God and Science

God and Science

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

รœber-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8389
79d

@kellyjay said
I became a Christian in 1979, before that SuperTramp was my favorite rock group, now I listen to exclusively Christian music.
"Stairway to Heaven"?

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
79d

@pettytalk said
Supertramp was your favorite? You're not kidding? It's one of my favorites too. And 'The Logical Song' is still high on my list of favorite songs. More in common.....

I actually consider their music to be the Gospel truth. Too bad you stopped listen to Rock. If Jesus had come today, I'm certain he would use many of the lyrics from Rock songs, to come up with some nice an ...[text shortened]... “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w31GDDH_enM
Supertramp, Uriahheep, Dobbie brothers to name a few. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, the “God said” in the OT.

Joined
14 Jan 19
Moves
4134
78d

@kellyjay said
Supertramp, Uriahheep, Dobbie brothers to name a few. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, the “God said” in the OT.
Indeed, the word of God made flesh. Jesus was the "Walk the Talk." The living word, as he personified what God, the Father, was communicating to all his children (mankind).

I still listen to all three.

This one must have been a good one for you. And no doubt a precursor for your leap of faith. The Dobbie Brothers', 'Jesus is just Alright with me.' Surely you still listen to it, as it's basically a Christian gospel song adopted by the band.

Joined
20 May 16
Moves
36341
78d

@pettytalk said
Indeed, the word of God made flesh. Jesus was the "Walk the Talk." The living word, as he personified what God, the Father, was communicating to all his children (mankind).

I still listen to all three.

This one must have been a good one for you. And no doubt a precursor for your leap of faith. The Dobbie Brothers', 'Jesus is just Alright with me.' Surely you still li ...[text shortened]... sically a Christian gospel song adopted by the band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwlr65TbJA
So are you saying Christ was as all of us, yet also different? Can you zoom out more.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
78d
1 edit

@pettytalk said
Indeed, the word of God made flesh. Jesus was the "Walk the Talk." The living word, as he personified what God, the Father, was communicating to all his children (mankind).

I still listen to all three.

This one must have been a good one for you. And no doubt a precursor for your leap of faith. The Dobbie Brothers', 'Jesus is just Alright with me.' Surely you still li ...[text shortened]... sically a Christian gospel song adopted by the band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwlr65TbJA
The Talk (Word) that walked as the incarnate (fully God, fully man) the living Word so He shares with us the human experience without sin. A very singular person!

Joined
20 May 16
Moves
36341
78d

@kellyjay said
The Talk (Word) that walked as the incarnate (fully God, fully man) the living Word so He shares with us the human experience without sin. A very singular person!
I’ll take the simple copy and paste answer for 100 please.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
78d

@moonbus said
"Stairway to Heaven"?
It used to be one of my favorites but it like the rest, no more.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
78d

@mike69 said
I’ll take the simple copy and paste answer for 100 please.
Well the main things are normally the plain things.

Joined
20 May 16
Moves
36341
78d

@kellyjay said
Well the main things are normally the plain things.
Or the simple minded. I was just mostly curious if you knew how to answer a message? I guess egos have to be attacked for that.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
78d

@mike69 said
Or the simple minded. I was just mostly curious if you knew how to answer a message? I guess egos have to be attacked for that.
Sorry, what are you going on about?

Fighting for menโ€™s

right to have babies

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
117152
78d

@pettytalk said
You are slowly fading away from my thoughts.
Will be a relief to both of us.

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
36765
72d

I wonder what those in this thread would say if they knew the name of the group was "The Doobie Brothers".

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
70d
2 edits

@suzianne said
I believe that God and Science co-exist. They describe two sides of the same coin. You could call that coin "Truth".

One does not make the other impossible. Quite the contrary.
It is straightforward that random chance and necessity don't have the creative abilities to produce over time anything with such specified functional complexity where life is in a homeostasis state, what drives this type of balance in systematic activity is the information directing the processes from beginning to end with extreme precision.

The informational properties in life are not simply like a human language, they are no different than a human language at every level written into biology. We can read it no different than we can words on this computer screen; moreover, there is form and function due to instructional direction in life producing results that are consistent with the means we use to write instructions guiding any complex task.

