The universe with no need of God

[cloudyday2]

Allow me to attempt a translation.

"I believe that without the presupposition that the universe was spoken into existence, along with two people and some animals, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, the planet was flooded and repopulated using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived in an unbuildable boat, and later the god that spoke everything into existence and flooded the Earth sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of those two original people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people, you cannot see the universe as comprehensible and ordered as is necessary for the scientific method to work."

Does that not make sense, or what?

LOL. It all makes perfect sense now (Somehow I don't think that is what @Oncedeceived intended to say though. )

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can't understand what you're saying. I wonder if there is a typo? Or maybe I am just not getting it for some reason.

I'm sorry. That really was unclear.

I believe that atheism does not fit better with Scientific methodology. It takes the Christian view to provide the necessary foundation for scientific methodology. Modern Science would not be where it is today if it were not for the a priori assumptions founded in Christian thought. An orderly and consistent universe that can be comprehended by intelligent beings is based in Christian theology.

 

[Oncedeceived]

LOL. It all makes perfect sense now (Somehow I don't think that is what @Oncedeceived intended to say though. )

Exactly.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm sorry. That really was unclear.

I believe that atheism does not fit better with Scientific methodology. It takes the Christian view to provide the necessary foundation for scientific methodology. Modern Science would not be where it is today if it were not for the a priori assumptions founded in Christian thought. An orderly and consistent universe that can be comprehended by intelligent beings is based in Christian theology.

Do you have a single example to tie that assertion in with reality?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have a single example to tie that assertion in with reality?

Christianity and the Origin of Modern Science

by Dr. John Millam

All of us in modern society recognize the impact that modern science has had on our lives. Few, however, know about the Christian origin of modern science. In our contemporary culture, Christianity is often portrayed as being antithetical to science, yet if we examine our history books, we find that modern science was birthed, nurtured, and flourished in Europe under the influence of the Christian worldview. It was Christianity that decisively shaped science and provided an intellectual framework in which science could operate. Even scientists are typically unaware of this connection because scientists are trained to follow the scientific method but are given little or no training in the history or philosophy of science. For most people (scientists and non-scientists alike), the fact that science simply works is sufficient reason to accept science and so feel that there is no need to explore where modern science came from or why it works.

The practice of modern science is a relatively new phenomenon and has only been around for about 350 years. Modern science is distinguished from ancient science by its use of the scientific method, which emphasizes experimentation, verification, falsification, and quantitative (rather than qualitative) analysis. Many ancient cultures, such as the Egyptians, Chinese, and the Greeks, investigated the natural world and gave rise to many advances in mathematics and astronomy yet their practice of science was hindered and never developed the sophistication or vitality found in later European science. In each case, the absence of the scientific method as well as certain specific beliefs about the universe hindered the birth science. The advent of modern science represented a fundamental shift in how people viewed and explored the natural world and was not simply an increase in technology or level of sophistication. Since the birth of modern science represents a change in the philosophy of science, we need to examine the historical development of science from a theological and philosophical point of view.


Judeo-Christian Scripture and Christian Worldview Gave A Basis for Modern Science to Emerge and Flourish.
Science today is commonly taught as a methodology or process without reference to the presuppositions that are required for science to operate. Few scientists are equipped or encouraged to contemplate the philosophy of science that is the very basis for their work. As a result, most people (scientists and non-scientists) do not recognize that modern science is grounded in philosophical and theological ideas. Typically, when scientists are asked to explain the basis for science, they simply argue “science works.” This answer is unsatisfactory and we must recognize that there are some basic presuppositions that provide the framework for modern science. Charles Hummel identifies six basic presuppositions:

