Rob Osborn Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I also find it interesting that if you say science is agnostic then it can't define any god. But, you seem to not only identify God but give him attributes and define him also and then conclude he can't be part of it. So, we now know that when you say science is agnostic what you really mean is that your science hides behind this lie and in fact your science really is atheist. Being truly agnostic means that one has no belief in what or who god is or what he has to do with anything. Being truly atheist, one must know and be able to identify god and then exclude or disbelieve him. This is why your science really is atheist and not just agnostic.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 You are an atheist aren't you? You certainly can't believe in the same God I believe in or you would know that the God the LDS believe in doesn't use magic and means outside of science and logic. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm no Atheist for you to believe what I say I believe? I've been a faithful, believing, member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 43 years now. I intend to die as one. I believe my life gives testimony to that belief. You read exactly like those idiot Anti's that claim Mormons don't actually believe what we say we believe. This time read for comprehension instead of as a talking point. Supernatural means pertaining to God. I never said God uses magic. Nor do I believe that he does use magic. Whatever he uses we have no explanation that doesn't refer back to the Supernatural. It is a circular argument. Science by definition is a limited albeit useful means to describe and function in our world/universe. Science is limited to matter and energy. IE; You take in chemical energy in the form of food that your body uses to live, and do things. Take away the food long enough and you die. Whether God can bring that dead body back to life and function is beside the point of science. More to the point. I am perfectly comfortable praying to God, worshiping God, follow God's rules as established by his Church in the conduct of my life. I am equally comfortable in using science to help me make a happier, better, more productive life for myself, my family, and the institutions I live under. Galileo said it best when he said: The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.
Rob Osborn Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 How many times do I have to tell you that I'm no Atheist for you to believe what I say I believe? I've been a faithful, believing, member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 43 years now. I intend to die as one. I believe my life gives testimony to that belief. You read exactly like those idiot Anti's that claim Mormons don't actually believe what we say we believe. This time read for comprehension instead of as a talking point. Supernatural means pertaining to God. I never said God uses magic. Nor do I believe that he does use magic. Whatever he uses we have no explanation that doesn't refer back to the Supernatural. It is a circular argument. Science by definition is a limited albeit useful means to describe and function in our world/universe. Science is limited to matter and energy. IE; You take in chemical energy in the form of food that your body uses to live, and do things. Take away the food long enough and you die. Whether God can bring that dead body back to life and function is beside the point of science. More to the point. I am perfectly comfortable praying to God, worshiping God, follow God's rules as established by his Church in the conduct of my life. I am equally comfortable in using science to help me make a happier, better, more productive life for myself, my family, and the institutions I live under. Galileo said it best when he said: The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.My God isnt supernatural. You may think he is supernatural but thats not how I believe. I believe God knows and understands nature and science perfectly and uses those means to do all that he does. Even things like the resurrection and what we call miracles have a perfectly sound scientific explanation. Given that we do not understand nature and science in anyw)ere close to its fulness its ridiculous on our part to say God must use supernatural (magical) means. So unless your science can prove God is outside of science then your brand of science has no right to exclude him.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 My God isnt supernatural. You may think he is supernatural but thats not how I believe. I believe God knows and understands nature and science perfectly and uses those means to do all that he does. Even things like the resurrection and what we call miracles have a perfectly sound scientific explanation. Given that we do not understand nature and science in anyw)ere close to its fulness its ridiculous on our part to say God must use supernatural (magical) means. So unless your science can prove God is outside of science then your brand of science has no right to exclude him. Supernatural does not mean magical. It means pertaining to God. No one gives a rat's behind for your own special definitions. Use The Dictionary.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernaturalSEE #2 Su·per·nat·u·ral[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
Rob Osborn Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 But you use it in the sense of i being magical. My God does not fit the description of "supernatural". Perhaos your god does but not mine. You still havent answered why you say science is agnostic but the state n the other hand the obvious contradiction of defining god, who he is and then excluding him from science? Why is that? If science is truly agnostic as you say then it shouldnt care one way or another about his existance and if he can be known by science. Also, as far ad I am aware, science has not proven who, where, or what god is or if he does or does not exist or work within science. So why must your science reject him? Prove to me this isnt atheism because it sure looks like it.
