"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

[Phred]

Since AV likes the example so much, let's use it.

The moon.

Look up, it's there.

Of all the possible ways the moon could have gotten there, "goddidit" is not a reasonable choice.

Why?

Has it ever happened before? Has God ever done anything before? Have we seen, heard, or experienced anything that this being known as "God" has actually done? Can we equate it with putting a planetoid in orbit around the earth? Can we show how it was done? Can we test it? Replicate it?

No.

There is not one iota of evidence to show that the moon was put into orbit around the earth by "God". There is no reason to suspect that this is the case because we see no other moons put into orbit by "God".

When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact. Since we cannot know everything about the universe in which we live nothing can ever be completely fact. After all, I could be dreaming this entire universe. But, things are as factual as we can make them by supporting them with evidence. That's why mathematics can be proven. It isn't about the real world.

"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence.

 

[cupid dave]

Since AV likes the example so much, let's use it.

The moon.

Look up, it's there.

Of all the possible ways the moon could have gotten there, "goddidit" is not a reasonable choice.

Why?

Has it ever happened before? Has God ever done anything before? Have we seen, heard, or experienced anything that this being known as "God" has actually done? Can we equate it with putting a planetoid in orbit around the earth? Can we show how it was done? Can we test it? Replicate it?

No.

There is not one iota of evidence to show that the moon was put into orbit around the earth by "God". There is no reason to suspect that this is the case because we see no other moons put into orbit by "God".

When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact. Since we cannot know everything about the universe in which we live nothing can ever be completely fact. After all, I could be dreaming this entire universe. But, things are as factual as we can make them by supporting them with evidence. That's why mathematics can be proven. It isn't about the real world.

"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence.

Define "God."


For instance, the God of Science got man ion the moon.

But the Creator God, The First Cause, placed the moon there.

 

[Phred]

Define "God."


For instance, the God of Science got man ion the moon.

But the Creator God, The First Cause, placed the moon there.

Semantics keeps your god alive.

There is no "god" of science.

To your last statement... prove it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is "we have a consensus of scientists" any better a response? Faith is faith no matter who you place your faith in. If a question requires evidence any response short of actual evidence is not an adequate response yet I get this consensus garbage alot from those who mostly don't know the evidence the scientists have a consensus about or don't question whether the scientists have evidence for their consensus, but because scientists are the ones with the consensus it must be so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is "we have a consensus of scientists" any better a response?

Absolutely. It is light years ahead of "God did it". How do scientists reach a consensus? By testing theory through experimentation over and over from every conceivable angle. It is the evidence gained through these experiments that forms the foundation of any scientific consensus.

Faith is faith no matter who you place your faith in.

Scientists do not place faith in theories. They do just the opposite. They try to prove them wrong. When they fail to prove a theory wrong after many, many, many trials they begrudgingly accept it. This is what a scientific consensus is, a failure to prove a theory wrong.

If a question requires evidence any response short of actual evidence is not an adequate response yet I get this consensus garbage alot from those who mostly don't know the evidence the scientists have a consensus about or don't question whether the scientists have evidence for their consensus, but because scientists are the ones with the consensus it must be so.

I will fully agree that "scientists say so" is as equally invalid as "God did it". The difference is that people can actually find the evidence that supports the consensus. Not so with "God did it".

 

[AV1611VET]

Since AV likes the example so much, let's use it.

The moon.

Look up, it's there.

Of all the possible ways the moon could have gotten there, "goddidit" is not a reasonable choice.

Why?

Has it ever happened before? Has God ever done anything before? Have we seen, heard, or experienced anything that this being known as "God" has actually done? Can we equate it with putting a planetoid in orbit around the earth? Can we show how it was done? Can we test it? Replicate it?

No.

There is not one iota of evidence to show that the moon was put into orbit around the earth by "God". There is no reason to suspect that this is the case because we see no other moons put into orbit by "God".

When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact. Since we cannot know everything about the universe in which we live nothing can ever be completely fact. After all, I could be dreaming this entire universe. But, things are as factual as we can make them by supporting them with evidence. That's why mathematics can be proven. It isn't about the real world.

"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence.

Well, you started this OP out okay, but then look what happened when you went to defend your point about not knowing how the moon got there.

This:

There is not one iota of evidence to show that the moon was put into orbit around the earth by "God".

... suddenly becomes this:

Since we cannot know everything about the universe in which we live nothing can ever be completely fact.

