thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 What double standard are you referring to? I have never believed in the supernatural. I believe in God who has worked within scientific means (remember that my science requires facts and observation) to create and bring life to the earth. Do you believe in God? If yes then you believe in the supernatural. If no then you are an atheist. You say you are member of the Church. I believe you. Are you now claiming to be an atheist? Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force. That is how science works. I know I keep telling you this. You keep rejecting it. Your are free to do that. But that just isn't science, and for the foreseeable future will not be. You entitled to have your own opinion on any subject you like. You are not entitled to have your own facts. Science has been bumping up against religion since at least Galileo's time, and science has won every time. The gaps in our knowledge about the natural universe keep diminishing. I just don't believe in a "God of the Gaps". http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/17/neil-degrasse-tyson-god-has-to-mean-more-to-you-than-just-where-science-has-yet-to-tread/ Positing that God somehow transported life from some place to our earth is unsupportable by any known science. Star Trek, of all places, asked the simple question. Why does God need a Starship? We on this planet have everything we need to produce and prosper life. We have a reasoned and reasonable explanation of how God did it. As a wise Rabbi once told me. I look to the Scriptures to tell me why God did it. I look to the Sciences to explain how he did it.
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) Do you believe in God? If yes then you believe in the supernatural. If no then you are an atheist. You say you are member of the Church. I believe you. Are you now claiming to be an atheist? Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force. That is how science works. I know I keep telling you this. You keep rejecting it. Your are free to do that. But that just isn't science, and for the foreseeable future will not be. You entitled to have your own opinion on any subject you like. You are not entitled to have your own facts. Science has been bumping up against religion since at least Galileo's time, and science has won every time. The gaps in our knowledge about the natural universe keep diminishing. I just don't believe in a "God of the Gaps". http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/17/neil-degrasse-tyson-god-has-to-mean-more-to-you-than-just-where-science-has-yet-to-tread/ Positing that God somehow transported life from some place to our earth is unsupportable by any known science. Star Trek, of all places, asked the simple question. Why does God need a Starship? We on this planet have everything we need to produce and prosper life. We have a reasoned and reasonable explanation of how God did it. As a wise Rabbi once told me. I look to the Scriptures to tell me why God did it. I look to the Sciences to explain how he did it. Lets get one thing straight- I do not refer to God as "the supernatural". I never have and never will. I do know that evolutionists and atheists like to label us intelligent designers as such so that they can redefine our theories into some kind of kooky "magic". You are using the word "supernatural" in the definition of something outside of the laws of science. This is where we are clashing heads together. So please stop using that word to describe my beliefs. We can and will find through scientific means that life did not arise out of mere natural laws void of an intelligent process preceding it. That is all we are after. Edited January 19, 2014 by Rob Osborn
EllenMaksoud Posted January 19, 2014 Author Posted January 19, 2014 Do you believe in God? If yes then you believe in the supernatural. If no then you are an atheist. You say you are member of the Church. I believe you. Are you now claiming to be an atheist? Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force. That is how science works. I know I keep telling you this. You keep rejecting it. Your are free to do that. But that just isn't science, and for the foreseeable future will not be. You entitled to have your own opinion on any subject you like. You are not entitled to have your own facts. Science has been bumping up against religion since at least Galileo's time, and science has won every time. The gaps in our knowledge about the natural universe keep diminishing. I just don't believe in a "God of the Gaps". http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/17/neil-degrasse-tyson-god-has-to-mean-more-to-you-than-just-where-science-has-yet-to-tread/ Positing that God somehow transported life from some place to our earth is unsupportable by any known science. Star Trek, of all places, asked the simple question. Why does God need a Starship? We on this planet have everything we need to produce and prosper life. We have a reasoned and reasonable explanation of how God did it. As a wise Rabbi once told me. I look to the Scriptures to tell me why God did it. I look to the Sciences to explain how he did it.If God is to be confined to the non-supernatural, then perhaps the model put forth by L. Ron Hubbard makes more sense because he stated that Earth is a prison planet and the reason for all the different races is that we are all from different planets. This makes a lot of sense in the face of all the racist talk I hear.