Nofear Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Is the Rob Osborn--thesometimesaint thread still going on?
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 But you use it in the sense of i being magical. My God does not fit the description of "supernatural". Perhaos your god does but not mine.You still havent answered why you say science is agnostic but the state n the other hand the obvious contradiction of defining god, who he is and then excluding him from science? Why is that? If science is truly agnostic as you say then it shouldnt care one way or another about his existance and if he can be known by science. Also, as far ad I am aware, science has not proven who, where, or what god is or if he does or does not exist or work within science. So why must your science reject him? Prove to me this isnt atheism because it sure looks like it. READ for comprehension. SEE # 127 View for comprehension.SEE Read for comprehension.http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/ Read for comprehension.http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html Science doesn't reject God. Science can't use him to explain a natural phenomenon. Scientists can believe in God or not as is everyone's choice. IE; When talking about sky scraper(high rise) construction it is a diversion to start talking about mushroom cultivation. Both worthy discussions but not related to each other.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Is the Rob Osborn--thesometimesaint thread still going on? For better or worse: Yes.
Rob Osborn Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 READ for comprehension. SEE # 127 View for comprehension.SEE Read for comprehension.http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/ Read for comprehension.http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html Science doesn't reject God. Science can't use him to explain a natural phenomenon. Scientists can believe in God or not as is everyone's choice. IE; When talking about sky scraper(high rise) construction it is a diversion to start talking about mushroom cultivation. Both worthy discussions but not related to each other.More athgeist mumbo jumbo. She spoke of "natural causes" and yet let me ask- Do scientists who work in a lab create natural causes? Well of course- they must. Everything we do as intelligent beings acting in our environment is "natural causes" because to be otherwise would be what you call "supernatural". Let me put it a different way- everything we do has a scientific explanation. So, let me ask- How do we know that God didn't come here to this p[lanet after he created it and planted seeds and brought animals of every kind here to populate the earth? Would this not all be "natural causes"? What then is "supernatural"? If you say that is supernatural then there is no difference of scientists working in the lab must also be "supernatural". And it is on this reason alone that I believe that your brand of science is atheist. Your brand of science must try to explain all of natures existence through means void of any intelligent agent who may indeed have come to this planet and brought life. That probability is COMPLETELY out of the question- it absolutely must not be a possibility. In order to bolster their argument they then define and give god a "mythical" nature who cannot be known because as they say- he cant be found and must not ever be found because he doesn't exist inside of nature or science. That my dear friend is ATHEISM!
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 More athgeist mumbo jumbo. She spoke of "natural causes" and yet let me ask- Do scientists who work in a lab create natural causes? Well of course- they must. Everything we do as intelligent beings acting in our environ natural causes" because to be otherwise would be what you call "supernatural". Let me put it a different way- everything we do has a scientific explanation. So, let me ask- How do we know that God didn't come here to this p[lanet after he created it and planted seeds and brought animals of every kind here to populate the earth? Would this not all be "natural causes"? What then is "supernatural"? If you say that is supernatural then there is no difference of scientists working in the lab must also be "supernatural". And it is on this reason alone that I believe that your brand of science is atheist. Your brand of science must try to explain all of natures existence through means void of any intelligent agent who may indeed have come to this planet and brought life. That probability is COMPLETELY out of the question- it absolutely must not be a possibility. In order to bolster their argument they then define and give god a "mythical" nature who cannot be known because as they say- he cant be found and must not ever be found because he doesn't exist inside of nature or science. That my dear friend is ATHEISM! I know what Theism is. I know what Atheism is. I know what Agnosticism is. I don't know what a athgeist is. No scientist do not create natural