Re: Cobb County

Hi Vernon,

In a message dated 1/22/05 2:53:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:

> Christopher,
>
> You write, "I've been following these exchanges on and off for the last
few
> days, and I'm totally astounded that in 2005 people are still making these
> types of arguments." May I ask, At what point in my argument do we part
> company? Are you happy with the basic references used? Or do you have a
> different understanding of these? Possibly you don't believe the Scriptures
> to be a body of divinely-revealed truth. Might that be the problem?

The Scriptures are indeed a body of divinely-revealed truth, but it is a
theological truth not a scientific truth. They state that God performed the
acts of creation, and that we are accountable to Him. The only science is
the science known to the ancient Babylonians and Hebrews, and it is
nonsense to insist that modern science has to conform to this ancient
science, which was really not science in the modern meaning.

> When you label these matters 'unscientific' the implication must be that,
in
> your view, no truth can be established other than through science. What

This is completely false! Science only deals with the natural universe and
tries to uncover the truths of how it operates. Teleology is not a part of
science, i.e. meaning and purpose, philosophy and theology address these,
not science.
 
> causes me particular concern about science is the tacit understanding that
> the _supernatural_ must never be allowed 'a foot in the door'. In view of
the

Modern science is conducted within the philosophical framework of
methodalogical naturalism, i.e. it makes no assumptions about the existence
and actions of an omnipotent deity, who by definition can be invoked to
explain anything, thus nothing. The simple reason why the _supernatural_
must never be allowed 'a foot in the door' is that it cannot be tested, you
cannot get a handle on it, and it is just another God-of-the-gaps arguments.
Methodalogical naturalism is non-theistic, as opposed to philosophical
naturalism, which is quite different and is atheistic, and states that there
is no
God and the physical universe is all there is.
 
> many statements and actions of our Lord and of the Apostles concerning this
> particular matter, do you believe this to be a reasonable assumption for
any
> Christian to make?
>
> Referring to my thesis you say, " ...it contradicts Rom 1:20, and implies
> that there is no such thing as objective truth." I suggest you are
misreading
> this. Paul's statement, surely, is simply this: that there is enough in
> creation and providence to establish the fact that God is the Creator and
> that God is the moral governor of this universe; that is why the whole of
> mankind is without excuse.

That is indeed the case, but through looking at nature we can only get an
idea of how the physical universe is.

> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com

Christopher Sharp
http://csharp.com
Received on Sun Jan 23 02:32:05 2005