You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

The argument does not just rest upon the fact that there are UMVs, although their existence is actually positive evidence for OMVs. The reason being, UMVs are exactly what you should expect to find if OMVs do exist. You're acting like OMVs are removed from human experience, and that is not true; although they are objectively determined (by God), they are subjectively experienced. They would be in fact ingrained into human beings. Which leads to the other part of the argument, which is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. It tells me that some things are absolutely wrong, and this sense precedes my opinions. So the reason why there are UMVs is because of this innate sense of right and wrong that everyone has, which aren't determined by mere opinion. This is sufficient evidence in my opinion to establish that UMVs are OMVs, in which case premise 2 stands.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

This isn't a relevant issue in this discussion. I have good reasons for what I believe, which I can sufficiently demonstrate. Remember, I used to hold the same beliefs you do, or near to them, about origins and so forth. And when I became a Christian, I was willing to integrate them into my faith. I was convinced to change my mind based on the shockingly weak evidence they are founded on, not because of a leap of faith.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed in the steady state theory which postulated a static and eternal universe. Because it was accepted as fact, they would use it to scoff and ridicule anyone who dared to suggest the Universe had a beginning. Yet, they were all wrong and the creationists were right. If they had listened to them, they would have made the discovery much earlier. Robert Wilson, one of people who discovered the CMBR that confirmed the theory, said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

This isn't science evidence and creation evidence. It's all the same evidence. The difference is that we are interpreting it differently, and that is through the lens of our respective worldviews.

You also miss out on the fact that the ultimate goal of science is to discover a theory of everything. It is seeking towards that very notion of infallibility that you are scoffing at. That Christians already claim to have it is no mark against Christianity; it would only actually be evidence of the superiority of its truth, or not. Consider this quote by Robert Jastrow, a noted Astronomer:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

Well, I am sure we will come to your beliefs eventually. In the meantime, I am happy to provide evidence for what I believe, and you can evaluate it as we go along.

>>

>> ^messenger>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

Well done, @deathcow. As astronomer Jack Horkheimer says, keep looking up!

>> ^Boise_Lib: @garmachi, the astrology bit is offputting--but completely turned off? Uhmm--No.


As an astronomer (albeit an amateur) this turns me off. I would actually be incapable of arousal with this woman. Not out of my sense of superiority or smugness, but out of my need to protect our species from her offspring. Sure, my genes are superior, but if there's even a chance that whatever deficiency allows for the belief in astrology might get passed on, there's nothing going on below my belt.

Okay fine, I'd do her, but just the once.

Good LORD she's hot!

Just because the universe might be eternal, does not mean that God is the automatic solution, nor the simplest explanation. That's just the one that makes sense to you. I would say that an eternal universe filled with rocks and gas is a little less complicated than an eternal, thinking, feeling, all-powerful being. But again, that's just my opinion. Those are large concepts, and the rules of physics, or even the seemingly bizarre rules of quantum mechanics do nothing to help explain them.

To me it is simply a probability argument. If you say that everything is equally unlikely, then if you strip away all other concerns, you just have the question..was the Universe deliberately created? The answer is either yes or no. You have evidence that perhaps there is design, which implies an intelligent (and powerful) creator. You have evidence that perhaps it could have happened by chance, by naturalistic processes. From there, you have to figure out what explanation best matches reality. You could ask, does something as wonderful as life and as amazing as the Universe just happen by itself? You could ask, am I just a bunch of atoms moving through space or is there something more to me than that?

Is an eternal God hard to grasp? Yes, but easier I think than something from nothing. If it is something from nothing we will always be ignorant of the initial conditions. If God created it, He will (presumably) educate us about the mystery of His existence. He promised this:

1 Corinthians 13:12

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

It is basically saying that God promises full disclosure when His Kingdom is established on Earth..

