How can science "explain" miracles?

[Greg1234]

Are you saying that Jesus was suggesting people that are sick go see a doctor?

It's not the cast that heals the hand. In some cases, it can even be bypassed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Then show me what he has accomplished other than to promote the atheistic agenda.

You know, of all the stuff I've seen of Hawking I didn't even realize he was an atheist. I still don't know that for sure. Which means if he was "promoting the atheistic agenda" he was doing a pretty poor job of it. I've seen a lot of discussion about cosmology and astrophysics associated with Hawking but read almost nothing about his views on God.

Well, as an atheist, I want my scientists to come out and REALLY PROMOTE the atheistic agenda. I want them to wave the atheist flag (well in Hawkings case have a flag waving machine made that can be controlled by subtle eye movements).

I'd say Hawking has, to his credit, has done groundbreaking work with relation to singularities and black holes as well as general relativity. I just never caught his obviously extensive work (in Jazer's opinion) in the field of atheism.

He ain't no Richard Dawkins, that's for sure.

If science is so wonderful why is he still sick.

Because science never once claimed to know everything or be able to solve everything. Only religion makes such claims.

Can you show me the preponderance of ALS "cures" among Christians vs atheists?

Why has science not cured whatever disease it is he has?

Remember, science had a lot of "rearguard actions" to fight all along the way. We might be further with science but various religions have done a lot of hamper the advancement. Of course to its credit the Catholic Church did, after 400 years and several manned flights to the moon and into space, apologize to Gallileo.

 

[Huram Abi]

Imagine I'm driving to the grocery store, and I see a man walking beside the road.

I arrive at my destination, do my shopping, and on my way back to my car, I see he same man walk across the parking lot and into a shop.

Suppose I said to myself, "I know where that man was fifteen minutes ago, and I saw him walk down the block. I saw him walk across the parking lot just now. I know there is a route traversable by foot between where I saw him last and the parking lot, and I have seen people walking various portions of it."

And I concluded, "I did not watch the man walk all the way from where I saw him last to the parking lot, so the only reasonable conclusion is that while obviously he can cover short segments of the journey by foot, it is impossible for him to have walked the whole way."

It would be a bit like inventing the distinction "macroevolution."

Your analogy includes a single observer in a time machine. Essentially you are saying that macroevolution was invented through time travel.

 

[Jazer]

I've seen a lot of discussion about cosmology and astrophysics associated with Hawking but read almost nothing about his views on God.

You can not discern from his astrophysic view what His view on God is? There is no reason to go into it. The test of time is already tearing apart his beliefs. He has already had to admit that he was wrong. "Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking on Wednesday put forward a radically-revised version of his theory on the nature of black holes, which formed where stars collapse." Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes - Health - CBC News

 

[The Paul]

I think religion should bring you comfort....not make you feel you are a god yourself with perfected knowledge of future events.

But some people can't make the distinction.

Only some?

As you pointed out, people paint their own ideas onto a blank space they call "God."

For all the talk about admitting something greater than yourself and submission to and acceptance of God's will, it seems to me like most believers are actually just elevating their own beliefs and biases (or tose imposed on them by their culture or peer group) to divine status.

 

[The Paul]

Your analogy includes a single observer in a time machine. Essentially you are saying that macroevolution was invented through time travel.

I suppose it would seem that way if you've convinced yourself these things are unknowable and untestable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only some?

As you pointed out, people paint their own ideas onto a blank space they call "God."

For all the talk about admitting something greater than yourself and submission to and acceptance of God's will, it seems to me like most believers are actually just elevating their own beliefs and biases (or tose imposed on them by their culture or peer group) to divine status.

Alright with you if some of us try to live according to the Bible -- or are we all just on autopilot?

 

[The Paul]

Alright with you if some of us try to live according to the Bible?

No, I'd be quite upset.

But that's okay. None of you will.

 

[Huram Abi]

I suppose it would seem that way if you've convinced yourself these things are unknowable and untestable.

No. It IS that way, by the way you've set the analogy up.

Don't blame me for your false analogy.

 

[The Paul]

No. It IS that way, by the way you've set the analogy up.

Don't blame me for your false analogy.

We've watched single celled organisms become multicellular organisms, we've seen new genes appear and bring with them new, unprecedented enzyme functions. We've can pair of every inch of our DNA with that of a chimp. We can see the same bones that compose our hands stretched out to form the wings of bats or the flippers of whales or compressed into hooves. We've long since learned not to bother consciously designing an enzyme for protein engineering, because it's easier to toss a bacterial strain into an environment that selects for the trait we want and wait a couple months.