So when people say they want the Natural means that those things in life can come about, there is ONLY ONE thing that does this naturally, and that is the mind! Looking for a means that chance and necessity could do that, isn't looking for a natural cause, but a miracle that flies in the face of what nature does. 

L

Joined
24 Apr 05
Moves
3061
55d

@KellyJay

KJ, I am checking back in after a lengthy respite and see that you are still up to your usual shenanigans. Up to no good. ๐Ÿ˜€

I think Dr. Lennox’s arguments on this are highly unpersuasive and half-baked. He makes two claims here. First, he claims his conception is not a “god of the gaps” and that scientific advancements (whatever they be) would not serve to displace God but rather only heighten his understanding of how God works. Second, he claims that scientific explanation (or description) is not the only relevant sort but actually works best in tandem with another valid form of explanation related to the agency and intentionality of God. Both of these claims, particularly in the light of his examples given, are disingenuous.

Regarding the first claim, it is an unfortunate bug (not a feature) of any putative explanative program that it provides unfalsifiable content. That Lennox’s god-commitments are not, even in principle, subject to displacement by the deliverances of science is just a natural consequence of unfalsifiability. Unfortunately for Lennox, an upshot is that his god-commitments can explain nothing at all. I am paraphrasing, but Christopher Hitchens put it well when he described such “explanation” as an ever-expanding tautology. For example, a theist can claim that God explains the rich diversity of biological life; an objector can retort, well, what about DNA and the theory of evolution through random mutation and natural selection and all that; and the theist can respond, well, that just shows God is even more clever that we thought now does it not?!? If the scientific understanding changes and gets refined further, God’s cleverness grows all the more. This is not to be taken seriously. This is not a exercise in explanation but rather one in pure ad hoc stipulation. It is profoundly unscientific. In scientific matters, one does not have the luxury of pulling an explanative claim out of his arse and then growing in respect of it under any scientific outcomes whatsoever because no set of circumstances can show it to be wrong. In science you are held to a much higher standard, since putative explanations have to survive respectable attempts at falsification and whatnot. At least in science we try to converge on a solution based on data and evidence, rather than stipulating and hewing to a solution that accommodates any evidence whatever it may possibly be, which appears to be the opposite of trying.

Regarding his second claim, where is the beef? Please provide a model for the validity of just stipulating god’s agency and intentionality onto the back of scientific understanding. Or at least explain how it would add any understanding at all. His example regarding gravity is bizarre. Newton thought gravity was a force in a classical sense and got it wrong on that count, although his equations are still good enough to explain a profound amount of phenomena; Einstein came along and showed that gravity is better interpreted as a geometric feature of spacetime and his equations explain even more. What exactly is Lennox’s addendum to all this vis-a-vis the agency of God? Does it have any more content than just that God intended such things to be as such? What precise understanding does that add? The example about heating up water for tea or coffee is also profoundly disingenuous as well. We of course can work off of theories of agency where agency is empirically evidenced, such as humans’ desiring coffee. Where is prior evidence for the agency of God?

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158038
55d

@lemonjello said
@KellyJay

KJ, I am checking back in after a lengthy respite and see that you are still up to your usual shenanigans. Up to no good. ๐Ÿ˜€

I think Dr. Lennox’s arguments on this are highly unpersuasive and half-baked. He makes two claims here. First, he claims his conception is not a “god of the gaps” and that scientific advancements (whatever they be) would not serve ...[text shortened]... irically evidenced, such as humans’ desiring coffee. Where is prior evidence for the agency of God?
Well, let me begin by saying is nice seeing your name again even if we disagree. ๐Ÿ˜‰

No matter what explanation you get or give for either that God is responsible for everything, or that nothing was at the foot of it all, both are always going to be speculative and will be taken on faith. Which is the best explanation is the only thing we can look for, and that was not the point of this discussion.

The point of this particular talk was about the nature of explanation, not to show anything more than that. If you think Dr Lennox is trying to prove God here you are missing the point, as others have here. This talk was strictly about the definition of explanation, that of God, god, agency, and science if you were looking for something more it wasn't there. What was in this talk was explanations, there are two types under discussion agency and science.