1) Order in nature. Nature has an underlying order, shown in patterns and regularities that can be discovered. Such knowledge is attainable and human intellect is capable of acquiring it, even though infinite variation exists.
2) Uniformity of nature. The forces of nature are uniform throughout space and time. What happens here in one laboratory also occurs in other countries around the world (in both the past and present) under the same conditions.
3) Validity of sense perceptions. Reliable data can be obtained by using the human senses or their extensions (for example, by reading a thermometer or voltmeter).
4) Principle of simplicity. If two theories or explanations fit the data, the simpler is usually to be preferred. For example, although Copernicus’ system did not provide a better fit than that of Ptolemy to the available data, or make more accurate predictions of celestial phenomena, it was mathematically simpler; it was preferred because it could account for the observations with a less complicated scheme.
5) Moral responsibility. All scientists are expected to report honestly the results of their experiments so that others can have confidence in their data and the use of those results in their own research.
6) Consensus of acceptance. Scientists around the world engaged in research in the same discipline, using similar procedures and equipment, test research results and give them relative objectivity. Acceptance is based on the agreed competence of experts, a group of trained, skilled observers.

How does Christianity provide a basis for these basic presuppositions? Christianity rests on the foundation of a very specific understanding of God—one that is distinct from other religions. Some fundamental aspects of the Christian view of God are that (a) God is infinite, (b) God is eternal, (c) God is righteous, (d) God is a personal creator and sustainer, (e) God creates ex-nihilo ("out of nothing"), and (f) God transcends (is separate from) the universe. This understanding of God gives rise to three principles that form a rational basis for the six basis presuppositions of science.

a) Physical material world exists as an objective reality. Since God created the world, the reality of the world flows naturally out of the reality of God. Since God is eternal, infinite, and unchanging, this must naturally be true uniformly over both time and space (presupposition 2).
b) Creation reflects a rational view of God. The universe, as God’s handiwork, must necessarily reflect His character and purpose. The rational nature of God naturally leads to an understanding that the universe is orderly and uniform (presuppositions 1 and 2). Similarly, the simplicity and beauty revealed about God in the Bible must also apply to God’s creation (propositions 3 and 4).
c) Humankind was uniquely created. Man was created by God and was created as separate and distinct from the rest


of nature (Genesis 1:26-27). Man, as God’s special creation, can stand apart from the rest of nature and so is able to comprehend the orderliness of nature. Because the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1-6) and character of God (Romans 1:18-20), God had to give man the ability to reason and accurately view nature to appreciate His revelation (presupposition 3). Similarly, because man is created in God’s image, man has God’s moral law written on his heart, including the capacity for honesty and integrity (presuppositions 5 and 6).

The bottom line is that the preconditions of science are rooted in Christian theism’s belief in an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has ordered the universe and has provided man with a mind that corresponds to that universe intelligibly. So, while most of Western society accepts the six basic presuppositions of science, only Christianity provides a reasonable and consistent basis for them.

chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5338561

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christianity and the Origin of Modern Science

by Dr. John Millam

All of us in modern society recognize the impact that modern science has had on our lives. Few, however, know about the Christian origin of modern science. In our contemporary culture, Christianity is often portrayed as being antithetical to science, yet if we examine our history books, we find that modern science was birthed, nurtured, and flourished in Europe under the influence of the Christian worldview. It was Christianity that decisively shaped science and provided an intellectual framework in which science could operate. Even scientists are typically unaware of this connection because scientists are trained to follow the scientific method but are given little or no training in the history or philosophy of science. For most people (scientists and non-scientists alike), the fact that science simply works is sufficient reason to accept science and so feel that there is no need to explore where modern science came from or why it works.

The practice of modern science is a relatively new phenomenon and has only been around for about 350 years. Modern science is distinguished from ancient science by its use of the scientific method, which emphasizes experimentation, verification, falsification, and quantitative (rather than qualitative) analysis. Many ancient cultures, such as the Egyptians, Chinese, and the Greeks, investigated the natural world and gave rise to many advances in mathematics and astronomy yet their practice of science was hindered and never developed the sophistication or vitality found in later European science. In each case, the absence of the scientific method as well as certain specific beliefs about the universe hindered the birth science. The advent of modern science represented a fundamental shift in how people viewed and explored the natural world and was not simply an increase in technology or level of sophistication. Since the birth of modern science represents a change in the philosophy of science, we need to examine the historical development of science from a theological and philosophical point of view.