Occam's razor is simply a pragmatic way to find a solution, it does not prove anything, but just suggest what a likely answer might be. People use that argument about the complexity of universal laws all the time, but the fact of the matter is, we still don't understand 99.99999999% of the universe or how it works. We can see that if we "tweaked the dials", it would probably look much different than the universe we know, but there isn't a scientist out there in this world that could tell you with any certainty what would happen. Only that on a large scale, things might fall inward or burst outward faster, or that water might not congeal the same way.

Well, just in the initial conditions of the Universe, you have several values which just defy any naturalistic explanation. Even atheist scientists have to admit that a straight forward explanation indicates a designer:

Fred Hoyle, Astronomer said

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

This has major implications for scientific theories, because it isn't simply a matter of it being incredibly unlikely, it is also matter of contradicting the predictions of standard models. I think you'll enjoy this article:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013v3.pdf

Speaking of complexity, here's an exercise for your brain: Think about a mountain, on part of that mountain, pressure builds up, and a rock slide starts to fall. When it finally settles, the rocks, all the little pebbles and large boulders and particles of dust are arranged in just a certain way. Even though it's just a pile of rocks, it contains within it an inconceivable amount of complexity. Nowhere else in the entire universe, will there ever be a pile of rocks that have the exact specifications of this one. And even if it did, it wouldn't be composed of the same stone, And even if was, the elements that make up the stone wouldn't be arranged the same way. Nor would it be the exact same temperature, unless it was in the exact same relative position in the universe with an identical sun, with all the particles of gas and dust in between them arranged in exactly the same way.

In a way, the pile of rocks, when you think about it, is an impossibility. And yet it exists. There is no simple solution to explain it. An eternal creator, or the laws of physics? Either way, the true meaning is something that neither of us can comprehend. And to say that either one is "simpler" than the other is merely a statement of faith. Not fact.

Sure, taken by itself, such a thing is astonishing to behold. Divorced from its circumstances, it is perplexing to say the least. Yet, either explanation for the origin of this impossibility leads to a definitive conclusion. If it was naturalism, there is no meaning to it. It just happened that way and at best you can invent a meaning for it and decide to believe it. If it was created, however, it was created for a purpose. It has meaning because of that purpose; it is invested with meaning. In naturalism, you are practically looking at something alien. It is cold, dead, inexplicable, and doesn't care about you. Under creation, you are at the least staring this quote from Einstein dead in the face:

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

I go a step further because I believe God has revealed a bit about his Dewey Decimal System, but essentially, I am in staring at this in awe and wonder. I think those rocks are amazing and startling, but I also praise God for making them that way.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
We love you too. (but it's a rough, heathen love)
Just because the universe might be eternal, does not mean that God is the automatic solution, nor the simplest explanation. That's just the one that makes sense to you. I would say that an eternal universe filled with rocks and gas is a little less complicated than an eternal, thinking, feeling, all-powerful being. But again, that's just my opinion. Those are large concepts, and the rules of physics, or even the seemingly bizarre rules of quantum mechanics do nothing to help explain them.
Occam's razor is simply a pragmatic way to find a solution, it does not prove anything, but just suggest what a likely answer might be. People use that argument about the complexity of universal laws all the time, but the fact of the matter is, we still don't understand 99.99999999% of the universe or how it works. We can see that if we "tweaked the dials", it would probably look much different than the universe we know, but there isn't a scientist out there in this world that could tell you with any certainty what would happen. Only that on a large scale, things might fall inward or burst outward faster, or that water might not congeal the same way.
Point being, just because we can tell that the universe would be different, doesn't mean that it was designed. It just means that it is this way.
Speaking of complexity, here's an exercise for your brain: Think about a mountain, on part of that mountain, pressure builds up, and a rock slide starts to fall. When it finally settles, the rocks, all the little pebbles and large boulders and particles of dust are arranged in just a certain way. Even though it's just a pile of rocks, it contains within it an inconceivable amount of complexity. Nowhere else in the entire universe, will there ever be a pile of rocks that have the exact specifications of this one. And even if it did, it wouldn't be composed of the same stone, And even if was, the elements that make up the stone wouldn't be arranged the same way. Nor would it be the exact same temperature, unless it was in the exact same relative position in the universe with an identical sun, with all the particles of gas and dust in between them arranged in exactly the same way.
In a way, the pile of rocks, when you think about it, is an impossibility. And yet it exists. There is no simple solution to explain it. An eternal creator, or the laws of physics? Either way, the true meaning is something that neither of us can comprehend. And to say that either one is "simpler" than the other is merely a statement of faith. Not fact.

