science and assumption

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
mattdumas
Newbie Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:16 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: science and assumption

#16

Post by mattdumas » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:04 am

Well, I have realized the error of my ways. I came to a religious site looking for more then speculation and blind faith. I am an 18 year old U.S. Marine, and I am leaving for boot camp in a matter of hours so, I am done. I don't have the education or the knowledge to argue such things as metaphysics or ontology , but i will say the subjects have a bad habit of leading to more questions then answers. As this will be my last post on this website, I should say I have nothing but the utmost respect for religious people(regardless of sect), you have found your fight and you stick with it until your dying breath. But we should all be open to change in belief, because chances are, every single one of us is wrong. The scientists and the priests alike. We are all united in our ignorance. And until we find a universally accepted belief, we should take every religious doctrine and every scientific theory with a grain of salt. Because they are just that, theory and doctrine.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

Re: science and assumption

#17

Post by Byblos » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:11 am

mattdumas wrote:Well, I have realized the error of my ways. I came to a religious site looking for more then speculation and blind faith. I am an 18 year old U.S. Marine, and I am leaving for boot camp in a matter of hours so, I am done. I don't have the education or the knowledge to argue such things as metaphysics or ontology , but i will say the subjects have a bad habit of leading to more questions then answers. As this will be my last post on this website, I should say I have nothing but the utmost respect for religious people(regardless of sect), you have found your fight and you stick with it until your dying breath. But we should all be open to change in belief, because chances are, every single one of us is wrong. The scientists and the priests alike. We are all united in our ignorance. And until we find a universally accepted belief, we should take every religious doctrine and every scientific theory with a grain of salt. Because they are just that, theory and doctrine.
I wish you the best of luck and thank you in advance for your service for our country. There was never any intention of making you realize the error of your ways. Our hope was to clarify misconceptions and it seems you have plenty. Perhaps when you come back we can re-open the subject or have an in-depth discussion on metaphysics and ontology or you can do some reading on your own. I truly believe it will enrich your mind immeasurably, even if you ultimately still reject the notion of God.

All the best.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: science and assumption

#18

Post by PaulSacramento » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:38 am

Science is observation of nature, of the universe and how it is an dhow it works.
If one believes that God reveals himself to us in Nature, then science can be used to point the way to the evidence ( not proof) of God.

I think sometimes we tend to confuse proof with evidence and forget that they are NOT the same thing.

User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times

Re: science and assumption

#19

Post by jlay » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:53 pm

Evidence means suggesting something might be true, all I see is the tearing down of widely accepted ideas and then saying it must be the christian god.

Can you site a specific example from the material on this board. If the arguments presented here are fallacious, I'm sure the board owner would like to see how and why.
Why does the fact that the universe looks like it has a design specific for man immediately mean it is the christian god?

It doesn't. And where do you see that argument being made. It is simply a step in this progression. It is consistent with the Christian God.
Why not any one of the other countless gods who would have, in their believers opinions, shaped the world in exact same fashion just for man kind? I find that view narrow minded.
For example?
It is a valid question. Can we examine other world religions and see if they comply to a universe that is designed? Yes we can. In fact it is one of the main reasons we can reject 99% of other world religions right out of the gate. Good observation.
I believe in the science that I can see at work in the world everywhere around me.
As you way, believe is a faith statement. A statement that can't even be upheld scientifically? It's your thought. Please scientifically explain your thoughts. If you are going to be that critical, then at least be consistent.
I have not tested all of it, that would take a lifetime. But i put my faith in the scientists the same way you put your faith in god, it just so happens that my scientists are a phone call away to explain any problems I might be having with their conclusions by showing me concrete and observable facts.

So, you came here to argue religious ideology, or examine evidential claims? What concrete and observable facts do you have on evolution and the big bang?
Without the talk of all the philosophers in the world, science would still exist.

Science is simply a method. The laws of nature would still exist.
It is concrete, it can't be changed just because of cultural differences or lifestyle choices.
Are you saying it is objectively true? If so, just whose side are you arguing for? This statement backs up Theism and Christianity .
If we were a different species on another planet who, perhaps, valued killing, aggression and the fight for dominance our philosophy would be different in every way. Philosophy is speculative, not observational.
Are you saying the laws of logic are arbitrary?
I came to a religious site looking for more then speculation and blind faith.
I think the initial replies to your OP were simply not good, and this gave you an impression that I don't think is correct. You were asked some questions later on because your replies came across as condescending and mocking. Evidence for God from Science is the name of the site. The main board has lots of information. If there is something specific you reviewed on the main board that you have issue with, then perhaps it would help if you would present those specific things. Otherwise it would appear that you are asking for things that the mainpage of the board already will direct you to. Apparently you haven't thoroughly reviewed the board or you would understand the cosmological argument, and arguments from Intelligent Design, among others. You may not agree with the assesments of the evidence, but the evidence is presented. I think you came with a chip on your shoulder.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious

UdayaBhanu
Newbie Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:31 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: science and assumption

#20

Post by UdayaBhanu » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:36 am

I know science folks are not amenable to "Things like faith based theories and proofs", which is largely for the good of "validity of application" and other stuff. The idea again is not to speculate, but to propose possible explanations (of reality, possible extensions of science etc...). At the same time, people should stop the "what else is possible" kind of questions and answers. This definitely never served anything from the beginning of time. Many things that do not fit in the "human psyche as of today", will be true tomorrow, and if you agree to that, whether being a science guy or a religion man, then it is better to avoid such replies.