Judeo-Christian Scripture and Christian Worldview Gave A Basis for Modern Science to Emerge and Flourish.
Science today is commonly taught as a methodology or process without reference to the presuppositions that are required for science to operate. Few scientists are equipped or encouraged to contemplate the philosophy of science that is the very basis for their work. As a result, most people (scientists and non-scientists) do not recognize that modern science is grounded in philosophical and theological ideas. Typically, when scientists are asked to explain the basis for science, they simply argue “science works.” This answer is unsatisfactory and we must recognize that there are some basic presuppositions that provide the framework for modern science. Charles Hummel identifies six basic presuppositions:

1) Order in nature. Nature has an underlying order, shown in patterns and regularities that can be discovered. Such knowledge is attainable and human intellect is capable of acquiring it, even though infinite variation exists.
2) Uniformity of nature. The forces of nature are uniform throughout space and time. What happens here in one laboratory also occurs in other countries around the world (in both the past and present) under the same conditions.
3) Validity of sense perceptions. Reliable data can be obtained by using the human senses or their extensions (for example, by reading a thermometer or voltmeter).
4) Principle of simplicity. If two theories or explanations fit the data, the simpler is usually to be preferred. For example, although Copernicus’ system did not provide a better fit than that of Ptolemy to the available data, or make more accurate predictions of celestial phenomena, it was mathematically simpler; it was preferred because it could account for the observations with a less complicated scheme.
5) Moral responsibility. All scientists are expected to report honestly the results of their experiments so that others can have confidence in their data and the use of those results in their own research.
6) Consensus of acceptance. Scientists around the world engaged in research in the same discipline, using similar procedures and equipment, test research results and give them relative objectivity. Acceptance is based on the agreed competence of experts, a group of trained, skilled observers.

How does Christianity provide a basis for these basic presuppositions? Christianity rests on the foundation of a very specific understanding of God—one that is distinct from other religions. Some fundamental aspects of the Christian view of God are that (a) God is infinite, (b) God is eternal, (c) God is righteous, (d) God is a personal creator and sustainer, (e) God creates ex-nihilo ("out of nothing"), and (f) God transcends (is separate from) the universe. This understanding of God gives rise to three principles that form a rational basis for the six basis presuppositions of science.

a) Physical material world exists as an objective reality. Since God created the world, the reality of the world flows naturally out of the reality of God. Since God is eternal, infinite, and unchanging, this must naturally be true uniformly over both time and space (presupposition 2).
b) Creation reflects a rational view of God. The universe, as God’s handiwork, must necessarily reflect His character and purpose. The rational nature of God naturally leads to an understanding that the universe is orderly and uniform (presuppositions 1 and 2). Similarly, the simplicity and beauty revealed about God in the Bible must also apply to God’s creation (propositions 3 and 4).
c) Humankind was uniquely created. Man was created by God and was created as separate and distinct from the rest


of nature (Genesis 1:26-27). Man, as God’s special creation, can stand apart from the rest of nature and so is able to comprehend the orderliness of nature. Because the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1-6) and character of God (Romans 1:18-20), God had to give man the ability to reason and accurately view nature to appreciate His revelation (presupposition 3). Similarly, because man is created in God’s image, man has God’s moral law written on his heart, including the capacity for honesty and integrity (presuppositions 5 and 6).

The bottom line is that the preconditions of science are rooted in Christian theism’s belief in an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has ordered the universe and has provided man with a mind that corresponds to that universe intelligibly. So, while most of Western society accepts the six basic presuppositions of science, only Christianity provides a reasonable and consistent basis for them.

chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5338561

In our contemporary culture, Christianity is often portrayed as being antithetical to science, yet if we examine our history books, we find that modern science was birthed, nurtured, and flourished in Europe under the influence of the Christian worldview.

So, because science as we know it originated in Christian-dominated Europe, it follows that science originated from the Christian worldview? Then mind telling me why it is the Christian worldview that resisted heliocentrism and why the Christian worldview resists evolution to this day?

Typically, when scientists are asked to explain the basis for science, they simply argue “science works.” This answer is unsatisfactory and we must recognize that there are some basic presuppositions that provide the framework for modern science.

