Is god really beyond science's bounds?

[AV1611VET]

AV, I dare say nobody idolizes the Bible quite as much you.

-- Flattery will get you nowhere. --

The Bible is evidence of the Bible. And that is all.

That's good enough.

Is there anything other than the Bible that would lead you to believe humans are designed?

Zygotes, ff?

 

[JoeyArnold]

The Bible is so true that it's deadly.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is so true that it's deadly.

Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

The Bible is so true that it's deadly.

Only if a bookshelf full of Bibles fell on your head. Then maybe.

 

[Theofane]

They are bound to what they are programming with.

If I am not mistaken those closest to the computer language would be those programming in binary code, but that's very rare. C is another programming language that's close, but still all programming is restricted to what language you're using.

I've lost track of the point you're trying to make.

 

[Belk]

When's the last time you saw nothing accidentally create a masterpiece out of nothing through the variables time & chance?

The last snow fall. When was the last time you witnessed a universe being created?

 

[KhaosTheory]

The god that we often hear Christians describe is not an inactive god, but rather one that takes an active role in the individual lives of his followers. If that were true, shouldn't we be able to detect the effects of god's activity?

Nope, you can't detect Him because He doesn't want to reveal himself that way.

He wants you to have blind faith in Him instead.

He is very active but He makes it look like He doesn't exist so that he can test people's faith...

That was me trying to be an apologist. Can I have a cookie now?

 

[JoeyArnold]

When was the last time you witnessed a universe being created?

I wasn't around for the birth of the universe. Maybe it was aborted.

 

[Elendur]

I've lost track of the point you're trying to make.

My point was that programmers interacting with their programs will always be limited to what language they're using.

But I've forgotten why I wanted to make that point

 

[Elendur]

When's the last time you saw nothing accidentally create a masterpiece out of nothing through the variables time & chance?

What was the point you were trying to make with this post?

 

[Greg1234]

That's not exactly what I am talking about. What I am talking about are quantifiable, measureable, testable pieces of data.

Well i would need to know what aspect of God you're referring to. There is from the plainly seen all the way to the ineffable. The fact that mind is not reducible to matter is visible corroboration of the scope of the mind and the superiority of the biblical authors.

 

[Farinata]

The question was "what's the definition of scientifically substantiated". "Properly subjected to scientific rigor" isn't a reasonable response, all you've done is repeat the term to be defined.

And what do you mean by "neutral analysis"? That sounds like an excuse to reject the investigation based on argument ad hominem.

All I meant by these two statements is that before we can say anything authoritatively about miracles, they should be examined rigorously and by disinterested parties. For example eyewitness testimony, absent some other evidence, isn't especially credible. Claiming that an article of clothing, human remains, icon, etc... has some supernatural properties and not allowing analysis of the material (mass spectroscopy, chemical analysis, looking at it with an electron microscope, etc...) isn't especially credible. The Vatican can claim until they're blue in the face that there have been thousands of miracles around the world each year but they're not a neutral party so their claims need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. I mean, would you take at face value some disciple saying that his Hindu guru can go for months surviving on no food or water? There have been hundreds of these exact claims made in the past two decades yet, conveniently, none have been substantiated by a hospital of doctors that don't have a stake in the outcome. Such assertions can give an indication where we should look or where further examination might be warranted but they aren't definitive in and of themselves.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that you've actually examined the evidence in the manner required for you to make that claim.

Just as an example, take this paper:

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory ... [Am Heart J. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

I'm not saying this study and others like it have ruled out miracles entirely, they're not definitive proofs, but the ball is definitely in the other court. If you have some peer reviewed paper/evidence supporting miracles even indirectly, I'd love to see it. I'm completely open to the existence of miracles, ghosts, souls, demons, etc... but there hasn't been any empirical support brought forth for any of the aforementioned. So in the absence of good evidence, indeed with some limited evidence to the contrary, why believe in the existence of miracles? Why believe in a theistic God? If miracles don't exist then the theistic concept of God is plainly wrong.

 

[selfinflikted]

-- Flattery will get you nowhere. --

Can't fault a man for trying.

Zygotes, ff?

??

 

[selfinflikted]

Well i would need to know what aspect of God you're referring to.

Did you read the OP? It's in there.