the spin factor...?

[Neogaia777]

I, or rather somebody else, can take science and scientific discoveries and spin them from a God supporting perspective, and be helping to show you the glory and the beauty of God through creation, or I can spin it from an atheist or agnostic perspective and you'd miss out on seeing God in anything.

Science can be used to both uphold a belief in a God, or not, it can be spun either way...?

Comments?

God Bless!

 

[Michael]

I, or rather somebody else, can take science and scientific discoveries and spin them from a God supporting perspective, and be helping to show you the glory and the beauty of God through creation, or I can spin it from an atheist or agnostic perspective and you'd miss out on seeing God in anything.

Science can be used to both uphold a belief in a God, or not, it can be spun either way...?

Comments?

God Bless!

In my experience, atheists often misuse the concept of "science" to suggest that all "evidence" of God must be empirical (lab demonstrated) in nature, whereas in the actual world of science, scientific theories and hypotheses are often based on nothing more than *assumed* cause/effect relationships, and definitely not based upon empirical cause/effect standards in any way.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, but what scientific experiment convinces people that the word "science" is "real"?

That's fundamentally my problem with Evolution, if not science, that there is in fact no element of spin - its far too convenient for anything having the hallmarks of truth.

I mean, any fool, can say "the thing which you think is actually is the not, that I think is not not" - the only people who are not convinced by that are the wise men that know negating something does not simply invert the meaning of the thing negated.

 

[Loudmouth]

I, or rather somebody else, can take science and scientific discoveries and spin them from a God supporting perspective, and be helping to show you the glory and the beauty of God through creation, or I can spin it from an atheist or agnostic perspective and you'd miss out on seeing God in anything.

Science can be used to both uphold a belief in a God, or not, it can be spun either way...?

Comments?

God Bless!

How can science be used to uphold a belief in any deity?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but what scientific experiment convinces people that the word "science" is "real"?

That would be an easy one. Do a google search of websites written in English. Count the number of websites that use the word "science". The results will show that "science" is a real word used in the English language.

I mean, any fool, can say "the thing which you think is actually is the not, that I think is not not" - the only people who are not convinced by that are the wise men that know negating something does not simply invert the meaning of the thing negated.

It would appear that two negatives make a half dose of thorazine.

 

[Neogaia777]

How can science be used to uphold a belief in any deity?

I believe we will see a day...

You have to believe that God created, and then learn to see the marvelous measure of his footprints or fingerprints all over creation...

God Bless!

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe we will see a day...

You have to believe that God created, and then learn to see the marvelous measure of his footprints or fingerprints all over creation...

God Bless!

I see a lot of religious claims, but zero science.

How can science be used to uphold a belief in any deity?

 

[Michael]

How can science be used to uphold a belief in any deity?

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

 

[Gottservant]

That would be an easy one. Do a google search of websites written in English. Count the number of websites that use the word "science". The results will show that "science" is a real word used in the English language.

Actually, you prove my point, rather than posit this experiment as proof that the science you believe in is "real" (in the sense that is meant) you merely claim that the word "is used" (that means nothing).

It would appear that two negatives make a half dose of thorazine.

Meh. If you are making a jab at me, you clearly know nothing about drugs or the system that would drug you with them if it ever found a reason to call you crazy (as you are giving it now).

 

[Loudmouth]

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

We are talking about deities, not make believe plasma people.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, you prove my point, rather than posit this experiment as proof that the science you believe in is "real" (in the sense that is meant) you merely claim that the word "is used" (that means nothing).

That's not what you said.

"Yes, but what scientific experiment convinces people that the word "science" is "real"?"--Gottservant

The word is real.

Meh. If you are making a jab at me, you clearly know nothing about drugs or the system that would drug you with them if it ever found a reason to call you crazy (as you are giving it now).

Your writing is completely incoherent. Perhaps you can untangle this mess?

"I mean, any fool, can say "the thing which you think is actually is the not, that I think is not not" - the only people who are not convinced by that are the wise men that know negating something does not simply invert the meaning of the thing negated."

 

[Michael]

We are talking about deities, not make believe plasma people.

Another perfect example of "spin". At least plasma physics actually works in the lab, unlike your pantheon of invisible sky entities.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another perfect example of "spin". At least plasma physics actually works in the lab, unlike your pantheon of invisible sky entities.

Rocks "work" in the lab. Doesn't mean that they are deities.

 

[Michael]

Rocks "work" in the lab. Doesn't mean that they are deities.

They are at least real, and exit in nature, unlike your pantheon of make-believe sky entities. Even "awareness" exists in nature in *many* different forms. Your "spin" process is simply a denial routine in the final analysis.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are at least real, and exit in nature, unlike your pantheon of make-believe sky entities. Even "awareness" exists in nature in *many* different forms. Your "spin" process is simply a denial routine in the final analysis.

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[Michael]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

It demonstrates that you simply "spin" the fact that your invisible, impotent sky entities completely lack any empirical cause/effect support in the lab. Meanwhile you hypocritically apply a *completely empirical* standard toward the topic of God. Spin, spin, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Mainframes]

I believe we will see a day...

You have to believe that God created, and then learn to see the marvelous measure of his footprints or fingerprints all over creation...

God Bless!

God did it..... woop de doop. I'm underwelmed that a deity just clicked everything into existence.

On the other hand, purely natural laws playing themselves out and creating all that we know and see is far more satisfying and wondrous. The simplest of rules that create a snowflake or a rainbow. Fantastic. SCIENCE!

 

[Michael]

God did it..... woop de doop. I'm underwelmed that a deity just clicked everything into existence.

On the other hand, purely natural laws playing themselves out and creating all that we know and see is far more satisfying and wondrous. The simplest of rules that create a snowflake or a rainbow. Fantastic. SCIENCE!

From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "the inflation diety did it" simpler or "better"? For crying out loud, there's nothing even "natural" about inflation, space expansion, dark energy, or exotic forms of dark matter. Mainstream "science" requires not just *one* supernatural construct, but *four* supernatural constructs to "click everything into existence", none of which show up in the lab! Give me a break. Talk about spin. The inflation and "dark" deities of mainstream science are more impotent on Earth than an average *supernatural* concept of God. You can't even name a single source of "dark energy" so how do you have a clue that has some effect on a real photon in a real experiment? Let me guess? The "testimony" of folks that also haven't a clue as to an actual source of "dark energy"?

 

[Loudmouth]

It demonstrates that you simply "spin" the fact that your invisible, impotent sky entities completely lack any empirical cause/effect support in the lab. Meanwhile you hypocritically apply a *completely empirical* standard toward the topic of God. Spin, spin, lather, rinse, repeat.

Your bridge is over here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7844589/

 

[Strathos]

I see a lot of religious claims, but zero science.

How can science be used to uphold a belief in any deity?

Ask Georges Lemaitre