Evidence for God from Science

Oops. Three theological virtues, I should have said, or three heavenly graces, three blind mice, we three kings... Those whatsits in Paul's 1 Corinthians... whatever...

hughfarey wrote:Oops. Three theological virtues, I should have said, or three heavenly graces, three blind mice, we three kings... Those whatsits in Paul's 1 Corinthians... whatever...

Actually I meant it as a compliment.

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Oops. Three theological virtues, I should have said, or three heavenly graces, three blind mice, we three kings... Those whatsits in Paul's 1 Corinthians... whatever...

Actually I meant it as a compliment.

LIAR!!!

Calling someone Catholic, is always an insult!

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote: [... the whole comment ...]

Gosh! It sounds as we're getting as close to an understanding of each other as we're ever likely to. The Holy Spirit working flat out, bless him.

... there are things in this world that science Can't explain. And she Became a Believer in that which she Hadn't been previously.

Can't. A word with two distinct meanings here. Either that Science can't explain things at the moment, because of technological or intellectual limitations, but which might become accessible to explanation in time. Or that some things are intrinsically irrational, and could never be understood scientifically even if everything possible were known about them. The first is hopeful, the second hopeless, and Hope is one of the great virtues of St Paul.

I was looking back Trying to find my '...the whole comment....'

Are you familiar with the movie "Contact"? Jodie Foster was in a Congressional hearing? and as a scientist was testifying as to what she had experienced vs what their scientific equipment stated had taken place. She stated that -- taken from a scientific perspective -- she would have to conclude that Scientifically -- nothing she said could have happened. BUT having Experienced what she Did -- she knew she was as sane as any of them -- and that she had Confidence that what she had experienced Had Really Happened.

Some things are Not / cannot be 'proved / seen' by science. There are some facets of life that Can't be "handled". Inner hope, peace, love. Now 'love' is Also 'seen' through a person's actions. The soul of a person / their 'heart' is different from the physical heart that beats in a person. Inner peace - can be observed in a person -- calmness in the midst of a mess. The song "It is well with my soul".

"Can't" be explained by science Because as just stated -- they are philosophical in nature. But Not irrational. No one can really take 'hope' away. Or inner peace or love.

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Not sure if science will be able to explain everything since it deals with what is observable ( to whatever extend something can be observed) and there are things that may never be observable.

Possibly. That's why Hope is one of the three cardinal virtues.

Three cardinal virtues, Hugh, you're such a Catholic.

But we like you Anyway / Because of.... --- the 'cardinal virtues' sort of gave you away. We Baptists are familiar with that.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Oops. Three theological virtues, I should have said, or three heavenly graces, three blind mice, we three kings... Those whatsits in Paul's 1 Corinthians... whatever...

Actually I meant it as a compliment.

LIAR!!!

Calling someone Catholic, is always an insult!

Only if you're a schismatic heretic.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Oops. Three theological virtues, I should have said, or three heavenly graces, three blind mice, we three kings... Those whatsits in Paul's 1 Corinthians... whatever...

Actually I meant it as a compliment.

LIAR!!!

Calling someone Catholic, is always an insult!

Only if you're a schismatic heretic.

"Schismatic heretic" is just another name for one of the 59,000 Protestant denominations.

And who says that there are 59,000 Protestant denominations.

Are they all the same 'kind'? How many of them did Noah take onto the ark?

Are we talking about Protestant denominations being taken in or kinds of animals being taken into Noah's ark.

Oops -- looks like I stopped Another thread. Didn't mean to.

hughfarey wrote:Are they all the same 'kind'? How many of them did Noah take onto the ark?

depends...clean, or unclean?

Well -- it would appear that This thread Has stopped. Unless 'hughfarey' is around.

