Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
joz
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 107 (600)
12-11-2001 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
12-11-2001 3:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I think Joz is giving you the right answers, but maybe it would help if someone else took a shot at this.
Science takes no position one way or the other on things for which there is no evidence. Since there is no objective evidence for God one way or the other, science neither admits nor denies God's existence. It takes no position one way or the other.
You are naturally correct when you say there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy of science, but science is merely a method for finding out all we can about the natural universe. The spiritual universe requires a different approach.
--Percy

Exactly, I can say "I do not believe there is a God". I cannot say "I can scientifically disprove God". This is because there is no data to go on....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-11-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 12-11-2001 3:19 PM Percy has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 107 (601)
12-11-2001 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
So we can end this on the note that as far as this topic is concerned Christians will always have an answer, but thus far evolution does not.
I think you have confused science and evolution.....
And a better statement would be:
Thus far science refrains from taking a firm position in the absence of any data, religions speculate freely that its all due to the big fella....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-11-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:12 PM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 107 (608)
12-11-2001 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Your complete devotion to thinking that there is a reason for life besides God is your faith in man.
Actually:
a)I dont have much faith in man as you put it. We are nasty malicious buggers for the most part....
b)Actually (and I thought I had already explained this) my position is that one should not ascribe a cause to any phenomenon in the complete absence of evidence.
c)My aversion to the its because of God hypothesis is that it offers no evidence not because of the inclusion of a big fella. If it offered proof of said hypothesis it would be worthy of consideration as an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:51 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:11 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 107 (620)
12-12-2001 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
That is why I don't trust the knowledge conceived by man alone.
So go on the "Is the bible the word of God" thread and prove that it is....
An interesting problem with that statement is that if I were to say well 1 plus 1 is 2 you would answer that that was conceived of by God. The same is true for everything that you hold true which means that to debate this point you and I need to agree on a "piece of knowledge perceived by man alone" that you disagree with and I subscribe to, any suggestions....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:11 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:54 AM joz has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 107 (623)
12-12-2001 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I understand what you are saying about the law of light. Imagine a straight line, on either end is an arror pointing opposite of each other. This line represents time and how it extents beyond limit in either direction, both the past and the present. You are saying that sense light can not be created or destroyed that it would mean that before anything else was originated there was always light and that extended into the past with time indefinatly. This is still limited thinking. There would have to be a reason for time itself to exist and for it to contain light.
You can accuse me of being closed minded if you wish, I do not pretend to be politially correct.
Now for your question on how God could express himself in an unscientific way. God is not limited. I believe he does do things that we observe and science can not explain. That's when scientist sometimes take a good guess and in some cases purely use their imagination to invent theories. But as far as an indisbutible proof of himself, I believe he is reserving that for the end. Maybe to test man's faith, or maybe for another reason he will reveal to us then.

Q/ Where the hell did he mention "the law of light"?
Q/ What the hell is "the law of light"?
Q/ Have you ever heard of relativity?
If you had you would not assert that time is necessarily linear
Q/ How do you explain that pure conjecture gives such an accurate model of the world?
And if God manipulated things as he saw fit there would be a large body of anomalous data that could be used to prove his existence. There is no data so there can be no scientific view on his existence or nonexistence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:30 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 9:17 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 107 (627)
12-12-2001 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
But I believe that it does. I believe scientist don't want there to be a God because if there is something all knowing, then they can't feel quite as smart as they would like to feel.
I understand science does not have all the answers now, and most of you in here are pending your beliefs on what can be proven at the time. I would just like for all of you to investigate the side of creation and see if you can prove their theories wrong. If you read on the creation sites and some of the christian sites you can find all the answers to the questions you have. If you are so convinced of what you believe in than you should have no trouble studying the bible, christianaity, and the creationist pov. If you are going to form an oppinion on anything you must look at the other side of the matter.

1) It doesn't name me one peer review article that attempts to disprove God...
2) What we are saying is that while there is no data everyone needs to stop taking positions on what is true...
3) My problem with the creationists (mostly YECs) is that they are hypocrites for example Snelling of answers in genesis:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm
Please suggest a site that you would like us to examine.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:53 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 9:25 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 107 (630)
12-12-2001 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by redstang281
12-12-2001 9:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
He said that light could not be created or destroyed. I believe that after God created light it could not be created or destroyed. That is assuming man's comprehension of what he has observed of light is correct.
I think we both agree that God has not presented to everyone in mankind with undeniable evidence of himself. So you can stop mentioning that in every post
How do I explain that pure conjecture has an accurate model of the world? That's your opinion. I feel that the creation representation is much more feasible. It explains a lot more than evolution, science.. etc. You can call it my opinion if you life, but I'd would rather you do research as I have.
Oh and even if time is not linear it still has to have a reason for existing. Linear was not pertinent to my argument and was just a way of expression.

That would be the 1st law of thermodynamics he gave you the correct name use it.... About every other post you substitute in a different term (science for pre big bang singularity is another example) this is rude and could potentially cloud the argument.
Ok bub Ill stop mentioning it if you accept that a God which interacts with the universe is observable and capable of being the object of scientific study....
In what way is it more feasible? what research?
Also your "it has to have a reason for existing" argument is unconvincing it would for example be applicable to your God. If you were to reply that he needed no reason I would argue that this principle of existence without reason is also potentially applicable to time and the mass/energy of the universe...
And I was merely pointing out a problem with your analogy of time as a straight line....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 9:17 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 10:19 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 107 (632)
12-12-2001 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by redstang281
12-12-2001 9:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.jackcuozzo.com
http://www.creationists.org/
I expect than when you initially start examining these sites you will get angry, think they are stupid, and possibly even laugh. All I ask is for you to examine the whole site and really think about the big picture before you come to a conclusion.