Microsoft-supported http://www.worldwidetelescope.org application has some awesome guided tours of many astronomical objects. If you liked this video you should check out that application.

>> ^notarobot:

But in all seriousness, this warondrugs set up BS probably cost some astronomical sum to nab a guy who might have just become desperate trying to keep Citibank from foreclosing on him.


and have little to no real impact on the amount of drugs in the street, now the amount of people in prison is another story

But in all seriousness, this warondrugs set up BS probably cost some astronomical sum to nab a guy who might have just become desperate trying to keep Citibank from foreclosing on him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.
And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.
Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.
What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?
And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.
And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.


I will admit that a species that has absolutely no comparable experience with us would be a problem. There's a mad, wonderful chapter in Greg Egans Diaspora that discusses the idea of complex creatures that have evolved in multi-dimensional space. I don't recall the exact maths, but they essentially live "rotated" into extra dimensions. I'll grant they will pose a challenge.

But it's not unreasonable to assume that some life forms would have evolved on a similar ecosystem to ours. We're already comfortable in working outside base 10, and there are some smart people who are working out establishing common symbol patterns based on fundamental mathematical principles. I don't care if you can interchange your head with your elbow, or you reproduce by thought, 1+1 =2. That does not change. Same for Pythagoras' theorem, prime numbers and so on.

My overall point is that something that is smart enough to figure out all the problems of going out into space will figure out how to communicate with us.

Or more likely, simply harvest the planet for resources. They're bound to be low on food and fuel by then

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Much as I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I feel he's wrong on this. I've said it before, but I think our ability to understand abstract concepts such as math should mark us as sufficiently different from the other species on our planet.


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.

And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.

Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.

What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?

And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.

And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.

"The latest disaster for the solar system is that the United States has decided to go to Mars. And, of course, later we intend to colonize deep space with our Salad Shooters and Snot Candy and microwave hot dogs. But let me ask you this: What are we going to tell the Intergalactic Council the first time one of our young women throws her newborn baby out of a seventh-story window? And how do we explain to the Near-Stellar Trade Confederation that our representative was late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold, and he had to spend thirty minutes beating the shit out of his wife?

Do you think the elders of the Universal Board of Wisdom will understand that it’s simply because of quaint local customs that over 80 million of our women have had their clitorises and labia cut off and their vulvas sewn shut in order to make them more marriageable and unable to derive pleasure from sex and thus never be a threat to stray from their husbands’ beds?

Can’t you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?"

- George Carlin

You probably have no idea but the scientific method was created by Christians who believed that matter behaved rationally because God created an orderly universe. The same goes for the idea of natural law. Some of the very greatest scientists who ever lived were Christians, and not lapsed Christians either, but pursued science as part of their Christian world view, with their love for Gods amazing creation.

Christianity has never been opposed to science, and neither am I. When I grew up I wanted to be an astronomer, and I had the math skills, I would probably be one today. I think the study of the Universe is extremely fascinating and wonderful. I just don't happen to agree with all the conclusions of modern science. Specifically the age of the Universe and its theories about origins.

As far as my church is concerned, there is no pressure to tithe. People give because they want to, not because anyone pressured them to do it. My church uses the money it gets to build wells for people who don't have access to clean water. The only time I ever hear money mentioned is when we're trying to raise some for a charitable cause. There are definitely some churches which are run around the tithe, but you won't find the Spirit of God there. We get together because we love God, and we study the bible and sing hymms. It's a fellowship. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, but your salvation doesn't come from going to church. The church is a place where Christians gather together to worship God..going to church doesn't make you Christian, and pastors don't decide if you go to Heaven. A pastor is the same as anyone else in that regard.