Of course, you wouldn't dare say:

Since we cannot know everything about the moon nothing can ever be completely fact.

... would you?

But all that aside, let me make my primary point here:

Don't call what you 'cannot know', yet believe anyway, "science"; and what we 'cannot know', yet believe anyway, "religion".

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't call what you 'cannot know', yet believe anyway, "science"; and what we 'cannot know', yet believe anyway, "religion".

I guess you missed this part of the OP:

"When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact."

That is the opposite of religion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Absolutely. It is light years ahead of "God did it". How do scientists reach a consensus? By testing theory through experimentation over and over from every conceivable angle. It is the evidence gained through these experiments that forms the foundation of any scientific consensus.

Saying "We have a scientific consensus" is in many places today substituted for explaining the factual evidence and those saying it often expect that the very saying of those magic words to be the end of the discussion.

Scientists do not place faith in theories. They do just the opposite. They try to prove them wrong. When they fail to prove a theory wrong after many, many, many trials they begrudgingly accept it. This is what a scientific consensus is, a failure to prove a theory wrong.

I'm not talking about what scientists do but about what those with an agenda do to stifle debate most of these are not scientists and many of of them have no experience with the scientific method as applied to the subject they are discussing.

I will fully agree that "scientists say so" is as equally invalid as "God did it". The difference is that people can actually find the evidence that supports the consensus. Not so with "God did it".

To many people I talk to the one is as much an article of faith as the other. They would consider themselves a denier if they were so faithless as to ask for the actual proof if they were told that there is a scientific consensus. Their lack of intellectual curiosity astounds me. They seem to view the authority of the scientist as a fundamentalist views the authority of God and to question it is blasphemy. Denier=Heretic in their eyes.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not talking about what scientists do but about what those with an agenda do to stifle debate most of these are not scientists and many of of them have no experience with the scientific method as applied to the subject they are discussing.

I agree with that. In a "debate", citing the scientific consensus is not enough. You actually need to present the evidence. The problem is often the audience. In our soundbite culture no one is willing to sit for an extended period of time and learn what the facts are, and how they evidence a specific conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess you missed this part of the OP:

"When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact."

That is the opposite of religion.

You don't have diddly.

You have what you might interpret as evidence, but that can lead to phlogiston, wonder drugs and 7-man firecrackers.

 

[Belk]

I agree with that. In a "debate", citing the scientific consensus is not enough. You actually need to present the evidence. The problem is often the audience. In our soundbite culture no one is willing to sit for an extended period of time and learn what the facts are, and how they evidence a specific conclusion.

Not to mention given the complex nature and detailed knowledge required for a lot of scientific discussion it would seem rather pointless. I know I lack the knowledge of mathematics to understand GR let alone QM.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't have diddly.

You have what you might interpret as evidence, but that can lead to phlogiston, wonder drugs and 7-man firecrackers.

The difference here is that you can test the interpretations through experimentation and further evidence. Not so with "God did it". This is what separate science from religion. Science relies on tentativty, experimentation, and falsification. Religion relies on dogma. Notice how the two are different?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

But all that aside, let me make my primary point here:

Don't call what you 'cannot know', yet believe anyway, "science"; and what we 'cannot know', yet believe anyway, "religion".

And this ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with religion, for centuries they have manacled science and told us what we cannot know. Religion makes unsupportable claims to knowledge, claiming that god has, through special revelation, given certain men the 'truths' of god, only to be proven wrong at every turn. As science moves forward, their god of the gaps only fills a tiny space at this time. Religionists only move at this time is to define their faith and religion in such broad and metaphysical terms, as to be considered meaningless, much like Deepocket Chopra's definition of spirituality, ... so much woo.

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference here is that you can test the interpretations through experimentation and further evidence.

Then why haven't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why haven't you?

Scientists have. They publish their findings in things called "peer reviewed articles". You should look into it.

 

[cupid dave]

The difference here is that you can test the interpretations through experimentation and further evidence. Not so with "God did it". This is what separate science from religion. Science relies on tentativty, experimentation, and falsification. Religion relies on dogma. Notice how the two are different?

It is simple to state common science understandings and show that Genesis says the same basic thing.

The response from people who o not want Genesis to say what science basically tells us will detour the issue into a realm of scientific minutia that they pretend clouds the matter sufficiently so that Genesis can either be ridiculed as non-factual or maintained as God given truth superior to facts.

