Satan And Science

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Science by definition can not use the supernatural to explain the natural.

Using that basis, is human behavior understandable? If so what are the best mechanisms for understanding it? Can human behavior be tested? If so what are the best mechanism for testing them? Is it possible to make predictions about human behavior? If so what are the tools to make that prediction accurate.

IE; Suppose I came across someone who had never heard of lawyers or the law. To him lawyers would be something supernatural. Further suppose I punched him in nose. How likely is it that he would call a lawyer and sue me, and not just punch me in the nose? Therefore have I not made a prediction of human behavior, and not invoked the supernatural.

[Franktalk]

....So far, you have a crackpot theory without a shred of evidence to back it up. Which means you're ironically attacking science with an unscientific theory. Theists have already been doing that for centuries, so we probably didn't need a new thread for you to carry the torch.

Please see post 224

[Franktalk]

Just so I'm clear, you're calling this an "overstated conclusion"?

No, I am saying in a general sense that I feel all theories that project backwards in time overstate their conclusions. This is because I feel that some main variables are missing.

But since you need more red meat I will supply that in a few hours.

But let me describe the clash of world views that eventually all discussions of science and faith lead to. The world that I live in has a God, I have a spirit, God has supernaturally intervened in events of the past. If you reject these then we will never agree on descriptions of the past. It is that simple. So answer the following questions.

1. Is there a God?

2. Do you have a spirit?

3. Have supernatutral events occurred in the past?

If any answer is no or maybe then we can't come to any common ground.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

1. Is there a God? Yes, I believe there is a God.

2. Do you have a spirit? Yes, I believe I do.

3. Have supernatural events occurred in the past? Yes, I believe they have not occurred only in the past, they are occurring now, but also they will occur in the future.

What it doesn't mean however is that I can prove it in a natural scientific sense of the word.

[cinepro]

But let me describe the clash of world views that eventually all discussions of science and faith lead to. The world that I live in has a God, I have a spirit, God has supernaturally intervened in events of the past. If you reject these then we will never agree on descriptions of the past. It is that simple. So answer the following questions.

1. Is there a God?

Yes, I believe there is. But I think there's a chance I'm wrong.

2. Do you have a spirit?

Yes, I believe I do.

Indeed, in the words of the poet I say, "I've got spirit, yes I do. I've got spirit. How about you?"

3. Have supernatural events occurred in the past?

Yes, I believe so. But I also think many things described as supernatural events might have non-supernatural explanations. And given the choice between the two, assuming good evidence for both, I lean towards the natural one.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

For our Atheistic friends. If they are correct, and it is just the Abyss after death, how would we know any different?

[Franktalk]

1. Is there a God? Yes, I believe there is a God.

2. Do you have a spirit? Yes, I believe I do.

3. Have supernatural events occurred in the past? Yes, I believe they have not occurred only in the past, they are occurring now, but also they will occur in the future.

Then we have a foundation to build on. Now we need to understand what the world is.

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So separate from the body the spirit of man was placed into man so he would have life. The spirit of man is the man. The body is but a cover, a garment to be discarded when no longer required.

John 1:10 (King James Version)

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

But some people did know Him. But those people are not considered the world.

John 8:23 (King James Version)

23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Christ did not consider Himself of this world. Yet He had a body. It is the faith of the spirit that defines if you are of this world. If your spirit embraces the world then you are of this world. If your spirit cast off this world and seeks another world then you are not of this world.

Romans 12:2 (King James Version)

2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

When your spirit sees the world for what it truly is we start to live in spirit and not the physical world.

1 Corinthians 1:20 (King James Version)

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

So what is the wisdom of this world? Do you agree that the world can't provide truth? If indeed the unseen is responsible for all of creation how can a line of thought which discards the unseen be meaningful to the faithful? Is not science the very definition of the world and a study of the world which excludes the unseen? And here I separate the observation from the "wisdom" of the world, this would be the projections and theories.

Can a group of men who have cast off the unseen provide a good path for the faithful?

[Stargazer]

cinepro and thesometimesaint:

I've been trying to follow this exchange between you and Franktalk, but it has been very difficult. You two seem to be talking past him, and I say that because you're attributing things to him that he hasn't said. In fact, it looks like you're trying to put words in his mouth, as if he was the one who started the thread (it was jskain, btw).

[brightpath]

I have always enjoyed the concept behind the movie The Matrix. To me it is a reminder of the fluid nature of reality. Conspiricy Theories exist because we know human limitations and our abilities to be manipulated.

Other examples of interesting mind concepts are The Truman Show (tricking someone through extreme manipulation into believing a false world), Total Recall (was it all part of his "memory vacation" or not), and many Twilight Zone eposides.

It poses an interesting question. If someone creates virtual reality so realistic, you can't tell the difference, once you go into the system, would you ever know from that point forward if you ever escaped? (IE: you being removed from the machine never happens, rather its simulated).

