The Fool Says there is No God.

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
I am glad you asked that. Notice that David tells us that " The fool has said in his heart: "There is no God."  

John, you still didn't tell us what this has to do with science and evolution.

How many times do we have to tell you: EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!! SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM!!

If you think atheists are fools, then go argue against atheism in some forum that is devoted to discussing the possible validity of the two faiths of atheism and theism.

Science is agnostic.  It emphatically does not say there is no God.

"To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."  SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge.  Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

"It should come as no surprise that many individual scientists, such as Provine, extrapolate from hard evidence and, as part of their private world view, apply the rules of their profession to reach metaphysical conclusions about what kinds of things do or do not exist.  Provine is obvously impressed with the explanatory power of evolutionary theory and sees no justification for invoking surpernatural concepts. ...But there are no generally accepted criteria for when an explanation should be felt to be adequate [emphasis in original]  We have no alternative but to consign such judgements to the private world view of each individual. Johnson is right to challenge scientists who, in speaking to the public, fail to distinguish between well-documentd conclusions of science and their own metaphysical extrapolations."  K.D Fezer, Is Science's Naturalism Metaphysical or Methodological? in Creation/Evolution, vol 39, pp31-33, 1996.

The problem is that you are not challenging individual scientists, but trying to claim that science itself is atheistic.  That claim simply won't stand up under testing.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
How can you show that non christians are as loving and careing with as much compassion as Christians have? Christianity sets the standard for others to follow. We have the power and the strength of God working in us. We have the healings and the miracles of God working though us. We have eternal life to offer, not just a better life here and now.

 

Your first sentence changed the claim, didn't it? Your original claim was that non-Christians were not loving or caring. That is, they lacked those features entirely.  This new claim acknowledges that non-Christians are loving and caring, just not as loving and caring as Christians.  I take it you agree your original claim was refuted.

Do you have some kind of objective scale to measure love and caring?  If not, then your claim is meaningless since you obviously haven't tested it.

What belief was Gandhi?  I think he was Hindu.  No one doubts his love and caring for his fellows.  Albert Schweitzer was atheist. Yet he is held up as the role model for selfless love and caring.  Catholic priests and Protestant ministers are supposed to be the exemplars of Christianity. Yet we have an increasing number of cases of abused children and sexually abused women by these Christians.  Wouldn't you say that they are selfish and unloving rather than loving and caring? How do you factor in them to reach their conclusion that Christians in general are more loving and caring than other humans? Please show us the calculations.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I'd really like to know what John was trying to accomplish by starting this thread. So far, all he's done is reinforce the "holier than thou" Christian stereotype.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Science is agnostic. It emphatically does not say there is no God.

I disagree. Science says that everything has a natural explanation, and therefore excludes God.

 

[Morat]

Not quite. Lucaspa is wrong on one sense. Science is atheistic. It, at all times, works from the assumption that the natural world (and natural processes) are all there is, and that no God is playing dice in the background.

The only concessions science makes to agnosticism is that it is impossible to make a scientific claim about God (although one can about religions), and that the assumption that the natural world is the only player out there is just that: an assumption.

But science, off the bat, excludes God. Completely. One can't use science, however, to claim God doesn't exist, as that would be circular. One can, of course, use science to show there is no need for God, but that's a whole different ball of wax....

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
John, you still didn't tell us what this has to do with science and evolution. 

This started out to be a discussion on wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. I just assumed that science believe in wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Then, we started to discuss the heart.

Psalm 14:1  The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

So, now we have basicly two different topics going.

1) What is the difference between the wisdoms, knowledge and understanding of a Christian, compared to that of the Infidel.

2) What is the difference beween the heart of a Christian and the heart of a Infidel. 

My position is when a person becomes a Christian, they receive a new heart and a new mind. With the power of God working in them, they become greater than what they were, before their conversion. They take on the nature of God, and the love of God. Which is higher than the nature of man and the love of man.

Now I have two arguements before me. One wants to drag christians down to the level of non christians. The other wants to lift non christians up to the level of christians. Of course I prefer the argument that infidels are just as good as christians, better then the arguement that christians are just as bad as infidels. But neither one stands up to the truth.

2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

This whole conversation is about: What does it mean to be a new creation in Christ. Just what does it mean, to be born again. I do not mean a born again doctorine. I mean to actually become a better person than what you were, before your converstion.



