Jump to content

Preachy hijack from Can Science Explain Everything Without God(s)


B. John Jones

Recommended Posts

 

That's not criticism. It's a claim, and unfounded. We can test that too, before I'm banned, if time permits.

 

Why do you consistently reply with non sequiturs, rather than answering questions or sticking to the topic of the thread? (He asks, going off topic ...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So i don't understand why someone who wishes to save the mortal souls of people would engage in behaviour they know will get them banned. Who learns from that? These are not the actions of someone who genuinely cares for people, but of someone playing the martyr; one who wishes to emulate her favourite child sacrifice perhaps.

God knows I care for people. Being censored, to any extent, is not my prerogative.

Why do you consistently reply with non sequiturs, rather than answering questions or sticking to the topic of the thread? (He asks, going off topic ...)

The topic is a question, to which my answer is no. I've consistently answered, no because God is behind all nature. Now I'm charging that it be tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic is a question, to which my answer is no. I've consistently answered, no because God is behind all nature.

Okay, we get that this is your position.

 

 

Now I'm charging that it be tested.

How could we test this?

 

If you just say, essentially, that 'physics/science is how God does things' then we are probably stuck. To prove that he exists, God would have to do something pretty clear that can only be explained by God having done it. So far, nothing meets that criteria. All we have are unanswered questions in science and that is okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, we get that this is your position.How could we test this?If you just say, essentially, that 'physics/science is how God does things' then we are probably stuck. To prove that he exists, God would have to do something pretty clear that can only be explained by God having done it. So far, nothing meets that criteria. All we have are unanswered questions in science and that is okay.

You're not looking at nature. You're looking at science, which used to be about nature. If you were using science to view nature you would see it's majesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not looking at nature. You're looking at science, which used to be about nature. If you were using science to view nature you would see it's majesty.

In essence, science is how we look at and describe nature.

 

I am not sure where you are going with this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, we get that this is your position.How could we test this?

Bible used to be axiom. Today the scientific community slanders it's authors as liars. You claim it contradicts itself. Show me. If we can't show how every alleged contradiction is reconciled, and that the Bible as a whole is complete, then modern science is correct. There is no God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bible used to be axiom. Today the scientific community slanders it's authors as liars. You claim it contradicts itself. Show me. If we can't show how every alleged contradiction is reconciled, and that the Bible as a whole is complete, then modern science is correct. There is no God.

You seem to want to drive this thread off topic.

 

If you search this forum, inconsistencies in the Bible have already been discussed. Please add your thought there.

 

I understand part of your arguments... unless I am mistaken, you claim that God exists and is the 'force' behind all nature. In particular, he is not 'just' God of the gaps, but permeates all nature and so all science. This is a position that many people take, including those who genuinely are religious and work as scientists. Other of us don't like to take much on blind faith and so do not really entertain the existence of a God. This does not really create much of a clash between religious scientists and non-religious scientists. The trouble starts when people stop using science and just state 'God did it'. Or even more worrying is when religious texts are used to justify certain actions that many of us see as 'unhealthy' for society. In this group I would also put 'creationist science' which is an complete oxymoron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to want to drive this thread off topic.If you search this forum, inconsistencies in the Bible have already been discussed. Please add your thought there.I understand part of your arguments... unless I am mistaken, you claim that God exists and is the 'force' behind all nature. In particular, he is not 'just' God of the gaps, but permeates all nature and so all science. This is a position that many people take, including those who genuinely are religious and work as scientists. Other of us don't like to take much on blind faith and so do not really entertain the existence of a God. This does not really create much of a clash between religious scientists and non-religious scientists. The trouble starts when people stop using science and just state 'God did it'. Or even more worrying is when religious texts are used to justify certain actions that many of us see as 'unhealthy' for society. In this group I would also put 'creationist science' which is an complete oxymoron.

This has nothing to do with religion, or God as a force. God is the most integral part of nature, that being everything that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is the most integral part of nature, that being everything that is.

Okay, if a God exists then indeed what I have said is independent of religion, agreed.

 

However, what you say above seems agrees with what I wrote on my understanding of your position. You cannot separate God from nature and so not truly from science.

 

That is you philosophical/religious position on the opening question as I understand it. Others of us hold different positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not looking at nature. You're looking at science, which used to be about nature. If you were using science to view nature you would see it's majesty.

 

Science is about building testable theories, not just going "wow, majestic".

Bible used to be axiom.

 

But we have moved on from there to perform objective testing and measurement.

 

Today the scientific community slanders it's authors as liars.

 

Does it? I don't think most members of the scientific community have much to say about the subject (apart from a few annoying tics like Dawkins). And, of course, there are very many religious scientists (not all of whom share your religion, of course).

God is the most integral part of nature, that being everything that is.

 

As this is a science forum, how would we test that claim to determine if it is true or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Get away with? Absolutely not. Back it up? Absolutely. How does science explain our standard basis for measuring time as 365 and some fractions of number of rotations of the earth, and yet the earth never orbits the sun, and the moon never orbits the same earth precisely correlative numbers of times? The calendar is correct because humans govern the earth.

 

Actually the opposite. Our calendar is what it is because humans don't govern the earth. Same with time. The length of the day varies and there's very little we can do about that, so we add leap seconds instead.

 

Newton is, arguably, the penultimate scientist.

 

Newton is the second-to-last scientist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people say that the problem of evil, extreme suffering and death in the world disproves the existence of God.

 

I mean where was God when 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis in Auschwitz and where was God when the Bubonic plague killed an estimated 50 million people in Europe in the 14th century.

 

But I don't think that the problem of evil and immorality really disproves the existence of God per se, it only disproves the existence of a loving God.

 

God may as well be an immoral jackass, we can't know for sure if God is good or evil but the evidence seems to suggest that God is really immoral (or may I even say evil)

Edited by seriously disabled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.