"Metaphysics" is like physics in the same way a "witch doctor" is like a doctor. The fact that there are similarities between how historians and scientists do their jobs does not make them the same. From that same page: "Historians are getting much better these days at examining their own biases, but sometimes more of their claims are impossible to prove conclusively (history cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, usually, in order to find out what really happened a long time ago, while physics experiments can always be redone)."
Okay, lets say I give you the "RESPECTED" answer. So the Bible can't be respected though? Why is that?
Is Craig offering to fund the testing? How do you test the big bang being off? How do you find out infinity isn't probable?
You've lost me here. Plato is not arguing that he ACTUALLY stuck some prisoners in a cave, and nobody believes he did so! What is to discredit??
Okay let me rephrase my question. Do you think that scientists haven't been influenced by the data or theory Historians used to explain the past for further research?
He actually agrees with the big bang. I guess that proves you really didn't watch the debates. Oh well, how can I agree with someone that isn't even respecting the side which I stand.
A scientist can respect an historian the same way a scientist can respect a theologian, I suppose. But respect for the bible, what, as scientific text? What reason is there for it to be?
There isn't discredit. But it is a metaphor. And many Christians have been mocked on what some believe are metaphors. Just because there are some that literally believe word for word actual events taking place; doesn't generalize the entire culture of Christianity.
Just wanted to note what I said earlier: The Bible never claimed to be a science book. It tells us what we need to know, not want to know. If it told us what we wanted to know it would be inexhaustible.
Him agreeing with it has nothing to do with what I said. I said how do you prove if it was off, we'd all be dead? Can you read what I write? No, I didn't watch a two hour debate. I said that. That you needed proof other than me saying I was not going to watch them, well, I dunno. I can respect your side, and not have to sit through a 2 hour debate from William Craig. You told me he believes in the big bang. I got that without wasting 2 hours of my life on a video I am not at all interested in. If I post 9 or 10 2 hour videos in here on evolution, you're watching them all? Awesome.
That's fine and good -- and unscientific! Also, I'm baffled as to why you think the multiverse hypotheses were proposed to discredit god.
I understand, and I understand. I know it is not claiming to be. Mags seems to want it to be respected as such by scientists, or something, i don't really know. I guess he wants them to all refute it with science, however that happens.
No! As a philisophical map or maybe looking deeper in the meaning of why what was written and pursued direction on what angle to seek it. Maybe God does exist? Maybe there is a planner. Maybe it isn't the Hebrew God. But ignoring God exists is arrogant and dangerous.
"Metaphor" implies "not literally true"... Am I missing something here? We were talking about young earth creationism, which assumes a literal interpretation of Biblical events, weren't we?
Oh sorry, maybe you should provide some guidelines as to what's "scientific" and "unscientific". It seems like whenever I approach the Creator zone suddenly I'm "unscientific". Might want to clear that up for me. And yes, the multiverse theory was made up to counter the teleological argument, since so much precision and design is observed in the universe.
Well, I would say it has been used as a philosophical map,a nd been philosophized about for years and years. Why would a chemist, biologist, whatever use a philosophical map?
He was explaining it in his debate. You may not have interest; but I really ask you, hell even plead you to watch the debates and how he explains these things. I am not a physicist, and I don't even think I'm smart. But I love to learn. I absorb things like a sponge. I just don't have the discipline to follow through. Just watch one of the debates and get back to me. I don't have the answers scientifically; because I'm not qualified to answer them. If you are; then I would love to ask you what I question. Maybe you can answer them.
Yes, I haven't disagreed with the age of the Earth, saying it could be literally 10,000 years old. But I still haven't dismissed it either. I seek truth and hopefully science can pave the way for that truth.
I really don't care to waste my time with it, sorry. No disrespect to you, or your position. I just don't care. I wouldn't watch a 2 hour video of Dawkins talking either. As for his suggestions of the big bang being off, and life not existing, again, I guess if there is some way to test that, then he can offer to fund a scientist to test it for him. I'm positive someone would take his money for it. Of course, I can challenge the scientific community to prove something unprovable, and then call them cowards or biased when they refused to do it.
