Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 106 of 262 (695302)
04-04-2013 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ossat
04-04-2013 8:48 AM


faith is not needed
I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God
Not really. That's just a silly statement.
What is needed for you to understand and accept the Theory of Evolution as well as the Fact that Evolution happened is not faith but education, experience, critical thinking skills and honesty.
The fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only model so far that explains the fact of Evolution is also unrelated to the belief in God. Many of us, as devout Christians, understand both the fact that Evolution happened and how the Theory of Evolution explains what we see, yet we still believe in God and have Faith in God.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ossat, posted 04-04-2013 8:48 AM Ossat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM jar has replied
 Message 121 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 6:08 AM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 107 of 262 (695303)
04-04-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ossat
04-04-2013 8:48 AM


I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God
No, you'd need more knowledge than you presently have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ossat, posted 04-04-2013 8:48 AM Ossat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 6:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 108 of 262 (695304)
04-04-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by divermike1974
04-04-2013 2:07 AM


The issue really, Mike, is to do with objective logical notation VERSUS the assumption-driven Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.
Secular, Materialist, mainstream science, is not strictly objective, because it must proceed in giving a worldview that is consistently naturalistic. If there is evidence for God, that does not fit with the theories that expound a natural beginning and unfolding of the universe, so that evidence will always be viewed as paradoxical. The rules of science therefore allow only natural explanations based on the tautology that a natural universe will give natural explanations.
Unfortunately, while the God-of-the-gaps is sound, it is not sound to state the opposite, which is that God can't ever be inferred.
If science will not allow God to be inferred, yet He is true, then logically science is GUARANTEED to come to wrong conclusions, and wrong/false theories.
LOGICALLY, secular science is inherently none-objective. It must be by definition, otherwise there would be no such thing as methodological naturalism. It must be biased, in this regard, as science is the art of natural explanations.
Logically, it has to be biased towards naturalism. Therefore that there is no scientific evidence of God, is the same as saying; "there is nothing physically demanding in being lazy".
That conclusion is tautologous, if science can't infer God, then there can't be "scientific" evidence of God, as it would be like saying;
"we can't include cakes in our cooking school, so here is a question, --is there any cakes in our cooking school?--"
Doesn't take Einstein to give the answer does it mike? There are no cakes, because they are not allowed, but does that mean cakes are not valid?
Does it mean God is not valid? No - because if there is evidence for God, it is still there, it is just not classed as "science". A nifty trick really, because if evidence is not "scientific" they know that nobody will consider it, even if it is brilliant and true.
Therefore I politely request you read my following blog entry, and I promise the evolutionists, I am not saying there is secular-science evidence for God, as that is not possible, as you have made it that way. So do not be angry, I am not claiming to know anything secular-scientific.
Creation and evolution views: Plenty of evidence for God's existence
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by divermike1974, posted 04-04-2013 2:07 AM divermike1974 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2013 2:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2013 2:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 04-04-2013 4:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 109 of 262 (695312)
04-04-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jar
04-04-2013 1:20 PM


Re: faith is not needed
What is needed for you to understand and accept the Theory of Evolution as well as the Fact that Evolution happened is not faith but education, experience, critical thinking skills and honesty.
The fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only model so far that explains the fact of Evolution is also unrelated to the belief in God. Many of us, as devout Christians, understand both the fact that Evolution happened and how the Theory of Evolution explains what we see, yet we still believe in God and have Faith in God.
You're using the term, "fact" as an epithet, stated, ad nasueum. I've highlighted the propaganda/rhetoric. It is used as a superfluous, extraneous input.
By stating this strongly, notice you don't have to support your statement with any actual argument/. Stating the same thing, incessantly, will not make it either more true or more false, (google, "ad nasuseum")
It should also be pointed out that there are people with an education, critical thinking skills and honesty, that are creationist, understand evolution and do not accept it as, "fact". You can find a number of them at Creation.com, I can think of a few PHDs off hand, such as Jonathan Sarfati, David CatchPoole, et al, all whom are much more qualified than Jar the evolutionist is, and they also do not seem to engage in these fallacies. So it is a non sequitur that you will be evolutionist if you have these attributes, as exampled by the real-life examples acting as my absurdum.
As Zod says, Jar, "you cannot bargain with what you do not have."
"We have all these things aready, without you." (Superman 2.)
We can have all of those skills and knowledges AND reject evolution, and we do, in real life.
I believe I have shown ample critical thinking skills in this post, WITHOUT being evolutionist. Now if there was something, some syllogism, with some sort of premises, form and genuine inference, either tollens or ponen, then submit it.
No offense to you, but you can imagine how infuriating your post is, when you happen to know you have all those things, and yet you are not evolutionist and yet you seem to be telling me I am evolutionist when I know I am not.
To be evolutionist, you need to have been taught by evolutionists, that's all, and you need credulity when it comes to believing men's limited induction tallies, are wiser than the God that created the universe.
So basically, you just need to be able to jump to grandiose conclusions, based on folly, against the weight of the reality of the creation.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 04-04-2013 1:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2013 2:31 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 113 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2013 2:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2013 2:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 116 by jar, posted 04-04-2013 4:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 04-04-2013 4:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 262 (695314)
04-04-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 1:32 PM


