The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview

quote:

---

We declare our methodology is superior based on the fact that God IS, and IF He is, then this is the basis of our superiority claim.

---

So your methodology is superior because God MIGHT exist? Couldn't an atheist then claim that his/her views are better because God MIGHT NOT exist? This doesn't seem to be a strong enough basis to claim superiority.However, there is another realm of testing, the physical world. If the theistic worldview is better then theistic theories dealing with the physical world should make better predictions than those based on a naturalistic worldview. What we find is that those claiming to adhere to a theistic worldview make predictions that are false, or they make no predictions at all. However, those using methodological naturalism are able to make predictions, test those predictions, and arrive at an accurate conclusion regardless of their theistic beliefs. By track record alone, methodological naturalism practiced by atheist and theist alike is the most accurate worldview when describing the natural world.

quote:

---

What could be a better claim than the universal God ? (if He exists)

---

That there is no God, and therefore all natural phenomena are testable through methodological naturalism and Rational Inquiry. Saying "God exists" AND "God Did It" throws in an untestable variable that weakens the strength of any conclusion.

quote:

---

Yes, it is called Methodological Naturalism and Rational Enquiry - these methodologies are superior for the natural world. Their only defects is the Divine neutrality claims which are really Divine exclusionary. It is this exclusion which triggers the wrath of God-sense removal.

---

And . . .

quote:

---

But you god-damn naturalists should stay in your box and cease from attempting to transfer your expertise in science TO religious/theistic realms.

---

This is the problem, creationists intrude into the realm of science, into the realm of the natural world. By applying the scientific method and Rational Inquiry, even when devoid of any religious overtures, clash with creationism. This clash is unavoidable, especially when creationists claim that their interpretations of the natural world require a belief in God and are devoid of scientific testing. Areligious science shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that there was not a global flood, and that life changed over time. When will creationists get back on their side of the line?

quote:

---

A better claim would be that phenomena which cannot be tested through natural means are not properly the subject of scientific inquiry.

---

This is not what YEC's claim. They claim that spiritual revelation is just as important as testing natural mechanisms. In fact, they go as far as saying that spiritual revelation trumps scientific inquiry.

quote:

---

YEC makes claims that are falsifiable through naturalistic observations. Therefore, someone who holds to YEC does so in contradction to the physical evidence.

---

Actually, YEC's do not make this claim. They say that special creation is detectable through science BUT science can not falsify special creation. This is due to the influence of an all powerful deity directly influencing the natural world, a deity who could make a world look old if that deity wanted too. Therefore, only positive evidence counts while falsifying evidence is caused by a deity. This is why I said that "God exists" AND "God Did It" weaken all conclusions. Once this position is taken no evidence can falsify a claim, therefore weakening every conclusion that is drawn from evidence.

quote:

---

You believe scientific methodologies are the ONLY avenue to determine truth.
This is error.
  —Willowtree in reply to RAZD

---

I do not know whether or not RAZD believes that science is the only route to find the larger truth of life, but I agree with you Willow. We all need philosophy or theology to answer those bigger questions about life and existence. However, the more narrowly defined "truth" of how the natural world works and has worked is best answered by science and not religion. Until the last 250 years religion had free reign over scientific truth and it went nowhere. It wasn't until religious bias was removed from science that real discoveries were made. It would seem that removal of godsense actually enabled man to better understand the natural world.

quote:

---

That so called removal of religious bias is an ambiguous hatchett job on truth which oversimplifies the issue.

​

The only issue is God as Creator.

​

When God is not given a seat at the creation table this exclusion triggers the wrath of God-sense removal. Hence the explanation of the lopsided influence of atheism in science, law, media, and education.

---

The theory of evolution does not remove God from the table. This is left to personal religious bias. Science is not atheistic, it does not say that God does not exist. However, atheists do use science as a reason to support their views, I will agree with you there.There are still christian scientists who work in biology and support evolution. If science REQUIRED the removal of God from the creation table then how can christians be part of it? The only answer is that science is areligious, devoid of any religious bias whatsoever.

quote:

---

Romans says God punishes persons by removing any desire for Him as a penalty for resisting His perceived encroachments as the Creator.

---

So, in other words, evolution can be true but God will punish you for accepting it as scientifically true? The removal of Godsense has not stopped scientists from finding transitional fossil after transitional fossil, fulfilling predictions made by the theory of evolution, and demonstrating common ancestory through fossils and DNA. Removal of Godsense has not stopped evolution from being supported by the data time after time. The presence of Godsense has yet to yield any positive evidence that would falsify evolution on the part of creationists. It would seem that Godsense is useless in investigating scientific realities.

quote:

---

Persons who have no God-sense have crossed the line. Their common denominator is that they don't care about God = the truth referenced above.

​

All this because Darwinists refuse to let God be the Creator - the only issue.

---

If Darwinists refuse to let God be the Creator they are not doing science. Science is the HOW, theology speaks to the WHY. You are limiting God when you proclaim that He DIDN'T use evolution and natural mechanisms to create the universe. It is you who is removing God from the creation table, not science.

quote:

---

Theistic methodology and our unseen eternal truths are based upon evidence and facts - just like yours (supposedly).

---

Theistic methodology relies on subjective, non-empirical data. Science relies on objective, empirical data. The two are quite different.

quote:

---

Your error is this assumption that "logic and rationality" are absent in theistic methodologies.

---

Your error is in thinking that subjective opinion should sway objective fact. That is neither logical nor rational.

quote:

---

IF Jesus rose from the dead as He said He would prior to His death THEN this IF TRUE becomes the basis to conclude everything else He said to be objective truth.

---

If Buddha did reach enlightenment, then reincarnation is an objective fact. If Mohammed was really a prophet of Allah, then the Quran is an objective fact. If Shiva is real, then Hinduism is an objective fact. We can play ifs all night. The simple fact is that the resurrection of Jesus must be taken on faith, which lends itself to religious and theologic methodologies, not scientific ones.

quote:

---

Therefore because Jesus raised this is the basis to believe in all the unseen eternal truths that He spoke of.

---

Then there is the same proof that David Koresh was the second coming of Christ, or Hallie Selassie in the case of Rastafarians. Oral traditions and religious fervor are no way to judge the objective facts surrounding the event. Simply, the resurrection of Jesus is taken on faith as are the tenets of every other religion.

quote:

---

IF they EXCLUDE the Creator then the Bible tells us why.

---

And this is exactly what you have done by saying that the creator could not use evolution in the way that is described in science. You have jerked the Creator away from the creation table because you don't like the way he created. Your inability to properly address the Creation is due to the removal of Godsense.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-03-2004 12:19 PM