What this brings me to is the deep dark question. Can science itself be manipulated by the Devil and would be know if it was?

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic. The followers of the religion of Science believe it replaces the need for a God. It seems conveniently moving people away from spiritual dependence and giving people an independence from "childish concepts" like God, etc.

Abandonment of a dependence on Heavenly Father is a common theme in many religious texts, expecially the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It seems we are warned against it and have been before Science was even a concern as a threat toward spirituality (removing the idea those passages were added as a safety value for people to say what I am about to say to protect "religion").

It just seems science is conveniently a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality. Everything the Bible warned us against.

Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

Something to consider.

JMS

Scientists are a joke! This is their logic. Hmmmm lets try to explain how these Natives got to America. Hmmm well, lets just say an icy land bridge was formed 12 to 20 thousand years ago and Asians walked across it and came to the Americas. Yea that sounds good and we'll also say that it was Mongols because Native Americans don't look like Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Laotian, etc. Great sounds good and to prove this theory we will back it up by our DNA test theory created by us. Even though Mongols don't look like Natives or speak related languages we'll just go with this theory! This is one of the most bogus theories there is! What's more sad is that many people on this board buy into this stupidity. This just goes to show us that these are the last days any many will be led astray. Science, Satan's tool!

Edited May 28, 2011 by brightpath

[cinepro]

Can a group of men who have cast off the unseen provide a good path for the faithful?

What do you mean by "a good path"?

[cinepro]

I don't rely on others to defend my position. Just as I seek the personal relationship with my Savior Jesus Christ. I don't want or need someone between me and God. In a similar way I want to wrap my head around my world view to the point that I know why I sit here with my understanding. Many just tag along on someone else's worldview.

And Franktalk, can you explain a little more about your worldview?

For example, how old do you reckon the planet Earth is? Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth between 230 and 65 million years ago? When you get sick, do you visit medical doctors and hospitals that practice scientific medicine? Do you believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in July of 1969?

Edited May 28, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

cinepro and thesometimesaint:

I've been trying to follow this exchange between you and Franktalk, but it has been very difficult. You two seem to be talking past him, and I say that because you're attributing things to him that he hasn't said. In fact, it looks like you're trying to put words in his mouth, as if he was the one who started the thread (it was jskain, btw).

I can't speak for TSS, but all of my responses to Franktalk include a quote from him showing the statement to which I am responding. Was there a particular post that you didn't understand or felt I had particularly misunderstood what Franktalk was trying to say?

[keith_brian]

A thought experiment is a thoughtful idea that has not been done before. It is an organized concept dealing with a new view of past data. The simple model I have posted is not a thought experiment at all. The raw data came from reliable sources. The types of calculations are common in statistics. The assumptions I made are common to the field of biology. So I did nothing new. There was nothing that advanced any area of thought. Therefore no thought experiment.

So . . .

Does this mean that you're conceding that your attempt to disprove evolution was incorrect and your acquiescing to the correctness of the theory?

[keith_brian]

As I go into the world I come across new things all of the time. I examine them and form a view of the world based on direct observation. What I do not do is observe the world and then go read a peer reviewed magazine to see if what I saw is real or not.

Direct observation would lead you to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth. Peer reviewed science would give you the opposite view.

[keith_brian]

Scientists are a joke! This is their logic. Hmmmm lets try to explain how these Natives got to America. Hmmm well, lets just say an icy land bridge was formed 12 to 20 thousand years ago and Asians walked across it and came to the Americas. Yea that sounds good and we'll also say that it was Mongols because Native Americans don't look like Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Laotian, etc. Great sounds good and to prove this theory we will back it up by our DNA test theory created by us. Even though Mongols don't look like Natives or speak related languages we'll just go with this theory! This is one of the most bogus theories there is! What's more sad is that many people on this board buy into this stupidity. This just goes to show us that these are the last days any many will be led astray. Science, Satan's tool!

Strangely enough, we have something called DNA testing -- the same tool used to convict people in a court of law -- that says the Native Americans ARE of Asian ancestry.

So, yeah.

[Franktalk]

What do you mean by "a good path"?

We have been placed on the earth for a purpose. A good path is fulfilling that purpose.

[Franktalk]

Direct observation would lead you to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth. Peer reviewed science would give you the opposite view.

If I had tunnel vision that would be true but I do not. Do not place your limitations on me.

[cinepro]

We have been placed on the earth for a purpose. A good path is fulfilling that purpose.

For the sake of clarity, can you outline what you understand "the good path" to be, and the ways in which you see scientists trying to set up an alternate "less good path"?

In other words, you asked "Can a group of men who have cast off the unseen provide a good path for the faithful?". Assuming you're referring to scientists, what is the path scientists have been promoting for the faithful with their scientific theories?

And since there are LDS scientists who have at the same time been Bishops, Stake Presidents, Seventies and Apostles, how does this fit in with your suspicion that LDS scientists are collaborating with the atheist scientists in their endeavors? Are the scientist-Apostles trying to provide the "good path" or the science promoted "less-good path"?