thesometimesaint Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Lets get one thing straight- I do not refer to God as "the supernatural". I never have and never will. I do know that evolutionists and atheists like to label us intelligent designers as such so that they can redefine our theories into some kind of kooky "magic". You are using the word "supernatural" in the definition of something outside of the laws of science. This is where we are clashing heads together. So please stop using that word to describe my beliefs.We can and will find through scientific means that life did not arise out of mere natural laws void of an intelligent process preceding it. That is all we are after. The definition of the word supernatural means pertaining to God. So to be accurate yes you and I believe in the supernatural. So did Newton we're in good company.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural I've never said that. IE; If I have to invoke God(So called intelligent design) to make a light bulb work that is many things, but that is not science.
thesometimesaint Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 If God is to be confined to the non-supernatural, then perhaps the model put forth by L. Ron Hubbard makes more sense because he stated that Earth is a prison planet and the reason for all the different races is that we are all from different planets. This makes a lot of sense in the face of all the racist talk I hear. From all appearances we are on a prison planet. God put a veil over what happened in the Premortal life, and restricts our knowledge of the next to faith. So in that limited sense we are on a prison planet. I have very little tolerance for racists or racism of any kind, and age has only made that intolerance worse.
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 The definition of the word supernatural means pertaining to God. So to be accurate yes you and I believe in the supernatural. So did Newton we're in good company. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural I've never said that. IE; If I have to invoke God(So called intelligent design) to make a light bulb work that is many things, but that is not science. Lets take a different angle because I still don't think you understand my point. I am never invoking "something unexplainable by science for how life came about". If two people procreate to create life is that not something science can study? Yes it very much so is something science can and does study. So, is it possible that two people procreated to create Adam and Eve? Most definitely. So, is it thus possible that the two people who procreated Adam and Eve were also human? Most likely. So then why couldn't those two people be God?
EllenMaksoud Posted January 20, 2014 Author Posted January 20, 2014 From all appearances we are on a prison planet. God put a veil over what happened in the Premortal life, and restricts our knowledge of the next to faith. So in that limited sense we are on a prison planet. I have very little tolerance for racists or racism of any kind, and age has only made that intolerance worse.You are talking to the wrong person about race. For seven years I seldom saw "white folk", living with every one from Arabs, to Africans, to Lebanese, to Indians to Pakistanis, and now being back among main stream American culture, leaves me absolutely vigilant to any sort of racism. If I have a hot button, that would be it. Having been raised by po white trash Americans, Mormon culture is a huge and pleasant change.
wenglund Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Not really. We use equipment to "see" what is not readily apparent. IE: Can we not visually see the equipment and what is displayed on the equipment, or is the data conveyed telepathically? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
thesometimesaint Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Can we not visually see the equipment and what is displayed on the equipment, or is the data conveyed telepathically? Thanks, -Wade Englund- We generally use our 5 senses. Though obviously tasting somethings can be mind blowing. Interestingly. http://www.erowid.org/culture/references/other/1997_turmel_resproject_1.shtml
wenglund Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) We generally use our 5 senses. Though obviously tasting somethings can be mind blowing. Interestingly. http://www.erowid.org/culture/references/other/1997_turmel_resproject_1.shtml Next time I examine the sky with my telescope, I will put my tongue up to the lens instead of my eye to see if I can get a better reading of the stars. :-/ The point being, contrary to what you claimed earlier, science relies heavily on the witness of our sense, including, if not particularly, our eyes. Ruling out what we see because of fallibility, would render us and science blind. Not smart in my opinion. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited January 20, 2014 by wenglund
BCSpace Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Scientific evidence shows that the above statement is not strictly true as is evidenced by the Intersex people we know about. There is not strictly XX and XY but XXXX, XY46, and XXY and thousands of other genetic anomalies. In the past, these things were veiled in secrecy largely because of prejudice and the difficulty of identifying the problem. So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female" ? I would say male and female for sure. I think the ancients recognized anomalies for exactly what they are, just anomalies.
Recommended Posts