Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 3:50 AM
42 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 76 of 145 (468984)
06-02-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wumpini
05-04-2008 6:26 PM


A fundamental problem you are using is that you discount the existence of other Gods. Furthermore, only one interpretation, a literal one of Genesis creates the problem between evolution and Biblical Theism. Remove this interpretation or apply a belief in a different religion or God and the problem of accepting God and Evolution disappears.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wumpini, posted 05-04-2008 6:26 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 7:54 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 77 of 145 (469093)
06-03-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Blue Jay
06-02-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Wumpini writes:

The “Theory of Evolution” is an attempt by scientists to explain life on this planet without God.

Bluejay writes:

Alternatively, it is an attempt by scientists to explain how the creative processes of God manifest in the physical world. Any religious person in the world can add “and God did it” to the end of any of scientific theory, explanation, data or conclusion, and I wouldn’t complain.

Do you believe that this is what scientists are trying to do? They are trying to determine how God Created everything. That is sure not the impression that I get from this website.

Bluejay writes:

Perhaps I should have answered your questions like this:

quote:
________________________________________
I believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 and as supported and refined by the Mendelian Genetics, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, etc., and believe that this theory is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth today. And I believe that God did it.
________________________________________

If that is what you believe, then that is how you should answer.

Unfortunately, if you are referring to the God of the Bible, then you are contradicting Jesus Christ who claimed to be God. Jesus is stated to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3). And, Jesus quotes Genesis and says that God, in the beginning made them male and female (Matt 19:9). If you believe that God used the “Theory of Evolution” as proposed by science, then you are saying that God started with a one cell something in the beginning.

You may end up with male and female human beings in the end, but the theory has a big problem “In the beginning.” The only possible way, in my mind, to reconcile the “Theory of Evolution” as stated by scientists to the Biblical account of creation is to say God Created them male and female, and then they evolved. That is unless you want to throw out the New Testament with Genesis. I hope you do not want to do that.

Bluejay writes:

This is problematic, because God is most definitely not the mechanism; He is the agent. Your theory is akin to “the mechanic fixed my car,” where my theory is akin to “the mechanic fixed my car by twisting a wrench and pouring fluids in.” Your theory only says what the sum total result of the mechanic’s work was, whereas my theory sorts into what the mechanic actually did. Under this logic, my theory includes everything that your theory includes, except mine also incorporates more information.

Let us assume that you wanted your mechanic to fix your car? Let us also assume that you have a very powerful mechanic. (Here in West Africa they may say he has a very strong Juju). Your mechanic says, Let the car be fixed, and it is fixed (Let us assume that the car was broken, and that it actually became fixed). What would be your theory about the repair of your car? Would you say that the mechanic fixed your car by speaking? Was speech necessary to fix the car, or only to communicate to you that the car was fixed? Or would your theory be that the mechanic fixed the car by summoning some supernatural power. That would be my theory. In this situation, what would you see as the mechanism? Would it be the supernatural power? Now compare that to God and Creation using His own power. I think God is the mechanism.

Wumpini writes:

God could have chosen to create using natural laws, or to create outside the natural laws of nature.

Bluejay writes:

And with this, I disagree. I believe in a God of order.

After rereading my own statement, I may disagree with it also. The point I was trying to make was that God could have created however He chose. However, what He chose was different than the natural laws that scientists propose. How would a supernatural Creation imply that God is not a God of order?

Bluejay writes:

Fair enough. But, you have to remain consistent in your usage. You don’t get to take the theory of evolution, and your theory of Creation, and say they are equal and equivalent entities just because we’re not on a science thread. There is a difference between them, and just because we’re not exposed to the rigormarole of science doesn’t mean you can flip back and forth.

I don’t understand your point. My theory is supernatural, and God is the mechanism. You say the theory is not scientific. However, it is still a theory. I spent days on another thread trying to get some of these words worked out so that I could communicate. It appears it was a waste of time.

Bluejay writes:

This also goes for the word “faith.” In your last post, you flipped back and forth between different definitions of “faith” so that you could answer everything I had to say with “there is still an element of ‘faith’.” That is extremely unfair to me, and makes it impossible for me to argue anything. Either stick to one definition of “faith,” or use qualifying words or make up terms to distinguish between the different types of faith, because you know damn well I’m not referring to all of the possible meanings of “faith” when I say “I don’t have faith in ¬¬______.”

Could you give me some examples?