 

[Phred]

You don't have diddly.

You have what you might interpret as evidence, but that can lead to phlogiston, wonder drugs and 7-man firecrackers.

You're wrong. We have evidence which we interpret. The difference is that the evidence is incontrovertible. The interpretation is what we can discuss. We have much more than diddly.

You on the other hand. You have the Bible. The Bible is a collection of words that were written by men. This is the evidence. Anything else is your or others interpretation of it.

Don't complain to me when I hold you to your own standards. You have diddly.

 

[Astridhere]

Since AV likes the example so much, let's use it.

The moon.

Look up, it's there.

Of all the possible ways the moon could have gotten there, "goddidit" is not a reasonable choice.

Why?

Has it ever happened before? Has God ever done anything before? Have we seen, heard, or experienced anything that this being known as "God" has actually done? Can we equate it with putting a planetoid in orbit around the earth? Can we show how it was done? Can we test it? Replicate it?

No.

There is not one iota of evidence to show that the moon was put into orbit around the earth by "God". There is no reason to suspect that this is the case because we see no other moons put into orbit by "God".

When we make a claim we support it with data. Evidence. The more evidence we have the more strongly we can suggest the claim is fact. Since we cannot know everything about the universe in which we live nothing can ever be completely fact. After all, I could be dreaming this entire universe. But, things are as factual as we can make them by supporting them with evidence. That's why mathematics can be proven. It isn't about the real world.

"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence.

So naturalists said the bible, which is the transcribed and inspired word of God, is stupid and ridiculous. One of these reasons, 25 years ago, was because the bible puts the creation of the moon after the creation of the earth.

Guess what? The old bible writers got it right in the first place. Actully the bible has been shown to be so scientifically accurate, why would any reasoning person think that the whole of the creation is not just as stated, just because scientists that keep recanting and changing their views disagree with a few scriptures.

101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life

Was the moon being formed after the earth just a lucky guess, just like the other 100 scientific accuracies in the bible known before modern science? Ummmm, maybe, but not likely.

If any text is truly the inspired word or a higher being, as claimed by bible writers, then one would expect there would be significant evidence of knowledge unknown to mankind at the time. Well there is plenty of that.

Seeing as maybe, likely, and probably forms the basis of much of your science,(eg singularities that make no mathematical sense and the use of mysterious dark matter you know nothing about and all the maybe's, likely and possiblys contained therein, and the difficulties with impact theory) I'd say the assumption 'God did it', based on biblical accuracy, is as good as anything naturalists can provide as evidence for anything.


As for proof by way of support that God created the moon..

1. The bible is proven to be the inspired word of God due to its scientific accuracy known in advance and states God created the moon after the earth was formed. This has been substantiated by your scientits.

2. The earth is at the centre of the universe and all your theoretical astrophysics are based on an erraneous assumption, of big bang and unremarkable earth. Therefore none of the support you call evidence that is proffered against the biblical creative stages has any credibility at its base.

Earth being at the centre of the universe fits the literal biblical interpretation. There will be theories, just like you lot have re big bang as to how this fits with what is observed. Mine is..The after glow of light as other celestial bodies were created/coalesced in circles around the earth produced the light that was required to maintain vegetation untill our sun was formed, and as the universe expanded, and fully coalesced and took over from there as our main source of energy.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

God does not use magic. Magic looks like magic or 'poofing' when one does not understand the physics at play. Well God knows 'em all including how He formed the moon after the earth as outlined in the bible, which you have verified with moon rock sampling. Therefore this is not theoretical this is observed data.

The bible is correct in relation to sciences unknown at the time, therefore the bible is inspired, the bible says God created the moon and did so after the creation of the earth, the bible writers were given insight to this before your researchers. This is as good a support for God creating the moon, as you can provide that suggest an impact created the moon, which has many difficulties.

Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore "God did it" just like AV says, and there is plenty of scientific support for that statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have WHAT you might interpret as evidence, but that can lead to phlogiston, wonder drugs and 7-man firecrackers.

We have EVIDENCE which we interpret.

I said that.

 

[cupid dave]

Scientists have.
They publish their findings in things called "peer reviewed articles". You should look into it.

Do you accept that the Big Bang essentially marks the 'beginning" as found in Gen 1:1,...



"in the beginning, God created the Heavens..."