God and Science

[Hespera]

since claims of medical miracles are pretty much universal, its plain that all gods, all religions, cults and assorted quacks are equally legit.

 

[AV1611VET]

"a being that is super-natural is above nature, and above having to follow nature's laws. it's useless to try to prove or disprove religion through science."

Anything to add to this as a definition for "non existent"?

I've only been saying this for almost three years now.

So why if you are going to quote me, AV, did you leave out the part where i said that was a definition for non-existence?

Because the first part of your post was the part I was responding to --- and, quite frankly --- I didn't understand your question.

 

[shinbits]

I'm not talking about one-off miracles like that. I'm talking about his intervention in Earthly happenings on behalf of Christians. His methods wouldn't matter; the effects of his methods would be observable.

What do you mean by the "effects"? Do you mean the end result? If so, there's no way science can prove or disprove that a supernatural being is responsible. That's why science has no jurististiction over supernatural matters.

 

[Skaloop]

What do you mean by the "effects"? Do you mean the end result? If so, there's no way science can prove or disprove that a supernatural being is responsible. That's why science has no jurististiction over supernatural matters.

No, it can't prove that a supernatural being is responsible, but if Christians come out better than non-Christians on measurable parameters that are otherwise inexplicable, it at least counts as evidence.

 

[shinbits]

No, it can't prove that a supernatural being is responsible, but if Christians come out better than non-Christians on measurable parameters that are otherwise inexplicable, it at least counts as evidence.

it still wouldn't count as evidence, because "better than" is a subjective term. anytime something is subjective, it's not scientific.

 

[BananaSlug]

The point is that you can experiment all you want and still come to the wrong conclusion, even if the experiments go as you expected them to go.

What? What did you scenario have to do with that? You said the experiment produced zero negative side effects. You did not delve further into your scenario to say "you can experiment all you want and still come to the wrong conclusion." Did the drug eventually produce negative side effects? You never stated anything otherwise you in reality you never made a point.

It's interesting too that to test your hypothesis about katydids in the OP, you fed them for only one week, then concluded that it wasn't what they ate that was responsible for their color.

I did it for simplicity. A week is plenty of time to cycle the colored food into their digestive system and throughout the body. The point remains the same.

Microevolution is a process that can take years before the results show up.

Katydids changing color due to the food they eat has nothing to do microevolution! It was a simple experiement to find out why they are green! It's bad when I think I'm explaining science in simple terms and people still can't understand it

 

[BananaSlug]

not if He uses supernatural methods, such as the burning bush that wasn't consumed the fire---a scientific impossibility.

It might have been supernatural but it still could have been observed and found to to unexplainable. Supernatural events are unexplainable not unobservable. For a God to be so active in the Bible he sure is quite now.

 

[AV1611VET]

It might have been supernatural but it still could have been observed and found to to unexplainable. Supernatural events are unexplainable not unobservable. For a God to be so active in the Bible he sure is quite now.

Ya --- there's a term for that --- Dispensation Theology.

 

[shinbits]

It might have been supernatural but it still could have been observed and found to to unexplainable. Supernatural events are unexplainable not unobservable. For a God to be so active in the Bible he sure is quite now.

the problem is that science will always try to find the most naturalistic explanation possible. because of that, issues of the supernatural are out of science's ability to study. if water is witnessed being turned into wine like the miracle Jesus did, a scientists can only look for naturalistic answers as to how this happened. so it doesn't matter if a miracle is witnessed or not.

 

[tansy]

23 Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.” Mark 9:23

20 So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you. Matthew 17:20

14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 1 John 5:14

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. John 14:13-14

Okay, here are a number of verses that seem to say that if you have enough faith you can ask anything in Christ's name and it will happen. Christ even said those with faith could do greater works than he did! Elijah was able to call upon God to consume his offering with fire. Jesus fed 5000 with a few loaves and fish. Jesus healed a withered arm, a lame man, and many other miracles that are not possible today without modern medicine (and some are impossible even with modern medicine).

So here is a simple "test" for the faithful. Pray to Jesus to create an apple ex nihilo right in front of me, right now. Doing so will definitely glorify the Father. If you cannot pray to Christ and create an apple right in front of me, either you do not have enough faith or God doesn't exist. God created the entire universe in 6 days, sent plagues to Egypt, parted the Red Sea, and consumed a waterlogged offering (including the stones). I'm sure creating a little apple ex nihilo would be no problem.

I'm just going to slide in hear briefly, and don't want to derail the main thrust of the thread - but, I thinkn you probably misunderstand the nature of faith, and how it works in relation to God. I COULD ask God to create an apple right in front of your eyes, but I wouldn't even bother, as I doubt very much that He'd do it (for all kinds of reasons).
Now, if God had, say, instructed me to do so, or in His Name , command that an apple would appear - THEN He might do it.
But God seems usually to have a good reason for doing things..and I suspect He has other ways of causing people to believe (generally speaking). We have to pray according to His will....otherwise it would be chaos, for one thing. You'd have different people asking for mutually exclusive things, like, make it rain for a week, from one person..amd make it sunny for a week from another. God just doesn't work like that

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ya --- there's a term for that --- Dispensation Theology.

Or, ex recto

 

[shinbits]

Or, ex recto

sounds like a direction my Taco Bell meals go

 

[RichardT]

Richard,
As I recall you used to be a creationist, right?

Yes.

What was it that finally altered your views on religion and "naturalism"?

I don't know if you've seen this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7236779-5/#post47145736

A while ago I've openly accepted the evidence for evolution while remaining a Christian for the time being. After a while, or perhaps not too long after, I wanted to be honest with myself and I told myself that I didn't know whether the claims made in the bible about Jesus' divinity or God were true. I became an agnostic because I was honest with myself and that's what I truly was at the time. After accepting the fact that I was agnostic, I became open to what atheists / deists / agnostics had to say. After having read The God Delusion by Dawkins, and other atheist articles, I had become an atheist.

As for the OP, I know a lot of scientists who are religious folks. But what I usually see is that they are able to separate out the science from the faith stuff. I don't know any of them who go into the lab and, when faced with an unexpected result, assume God's Will was in play.

I, personally, see no need for a God, but there are many out there who feel it fills a need within them. I have to admit I find it fascinating to see that interplay, but I also know that being a religious person does not necessarily mean one cannot be a scientist.

For me, the path to atheism went through some of the same "hypothesis testing" formalisms I use as a scientist, but that's not the way it works for everyone, and certainly isn't a perfect path.

There is no God. Like I said before, we define existence by that which we can either observe or test, when God is defined as something "outside of the universe" or something that "has no bearing on the universe", it is equivalent to nonexistence. If we were to define existence by that which "might" exist in some strange "supernatural" or alternate reality, anything that we can imagine can exist and so it's a lot more practical for us to stick to the former definition.