Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

Why "God"?

Why not "Zeus"?

Why not indeed.

I'm sure that would work. Hopefully one day you'll see something like that.

Fingers crossed .

The Bible itself says that a wicked generation shall seek signs. It's also apparent that Christ gave some healing powers to the apostles, but none others. Short of him healing amputees, what would you expect "science" to find in their search that would prove it?

Any number of things. The stars and galaxies themselves proclaiming, by way of their relative position on the celestial sphere, as viewed on Earth, in modern English, that the Christian God exists and the KJV is literally true?

Oo, or pi, when in decimal and converted into letters via Hebrew numerology, proclaiming God's existence.

That said, I'm loath to use the word 'prove'. Proof is for logic, not science.

The sun had to be just right:

I think what you're forgetting, is that they were in a transition period between Law and Grace, and in addition, the Apostles needed special authentication.

Greek texts talk of people sleeping in temples, snakes crawling in their mouths, and BOOM their illness are cured. Does that testify to the reality of the Olympian gods?

Yup --- and that's just what they got.

What's that phrase you guys like to use: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

It's a handy rule of thumb, if nothing else.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Was it you that made the excellent point that scientists claim that God can neither be proven nor disproven, then turn around and demand undeniable evidence from us as to His existence?

If you're going to inject God into the science classroom, it has to be done under the guise of science. If you can't evidence his existence, it's not science. We're happy with that, but it's you guess who seem Hell-bent on usurping our kid's educations.

 

[Jnwaco]

Yes, though I'm sure other people have made the point as well. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to know what to be on the lookout for in the science journals!

 

[Jnwaco]

Fingers crossed .

Keep an eye out!

Any number of things. The stars and galaxies themselves proclaiming, by way of their relative position on the celestial sphere, as viewed on Earth, in modern English, that the Christian God exists and the KJV is literally true?

You mean like the stars would line up like a neon light spelling out "God"?

Oo, or pi, when in decimal and converted into letters via Hebrew numerology, proclaiming God's existence.

Okay... and I'm pretty certain that wouldn't convince anyone though - it would be dismissed pretty readily as coincidence.

That said, I'm loath to use the word 'prove'. Proof is for logic, not science.

Thanks for the honesty, although I've watched a good number of philosophy debates, and there is usually an uncertainty in one of the sides' premises.

 

[3sigma]

Creation of the universe = "God did it".

Has this been tested and verified? No, of course it hasn’t. It’s just your credulous assumption without a shred of sound, objective evidence to support it.

 

[3sigma]

What should a scientist expect to see that would constitute "God did it"?

We would expect to see the inexplicable contravention of natural physical laws. Have we ever seen that? No, of course we haven’t because your God has never done anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Greek texts talk of people sleeping in temples, snakes crawling in their mouths, and BOOM their illness are cured. Does that testify to the reality of the Olympian gods?

No, Paul set them straight when they failed to recognize their own gods.

11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're going to inject God into the science classroom, it has to be done under the guise of science. If you can't evidence his existence, it's not science. We're happy with that, but it's you guess who seem Hell-bent on usurping our kid's educations.

I can't interpret your last sentence --- it makes slightly more sense forward than backwards --- but for the record (and I'm sure you know this), I'm on record saying that the Bible should not be taught in science class.

Using the Bible for science is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Has this been tested and verified? No, of course it hasn’t. It’s just your credulous assumption without a shred of sound, objective evidence to support it.

1

 

[AV1611VET]

We would expect to see the inexplicable contravention of natural physical laws. Have we ever seen that? No, of course we haven’t because your God has never done anything.

Really?

What physical laws were in effect just before God created the universe?

As I have shown, even the Law [yes, Law] of Conservation of Mass/Energy was not in effect at the time.

The amount of mass/energy started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't interpret your last sentence --- it makes slightly more sense forward than backwards --- but for the record (and I'm sure you know this), I'm on record saying that the Bible should not be taught in science class.

Even if they're teaching science that contradicts the Bible?

Using the Bible for science is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You mean like the stars would line up like a neon light spelling out "God"?

Yes, something like that.

Okay... and I'm pretty certain that wouldn't convince anyone though - it would be dismissed pretty readily as coincidence.

The sequence of numbers probably exists, but not from the very beginning. The odds are simply astronomically small that the first X digits spell out Genesis (say).

I'm talking about a genuine, undeniable, statistically nigh-on impossible event, mind you, not that 'Bible Code' silliness.

Thanks for the honesty, although I've watched a good number of philosophy debates, and there is usually an uncertainty in one of the sides' premises.

Epistemological uncertainty is not the same as uncertainty in one's position. For what it's worth, I'm quite firm in my beliefs .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Really?

What physical laws were in effect just before God created the universe?

As I have shown, even the Law [yes, Law] of Conservation of Mass/Energy was not in effect at the time.

The amount of mass/energy started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

Meh, the law is more of a consistent assumption. We used to think that something called 'parity' was conserved, but, well, it's not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if they're teaching science that contradicts the Bible?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meh, the law is more of a consistent assumption.

What law?

I said it didn't exist --- so it's not even a 'consistent assumption'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What law?

I said it didn't exist --- so it's not even a 'consistent assumption'.

I meant as regarded by the scientific community. There is no known (and scientifically verified) instance where the Law of Energy Conservation has been violated.

 

[Jnwaco]

Yes, something like that.
The sequence of numbers probably exists, but not from the very beginning. The odds are simply astronomically small that the first X digits spell out Genesis (say).
I'm talking about a genuine, undeniable, statistically nigh-on impossible event, mind you, not that 'Bible Code' silliness.
Epistemological uncertainty is not the same as uncertainty in one's position. For what it's worth, I'm quite firm in my beliefs .

I was referring to epistemological uncertainty, obviously, and not to someone who's merely a poor debater. Just pointing out that it's a bit odd to see people literally demand testable scientific proof when they admit that science can't prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I meant as regarded by the scientific community. There is no known (and scientifically verified) instance where the Law of Energy Conservation has been violated.

Should there be?

It didn't come into effect until Genesis 2, and hasn't been violated since.

Even when God fed the animals aboard the Ark, the widow of Zarephath, and the 5000 with the picnic lunch (those would be ex materia, not ex nihilo).

 

[Doveaman]

Has this been tested and verified? No, of course it hasn’t. It’s just your credulous assumption without a shred of sound, objective evidence to support it.

I think you are missing something.

I'll repeat it for you:

Rapid expansion of the universe = "Dark-Energy did it".

Creation of the universe = "God did it".

One explanation is just as valid as the other, scientifically speaking.

 

[3sigma]

Rapid expansion of the universe = "Dark-Energy did it".

Creation of the universe = "God did it".

One explanation is just as valid as the other, scientifically speaking.

That isn’t strictly true. There is at least some sound, objective evidence that Dark Energy caused the rapid expansion of the universe whereas there is absolutely zero sound, objective evidence that your God created the universe. However, I agree that neither explanation has been tested and verified as the true explanation for those phenomena. So I take it from this that you concede “God did it” has never been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.