PHILOSOPHY IS KING

From a previous topic :Evolution only disproves God/Genesis IF the filter of your worldview is operating ?Evolution only disproves God IF the filter of your worldview INTERPRETS the evidence to say so ?Why ?Because the scientific evidence was supposedly gathered and produced under the claim of Divine neutrality. Rational enquiry and methodological naturalism contain clauses that specifically state no position concerning the Divine is taken.Why were these clauses created to begin with ?Answer : Because it was believed that God cannot be scientifically/empirically tested.Is the above answer true ?No !Why ?Because God, in Romans, says He can be deduced from what is seen/made.Romans 1:20"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"This entire verse of scripture exists in the context of the 18th verse which begins the wrath of God for all those who reject the gospel of the preceding verses.This wrath abides on persons who DENY God and are unthankful (verse 21). God requires two things : Acknowledgement as Creator/thankfulness.IF He is denied these two things then the punishment is the removal of the capacity to deduce Him in what is seen/made - "God sense removal".Violators have their "reciever" removed, they are no longer capable of seeing God's fingerprints in creation. They will conclude everything and anything BUT God.The most classic example of God sense removal is Francis Crick's space aliens ! Crick will conclude everything but God. Here we have a brilliant person suffering the wrath of God for refusing to acknowledge God as God and being thankful.CONCLUSIONS :The so called "Divine neutral" clauses in RE and MN are in fact God exclusionary. This "a priori" decision to exclude God is the trigger that unleashes the wrath of God : God sense/insight removalRomans reveals the truth about the true intent of those so called "Divine neutral" clauses.This is why evolution is heavily populated with atheists. The facade of the Divine neutral claims allow them to have their cake and eat it too.
When challenged as to how evolution disproves God they point to the clauses/claims, then when the hotseat disappears the emotive and reportive meaning of "evolution" remains : The God of Genesis was not involved.Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, purposeless are all words that have a convenient twin meaning : the God of Genesis was not involved.The Book of Esther (and others) proves God's m.o. is to control under the appearance of chance, fluke , and accident.EvC member Darwins Terrier has offered probably the best argument against ID in this forum that I have ever read. I responded to this agrument by congratulating him for his effort, even though I disagree, I recognized the appeal and strength of his arguments."Whats your point Willowtree ?"At the end of his post he says the following :Darwins Terrier QUOTE :"What is ruled out is a single highly intelligent designer, operating always at the height of his powers. " END QUOTE.http://EvC Forum: Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons -->EvC Forum: Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten ReasonsI offer this quote as evidence supporting Romans which declares by interpretation that the decision to not include God is indeed exclusionary and not "Divine neutrality".IF God IS (and He is ) then His subjective views become objective truth, and in the source of His word He reveals that He can be deduced in what is seen. Which means philosophy is king and not science and its atheistic worldview domination.Everyone has opinions about the Divine, as it is silly to say these opinions cease at the laboratory door. They continue under the camouflage of code because otherwise scientism/evolutionism is making unqualified conclusions about God.I would like to read replies from the following members (in no particular order) :NosyNed
Quetzal
Loudmouth
Mark Austin
Lam
Chipotera
Crashfrog
Darwins Terrier
MamuthusThis is not intended to put you on the spot. I just would like to hear from you all - and anyone else.Thank You,WillowtreeSource of Theology : Dr. Gene Scott.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-05-2004]

Did you deliberately put this topic in the "Free For All" forum, or was it a default placement, because you were in a "Free For All" topic when you started it?Adminnemooseus

