| Pages: 1 2 |
scarecrow
Sojourner
Posts: 70
Registered: 4/25/2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Member Is Offline
|
![[*]](./images/perspective/default_icon.gif) posted on 4/2/2008 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by biblelighthouse
It is impossible for any scientific endeavor to discover the overarching laws of the universe. A scientific theory may have excellent predictive
power, demonstrate helpful cause/effect relationships in observed nature, and therefore be very useful in helping us control our environment. But
none of these things has any power to actually prove whether the theory itself is *true*. |
Aha... the gravity angels argument. Very good!
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 4/2/2008 at 03:27 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by scarecrow
Aha... the gravity angels argument. Very good! |
What is the "gravity angels" argument?
|
|
|
Paleodoxy
Called
Posts: 1731
Registered: 9/8/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 4/2/2008 at 03:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
MrMerlin777
Called
Posts: 1234
Registered: 10/24/2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cool.
|
| posted on 4/2/2008 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
scarecrow
Sojourner
Posts: 70
Registered: 4/25/2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 4/2/2008 at 04:32 PM |
|
|
"This brings us to the involvement of angels in running the natural world. It is in the area of weather that the Bible shows angels running the
world. The passages that show this are in Psalm 104 and the book of Hebrews. Speaking of God, the Psalmist says:
| Quote: | He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He
makes the clouds His chariot. He walks upon the wings of the
wind; He makes the winds His messengers, flaming fire His
ministers (Psalm 104:3-4). |
The author of Hebrews explains that these are references to angels, “And of the angels He says, ‘Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame
of fire’ “ (Hebrews 1:7). This means that at least sometimes angels are involved in running the weather, and carries with it an implication that
angels run other things in the world also. God, of course, is running the world, but angels are also involved, at least sometimes. Thus, for
instance, if you pull the watch off your arm and drop it into your lap, what causes it to fall? And to fall at a rate we can describe by a
“gravitational constant”? Well, first of all, the eternally active God caused it to go down at that rate, according to His provisions in the Noahic
covenant. Second, it is likely that gravity-angels either pulled or pushed it down at that rate.
We need to face the fact that this way of thinking seems “primitive” or “childish” to us, but that is only because of the secular propaganda we have
absorbed. God’s world is a friendly world, run by Him personally and by His angels. Investigations of “natural” processes are really investigations of
how God’s stewards run His house." (James Jordan, Through New Eyes pg. 110 )
[Edited on 2-4-2008 by scarecrow]
[Edited on 2-4-2008 by scarecrow]
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 4/2/2008 at 04:54 PM |
|
|
Excellent point, Barb!
Dr. Vern Poythress goes into some detail about that fact, too:
Why Scientists Must Believe in
God: Divine Attributes of Scientific Law
|
|
|
brandon
Sojourner
Posts: 1
Registered: 5/27/2008
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 5/27/2008 at 09:35 PM |
|
|
Sounds like somebody has been reading Gordon Clark. I wish more people would.
"Philosophy of Science and Belief in God"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=127
"The Biblical View of Science"
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/143a-TheBiblicalViewofScience.pdf
"Science and Truth"
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/018a-ScienceandTruth.pdf
"Archaeology and the Bible"
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/170a-ArcheologyandtheBible.pdf
"Scientist as Evangelist"
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/048a-TheScientistasEvangelist.pdf
"Introduction to Gordon Clark"
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/101a-AnIntroductiontoGordonHClark.pdf
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 5/28/2008 at 07:22 AM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by brandon
Sounds like somebody has been reading Gordon Clark. I wish more people would.
|
No, I have not been reading Gordon Clark. I don't think I have ever seen these articles before.
However, thank you very much for sharing them! These are some really good science articles! Those are some of the very few articles I have ever seen
which discuss the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and how that fallacy invalidates the so-called "truth" of scientific theories.
Good stuff! Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Late_Apex
Debtor
Posts: 172
Registered: 5/17/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 5/29/2008 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by biblelighthouse
| Quote: | Originally posted by brandon
Sounds like somebody has been reading Gordon Clark. I wish more people would.
|
No, I have not been reading Gordon Clark. I don't think I have ever seen these articles before.
However, thank you very much for sharing them! These are some really good science articles! Those are some of the very few articles I have ever seen
which discuss the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and how that fallacy invalidates the so-called "truth" of scientific theories.
