fireof god98
Member
- Jul 24, 2013
- 674
- 34
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
Upvote
0
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 said science commits suicide when it delves into non-natural means.
Can you give an example of science attempting to delve into non-natural means and committing suicide?
science can solve things in the natural world and events using the scientific method but as i said before it falls apart when it goes into philosophy. philosophy seeks after ultimate and final causes. i love science. scientism though is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge which is not logical
And I ask again, give me a real life example of science claiming to attempt to prove or disprove God.
It's all in perception, perhaps. I've often heard and read religious people use Charles Darwin's TOE, as science's way of disproving Genesis, and thus disproving the Abrahamic faiths, in general. Taking it further, then someone could be led to disbelieve in a god, entirely. It doesn't mean that is at all what Darwin was attempting, but, that is how it's perceived.
Just naming one example.
In accepting claims that can not be verified through objective verifiable means, would require; assumptions and faith and less reason, or a more liberal definition of reason to make the word fit.
I have no issues what so ever with someone claiming they believe on faith and they recognize and admit, their personal belief can not be verified through objective evidence that points directly to their desired belief. In fact, these are the believers that IMO, are most secure in their faith, vs the one's who are constantly battling to show they have objective means to believe what they do.
If that is the case then scientists are men and women of faith; for science is permeated with and dependent upon assumptions that are neither empirically verifiable or subject to verification via scientific methods.
The task of the Christian apologist is not to simply make empty assertions when demonstrating the intellectual capaciousness of the Christian paradigm. Nor is it our task to simply tell people to believe as it were, by faith for example, that Jesus actually was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was raised on the third day in accordance with scripture.
Rather, our job is to engage the skeptic on their own terms, on their own court, using methods they use, and appealing to evidence, arguments, and reason that are objective in the sense that their validity is not grounded in the beliefs of the apologist, but rather in their correspondence to the way things really obtain in the actual world.
We readily admit without embarrassment that the central tenets of Christianity cannot be established as true with certainty in the same way that we can show that "the whole is greater than the part".
But by this, you should not be troubled; for many of the beliefs we hold to be true cannot be established with logically rigorous proofs either.
What we do is we convince, we persuade, we demonstrate to skeptics and to those who already believe, that the central tenets of Christianity and the paradigm in toto, are/is grounded upon an evidential basis.
I expect no one to believe in something for which there is no evidence. I do not do that, nor do I expect others to do so.
No widely accepted scientific theory was ever a result of mere assumptions. We might be getting somewhere here. Seems to me this is where the disconnect is coming in? If you believe a falsehood about science to begin with, and defend your faith from that angle, it's no wonder we're having this conversation. lol
Here is the difference though, it would appear, the poster is inferring, that science attempts to do work, that is specifically designed to disprove God. Darwin's work, was motivated to follow the evidence and has been refined to what new evidence has come along. At the end of the day, the evidence is the evidence and if it happens to go against a literal interpretation of the bible, are people supposed to throw the evidence out and claim science was only trying to disprove God, instead of making discoveries about the realities of how life evolved?
IMO, the motivation here, is to attempt to bring science down to the same level as religious beliefs that are based on faith, in order to give more credibility to the faith beliefs.
Seen it attempted many times and I am sure we will see it many more times.
Do some scientists engaged in their research have as a motivation, the attempt to disprove the existence of God?
I do not think it would be hasty to claim that at all. We only need mention instances where scientists have deliberately fixed or fudged their data to present false conclusions that have in some measure, adverse implications for theology. Here Einsteins use of the expansionist variable in his equations comes to mind. For Einstein and his contemporaries such as Arthur Eddington and Fred Hoyle, the idea that the universe had a beginning was repugnant to them for it carried grave theological implications.
Hawking devotes much ink and paper to arguing why, in light of the findings of contemporary cosmology and astrophysics, the need to posit God as creator of the universe is simply unnecessary. So it would be true to say that at least in some instances and I would be willing to wager far more than we are aware, scientists do indeed engage in their work with one of their motivations being to reinforce their own atheistic presuppositions.
Neo-Darwinism has been coming under fire recently, not from Christians or creationists alone, but from atheistic evolutionary biologists themselves. So before one can say that the TOE disproves anything, we must first acknowledge that the TOE is a provisional theory that while so far has been shown to be the best naturalistic theory for the existence of life, it is continually being revised.
Secondly, for the one who understands both that Genesis is not a science textbook and that the first several chapters of Genesis makes use of figurative language to convey deeper theological truths, then even if the TOE is shown to be true, such a one will have no trouble reconciling the two.
Can you give me an example of scientific theories that are formed from:
Assumptions, that are not verifiable with empirical evidence or subject to verification through the scientific method?
No widely accepted scientific theory was ever a result of mere assumptions.
I did not say scientific theories were permeated with and dependent upon assumptions that are neither empirically verifiable or subject to verification via scientific methods, although many are, but rather that science itself is permeated with and dependent upon assumptions that are neither empirically verifiable or subject to verification via scientific methods.
Wait, you say you did not say that scientific theories were permeated with and dependent upon assumptions that are neither empirically verifiable or subject to verification via scientific methods. But then you go on to say; although many are.
Confused here, as you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.
And by the way, what do you think happens to assumptions in science that are not supported by empirical evidence or the scientific method?
By the way, do you agree with established scientific theories such as:
-Germ theory
-gravitational theory
-the theory of evolution
If so, why, if not, why not?
IMO, the motivation here, is to attempt to bring science down to the same level as religious beliefs that are based on faith, in order to give more credibility to the faith beliefs.
Seen it attempted many times and I am sure we will see it many more times.
Wait, you say you did not say that scientific theories were permeated with and dependent upon assumptions that are neither empirically verifiable or subject to verification via scientific methods.
But then you go on to say; although many are.
Confused here, as you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.
And by the way, what do you think happens to assumptions in science that are not supported by empirical evidence or the scientific method?
my motivation is to dispel the notion that scientists are these cold, hard-nosed, objective, unbiased, dispassionate, detached information processing machines that do not have beliefs of their own which cannot be verified or falsified.
it is my intention not to bring science down, but to argue that scientists are men and women just like you and I who have beliefs of their own and who are more than capable of bias, and interpreting data in light of their preconceived notions.
in the same way I would argue that theologians are not automatically right in what they say just because they are theologians, I argue that scientists are not automatically right in what they say just because they are scientists.
We must look to what one says, not who they are.
My motivation is to show that these men and women who you think live without exercising faith are the same ones who have to do just that in order to even be scientists.
Here faith is used in the sense of trusting that which cannot be proven.
I didn't in the post you responded to which was why I stated what I did.
Correct.
No I did not.
You mean what happens to the ones I listed?
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?