causes. They recreated conditions that mimic nature. Then subject the results to rigorous testing to see how well the results correspond to those conditions. I'm not convinced we're all that intelligent. Supernatural simply means pertaining to God. Science as a discipline can not use God to explain any observed phenomenon. It is circular reasoning. IE; In Ptolemy's world why does the sun orbit the planets. Because his God Zeus made it that way. Fast forwards some 1500 years to Newton. Why did the planets not fall apart in their orbits? Because his Christian God made it that way. Don't you finally understand why science can not posit any God?SEE In science we can't posit any God(Intelligent designer) and still have it be science. That doesn't mean a scientist can't believe in God(Some 40% of all US scientists do believe in a God). Incorrect; Everything we do does not have a scientific explanation. IE; Science isn't going to tell you how to treat your spouse. Though your spouse probably will. Whether God, or space aliens came to earth after it was formed in no way diminishes the evidences for evolution. Sure he could do it. God is omnipotent. But the evidence that he did is sorely lacking. IE; I'm Not God. When I can combine Sodium Hydroxide and Hydrochloric Acid. I get table salt(Something I can't live without). Is that how God did it? I don't know. But I don't have to invoke God to make the chemistry work. Again Supernatural means pertaining to God. You are wedded to a falsehood. Atheism means a belief that there is no God. Science by definition is Agnostic. It neither includes nor excludes a belief in God. IE; Some of the greatest scientists ever to walk this planet were/are Theists.
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I know what Theism is. I know what Atheism is. I know what Agnosticism is. I don't know what a athgeist is. No scientist do not create natural causes. They recreated conditions that mimic nature. Then subject the results to rigorous testing to see how well the results correspond to those conditions. I'm not convinced we're all that intelligent. Supernatural simply means pertaining to God. Science as a discipline can not use God to explain any observed phenomenon. It is circular reasoning. IE; In Ptolemy's world why does the sun orbit the planets. Because his God Zeus made it that way. Fast forwards some 1500 years to Newton. Why did the planets not fall apart in their orbits? Because his Christian God made it that way. Don't you finally understand why science can not posit any God? SEE In science we can't posit any God(Intelligent designer) and still have it be science. That doesn't mean a scientist can't believe in God(Some 40% of all US scientists do believe in a God). Incorrect; Everything we do does not have a scientific explanation. IE; Science isn't going to tell you how to treat your spouse. Though your spouse probably will. Whether God, or space aliens came to earth after it was formed in no way diminishes the evidences for evolution. Sure he could do it. God is omnipotent. But the evidence that he did is sorely lacking. IE; I'm Not God. When I can combine Sodium Hydroxide and Hydrochloric Acid. I get table salt(Something I can't live without). Is that how God did it? I don't know. But I don't have to invoke God to make the chemistry work. Again Supernatural means pertaining to God. You are wedded to a falsehood. Atheism means a belief that there is no God. Science by definition is Agnostic. It neither includes nor excludes a belief in God. IE; Some of the greatest scientists ever to walk this planet were/are Theists. Well, certainly in your brand of science there cant be any God. But again, my science isnt the same as your science (obviously). I dont care how you cut the cake, your science is atheist. Its really that simple. This simple fact stems from the fact that you say that sure God could have done it only that he didnt and anyways science cant include him anyway. THAT'S ATHEISM.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Well, certainly in your brand of science there cant be any God. But again, my science isnt the same as your science (obviously). I dont care how you cut the cake, your science is atheist. Its really that simple. This simple fact stems from the fact that you say that sure God could have done it only that he didnt and anyways science cant include him anyway. THAT'S ATHEISM.You are either incredibly obtuse or incredibly disingenuous. Your choice. Science is just science, and is Agnostic about questions of God. It can be used by Theists, Atheists, Agnostics alike. The results are the same regardless of beliefs about God. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists. It is obvious that you don't care. Your mind is made up and no amount of facts is going to change it. I won't get into the psychology of such a statement. Needless to say it isn't a good thing. I have never said how God did it. I have stated how a mortal scientist could explain how it could be done without invoking God. That is not Atheism that is Agnosticism. Again you don't get to use your own special definitions of words.SEE http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 You are either incredibly obtuse or incredibly disingenuous. Your choice. Science is just science, and is Agnostic about questions of God. It can be used by Theists, Atheists, Agnostics alike. The results are the same regardless of beliefs about God. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists. It is obvious that you don't care. Your mind is made up and no amount of facts is going to change it. I won't get into the psychology of such a statement. Needless to say it isn't a good thing. I have never said how God did it. I have stated how a mortal scientist could explain how it could be done without invoking God. That is not Atheism that is Agnosticism. Again you don't get to use your own special definitions of words. SEE http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ If science is as you say- agnostic, then it shouldn't matter if a group of people include God in science. But thats not what we see. We see a heavy bias in mainstream science towards atheism where God is known, defined, and then absolutely excluded on that premise. That is called "atheism". When a group or body knows of God, defines him and then determines it cant believe in him even to the point of intentionally excluding him and attempting proofs for his nonexistence in matters that is called "atheism". So I keep asking- Where is the scientific proof from your brand of science that proves god is supernatural (outside of scientific measurement)? Certainly if your science is going to so easily dismiss God from science it must show scientific proof for it. It just can't decide on a certain definition void of proof and conclude he doesn't exist within science. Thats atheism. BTW, Your Neil degrasse Tyson guy is the worst of the worst atheists who hides in agnostic sheep clothing.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 If science is as you say- agnostic, then it shouldn't matter if a group of people include God in science. But thats not what we see. We see a heavy bias in mainstream science towards atheism where God is known, defined, and then absolutely excluded on that premise. That is called "atheism". When a group or body knows of God, defines him and then determines it cant believe in him even to the point of intentionally excluding him and attempting proofs for his nonexistence in matters that is called "atheism". So I keep asking-Where is the scientific proof from your brand of science that proves god is supernatural (outside of scientific measurement)? Certainly if your science is going to so easily dismiss God from science it must show scientific proof for it. It just can't decide on a certain definition void of proof and conclude he doesn't exist within science. Thats atheism.BTW, Your Neil degrasse Tyson guy is the worst of the worst atheists who hides in agnostic sheep clothing. No scientist that I know wants to add an untestable hypothesis to an equation. IE: Adding Sodium to Chlorine results in salt. Given that God is omnipotent what does adding God to the equation result in? Incorrect. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.In the table below, the full wording of Gallup's question 1 is, "Humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10 000 years ago." The difference between scientists and other Americans is striking. Scientists also respond quite differently to the third question, "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms. God had no part in this process." But scientists' responses to Gallup's "theistic evolution" question—"Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of Man"—directly mirrors that of the general public. The "middle ground" is apparently equally attractive to scientists as it is to the general public. GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS Question Scientists Public 1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5% 46% 2. Evolution, God Guided 40% 40% 3. Evolution, God had no part 55% 9% God is not testable by any known science. In science there are only two things are used. Matter and energy. In science matter is a physical object can be weighed. Atoms to elephants to the universe have weight. Depending on the religion God may or may not be a physical object. Energy is force. From gravity to electromagnetic to strong and weak nuclear force can be measured. In Christian religions God is omnipotent. Meaning infinite energy. How do you test something of indeterminate weight and unlimited energy? Not by any known science. I have made no attempt to prove or disprove God. I've shown that a significant percentage of all US scientists, including LDS ones, are Theists. Incorrect that is not Atheism. Atheism is the claim there is no God. As I have already demonstrated 40% of all US scientists are Theists. Science as a discipline can neither accept nor reject a belief in God for the reasons I have already stated.
