It's more honest to reply that way.
You're like pita... scramble everything
. I said we see eye-to-eye on your statement, "Nothing that science has discovered or potentially could discover can deny the existence of God." However, I dont think a naturalistic explanation and "God did it" can exist at the same time because there are many who don't see eye-to-eye with us, and will say there is no need for God if man can explain it.
Whether "God did it' can co-exist with a natural explanation is not a matter of how many can see eye-to-eye with it.You're like pita... scramble everything
I don't know what you're talking about... given an astounding scientific discovery anywhere close to nullifying ‘God-did-it’ (which will never happen), and you’d see science and academia run with it like they have evolution.
No, scientists know better than to believe that evolution nullifies "God-did-it." They all take a philosophy of science course as undergraduates which explains why that can't happen. It does nullify certain ways of reading Scripture, but that's a different thing altogether, even though creationists sometimes get the two confused.
It's not a question of 'control'. The brain is an extremely powerful, compact, and efficient biological information processor. The 'mind' is the name for the information processing that the brain performs; it's a bunch of complex interacting processes, most of which are unconscious background 'subroutines' (the brain may not be organised or function the way a traditional computer does, but the computational metaphor is useful). The conscious part is generally estimated to be a relatively small part of the overall activity (around 5 to 10%) and is heavily dependent on the other 90-95%.
The point is that if there is a natural explanation for something that accounts for the phenomenon without directly invoking God, then invoking God is redundant in that situation; it adds nothing.
You make it sound so one-way and very machine-like, and yet you say it's not about control. It sounds like you think your body controls your mind?
Yes, but my bigger point is that you argued half the day in favor of 'God-did-it' being entirely compatible with naturalistic processes... now you're agreeing with an "it adds nothing" comment.
Let me put it this way: science is exactly the same for the theist as for the atheist. The proposition, "God did it" neither adds to nor takes away from science or the naturalistic processes it discovers.
I don't know quite what you mean by 'one-way'. Body and brain are mutually dependent parts of a single system; the processes of the body provide information about the world and its own inner state to the brain, and ensures the brain can work effectively, and the processes of the brain have overall command and control of gross bodily activities. Neither can function without the other.
By ‘one way,’ I mean you describe a machine-like physical operation only, and in doing so completely ignore the independent nature of the mind to think and choose. You and your ‘partners-in-thinking’ have tried to make it sound as though I consider the mind and brain as two totally separate things, which is not the case at all. I have continually held that there is a spiritual and physical component to the mind (remember the seashore analogy I quoted). Anyway, in this discussion you still seem to be saying, in effect, that the mind (soul) is controlled entirely by the body (brain), no doubt holding to your biological principles. However, I think the mind (soul) controls the body (brain) by changing it (in fact, science seems to agree in that neuroplasticity is defined as the mind's ability to change the brain). Once again science catches-up with the Bible… notice in Genesis 2:7 it doesn’t say God put a soul in man, making it separate, but rather man ‘became’ a living soul (KJV).
