Search results

I do not consider this a problem. The questions of 'why' beyond the objective observable relationships between the brain and the mind in science are philosophical and theological questions. It is ok that you want to go beyond science, but you cannot use science to go beyond science. The brain...

Tis far too circular to be real. You would have to assume there exists something or someone who may observe the whole of the universe, for there to be a logical conclusion that there is someone or something. It is not necessary that this someone nor something exists. It is very likely that...

Considering how 'mind' is normally defined. You would have to cite 'scientists' who have spoken openly about atoms having a mind. Methodological Naturalism defines contemporary science as the objective knowledge of theories and hypothesis that may be falsified. If you move beyond science, you...

I disagree with the degree you may propose that 'not all behavior is lawful and fully predictable.' and most definitely disagree with 'I consider that testimony to the fact mind and matter are one, that even atoms have tiny minds and can make choices,. . .' Fractal chaos is actually a...

I disagree, of course, there is no absolute certainty, that is actually at the foundation of scientific skepticism, and the view that all theories and hypothesis are open to further research and falsification as new knowledge and facts become known. The philosophy of science does make...

Let's take them one by one: There is a range somewhat on the time issue, but the interpretation of most remains literal.

I will stick by my original description. I have been closely associated with Duke Divinity School, and even did several guess lectures there, and attended a few courses. I also attended (audit carefully) in a more conservative Divinity school in West Virginia when I lived there (Old Testament...

You have to follow the trends of the different polls over the past 20 years, and not just this poll nor the other. As a rule they are consistent. Recent polls do show a positive change in the attitude towards evolution in young people. The polls do show a significant trend in the increase in...

The problem with doctorates in theology there is high degree of conformity within one's choice of Christian church theology one chooses. Most people who pursue a this type doctorate, is their goal is in service within the church they choose, and most often it reflects their Christian background.

There is no escaping the Will of God in the journey through many worlds. The most important factor is that fallible human judgment has no role in the consequences of other's journey in this world or the next. I do believe that sincerity of the will of the individual has a significant deciding...

The Bible is not likely God's Plan. It is varied ~2,000 to ~6,000+ evolved, edited and redacted ancient scripture describing the human view of God's plan, and God's relationship to Creation and humanity. I believe God's plan is God's plan, and not the narrow view of any one ancient religion nor...

Actual polls over recent history, and the matter of fact political power of the conservative evangelical right indicates the clout that exists in the USA. Though among recent polls more younger people believe in evolution. Still roughly 40% Americans believe in a roughly literal Biblical...

I said the majority, and that does not include St. Augustine.

I am in the geezer crowd, and today I find the polarizing of religious and political views and beliefs very disturbing, and it is the choice of leaders that is the big problem and not whether they have faith in their leaders. In terms of the religious/political views it relies on blind faith in...

I realize the sarcasm of the Tea. My response was a touch of my own. Human nature lives on and does not change 'much,' regardless of what we believe.

The concept of an incarnate physical God, and the Trinity is essentially a Hellenist/Roman belief, and not Jewish. There is no evidence it was composed before ~70AD though there may be a simpler Q that is early. By far most scholars believe the evidence supports a later date. I do not believe...

It was edited, redacted and added to significantly over the first 400 years, in particular to support the Church doctrines and dogmas of the Trinity, Virgin Birth, and the physical Resurrection. I have no doubt oral traditions existed ~33AD, but it is high end speculation that Mark was written...

No it is not!!!! Please cite in detail. You cited it was the Jewish view, and that is false! Please cite references to this claim.

The evidence specifically supports the problem, because the Church Fathers who by far the majority endorsed a more or less literal view of Genesis, which was instrumental in developing the foundation doctrines and dogma of Christianity.

This response is reflects the symtoms of the problem