User avatar
SnowDrops
Established Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:16 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: science and assumption

#21

Post by SnowDrops » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:28 am

1) I don't think you have any idea what philosophy is. It's a much broader term than you seem to think of.
2) All your ideas imply is that we have no idea who is right, so why bother? The ultimate agnostic. Well, if you can live with that then fine...
3) Your idea of believing science is a misleading one. Scientists are often wrong. Really, if any scientist says they are 100 % certain I would be highly skeptical that they're still doing science.
It seems though that you're saying no position can really be proven, in which case I suppose you don't really have anything to gain from this site. Well, what can I say: Ultimate agnostic.

Btw, people seem to have a great deal of disregard for philosophy, metaphysics and such nowadays.
The first step to learning is to admit that you don't know.

User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: science and assumption

#22

Post by MarcusOfLycia » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:20 am

The problem with not understanding the importance of worldview in interpreting information using the scientific method is that you can easily fall for traps that people who do understand know how to avoid.

Its too bad (based on my experience at two colleges) that 'philosophy' taught today is just exercises in postmodernism, atheism, and modern liberalism. There is no diversity on campuses today, at least in the thought department. I find a lot of modern philosophy to be garbage political, social, or economic propaganda centered on human want.
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

Re: science and assumption

#23

Post by Byblos » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:33 am

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The problem with not understanding the importance of worldview in interpreting information using the scientific method is that you can easily fall for traps that people who do understand know how to avoid.

Its too bad (based on my experience at two colleges) that 'philosophy' taught today is just exercises in postmodernism, atheism, and modern liberalism. There is no diversity on campuses today, at least in the thought department. I find a lot of modern philosophy to be garbage political, social, or economic propaganda centered on human want.
And that is precisely why classical philosophy (the Arestotelian/Scholastic/Thiomistic kind) is coming back to its glory days because it is the only philosophy that makes any sense of anything and that was never refuted to begin with, only pushed aside in favor of postmodernism which failed miserably.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

hardthinkingben
Newbie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:08 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: science and assumption-faith&proof

#24

Post by hardthinkingben » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:41 am

rainagain wrote:I'm afraid you're not going to get proof of the Christian God until He decides to offer it Himself. That is the whole point of the current system of salvation by faith. If there was proof, we wouldn't have to have faith.
Rain, I disagree that faith and proof are mutually exclusive, to me the word faith would be better understood as trust which is the more commonly used. I think god wants us to trust him but that doesn't stop us being able to prove (or disprove) his existence.

I believe the existence of a creator can be proved very convincingly (for example in lee strobels book"case for the creator") without resorting to a blind guess mistakenly called faith. And it doesn't make sense to me that god would give salvation to people for believing he exists,

User avatar
SnowDrops
Established Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:16 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: science and assumption-faith&proof

#25

Post by SnowDrops » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:49 am

hardthinkingben wrote:
rainagain wrote:I'm afraid you're not going to get proof of the Christian God until He decides to offer it Himself. That is the whole point of the current system of salvation by faith. If there was proof, we wouldn't have to have faith.
Rain, I disagree that faith and proof are mutually exclusive, to me the word faith would be better understood as trust which is the more commonly used. I think god wants us to trust him but that doesn't stop us being able to prove (or disprove) his existence.

I believe the existence of a creator can be proved very convincingly (for example in lee strobels book"case for the creator") without resorting to a blind guess mistakenly called faith. And it doesn't make sense to me that god would give salvation to people for believing he exists,
That's not proof, that's evidence. And faith doesn't have to be blind. Among Christian apologists (and scientists in general) the saying is "faith based on reason". Like WLCs' website.
The first step to learning is to admit that you don't know.

User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: science and assumption

#26

Post by MarcusOfLycia » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:22 pm

The word faith was never originally meant to mean anything like 'blind faith'. In fact, asking the Apostles their view of 'blind faith', you'd probably find they'd interpret it much the same way we'd say 'honest lie' or any other contradiction.

Faith is based on the same meaning as the word 'faithful'. It is based on evidence of all kinds, and involves placing trust in the One at whom the evidence points.

A much better word for 'blind faith' would probably be 'ignorant stubbornness'.
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"

User avatar
SnowDrops
Established Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:16 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: science and assumption

#27

Post by SnowDrops » Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:29 am

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The word faith was never originally meant to mean anything like 'blind faith'. In fact, asking the Apostles their view of 'blind faith', you'd probably find they'd interpret it much the same way we'd say 'honest lie' or any other contradiction.

Faith is based on the same meaning as the word 'faithful'. It is based on evidence of all kinds, and involves placing trust in the One at whom the evidence points.

A much better word for 'blind faith' would probably be 'ignorant stubbornness'.
I guess atheists assume that's what we do.
The first step to learning is to admit that you don't know.

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: science and assumption

#28

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:04 pm

Hi
Sorry Byblos, you are right better off not better y#-o
mattdumas all the information about the way science is inline with the bible is on this site, there are no debunks that i know of which have not been answered already.

Your Friend
Daniel
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

Post Reply