Read most of these before and my big criticism is that their argument are for the most part only valid if you accept that the bible is a 100% accurate portrayal of events....Once again the "is the bible the word of God" forum is waiting.....
The science is thin on the ground to say the least and consists as far as I could see of the same old tired arguments that have been more than adequately answered in the past...
Is this the only research you did or did you bother to read any rebuttals of their arguments?
Oh and please would you clarify your position are you a YEC or an OEC?
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-12-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 9:25 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 10:35 AM joz has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 107 (640)
12-12-2001 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by redstang281
12-12-2001 10:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
If you say so.
I do....
quote:
The methods in which God uses are capable of study, but not God himself.
And I reiterate if the interaction between the universe and your God is observable (and it necessarily is) then God is necessarily observable through those interaction...
quote:
I agree that the existence of God is not scientific. That is what is to be expected of God. But what I'm trying to get you to understand is that the variable which God fills is not fillable by science because of the nature in which the variable is required.
See above for why a God that interacts with the universe is by definition capable of scientific study...
I am sorry but claiming that there is a niche for God that only God can fill doesn't do you any good here....
quote:
If you understood my point then why attack the analogy?
Because it was a weak analogy...
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-12-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 10:19 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:02 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 107 (644)
12-12-2001 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
If you believe that then you are limiting God. Because you don't beleive that something that is beyond your understanding could possibly exist. It's arrogant to limit the unknown based on the knowledge you have of the known.
I have explained it many many times to you and yet you still don't understand. You have closed your eyes completly.

I will now ask you a set of questions please answer them....
1)Does God interact with the universe...
2)Do you accept that any interaction (assuming it affects the outcome in any way) is observable...
If you answered yes to those questions you have conceded that God is observable....
If you didn't examples please.....
Actually I make no claims about the unknown (you do) and so I do not constrain the possible set of solutions (once again with God is the answer you do). So who is being arrogant?
And you have trotted out a handful of a priori assertions without the backing of any evidence whatsoever, a review of the topic seems to suggest that it is actually you who have been sticking dogmatically to a position unbacked by any evidence....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:02 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:52 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 107 (650)
12-12-2001 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
See this is the problem in your rationalization. You are presuming that I am saying that there is both a natural world that works independly of God and a God that can decide to jump in and out as he see's fit. What I am trying to say is that everything is under God's guidance and supervision except for man. He has granted man free will.
Is god the universe? (I assume you will answer no as yes would imply God/universe creating itself ex nihilo)
If not then yes there is a physical system that God interacts with as an exterior agent...
As for your concept of free will it seems badly constrained (see lets face it)....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:52 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:20 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 107 (656)
12-12-2001 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by redstang281
12-12-2001 12:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
The bible said God created the universe, so I would have to say he is not the universe. So yes then I suppose he would be an exterior agent that interacts with the universe. In which their would be nothing in the universe that he doesn't interact with.
And given that he interacts with the universe what prevents an observation of that interaction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:20 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:21 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 107 (678)
12-12-2001 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by redstang281
12-12-2001 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
That's simple enough to answer. Because God is not understood by man.
That does not preclude an observation of the interaction between God and the universe....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:21 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:11 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 107 (681)
12-12-2001 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
So your belief is that if God did perform an unscientific event that through one of the repercussions it would prove itself?
My point of view is that God could cover up the unscientific event to make it look to us like it was scientific. It seems to coincided with the bible that God doesn't want to globally reveal himself until the end. I can put it in a hypothetical example if you think that would better illustrate my point.

And how does the account of God turning Lots wife (I think it was Lot) wife into a pillar of salt fit in? God seems to have slipped up on covering things up there....
Oh and would you mind reprasing that first paragraph as it is giberish....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-12-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:11 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:46 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 107 (686)
12-12-2001 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

"This remarkable happening is stated matter-of-factly, with no suggestion that it was a special miracle or divine judgment. Lot’s wife "looked back" (the phrase might even be rendered "returned back" or "lagged back") seeking to cling to her luxurious life in Sodom (note Christ’s reference to this in Luke 17:32,33) and was destroyed in the "overthrow" (Genesis 19:25,29) of the city. There are many great deposits of rock salt in the region, probably formed by massive precipitation from thermal brines upwelling from the earth’s deep mantle during the great Flood. Possibly the overthrow buried her in a shower of these salt deposits blown skyward by the explosions. There is also the possibility that she was buried in a shower of volcanic ash, with her body gradually being converted into "salt" over the years following through the process of petrifaction, in a manner similar to that experienced by the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the famous eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
- Henry Morris (taken from: "The Defenders Study Bible")
On a side note, I do believe God offers up miracles. I just can't prove them. Again, probably because God chooses not to reveal himself globally until the end.

Yes but by stipulating that miracles happen you are conceding that your God sometimes interacts to produce anomalous results (the events would hardly be miraculous if not)....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:46 PM redstang281 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