheists just want evidence. They would, if given evidence that actually checks out, be quite happy to believe that God exists.

Are you a real atheist or just a wannabe atheist? If you really don't believe in the existence of Jesus or His God the creator, then why spend time to argue over someone that doesn't exist (in your view)?

You ever see creationists like Kirk Cameron posting videos about why evolution can't be true?

I am an atheist in that I lack a belief in God.

I have seen real atheists in various countries in Asia, example: the Japanese people. They don't believe that God exist and when asked, their response is 'i don't know' 'Not interested' and 'don't care'. They won't even waste another minute to talk about it. These are the real atheists. By contrast, you are here arguing high and low, like not able to get God out of your head and trying hard not to believe He exists.

You think I'm obsessed with the existence of God?

You should see me on the Star Trek forums, you'd say that I couldn't shut up about Star Trek. If you only came over to visit me at 3 in the morning, you'd complain that I never do anything but sleep.

The only reason that it seems to you that I never talk about anything other than the existence of God is because you only see me when I am here, and I talk about these things why I am here. You have a view of me that gives you an incorrect idea of how much I talk about this.

 

[Kylie]

There is theoretical disagreement in nearly all fields as far as I can tell, and the "level" of disagreement has to be fully vetted out.

I've never seen such wide disagreement as there is in Christianity or other religions.

Even then, citing a "level" of disagreement doesn't infer any necessary conclusions about the full significance or truth value of some core, essential idea since consensus is NOT really the supreme litmus test.

Well, it kinda does.

I mean, if people measure the height of a tree, and they all get the same answer to within a reasonable margin of error, then it's likely that they've got the right answer, right?

I mean, if they all measure it and get a height of 20 meters, it's not likely to actually be 100 meters tall, is it?

As for Quantum Mechanics, we can do a quick google search for "disagreements among quantum scientists" and see what comes up..........

But do they present the things they disagree about as an objective fact?

Have you ever read Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble With Physics? It's a good one to read right after Leonard Susskind's book, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

No, I have read neither of those books. But if you'd like to buy them for me, I'll read them.

 

[Kylie]

Some. There are other writings which represent themselves as Gospels and other near-contemporaneous texts all of which have to be studied and evaluated as well. Unfortunately, some of these are lost and only known of from the writings of critical contemporaries or from fragments of text.

What contemporaneous sources do we have for the Gospels?

 

[Kylie]

By the same token, all the "stories" about all ancient personages would be entertaining fiction
Your argument is that "Even though Plato wrote about Socrates, it doesn't make Socrates true." Or Plato for that matter
Socrates could be fiction.
All Historical Record arre probably Ancients Hollywood, fictional and fable
You Must apply the same standard to all Historical Records.
You are propounding "Anti Sola Scriptura...IF It is in the Bible, it is Not True" because nothing in the Bible is true.
That is atheist screed but it is not good historical research

Provide multiple independent sources for the claim and I'll accept it. And give me a claim that doesn't violate the known laws of nature in the first place.

 

[QvQ]

Provide multiple independent sources for the claim and I'll accept it. And give me a claim that doesn't violate the known laws of nature in the first place.

The independent sources for Socrates were members of his school or contemporaries
1. Plato, Xenophan (Students)
2. Aristophane (Contemporary)
There is also the Students of Plato
3. Aristotle

There are independent sources for Jesus
1) Gospels: Mark Matthew, Luke John (1. Students)
2) Barnabas (2. Contemporary)
3) Paul talked to Peter, James, John and Barnabas (3 Student of students)

Jesus is as well documented by indepedent sources as Socrates, perhaps more so.
There are also sources attesting to John the Baptist and the Crucifixion (Josephus Tacitus)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never seen such wide disagreement as there is in Christianity or other religions.

You're right. There have been quite a number of disagreements and conflicts among Christians. I won't deny that. If we look at World History, I've found that many if not most of the disagreements began when with Luther and the Printing Press, and I say this even knowing that there are countless skeptics out there who will instantly reach for their Bart Ehrman sources, or one of countless other skeptical/atheist authors, to strongly aver otherwise.

