meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 8 months |
| seen | May 13 at 0:06 | |
| stats | profile views | 70 |
|
Oct 3 |
comment |
Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic? That was it--it was a TAG argument in the style of Van Til (from the presuppositional apologetics link). The "further reading" may contain the exact argument--still checking it out. Thanks! |
|
Oct 3 |
revised |
Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic? edited tags |
|
Oct 3 |
asked | Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic? |
|
Oct 2 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? @David Stratton - Uncommonly generous! Thanks for being willing to consider other perspectives. |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? My comments to David apply here also--it's the evidence from experiments, not the beliefs of scientists, which make something scientific, and while a bit of pseudoscience might be true (almost by accident), the key distinction is that it's not science. Thus, I still feel that your answer starts off being misleading, essentially falling into the pseudoscience trap by focusing on the "science" part rather than the "pseudo" (in this case, "fake") part. |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? I don't object to the conclusion--review the evidence. Absolutely--that's great! But the lead-in misleads badly by focusing on the possibility that theories that are well-supported might be wrong (and the implication is that everything would go out the window, which has scarcely ever been the case with well-experimentally-verified theories; at best there's a refinement of understanding). Pseudoscience is not like this at all: according to the chart it is just superstition that paints a facade of being like science. |
|
Oct 1 |
answered | How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? -1 for lumping relatively sound science in with things that have essentially no evidence or are in dramatic contradiction with experiment. If you can find scriptural support for treating matters of near-certainty and superstition equivalently, then I'd change my mind, but I know of no such passage. |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
How do Christians justify their belief and how do they convince others of their belief? The question is well-posed but out of scope for this format since you are essentially asking for a sizable portion of Christian apologetics to be encapsulated into one question, and there are entire books written on the topic. |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
What is the position of the church regarding the “Lunar Effect” theory? Does that mean your question is really Is lunar effect theory astrology under another name? Marc's answer seems to address this adequately, given what you've presented in the question. |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
What is the position of the church regarding the “Lunar Effect” theory? Your logic escapes me. Looking at things is a part of astrology. I don't think the Church (Catholic?) expects you to not look at things. If people make unsupported claims about the lunar cycle affecting people, that may well be nonsense but it's not astrology just because the moon is involved. |
|
Sep 30 |
comment |
By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant? Good background and perspective! I appreciate the answer, though I think S.M.'s more directly and (apparently) definitively answers the question and thus deserves to be the accepted answer. |
|
Sep 30 |
accepted | By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant? |
|
Sep 30 |
comment |
What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood? @Mason Wheeler - That's a good objection to "all the waters of the flood were in the air". This answer only requires a thin gauzy layer of clouds, enough to make sunlight somewhat diffuse; I'm not sure that's physically plausible either (how do you maintain the cloud cover without sun striking the land/oceans to evaporate water?) but at least it could avoid the air pressure problem. But this is sounding like extended discussion, so I should stop. |
|
Sep 30 |
comment |
How do we resolve the issue with the circular argument that the Bible is the basis for its own authority? I have heard Biblical support given for the authority and accuracy of the Bible on several occasions (e.g. John 10:35, Matthew 22:29), . This is equivalent logically to saying "the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so". I have not heard this from people trained in apologetics, at least not as the main part of the argument (it's brought up as a point of consistency, perhaps). |
|
Sep 30 |
comment |
What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood? I wish people would leave comments when downvoting answers instead of leaving us to guess what the problem was. This view does seem to be consistent with Genesis 1-8 in that there are no descriptions of sunlight or shadows as far as I can tell, and you need directed sunlight to see rainbows. |
|
Sep 30 |
revised |
What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood? deleted 2 characters in body |
|
Sep 30 |
asked | What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood? |
|
Sep 29 |
revised |
When was Abraham alive? edited body |