I'll start by pointing out a possible flaw of your premise, the quote from Romans in the NT.Quoting from the bible is hardly a logical argument. For one thing, anyone could argue that it is a circular argument by using the bible as a reference for such a major logical argument such as the existence of God and his role in life.Why is it a circular argument? First, we must assert that the bible IS the word of God, that everything in the bible has to be correct for it to be used in this aspect. Second, you would then say that the bible asserts that God exists and that his role is very much active in the lives of his creation.Now, we may ask "how do we know that the bible is God's word and that it is completely accurate?" The only answer anyone can give to this is that God says so in the bible, and we concluded in the previous paragraph that God exists by using the premise "the bible IS the word of God and that it is entirely accurate." But in this particular logic problem, we are trying to prove that the bible is accurate enough for us to use it as a reference in other problems.Thus, we have a problem. How do we know that the bible IS God's word and that it is accurate? Answer: Because God saids so. How do we know what God has to say? Answer: Because the bible is God's word and it is accurate.Besides the circular argument problem, there are also other problems about using the bible as a reference. Perhaps the best example of why the bible today might not be accurate is the discovery and translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars have long suspected for centuries that the book of Esther was not part of the original OT, that it was added on later on by God knows who. The Dead Sea Scrolls justified this suspicion when scholars couldn't find the book of Esther anywhere, even though everything else was there. If part of the OT couldn't be trusted, what about the rest of the OT and perhaps the NT?Now, we then run into the problem of accurately translating the texts. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language knows that translating a language from one to another is not as easy as looking up in a dictionary for each word and putting them together.I know 3 languages, and I can tell you that this approach would be disasterous. The sentencing structures are just too different from one language to another, especially for something as important as the book that tells the "truth." Even words can't be translated accurately from one language to another without running into cultural references and other barriers. For example, (I've pointed this out before) Vietnamese has no word for "sex," "you," etc.... French has no words for "warm," "cool," etc....I am writing everything off the top of my head, so there may be some specific details that I missed.After those few problems with translation, you then run into another problem, which is a major problem with the accuracies of the bible, especially the OT. OT was written in ancient Hebrew, which had no vowels, spacings, or punctuations. If I were to write the equivalence of this sentence in ancient Hebrew in English imitation, it would look like this: FWRTWRTTHQVLNCFTHSSNTNCNNCNTHBRWNNGLSHMTTNTWLDLKLKTHSAny scholar who has attempted to translate Ancient Hebrew would tell you that translating something like this, especially thousands and thousands of pages of it, is the most difficult thing. Some even claim that the whole OT put pronounced together is the name of God... but that's another story.We yet run into another problem. Both the OT and NT were translated many times before they became today's bible. I don't exactly remember the order of translation, but here is how it roughly look: Ancient Hebrew --> Ancient Greek --> Greek --> Hebrew --> Latin --> everything else. The NT went through something similar: Ancient Greek ---> Greek ---> Latin ---> King James ----> everything else.To be continued...Edited: Forgot to mention the fact that the NT was first put down on paper almost a generation after the death of Christ. The books were later named after the orginal apostles of Christ by the Vaticans.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-06-2004]

PART 2I am very very tempted to go into the philosophical issue regarding the existence of God, but since your question is directed at the scientific view, I'll jump right to it.There are different interpretations of where science stand in regard to the existence of God. Some, like a friend of mine, would argue that because the theory of evolution already explains how life could exist the way they do without divine intervention then it proves that God does not exist. Some, like me, would argue that the fact that life could exist the way they do without divine intervention tells us nothing whether God exists or not. Then, you have some that try to incorporate the theories of science into religious faith to glorify God.I am sure there are other views out there, but I will only explain my view on this matter.Science doesn't try to prove anything! Think of the scientific method as a tool, or a guide, to objectively discover and explain certain observable phenomena without any subjective bias view.Since I already shown you in my previous post to why we cannot use the bible as a reference in this matter, I cannot think of any reason how God can be empirically and scientifically tested. However, this does not mean that science has proven the inexistence of God. There are many things that CAN exist without us being able to scientifically and empirically test it using our current abilities. For examples, black holes, the existence of the other 6 dimensions predicted by the string theory, dark matter, dark energy, entanglement, etc... are all scientific concepts that cannot be tested by any mean known to current mainstream science.Therefore, God is just another concept that might be true but is untestable by any mean known to man.The only reason why black holes, 10 dimensional universe, dark matter, etc... are considered more valid concepts or theories than "God" by the scientific community is because we can see these other concepts in mathematical terms. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, we have no known mathematical equation that can show the existence of God.If you have any question, feel free to ask. I'll respond whenever I can.

You have posted this idea several times and each time you try to ignore Theistic Evolutionists. If a person still has their god sense then they should be able see his "fingerprints" in creation, right? Well, then how is it that we have people that still have their god sense accepting evolution?Shouldn't these people that still have god sense reject evolution right out because they can see gods "fingerprints" all over the place?Also your entire argument is based on the assumption that the god is a Christian one and that the bible is true. For all you know the one true god could be Islamic. Until some evidence is provided that suggests that god is Christian (or that he even exists) your arguments are worthless. The idea that nearly all scientists are working together to deny creation is ridiculous. In order for this to be true you would need thousands of scientists (if not millions) in dozens of fields working and communicating in unison with each other to cover up all evidence contradictory to evolution. Essentially what you are suggesting is that there is a massive conspiracy among scientists to cover up "the truth"Lastly, I'm not sure where you got the idea that evolution denies gods existence. Anyone that says that the TOE disproves god doesn't know what they are talking about. The only thing the TOE goes against is the Genesis account of creation, this does not mean that god had no hand in creation.

