#626 | It seems much of apologetics is retrofitting, claiming Christianity is the best answer for past or present events. Science is more about the future. Does Christianity outperform science in predictive power? Shouldn’t it if it reflects reality? How can we test this?
#417 | Covid19 provides a fertile opportunity to demonstrate that the earthly promises of God to Christians are true. How might we rigorously go about testing/demonstrating God’s hand in these events such as His judgment/protection in light of what He has promised?
For this dialogue, we might first list all the earthly promises God has given Christians. It appears that, as the scrutiny of science expands, there are fewer and fewer such promises found in the Bible. Can this be coherently explained.
#416 | If a doctor claimed to work in “mysterious ways”, and you defended that doctor, pointing to “healings” indistinguishable from natural recovery, and attributing poor outcomes to an unsubstantiated invisible evil doctor, could you be considered rational?
#402 | Some people invoke mysteries, contradictions and inexplicable‘s to claim the deity they propose is behind all these is amazing while others invoke the same to conclude the proposed deity is physically or logically impossible. Through what rigorous process do we sort this out?
#401 | Isn’t the notion that science is the only legitimate tool for uncovering truth warranted due to 1) science’s success, 2) the failure of non-science methods in uncovering truth, and 3) the need for science to assess the reliability of proposed non-science sources of truth?
#392 | Was it justified to believe pandemics were judgment from God all the way up until the advent of the statistical science that falsified the notion? Are we epistemically justified in invoking God as the cause of event X until science demonstrates a more reasonable explanation?
#380 | Is it a mass conspiracy, demonic control, or something else that is behind the significant gap between the relatively low God-belief among scientists and the higher God-belief among non-scientists? Why do those with more general knowledge reject the notion of God more?
#379 | Why is certain knowledge of the fabric of the substrate that constitutes our reality necessary (as some theists claim) as long as it manifests consistently? Is not predictability quite sufficient to conduct a rational exploration of our world? How can it be coherently claimed non-theists can’t rationally do science?
Induction provides a very good foundation to science. If you disagree based on your understanding of “the problem of induction”, then this may be a great place to initiate a conversation on this issue.
#347 | Why is the power of an indwelling Holy Spirit manifest (at best) marginally above the powers of normal humans VS close to the power of an omnipotent God? Why this apparent historical decline in God’s power with increased proximity to the tools of scrutiny?
#321 | As methodological naturalism (MN) is simply assigning probabilities to new unresolved supernatural & natural proposals about reality based on the degree of success in each domain, why are Christians so opposed to MN? Have not MN proposals been clearly superior?
#320 | Do Christianity’s long track record of failed predictions and retreat into untestable claims inform our expectations of it’s future success. Or do we abandon induction and give all new claims of Christianity a fresh credulity, disregarding past failures?
#222 | Why wouldn’t Christ have protected his bride from so much justified shame by simply mentioning “By the way, don’t make arrogant proclamations about science In the centuries ahead. You’ll almost always be wrong.“? Why does each generation forget the shame of the last?
#220 | Assuming it is true that the Bible is the foundation of science, what is the Bible’s best formulation of the scientific method? And why was this formulation not seen far earlier by Christians who could have eliminated immense suffering through its application?
STR Asked... 