Rob Osborn Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 The Supernatural "Pertaining to God" is not the Natural.So, what you are saying is that all of creation is not natural. You dont make any sense.
thesometimesaint Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 So, what you are saying is that all of creation is not natural. You dont make any sense. No! What I am saying is that science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Whether a God, a space alien, or purely physical forces "created" us and our universe science can only address the physical forces which are observed, and measured. Individual scientists can believe in anything or anyone they want.
Rob Osborn Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 No! What I am saying is that science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Whether a God, a space alien, or purely physical forces "created" us and our universe science can only address the physical forces which are observed, and measured. Individual scientists can believe in anything or anyone they want.So, what you are saying is God doesnt use "science". That doesnt make any sense either.
Rob Osborn Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 The Supernatural "Pertaining to God" is not the Natural.Any appeal to any God or Godlike force is not allowed by the rules of science.SEE There is a reason they made opiates illegal. Some of those religions are nothing more than a great opiate journey. However, if you truly are LDS, and you actively belive the prophets and apostles, you would already know that we have a high degree of truth regarding God, the creation, and the fall. But, you keep linking to this atheist propaganda which mocks even our own doctrine. Do you mock our own doctrine? It appears you do.
pogi Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 So, what you are saying is God doesnt use "science". That doesnt make any sense either. Science is a useful tool for man in a lot of ways. It cannot measure God however. Science is agnostic in that way. I doubt that God uses the same systematic tools of science. He is way above that! Science is only useful to the ignorant, He who knows all doesn't need it.
Rob Osborn Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Science is a useful tool for man in a lot of ways. It cannot measure God however. Science is agnostic in that way. I doubt that God uses the same systematic tools of science. He is way above that! Science is only useful to the ignorant, He who knows all doesn't need it.So, you think God is like Harry Potter and just uses a magic wand and spells? Sounds to me like you just dont understand science enough to include God within it. Edited March 12, 2015 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I think one would have to prove that God uses some force outside of scientific methods in order to relegate God outside of said "science". The problem however is that our "imagination" of what "we think" Gods power is doesnt count. One actually has to prove what Gods power is or is not. But to just be blind to it in pure ignorance or because of an imagination of how one thinks things may be, void of any scientific interest is just bad.
pogi Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 So, you think God is like Harry Potter and just uses a magic wand and spells? Sounds to me like you just dont understand science enough to include God within it. I don't know what you think science is, but God created the worlds before it even existed. It is simply a tool or method devised by man to better understand and thus make use of his surroundings. God uses his certain knowledge of eternal laws and authority to create worlds - neither of which has anything to do with science. It is not magic, it is simply the application of certain knowledge.
pogi Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I think one would have to prove that God uses some force outside of scientific methods in order to relegate God outside of said "science". The "scientific method" is unnecessary and inferior to pure and certain knowledge.
bdouglas Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Its even more interesting that The origin of man, published in 1909 by the first presidency was done so on Dawins centenial birthday and 50 th anniversery of his famous book. That 1909 statement is still the official position of the church and is a classic rebuttal to Darwins On origin of species. Just calling it how it really is. Hate to break it to you, Rob O., but the church has no "official position" on evolution. (Google "Does Mormon church have an official position on evolution".) How could it have an official position on it, given the diversity of opinion on the subject among its leaders? You have Widtsoe, Talmage, both scientists and apostles, who accepted it (how could they not accept it?). And then you have people like Henry Eyring, Sr., father of Pres. Eyring, also a scientist, who accepted it. What do you think Pres. Eyring would say today if you asked him, "Does the church have an official position on evolution?" He would frankly tell you it does not. It is very easy for someone like you, who is not a scientist and who is basically ignorant, to hold the position you do. But for someone who is a practicing scientist not to accept evolution —— well, let me put it this way. You could count the number of such "scientists" on one hand. And why you do you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of "mocking the scriptures", or of having atheistic tendencies? This kind of thing is really silly and it prevents anyone from taking you seriously. Edited March 12, 2015 by bdouglas 1
Calm Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 There is a reason they made opiates illegal. Some of those religions are nothing more than a great opiate journey. Opiates are not illegal, they are used throughout the medical world for a variety of reasons and are lifesaving and necessary for many.Misuse of opiates is the problem, just as faith and science can be misused…and pretty much anything that man can get his hands on. 1
Teancum Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I learned long ago with dealing with this subject that you call it straight truthfully or nobody takes you seriously. Some subjects you just have to firmly address head on.You should not be taken seriously.
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I don't know what you think science is, but God created the worlds before it even existed. It is simply a tool or method devised by man to better understand and thus make use of his surroundings. God uses his certain knowledge of eternal laws and authority to create worlds - neither of which has anything to do with science. It is not magic, it is simply the application of certain knowledge.Of course its just conjecture on your part to make such claims. You do not know how God uses science. There seems to be a gap in understanding here. Perhaps you think he just speaks and magic happens. But who is to know. Chances are, he uses all the laws of science to work within. The only difference is that his understanding of the laws of science are far greater than our perception of those same laws.
