God and Science

[Ectezus]

I'd think, anyone who is wise would realize something coming from nothing is impossible, therefore God exists.

What about god? Where did he come from?
Oh he has always been there you say? Wow ok, so you admit something can always have been there without a designer. Afterall, your god isn't designed is he?
So your argument for god being the only possibility is inherently flawed.

Thank you for playing.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

In science, we have to use the scientific method to explore our natural world.

...

The scientific method utterly trumps triteness like the above.

74

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm still waiting to hear what your point was for the last thing you posted AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still waiting to hear what your point was for the last thing you posted AV.

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.

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.

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

 

[shinbits]

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.

 

[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.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

But clearly God must interact in such a way with nature such that some on here know a lot about him. He is quite real to them in every way. Can that bit be tested with science?

Imagine living in a 2-dimensional world. And suddenly a cube passed through your world. You'd experience a square. What if a 4-sided pyramid (like the pyramid at Giza) passed through your plane of existence? You'd experience a square that grew smaller.

The point being that if God can interact with reality then surely that interaction can be tested for.

 

[AV1611VET]

But clearly God must interact in such a way with nature such that some on here know a lot about him. He is quite real to them in every way. Can that bit be tested with science?

Imagine living in a 2-dimensional world. And suddenly a cube passed through your world. You'd experience a square. What if a 4-sided pyramid (like the pyramid at Giza) passed through your plane of existence? You'd experience a square that grew smaller.

The point being that if God can interact with reality then surely that interaction can be tested for.

Fair enough --- in your Giza example --- how would you test the claims of the observer?

(Please be specific.)

 

[shinbits]

But clearly God must interact in such a way with nature such that some on here know a lot about him. He is quite real to them in every way. Can that bit be tested with science?

No. Again, God is supernatural, meaning science he can't be tested with natural means.

And God doesn't always apear to people in natural ways. Moses saw God as a burning bush, which itself wasn't actually being consumed by the fire. So even though Moses saw him, what he saw was neither natural, nor testable by science. He's done that many times in the Bible.

Imagine living in a 2-dimensional world. And suddenly a cube passed through your world. You'd experience a square. What if a 4-sided pyramid (like the pyramid at Giza) passed through your plane of existence? You'd experience a square that grew smaller.

The point being that if God can interact with reality then surely that interaction can be tested for.

see above.

 

[Hespera]

"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"?

 

[shinbits]

What about god? Where did he come from?
Oh he has always been there you say? Wow ok, so you admit something can always have been there without a designer. Afterall, your god isn't designed is he?
So your argument for god being the only possibility is inherently flawed.

Thank you for playing.

- Ectezus

what flaw? RyanLeeParis only admited that natural ojbects could've existed without a designer---not supreme supernatural beings.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no flaw in his logic if he's only refering to natural objects needing a designer.

Thanx for playing.

 

[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."

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

 

[Skaloop]

No. Again, God is supernatural, meaning science he can't be tested with natural means.

Maybe we can't test for god specifically, but we can test for his effects.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe we can't test for god specifically, but we can test for his effects.

Nope --- other than His Word --- He didn't leave an audit trail.

There's nothing to test for ---

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

 

[Skaloop]

Nope --- other than His Word --- He didn't leave an audit trail.

There's nothing to test for ---

Sure there is. Not for the stuff he did, but for the stuff he is supposedly doing now. If god is involved in our everyday lives and acting on behalf of faithful Christians, that can be measurable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure there is. Not for the stuff he did, but for the stuff he is supposedly doing now. If god is involved in our everyday lives and acting on behalf of faithful Christians, that can be measurable.

It can? Like what, for instance?

 

[shinbits]

Maybe we can't test for god specifically, but we can test for his effects.

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

 

[Hespera]

AV1611 VET

Originally Posted by Hespera

"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."
​

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



Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Subscribe to this Thread
Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode
Search this Thread
Advanced Search
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?

 

[Skaloop]

It can? Like what, for instance?

Positive effects of prayer on the ill, for one. If he answers any sort of prayer at all, then some of those effects would be measurable. For example, if a vicious storm is on course for a specific area. Some of the people in that area will be faithful Christians who will likely pray to be spared, while others will be non-Christians who don't pray at all. Even if he only responds to a small portion of those prayers, faithful Christians will show a measurable difference in the damage they suffer.

 

[Skaloop]

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

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.