Method for accepting science

[Elendur]

Evolution is a Scientific Theory that specifically excludes any possibility of Spiritual or Supernatural Influence.

That would be both "anti-God" and "anti-religion". If you exclude something, you are "Anti".


Most telling is that Darwin, of all people, should have written at least one sentence to support Theistic Evolution. But he did not. So he was "Anti" as well.

Excluding the possibility is anti, science doesn't exclude the possibility however.
It's agnostic. It just doesn't care, if something spiritual or supernatural would gain evidence it would be included.

 

[Jazer]

The above was mostly plagiarized from the late great Christopher Hitchens.

I think I see why he decided to reject the Bible: "Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse." That is pretty much the choice we have. Either live life in the flesh or live your life in the spirit.

Gal 6 8 NLT Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


Sorry, this thread is being closed for review and clean up. It has strayed from the OP.

Folks, this IS a Christian site. It is not okay to promote a disbelief in Christianity.

 

[Angeldove97]

This thread has gone through an extensive thread clean up to get it back on track with the opening topic and to delete any rule violations.

A reminder... this is a CHRISTIAN site and while we respect the viewpoints of our Non-Christian members, we ask that you do not use this site to promote the idea that Christianity is wrong and that science trumps faith. That's not the purpose of this forum~ if you feel the need to share that viewpoint at a forum, feel free to find a DIFFERENT forum than Christian Forums to post at.

Blasphemy
You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.

And...
● Do not promote or proselytize religious beliefs or religions (including Satanism or Occultism) other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith.

**Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

Future posts that violate any of CF's Rules should be reported to Staff and we'll contact the member about it.

This thread will now be re-opened-- thanks for your patience
​

 

[RickG]

Evolution is a Scientific Theory that specifically excludes any possibility of Spiritual or Supernatural Influence.

That would be both "anti-God" and "anti-religion". If you exclude something, you are "Anti".


Most telling is that Darwin, of all people, should have written at least one sentence to support Theistic Evolution. But he did not. So he was "Anti" as well.

I'm not sure whether you are asserting a parody or being serious. Surely its the former.

 

[Michael]

I think it's generally a case of treating acceptance of a theory in a binary fashion rather than putting it on a continuum. The big thing I keep noticing with conspiracy theorists is that they have this idea that they must either accept something as true, or reject it as false. Scientists (or science minded people if you prefer) can maintain degrees of certainty. When looking at the mass extinction of the dinosaurs for example, I have a theory I accept as likely (meteor impact), theories that seem plausable (volcanism, methane extrusion) but require more study, theories that don't seem to explain it adequately at present but could be better supported with more research (sea level changes, formation of a super continent) and theories that do not currently fit with observation (flood)

Even things like the standard model of particle physics (which enjoys much broader theoretical consensus than so called "entrenched" theories like evolution or climate change) have credible possible alternate theories waiting in the wings if the Higgs Boson isn't found at required energies. When things appear to contradict the model, they are reported dutifully (see faster than light neutrinos) though people remain skeptical until it can be confirmed or explained.

Those are all good points IMO, particularly the point about it not being a binary judgement process. FYI, even those of us who reject some specific scientific theory (in my case Lambda-CDM) simply tend to PREFER an alternative scientific theory over the mainstream option. For instance, my preference for Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory over Lamba-CMD cosmology theory is motivated by a preference for empirical physics, not a rejection of Lambda-CDM for the sake of rejection. It's simply a recognition (or belief is you prefer) that there is a "better" scientific option to choose from. Neither cosmology theory rises to the level of "beyond question", or falls to the level of "zero interest", it's just that one theory holds up better to empirical scrutiny than the other IMO.

 

[Michael]

Your quoted article contradicts your claim of there being "none that actually support it", and explains why the idea of 'dark matter' was first proposed.

The problem is that new revelations make that "need" for "dark matter" rather suspect. It turns out that our MODELS are simply wrong. Worse yet, the "predictions' of their model FAILED! That failed prediction would be a death blow to anything OTHER THAN a cosmology theory.

If so, then they adjust their theories and hypothesis as required.

They haven't budged a single percentage point in 20 years.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is of little value.