Hi WT,I think we danced around this subject a bit earlier (but I can't seem to locate the specific thread.) However, your statement is what is known as an invulnerable claim. IOW, there is literally nothing to discuss because there is literally no unambiguous content, and the conclusion carries a built-in escape clause (congrats, you managed to make both an undeclared claim and a multiple-out in one statement). The statements violate nearly all the criteria for scientific discussion, as I outlined in this post. If you want me to engage you in what is basically a "philosophical" discussion on God, then you're asking the wrong guy for a response. I simply find that type of discussion utterly uninteresting, and I also find it intellectually vacuous to argue about the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings - except in an evidential context. OTOH, if you'd care to pick up BAE's dropped challenge, and submit your claims to the five criteria I posted, then we have a basis for further discussion.No offense, WT. Philosophy and I never have mixed well.

I deliberately placed it in FFA Admin., no default situation was in place.Thanks,Willowtree

Maybe you haven't been addressed with this before, but from now on please keep this in mind as a reminder from a fellow Christian:Willowtree says:
"When challenged as to how evolution disproves God they point to the clauses/claims, then when the hotseat disappears the emotive and reportive meaning of "evolution" remains : The God of Genesis was not involved."Es falso, muchacho. Evolution doesn't care about how life got here, or even how long ago that was! Just that it did somehow and it changed slowly into what it is today. No rap on God. No rap on Jesus.
No rap should be allowed period, but it is even though rock is better. Paper does not rap rock, rock smashes through paper and... er... I'm on a runaway train of thought. Sorry.Please note that Evolution doesn't care how life arose, just that it did somehow, sometime, and that it evolved a little to become modern life. THAT'S ALL SHE WROTE.Please, it makes us theists/Creationists look stupid when our guys keep forgetting this simple fact.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Man, that was a lot less resistance... in fact no resistance at all to my idea that the bible is not an accurate source of info. I was talking to some 18 year old Christians about these concepts and they put up more of a fight than you did.

LAM :What on Earth are YOU talking about ?The response that you replied to was my reply to a question from Admin.I don't think anyone in this forum who knows me would believe that I would not debate/argue for the accuracy of the Bible.I think you have made a mistake or maybe even me .....would someone jump in here and clear this up ?I have yet to respond to you Lam - but you better believe that I will.

Greetings Quetzal :This is a philosophical discussion - no question. I purposely titled the topic to reflect my desire/interest.Thank you for your speedy and honest reply that states no interest in a philosophical debate.We did have this dance in a distant debate, but it was in a scientific
arena because of my misplacement.I did read the link you provided and I am unable to give you a clear answer. But as it sits now I would not engage you in a scientific discussion as an opponent. I would only participate as a learner.Quetzal, the true and real intent of this topic of mine was to ilicit responses to the first two questions contained in the topic - would you care to take a hack at them ? If not, then you have already explained why.My best regards,Willowtree

RAND AL'THOR QUOTE :"You have posted this idea several times and each time you try to ignore Theistic Evolutionists. If a person still has their god sense then they should be able see his "fingerprints" in creation, right? Well, then how is it that we have people that still have their god sense accepting evolution?" END QUOTEYes, if they have God sense they see His "fingerprints". IF you accept evolution (whatever that means) and you still profess and credit God as Creator THEN you have fulfilled the requirement of Romans; which is acknowledgement of God/thankfulness. This compliance renders any given person ineligible for the punishment of God sense removal.God sense creationism only requires a deistic belief in God.God draws a line in Romans. He only requires a seat at the creation table. Deny Him this seat and He will permanently disable your ability to deduce His "eternal power and Godhead".God wants credit as the ultimate Creator and a word of thanks. Thats the line He has drawn....cross that line and you end up spending 30 years in gorilla cage mesmorized by apes AKA "worshipping the creation instead of the Creator" (Romans 1:23-25)Theistic evolutionists are engaged in a bad marriage, but they acknowledge God and thats all He requires.The laser beam of my wrath is aimed at the atheists of evolution who have devised a way to make conclusions about God while hiding behind a ridiculous disclaimer (RE and MN Divine neutral clauses).2000 years ago God through Paul anticipated His rejection by modern science. It is Dr. Scott and Professor Huston Smith who have rightly interpreted Romans and identified the rejection of God in: Law, Higher Education, Science/Scientism, and the Media to be the result of persons being stripped of their God sense FOR willfully "crossing the line".The success of the atheist agenda proves the interpretation of Romans to be absolutely correct.I never used or implied "conspiracy". But to give a plain answer :You either profess some type of belief in God or you don't. These are the two camps. The atheists are in loose conspiracy as are the deists/theists.Peoples of other faiths who acknowledge God are also ineligible for the punishment of God sense removal. This doesn't mean their faith is true in place of christianity it just means they are in compliance of God's two-fold demand. God will judge them as to their relationship with Him in the dimension that they encountered Him.