If you make the statement that you do not have faith in _________. Then my understanding would be that you do not believe _________ to be true.

If you say that you must have (Biblical) faith to be saved. Then, I would understand you to mean that you must believe in God (the truth), and obey God to be saved. Read Hebrews 11.

Those are the only two definitions that I will use. Context should determine which is being used.

I am sorry if I am confusing you.

Bluejay writes:

So now, it appears that there are multiple meanings of the word “magic” as well. What is the difference between what God does and what a sorceror does, other than that one is used for “good” and the other is used for “evil?” I understand “magic” to mean “something that people can’t comprehend and science can’t explain.” If you object to my use of this terminology, show me why it’s erroneous.

There are multiple meanings for many words. I guess magic may be used as an adjective in the sense you are implying (metaphorically). Such as God’s Creative powers seem magical. I would not use magic or magical to describe the power of God. The Bible clearly distinguishes between the power of God and magic. Here are a couple of definitions that I found:

quote:
Magic \Mag"ic\, Magical \Mag"ic*al\, a. [L. magicus, Gr. ?, fr. ?: cf. F. magique. See Magi.]

1. Pertaining to the hidden wisdom supposed to be possessed by the Magi; relating to the occult powers of nature, and the producing of effects by their agency.
2. Performed by, or proceeding from, occult and superhuman agencies; done by, or seemingly done by, enchantment or sorcery. Hence: Seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary; having extraordinary properties; as, a magic lantern; a magic square or circle.

The painter's magic skill. --Cowper.

Note: Although with certain words magic is used more than magical, -- as, magic circle, magic square, magic wand, -- we may in general say magic or magical; as, a magic or magical effect; a magic or magical influence, etc. But when the adjective is predicative, magical, and not magic, is used; as, the effect was magical.


quote:
Main Entry:
1mag•ic
Pronunciation:
\ˈma-jik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikē, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian maguš sorcerer
Date:
14th century
1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b: magic rites or incantations
2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b: something that seems to cast a spell
3: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

Bluejay writes:

I can’t top Straggler. See here. Basically, he says “great claims require great evidence.”

If scientists cannot look at the wonder of what God has created and stand in awe of his power and greatness, then nothing that I will say will make a difference. Scientists appear to be able to look at more evidence of the complexity of life and the universe than the average person will ever see. Why many do not believe in God, I have no idea.

Bluejay writes:

In summation of all this, it does often nag at me that I almost always side with atheists and anti-Christians in debates at EvC, even though I am a legitimate believer in God and Jesus.

That nagging feeling could be the conscious that God gave you trying to tell you something.

Bluejay writes:

I will always side with the people who are willing to subject their own arguments and standpoints to the same critical standards to which they subject others’ viewpoints, because those are people who are able to see when they have made mistakes, and are able to apply their knowledge evenly across every field of study and work. And, in my experience those people are more commonly atheists than Christians.

I would really think about this statement.

What if these atheists have made a mistake about the existence of God? How will they be able to see this mistake? How are they able to make good arguments if the premise should include God and they deny his existence?

If you want to side with people who believe there is no God then remember that science only deals with the natural world. I encourage you to learn all that you can about the natural world. I hope you or someone can come up with a way to eradicate malaria. I am tired of getting rid of it. I hope that science can cure cancer, and fix all of the ills of society. However, don’t ever believe that science has all of the answers.

Science does not and cannot deal with the supernatural (where God is). It cannot and never will be able to answer many, many of the questions that are very important to each of us on this planet. The only answer they can give is that we came from nothing, and we will end up nothing, and outside of what we can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste there is nothing. That is not enough for me, and I hope that it is not enough for you. So if you are going to side with those who do not believe in God, then I hope that you do it in such a way that you do not oppose those who do believe. Jesus says in Mark 9:40 that "he who is not against us is on our side." What if you side with an atheist against a believer and it causes them to lose their faith? I would read what Jesus says in Mark 9:42 very carefully.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2008 3:03 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 06-03-2008 8:51 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 06-05-2008 4:15 PM Wumpini has responded

    
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 78 of 145 (469095)
06-03-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by obvious Child
06-02-2008 6:36 PM


obvious Child writes:

A fundamental problem you are using is that you discount the existence of other Gods. Furthermore, only one interpretation, a literal one of Genesis creates the problem between evolution and Biblical Theism. Remove this interpretation or apply a belief in a different religion or God and the problem of accepting God and Evolution disappears.