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Hate to break it to you, Rob O., but the church has no "official position" on evolution. (Google "Does Mormon church have an official position on evolution".) How could it have an official position on it, given the diversity of opinion on the subject among its leaders? You have Widtsoe, Talmage, both scientists and apostles, who accepted it (how could they not accept it?). And then you have people like Henry Eyring, Sr., father of Pres. Eyring, also a scientist, who accepted it. What do you think Pres. Eyring would say today if you asked him, "Does the church have an official position on evolution?" He would frankly tell you it does not. It is very easy for someone like you, who is not a scientist and who is basically ignorant, to hold the position you do. But for someone who is a practicing scientist not to accept evolution —— well, let me put it this way. You could count the number of such "scientists" on one hand. And why you do you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of "mocking the scriptures", or of having atheistic tendencies? This kind of thing is really silly and it prevents anyone from taking you seriously.The church does have an official position regarding the origin of man. On that subject the answer is "no" man did not evolve froma lower order of animals.Perhaps you do not realize but 90% of TSS links are to known atheist/humanist sites and positions that mock Christianity. By their fruits ye shall know them...
thesometimesaint Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 So, what you are saying is God doesnt use "science". That doesnt make any sense either. No! What I am saying is that science can't use God in science. Do you see the difference?
Freedom Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 So, you think God is like Harry Potter and just uses a magic wand and spells? Sounds to me like you just dont understand science enough to include God within it.Rob, you have had this explained to you dozens of times. You are being willfully stubborn. Science, by its very nature, does not consider the supernatural. It considers the observable world. Religions, by its very nature, is concerned with the supernatural. The two are not related. There is nothing in salvation that requires science, and there is nothing in science that requires salvation.
pogi Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Of course its just conjecture on your part to make such claims. You do not know how God uses science. There seems to be a gap in understanding here. Perhaps you think he just speaks and magic happens. But who is to know. Chances are, he uses all the laws of science to work within. The only difference is that his understanding of the laws of science are far greater than our perception of those same laws. Your assumption that he does use science is also conjecture, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the practice of science is. I think we are having a semantic misunderstanding here. In application, science is nothing more than a set of man made rules to learn about and explain natural phenomena. The natural laws of the universe and eternal laws of God cannot aptly be called "science" in that application. They may be explained through science, but they existed long before man developed the scientific method. Science is not a thing or a force of any kind. Scientific laws are only statements that describe or predict natural phenomena, but science is not the natural phenomenon nor the forces that cause it to be. You are conflating secular definitions with spiritual laws. Ironically, science literally means "knowledge", though science does not claim certainty and is only useful where knowledge does not exist. So why would God use this inferior set of rules to guide those who are uncertain, when he is all knowing? The scientific method is completely and utterly unnecessary in light of God's much more refined omniscience. The scientific method of man is not the omniscience of God.
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Your assumption that he does use science is also conjecture, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the practice of science is. I think we are having a semantic misunderstanding here. In application, science is nothing more than a set of man made rules to learn about and explain natural phenomena. The natural laws of the universe and eternal laws of God cannot aptly be called "science" in that application. They may be explained through science, but they existed long before man developed the scientific method. Science is not a thing or a force of any kind. Scientific laws are only statements that describe or predict natural phenomena, but science is not the natural phenomenon nor the forces that cause it to be. You are conflating secular definitions with spiritual laws. Ironically, science literally means "knowledge", though science does not claim certainty and is only useful where knowledge does not exist. So why would God use this inferior set of rules to guide those who are uncertain, when he is all knowing? The scientific method is completely and utterly unnecessary in light of God's much more refined omniscience. The scientific method of man is not the omniscience of God.Well, you are wrong. Not really sure how else to say it. You make it seem as if "scienc" is a type of caveman method of understanding and only applies to caveman technology and caveman understanding of nature. Properly understood, science is the tool we use to do things within the laws of nature,the universe. The understanding of "how does it work" is science. As such, all things we see in the universe are Gods handiwork and its continuance is also Gods handiwork. So, when we ask- how does it work, we are asking for the scientific explanation to how it works within the laws. Basically- all things we observe are the science God used and continually uses to sustain the universe/nature. They are not separate things.