Good stuff! Thanks for sharing!
|
Joe,
Maybe we should talk about this when you're in next week. I don't know what you saw in these articles that was good (I haven't gone through them)
but, Gordon Clark's epistemology not withstanding, I know that his theology and yours are very far apart. To be as neutral and charitable as I can,
let me just say that Clark / Trinity Foundation people have very idiosyncratic views that you wouldn't endorse. For the purposes of this thread,
Clarkian epistemology is… um… how do I play nice… it's very different from the kinds of views that we've been discussing/affirming. There may be
some similarities here and there between you and Clark or between some of your arguments and some of his but such similarities rarely go deeper than
the skin. And if you broaden the scope of the comparison, the divergence would only grow. The Trinity Foundation has built quite a reputation for
being very schismatic and it is vehemently anti-FV. The differences are systematic and from your perspective, these guys would be just plain weird.
|
|
|
Peccator
Spiritually Minded
Posts: 272
Registered: 10/20/2007
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 5/29/2008 at 11:18 AM |
|
|
I've read about four books by Gordon Clark. He is actually the author that finally and fully convinced me of the sovereignty of God over ALL things.
I've found I disagree with him a lot, but I do owe him a big hearty hug if I see him in the next life.
In my opinion, Trinity Foundation and Gordon Clark's views are night and day apart from each other. The words might be the same sometimes, but the
tunes are very different, if you know what I mean (The words are quite different too sometimes). Likening Clark to Trinity Foundation in my mind is
comparable to likening Owen to the Puritan Boards. Or Luther to Lutheranism.
Mike Bradley
Looking for a church
Blog |
|
|
Late_Apex
Debtor
Posts: 172
Registered: 5/17/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 5/29/2008 at 12:36 PM |
|
|
There are certainly those who have pointed out that John Robbins really hasn't done Clark any favors by endorsing him (if for no other reason than
Robbins' attitude). There are surely some differences along with the important similarities. But in mentioning the two, I was just covering my
bases. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure that Joe wouldn't want to endorse either Clark or the Trinity Foundation. There are too many
fundamental differences between him and them (especially with respect to the general subject at hand) and I didn't know whether or not Joe knew that.
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 5/29/2008 at 02:23 PM |
|
|
Derrick,
I'm aware that I am not even remotely a Clarkian, and I definitely do not endorse the Trinity Foundation. I agree that they are generally rude,
schismatic, and "just plain weird", as you said.
In fact, I am honored to say that John Robbins once sent me an email, informing me that I am leading my entire family to hell, since I support FV
theology. I figure an anathema from John Robbins counts as a genuine compliment.
All of that notwitstanding, I did enjoy the articles posted above, especially where they pointed out how the fallacy of affirming the consequent
undergirds the entire foundation of the scientific method.
I just (initially) opted to say "thank you" for the articles, and to refrain from opening up the can of worms against Clark, Robbins, and the
Trinity Foundation. However, since you bring up that particular topic, I have to say that I agree with you 100%.
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 5/29/2008 at 02:26 PM |
|
|
By the way, Derrick . . .
Your pastor and my friend, Jeff Meyers, recommended that I read Gordon Clark's book, "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God". He said it is
a good book.
If Jeff Meyers recommends it, then it can't be all bad!
|
|
|
scarecrow
Sojourner
Posts: 70
Registered: 4/25/2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 5/29/2008 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
Mwa hahaha.... you shouldn't have let me know that info. Great blackmail potential. 
|
|
|
Late_Apex
Debtor
Posts: 172
Registered: 5/17/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 5/30/2008 at 05:49 AM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Derrick,
I'm aware that I am not even remotely a Clarkian, and I definitely do not endorse the Trinity Foundation. I agree that they are generally rude,
schismatic, and "just plain weird", as you said.
In fact, I am honored to say that John Robbins once sent me an email, informing me that I am leading my entire family to hell, since I support FV
theology. I figure an anathema from John Robbins counts as a genuine compliment.
All of that notwitstanding, I did enjoy the articles posted above, especially where they pointed out how the fallacy of affirming the consequent
undergirds the entire foundation of the scientific method.
I just (initially) opted to say "thank you" for the articles, and to refrain from opening up the can of worms against Clark, Robbins, and the
Trinity Foundation. However, since you bring up that particular topic, I have to say that I agree with you 100%.
|
Yeah, well, now you tell me. Or rather, now I remember that you've already told me about your Robbins run-in. It did feel a little weird, like I
was telling you something that was obvious. Oh well, so much for silent diplomacy.
|
|
|
tdsurf
Sojourner
Posts: 16
Registered: 4/18/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 9/16/2008 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
Did I miss it....
Wow, before summer break, I was reading along as Joe convinced the web world that Old Earth is the way to go, I come back and read this
thread...amazing.
Anyway...booklet done yet?
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 9/16/2008 at 02:39 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tdsurf
Wow, before summer break, I was reading along as Joe convinced the web world that Old Earth is the way to go, I come back and read this
thread...amazing.
Anyway...booklet done yet? |
Yes, for the most part. My editor says Canon Press is currently looking at it. I don't know yet whether they will print it.
|
|
|
Paleodoxy
Called
Posts: 1731
Registered: 9/8/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 9/16/2008 at 05:34 PM |
|
|
Sorry Joe I need to send my recomendation to them. Will do ASAP!
|
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 |