 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo
I disagree. Science says that everything has a natural explanation, and therefore excludes God.

  What is "natural"? How does natural exclude God? What you have stated is the basic statement of faith of atheism (natural = without deity), but it's not science.  Trying to have the statement be science is how atheism attempts to hijack science.

From methodological materialism, we can't say whether the "natural" processes require deity or not, because we never see one of these processes where we know deity is absent. Therefore, how can you say a "natural" explanation excludes deity?

From the theological side, we have Butler's statement below. And before you think I've combed religious documents for this, I found it in the Fontispiece of Origin of the Species.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion

Now, before you can say that natural explanations exclude deity, you have to show Butler to be wrong.  I'm eagerly awaiting the experiment that does this.

Notto, this isn't about religion, it's about the integrity of science. And you are destroying that.  Science doesn't survive any better under militant atheism than it does under creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7 This started out to be a discussion on wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. I just assumed that science believe in wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Then, we started to discuss the heart.

Psalm 14:1  The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

So, now we have basicly two different topics going.

1) What is the difference between the wisdoms, knowledge and understanding of a Christian, compared to that of the Infidel.

2) What is the difference beween the heart of a Christian and the heart of a Infidel. 

My position is when a person becomes a Christian, they receive a new heart and a new mind.

OK, but you still haven't answered my question: John, you still didn't tell us what this has to do with science and evolution. 

The only way that this can relate to science and evolution is if you think all scientists and evolutionists are "Infidels".  But that is demonstrably untrue. Go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_01.html and see that these people are not "Infidels".

You keep ducking this issue.  So let's ask you pointblank and see if you answer:

John, do you think that evolutionists and scientists are "Infidels" and do not believe in God?

With the power of God working in them, they become greater than what they were, before their conversion. They take on the nature of God, and the love of God. Which is higher than the nature of man and the love of man.

How do you know 1) that they become greater than they were and 2) that the nature of God and love of God is "higher" than the nature of man and love of man?  

I understand this is your belief, and you are welcome to it, but you are not presenting it as "I believe ..." You are presenting it as fact.  As a scientist, I'm going to ask for your data that justifies this statement as fact.

Now I have two arguements before me. One wants to drag christians down to the level of non christians. The other wants to lift non christians up to the level of christians. Of course I prefer the argument that infidels are just as good as christians, better then the arguement that christians are just as bad as infidels. But neither one stands up to the truth.

The premise of your statements is that there is a difference in the "levels" of Christians and non-Christians.  You haven't demonstrated that.  You haven't addressed my arguments refuting that premise of a difference in "level".  So, until you present us some evidence showing that the refuting evidence is wrong, your last statement is worthless.

2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

This whole conversation is about: What does it mean to be a new creation in Christ.

Then why is this in the science folder? Unless you can suggest some test of brain activity that we can observe between "born agains" and others or some other physical test, we are not talking science.  You are talking spirituality and perhaps moral behavior. So why are you in the Science forum?  

I mean to actually become a better person than what you were, before your converstion.

Define "better". 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Neo
I disagree. Science says that everything has a natural explanation, and therefore excludes God.

Science does not say that. Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. Since it is focused on the natural world, scientific explanations are restricted to natural forces and entities.

Some people think that the success of science in finding natural causes is evidence enough that no supernatural forces or entities exist. This is not a scientific conclusion, however, but a personal one.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
How do you factor in them to reach their conclusion that Christians in general are more loving and caring than other humans? Please show us the calculations.

Factor and calculate are interesting words. First of all, the Bible says to judge no man before his time. My grandmother was 99 years old when she became a christian and lived a year beyond that. I believe the last year of her life was her best year. Because she had a peace that she had never known before.

I have reason to believe that God is going to save 1/3 of mankind. Jesus said, few will be saved, many will perish. Still, I believe that few can mean 1/3 and many can mean 2/3.

Then out of this 1/3, God calls those who are going to be a witness and a testimony for Him. God does not use all christian to represent Him. They are not willing to make the sacrifice in Holiness, Sanctification and consecration to be used by God.

Serving God is NOT a requirement for salvation. Redemption is a free gift. There is a price to be paid, if a person wants to be used by God, but also there is a great reward. God is very exacting in who He will use to represent Him. Although He will use anyone who is willing and makes themselves available. They must submit to His rather strict requirements of righteouness. Not many are willing to yeild and submit in this way.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
How does natural exclude God?