The truth is, Jesus didn't give us a comprehensive explanation about the world by which to live. Rather, He gave us only that which He knew we needed to know to walk with Him. Unfortunately, some people have wanted to make more out what either Jesus or the earliest Christians said than what was actually said ...................................... and some want to make much less out of it.

On the whole though, however, I don't see much disagreement among Christians about the "bare essentials."

Well, it kinda does.

I mean, if people measure the height of a tree, and they all get the same answer to within a reasonable margin of error, then it's likely that they've got the right answer, right?

I mean, if they all measure it and get a height of 20 meters, it's not likely to actually be 100 meters tall, is it?

I see your point. But how much of what we human beings engage in is as relatively simple as "measuring a tree" or looking toward the East to see when and where the Sun rises each morning?

Besides, although measurement is involved in science, that in itself isn't all that science is. In fact, the whole concept and practice of "measurement" has diverse distinctions within it that have to be recognized before we even attempt to measure even a tree, and this can one item that impedes any absolute finality about "consensus." The fact that we can recognize conceptual diversity in topics is one reason I love Philosophy and analysis; it's also a reason why we should all avoid conflation and reductionism:

Measurement in Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2024 Edition)

But who knows? Maybe you're a physics major, and as a lowly philosopher, all I'm doing is preaching to the choir.

But do they present the things they disagree about as an objective fact?

Sometimes, scientists and theorists do "oversell" their scientific theories and scientific results and forget that science is in the business of "provisional truth." This fact is, even if its an all too brief summation, captures the basic criticism that Lee Smolin and folks like Sabine Hossenfelder have said about the way Theoretical Physics has headed in presenting its "findings."

No, I have read neither of those books. But if you'd like to buy them for me, I'll read them.

I'm sure today, many of the most salient points in these books can be read, seen or heard via the internet in other forms for free. Besides, it's not like they're the only Theoretical Physicists in town. ............... and I'm going to guess that you, like me, already have an assortment of books on physics, math and whatever else.

However, if you want me to assist in gathering free sources that you an access, I'd be glad to help.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Reality cares not about your "opinions".

Your ignorance seems almost as great as his.

This is a statement, and "insults are arguements employed by those who are wrong" (Rousseau)

 

[AveChristusRex]

With the geology of the Earth, because that's what I'm most familiar with, geologist work with what the Earth is showing them. How are they to do otherwise?

It was not a dismissal of scientific formula, it was rather a response using the same logic

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I personally stick with books that I have to dust off before reading, and even when I open them, I have to fetch the cleric to read it to me in English (/j)

Alright. I'll refrain from giving you a hard time since as a fellow Christian, I'm not really here to verbally punch you with a volley of admonishments and corrections.

If you prefer the aesthetic of dusty tomes and a cleric at the table, and if that draws you closer to Jesus in your faith, then I'm not going to interpose on that.

However, I will defend my own point of view from within my own angle on the Christian faith, and when others interpose upon me, I'm only more than willing to nudge them back a foot or two.

 

[AveChristusRex]

If you prefer the aesthetic of dusty tomes and a cleric at the table, and if that draws you closer to Jesus in your faith, then I'm not going to interpose on that.

The joke was that I follow the Church's ancient (hense the dusty) Magisterium, which had much of its declaration (if not all) in Latin, and thus needing a Canonical Regular (cleric) to read it to me. It was not a joke about aesthetics, my fault if it sounded like that.

However, I will defend my own point of view from within my own angle on the Christian faith, and when others interpose upon me, I'm only more than willing to nudge them back a foot or two.

Im sure we can have great discussion sometime, God willing!

 

[AV1611VET]

Reality cares not about your "opinions".

Your ignorance seems almost as great as his.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit!

 

[AV1611VET]

With the geology of the Earth, because that's what I'm most familiar with, geologist work with what the Earth is showing them. How are they to do otherwise?

Your faith in their work is noted.