That's why inflation is of no value. Ditto for dark energy. Dark matter concepts could be falsified and some already have been falsified including some simplified versions of SUSY theory.

But what about the "experts" on the topic of God that study the topic scientifically?

What about them?

That does not address my question: How would one begin an attempt to reach a scientific consensus on "God"? I would have you propose a testable definition of "God".

I provided a "testable" and entirely 'empirical' theory of God:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Compared to those dead inflation genies in the sky, you have nothing to complain about in terms of it's "testability".

 

[Michael]

There are scientific observations that support the dark matter explanation.

No. There are observations that support a 'missing mass' explanation. None of it supports an "exotic/dark matter" explanation.

You may find that they support alternative explanations. What scientific observations are there for 'God'?

I already listed several of them for you in the Empirical theory of God thread.

What about the "experts" on the topic of God that study the topic scientifically? Do they all claim that this "God" exists?

Do all scientists claim that inflation exists?

How would one begin an attempt to reach a scientific consensus on "God"?

Well, for starters, Jesus is currently revered by over half of the planet as a great teacher on the topic of God. I'd personally suggest that we start with his teachings.

 

[Davian]

The problem is that new revelations make that "need" for "dark matter" rather suspect. It turns out that our MODELS are simply wrong. Worse yet, the "predictions' of their model FAILED! That failed prediction would be a death blow to anything OTHER THAN a cosmology theory.

I have only seen your assertions of that.

They haven't budged a single percentage point in 20 years.

That is not an indicator of accuracy.

That's why inflation is of no value. Ditto for dark energy. Dark matter concepts could be falsified and some already have been falsified including some simplified versions of SUSY theory.

Where are the observations that falsify the inflation model?

What about them?

Are there any "experts" that study "God" scientifically?

I provided a "testable" and entirely 'empirical' theory of God:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Compared to those dead inflation genies in the sky, you have nothing to complain about in terms of it's "testability".

I saw that, but it appeared to be missing how your theory would be falsified. Could you point that out? And even so, other that labeling it 'God', how would you demonstrate that it had anything to do with the Christian deity?

 

[Davian]

No. There are observations that support a 'missing mass' explanation. None of it supports an "exotic/dark matter" explanation.

'Missing mass' it is then.

I already listed several of them for you in the Empirical theory of God thread.

Observations can support other, more parsimonious explanations.

Do all scientists claim that inflation exists?

This is not an indicator of the validity of a theory.

Well, for starters, Jesus is currently revered by over half of the planet as a great teacher on the topic of God. I'd personally suggest that we start with his teachings.

No, I said scientific consensus. Something testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable. What is your 'God hypothesis'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

Good question!

For me, I accept or reject this or that scientific theory, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The God I know, is One Who can -- and has -- suspended the laws of nature to do His will.

When science builds a better computer, that's fine; but when science tries to tell me that Noah's Ark could not have withstood the stresses of a global flood, science has overstepped its bounds.

In my opinion, God gives us scientists to make our lives better in these end times, and to protect the Jews from extinction; but when scientists go against Him with it, then they are ... again ... overstepping their bounds.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Good question!

For me, I accept or reject this or that scientific theory, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The God I know, is One Who can -- and has -- suspended the laws of nature to do His will.

When science builds a better computer, that's fine; but when science tries to tell me that Noah's Ark could not have withstood the stresses of a global flood, science has overstepped its bounds.

In my opinion, God gives us scientists to make our lives better in these end times, and to protect the Jews from extinction; but when scientists go against Him with it, then they are ... again ... overstepping their bounds.

In the Old Testament, when people overstepped their bounds, God would send a plague of locusts or in other ways smite them. Why isn't there any evidence of God smiting scientists nowdays?

 

[Michael]

I have only seen your assertions of that.

You don't have to take my word for it:

ESO - eso1217 - Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?

Here are several more recent observations that demonstrate that the mainstream claims about the nature of dark matter (not being normal matter) are false. At least some of that missing mass is in fact contained in stars and ordinary matter:

Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
The biggest black holes may be bigger than we thought | astrobites

That is not an indicator of accuracy.

Then your original question was a moot point.

Where are the observations that falsify the inflation model?

