Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.A4C said:The easiest solution is often the one avoided
I have no difficulty in speaking to the weather. I don't think Jesus had either:æ: said:You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.
I have to wonder how explanations that require the invocation of miraculous intervention by beings of unlimited power and inscrutible motives can be conherently described as "easier." The sheer ignorance behind such a characterization is, frankly, baffling.
:æ:
Not to mention that fact that the "Goddidit" conclusion is actually a conclusion devoid of an answer. Science seeks to see how things happened. Saying "Goddidit", doesn't tell us anything about how things were done. It only offers who did it.:æ: said:You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.
I have to wonder how explanations that require the invocation of miraculous intervention by beings of unlimited power and inscrutible motives can be conherently described as "easier." The sheer ignorance behind such a characterization is, frankly, baffling.
:æ:
well, not specifically... it will tell us how something occurred (a force of attraction between bodies with mass drew the ball to the floor), and if oyu choose to believe that god did it, that is fine... gravity would then explain the method that he usedA4C said:Science should never tell us how God never did it though.
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:Yes (in response to the above question). If there is empirical evidence of what (if anything) created the universe then the evidence can be studied scientifically to postulate a scientific theory about it.
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:The danger comes when we try to explain natural phenomena by positing a supernatural cause.
Science seeks natural explanations because natural explanations are supported by empirical evidence.
what has been reinterpreted about Christianity? you must not understand it.AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:Eventually science can no longer be denied and religion is reinterpreted in light of scientific knowledge.
why does that follow the argument? I don't say God only deals with the supernatural, He deals with the supernatural and He created the natural.Beastt said:Following this argument we could say that God only deals with the supernatural world, not the natural world....
if you look at a house you KNOW that it was created by man. you don't even study it just to make sure, you just know. I'd say the beauty of the world, the evenly balanced laws of physics, and the complexity of life is a pretty big fingerprint. What kind of a fingerprint are u looking for? answer me that!Beastt said:Science has never yet found this fingerprint...
that's my point, u can't prove the supernatural because the only evidence you'll accept is the natural.Beastt said:Scientific discovery of the supernatural world isn't possible without establishing the existence of a supernatural world. We can't study something if we can't prove it, or evidence of it, exists.
the above is simply not true. evolution was around long before there was any "proof" for it, and scientists apply what they find to the theory. it's always the latest discoveries that are proof of evolution. but now we're getting off topic, i'll leave it at that.Beastt said:Creation scientists use your example, wherein a possible explanation is arrived at, (usually through the Bible), and then they seek a way to explain it in scientific terms. This isn't true science. Science allows the observation to bring the scientist to the explanation, even if it isn't where the scientist expected or wanted the explanation to be found.
again, you are assuming that God could not create the natural, my question was, "if He did, could science come to that conclusion?" you are fitting the evidence with a preconceived idea that God didn't do it.Beastt said:If supernatural and natural are continually and always separate, then science will find no evidence of God because God, being supernatural, could not have created or affected the natural.
wise words from an atheist. i applause your reason and logic. God is a possibility, but we can't prove it because He is supernaturalImmortalTechnique said:it (science) will tell us how something occurred (a force of attraction between bodies with mass drew the ball to the floor), and if oyu choose to believe that god did it, that is fine... gravity would then explain the method that he used
I never stated that science cant conclude Goddidit. If your god does exist then he/she is apparently capable of interfering with the natural universe (killing people, wrestling people, etc.). So he/she (if he/she) exists is perfectly capable of performing miracles for science to observe and test. If every natural possibility is scientifically ruled out then one would have to postulate a supernatural cause. It would be constantly tested and reevaluated in light of new scientific knowledge just like every other scientific theory. If your god exists then we could possibly be given a bunch of physics to test. If your god is all powerful then why couldnt he/she line up a bunch of stars to spell out GODDIDITALL! ?philadiddle said:then 'AnEmpircalAgnostic' spends the rest of his post explaining why science can't conclude Goddidit, which to me sounds like a contradiction;
Stuff like the geocentric universe, literal 6 day creation, global flood (unless you actually still believe in that stuff still).philadiddle said:what has been reinterpreted about Christianity? you must not understand it.
I think this is where your difficulty lies. Evidence, by definition, is empirical and empirical, by definition, is naturalistic. If the "supernatural" does not require interaction of matter and energy, and if it supercedes causation, then it seems unlikely, at best, that there can be evidence of one supernatural entity to the exclusion of all others.philadiddle said:that's my point, u can't prove the supernatural because the only evidence you'll accept is the natural.
philadiddle said:Is science set up so that if God did create the universe science could arrive at that conclusion? I'm not distinguishing old/new earth. It just seems that science only deals with the natural world, and doesn't involve the supernatural. So, if in fact the supernatural is involved it will never be scientific. Scientists will always seek a different explanation. It's like explaining how a car was made, but only talking about the car. You can't explain a car's creation without talking about the designer who planned it out and the factory it was made in.
Just a late night thought.
