Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:
1) You like my jokes.

melanie wrote:ohh la la.
You are usually so mild tempered Kenny!
Keep posting mate
I don't agree with most of what you say, but I appreciate different perspectives.

Thank-you

K

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:Ken

Why do you post here? Just wondering

He's trying to join an atheist club, and it's his initiation.

(LOL)

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Paulsacramento
First off, you too are generalizing, of course.
Second, science and theism do NOT ask the same questions NOR look for the same answers so science does NOT, can NOT know more than theism.

Ken
I disagree! According to the Atheist, science provides relatively few accurate answers, theism provides a bunch of wrong answers.

PaulSacramento wrote: That is YOUR opinion.

The question is being answered from the perspective of the Atheist. You are aware Atheists; not just myself are convinced theism provides a bunch of wrong answers aren't you?

PaulSacramento
Science ONLY address the HOW of the observable, nothing more.
Theism tries to address the WHY of not ONLY the observable, but also the abstract "non-observable".

Ken
But because of the way science goes about getting their answers, their claims sound credible; but the way theism goes about getting their answers, theirs do not.

PaulSacramento wrote: Incorrect, you fail to understand what Theism is and until you do, this is pointless.
It seems you are arguing that philosophy is wrong because it doesn't address science.
Again, pointless to argue.

No! I am arguing from the Atheist perspective, not just mine but atheism in general. If you are going to claim the atheist position to be unreasonable, don't cha think you should at least consider things from his point of view?

Paulsacramento
Sure, of course John Wright WAS an atheist and a rather "militant" one at that.
But allow me to flip the coin if I may:

I think YOUR generalizations of Christians are typical of what most atheists believe them to be.

See what I am saying?

Ken
The only generalization I made about Christians included you; according to your own words. So do you agree with the generalization I made about Christians?

PaulSacramento wrote: The only generalization I make ( or John Wright for example) about atheists is according to THEIR OWN words, so...

The only generalization I made about John Wright was that his perspective was typical of most Christians. YOU said you believe his words were quite correct; did you not? Go back and read what you wrote if you don't believe me.
The generalizations you and John made about atheists is something you've CONCLUDED from what Atheists have said; no atheists claimed to agree with what he is saying about us.
You can't compare your generalizations to mine.

Ken[/quote]


You don't seem the grasp how incredibly silly this sounds.
Let me say this to end this:
Pot meet kettle.

If you don't realize that then we truly have nothing to discuss, sorry.

I just don't understand how Kenny can claim atheists think a bunch of stuff is wrong in science.Atheism has actually grown from atheists propping up science and preaching the truth of science as ultimate truth and defending science from Christians,mostly young earthers who reject most anything science teaches.Kenny is a rare atheist not looking to science for truth.I get into debates all the time with aatheists about science.Science has become a lot of atheists's god.Atheists I've dealt with are very smart scientifically and have pride in it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I just don't understand how Kenny can claim atheists think a bunch of stuff is wrong in science.

I’m not saying that; I’m saying the same skepticism applied to religious claims should be applied to science as well. Fortunately for science, the process a claim has to go through to become a scientific theory is often enough to satisfy an Atheist’s skepticism; making scientific theories/claims more credible to the Atheist than religious claims which seem to rely more on faith.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheism has actually grown from atheists propping up science and preaching the truth of science as ultimate truth and defending science from Christians,mostly young earthers who reject most anything science teaches.

I doubt that is what caused Atheism to grow, but I do realize many atheists use science to refute religious claims

abelcainsbrother wrote: Kenny is a rare atheist not looking to science for truth.I get into debates all the time with aatheists about science.Science has become a lot of atheists's god.Atheists I've dealt with are very smart scientifically and have pride in it.

If science were a person’s God, that person would not be Atheist.

Ken

Kenny wrote:
If science were a person's God, that person would not be Atheist.

Kenny,

By definition, that's just not true. You are using "God" in that sentence, where "idol" is what you mean.

It's god with a small g. A god with a small g, is another name for an idol that takes the place of God. Plenty of people, atheists and theists, have idols in their lives. So, if someone's god is science, then it just means that person puts science in the place of God.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
If science were a person's God, that person would not be Atheist.

Kenny,

By definition, that's just not true. You are using "God" in that sentence, where "idol" is what you mean.