By definition, God is not natural.

What you have stated is the basic statement of faith of atheism

Not even strong atheism is based on faith. The non-existence of God has been logically proven.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
You keep ducking this issue.  So let's ask you pointblank and see if you answer:

John, do you think that evolutionists and scientists are "Infidels" and do not believe in God?

As far as I know, there are scientists that are infidels, there are scientists that are muslim, there are scientists that are christian. There are Jewish scientists like Einstien. And so on.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat Not quite. Lucaspa is wrong on one sense. Science is atheistic. It, at all times, works from the assumption that the natural world (and natural processes) are all there is, and that no God is playing dice in the background.

Sorry, science makes no such assumption. In fact, methodological materialism expressly forbids that assumption. Science ignores the supernatural, but doesn't say it isn't there.

Another example of militant atheists attempting to hijack science.

But science, off the bat, excludes God. Completely. One can't use science, however, to claim God doesn't exist, as that would be circular. One can, of course, use science to show there is no need for God, but that's a whole different ball of wax....

Let's test that claim. Your claim is that science completely excludes God.  If that is so, then how can these papers be in the scientific literature? Each of these papers showed up under a PubMed search for "God".
1:  Russell RJ. Did God create our universe? Theological reflections on the Big Bang, inflation,and quantum cosmologies.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:108-27.PMID: 11797742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2:  Gingerich O. Scientific cosmology meets western theology: a historical perspective.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:28-38.PMID: 11797757 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3:  Levin JS. How prayer heals: a theoretical model.Altern Ther Health Med. 1996 Jan;2(1):66-73. Review.PMID: 8795874 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4:  Miller JB. Cosmic questions and the relationship between science and religion.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:309-10. No abstract available.PMID: 11797760 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5:  Turok N. Inflation and the Beginning of the Universe.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:83-96.PMID: 11797765 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6:  Weinberg S. A universe with no designer.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:169-74; discussion 183-90.PMID: 11797746 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7:  Polkinghorne J. Understanding the universe.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:175-82; discussion 183-90.PMID: 11797748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8:  Griffin DR. Is the universe designed? Yes and no.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:191-205.PMID: 11797749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9:  Pelikan J. Athens and/or Jerusalem: cosmology and/or creation.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:17-27.PMID: 11797747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10:  Faber SM. The Big Bang as scientific fact.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:39-53.


Now, does science show that God is unnecessary?  Nope. What science shows is that another material method said to be used by God is unnecessary.  Creationism isn't about God, but about a material method that God is supposedly required to use.  IOW, it says that the material methods we discover by science are not sufficient as material methods and that God has to step in as a direct manufacturer.

Back to Butler's statement.  How do you know God is not necessary to every "natural" process we observe by science?  What is your experiment where you know God is absent and the process happens anyway?

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo
By definition, God is not natural.


Not even strong atheism is based on faith. The non-existence of God has been logically proven.

It was also "logically" proven that bees couldn't fly.

Sorry, Neo, but the basis of science is that "1.  All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are.  How do we determine what they really are?  Through direct experience of the universe itself. "

So, what direct experiences of the universe itself has shown deity not to exist?  Peer-reviewed paper, please.

However, I have yet to see an unflawed logical argument, so I am curious as to what you think they are.

Neo, the basis of science is that the universe is what it is.  It should be obvious that a deity exists or does not exist independently of any argument about that existence.  Even if all the arguments for deity are logically flawed or all the logical arguments against a deity are valid, that isn't going to make a deity disappear if one exists. Similarly, even if all the logical arguments for atheism are flawed or the logical arguments for theism are valid, that isn't going to make a deity appear if one doesn't exist.

But we aren't talking about God when we talk about natural, we are talking about processes within the universe, aren't we? So, how do you know those processes work in the absence of deity?  Point to the test tube that you know deity is not in and compare it to the test tube you know deity is in so we can see if acids neutralize bases in the absence of deity.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
As far as I know, there are scientists that are infidels, there are scientists that are muslim, there are scientists that are christian. There are Jewish scientists like Einstien. And so on.

Good.  (BTW, isn't a Muslim or Jew and "infidel" to a Christian?)

So what does your discussion of "born again" have to do with science?

