"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
It is because he has 666 posts. Seriously.Danieltwotwenty wrote:Reactionary wrote:Murray, I think it's because you've posted 666 times.Murray wrote:why does my rank say "anti-member"?
AHhahahahahaha, i saw that a week ago......
Is he not incontrol? Just like how we can change the meaning of words,god can change everything no?And how do you arrive at this conclusion? Be specific.
Code: Select all
On one hand he says science is all we have, and naturalism is the only way. Something doesn't need to be proven scientifically, but God is 'ruled out.'It is very relavant,Know why? Because to prove something scientifically it has to be susceptible to the scientific method. If you mean rule out as in says he is for a fact not true. I'll tell you any one who says that is a fool.And God being beyond the scientific method is irrelevant and besides the point here.
A basless assertion accepted without proof can just be easily denied.as an explanation is presupposing the absolute by making such a universal negative judgement.
sweety, i don't think atheists are unquestionoing. I grew up in a modertatly christian home. And i have a grand mother who had the bible so far up her butt my mom was born prasing jesus. I only came across this whole atheist thing last summer to find out why atheists are so mean and upon many things what i got from it is the ability to really understand why i accept the things i do. Today i even reflected to my self how do i know a trashbag was really going where ever the wind was. So before accusing me of being a product of atheists worship(something of the sorts) please run it by me first. As i said, i ain't no atheist.for this is the product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking.
yeah, i know.Proinsias wrote:Your god sounds a bit rubbish
Sailor, again you’ve gloriously missed the point. I am acknowledging God is not subject to the scientific method. You are just repeating a truism.sailornaruto39 wrote:It is very relavant,Know why? Because to prove something scientifically it has to be susceptible to the scientific method.
As an explanation, God is indeed ruled out by many scientists. So yes, it really is a fool’s world.If you mean rule out as in says he is for a fact not true. I'll tell you any one who says that is a fool.
What? Science is agnostic. Being agnostic, science can not make sweeping conclusions; this would go far beyond the scientific method. Science does not rule God in as an ultimate explanation, but it also does not rule God out as an ultimate explanation. It remains agnostic with regards to world-view. Do you see?You are blaming a scientist for ruling out something unscientific? When trying to prove something scientifically?
Where did I say that? Can’t you see the point? Science makes no claims one way or the other!So what you want him to presuppose god exists?
What do I want the scientist to think? I couldn’t care less what he ‘thinks’ about world-view. A scientist must do science, and not make ultimate claims beyond his remit.Just what exactly do you want him to think?
Proof? Reasonable knowledge? Are you sure?Just as how a scientist can presuppose god didn't do it due to lack of proof in the same way he can presuppose that atoms aren't being pulled by smaller than microspic chariots. If there is no proof for a claim, or any reasonable knowlegde to draw it from,then it practically isn't real/doesn't exist.
I ain’t ‘buggin’’, man. I’m showing you your mistake.Why do you only bug at how they rule out god? Or do you?
Honey child, I didn’t say atheists were unquestioning. I said that your incoherence is the "product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking".sweety, i don't think atheists are unquestionoing.
Of course your incoherence is a product of such flawed thinking. Around these parts, my friend, this is not news. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. You think scientists ought to be making universal claims beyond the remit of science. This one flaw alone of yours is so basic that it has to be pointed out to you for your own benefit.
*rant snipped*
So before accusing me of being a product of atheists worship(something of the sorts) please run it by me first. As i said, i ain't no atheist.
sweety, i don't think atheists are unquestionoing.
Honey child, I didn’t say atheists were unquestioning. I said that your incoherence is the "product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking".
Honey child Can? The statement, God can do anything, has the word "thing" in it. Your position assumes that God is arbitrary, which is flawed. You are ascribing who you think your god is, to how the Christian God describes Himself. If we just examine the situation from a non-scriptural perspective then we can look for elements that comply with a 'being' required for a creator. Using reasoning and logic we can conclude what traits are necessary for a creator.Is he not incontrol? Just like how we can change the meaning of words,god can change everything no?