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Rob, you have had this explained to you dozens of times. You are being willfully stubborn. Science, by its very nature, does not consider the supernatural. It considers the observable world. Religions, by its very nature, is concerned with the supernatural. The two are not related. There is nothing in salvation that requires science, and there is nothing in science that requires salvation.Define supernatural the. Perhaps we are not on the same page. My argument is that the "supernatural" as defined by science is an entitiy,thing, or force outside of the laws/reality of the universe and as such definitions go, "supernatural" means "nothing" or perhaps even the "unexplainable". I tend to think it takes on this second definition though- that it holds all things we do not understand but may indeed exist but decide not to include it in science context because of the lack of understanding. Some like to say that "supernatural" means anything pertaining to God. But that doesnt work because everything we see is Gods very handiwork and as such must also be "supernatural. That makes you, me, and even the internet and this forum "supernatural". A thousand years ago, all of our technology would have been considered "supernatural" according to their technology. Here is the classic definition of supernatural-: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.By using this classic definition, a laptop computer and the internet would have been considered "supernatural" by the "science" of a 1000 years ago even though we can prove every single scientific law used in its manufacture and operation because of our greater understanding of the same scientific laws that have always been in place.Evolutionists and humanists like to use this word "supernatural" to automatically discard something they "think" doesnt or cannot possibly exist. How do we know God cannot be explained by science? Are we not made in Gods likeness? If then in his likeness, then just as we can be explained by science so too then must be God.
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 No! What I am saying is that science can't use God in science. Do you see the difference?Why not? Try substituting the word "God" for "design" and see how silly it makes your statement appear-"No! What I am saying is that science can't use design in science. Do you see the difference?
thesometimesaint Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Why not? Try substituting the word "God" for "design" and see how silly it makes your statement appear-"No! What I am saying is that science can't use design in science. Do you see the difference? That is still a Teleological argument and not allowed in science.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
pogi Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Well, you are wrong. Of course its just conjecture on your part to make such claims Is that your echo bouncing back at you? The problem however is that our "imagination" of what "we think" Gods power is doesnt count. One actually has to prove what Gods power is or is not. But to just be blind to it in pure ignorance or because of an imagination of how one thinks things may be, void of any scientific interest is just bad. Why does this apply to me and not to you? You see, I have scripture to tell me what God's power is, I don't need science for that. In fact, science can say nothing of the power of God. I would like to see you try to use the scientific method to "prove" what God's power is. Science is blind to it, but the scriptures are not. http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Light%20of%20Christ.htm The light of Christ is the power of God. Science cannot say anything of this light. Here is a little equation that might help: Omiscience > the scientific method
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Is that your echo bouncing back at you? Why does this apply to me and not to you? You see, I have scripture to tell me what God's power is, I don't need science for that. In fact, science can say nothing of the power of God. I would like to see you try to use the scientific method to "prove" what God's power is. Science is blind to it, but the scriptures are not. http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Light%20of%20Christ.htm The light of Christ is the power of God. Science cannot say anything of this light. Here is a little equation that might help: Omiscience > the scientific methodTry reading section 88. It speaks about Gods power there and tells how it is things we see and feel with our scientific equipment.
Rob Osborn Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 That is still a Teleological argument and not allowed in science.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argumentSo, anything showing appearance of design or intelligent purpose in nature is not allowed in science? That doesnt make any sense.
DragonLancer Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Define supernatural the. Perhaps we are not on the same page. My argument is that the "supernatural" as defined by science is an entitiy,thing, or force outside of the laws/reality of the universe and as such definitions go, "supernatural" means "nothing" or perhaps even the "unexplainable". I tend to think it takes on this second definition though- that it holds all things we do not understand but may indeed exist but decide not to include it in science context because of the lack of understanding. Some like to say that "supernatural" means anything pertaining to God. But that doesnt work because everything we see is Gods very handiwork and as such must also be "supernatural. That makes you, me, and even the internet and this forum "supernatural". A thousand years ago, all of our technology would have been considered "supernatural" according to their technology. Here is the classic definition of supernatural-: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.By using this classic definition, a laptop computer and the internet would have been considered "supernatural" by the "science" of a 1000 years ago even though we can prove every single scientific law used in its manufacture and operation because of our greater understanding of the same scientific laws that have always been in place.Evolutionists and humanists like to use this word "supernatural" to automatically discard something they "think" doesnt or cannot possibly exist. How do we know God cannot be explained by science? Are we not made in Gods likeness? If then in his likeness, then just as we can be explained by science so too then must be God. But, that is why supernatural is not a good word for what Mormons or other flavors of Transhumanists for that matter believe. Mormons do not believe in the supernatural according to that definition. We believe what Richard Dawkins said, and that is essentially this. Whatever there is outside of the realm of science is so because it cannot be detected and studied directly. When it is detected, it is welcomed as part of science. Just because God has revealed things that are outside of science because of the limitations of current science doesn't make those things supernatural. Its just that, through the spiritual senses, these things are detected which are not supernatural but real and physical. When science has the technology, they will be detected and known. Until then, they are in the realm of religion, but they are real, not supernatural.
Recommended Posts