I am ever amazed that there are actually people out there that feel the need to do this sort of bible calastinics and contortions to maintain they're world view and beliefs in the face of the current body of knowlege year 2004. Everytime I thought I have heard it all I am befuddled again by creationist gymnastics.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Willowtree,I deliberately did not read anyone else's post, so I hope I am not repeating anyone else. I thought I would give you my unadulterated and uninfluenced post.

quote:

---

Evolution only disproves God IF the filter of your worldview INTERPRETS the evidence to say so ?

---

I would have phrased it thus. "Evolution only disproves God if the proof of God is the lack of evolution." I see no problem with the coexistence of God and Evolution, or God and Gravity, or any other scientific theory.

quote:

---

Because the scientific evidence was supposedly gathered and produced under the claim of Divine neutrality. Rational enquiry and methodological naturalism contain clauses that specifically state no position concerning the Divine is taken.

---

The best I have ever seen a creationist state this position. Kudos.

quote:

---

Because God, in Romans, says He can be deduced from what is seen/made.

​

Romans 1:20

​

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"

---

Bzzzz. Wrong answer. Notice that God has "invisible attributes." My translation is that by "invisible", Paul is saying that man can never detect these attributes directly. Therefore, untestable by science. Secondly, why are there so many religious sects in and outside of christiandom that conflict on a theological basis. This is reason enough to conclude that God's supernatural influence is not obvious, and possibly contrived with the only variable being memmetic differences between cultures. The fact that no one has ever become a christian without being converted by a christian is testament to the lack of evidence in nature for the Judeo-Islamic-Christian God. However, the conversion of Paul is a good counter-example, but his conversion was not due to signs in nature but rather through personal revelation. To boil it down, every person has has equal access to the wonders of nature but not everyone becomes a christian.

quote:

---

IF He is denied these two things then the punishment is the removal of the capacity to deduce Him in what is seen/made - "God sense removal".

---

This doesn't apply to cultures who never heard of Jesus. They never had a chance to deny God but yet come to different conclusions with respect to the supernatural. Secondly, this is a circular argument. Breaking it down, the argument is thus. "If you believe in God, then you will believe in God. If you incapable of believing in God, then you won't believe in God." Kind of stating the obvious, isn't it?

quote:

---

Crick will conclude everything but God. Here we have a brilliant person suffering the wrath of God for refusing to acknowledge God as God and being thankful.

---

And creation scientists will conclude nothing but divine creation. We call that having your common sense removed. Kidding aside, Crick was speculating and nothing requires him to conclude what YOU want. However, if his speculations are to become theory then they need to be tested through scientific methodologies. Crick's speculations have no binding on scientific theory or acceptance.

quote:

---

The so called "Divine neutral" clauses in RE and MN are in fact God exclusionary. This "a priori" decision to exclude God is the trigger that unleashes the wrath of God : God sense/insight removal

---

And creation science, among christian fundamentalists, is Vishnu, Enkidu, Zeus, Leprechaun, Pink Unicorn, Divine Space Alien, etc. exclusionary. To quote Sir Stephen Henry Roberts, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Put this into a scientific context and you will understand science's position. Creation scientists exclude other dieties, science goes even farther and excludes them all.

quote:

---

Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, purposeless are all words that have a convenient twin meaning : the God of Genesis was not involved.

---

Evidence brought us to the conclusion of random mutation and natural selection. Evolution is not random, but rather non-goal oriented. Evolution is the band aid of biological fixes, it can only adapt to the problem at hand in a way that is good enough.Secondly, the theory of evolution does not say that God was not involved, only that supernatural mechanisms were not involved. Big difference. As you have heard many times before, evolution could be the result of God creating physical laws that can only lead to evolution.

I guess I like to see this as similar to a child. Although the embryo eventually becomes a fully grown human, the adult has came about via a seemingly and totally natural means. At first it is a tiny package of cells, and look at the end product. But no-one says that we are not designed or created by God in the believers camp,(me included). So although there seems to be no Godly interaction and science has explained the womb happenings, we do not conclude no God and so if we evolved via natural means, why then should we conclude no God? We can still be designed, maybe God makes us in tiny packages, and the universe in a tiny package. If I design a car and build the prototype then it doesn't mean there is no creator/designer if I am not involved in every production of that model. If evolution is true then it just means God is cleverer than I thought.