durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 28,422
- 20,055
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
They dont even know if is HAS a cause. It could be eternal.
.
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.
They dont even know if is HAS a cause. It could be eternal.And this is? I am not sure scientists know the cause of the natural realm, although they seem to know a lot about stuff threrein.
"Science" doesnt hold that thought. Nor do most scientists.I think one of the more arrogant thoughts that science holds is that nature is too complex for a single 'supernatural' force to have created, yet they believe in their own mysterious force that is entirely 'natural'. Curious.
I think one of the more arrogant thoughts that science holds is that nature is too complex for a single 'supernatural' force to have created, yet they believe in their own mysterious force that is entirely 'natural'. Curious.
The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time.
It cannot account for the origination of anything because by natural law matter/ energy cannot be created, only changed in form.
So if his world is limited to the physical sensations, he must remove from it abstract thought which does not follow physical limitations.
He must also contend that every single supernatural event seen, heard or recorded must be false because there is no room for such things in the natural world.
So by the numbers, hundreds of millions of people give witness to miracles.
This is a problem for a naturalist, because in his world there can be no miracles.
Science doesn't hold that thought.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural forces, therefore they can not be included in theories.
Isn't evolution such a force? Doesn't science believe in an 'organizing' force of some kind? If not how do they explain organization without an 'organizer'?
In this forum alone there are people who have experienced the supernatural.
My challenge to all those who deny God's existence remains the same, though most lack the courage to take me up on it. The Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him. Those who deny His existence have never looked for Him.
Note also that the "forces" in evolution logically follow from the circumstances. Organisms procreate, so they increase in numbers. Food sources are limited, so the organisms have to compete for resources, both within their species and with other species. Natural selection is the logical result of these processes. Similarly, DNA replication is not 100% accurate, so mutation of the offspring is the logical of this.The organizer are the forces, the forces which science does not believe in, but has ample tests and evidence to support their existence.
Can you please show me the supernautral force in Newton's Laws of Gravitation, the laws that govern the organization of matter due to gravity?
The problem with naturalism is that it assumes something which is entirely incorrect and denies anything which contradicts the assumption that natural law is the dominant force of the universe. That's a view that is held by a relatively small portion of individuals. While veracity isn't found in consensus, neither is it found in minority opinion.
The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time. It cannot account for the origination of anything because by natural law matter/ energy cannot be created, only changed in form. So faced with the logical question, "how did all this begin," the truthful naturalist can only respond "I don't know." While he may subscribe to the latest theory du jour of spontaneous auto-creation, if he has any reason at all he knows it to be folly.
So if his world is limited to the physical sensations, he must remove from it abstract thought which does not follow physical limitations. He must also contend that every single supernatural event seen, heard or recorded must be false because there is no room for such things in the natural world. In fact, the very process of dreaming flies in the face of naturalism because you see, hear, smell touch and taste things which do not exist.
So let's look at the numbers.
Craig Keener cites a large variety of sources that give us numbers for different groups, and he often refers to hundreds of millions of miracle witnesses (Miracles [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011], 762). One survey found that 48 percent of people in the United States claimed to have witnessed at least one miracle (238). Even among noncharismatic Christians alone in the United States, more than a quarter claim to have witnessed a healing (505-506). Surveys and other sources have found that half or more of converts to Christianity in China claim healing, their own healing or somebody else's, as one of the reasons why they converted (264, 297, 300-302). Keener notes that "In sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, 56 percent of Christians claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing." (313) He cites data showing that most doctors claim to have witnessed one or more miracles among their patients (427-428, 721). In some countries, half or more of Christians claim to have witnessed an exorcism (813).
So by the numbers, hundreds of millions of people give witness to miracles. This is a problem for a naturalist, because in his world there can be no miracles. Even a single miracle proves his entire world view false. How about hundreds of millions? Let's say that most aren't actually miracles and let's limit it to things science cannot possibly explain. How many are left? A million? A thousand? The problem with taking an absolute view and pretending that the physical world is all that exists is that even a single contradiction disproves the theory. It's the scientific method, remember? You can't have an absolute law with even a single contradiction. That's an incredible amount of faith you put in that world view.
In this forum alone there are people who have experienced the supernatural. Being among them myself, it's easy to see why I see a purely naturalistic universe as a scientific impossibility. The denial it takes to live in such a world speaks volumes about your faith, though it is perhaps misplaced.
My challenge to all those who deny God's existence remains the same, though most lack the courage to take me up on it. The Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him. Those who deny His existence have never looked for Him. It's like saying that I don't have a 1/2" wrench in my toolbox without ever looking. It's the voice of ignorance proclaiming something to be a fact and yet having never investigated it fully. The problem with looking for God is that you might find Him. That would toss a monkey wrench into everything that you believe. The search for God, however, would add credence to your contention that He doesn't exist.
People who proclaim that there is nothing beyond the natural world who have never looked for anything beyond the natural world have no evidence to buoy their assertation. A wise man seeks his own answers and believes the result of his own investigations. There are people on this forum who don't THINK you're wrong, they KNOW you're wrong because they've had personal experiences to prove it. Why not ask them?
But as you have pointed out there Is more, particularly what the five senses cannot grasp.
