Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2016 17:11:23 GMT -5
I have stumbled on to a video on y-jesus.com which explores the question, Has science discovered God? Very interesting to watch. if you have time, have a look.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 14, 2016 18:26:13 GMT -5
I have stumbled on to a video on y-jesus.com which explores the question, Has science discovered God? Very interesting to watch. if you have time, have a look. Nothing unusual.
It is the typical way that theists attempt to take scientists comments out of context & try to weave their own beliefs of a god into the equation.
What I find interesting is that theists today can't really ignore the methods of how science works nor the results they get. In order to do that they would also have to dismiss all modern inventions & all medical knowledge that has resulted from the use of scientific methods.
So instead they try to use bits & pieces of science in an attempt to hang onto their theistic beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2016 18:42:09 GMT -5
But does it not state somewhere in that video that some atheists scientists have changed their minds about the non existence of some paranormal force that brought it all together thereby casting doubt on the big bang theory? A theory only holds/stands if it cannot be faulted in anyway., one failure and it no longer holds as a solid theory. Well that is what I was taught and what was impressed upon me at the University I attended.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 14, 2016 18:44:08 GMT -5
I have stumbled on to a video on y-jesus.com which explores the question, Has science discovered God? Very interesting to watch. if you have time, have a look. proof by evidence . Nicely produced video. Thank you partaker.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 14, 2016 18:44:20 GMT -5
DMM - you are giving us the definition of scientism. In so far as you appeal to something greater than us with regard to cause or to function, you are imitating the theist.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 14, 2016 20:48:17 GMT -5
DMM - you are giving us the definition of scientism. In so far as y ou appeal to something greater than us with regard to cause or to function, you are imitating the theist. Nope. .
It is the method which science uses that makes it a reliable method of knowing something. It certainly beats relying on gods or any other supernatural or paranormal ideas! The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
The above makes it self-correcting.
PS: How do you see science as an "appeal being to something greater than us?" Aren't you the one who "appeals to something greater than you?" (god and other supernatural or paranormal ideas) We see the results of the conclusions which follows that method . Thousands of different gods & different denominations even within the supposedly one true god!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 14, 2016 23:53:18 GMT -5
But does it not state somewhere in that video that some atheists scientists have changed their minds about the non existence of some paranormal force that brought it all together thereby casting doubt on the big bang theory? Changing your mind and providing supporting evidence are very far apart. The failure of a theory simply means it was unable to correctly predict the results of an experiment. Data that does not support the theory means that one or more premises of the theory needs to be modified. The general theory of relativity was not discarded because, until just recently, there were some pretty large gaps regarding time/dspace distortion.Someone did not understand the function of a theory. John Dalton's atomic theory has been modified numerous times as new data has been discovered. The supporters of ID try so hard to make their beliefs look scientific.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 3:44:19 GMT -5
Here we go again, rational thinks he has the answer to, and explaination for, everything, he has a plaster for every sore. Perhaps new data has been discovered that causes some scientists to have second thoughts about the big bang theory? They seem to think that somebody, or some paranormal force had to coordinate, put things together, for everything to happen in the way that it did, and that is what is causing rethink in some quarters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 3:59:17 GMT -5
DMM - you are giving us the definition of scientism. In so far as y ou appeal to something greater than us with regard to cause or to function, you are imitating the theist. Nope. .
It is the method which science uses that makes it a reliable method of knowing something. It certainly beats relying on gods or any other supernatural or paranormal ideas! The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
The above makes it self-correcting.
PS: How do you see science as an "appeal being to something greater than us?" Aren't you the one who "appeals to something greater than you?" (god and other supernatural or paranormal ideas) We see the results of the conclusions which follows that method . Thousands of different gods & different denominations even within the supposedly one true god! Sometimes people conveniently see what they want to see or expect to see and when they arrive at that point, they go no further, they stop experimenting.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 15, 2016 4:32:35 GMT -5
Here we go again, rational thinks he has the answer to, and explaination for, everything, he has a plaster for every sore. Perhaps new data has been discovered that causes some scientists to have second thoughts about the big bang theory? They seem to think that somebody, or some paranormal force had to coordinate, put things together, for everything to happen in the way that it did, and that is what is causing rethink in some quarters. Yes, here we go again!
You keep saying that "some scientists to have second thoughts" and that they "seem to think that somebody, or some paranormal force had to coordinate, put things together, for everything to happen in the way that it did, and that is what is causing rethink in some quarters.
Would just put names of those "some scientists" so we know who we are dealing with?
Until then, - take couple Aspirin ... OOP,s! I mean repeat these couple of quotes to yourself every 3 hrs until you fall asleep.
"Theists attempt to take scientists comments out of context & try to weave their own beliefs of a god into the equation."
"It is interesting is that theists today can't really ignore the methods of how science works nor the results they get because in order to do so they would also have to dismiss all modern inventions & all medical knowledge that has resulted from the use of those same scientific methods."
Try that and see if in the morning your head is clearer.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 15, 2016 4:35:53 GMT -5
Nope. .
It is the method which science uses that makes it a reliable method of knowing something. It certainly beats relying on gods or any other supernatural or paranormal ideas! The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
The above makes it self-correcting.