John16:2 said:Science VALIDATES the Bible repeatedly. Pole reversals or axis shifts are described in Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1. Black holes are described in Isaiah 34:4, Job 38:37-38, Rev 6:14 & possibly 2 Peter 3:10-13. 2 Kings KJV or 4 Kings other versions speaks of making water drinkable by salting it, & now dentists advise rinsing with salty water after extractions to kill bacteria.
John16:2 said:The Bible throughout predicts the effects of a major meteoric & impact event accurately, as science now proves. Revelations predicted "red tide" killing the seas, and now it's happening, according to the UN Environmental Program report of 150 GROWING dead zones...earthchangestv.com.
John16:2 said:The Bible is also validated by the fulfilled predictions of the history of Jerusalem. Zechariah & David predicted the crucifixion before Rome was crucifying.
John16:2 said:Calling the Bible a fairy tale is ignorance. Even modern physicists validate the Bible by speaking of extra dimensions & time travel...mkaku.org...Google "time warps" for physicist views on the possibilities. Daniel 5:5, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, etc. Even UFOs are confirmed, as the Bible says; ufoevidence.org/NASA STS48 film, for most credible example.
John16:2 said:I will hound the enemies of God that infest this Christian site about all this.
What is really amazing about all this is that, despite the accuracy and profundity we are constantly assured the Bible contains, it took a decidely secular methodology to discover the aforementioned facts.John16:2 said:Science VALIDATES the Bible repeatedly. Pole reversals or axis shifts are described in Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1. Black holes are described in Isaiah 34:4, Job 38:37-38, Rev 6:14 & possibly 2 Peter 3:10-13. 2 Kings KJV or 4 Kings other versions speaks of making water drinkable by salting it, & now dentists advise rinsing with salty water after extractions to kill bacteria.
The Bible throughout predicts the effects of a major meteoric & impact event accurately, as science now proves. Revelations predicted "red tide" killing the seas, and now it's happening, according to the UN Environmental Program report of 150 GROWING dead zones...earthchangestv.com.
The Bible is also validated by the fulfilled predictions of the history of Jerusalem. Zechariah & David predicted the crucifixion before Rome was crucifying.
Calling the Bible a fairy tale is ignorance. Even modern physicists validate the Bible by speaking of extra dimensions & time travel...mkaku.org...Google "time warps" for physicist views on the possibilities. Daniel 5:5, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, etc. Even UFOs are confirmed, as the Bible says; ufoevidence.org/NASA STS48 film, for most credible example.
Go for it. I assure you your bluff will be called loudly and often.I will hound the enemies of God that infest this Christian site about all this.
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:I never stated that science cant conclude Goddidit.
But God will never be a scientific explanation, because He is not part of the natural world. The above quote, of you saying the supernatural could be an explanation, is false.AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:If every natural possibility is scientifically ruled out then one would have to postulate a supernatural cause. It would be constantly tested and reevaluated in light of new scientific knowledge just like every other scientific theory.
what physics apply to the supernatural? i'm not sure what your point is here. And God did spell out that He created everything, read Genesis (the Bible, page 1).AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:If your god exists then we could possibly be given a bunch of physics to test. If your god is all powerful then why couldnt he/she line up a bunch of stars to spell out GODDIDITALL! ?
reinterpretted? you don't know what the Bible is about do you? the Bible is about God's plan to send His one and only Son, Jesus, to die for your sins so that u don't have to. Genesis is a poem (hymn) about culture at that time. it explains that God created everything, unlike every other religion around that believed in many gods creating different things. Genesis is just an insight into what God has done, it's not the meat and potatoes of scripture. Being in a personal relationship with Jesus is the point of the Bible's existence.AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:Stuff like the geocentric universe, literal 6 day creation, global flood (unless you actually still believe in that stuff still).
just so you know Teddy, John 16:2 doesn't share the accepted interpretation of the Bible, he mixes some good points with some bad ones, i'm not gonna get into it with him in this post, there are other threads for that.TeddyKGB said:What is really amazing about all this is that, despite the accuracy and profundity we are constantly assured the Bible contains, it took a decidely secular methodology to discover the aforementioned facts.
makes me feel better about my religion? on the contrary, it makes u feel better about not believing my religion, to think that it's being reinterpretted. read the last paragraph of the last post i made for more on that.TeddyKGB said:Reinterpreting Scripture consistent with modern scientific understanding might make you feel better about your religion, but it makes for a rather pathetic argument.
nitesco said:we only know it came into existance 4.5 bya.
