The hole in the non-materialist's head

[LouisBooth]

"have you never payed any attention in science classes. "

*sigh* yes I have. I'm not questioning your charatcer, please don't question mine. Thanks.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by lambslove


Oh, that's how science ought to work, but that isn't how theology works, because you can't make direct observations of God.

You guys keep trying to disprove God by using science. It can't be done. I feel sorry for you, spending so much energy on nothing!



And all you guys keep doing is offering some vague ideas about science explains away God. But so far, you haven't offered any real proof.

I for one would like you to lay your cards out on the table. Show us exactly how science emphatically and conclusively proves that what we believe is untrue. Give us real knowledge that God is not responisble for Creation, that he is not active in today's world and that you are not sinners. Scientifically disprove the existence of God.

And do it using euclidian logic. I like euclidian logic.

Lambslove, I am a Christian, I believe in God, Science can neither prove or disprove God. That is what we have been trying to tell Randman and Nepretely repeatedly.

They seem to think that Science should be able to handle God in theories and that there is a vast conspiracy hiding all the evidence for the flood, a 6000 year old earth, and speacial creation. Many trying to point out that this just is not true for the most part are Christians like myself. I don't blame the non-christians in here for looking at all Christians like they are stupid if all they had to base their opinions on were Randman and Nick. I'm here to try and prove that atleast some of us try to think outside the Gen 1 and 2 box.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by lambslove
Are you new to this forum?

If 130+ posts is new.

LiveFreeOrDie is proposing that science is enough of an explanation for every happening on this earth. In other words, that no God is necessary, because science has all the answers to every question. In fact, that no God is possible, because there are no unanswered questions to which God might be the answer.

How does taking God out of the equation disprove His existance?

Science doesn't consider music theory to be an adequate explaination for the the diversity of life. Does that mean that music theory doesn't exist either?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Science doesn't consider music theory to be an adequate explaination for the the diversity of life, but that doesn't mean that music theory doesn't exist."

Umm..ruf? Music theory isn't the creator of said life either. Not a really good analogy there.....

 

[seebs]

Actually, Rufus made a very good point; science is by no means denying that God exists, or that any other thing exists, simply because it's not used in a particular scientific theory.

Evolution can be described and explained without a single reference back to God, given physics and chemistry as we know them. We can't prove that it's how things happened, but it's an *AWFULLY* good theory, which fits the data like a glove.

The "holes" in evolutionary theory that people like to poke at are, in every case I've yet seen, based on basic misunderstandings of science - stuff that even I know, and I'm hardly a "real" scientist.

Meanwhile, we have "evidence" for creationism at the level of "here is a totally made up and false etymology of a Chinese character which, if it were true, would imply that the word's etymology in Chinese was entirely based on stories from Genesis". I actually read Chinese well enough to know just how *totally* wrong that argument was - but it was presented as "real" evidence.

 

[LouisBooth]

"which fits the data like a glove.
"

I wouldn't say that..but I see your point. You can believe in evolution and be a thiest.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Umm..ruf? Music theory isn't the creator of said life either. Not a really good analogy there.....

I guess science disproves your God if you restrict His abilities as Creator. Most Christians I know don't do that. In the past people thought that God was the controler of the weather too. Did meteorology and natural explainations disprove God or salvation through Him? Why is the question of origins any different than the weather with respect to God's existance?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Did meteorology and natural explainations disprove God or salvation through Him"

Good point, but then again can we exactly predict weather?

"Why is the question of origins any different than the weather with respect to God's existance?
"

Well if you're talking about orgins you should know evolution doesn't speak about that at all. If you're talking about process I'd agree, it doesn't disprove God at all.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by randman
Satman, let's stick to one thing at a time.

Fair enough. Say, when are you going to address the issue raised in the first post of this thread instead of giving us your terribly documented demonology lectures?

You will, of course, think such things are figments of someone's imagination, but I can guarantee that if you were present at some of these sessions, you would have a completely different outlook.

You will, of course, think that the five-dimensional time-shifting aliens that people have witnissed while using LSD are figments of their imagination, but I can guarantee that if you were taking LSD during some of these sessions, you would have a completely different outlook. Fortunately, most people prefer objective evidence over your vague anecdotes.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Satoshi

It's even worse than you picture! In addition to the demon hypothesis, there's several others:
(c) angels are causing disease to drive out demons
(d) God is causing disease to test us
(e) disease is an unfortunate by-product of the war between the high Heavens and the fiery Hells
(f) leprechauns are attempting to discourage people from stealing their gold

Let's throw away our materialist bias and embrace hypthesis (a). No! Wait, (c) is the only godly answer. Erm, ah... Well, perhaps randman, in all his unrecognized genius can help us poor, logical folk.

You are absolutely correct, of course. In my original post I was just trying to simplify the discussion. All of randman's ranting about false dilemmas is completely irrelevant to the question, which is: How do we tell the valid non-material hypotheses from the invalid ones? In a similar vein, how do we tell when a non-material hypotheses is better than a material one?

And why does Nick always seem to disappear when the hard questions get asked?

 

[randman]

Lewis, I am a Christian. It seems wierd that you feel that to be a proper Christian one must accept evolutionary dogma.
Oh well.
Personally, I can say before the Lord that I quit beleiving in evolution back in the late 80s when I realized most of what I was taught that convinced me to beleive in evolution was wrong. Maybe you should try looking at the evidence with an open mind, and quit assuming that others who don't agree with you are not godly people.

