nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Legitimate views: Assumptions
::::::::::: I'm not repeating it to make it better, but to remind you of something that you appear to have forgotten or overlooked. If God witnessed it (as He must, because He is omniscient), then there ''was'' an eyewitness. That there were no ''human'' eyewitnesses is artificially restricting the possibilities. I "want to prove ... that all other interpretations are wrong" because I believe that they ''are'' wrong, and want the truth to be known, and because the incorrect ideas are undermining efforts to evangelise. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: I'm not repeating it to make it better, but to remind you of something that you appear to have forgotten or overlooked. If God witnessed it (as He must, because He is omniscient), then there ''was'' an eyewitness. That there were no ''human'' eyewitnesses is artificially restricting the possibilities. I "want to prove ... that all other interpretations are wrong" because I believe that they ''are'' wrong, and want the truth to be known, and because the incorrect ideas are undermining efforts to evangelise. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Problem is that we only have human accounts about what the non-human eyewitness account might have been. Furthermore, your view is based on quite a few assumptions, which is fine when talking religion. But when you claim it is science, you will have to accept that scientist drop some of the assumptions to see if the same couldn't be explained without. That's part of Occam's Razor. If you bring you faith based account to the dissection table of science, don't be surprised if it gets dissected. But, it is good to know that you want to disprove any other account, because you want to evangelize. This way of evangelism exactly what St Augustine warned against, but we already know that you don't think too highly of him. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Problem is that we only have human accounts about what the non-human eyewitness account might have been. Furthermore, your view is based on quite a few assumptions, which is fine when talking religion. But when you claim it is science, you will have to accept that scientist drop some of the assumptions to see if the same couldn't be explained without. That's part of Occam's Razor. If you bring you faith based account to the dissection table of science, don't be surprised if it gets dissected. But, it is good to know that you want to disprove any other account, because you want to evangelize. This way of evangelism exactly what St Augustine warned against, but we already know that you don't think too highly of him. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:35, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: Those "human accounts" have been overseen by the ultimate author, God, to ensure that they are accurate.
: Yes, my view, like ''all'' views, are based on assumptions. Scientists don't drop assumptions; they replace assumptions with new assumptions. Yes, science itself is based on assumptions also.
: Occam's Razor favours creationism.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5096/]
: My "faith-based account" is the account of the omniscient God, so I will expect true science to confirm it (where it is able to speak to it at all). I have no fear of science, only of the anti-science musings of atheists who claims their ideology-based ideas are objective science. If Augustine really did "warn" against "[demolishing] arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" {{bible ref|2_Corinthians|10|4–5}}, then he was going against the Bible. But perhaps you have misrepresented him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
===Motivations===
===Motivations===
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.