This is a classic double-standard. If the universe had to have been created, then so did your God. If God could have just existed forever, without any beginning, then so could the universe.Theophilus01 said:actually, the earth is about 4.5 bya. the universe is about 14 bya. however, that is assuming that this universe isn't the product of another universe collapsing into itself and then reexpanding into our universe. that puts the origin of the universe into the unknown. however, the fact remains that something had to start the first universe so that it could expand, collapse into itself, reexpand, recollapse, etc...
science is all cause and effect. God cannot be explained by science because God is "The Uncaused Cause." this is what faith is all about. instead of trying to prove His existance, live your lives to His law so that when you die and go to heaven, you can ask Him, then spend eternity with Him. thank you and God bless you all.
no it's notBeastt said:This is a classic double-standard.
no, just because the universe had to have been created doesn't mean that God had to have been created. the universe is the natural, and God is supernatural, what applies to one doesn't apply to the other.Beastt said:If the universe had to have been created, then so did your God.
it's possible the universe existed forever, but i believe it was created. i also believe time was created. if there is no time (previous to the creation of time) then God wouldn't need a "beginning".Beastt said:If God could have just existed forever, without any beginning, then so could the universe.
we exclude God from these conditions for the reasons mentioned previously. He is supernatural and the universe is natural. Are u seriously saying that what applies to one applies to the other? it's not a weak argument. You are the first i've ever heard say that.Beastt said:Christians often want to exclude God from the same requirements they place on the universe but this is always done without explanation as to why God is excluded from the requirements of the universe or why the universe is included with requirements not applicable to God. It's a weak argument. If you can claim it for God, then it can also be claimed for the universe.
TeddyKGB said:What is really amazing about all this is that, despite the accuracy and profundity we are constantly assured the Bible contains, it took a decidely secular methodology to discover the aforementioned facts.
Reinterpreting Scripture consistent with modern scientific understanding might make you feel better about your religion, but it makes for a rather pathetic argument.
Go for it. I assure you your bluff will be called loudly and often.
it's poor debate to assume that the majority of silent readers will agree with you. Read the verse in context. It is talking about the power of the lord. What point would it serve to talk about black holes in this passage?John16:2 said:That's a poor debate, an attack without basis. Isaiah 34:4 is very clearly about something in the sky pulling in the host (many planets, stars, moons) of the heavens. Gravity is referred to, and it's undeniably about Black holes. You'll ignore it, but the silent majority of readers will see.
If the natural was created by God, then certainly God has affected that which science is equipped to study. Once the supernatural affects the natural, that affect leaves natural evidence to be followed. That's what science is designed to do. So the only way to maintain that science is not designed in such a way that it would be able to detect the work of God is if one also maintains that God has never affected what we call the "natural world", which science is designed to study.philadiddle said:why does that follow the argument? I don't say God only deals with the supernatural, He deals with the supernatural and He created the natural.Beastt said:Following this argument we could say that God only deals with the supernatural world, not the natural world....
Had you never seen a house before, you might not know that it was created by man. It would be a good assumption, but not a scientifically valid conclusion. It is only after you become aware that houses are made by men, through observation, that you may use the evidence born of that observation to assume that other houses as well, are made by men.philadiddle said:if you look at a house you KNOW that it was created by man. you don't even study it just to make sure, you just know. I'd say the beauty of the world, the evenly balanced laws of physics, and the complexity of life is a pretty big fingerprint. What kind of a fingerprint are u looking for? answer me that!Beastt said:Science has never yet found this fingerprint...
Why would I want to prove the supernatural if there is no evidence of the supernatural?philadiddle said:that's my point, u can't prove the supernatural because the only evidence you'll accept is the natural.Beastt said:Scientific discovery of the supernatural world isn't possible without establishing the existence of a supernatural world. We can't study something if we can't prove it, or evidence of it, exists.
It would appear that your familiarity with the history of evolution is somewhat lacking. It was indeed founded on observation. And as far as proof goes, science doesn't function on the concept of proof. It works based on significant degrees of evidence, gathered through observation, which lead to and support a conclusion, while no credible evidence denying that conclusion is known.philadiddle said:the above is simply not true. evolution was around long before there was any "proof" for it, and scientists apply what they find to the theory. it's always the latest discoveries that are proof of evolution. but now we're getting off topic, i'll leave it at that.Beastt said:Creation scientists use your example, wherein a possible explanation is arrived at, (usually through the Bible), and then they seek a way to explain it in scientific terms. This isn't true science. Science allows the observation to bring the scientist to the explanation, even if it isn't where the scientist expected or wanted the explanation to be found.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that once God has affected the natural, he ceases to be exclusively supernatural and becomes a part of the natural. That which is confined to the supernatural cannot affect the natural. That which affects the natural must, through that affect, leave natural evidence which is what science is designed to examine and explain.philadiddle said:again, you are assuming that God could not create the natural, my question was, "if He did, could science come to that conclusion?" you are fitting the evidence with a preconceived idea that God didn't do it.Beastt said:If supernatural and natural are continually and always separate, then science will find no evidence of God because God, being supernatural, could not have created or affected the natural.
philadiddle said:Is science set up so that if God did create the universe science could arrive at that conclusion? I'm not distinguishing old/new earth. It just seems that science only deals with the natural world, and doesn't involve the supernatural. So, if in fact the supernatural is involved it will never be scientific. Scientists will always seek a different explanation. It's like explaining how a car was made, but only talking about the car. You can't explain a car's creation without talking about the designer who planned it out and the factory it was made in.
Just a late night thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?