It's god with a small g. A god with a small g, is another name for an idol that takes the place of God. Plenty of people, atheists and theists, have idols in their lives. So, if someone's god is science, then it just means that person puts science in the place of God.

By definition? No; I meant exactly what I said. As a Christian, I am sure you see a difference between God, god, and idol; with yours being God and all others god or idol; but I don't. I have the same respect for all other Gods as I have for yours, thus I use the capital G with all of them just as I use capitals for names. I try to stay away from idol because it is often used as a pejorative against a person's beliefs.

Ken

PS Do you know of anybody who claims to worship science? Or is this just something you accuse people of doing.

Kenny wrote:

By definition? No; I meant exactly what I said.

Kenny,

It really doesn't matter if you mean what you said. You misused the word.

As a Christian, I am sure you see a difference between God, god, and idol; with yours being God and all others god or idol; but I don't.

And again, it makes no difference if you don't agree with the differences Kenny. The words have meanings. Please use the words properly.

I have the same respect for all other Gods as I have for yours, thus I use the capital G with all of them just as I use capitals for names. I try to stay away from idol because it is often used as a pejorative against a person's beliefs.

You didn't stay away from the term "idol". You just called an idol God. You're on a Christian forum. And you've been here long enough to understand the difference between definitions of:

1) God- The omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe.
2) god- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity
3) idol- an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Now that you have no excuses for using the terms improperly, please have respect for the forum you have been graciously allowed to continue to post on, and use the terms properly.

PS Do you know of anybody who claims to worship science? Or is this just something you accuse people of doing.

I was correcting your misuse of "God", by giving an example of something(science) that someone could put in the place of God.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I just don't understand how Kenny can claim atheists think a bunch of stuff is wrong in science.

I’m not saying that; I’m saying the same skepticism applied to religious claims should be applied to science as well. Fortunately for science, the process a claim has to go through to become a scientific theory is often enough to satisfy an Atheist’s skepticism; making scientific theories/claims more credible to the Atheist than religious claims which seem to rely more on faith.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheism has actually grown from atheists propping up science and preaching the truth of science as ultimate truth and defending science from Christians,mostly young earthers who reject most anything science teaches.

I doubt that is what caused Atheism to grow, but I do realize many atheists use science to refute religious claims

abelcainsbrother wrote: Kenny is a rare atheist not looking to science for truth.I get into debates all the time with aatheists about science.Science has become a lot of atheists's god.Atheists I've dealt with are very smart scientifically and have pride in it.

If science were a person’s God, that person would not be Atheist.

Ken

You are a rare atheist claiming that science should be met with the same scepticism as religious claims and I have acknowledged it.But I still say atheism has grown mainly from using science to refute religion.However one thing I like to point out to atheists is so much that is happening is really just note evidence the bible is true,like atheism growing in these last days like 2nd Thessalonians 2:4 which says there will be a falling away in the last days before the anti-christ is revealed so even though atheists acknowledge this falling away it is really just more evidence the bible is being fulfilled,the problem though is Christians want to try to reach them before its too late and yet they think they are making progress spreading atheism when they are on the wrong losing team.

It may not apply to you but for a lot of atheists they do know about science and look to it for answers to validate their worldview which makes science like a religious book but they also have a talking points bible too,but you seem to have overlooked it,although here lately I detect that you've picked up some of them from somewhere.I often tell atheists if they would demand proof in science like they do for God they would be shocked,but they won't.

Of course ACB. But Kenny is just not being consistent with his belief that God doesn't exist.

And if any atheist is going to be consistent with his beliefs, he has to have faith in science. Because, since atheists believe God doesn't exist, or gods don't exist, then that all but removes a spiritual aspect to their beliefs. So again, IF THEY'RE CONSISTENT, they're only left with naturalism. And what's the way to understand the natural world? Science.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

By definition? No; I meant exactly what I said.

Kenny,

It really doesn't matter if you mean what you said. You misused the word.

As a Christian, I am sure you see a difference between God, god, and idol; with yours being God and all others god or idol; but I don't.

And again, it makes no difference if you don't agree with the differences Kenny. The words have meanings. Please use the words properly.

I have the same respect for all other Gods as I have for yours, thus I use the capital G with all of them just as I use capitals for names. I try to stay away from idol because it is often used as a pejorative against a person's beliefs.