In short you present a false dichotomy that doesn't exist in my world. I am an avid user of technology, and the beneficial use of science, but I oppose the conclusions of the secular worldview that is driving some aspects of it. If you don't think there is an agenda please watch the documentry "Expelled".

As far as my beliefs, I am not selling anything. I don't want your money. I am quite plainly just trying to save your life, because I honestly care about you as a human being. I cannot remain silent about the gospel in any case, because it is the good news and I am commanded by God to preach it.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
So, um, what were these lies that have been told to you all your life? That the earth is round and over 4 billion years old? That the sun is the center of the solar system? That there is undeniable evidence that suggests that man evolved from primates?
Now that you have found god and are visiting the church regularly (and likely investing a good amount of your accumulated agnostic secular materialistic wealth into the collection plate) you believe that those people are telling you the truth? Instead of providing evidence that supports their claims you are told to believe based upon faith? The church is asking you for your time, your money, your obedience, all in exchange for some supposed heavenly glory that you will never be certain that you will receive.
Tell me, what has the scientific community ever asked of you in return for the knowledge that they are offering?
Look around you, every modern convenience that you currently enjoy was made possible by science and engineering. Science drives our species forward, religion fights to hold us back while struggling to stay relevant.
Believe what you want, just keep it to your self. I don't need what you are selling.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

@heropsycho and @Mikus_Aurelius Thanks for your great replies. I will continue this conversation some more after I get home, but I wanted to say mikus raised a really good point that I couldn't wait to investigate further. The "income=expenditures" does seem a rather bad assumption. And I would like to offer my own pontifications a probable solution, I also put in an email to their info station. I present it here for reading.

"Hello. I imagine you won't have time to respond to this email, but I
have a question about one of the graphs in the FAQ. In Figure 2, the
graph assumes to make a balanced rate based on income = total
spending. That seems like a rather dubious assumption, as lower
income families will spend a disproportionate amount of their total
income when compared to someone of higher income whom will save more.
Was this just done for simplicity, because it would seem like the
actual rate would have to be higher all around given that money being
spent from the upperclasses isn't nearly has high, or I assume isn't
nearly as high. Is their any evidence to support the claim, is what I
am asking, that total income is directly equal to total spending. It
seems like to bold a statement to take on face value without some
reason to believe that. I love the idea of the fair tax, this
question seems to be burning in my mind as needing an answer."

Now, income is a strange beast. Steve Jobs only gets 1 dollar a year from his job, so how is that graph mapping it in relation to his income? Who knows, perhaps that is why it is so directly correlated, that most all money will get spent in the end regardless of salary. And I think the other graph still holds in spite of the figure 2 one, that total spending seems to be more steady then total income. You can think of income as a fire, and spending as the ember. People are always going to find money to spend, perhaps even hidden money like we all did in monopoly...that no one REALLY knows about. I still have lots more questions than answers on many of the different ways we could do taxes, but there is one thing I do know. Complex systems favor large businesses. The rules of scale mean anyone with a payroll department already can factor off some of the cost of compliance with normal business costs. Small businesses can't do this as easy. Also, complex systems are breeding grounds for lobbies getting special exemptions for their pet business. The entropy of the intent of a complex, income based system seem like something we could do without.

In closing, I am sad we ended up talking about which one was "more or less effective". Unless the cost is astronomically different between the 2, we shouldn't let that even be a topic. Reason being is we were talking about which one is right or wrong, and if one is morally wrong, it really shouldn't matter if it is cheaper. It is kind of like lawyers and the public defender. We could cut costs of the justice system by snubing out the public defenders, but we would be doing something we see as wrong by saving money in this case (I am not saying I support public defenders, just an example). So the rightness and wrongness of something should be the first focus, and its effectiveness a very much latter criteria. I don't have time to get into that real argument, but I thought I would add those 2 little tid bits before I had to get back to the grind.

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.