PS: How do you see science as an "appeal being to something greater than us?" Aren't you the one who "appeals to something greater than you?" (god and other supernatural or paranormal ideas) We see the results of the conclusions which follows that method . Thousands of different gods & different denominations even within the supposedly one true god! Sometimes people conveniently see what they want to see or expect to see and when they arrive at that point, they go no further, they stop experimenting. Right on! That is the very definition of religion .
That is why there are thousands of different ones!
See! You are beginning to see the light!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 15, 2016 9:28:28 GMT -5
Here we go again, rational thinks he has the answer to, and explaination for, everything, he has a plaster for every sore. Perhaps new data has been discovered that causes some scientists to have second thoughts about the big bang theory? You presented the video. I did not see any new data. Perhaps you could point it out. But as I said - there was no new data presented. BTW I didn't present an answer. Just looking for the data that the ID supporters are claiming.
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 15, 2016 9:54:52 GMT -5
But as I said - there was no new data presented. BTW I didn't present an answer. Just looking for the data that the ID supporters are claiming. [/quote] There is nothing new, just the constant reminder that when the scales are lift from ones view, we can see the evidence and interconnectedness with far more clarity. At some point the vale will be wide open and there will be NO doubts. I really like they manner and clarity that A Flew articulated that he finally saw that DNA , etc , etc was too much to keep pushing under the carpet.
|
|
|
Post by Boksburg. on Mar 15, 2016 10:58:10 GMT -5
No Higher Intelligence,no scientist,no scientific findings .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 11:25:34 GMT -5
No Higher Intelligence,no scientist,no scientific findings . What! No existence, no reality, no world no nothing? We are living in a dream world just imagining all these things? Ouch, i have just pinched myself and it hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 15, 2016 13:45:45 GMT -5
No Higher Intelligence, . But I know that my redeemer liveth , and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 15, 2016 14:45:37 GMT -5
[quote But as I said - there was no new data presented. BTW I didn't present an answer. Just looking for the data that the ID supporters are claiming. There is nothing new, just the constant reminder that when the scales are lift from ones view, we can see the evidence and interconnectedness with far more clarity. At some point the vale will be wide open and there will be NO doubts. I really like they manner and clarity that A Flew articulated that he finally saw that DNA , etc , etc was too much to keep pushing under the carpet. [/quote] Please do tell that to the medical attendants the next time you have to go to a hospital. Remind them that "there is nothing new" in science and you don't want or need that new antibiotic that they want to give you. Tell them the only reason that they are pushing it on you is because they haven't yet had the "scales lifted from their eyes". Insist that they call in a witch doctor, even if they have to go to the darkest part of Africa in order to find one
PS: About Anthony Flew, It would be more charitable of you ID Christians to quit citing A. Flew who when in a state of dementia was conned by an ID Christian.
Someone here mentioned their mother beginning to slide into dementia. I wonder how they would feel if some con man started working on her trying to get her to do or say something when she had lost the mental awareness of what was going on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 15:26:37 GMT -5
I have stumbled on to a video on y-jesus.com which explores the question, Has science discovered God? Very interesting to watch. if you have time, have a look. just watched it it was very good...
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 15, 2016 15:37:08 GMT -5
I am being charitable to A Flew, he said it best himself He knew what he use to believe, and he said the evidence is too overwhelming for him to ignore, even though he knew that people would call and accuse him uncharitably , it is not me that is being uncharitable to his Enlightenment. It is evidently true and Anthony knew the reaction he would get from certain naturalists, and said it anyway, and sure as he predicted he got the reaction he predicted,. Hmmmmmmmm His video is quite revealing about what he was thinking about , he even cited Einstein thoughts on design.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 15, 2016 15:44:48 GMT -5
PS: About Anthony Flew, It would be more charitable of you ID Christians to quit citing A. Flew who when in a state of dementia was conned by an ID Christian. Suppose, for half a second, that it wasn’t a con, but a conversion? Would that shake your faith?