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 No scientist that I know wants to add an untestable hypothesis to an equation. IE: Adding Sodium to Chlorine results in salt. Given that God is omnipotent what does adding God to the equation result in? Incorrect. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.In the table below, the full wording of Gallup's question 1 is, "Humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10 000 years ago." The difference between scientists and other Americans is striking. Scientists also respond quite differently to the third question, "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms. God had no part in this process." But scientists' responses to Gallup's "theistic evolution" question—"Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of Man"—directly mirrors that of the general public. The "middle ground" is apparently equally attractive to scientists as it is to the general public. GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONSQuestion Scientists Public 1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5% 46% 2. Evolution, God Guided 40% 40% 3. Evolution, God had no part 55% 9% God is not testable by any known science. In science there are only two things are used. Matter and energy. In science matter is a physical object can be weighed. Atoms to elephants to the universe have weight. Depending on the religion God may or may not be a physical object. Energy is force. From gravity to electromagnetic to strong and weak nuclear force can be measured. In Christian religions God is omnipotent. Meaning infinite energy. How do you test something of indeterminate weight and unlimited energy? Not by any known science. I have made no attempt to prove or disprove God. I've shown that a significant percentage of all US scientists, including LDS ones, are Theists. Incorrect that is not Atheism. Atheism is the claim there is no God. As I have already demonstrated 40% of all US scientists are Theists. Science as a discipline can neither accept nor reject a belief in God for the reasons I have already stated. Its not the scientists themselves that are atheist, its the "science" itself. Your brand of science doesnt care that the scientists who work it believe in God just as long as they keep those beliefs the hell away from science itself. Thats atheism. You keep speaking of this God who is above and beyond the realm of science. That is not my God nor is it the God that LDS believe in. I can guarentee that your brand of science does not allow for an intelligent designer in any part of nature. In fact, your brand of science has made war upon those who profess that God is required for life to exist and that an intelligent cause is indeed needed for life to come into existence. For LDS and other Christians, that intelligent cause or design is "God". Its not that your brand of science has disproven this its that it must not allow it any room nor allow it any thought because it would suggest that "God" may indeed play a vital role on the existence of life. This is precisely why your brand of science is atheist. Instead of continuing with your dogma, actually show me where in science that you guys have proven God is outside of science and thus does not exist.
Grudunza Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 From this review of the "God's Not Dead" movie: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/03/a-philosophy-professor-analyzes-gods-not-deads-case-for-god/#naturalselectionSaying “I accept evolution happens…because of God!” becomes as superfluous and unscientific as saying “I accept that lightning happens…because of Thor!” Or “I accept that if I fall out the window I will fall because of the natural law of gravity…and because God pushed me!” The electrostatic discharge is sufficient to explain the lightning all by itself, naturalistically. Positing Thor adds nothing but misunderstanding. Gravity explains why you fall. Positing God adds nothing but misunderstanding. Natural selection explains why organisms evolve. Positing God adds nothing but misunderstanding.Science does not just assume God doesn’t exists. Scientists have just found that saying, “well, maybe it’s because of God” is useless in the laboratory and in theory making. Even religious scientists who make great discoveries or build great technologies understand that they have to essentially leave God and holy books completely out of their scientific work because the only accounts that can really be meaningful are those that are empirically and mathematically precise and God is not those things. This is part of why the mere existence of religious scientists does not prove that religion and science go together. Religious people are good scientists only when they leave their religious beliefs out of their science and engineering. As people, this means they are living with cognitive dissonance. In the laboratory they think as though there were no God, that is, they think as though they were atheists, and precisely because of that they are successful. But in church and personal piety they live as though there were none. They abandon all the categories of rigorous thinking that they employ in the lab when looking at their Scriptures. They can only be both religious and scientific by being categorically unscientific and accepting baseless religious authorities when being religious.