I am not saying there is secular-science evidence for God, as that is not possible, as you have made it that way.
Is your god not omnipotent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 262 (695315)
04-04-2013 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 1:32 PM


Are you trying to agree with the OP that the ad populum fallacy should be incorporated into the scientific method, or are you trying to change the subject?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 112 of 262 (695316)
04-04-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 2:20 PM


Re: faith is not needed
I believe I have shown ample critical thinking skills in this post ...
And that's just one of the untrue things you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 113 of 262 (695318)
04-04-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 2:20 PM


Re: faith is not needed
Mike the Wiz writes:
It should also be pointed out that there are people with an education, critical thinking skills and honesty, that are creationist, understand evolution and do not accept it as, "fact". You can find a number of them at Creation.com, I can think of a few PHDs off hand, such as Jonathan Sarfati,
This is something that interests me - but maybe it needs a different thread - why otherwise sane people believe insane things.
Of course, Sartfati may not be sane - I have no idea, a lot of very good chess players are bonkers - but assuming he is, he's a chemist which gives him no credentials to write books on evolution (or rather books about why evoution is false.)
Having a PhD in chemistry also says nothing about his critical thinking skills, but believing that the bible is literally true and that the earth is 6000 years old tells us everything we need to know about them.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 114 of 262 (695319)
04-04-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 2:20 PM


It IS a fact that species change over time. Species are not immutable. That is, they evolve.
It is also a fact that the ToE provides a model for how it works.
It is also a fact that another model doesn't explain it better.
It doesn't matter who accepts those facts or not, but they are, in fact, true statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 115 of 262 (695324)
04-04-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:11 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
you may as well fuck off out if here.
Thats telling em. I gave you a cheer to offset your six jeers.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:11 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 116 of 262 (695326)
04-04-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 2:20 PM


Re: faith is not needed
Bullshit Mike, I am not using the term fact as epithet, as propaganda or as rhetoric.
I am using therm fact when I am speaking of facts.
I don't think you have shown honesty in many years Mike. If you claim that Creationism can be Science then you are not being honest or you are delusional.
I don't doubt for a second that you BELIEVE Creationism can be science or that their might be Creation Scientists but that is at best a sign of being delusional.
Science must hold all things as tentative including God.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 117 of 262 (695336)
04-04-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 1:32 PM


Secular, Materialist, mainstream science, is not strictly objective, because it must proceed in giving a worldview that is consistently naturalistic.
So what observed and verified supernatural mechanisms would you like science to include?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 118 of 262 (695337)
04-04-2013 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 2:20 PM


Re: faith is not needed
You're using the term, "fact" as an epithet, stated, ad nasueum. I've highlighted the propaganda/rhetoric. It is used as a superfluous, extraneous input.
It is no different than your use of epithets such as "materialism" or "naturalism".
To be evolutionist, you need to have been taught by evolutionists, that's all, and you need credulity when it comes to believing men's limited induction tallies, are wiser than the God that created the universe.
So says a man.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2482 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 119 of 262 (695402)
04-05-2013 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
04-04-2013 9:34 AM


What would "evidence of chance" look like?
Do you ever see scientists talking about "chance"? Why is it always creationists saying it? Could it be a misunderstanding?
lol - I just did a Google Scholar search for the word 'chance'... all I got was a bunch of papers written by people that were named Chance
I mean unplanned changes. Would it sound more like evolutionist language if I refer to it as "random mutations". Isn't that the way evolution is suppose to happen?
You know how babies are made. New animals come from existing animals. How do you get variety from that process?
Because just a small part of your genetic information (genotype) is expressed physically in your body (Phenotype). You look slightly different respective to your parents but still the genetic information is the same. I know there are mutations in the process and they contribute to the variation but that doesn't really mean there is "evolution" in process

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2013 9:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-05-2013 11:04 AM Ossat has replied

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2482 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 120 of 262 (695404)
04-05-2013 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taq
04-04-2013 12:20 PM


But are you able to demonstrate that this is true using evidence?
Any living thing no matter how small and simple looks, is far too complex, has got far too much parts interacting together to be the result of unplanned events
Why would you need faith when there is evidence to look at?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Would you say you don't need any faith to accept the theory of evolution? you can read this website or any other, or any book. That alone is not evidence at all, you are just believing in what other people is writing, you are basically having faith in them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 04-04-2013 12:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2013 6:31 AM Ossat has replied
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 04-05-2013 11:15 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 04-05-2013 12:14 PM Ossat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024