Actually, it is God who discounts the existence of other gods. Over and over He tells us in the Bible that “there is one God.”

There are numerous references to Creation in the New Testament. What do I do about those? Do I remove those interpretations also?


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by obvious Child, posted 06-02-2008 6:36 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by obvious Child, posted 06-03-2008 8:04 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 82 by Granny Magda, posted 06-03-2008 9:42 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 79 of 145 (469097)
06-03-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 7:54 PM


Therefore your argument is if someone wrote it down, it is therefore true.

quote:
There are numerous references to Creation in the New Testament. What do I do about those? Do I remove those interpretations also?

Don't take them literally. Literal creationism literally makes the world stop working.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 7:54 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:00 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 80 of 145 (469101)
06-03-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 7:28 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
You may end up with male and female human beings in the end, but the theory has a big problem “In the beginning.” The only possible way, in my mind, to reconcile the “Theory of Evolution” as stated by scientists to the Biblical account of creation is to say God Created them male and female, and then they evolved.

The "big problem," though, is a problem only for the bible literalists - the mountains of evidence from biology all point to asexual life preceding "male and female" by at least a couple of billion years.

Scientists appear to be able to look at more evidence of the complexity of life and the universe than the average person will ever see. Why many do not believe in God, I have no idea.

The complete lack of evidence for any gods. And I say that as a former Christian, or at least a former missionary kid/Presbyterian/Episcopalian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 7:28 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 06-03-2008 9:30 PM Coragyps has responded
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 7:20 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 81 of 145 (469107)
06-03-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
06-03-2008 8:51 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Wumpini writes:

Scientists appear to be able to look at more evidence of the complexity of life and the universe than the average person will ever see. Why many do not believe in God, I have no idea.

The complete lack of evidence for any gods. And I say that as a former Christian, or at least a former missionary kid/Presbyterian/Episcopalian.

Also because the question answered by resorting to the gods has shifted. The question used to be "how does the world work?" to which they answered that the gods do everything to make it work. Science has shown that gods are not necessary to answer that old question, that the real answers are in nature. Now that question has been shifted back to "what's behind it all?" which, because of appeals to the supernatural, science cannot answer, leaving believers to answer that it's their particular gods. Same answer from the believers, but the question is different now.

The reason why researching into how the universe works does not automatically convert scientists into believers is because they are still asking the old question of how the universe works and they keep finding that the answers are in nature, not in the supernatural. Only if they were to start asking the new question (which I'm sure many do privately) might they start to arrive at a supernaturalistic conclusion, or at least an assumption. Which they are free to do as individuals, though while they'd be doing that they would not be doing science.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 06-03-2008 8:51 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:40 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 97 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2008 7:22 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 82 of 145 (469108)
06-03-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 7:54 PM


The Obstacle is Literalism
Hi Wumpini,

It appears to me that your main obstacle in coming to an understanding of how theistic scientists believe in the theory of evolution is your insistence on interpreting the Bible literally, as obvious Child and Coragyps have already noted. I think that this is a big mistake.

The creation account of the Old Testament, backed up, as you say, by the New, is only a problem if you insist on its being literal and absolute truth. Many Christians do not see it this way, preferring to view it as allegory or simply myth, yet with important truths revealed within it. This arguably more modern way of approaching the text poses no problems of disagreement with observed reality.

There are numerous references to Creation in the New Testament. What do I do about those? Do I remove those interpretations also?

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone can can remove them, but it is up to you how you interpret them. Biblical literalism creates many problems, not just in the arena of the epic stories. There are many items in the Bible that are simply not true. Bats are not birds. Hares do not chew the cud. Pi is not equal to 3. Explaining all of these silly mistakes (understandable mistakes, given their antiquity) either requires a host of tenuous and torturous apologetics, or they can simply be cut away at a stroke, by the simple acceptance that the Bible is not 100% infallible and not to be taken literally in every last detail.

Perhaps you would do well to start a discussion on Biblical literalism or inerrancy, where we can discuss this kind of issue in more detail.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 7:54 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

    
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 83 of 145 (469109)
06-03-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by obvious Child
06-03-2008 8:04 PM


obvious Child writes:

Therefore your argument is if someone wrote it down, it is therefore true.

No.

My argument is that if it is written down in the inspired Word of God then it is true. Jesus says in the Word of God that the Word of God is the truth (John 17:17).

It could be the same kind of reasoning that scientists use to date fossils and rocks.