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Let's test that claim. Your claim is that science completely excludes God.  If that is so, then how can these papers be in the scientific literature? Each of these papers showed up under a PubMed search for "God".
1:  Russell RJ. Did God create our universe? Theological reflections on the Big Bang, inflation,and quantum cosmologies.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:108-27.PMID: 11797742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2:  Gingerich O. Scientific cosmology meets western theology: a historical perspective.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:28-38.PMID: 11797757 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3:  Levin JS. How prayer heals: a theoretical model.Altern Ther Health Med. 1996 Jan;2(1):66-73. Review.PMID: 8795874 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4:  Miller JB. Cosmic questions and the relationship between science and religion.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:309-10. No abstract available.PMID: 11797760 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5:  Turok N. Inflation and the Beginning of the Universe.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:83-96.PMID: 11797765 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6:  Weinberg S. A universe with no designer.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:169-74; discussion 183-90.PMID: 11797746 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7:  Polkinghorne J. Understanding the universe.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:175-82; discussion 183-90.PMID: 11797748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8:  Griffin DR. Is the universe designed? Yes and no.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:191-205.PMID: 11797749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9:  Pelikan J. Athens and/or Jerusalem: cosmology and/or creation.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:17-27.PMID: 11797747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10:  Faber SM. The Big Bang as scientific fact.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:39-53.

Just because God is mentioned in these articles doesn't make the idea of God scientific. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything has a natural explanation, it excludes God.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo
By definition, God is not natural.


Not even strong atheism is based on faith. The non-existence of God has been logically proven.

Neo, you ducked the issue by semantics.  Let's try again. Please address this:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is <I>stated, fixed, or settled</I>; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."&nbsp; Butler:&nbsp; Analogy of Revealed Religion

Now, before you can say that natural explanations exclude deity, you have to show Butler to be wrong.&nbsp; I'm eagerly awaiting the experiment that does this.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
It was also "logically" proven that bees couldn't fly.

It wasn't logically proven.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Neo, you ducked the issue by semantics.&nbsp; Let's try again. Please address this:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is <I>stated, fixed, or settled</I>; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."&nbsp; Butler:&nbsp; Analogy of Revealed Religion

Now, before you can say that natural explanations exclude deity, you have to show Butler to be wrong.&nbsp; I'm eagerly awaiting the experiment that does this.

I don't need to show how nature excludes God, because the idea of God excludes nature.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Neo
Just because God is mentioned in these articles doesn't make the idea of God scientific. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything has a natural explanation, it excludes God.

Ah, but you said "science excludes God. Completely."&nbsp; The papers show that science doesn't exclude God completely since it discusses God and the possible influence of God on the universe.

Again, experimental research does not exclude God but ignores God. Because it must. Also, excluding an entity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.&nbsp; When I culture mammalian cells I exclude bacteria, but that hardly says bacteria don't exist.

Let's discuss methodological materialism and experiments.

You want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth.&nbsp; So you go out and get a number of plants.&nbsp; You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, water, soil, air.

This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth.&nbsp; You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol of having a control where you KNOW the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you KNOW the entity is present.

Now comes the kicker.&nbsp; How about God? Where is my control for that?&nbsp; Which plant can I point to and say "this one has NO&nbsp;God in it?"&nbsp; I can't. Therefore I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.

Now you know why science is limited to the material. And now you also know why science is agnostic and can't comment on the existence of deity or its role in nature.

Now, God does make it in the backdoor of science.&nbsp; How? People hypothesize a material mechanism by which God works.&nbsp; The real scientific creationists of the 18th and 19th century did this by hypothesizing 1) that God manufactured each species and placed it on the planet and 2) that God caused the geology (or part of it) of the planet by means of a global Flood.&nbsp; Notice that we aren't testing the existence of God directly.&nbsp; What we are testing is the material method by which God is supposed to have worked.&nbsp; In these cases, the material method was falsified.

Over the ages, theists have hypothesized that God answers intecessory prayer. They have further hypothesized that this answering of intercessory prayer causes sick people to get better.

Beginning in 1985 a series of papers (up to 6 now) have shown that intercessory prayer really does have a beneficial effect in certain populations of ill people.&nbsp; The atheist community went nuts, attacking the studies and the integrity of the researchers.&nbsp;&nbsp;The scientific criticisms were groundless (showing that atheists are quite as willing as creationists to dump science when science threatens their belief). Again, what they failed to realize was that God wasn't being tested, but intercessory prayer.&nbsp; Just like creationists don't realize that God isn't being tested in evolution, just a method of creating.

&nbsp;