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 From this review of the "God's Not Dead" movie: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/03/a-philosophy-professor-analyzes-gods-not-deads-case-for-god/#naturalselection Saying “I accept evolution happens…because of God!” becomes as superfluous and unscientific as saying “I accept that lightning happens…because of Thor!” Or “I accept that if I fall out the window I will fall because of the natural law of gravity…and because God pushed me!” The electrostatic discharge is sufficient to explain the lightning all by itself, naturalistically. Positing Thor adds nothing but misunderstanding. Gravity explains why you fall. Positing God adds nothing but misunderstanding. Natural selection explains why organisms evolve. Positing God adds nothing but misunderstanding. Science does not just assume God doesn’t exists. Scientists have just found that saying, “well, maybe it’s because of God” is useless in the laboratory and in theory making. Even religious scientists who make great discoveries or build great technologies understand that they have to essentially leave God and holy books completely out of their scientific work because the only accounts that can really be meaningful are those that are empirically and mathematically precise and God is not those things. This is part of why the mere existence of religious scientists does not prove that religion and science go together. Religious people are good scientists only when they leave their religious beliefs out of their science and engineering. As people, this means they are living with cognitive dissonance. In the laboratory they think as though there were no God, that is, they think as though they were atheists, and precisely because of that they are successful. But in church and personal piety they live as though there were none. They abandon all the categories of rigorous thinking that they employ in the lab when looking at their Scriptures. They can only be both religious and scientific by being categorically unscientific and accepting baseless religious authorities when being religious. Are you at all familiar with the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?
Grudunza Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 That is doesn't actually hold up scientifically? Yes, I'm aware of that.I believe in lowercase "intelligent design" as a concept. There is intelligence and life was designed by such. But that is ultimately a matter of faith. Being dispassionate about science is what makes it most effective. True science equals true religion, I believe, but in terms of our understanding of science, it's not useful to try to fit the two together without having objective knowledge of how they really connect.
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 That is doesn't actually hold up scientifically? Yes, I'm aware of that. I believe in lowercase "intelligent design" as a concept. There is intelligence and life was designed by such. But that is ultimately a matter of faith. Being dispassionate about science is what makes it most effective. True science equals true religion, I believe, but in terms of our understanding of science, it's not useful to try to fit the two together without having objective knowledge of how they really connect. So, lets say that in order for life to truly emerge in nature there must be an intelligent cause preceding it- a design of sorts. This is the crux of the issue at hand. Mainstream science has already come out and proclaimed there can be none of this intellignet cause or design for life to emerge but that it just does it on its own. Should science be active and involved in trying to find out and truly understand how life and all things came into existence in the universe that is governed by laws of which by themselves, void of an intelligent cause, do not account for explaining how life can arise by itself? YES, science should be active in defining this enigma and settling the dispute. But, mainstream science has forever written off such a thing because it is defending atheism at all costs.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Its not the scientists themselves that are atheist, its the "science" itself. Your brand of science doesnt care that the scientists who work it believe in God just as long as they keep those beliefs the hell away from science itself. Thats atheism. You keep speaking of this God who is above and beyond the realm of science. That is not my God nor is it the God that LDS believe in. I can guarentee that your brand of science does not allow for an intelligent designer in any part of nature. In fact, your brand of science has made war upon those who profess that God is required for life to exist and that an intelligent cause is indeed needed for life to come into existence. For LDS and other Christians, that intelligent cause or design is "God". Its not that your brand of science has disproven this its that it must not allow it any room nor allow it any thought because it would suggest that "God" may indeed play a vital role on the existence of life. This is precisely why your brand of science is atheist. Instead of continuing with your dogma, actually show me where in science that you guys have proven God is outside of science and thus does not exist. So we agree that scientists don't have to be Atheist. Science as a discipline is neither Atheistic nor Theistic. It claims absolutely nothing about any God or no God at all. Be it Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Baal, Yeshua bar El, the Abyss, or what have you. There are plenty of LDS scientists that have no problem with science or God. See your first claim, and I quote you "Its not the scientists themselves that are atheist,... ." Science as a discipline can't posit a intelligent designer.That is neither Atheistic nor Theistic. The Intelligent Design movements is predicated on the idea that some organism. or part of an organism, is of such complex design that man has never and will never understand