Well, of course I'm around, as you can see from the other (Problems with Evolution) thread, but they seem to have coalesced and wandered arm in arm off down a different path of discussion entirely. This one began out of a certain frustration by Audie, attempting to deal with the creationist view that "there are no transitional forms of organisms." It seemed to her that this was not so much a denial of the evidence as a different interpretation of the words "transitional" or "intermediate". What is it, she was asking, that creationists don't believe in, exactly? Because the problem with denying an argument is that you have to understand it properly in the first place in order to repudiate it. It had become very clear that abelcainsbrother, in particular, and perhaps your good self, did not understand the evolutionist concept of a "transitional form", so that it was meaningless of you to say that you didn't believe in them. The 'transitional form' that you don't believe in is an invention of your own, and of course Audie and I don't believe in it either.

I've gone on a bit because I have exactly the same problem with atheists. Trying to find out what the 'God' is that they don't believe in nearly always results in my saying that I don't believe in that conception either. And when I try to explain exactly how I interpret the word, they often say, "Oh well, if you put it like that then yes I suppose that's perfectly credible" and although it would be wrong to say they are instantly converted to theism, at least we achieve some common ground for discussion. Something along these lines is currently being pursued on the other thread, which has abandoned the search for 'Problems with Evolution' and is more concerned by what we mean by God the creator, God the designer, and God the maintainer.

hughfarey wrote:Well, of course I'm around, as you can see from the other (Problems with Evolution) thread, but they seem to have coalesced and wandered arm in arm off down a different path of discussion entirely. This one began out of a certain frustration by Audie, attempting to deal with the creationist view that "there are no transitional forms of organisms." It seemed to her that this was not so much a denial of the evidence as a different interpretation of the words "transitional" or "intermediate". What is it, she was asking, that creationists don't believe in, exactly? Because the problem with denying an argument is that you have to understand it properly in the first place in order to repudiate it. It had become very clear that abelcainsbrother, in particular, and perhaps your good self, did not understand the evolutionist concept of a "transitional form", so that it was meaningless of you to say that you didn't believe in them. The 'transitional form' that you don't believe in is an invention of your own, and of course Audie and I don't believe in it either.

I've gone on a bit because I have exactly the same problem with atheists. Trying to find out what the 'God' is that they don't believe in nearly always results in my saying that I don't believe in that conception either. And when I try to explain exactly how I interpret the word, they often say, "Oh well, if you put it like that then yes I suppose that's perfectly credible" and although it would be wrong to say they are instantly converted to theism, at least we achieve some common ground for discussion. Something along these lines is currently being pursued on the other thread, which has abandoned the search for 'Problems with Evolution' and is more concerned by what we mean by God the creator, God the designer, and God the maintainer.

Yes, I know you're still around. That was My way of letting 'byrd' know that I'm Not interested in conversing with Him about Anything.

And, yes, some of these threads get started on one topic and end up on another. This one, as you've commented, was started by Audie -- for her particular agenda. There are So many avenues included In evolution that a person can very frustrated trying to discuss it. And who Dares to question an expert in their particular field. To Me, 'transitional form' indicates that animals can change from one distinct kind to another distinctly Different kind -- even though it supposedly takes millions of years to do such. And I simply do Not agree that That is possible. Because I DO believe that Scripture tells us God did indeed create the animal world exactly as it says He did. Which means that Nothing crosses any boundaries. Because reproduction takes place one generation at a time. The various animals that God created will naturally mate with other's of the same 'kind' and produce the next generation of 'whatever'.

So -- the world of the fossils that are found. Obviously they came from something / somewhere or they wouldn't exist. And then the 'experts' publish their findings and no one questions them because , after all, They have done years of studying and know what they are talking about. But Sometimes common sense needs to be applied.

And there Are those who feel that when someone doesn't agree, that it's because they don't have a Proper understanding of the subject area. A Lot of times we Do understand the subject area but simply do Not agree.

I've been on another Forum a long time ago. We'd get on the same subjects. Seems that there will Always be the debate of God vs science. And it will always boil down to -- is Genesis 1:1 credible. "In the beginning ... God...created...' OR did 'things' simply manage to 'get together' without Any help and this earth and the universe managed to 'happen' and thus, 'here we are, folks'. We have all these animals and we have human beings. Lots of people Don't like the idea of being responsible to a 'higher power'.

Innauguration Day events are going to start soon. Depending on what time zone a person is in. We can all be adults and welcome in our new President Donald Trump.