How to study the supernatural?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He is quantified in other ways. He is not quantified by cereal boxes, or by Tesla manuals, or by road maps, or by airline schedules, or by ballerina or music teachers etc. Nor by natural only studies of any kind. Therefore any natural only based study cannot tell us about creation. (unless there is no supernatural or God, and since they do not know, they cannot, period)

There are plenty of tests for God. Untold billions of people over time know that He is the answer for everything. Now, within the framework and limits and boundaries of natural only science, there is no theory or knowledge of the Almighty creator. That is what we need to clarify.

Right. So they are excused from any creation debate that involves creation by God. All their models are just dreamed up what if there was no god scenarios using only the natural. It should be taken as such. (ignorant musings of the uninformed and uninformable basically as far as creation goes)

Why argue? Science does not know if there is a God or not. A supernatural or not. All models they produce have been and always will be based solely on the natural. Any claims about creation are literally ignorance based from them as a consequence. No need to repeat. You admit it. Game over.

It is game over for you, indeed. Science does not factor in God because there is no way to factor God into science. Simple as. Anything else involving God is religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is game over for you, indeed. Science does not factor in God because there is no way to factor God into science. Simple as. Anything else involving God is religion.

Sounds to me like you're saying science can take a hike.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sounds to me like you're saying science can take a hike.

Your commitment to seeing science having a well regimented fitness plan is testament to your generous spirit.

 

[River Jordan]

Sounds to me like you're saying science can take a hike.

No, I think Warden is recommending that people stop trying to get science to serve as an apologetics device to justify their belief in God, and getting angry at science and scientists when they don't do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your commitment to seeing science having a well regimented fitness plan is testament to your generous spirit.

I got a well regimented fitness plan for the side of science that contradicts the Bible alright:

A long walk on a short pier.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I got a well regimented fitness plan for the side of science that contradicts the Bible alright:

A long walk on a short pier.

And since you hold the Bible to your own singular standards, I imagine the list of that side is long and winding....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I think Warden is recommending that people stop trying to get science to serve as an apologetics device to justify their belief in God, and getting angry at science and scientists when they don't do that.

Pretty much, aye.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I think Warden is recommending that people stop trying to get science to serve as an apologetics device to justify their belief in God, and getting angry at science and scientists when they don't do that.

When it comes to mixing the two (science and the Bible), here's how I do it:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

These Boolean standards (or "heuristics," if you prefer) put science and the Bible into perspective.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When it comes to mixing the two (science and the Bible), here's how I do it:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

These Boolean standards (or "heuristics," if you prefer) put science and the Bible into perspective.

Oh they put things into perspective all right....

 

[AV1611VET]

And since you hold the Bible to your own singular standards,

Says someone who gives carte blanche to the scientific method?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Says someone who gives carte blanche to the scientific method?

But I don't give carte blance to the scientific method. The scientific method just works as a tool for science, no more no less.

 

[River Jordan]

When it comes to mixing the two (science and the Bible), here's how I do it:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

These Boolean standards (or "heuristics," if you prefer) put science and the Bible into perspective.

Then why don't you develop an alternative type of science that uses your method, put it into practice, and see what results you get?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why don't you develop an alternative type of science that uses your method,

Nope.

I'm talking about the same kind of science you are.

For instance, take Number Two:

2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x

Here's an example:

2. Bible says creation, Science says evolution = go with creation

See how that works?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope.

I'm talking about the same kind of science you are.

For instance, take Number Two:

2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x

Here's an example:

2. Bible says creation, Science says evolution = go with creation

See how that works?

That's called having a bias.

 

[River Jordan]

Nope.

I'm talking about the same kind of science you are.

For instance, take Number Two:

2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x

Here's an example:

2. Bible says creation, Science says evolution = go with creation

See how that works?

So let's take your example of evolution and creation. If you think going with creation is a superior means of doing science, why aren't you doing anything to demonstrate that? Go do some science centered around creation instead of evolution and let's see what results you get.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's called having a bias.

He's a cafeteria Christian and a cafeteria science guy.

He knows what he likes and everything else can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's called having a bias.

It's called reconciling the Bible with science.

 

[AV1611VET]

So let's take your example of evolution and creation.

Okay.

If you think going with creation is a superior means of doing science,

Science can take a hike.

A long one on a short pier.

The creation week was a series of one MIRACLE after another, with no science involved at all.

Go do some science centered around creation instead of evolution and let's see what results you get.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's called reconciling the Bible with science.

It's not. Not by any definition of the word is it reconciliation.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's a cafeteria Christian and a cafeteria science guy.

He knows what he likes and everything else can take a hike.

And boy do I eat good!