Yes, science must assume methodological naturalism, if not ontological naturalism. Because, of course, you can't have knowledge of anything outside nature!!! There is absolutely, utterly no way for someone to demonstrated that their revealed "truth" of something outside of nature is in fact true or existent. All you have is your feeling that it's true, and feelings, clearly and oft demonstrated, can be mistaken.

This is why my rule of thumb is: if some idea springs into your head, before you start giggling with glee at your little comfy-cozy concept, start with the assumption that you're wrong, because you probably are, in every sense of the word.

In other words, chances are that what's "comfortable" (i.e. "human" ) is not the truth…quite the opposite, in fact.

According to the link you've posted, faith, even faith in Scripture, does not contradict either ontological nor methodological naturalism. Whereas ontological naturalism contradicts itself by holding at once, that nothing exists outside nature, and that forces outside of nature might still "supervene" on nature (1st sentence, 2nd paragraph, in section above your link), methodological naturalism is a framework for studying nature, without reference to the validity or lack thereof, of extranatural notions.

That said, Scripture refers in several places to a particular extranatural kind of tangible evidence that cannot, according to these naturalist views, be refuted by science (since science, depending on preference, either does not address metaphysics, or at least pretends to permit metaphysical "supervention.") These appear in 2Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13, Rom 8:16, et al.

*sigh* Once again, I am NOT arguing that God absolutely does not exist. I am an agnostic atheist, I don't think you can have knowledge of God, even if he existed, and I therefore don't believe in God, as I don't believe in any other of the infinite possible things that I cannot have knowledge of.

And ontological naturalism is incompatible with the belief there is something outside of nature. The sentence in question is this, "Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions." Right? That doesn't say anything about forces outside of nature. It says that consciousness and mind are material phenomena. Follow the link to supervenience. "In philosophy, supervenience is a kind of dependency relationship. For example, mental states might depend on physical brain states." That's the position ontological naturalism, that mental states, mind, consciousness, are dependent on the brain, they are not separate, immaterial entities anymore than a software program is a separate immaterial entity from the hardware it runs on.

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster says he will touch you with his noodly appendage. What the Bible says has no bearing on this discussion - you cannot appeal to the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible. It's called begging the question.

The point remains that you cannot have knowledge of anything outside of nature, if such things exist. I happen to also subscribe to ontological naturalism, but that is a separate issue. Now, I suppose I should make a caveat and say that if something outside of nature can somehow interact with things in nature, then we could conceivable know something about it, though it wouldn't really be outside of nature anymore. I subscribe to ontological naturalism because there is NO evidence of such. Once again, if intercessory prayer worked, if psychics powers were demonstrated, if homeopathy worked, if changes in the mind didn't invariably follow changes in the brain, and on and on, then you would have an argument.

And what exactly is that thing you're talking about? If you were talking about god, then such god (that cannot be discovered) is completely powerless, and is not the one described in your holy book.

"Something outside of nature" may or may not exist. If it cannot be discovered at all, then it means that it does not (or cannot) interact with our world in any way. In which case its existence or non-existence is irrelevant because that "something" has no effect at all. If it can be discovered, then it interacts with world and is a part of nature.

My blanket rejection of the scripture (your scripture in particular) is based on the fact that it contains errors, and things written there contradicts real world, while people claim that "scripture" tells the truth and is word of god.

"To believe" != "to know". It has been explained many times to you in this thread. Believe whatever you want. If you claim to "know", then you need a proof.

Bible does not deal with problem of evil and contains factual errors (although it is supposed to tell the truth). It means it cannot be trusted or used as an argument. Try using something else.

Reductionism ad absurdism?

1. A person doesn't exist, only their component cells exist
2. A cell doesn't exist, only its component molecules exist
3. A molecule doesn't exit, only its component atoms exist
4. An atom doesn't exist, only its component protons, electrons, and neutrons exist
5. A proton doesn't exist, only its component quarks exist
6. etc...
7. Therefore nothing exists but turtles!

http://xkcd.com/659/

…and it's "Reductio ad absurdum", BTW.

Um, yeah I was trying to be clever, as in: here is a reductio ad absurdum argument to show that reductionism implies absurdism. I guess it didn't work…

Pagan

and damn proud of it !!!

Jesus saves, but Tesco's delivers

I like this one better:jesus_saves_folded_marge_black_fold.png

Cue shitstorm in 3...2...1...

JESUS SAVES!
Not on my pension, he couldn't!

Those here requiring a theodicy* (proof that God is just, even though he allows evil to exist) before ever acknowledging God's love and mercy, first we need some standards. I suggest two necessary standards--1) a context, and 2) a point of reference, from which to consider what is pure justice.

Since the greatest point of contention seems to be the view that Christians take, that the Bible is the only proper basis for understanding God, morality and justice, let's first determine whether this source suggests these two standards, and then whether there exist any alternate sources, external to the Bible, for these two standards. If these exist, then each one can choose their context and point of reference from which to confirm or refute the validity of any theodicy.

According to Peter (1 Pet 4:17), judgment begins with people who profess to know God. And the most explicit illustration of the disparity between extreme condemnation vs. extreme glorification with God is Mat 25:31-46. Here Christ separates the lot of those professing to know God—the hypocrites from the saints. The godly inherit God's eternal Kingdom while the hypocrites are condemned to “eternal punishment” and “the eternal fire prepared . . .” for who?--“for the devil and his demons.”

So the Bible recommends a clear context for the resolution of justice. Hypocrites are the worst of sinners and are condemned to the greatest extremity. Those God commends most lavishly, who inherit the fullness of his Kingdom are those who are the most kind for his Son's sake. The moderate sinners and the less than saintly must fall somewhere in between. The Bible also recommends the point of reference for justice being those professing to know God. So we have a proposal for a valid coupling of these two standards.

What other sources can we go to for a suggested context and a point of reference for the resolution of justice?

*Theodicy--A vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil.

Not going to work.
Problem #1: God by definition knows everything and can do everything. If any kind of suffering or pain exists, it is because god choose so.
Problem #2: Standard defence against "proposing a standard" is to invalidate your standard. Then you'll introduce another standard which will also be invalidated, and this will go on forever never reaching a conclusion.

Let me demonstrate problem #1. You're engineer and you're designing a car. You make a design, but design has a twist - 1 hour after starting the engine, car will lock all doors, spray gasoline inside car's interior, and set it all on fire, killing driver and passengers. You - as engineer, know that will happen with absolute certainty. You also know how to remove the twist, and it requires no effort from you - you have time, it won't affect you in any way, and it won't affect cost of the design in any way, and it requires nearly no effort. Also nobody except you will notice this problem until car hits the market. There is absolutely no reason for you to release "automobile of death", yet you consciously decide to produce automobile that will kill passengers with 100% guarantee. The same applies to universe - if you take a look at it all, it'll be obvious that there are many similar "design flaws", and if you claim that this is result of sentient design of omnipotent/omniscient beings, then all those flaws mean that creator cannot be "good". Trying to find better definition of "justice" is not going to solve something as fundamental as this.

You're using "tunnel vision" to support your point. You rip out one or two citations out of entire collection of book and try to make "interpret" it. By doing so you forget that there's also the rest of book, which also includes parts with god-started genocide, slaughter, also factual errors and slavery. You can't ignore those parts - they exist and cannot be thrown away. Mentioning only one verse that support your point does not make them disappear - they still exist, and people are aware of them.