There are no observations that COULD falsify ALL inflation models. They are a dime a dozen at this point, all with various "properties" that astronomers assign to it in a willy-nilly, purely ad hoc fashion so as to FIT just about anything.

Are there any "experts" that study "God" scientifically?

I've known people with actual degrees in "Divinity". Does that count? Do Priests studying in college count?

I saw that, but it appeared to be missing how your theory would be falsified. Could you point that out?

Sure. You could start by falsifying electric universe theory. No electricity, no "awareness", no "God".

And even so, other that labeling it 'God', how would you demonstrate that it had anything to do with the Christian deity?

From that standpoint of physics, what difference does it make? If the universe is in fact aware and aware of us, who cares if my particular "dogma" is correct?

 

[Michael]

'Missing mass' it is then.

Lot's of that "missing mass" has already been located in the past 4 - 5 years, not that the "science dogma" has changed even a single percentage point as a result. They still keep claiming it's NOT ordinary matter, even though they keep finding lots more "normal" matter which their models never accounted for in the first place! They are stuck in pure denial at this point.

Observations can support other, more parsimonious explanations.

Define "more parsimonious". An "explanation" that is 95 percent METAPHYSICAL in nature is 95 percent "religion" and only 5 percent actual physics. I would argue that virtually ANYTHING is better than that! PC/EU theory (even without any theist overtones) beats mainstream theory hands down in terms of providing useful answers to mysteries in space.

This is not an indicator of the validity of a theory.

Then it really doesn't matter if anyone studies God "scientifically" as you put it.

No, I said scientific consensus.

That 'consensus' amounts to nothing more than an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy combo pack. Inflation doesn't actually DO anything in any REAL experiments with REAL control mechanisms. Not one astronomer on the planet knows where "dark energy' might come from. So what if their science little cult has a "consensus" about their dead inflation sky deity? That dead metaphysical monstrosity cannot ever have a tangle effect on me today. It's a dead deistic religion, it's not "physics".

Dark energy is such a wimp on Earth, it's incapable of EVER being detected in a real science experiment with actual control mechanisms. No amount of CONSENSUS makes up for the fact that their beliefs are unfalsifiable and unverifiable in any empirical manner.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the Old Testament, when people overstepped their bounds, God would send a plague of locusts or in other ways smite them. Why isn't there any evidence of God smiting scientists nowdays?

We live in a different dispensation.

In the Old Testament, God literally dwelt on the face of the earth -- this is what we call a [true] Theocracy.

In His presence, He does not tolerate sin and immediately deals with it.

But when God was asked to vacate, and the Theocracy was replaced with a Monarchy, things drastically changed.

Today, we live under the aegis of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Third Person of the Godhead; and as such, sin is tolerated, as the wheat grows with the tares; but when the Second Person of the Godhead returns and establishes His Christocracy, all that is going to change, and He will rule with a rod of iron.

The megaterm for all of this is Ontological Subordination, and its sister doctrine is Dispensationalism.

 

[Split Rock]

We live in a different dispensation.

In the Old Testament, God literally dwelt on the face of the earth -- this is what we call a [true] Theocracy.

In His presence, He does not tolerate sin and immediately deals with it.

But when God was asked to vacate, and the Theocracy was replaced with a Monarchy, things drastically changed.

Today, we live under the aegis of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Third Person of the Godhead; and as such, sin is tolerated, as the wheat grows with the tares; but when the Second Person of the Godhead returns and establishes His Christocracy, all that is going to change, and He will rule with a rod of iron.

The megaterm for all of this is Ontological Subordination, and its sister doctrine is Dispensationalism.

Someone asked God to vacate???

 

[Norman321]

science tries to tell me that Noah's Ark could not have withstood the stresses of a global flood, science has overstepped its bounds.

I do not believe that Science says that. They are just making that stuff up and trying to pass it off as science.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I do not believe that Science says that. They are just making that stuff up and trying to pass it off as science.

Right, which is why we currently make sea going vessels based on the ark's description.

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone asked God to vacate???

1 Samuel 10:19 And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, which is why we currently make sea going vessels based on the ark's description.

Exodus 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.

Sidebar: That doesn't keep some people from claiming God 'works magic' though, does it?