how it came to be. So it must have been "designed" by such a intelligent designer that the only proper name to give it is God. By conflating Creationism with a Intelligent designer you have unwittingly substantiated the claim that God is that Intelligent designer. EVERY example put forth so far by the Intelligent Design movement has been debunked as just a variation of the watchmakers argument. Even your hero Michael Behe admitted that under his own special definition of words that Astrology is a science. Science has no quarrel with God. It does have a quarrel with what some mortals claim as to how he did it. God is outside the realm of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 So, lets say that in order for life to truly emerge in nature there must be an intelligent cause preceding it- a design of sorts. This is the crux of the issue at hand. Mainstream science has already come out and proclaimed there can be none of this intellignet cause or design for life to emerge but that it just does it on its own. Should science be active and involved in trying to find out and truly understand how life and all things came into existence in the universe that is governed by laws of which by themselves, void of an intelligent cause, do not account for explaining how life can arise by itself? YES, science should be active in defining this enigma and settling the dispute. But, mainstream science has forever written off such a thing because it is defending atheism at all costs. Whether there is a intelligent cause or not is not the realm of science. There is only fundamental four forces that science can use. The electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak atomic force, and the strong atomic force. Whatever force God uses we can account for only those four forces in science. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that when certain chemicals are combined with other certain chemicals and subjected to the four fundamental forces over time. That we recognize as life appears. No conclusive evidence has so far been presented, but there is plenty of supporting evidence.SEE
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 So we agree that scientists don't have to be Atheist. Science as a discipline is neither Atheistic nor Theistic. It claims absolutely nothing about any God or no God at all. Be it Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Baal, Yeshua bar El, the Abyss, or what have you. There are plenty of LDS scientists that have no problem with science or God. See your first claim, and I quote you "Its not the scientists themselves that are atheist,... ." Science as a discipline can't posit a intelligent designer.That is neither Atheistic nor Theistic. The Intelligent Design movements is predicated on the idea that some organism. or part of an organism, is of such complex design that man has never and will never understand how it came to be. So it must have been "designed" by such a intelligent designer that the only proper name to give it is God. By conflating Creationism with a Intelligent designer you have unwittingly substantiated the claim that God is that Intelligent designer. EVERY example put forth so far by the Intelligent Design movement has been debunked as just a variation of the watchmakers argument. Even your hero Michael Behe admitted that under his own special definition of words that Astrology is a science. Science has no quarrel with God. It does have a quarrel with what some mortals claim as to how he did it. God is outside the realm of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.Of course your atheist science is going to say intelligent design is bogus, they must in order to defend atheism.
Rob Osborn Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Whether there is a intelligent cause or not is not the realm of sciisence. There is only fundamental four forces that science can use. The electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak atomic force, and the strong atomic force. Whatever force God uses we can account for only those four forces in science. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that when certain chemicals are combined with other certain chemicals and subjected to the four fundamental forces over time. That we recognize as life appears. No conclusive evidence has so far been presented, but there is plenty of supporting evidence.SEE Its the job of science to find out how life emerged. If it just so happens that the evidence points to an intelligent causation then science must indeed aknowledge and support that fact. Thats just the ABC's of the scientific process. Problem is however, your brand of so called science cannot accept that logic because it may include the existence of an intelligent process which may be linked to, dare I say, "God". Because your science is in fact atheist it cannot support any evidence or logic that points to the existence or reality of God. That my friend, is the facts.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Of course your atheist science is going to say intelligent design is bogus, they must in order to defend atheism. So do theistic scientists involve themselves in this "atheist science" you talk about? And if so, why do they? Edited April 2, 2014 by Brian 2.0
danielwoods Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Whether there is a intelligent cause or not is not the realm of science. There is only fundamental four forces that science can use. The electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak atomic force, and the strong atomic force. Whatever force God uses we can account for only those four forces in science. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that when certain chemicals are combined with other certain chemicals and subjected to the four fundamental forces over time. That we recognize as life appears. No conclusive evidence has so far been presented, but there is plenty of supporting evidence. Louis Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").
Recommended Posts