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.
And how is it a 'god' exactly?
Science is simply an intellectual tool to increase mankind's knowledge.
What do you mean with "science takes God's place"? Is it worshipped like a God? Or those same attributes ascribed to it?Well it's not a god. I didn't say science actually was a god, it's just elevated to that status.
Yes, but I think scientific materialism is what many atheists use to rationalize their disbelief in God. It's their "out" so to speak, even though science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, nor can it. Science takes God's place, because something must fill that void.
Forgot to respond to this.Certainly there are a finite number of questions you could ask the machine. As long as you limit the conversation time to a finite number of questions (say, one google questions), the thought experiment still works. It's not practically possible to build a machine like that, but mathematically possible.
Trickster
Sure, quite a number of atheists use science to invalidate the belief in God. What they in fact say is that God is not needed as an explanation for the existence of anything, nor do we have any evidence for the existence of a God, so it is a silly thing to believe in. And see no reason why that position would not be valid. What reason is there to believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO. Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.
Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?
But your opinion is not evidence.hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO.
Which is again not evidence.Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.
Because, if the supernatural has effect on the natural, this should leave evidence in the natural world.Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?
Also, science can only tell us about the material world. It is not capable of telling us anything about God, so why expect to find evidence for the supernatural in the natural?
hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God. We live in a rational, ordered universe. Did it just arise this way by chance? Some would say so, but without proof of other universes besides this one, combined with spiritual teachings and countless people throughout history testifying to the existence of a spiritual realm, God is a more logical choice IMO. Even if you buy Darwinism hook line and sinker, the best you could ever be sure of at this point in science is theistic evolution, because NS wouldn't exist without natural law, and until we know the source of nature removing God from the equation just sounds like a losing bet to me.
Weird. Werent you arguing for ID in another thread?
peck74 said:I don't argue for ID, only against Darwinism - not the same thing. Neither is provable or disprovable IMO. It’s just a choice in what you want to believe. The problem is with those that insist MET has not only been proven, but is falsifiable. Neither is true currently.
hmm...personally, I think there is good evidence for believing in God.
IC poses a huge problem for evolution. Again, please read my posts before commenting. Doesn't mean ID is true, just that Darwinism might not be. Easy to understand no?You were arguing for IC on the other thread. Thats ID. Sorry. Which is really bizzare coming from someone that also says we shoudnt expect to find evidence for the supernatural and yet also believes living systems show IC and also thinks that "there is good evidence for believing in God".
Ed
IC poses a huge problem for evolution. Again, please read my posts before commenting. Doesn't mean ID is true, just that Darwinism might not be. Easy to understand no?
But if you dont think its necessairily anything to do with ID, what would it suggest if it were as it claims to be? It cant suggest ID, and it cant be evidence of the supernatural like you yourself said. So what do you think IC would mean if correct?
peck74 said:Hi Edx. I think if IC is correct, it would mean "we don't know". We don't have a problem saying "I don't know" where OOL is concerned. We would have to do that until science does discover how IC systems come about, which it hopefully will.
We couldn't teach ID by default though, because we don't have a way to verify it, unless we some up with a scientific way to detect biological design. I'm not aware of how to do that. .
Then theres no point in calling it IC. "irreducible" is the key word here
because a snowflake cant be called a IC structure once we know how its formed.
I don't argue for ID, only against Darwinism - not the same thing. Neither is provable or disprovable IMO.
Hi Edx. I think if IC is correct, it would mean "we don't know". We don't have a problem saying "I don't know" where OOL is concerned. We would have to do that until science does discover how IC systems come about, which it hopefully will.
Not direct scientific evidence, as is easily seen by actually reading my post. Logic and reason can be used in place of direct evidence, based on science, and that's when interpretation of evidence comes into play. I don't expect to ever find God in a test tube, and I don't think I should actually have to explain something so obvious.
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?