Why is that answer unsatisfactory? What???

By that reasoning, how on earth is "Because God said so" or "Because God made it so" satisfactory?

How does Christianity provide a basis for these basic presuppositions? Christianity rests on the foundation of a very specific understanding of God—one that is distinct from other religions. Some fundamental aspects of the Christian view of God are that (a) God is infinite, (b) God is eternal, (c) God is righteous, (d) God is a personal creator and sustainer, (e) God creates ex-nihilo ("out of nothing"), and (f) God transcends (is separate from) the universe. This understanding of God gives rise to three principles that form a rational basis for the six basis presuppositions of science.

(a) So what?
(b) So what?
(c) So what? Also, what does that even mean?
(d) Begging the question. The point in question is whether or not God exists.
(e) Begging the question, and also logically impossible as I've showed you many times.
(f) So what?

You have provided me with an utterly terrible choice of an article and I'm not reading the rest. The article itself is fine, more or less, but his target audience is clearly Christians because he's helping himself to the assumption that God created the universe out of nothing. It is in fact part of his argument. You do realize I'm atheist, right? You realize this is a point in question among the two of us? If this article is meant to be justification for your claim, and you cite the point in question, that's called circular reasoning. So your choice here couldn't have been less appropriate.

What is your goal here in the apologetics forum?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In our contemporary culture, Christianity is often portrayed as being antithetical to science, yet if we examine our history books, we find that modern science was birthed, nurtured, and flourished in Europe under the influence of the Christian worldview.

So, because science as we know it originated in Christian-dominated Europe, it follows that science originated from the Christian worldview? Then mind telling me why it is the Christian worldview that resisted heliocentrism and why the Christian worldview resists evolution to this day?

Quote button not working for you?
Read the whole article here: http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php

The story of conflict does sound familiar, because it is the standard interpretation of history taught all through the public education system. In fact, it is so widely accepted that often it is treated not as an interpretation at all, but simply as a fact of history. Yet, surprising as it may sound, among historians of science, the standard view has been soundly debunked. Most historians today agree that the main impact Christianity had on the origin and development of modern science was positive. Far from being a science stopper, it is a science starter.

Typically, when scientists are asked to explain the basis for science, they simply argue “science works.” This answer is unsatisfactory and we must recognize that there are some basic presuppositions that provide the framework for modern science.

Why is that answer unsatisfactory? What???

Science works is no different than God did it.

By that reasoning, how on earth is "Because God said so" or "Because God made it so" satisfactory?

It isn't that is why evidence has to support claims in Science.

How does Christianity provide a basis for these basic presuppositions? Christianity rests on the foundation of a very specific understanding of God—one that is distinct from other religions. Some fundamental aspects of the Christian view of God are that (a) God is infinite, (b) God is eternal, (c) God is righteous, (d) God is a personal creator and sustainer, (e) God creates ex-nihilo ("out of nothing"), and (f) God transcends (is separate from) the universe. This understanding of God gives rise to three principles that form a rational basis for the six basis presuppositions of science.

(a) So what?
(b) So what?
(c) So what? Also, what does that even mean?
(d) Begging the question. The point in question is whether or not God exists.
(e) Begging the question, and also logically impossible as I've showed you many times.
(f) So what?

You have not shown that (e) is impossible.
Regardless, the fact remains that not only did science arise from a Christian worldview, the first scientists held to a Christian worldview.

You have provided me with an utterly terrible choice of an article and I'm not reading the rest. The article itself is fine, more or less, but his target audience is clearly Christians because he's helping himself to the assumption that God created the universe out of nothing. It is in fact part of his argument. You do realize I'm atheist, right? You realize this is a point in question among the two of us? If this article is meant to be justification for your claim, and you cite the point in question, that's called circular reasoning. So your choice here couldn't have been less appropriate.

What is your goal here in the apologetics forum?

Have you forgotten why I posted what I did? Go and re-read.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In our contemporary culture, Christianity is often portrayed as being antithetical to science, yet if we examine our history books, we find that modern science was birthed, nurtured, and flourished in Europe under the influence of the Christian worldview.