Craig Keener cites a large variety of sources that give us numbers for different groups, and he often refers to hundreds of millions of miracle witnesses (Miracles [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011], 762). One survey found that 48 percent of people in the United States claimed to have witnessed at least one miracle (238). Even among noncharismatic Christians alone in the United States, more than a quarter claim to have witnessed a healing (505-506). Surveys and other sources have found that half or more of converts to Christianity in China claim healing, their own healing or somebody else's, as one of the reasons why they converted (264, 297, 300-302). Keener notes that "In sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, 56 percent of Christians claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing." (313) He cites data showing that most doctors claim to have witnessed one or more miracles among their patients (427-428, 721). In some countries, half or more of Christians claim to have witnessed an exorcism (813).
source
/snip/
The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time.
/snip/
KWCrazy,
You are right on target, word for word. This is recognized now since I've learned more than being just a Naturalist. Like you have found, God is, always has been, and is dynamic in this present world.
But as you have pointed out there Is more, particularly what the five senses cannot grasp.
And yet scientists are using naturalism to try and find those answers. No scientist is using supernaturalism in their research, even those scientists who believe in the supernatural. At one time we did not have a scientific theory for the origin of lightning.
Not at all. Science is the gap. God is lord of the universe. The gap is man's understanding. As he grows to learn more about the physical world he draws further from reality; that there is more to our existence than can be proven scientifically.What you are arguing for is a God of the Gaps, and your god can only shrink over time as our knowledge of nature increases.
My contention is that all energy came from God; that the matter which formed the universe came into being when God said "Let there be..." It is as scientific as any other theory of origination, nad has the added value of being consistant with the word of God.So why can't the energy in our universe be a changed form of energy from a state that existed prior to our universe?
However, a physical mind cannot decree a purely physical universe. Not understanding something doesn't change its nature.Abstract thought is limited by our brains which is physical.
It depends on your definition of evidence. If your grandfather told you about an encounter with an angel while in combat during the war, you might believe it because you know your grandfather would never lie about such a thing. If you require physical evidence of something which is non-physical, you may never have your evidence. Each of us weighs the evidence we have and makes our decisions accordingly. However, if 85% of Americans believe in miracles, there has to be another reason other than that they are superstitious and ignorant.What evidence would allow us to accept them as true?
Witnessing lightning gives evidence of its existence. It's origin is another matter. If I see a strange flying object in the sky it is unidentified until it is identified. That doesn't mean it wasn't a helicopter, but it doesn't mean it was, either. It neither precludes nor proves the existence of anything else until we learn it's origins.Just as hundreds of millions give witness to lightning and claim that it comes from a lightning god.
That would depend on whether you accepted eyewitness accounts or not. The definition of what is admissible falls to each of us. I may believe in something that I have seen whether or not you have a photo of it. Hoever, simply saying that things don't exist because they haven't been proven to you is not scientific. Saying that you've not seen convincing supportive evidence of something is different from saying it doesn't exist. By the latter standard i can deny the existence of many things.Until you present evidence of miracles you simply don't have an argument.
[/color]
I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.
Not at all. Science is the gap. God is lord of the universe.
My contention is that all energy came from God; that the matter which formed the universe came into being when God said "Let there be..." It is as scientific as any other theory of origination, nad has the added value of being consistant with the word of God.
However, a physical mind cannot decree a purely physical universe. Not understanding something doesn't change its nature.
It depends on your definition of evidence. If your grandfather told you about an encounter with an angel while in combat during the war, you might believe it because you know your grandfather would never lie about such a thing. If you require physical evidence of something which is non-physical, you may never have your evidence. Each of us weighs the evidence we have and makes our decisions accordingly. However, if 85% of Americans believe in miracles, there has to be another reason other than that they are superstitious and ignorant.
Witnessing lightning gives evidence of its existence. It's origin is another matter.
That would depend on whether you accepted eyewitness accounts or not. The definition of what is admissible falls to each of us. I may believe in something that I have seen whether or not you have a photo of it. Hoever, simply saying that things don't exist because they haven't been proven to you is not scientific. Saying that you've not seen convincing supportive evidence of something is different from saying it doesn't exist. By the latter standard i can deny the existence of many things.
[/COLOR]
I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.
[/COLOR]
I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.
Not at all. Science is the gap. God is lord of the universe. The gap is man's understanding. As he grows to learn more about the physical world he draws further from reality; that there is more to our existence than can be proven scientifically.
My contention is that all energy came from God; that the matter which formed the universe came into being when God said "Let there be..." It is as scientific as any other theory of origination, nad has the added value of being consistant with the word of God.
However, a physical mind cannot decree a purely physical universe. Not understanding something doesn't change its nature.
It depends on your definition of evidence. If your grandfather told you about an encounter with an angel while in combat during the war, you might believe it because you know your grandfather would never lie about such a thing. If you require physical evidence of something which is non-physical, you may never have your evidence. Each of us weighs the evidence we have and makes our decisions accordingly. However, if 85% of Americans believe in miracles, there has to be another reason other than that they are superstitious and ignorant.
Witnessing lightning gives evidence of its existence. It's origin is another matter. If I see a strange flying object in the sky it is unidentified until it is identified. That doesn't mean it wasn't a helicopter, but it doesn't mean it was, either. It neither precludes nor proves the existence of anything else until we learn it's origins.
That would depend on whether you accepted eyewitness accounts or not. The definition of what is admissible falls to each of us. I may believe in something that I have seen whether or not you have a photo of it. Hoever, simply saying that things don't exist because they haven't been proven to you is not scientific. Saying that you've not seen convincing supportive evidence of something is different from saying it doesn't exist. By the latter standard i can deny the existence of many things.
Everything else you say about naturalists is more or less a good description of myself. Though the quoted part is not true for me. I don't think that I or humans are the pinnacle of life. I see myself just different.In human history the naturalists see themselves as the pinnacle of life.
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?