Also, still interested in your thoughts on the questions from post #256:

For example, how old do you reckon the planet Earth is? Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth between 230 and 65 million years ago? When you get sick, do you visit medical doctors and hospitals that practice scientific medicine? Do you believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in July of 1969?

Edited May 28, 2011 by cinepro

[Franktalk]

For the sake of clarity, can you outline what you understand "the good path" to be, and the ways in which you see scientists trying to set up an alternate "less good path"?

The good path is the one that leads to a relationship with Christ. Since science provides no help for that path and supplies theories which describe a Godless universe then science can be a stumbling block. But some people of faith are very scientific in nature. But their heart must be one place or the other. You can not serve two masters.

[cinepro]

The good path is the one that leads to a relationship with Christ. Since science provides no help for that path and supplies theories which describe a Godless universe then science can be a stumbling block. But some people of faith are very scientific in nature. But their heart must be one place or the other. You can not serve two masters.

So, if BYU called you tomorrow and said they wanted your help in updating the science teaching done on campus to ensure BYU graduates practice science in such a way that they help people come to a relationship with Christ, what advice would you offer? Are there any specific theories for which the teaching would need to be changed?

Also, since I'm still having trouble understanding your worldview, these questions:

How old do you reckon the planet Earth is? Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth between 230 and 65 million years ago? When you get sick, do you visit medical doctors and hospitals that practice scientific medicine? Do you believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in July of 1969?

Edited May 28, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I have no problem with God. What I do have problems with is the false theology that says that God is somehow needed to explain natural phenomenon. IE: I live where there are earthquakes. Earthquakes are easily understood as the result of plate tectonics. To posit that God through some non-understandable means causes earthquakes. Is to throw the last 50 odd years of the science of plate tectonics out the window. If you really want to correct that(any)theory do it legitimately. Show the scientist using science to demonstrate where they are wrong.

What other science are you willing to reject to appease your god. I don't know about you but my God wants me to learn everything I can about this world, and how it operates, and how the humans on it interact with each other.

I love the Bible and other LDS Scripture. But I don't need the Bible to tell me the earth is flat, that Pi is exactly equal to three, and a host of other beliefs that Bronze Age Society believed.

Edited May 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Science to me has never been a stumbling block. In fact it is a stepping stone to greater understanding on how this wonderful God built world/universe works. I just don't conflate the tool with the tool user.

[Franktalk]

So, if BYU called you tomorrow and said they wanted your help in updating the science teaching done on campus to ensure BYU graduates practice science in such a way that they help people come to a relationship with Christ, what advice would you offer? Are there any specific theories for which the teaching would need to be changed?

Since science in its current form excludes supernatural events it would make no sense to try and update it. It would then by definition be something different than science. That of course is my point.

Also, since I'm still having trouble understanding your worldview, these questions:

How old do you reckon the planet Earth is? Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth between 230 and 65 million years ago? When you get sick, do you visit medical doctors and hospitals that practice scientific medicine? Do you believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in July of 1969?

I don't know how long the earth has been around. It could be young and it could be old. It matters not to me. Using science one can come to all kinds of conclusions about the age of the earth. If one assumes that some constants of physics have remained constant over billions of years then using atomic decay we find very old things. But if we use things like erosion to date some geologic structures we find the earth to be much younger. So science can give multiple answers so we are left with our own beliefs.

Do you know how to read? How many times have I said I accept what is observed and reject projections of man into the past. Are you dense?

[Franktalk]

I love the Bible and other LDS Scripture. But I don't need the Bible to tell me the earth is flat, that Pi is exactly equal to three, and a host of other beliefs that Bronze Age Society believed.

Oh ye of little faith. Do you actually believe the Bible tells us that Pi is 3?

1 Kings 7:23 (King James Version)

23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Let us say that thirty cubits is right for the molten sea. Then 30/Pi=9.549304 should be the diameter of the sea. But we read that the brim to brim measurement is ten cubits. Does the brim to brim measurement include the thickness of the bowl? If so then it is included twice, once for each side. But how thick is the bowl?

26And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

A hand breadth is around 4 inches. A cubit is 19.8 to 20.6 inches.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/original-cubit

Now the difference between the sea and brim edges is 10 - 9.549304 = .450696 cubits or 8.9237 to 9.28433 inches. So with using the types of measuring devices of the day it appears that the numbers are just fine. But God knows how some people will stumble and not have faith. He allows this to happen. But what of people who dig deeper into scripture what is their reward?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/

It is easy to cast stones at scripture and assume that the ancients were stupid. If they were so stupid then teach yourself cuneiform this weekend.

http://knp.prs.heacademy.ac.uk/essentials/cuneiformscript/

Language has dumbed down over the centuries.

[DH]

Science being driven by the Devil? Really? (Checking my calendar to see what century we're in.)

Edited May 29, 2011 by DH