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 15, 2016 15:53:28 GMT -5
DMMCH, r was commenting on "no new data" (since DNA has been around for at least 6000 years, and has been studied for past 60+ years) This is not some new "new" discovery , but finding out how we were programmed to be who we are. I am who I am because of DNA . A Flew felt this evidence was too much to sweep under the carpet. Hey, it is science we shouldn't ignore it . Next time scientist discover something don't sweep it under the carpet! quote author="Yes" source="/post/687891/thread" timestamp="1458053692"] But as I said - there was no new data presented. BTW I didn't present an answer. Just looking for the data that the ID supporters are claiming. [/quote] There is nothing new, just the constant reminder that when the scales are lift from ones view, we can see the evidence and interconnectedness with far more clarity. At some point the vale will be wide open and there will be NO doubts. I really like they manner and clarity that A Flew articulated that he finally saw that DNA , etc , etc was too much to keep pushing under the carpet.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 15, 2016 16:30:36 GMT -5
It would be unfair to expect science to be able to PROVE God. It simply cannot and that is not a critcisim of science at all. It simply does not have answers for everything, as good as it is. I appreciated and admire the courage and humility of men , like A. Flew, who inspite of great personal cost to themselves, testify to the reason they believe there is a God. Alvin "Science has contributed innumerable benefits to human life on planet Earth. We should be deeply grateful for the hard work of scientists who dedicate their lives to loyal study of this discipline and the advantages scientific advances grant us. Due to its success, there is often a tendency to think that science can explain everything. However there are actually many things that science cannot prove. Here are five categories of truth that cannot be proven using the scientific method: 1) Existential Truth:...2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.3) Logical Truth:4) Historical Truth:5) Experiential Truth: Religious Truth .... powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 17:15:06 GMT -5
So if science cannot prove that God is there and it cannot prove that He is not there because of lack of evidence, then there is "a stale mate" situation; so christians are justified in clinging/ holding on to the side of faith and beliefs IMO. We have nothing to lose and plenty to gain. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 15, 2016 17:25:58 GMT -5
DMMCH, r was commenting on "no new data"(since DNA has been around for at least 6000 years, and has been studied for past 60+ years) This is not some new "new" discovery , but finding out how we were programmed to be who we are. I am who I am because of DNA Next time scientist discover something don't sweep it under the carpet! quote author="Yes" source="/post/687891/thread" timestamp="1458053692"] YES, and I was commenting on new data we are constantly learning about DNA. When a new flu vaccine is developed each year rather than using the same one for the year before is because flu viruses keep changing. Same with antibiotics which keep having to change because a particular bacillus changes making the older antibiotic obsolete.
After all, YOU as a human aren't the only one with DNA, Bacteria and viruses have DNA too. "Microscopes proved the existence of single-celled bacteria. However, there was debate about whether bacteria had genes and what attributes they may have in common with higher life forms. This debate was settled in the 1940's, when it was discovered that bacteria have sex. During the process of conjugation, genes are exchanged through a mating channel that links two bacteria.
Electron microscopy suggested that bacterial viruses carry on a similar process.
In 1952, Alfred Hershey showed that DNA, alone, is responsible for the reproduction of new viruses within an infected cell. This provided undeniable support for Avery's earlier experiments that a gene is made of DNA. It also showed that viruses, as well as bacteria, can be used as models for studying universal principles of genetics. So the Next time sa cientist discovers something new about anything don't YOU be guilty of sweeping it under the carpet until you hear all the evidence!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 15, 2016 17:55:22 GMT -5
It would be unfair to expect science to be able to PROVE God. It simply cannot and that is not a critcisim of science at all. It simply does not have answers for everything, as good as it is. I appreciated and admire the courage and humility of men , like A. Flew, who inspite of great personal cost to themselves, testify to the reason they believe there is a God. Alvin "Science has contributed innumerable benefits to human life on planet Earth. We should be deeply grateful for the hard work of scientists who dedicate their lives to loyal study of this discipline and the advantages scientific advances grant us. Due to its success, there is often a tendency to think that science can explain everything. However there are actually many things that science cannot prove. Here are five categories of truth that cannot be proven using the scientific method: 1) Existential Truth:... 2) Moral Truth: 3) Logical Truth: 4) Historical Truth: 5) Experiential Truth: Religious Truth .... powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/ your site: powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/ is a Christian apologist site. So why would you expect them to know anything about the methods that science uses?
Can Christianity answer the same questions that you are saying that science can't answer? You call them "categories of truth,"
How much do they really have to do with "TRUTH?"
Truth | Definition of Truth by Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true. : the quality or state of being true. : a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true.
Christians themselves can't arrive at a consensus on what in these "categories of truth," are really true! 1) Existential Truth:... 2) Moral Truth: 3) Logical Truth: 4) Historical Truth: 5) Experiential Truth: Religious Truth ....
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 15, 2016 19:11:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 15, 2016 22:45:14 GMT -5
Understanding that science cannot prove or disprove God, it is not surprising that many scientists , with the knowledge and understanding that they do have, make acknowledgments like the following-
Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize 1921): “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
Paul Davies (former professor of theoretical physics at the University of Adelaide): “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.”
Sir Fred Hoyle: “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in Nature.”
Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer, dubbed the 'Grand Old Man of Cosmology' by the New York Times, and a former atheist): “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I could understand the mystery of existence.”
Dr Arno Penzias(Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist): “I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like…In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must…assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
Professor Vera Kistiakowski (professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former president of the Association of Women in Science): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”
Dr Stephen Meyer (a geophysicist with a Cambridge doctorate in origin-of-life biology): “If it’s true there’s a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there’s a designer who fine-tuned them. If there’s information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.”
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 15, 2016 22:45:29 GMT -5
PS: About Anthony Flew, It would be more charitable of you ID Christians to quit citing A. Flew who when in a state of dementia was conned by an ID Christian. Suppose, for half a second, that it wasn’t a con, but a conversion? Would that shake your faith? I have trouble understanding why the opinion of a single scientist is of such interest given the number of scientists that denounce ID. In any case, theories are not formed by opinions or popularity but by the available data. But before any jumping to conclusions is contemplated here is what a person who actually corresponded with A. Flew: infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
|
|