You didn't stay away from the term "idol". You just called an idol God. You're on a Christian forum. And you've been here long enough to understand the difference between definitions of:

1) God- The omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe.
2) god- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity
3) idol- an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Now that you have no excuses for using the terms improperly, please have respect for the forum you have been graciously allowed to continue to post on, and use the terms properly.

PS Do you know of anybody who claims to worship science? Or is this just something you accuse people of doing.

I was correcting your misuse of "God", by giving an example of something(science) that someone could put in the place of God.

I didn't call anybody's God an idol; not even yours. Again; do you know of anybody who claims science as their God? Or is this just something you accuse people of doing. You seem to be making the same mistake many theists make; because God is such an important part of your life, you assume everybody has to either have your God or something to take the place of your God in their lives. That just isn't the case

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I just don't understand how Kenny can claim atheists think a bunch of stuff is wrong in science.

I’m not saying that; I’m saying the same skepticism applied to religious claims should be applied to science as well. Fortunately for science, the process a claim has to go through to become a scientific theory is often enough to satisfy an Atheist’s skepticism; making scientific theories/claims more credible to the Atheist than religious claims which seem to rely more on faith.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheism has actually grown from atheists propping up science and preaching the truth of science as ultimate truth and defending science from Christians,mostly young earthers who reject most anything science teaches.

I doubt that is what caused Atheism to grow, but I do realize many atheists use science to refute religious claims

abelcainsbrother wrote: Kenny is a rare atheist not looking to science for truth.I get into debates all the time with aatheists about science.Science has become a lot of atheists's god.Atheists I've dealt with are very smart scientifically and have pride in it.

If science were a person’s God, that person would not be Atheist.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:It may not apply to you but for a lot of atheists they do know about science and look to it for answers to validate their worldview

You seem to insist atheism as a worldview. would you mind listing 4 or 5 beliefs included in this atheist worldview.

abelcainsbrother wrote:which makes science like a religious book but they also have a talking points bible too,but you seem to have overlooked it,

And which bible would this be?

abelcainsbrother wrote:although here lately I detect that you've picked up some of them from somewhere.I often tell atheists if they would demand proof in science like they do for God they would be shocked,but they won't.

[/quote]
Actually you've got it backwards; what atheists do (myself included) is we demand the same evidence form God that we get from science; because we don't get it, that's why we don't believe in God.

Ken

RickD wrote:Of course ACB. But Kenny is just not being consistent with his belief that God doesn't exist.

And if any atheist is going to be consistent with his beliefs, he has to have faith in science. Because, since atheists believe God doesn't exist, or gods don't exist, then that all but removes a spiritual aspect to their beliefs.

Please explain why not believing in God removes the spiritual aspect of one's beliefs?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

By definition? No; I meant exactly what I said.

Kenny,

It really doesn't matter if you mean what you said. You misused the word.

As a Christian, I am sure you see a difference between God, god, and idol; with yours being God and all others god or idol; but I don't.

And again, it makes no difference if you don't agree with the differences Kenny. The words have meanings. Please use the words properly.

I have the same respect for all other Gods as I have for yours, thus I use the capital G with all of them just as I use capitals for names. I try to stay away from idol because it is often used as a pejorative against a person's beliefs.

You didn't stay away from the term "idol". You just called an idol God. You're on a Christian forum. And you've been here long enough to understand the difference between definitions of:

1) God- The omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe.
2) god- a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity
3) idol- an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Now that you have no excuses for using the terms improperly, please have respect for the forum you have been graciously allowed to continue to post on, and use the terms properly.

PS Do you know of anybody who claims to worship science? Or is this just something you accuse people of doing.

I was correcting your misuse of "God", by giving an example of something(science) that someone could put in the place of God.

I didn't call anybody's God an idol; not even yours. Again; do you know of anybody who claims science as their God? Or is this just something you accuse people of doing. You seem to be making the same mistake many theists make; because God is such an important part of your life, you assume everybody has to either have your God or something to take the place of your God in their lives. That just isn't the case

Ken

Kenny,

Are you really that obtuse?
You said there's no difference between the meanings of God, god, and idol. So yes, you are saying God, the creator of the universe, is no different than an idol.
And again, I didn't say that anyone claims science is their God. You are using "God" improperly again, after I asked you not to.
I'm not asking you again. Now that you know the definitions of God, god, and idol, use them the proper way.