So, because science as we know it originated in Christian-dominated Europe, it follows that science originated from the Christian worldview? Then mind telling me why it is the Christian worldview that resisted heliocentrism and why the Christian worldview resists evolution to this day?

You're absolutely wrong about that. Galileo was harassed because he taught as fact something he hadn't the tools to prove, and obstinately chose to keep on doing so. The heliocentric theory was first proposed by a Catholic scientist-Copernicus, along with Kepler, who was also Christian. The "Christian worldview of evolution" isn't. Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't. What we rail against is any explanation of how we got here that excludes God.

Typically, when scientists are asked to explain the basis for science, they simply argue “science works.” This answer is unsatisfactory and we must recognize that there are some basic presuppositions that provide the framework for modern science.

Why is that answer unsatisfactory? What???

By that reasoning, how on earth is "Because God said so" or "Because God made it so" satisfactory?

How does Christianity provide a basis for these basic presuppositions? Christianity rests on the foundation of a very specific understanding of God—one that is distinct from other religions. Some fundamental aspects of the Christian view of God are that (a) God is infinite, (b) God is eternal, (c) God is righteous, (d) God is a personal creator and sustainer, (e) God creates ex-nihilo ("out of nothing"), and (f) God transcends (is separate from) the universe. This understanding of God gives rise to three principles that form a rational basis for the six basis presuppositions of science.

(a) So what?
(b) So what?
(c) So what? Also, what does that even mean?
(d) Begging the question. The point in question is whether or not God exists.
(e) Begging the question, and also logically impossible as I've showed you many times.
(f) So what?

You have provided me with an utterly terrible choice of an article and I'm not reading the rest. The article itself is fine, more or less, but his target audience is clearly Christians because he's helping himself to the assumption that God created the universe out of nothing. It is in fact part of his argument. You do realize I'm atheist, right? You realize this is a point in question among the two of us? If this article is meant to be justification for your claim, and you cite the point in question, that's called circular reasoning. So your choice here couldn't have been less appropriate.

What is your goal here in the apologetics forum?

It's very telling that you, and anyone else who claims to be interested in the Truth, stops reading half way through an article, or will not concede any majority-held idea, such as "the absolute obligated to be and do good", which is observable. Someone said "generally" instead of "absolutely" because there are sociopaths who don't do and be good, but even that is arguing to the exceptions. There ARE exceptions, yet the truth remains-we are obligated to be and do good, and that obligation can only come from God.

 

[Davian]

I'm sorry. That really was unclear.

I believe that atheism does not fit better with Scientific methodology.

Agreed, as they have nothing to do with each other.

It takes the Christian view to provide the necessary foundation for scientific methodology.

Unevidenced assertion.

Modern Science would not be where it is today if it were not for the a priori assumptions founded in Christian thought.

Unevidenced assertion. That is as useful - and as accurate - as saying that modern science would not be where it is today if it were not for those that wore pants.

An orderly and consistent universe that can be comprehended by intelligent beings is based in Christian theology.

But in Christian theology the universe is not orderly and consistent, it is subject to the whims of its god, is it not?

 

[Hoghead1]

You're absolutely wrong about that. Galileo was harassed because he taught as fact something he hadn't the tools to prove, and obstinately chose to keep on doing so. The heliocentric theory was first proposed by a Catholic scientist-Copernicus, along with Kepler, who was also Christian. The "Christian worldview of evolution" isn't. Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't. What we rail against is any explanation of how we got here that excludes God.

It's very telling that you, and anyone else who claims to be interested in the Truth, stops reading half way through an article, or will not concede any majority-held idea, such as "the absolute obligated to be and do good", which is observable. Someone said "generally" instead of "absolutely" because there are sociopaths who don't do and be good, but even that is arguing to the exceptions. There ARE exceptions, yet the truth remains-we are obligated to be and do good, and that obligation can only come from God.