 

[randman]

"Actually, Rufus made a very good point; science is by no means denying that God exists, or that any other thing exists, simply because it's not used in a particular scientific theory."

Science doesn't disprove God, but secular evolutionists tend to try to, and of course, I wouldn't label half of what they do science at all.

Nick raises a very good point. Science should about an approach to truth. To rule out phenomenon, like the existence of God and angels, etc,..automatically just because it would be difficult to test for these things, though theoritically possible, is just illogical, and wrong, and basically reminiscent of those that persecuted Galileo because he didn't fit thier paradigm, which by the way wasn't even biblical though it claimed to be.
What is going on is a turf war where protected interests, the evolutionists, use propoganda and derision to even rule out consideration of an idea regardless of it's veracity.

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by randman
"Actually, Rufus made a very good point; science is by no means denying that God exists, or that any other thing exists, simply because it's not used in a particular scientific theory."

Science doesn't disprove God, but secular evolutionists tend to try to, and of course, I wouldn't label half of what they do science at all.

Nick raises a very good point. Science should about an approach to truth. To rule out phenomenon, like the existence of God and angels, etc,..automatically just because it would be difficult to test for these things, though theoritically possible, is just illogical, and wrong, and basically reminiscent of those that persecuted Galileo because he didn't fit thier paradigm, which by the way wasn't even biblical though it claimed to be.
What is going on is a turf war where protected interests, the evolutionists, use propoganda and derision to even rule out consideration of an idea regardless of it's veracity.

OK I'll bite. Could you enlighten us on how one can test for god and angels, etc. in a sceintific manner? I would like to hear how this is theoritically possible.

 

[randman]

If I knew how to test for all of that, it would not be theoritically possible, but there are related areas being tested. For instance, a number of medical studies have been conducted on prayer that have shown there is a significant statitistical impact of people praying for the sick, even in long distance prayers for someone who is sick without the person's knowledge. A number of studies have been done over the years, and reported in the media, and some have been more rigorous than others, and at leats one published in medical journals.

Now, all this proves is that prayer can affect healing, r speed up healing. It doesn't prove God per se, and there could be dimensions we move in where we are able through our spirit to touch people through this type of prayer.

I read a comment from an expert on dyslexia where it was proven through disassociation that dyslexic children could actually see in their mind at least beyond the angle of their eye'e vision, and this sight was accurate. Now, the author speculates whether it is imagination, or what, and even claimed some scientific studies actually showed physical objects were affected by human perception, and he speculated on whether people perhaps possessed a spirit which moved in dimensions that are not visible to the naked eye.

There are a lot of things that can be done to try and demonstrate realities that were perhaps percieved but not proven. I'd like to see if we can develop an instrument to view the extra dimensions in string theory for instance.

 

[seebs]

I can't imagine a useful way to test for "God" scientifically. Effects of prayer? Princeton's PEAR is able to show some similar results without any theology. Go into space and look? Not likely.

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by randman
If I knew how to test for all of that, it would not be theoritically possible,

If you don't know how to test for it then why do you say theoritically possible. What is the theory? I think you just hope it is possible.

I have read some reports about prayer. There are almost the same number of reports on both sides of the issue. My question would be is what are you testing? Are you testing the ability of people to send wellness through the air? Or the ability of people to invoke god's grace for someone? Why work with sick people when there are so many variables? Why not have people pray for the levitation of brick? Then if the brick rose into the air there would be no question about the cause and effect. Since you are having people pray for sick people the number of variables (in disease) makes the results questionable. Or you could have people pray to turn fillings into gold since god seems to like this trick?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by randman
Personally, I can say before the Lord that I quit beleiving in evolution back in the late 80s when I realized most of what I was taught that convinced me to beleive in evolution was wrong. Maybe you should try looking at the evidence with an open mind, and quit assuming that others who don't agree with you are not godly people.

Is this the same phantom evidence that convinced you of demons and medical miracles but, gee whiz!, you just can't seem to find to convince anyone else?

 

[randman]

"Is this the same phantom evidence that convinced you of demons and medical miracles but, gee whiz!, you just can't seem to find to convince anyone else?"

One thing I have learned is that people won't be convinved if they do not want to be, or if they are inherently predisposed to be dishionest with themselves, which seem to be the case with you Satman.

I told you the truth. If you want to reject it, that is your prerogative.

Your rejection, and the rejection of any group, has no relevance as to something's veracity.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
Lewis, I am a Christian. It seems wierd that you feel that to be a proper Christian one must accept evolutionary dogma.
Oh well.
Personally, I can say before the Lord that I quit beleiving in evolution back in the late 80s when I realized most of what I was taught that convinced me to beleive in evolution was wrong. Maybe you should try looking at the evidence with an open mind, and quit assuming that others who don't agree with you are not godly people.

When did I accuse you of not being a Christian Randman?
When did I say to be a proper Christian one must accept evolution?
My only gripe with creationism is that some try to put "goddidit" into their theories, misrepresent data, or claim all data that does not fit into their theory doesn't exist or is put there by satan.

 

[randman]

You derision of other Christians for their belief that evolutionary theory is wrong is quite clear, and of such an extreme nature as to certainly warrant the comment about how you consider holding to such a belief is improper.

Personally, I don't fault anyone for accepting evolutionary theory if they understand it, but I do think those that believe it has been more or less proven and overstate their case to the point they pretend that evolutionary theory is somehow more scientific in its approach than ID, well, I do fault them because they are wrong.
They are basically trying to silence their critics in a false manner from what I can tell, and they use derision, sophistry, and propoganda to do so.