Don't take them literally. Literal creationism literally makes the world stop working.

What parts of the Bible can be taken literally by a scientist who believes in the God of the Bible?


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by obvious Child, posted 06-03-2008 8:04 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2008 10:17 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 85 by DrJones*, posted 06-03-2008 10:32 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 2:43 AM Wumpini has responded
 Message 91 by obvious Child, posted 06-04-2008 2:55 AM Wumpini has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 84 of 145 (469113)
06-03-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:00 PM


My argument is that if it is written down in the inspired Word of God then it is true.

What if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I think the "global flood" is sufficiently investigated and disproved to show that not everything in scripture is accurate.

What do you then? Do you ignore the evidence before your very eyes, and pretend it's not there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:00 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 4:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1805
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 85 of 145 (469115)
06-03-2008 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:00 PM


Jesus says in the Word of God that the Word of God is the truth

So the bible is true because the bible says that it is true. Thats not circular reasoning at all.


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:00 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 2:16 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 86 of 145 (469116)
06-03-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by dwise1
06-03-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
The reason why researching into how the universe works does not automatically convert scientists into believers is because they are still asking the old question of how the universe works and they keep finding that the answers are in nature, not in the supernatural.

The reason that I made the comment was because it seems that as science digs deeper into the complexities of life and the universe that they keep finding that things are much more intricate and complicated then they originally anticipated.

Are there not areas where it seems that it is so improbable that what scientists are looking at could come about by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation?

I also think that there are concepts that man is aware that they can never comprehend. No matter how advanced science becomes, infinity will always be an incomprensible concept even though it can be mathematically notated. Scientists will never understand anything before T=0. Science can never understand what is outside or beyond this universe.

The more I study about these things the more convinced I become that this existence could not have come about by chance.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 06-03-2008 9:30 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2008 1:48 AM Wumpini has responded
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 2:20 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 145 (469141)
06-04-2008 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:40 PM


Chance
The reason that I made the comment was because it seems that as science digs deeper into the complexities of life and the universe that they keep finding that things are much more intricate and complicated then they originally anticipated.

In some ways yes and in other ways no. The more we discover the more it becomes apparent that the seemingly endless array of complexity found in nature is actually the result of a few basic principles and interrelated phenomenon that are actually comprehensible to us. In this way at least things are very much simpler than they seemed to humanity from times gone by where all the seemingly dispirate phenomenon of nature each required their own disconnected explanation.
The ultimate goal of physics is a 'theory of everything'. a single equation that describes all matter, energy and force within the universe. Who would have thought until relatively recently that nature might even be so simple as for this to even be a possibility?

Are there not areas where it seems that it is so improbable that what scientists are looking at could come about by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation?

It depends what the odds are and what the alternatives are. Ignoring the deep scientific questions of life the universe and everything for one moment lets consider you. What is the probability of you being here? What were the odds of the exact sperm, of the millions available at the time of your conception, required to create you meeting that egg on that occasion? What were the chance events in the lives of your parents that led to them being together at that exact moment to produce you? Each of your parents was themselves the result of a single sperm of the multitude produced by their father meeting a single egg at a certain time with any number of chance events in the lifetimes of your grandparents that could or could not have led to that event. And likewise with the existence of your grandparents and all your other ancestors as far back as you are willing to go. Each deeply improbable. Each a necessity to ensure your eventual existence. The chances of you being here are slim to say the least. You are incredibly improbable

The chances of you existing as you are astronomically small. Yet here you are.
The chances of me existing as me are equally miniscule. So the chances of us both being here writing to each other are infitesimally small. Yet here we are.

Given the severe unlikelihood of us both being here should we take this as a sign that God intended us to be here writing posts to each other? Maybe I suppose.
But then the existence of everyone else alive is equally improbable and the chance of us all being here together is so small as to be impossible by any sensible measure. Yet here we are. Each and every one of us.

More likely than God intending us all to inhabit the Earth together by some sort of planned design is the possibility that whilst any exact combination of people on Earth today is equally improbable the probability of a combination of people is very likely.

The point is that the seemingly impossible can become reality via natural means. The illusion of intention comes as a result of finding ourselves at the end of a long chain of events that just seem too improbable to contemplate as anything other than planned. Yet we are just the result of a combination of events equally as improbable as any other. The superficially obvious conclusion that we are the result of the intended combination of events is an illusion.