I remeber seeing in a moive called the mokey trials i think. William jenning brayn said "god is in control of natural law, he can change, rearrange, even cancel it".
So, you conclude that truth is objective?Many things were true before humans were able to prove them. Like the way lighting works. And history shows that science is open to new ways of thinking so long as you go through the scruitnity as any other scientific claim does.
Do we have repeatable, testable, observable examples of how information is generated? If we see a computer program, can we determine its source? Information is the product of a mind. What you are saying, is that the information that makes up the genetic code (the building blocks of life) can NOT be attributed to a mind, even though scientifically we can test and verify that information generates from minds and abstract thought. Who is being scientific here?4.God is ruled as you say because again like i said there is nothing to work with, doesn't mean we can't keep trying or ignore him if something comes up, just as of now he isn't a scientifically valid premise to draw from or to.
Iam confused by what you mean. Iam saying how he makes the world is abitray, not himYour position assumes that God is arbitrary
Ok i see what you mean,but information is the exchange of knowledge. The information of the genetic code is just the transfering of our knowlegde of that...stuff.is that the information that makes up the genetic code
Exactly, you are saying how He acts is arbitrary. How do you conclude that the Christian god is acting arbitrarily? Don't just say it. Provide an argument with evidence.Iam saying how he makes the world is abitray, not him
Genetic code is actualy viewed as an information code. If you have any evidence of information being eternal, or any evidence that info self-generates from material, unguided processes, I'm all for seeing it. If I pass on some information to you by email, it doesn't negate the original source of the information. To say the info is just passing on is ignoring the ultimate question.Ok i see what you mean,but information is the exchange of knowledge. The information of the genetic code is just the transfering of our knowlegde of that...stuff.
If god doesn't information of Genes would still be there no?
Define science.so we agree that god is outside of science?
Exactly, you are saying how He acts is arbitrary. How do you conclude that the Christian god is acting arbitrarily? Don't just say it. Provide an argument with evidence.
I heard from steve hawkings or matt dilinhuny(not saying their word is auto matically right) that just because it is called information doesn't mean someone was sending anything behind it. More so it is personification of cells exchanged dna(information) and giving instructions on how to make cells.Genetic code is actualy viewed as an information code.
1. never said it was eternal.If you have any evidence of information being eternal, or any evidence that info self-generates from material, unguided processes
Yes, i because we have common knowledge enough to know that emails com from people and don't grow on trees.If I pass on some information to you by email, it doesn't negate the original source of the information.
And just because you say God doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn'tsailornaruto39 wrote: Just because you ask the clouds not to rain doesn't mean they can here you.
Ok? But that essentially isn't guessing about the unknown and never really having anything to back it up. Using this metaphysics sounds like a 2 way street.StMonicaGuideMe wrote:And just because you say God doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn'tsailornaruto39 wrote: Just because you ask the clouds not to rain doesn't mean they can here you.
What you're continuously missing Sailor is something very simple:
Science is not all we have to depend on, which you've said in past comments. There is a whole study behind our "metaphysical" senses; the mind. Science cannot explain certain things that are metaphysical. This is why we have philosophy and logic to help us reason properly. In fact, without these metaphysical laws, much of scientific law would not be the way it is.
Since we don't have a scientific equation to prove that God exists, then we, like when handling anything else not physical, have to rely on our laws of reason FIRST AND FOREMOST to ENTERTAIN the POSSIBILITY of God.
Start there. You're making a mistake MANY people who don't believe in God make -- they start with science and work backward.
who says there is nothing to back it up, the problem is, you're looking for the wrong evidence. I mean, if you are really looking to catch God in a test tube or under a microscope, then thats justOk? But that essentially isn't guessing about the unknown and never really having anything to back it up. Using this metaphysics sounds like a 2 way street.
But oh well i guess it is good mental exercise.
.God can't be found by using infra-red. Hope you see the point.