You are way, way off about Galileo. He did have the proof. However, as it violated what Aristotle had to say, and the church went exclusively on Aristotle, he was declared a heretic. Also, I don't know where you are getting this idea that evolution isn't Christian. Darwin, for example, was about to be ordained as a country preacher when he went on the Beagle instead. In addition, the writings of the major 20the-century philosopher and Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin argued that evolution was the way God is evolving the Kingdom of God. And let's not forget that many, perhaps the majority of Christians today accept evolution. The only real exception being the American Bible Belt.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Quote button not working for you?

It's working just fine. I quoted the whole block and then selected pieces to comment on since I was not responding to every single piece. I find that method to be honest, not deserving of ridicule.

Read the whole article here: http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php

No thanks.

The story of conflict does sound familiar, because it is the standard interpretation of history taught all through the public education system. In fact, it is so widely accepted that often it is treated not as an interpretation at all, but simply as a fact of history. Yet, surprising as it may sound, among historians of science, the standard view has been soundly debunked. Most historians today agree that the main impact Christianity had on the origin and development of modern science was positive. Far from being a science stopper, it is a science starter.

Do you have a source that isn't asserting the point in question?

Science works is no different than God did it.

Then why are you satisfied with "God created the universe"?

It isn't that is why evidence has to support claims in Science.

You're dodging the question.

You have not shown that (e) is impossible.

Yes I have.

Suppose X begins to exist. Before X existed, what was acted on to bring X into existence? Was X acted on? Then X exists before it exists, a contradiction. Was nothing acted on? How does one act on nothing? What does that even mean?

Regardless, the fact remains that not only did science arise from a Christian worldview,

A "fact" you proved by assuming the point in question.

the first scientists held to a Christian worldview.

Because they were indoctrinated as children.

Have you forgotten why I posted what I did?

No.

Go and re-read.

Also no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's working just fine. I quoted the whole block and then selected pieces to comment on since I was not responding to every single piece. I find that method to be honest, not deserving of ridicule.

I'm sorry I thought you were being lazy, I apologize.

No thanks.

Why? How would you feel if you provided a link to support your point and I refused to read it?

Do you have a source that isn't asserting the point in question?

Can you provide something that gives the origin of modern science that counters this?

Then why are you satisfied with "God created the universe"?

Why are you satisfied with the universe has no cause? If the universe began to exist, it had to have a cause according to the physical laws the universe is governed by.

You're dodging the question.

Not in the least.

Yes I have.

Suppose X begins to exist. Before X existed, what was acted on to bring X into existence? Was X acted on? Then X exists before it exists, a contradiction. Was nothing acted on? How does one act on nothing? What does that even mean?

I will come back to this later, but please provide how you think the universe came into existence.

A "fact" you proved by assuming the point in question.

You are more than welcome to provide information that would proof that wrong.

Because they were indoctrinated as children.

Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. There beliefs are what provided the foundation from which Science methodology arose.

No.

Then why are you asking why it is in this forum?

Also no.

Whatever.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are way, way off about Galileo. He did have the proof. However, as it violated what Aristotle had to say, and the church went exclusively on Aristotle, he was declared a heretic. Also, I don't know where you are getting this idea that evolution isn't Christian. Darwin, for example, was about to be ordained as a country preacher when he went on the Beagle instead. In addition, the writings of the major 20the-century philosopher and Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin argued that evolution was the way God is evolving the Kingdom of God. And let's not forget that many, perhaps the majority of Christians today accept evolution. The only real exception being the American Bible Belt.

The majority of Christians that accept evolution do not accept that it is an unguided process devoid of intelligent direction.

 

[Davian]

...
Can you provide something that gives the origin of modern science that counters this?

Is this not asking him to prove a negative?

Why are you satisfied with the universe has no cause? If the universe began to exist, it had to have a cause according to the physical laws the universe is governed by.

<citation missing>

 

[Davian]

You're absolutely wrong about that. Galileo was harassed because he taught as fact something he hadn't the tools to prove,

..except for his repeatable and independently verifiable astronomical observations. There was that.

and obstinately chose to keep on doing so.

He did have the evidence on his side.

The heliocentric theory was first proposed by a Catholic scientist-Copernicus, along with Kepler, who was also Christian.

And of what significance were their religious beliefs in this context?