I also think that there are concepts that man is aware that they can never comprehend. No matter how advanced science becomes, infinity will always be an incomprensible concept even though it can be mathematically notated. Scientists will never understand anything before T=0. Science can never understand what is outside or beyond this universe.

Maybe or maybe not. Time will tell. Our perception is indeed limited. The vastness of the cosmos is incomprehensible. As is the scale of the atom. Travelling at speeds close to that of light are also unimaginable and the concept of billions of years in time makes no real sense to us outside the abstract.
In fact we have exactly the perceptive limitations that you would expect of a brainy ape who spent it's formative years roaming the surface of the Earth.
Why would God's ultimate creation be so limited and set in stage so ridiculously large and incomprehensible to it?

The more I study about these things the more convinced I become that this existence could not have come about by chance.

The more I study these things the less likely it seems that we are the result of an even more improbable being and the more likely it seems that we are just here.
The result of one improbable set of circumstances equally as improbable as any other that there might have been.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:40 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 4:47 AM Straggler has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 88 of 145 (469142)
06-04-2008 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by DrJones*
06-03-2008 10:32 PM


So the bible is true because the bible says that it is true. Thats not circular reasoning at all.

Uh, does the Bible say that? Where?

Remember, we're talking "Bible" here, not Scripture. Who says, after all (ie, by what authority), that any of the New Testament is Scripture or was Scripture at the time that the New Testament was written?


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by DrJones*, posted 06-03-2008 10:32 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 89 of 145 (469143)
06-04-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:40 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Are there not areas where it seems that it is so improbable that what scientists are looking at could come about by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation?

By chance? Of course not.

By natural processes? Yes, of course.

Whatever gave you the idea that it's by "chance"?

I also think that there are concepts that man is aware that they can never comprehend. No matter how advanced science becomes, infinity will always be an incomprensible concept even though it can be mathematically notated. Scientists will never understand anything before T=0. Science can never understand what is outside or beyond this universe.

The more I study about these things the more convinced I become that this existence could not have come about by chance.


First, to re-iterate: where does this "by chance" nonsense come from? "By natural processes" does not mean "by chance". Have you been ingesting creationist bullshit? That's very nasty stuff, you know, and very detrimental to your spiritual health (to say nothing about your mental and intellectual and moral health).

Second, while science cannot answer everything, that doesn't negate what science can do. Look at my signature. When a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to try to solve it. But when a creationist (who's tied into God-of-the-Gaps theology wherein a mystery serves as "proof" of God) sees a mystery, he wants it to remain a mystery. The scientist wants to learn more while the creationist wants to remain ignorant. Furthermore, the creationist wants to force our children (through his attempts to sabotage science education) to be ignorant too.

Which is the better path? To continue to try to learn as much about the universe as we can, even knowing that we will never succeed completely? Or closing our eyes firmly, jamming our fingers in our ears, and yelling "la, la, la, la ..." perpetually and as loudly as possible so that we can fend off reality for as long as we can maintain willfull ignorance?

The choice is very clear to me and to most others. Is it clear to you? Is it even faintly apparent to you?

Edited by dwise1, : didn't notice at first that was a reply to me (it's been a very long day)

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:40 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 90 of 145 (469144)
06-04-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:00 PM


What parts of the Bible can be taken literally by a scientist who believes in the God of the Bible?

Literally or not, what you are talking about is fallible human interpretation of something that was written by fallible humans.

Let's make a simplifying assumption in your favor that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

Question: if your fallible human interpretation of the Bible disagrees with reality, which is at fault? The Bible? Or your own fallible human interpretation?

I am sick and tired of armies of creationists who try to impose their own fallible human interpretations on the Bible (including their own fallible human interpretation of the status of the Bible) and insist that if their particular fallible human interpretations are contrary-to-fact (which they have always inevitibly proven to be) then the Bible is a complete lie and should be thrown in the trash, God does not exist, and we should all become hedonistic atheists doing whatever we want to. That is so unimaginably idiotic! And yet so many creationists have insisted to me that that is precisely the way that it must be.

Stupid question: if your interpretation is wrong, what does that mean?

It means that you got it wrong. Duh?

When you find yourself in that situation, what should you do? Throw the Bible in the trash and proclaim that God does not exist? Or realize that your misinterpretation of the Bible is wrong and seek to arrive at a more correct misinterpretation (remember, you will never succeed in getting it right, but at the very least you could seek to get it less wrong)?

Duh?

Edited by dwise1, : concluding questions


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:00 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 6:09 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019