We've seen that man walking 15 blocks away, we saw him in the parking lot, we know an easily traversable foot path between the locations, and we've seen other people walking various segments of it.

So no, the analogy isn't to a time machine. But I can see how it would look like an analogy to a time machine to someone with a defeatist attitude towards our ability to understand the world and an ignorance of what we've already learned.

 

[Lillen]

Kom låt oss höja glädjerop/Det flödar glädje - Livets Ord - YouTube

 

[Huram Abi]

We've watched single celled organisms become multicellular organisms, we've seen new genes appear and bring with them new, unprecedented enzyme functions. We've can pair of every inch of our DNA with that of a chimp. We can see the same bones that compose our hands stretched out to form the wings of bats or the flippers of whales or compressed into hooves. We've long since learned not to bother consciously designing an enzyme for protein engineering, because it's easier to toss a bacterial strain into an environment that selects for the trait we want and wait a couple months.

We've seen that man walking 15 blocks away, we saw him in the parking lot, we know an easily traversable foot path between the locations, and we've seen other people walking various segments of it.

So no, the analogy isn't to a time machine. But I can see how it would look like an analogy to a time machine to someone with a defeatist attitude towards our ability to understand the world and an ignorance of what we've already learned.

I fully accept both micro and macro evolution.

I have no defeatest attitude. I just recognize a bad analogy when I see one.

 

[The Paul]

I fully accept both micro and macro evolution.

I have no defeatest attitude. I just recognize a bad analogy when I see one.

So you've got a good attitude about our ability to learn things, you just figure its impossible to learn about past events without a time machine, yeah?

 

[thaumaturgy]

You can not discern from his astrophysic view what His view on God is?

Ahhh, so you note that he discusses astrophysics first. I'm not saying he is or isn't, I've heard him talk in generalities about "god" or an impersonal god, but the claim that he did little more than push an atheist agenda is so patently absurd as to be laughable.

Again, if you want to pick out a scientist who is an open cheerleader for atheism, you could do a lot better.

There is no reason to go into it.

There never is, is there?

The test of time is already tearing apart his beliefs.

There's a difference between religious beliefs and scientific hypothesis, especially in the ream of theoretical physics.

And how do these relate again? MUST there be a personal Judeo-Christian God to "explain" cosmology? Seems to me the "Church" did a pretty abysmal job when they were in charge of that stuff (cf Gallileo's trial).

He has already had to admit that he was wrong. "Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking on Wednesday put forward a radically-revised version of his theory on the nature of black holes, which formed where stars collapse." Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes - Health - CBC News

Again, I am not discussing his physics here, but rather the claim that he pushed some atheist agenda.

Unless, of course, you think that all scientists push an atheist agenda because we don't insert God into every experiment. (And I say that knowing that many, many, many of my colleagues are practicing Christians and they are research scientists!)

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I'm asking you if that's what you get from that verse?

Are you going to answer it, or are you going to hide behind a series of question marks?

I'd like to know if, according to that verse, any of you ... scientists understand why the Pope would go to a doctor.

You always throw a hissy fit whenever someone misinterprets what you say, so I figured I'd ask.

So if that Bible verse means "go to the doctor if you're sick", then I stand by my post.

ETA: Oh, my -- oh dear my -- I just looked at your profile LHM:
Unbelievable.

(Actually, I do believe it, because I don't think you Internet scientists are half as knowledgeable as you want us to think you are.)

What does this mean? You don't think my credentials are worthy? Or you think I'm lying?

You're being quite a jerk in this thread, and I don't understand why.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Alright with you if some of us try to live according to the Bible -- or are we all just on autopilot?

I don't think anyone would say you are on "autopilot", AV. Seems to me you are busy working to take controls of the airplane a great deal of the time.

 

[Huram Abi]

So you've got a good attitude about our ability to learn things, you just figure its impossible to learn about past events without a time machine, yeah?

No.

I figure it is impossible for a single observer to track macroevolution in real time as your analogy indicates without a time machine.

 

[The Paul]

No.

I figure it is impossible for a single observer to track macroevolution in real time as your analogy indicates without a time machine.

Ah, so then you mistook "me" in the analogy for a single person.

Even having made that mistake, you should have been able to realize it when I explained the analogy for you.

 

[Huram Abi]

Your mistake, not mine.

 

[The Paul]

Your mistake, not mine.

So you're claim is now that be using words like "I" instead of "the state of science" I made a mistake in my analogy...

...that really doesn't support your earlier claim that you know a bad analogy when you see one. Or an analogy when you see one, for that matter.