The "Christian worldview of evolution" isn't. Some Christians believe in evolution, some don't.

According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church" - wiki

You are Catholic, are you not?

What we rail against is any explanation of how we got here that excludes God.

Scientific explanations generally leave out - not exclude - what is of no significance.

It's very telling that you, and anyone else who claims to be interested in the Truth,

I am interested in truth, but you obviously mean something different by your capitonym.

stops reading half way through an article,

I skipped ahead. It didn't get any better.

or will not concede any majority-held idea,

The [fallacious] appeal to authority.

such as "the absolute obligated to be and do good", which is observable.

Or not observed, as you concede in the same post.

Someone said "generally" instead of "absolutely" because there are sociopaths who don't do and be good, but even that is arguing to the exceptions.

The point being, absolutes do not have exceptions.

There ARE exceptions,

Not to absolutes.

yet the truth remains-we are obligated to be and do good,

If we were generally not, we would not be social animals.

and that obligation can only come from God.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[Hoghead1]

The majority of Christians that accept evolution do not accept that it is an unguided process devoid of intelligent direction.

Yes, very true.

 

[Davian]

LOL. It all makes perfect sense now

Glad I could help.

(Somehow I don't think that is what @Oncedeceived intended to say though.

No, I think it was pretty much accurate. What she is attempting can also be described as presuppositional apologetics.

"Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian"

Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It pretty much fails right out of the box, as it boils down to "I am right and you are wrong". Once spends a lot of time trying to find faults in the worldviews of others, as if it lends support for hers.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are way, way off about Galileo. He did have the proof. However, as it violated what Aristotle had to say, and the church went exclusively on Aristotle, he was declared a heretic. Also, I don't know where you are getting this idea that evolution isn't Christian. Darwin, for example, was about to be ordained as a country preacher when he went on the Beagle instead. In addition, the writings of the major 20the-century philosopher and Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin argued that evolution was the way God is evolving the Kingdom of God. And let's not forget that many, perhaps the majority of Christians today accept evolution. The only real exception being the American Bible Belt.

Galileo wasn't declared a heretic, ever. He was placed under house arrest, allowed the sacraments until his death, which a heretic could not do.
From Wiki, which is pretty accurate in this case:
Copernicus' De revolutionibus had been published twenty years before Galileo's birth, and while heliocentrism was condemned by Protestant leaders Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon, the Catholic church was more open to the idea. Copernicus had dedicated his book to Pope Paul III, and it inspired very little debate regarding its relation to Christian dogma or scripture over the next sixty years. There was no institutional Catholic opposition to heliocentrism, and Copernicus' work was even used for the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582.[60] However, the heliocentric view was slow to be adopted by the educated public of the time, who mostly adhered to either to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[61] or the Tychonic system that blended geocentricsm with heliocentrism.[62]

Galileo defended heliocentrism based on his astronomical observations of 1609 (Sidereus Nuncius 1610). In December 1613 the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo's friends and followers,Benedetto Castelli, with biblical objections to the motion of the earth. According to Maurice Finocchiaro this was done in a friendly and gracious manner, out of curiosity. Prompted by this incident, Galileo wrote a letter to Castelli in which he argued that heliocentrism was actually not contrary to biblical texts, and that the bible was an authority on faith and morals, not on science. This letter was not published, but circulated widely.[63]

By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.[64] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[65] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his Copernican and biblical ideas. At the start of 1616, Monsignor Francesco Ingoli initiated a debate with Galileo, sending him an essay disputing the Copernican system. Galileo later stated that he believed this essay to have been instrumental in the action against Copernicanism that followed.[66] According to Maurice Finocchiaro, Ingoli had probably been commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy, and the essay provided the "chief direct basis" for the Inquisition's actions.[67] The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism. It borrowed primarily from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, and it notedly mentioned Brahe's argument that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the Sun. Ingoli wrote that the great distance to the stars in the heliocentric theory "clearly proves ... the fixed stars to be of such size, as they may surpass or equal the size of the orbit circle of the Earth itself."[68] The essay also included four theological arguments, but Ingoli suggested Galileo focus on the physical and mathematical arguments, and he did not mention Galileo's biblical ideas.[69] In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith".[70] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[71])

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered:

... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[72]

The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction.[72] Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he did not advocate for its physical truth.[8][73]

For the next decade, Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. Galileo's resulting book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.[74]

Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo.

Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[75] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio.

Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[76] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy.

Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings[77] in September 1632. He finally arrived in February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged. Throughout his trial Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism. In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in theDialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.[78]

The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on 22 June. It was in three essential parts:

• Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[79]
• He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[80] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[81]

If Galileo could physically prove that heliocentrism was true, he would not have been condemned.

Regarding evolution, where did I ever say it's not Christian? I believe it to be true. Darwin's theory didn't take God into account, though, in my opinion.

 

[Root of Jesse]

..except for his repeatable and independently verifiable astronomical observations. There was that.

He did have the evidence on his side.

Perhaps, but he couldn't prove it.

And of what significance were their religious beliefs in this context?

The point being that while some, especially Protestants, thought heliocentrism contradicted Scripture, Catholics such as Copernicus and Galileo didn't.

According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church" - wiki

You are Catholic, are you not?

Yes, and I've said repeatedly that I believe in evolution, but not Darwinism.

Scientific explanations generally leave out - not exclude - what is of no significance.

I am interested in truth, but you obviously mean something different by your capitonym.

I skipped ahead. It didn't get any better.

The [fallacious] appeal to authority.

Or not observed, as you concede in the same post.

The point being, absolutes do not have exceptions.

Not to absolutes.

If we were generally not, we would not be social animals.

Why? Because you say so?

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm sorry I thought you were being lazy, I apologize.

Why?

Why? How would you feel if you provided a link to support your point and I refused to read it?

Let me lay some groundwork here.

There is the problem of existence. Why do we exist instead of not existing?

The atheist is honest and says, "I don't know, but it might be X, Y, or Z."

The theist claims to know.

The theist is already wrong before the debate has even begun. On top of this, they display a monumental amount of special pleading. They say that they can explain the problem of existence as long as they are allowed to help themselves to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, disembodied mind that can somehow subvert causality to the point that he can cause an effect (the universe) without anything even being effected at all since nothing was acted on. But then when the atheist, who already admitted they don't know, says that they, too, can answer the question if only they may help themselves to a similarly absurd claim, such as the claim that all possible universes exist, the theist pounces on this rails against the proposition for it having no evidence.

To say that the methods of argumentation put forth by the theist are absurd and dishonest is putting it lightly.

And now here you come along, claiming that Christian theology better accounts for the consistency of physical laws and hence the scientific method. In support of this claim, your cited article presumed the existence of God.

So now with all of this in mind, how would you feel if I argued that the multiverse model better accounts for the consistency of physical laws and hence the scientific method, and in proving this I assumed that all possible universes exist?

Can you provide something that gives the origin of modern science that counters this?

I do not need to counter your circular argument. It fails on its own merits.

Why are you satisfied with the universe has no cause?

I'm not. I've said that the universe's beginning is necessarily acausal, but that isn't explaining what happened. It's explaining what didn't happen. I never said I'm satisfied. My honest answer is that I don't know, although I'm able to logically eliminate certain propositions.

If the universe began to exist, it had to have a cause according to the physical laws the universe is governed by.

Not in the least.

Then please answer: are you or are you not satisfied with the answer, "God created the universe through means that we will never understand"? If yes, then why is "Science works even though we don't know why the physical laws are what they are" unacceptable? If no, then why are you a believer?

I will come back to this later, but please provide how you think the universe came into existence.

I have no idea.

You are more than welcome to provide information that would proof that wrong.

Firstly, again, your argument is circular.

Secondly, the argument asserts that God caused the universe to exist ex nihilo. I already proved why that is logically impossible and you deferred response for later.

Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. There beliefs are what provided the foundation from which Science methodology arose.

Yeah... according to your circular argument which uses incoherent premises.

Then why are you asking why it is in this forum?

Because it is circular reasoning.

Whatever.

Indeed.