@fmf said
No. I don't think so. If "God" can't be explained by science, then so be it.

It isn't that God or the possibility of God cannot be explained or found by science
now, it is that those that are in science have redefined science to ignore all there is
about God. Therefore science has rejected the possibility of God, dismisses out of
hand God, and under those conditions it refuses to acknowledge anything that
may point to Him.

Very circular, He isn't there, and if someone attempts to show evidence otherwise
that evidence isn't scientific, why because it is has God attached to it.

Notice truth doesn't matter here only an ideological world view.

@kellyjay said

He isn't there, and if someone attempts to show evidence otherwise
that evidence isn't scientific, why because it is has God attached to it.

Notice truth doesn't matter here only an ideological world view.

Got an example of that or is that just your gut feeling?

@kellyjay said
It isn't that God or the possibility of God cannot be explained or found by science
now, it is that those that are in science have redefined science to ignore all there is
about God. Therefore science has rejected the possibility of God, dismisses out of
hand God, and under those conditions it refuses to acknowledge anything that
may point to Him.

Very circular, He is ...[text shortened]... se it is has God attached to it.

Notice truth doesn't matter here only an ideological world view.

Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?

@fmf said
Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?

Why do you apply the word "unscientific" to faith and religious doctrines, you prove
my point, it never just truth we seek, you make it one or the other. If we are looking
for truth, its truth for truths sake that matters, there isn't a science truth and a
faith truth as if they are different things.

@wolfgang59 said
Got an example of that or is that just your gut feeling?

Quotes, books, debates, the list goes on and on. If we are looking for truth and
the possibility of God starts getting possible, accusations about leaving science to
prove religion comes up, attempting to keep one separate from the other. From
there it is all about motivation mongering, not the topic, not the facts.

You think I'm mistaken?

@kellyjay said

Another question on what he said, do you think an eternal universe is any less
supernatural than an eternal God?

Yes.

@kellyjay said
Why do you apply the word "unscientific" to faith and religious doctrines

Because of the definitions of the words "scientific" and "faith".

@kellyjay said
If we are looking
for truth, its truth for truths sake that matters, there isn't a science truth and a
faith truth as if they are different things.

You seem to want to commandeer and misuse the word "science" for the purposes of your proselytizing. Why do you feel the need to do this?

@kellyjay said
It isn't that God or the possibility of God cannot be explained or found by science
now, it is that those that are in science have redefined science to ignore all there is
about God. Therefore science has rejected the possibility of God, dismisses out of
hand God, and under those conditions it refuses to acknowledge anything that
may point to Him.

Very circular, He is ...[text shortened]... se it is has God attached to it.

Notice truth doesn't matter here only an ideological world view.

Empirical science has, from the very beginning, relied exclusively on what is measurable, hence excluding the supernatural. It has not been "redefined," nor does empirical science "reject the possibility of God" or any other supernatural deity or phenomenon.

It is telling that you feel that the pursuit of knowledge of others threatens your own personal beliefs. Fortunately, many other religious people don't feel the same way and make valuable contributions to science.

@fmf said
Because of the definitions of the words "scientific" and "faith".

So you agree with what I said about circular reasoning? The different foundations
or definitions of the words cause different world views?

@fmf said
You seem to want to commandeer and misuse the word "science" for the purposes of your proselytizing. Why do you feel the need to do this?

🙂 LOL you really do grasp my point!

@wolfgang59 said
Luckily for you scientists are not so small-minded.

What about the scientists that are not so small minded as to negate God from the equation? Are they pseudoscientists for doing so?

@kazetnagorra said
Empirical science has, from the very beginning, relied exclusively on what is measurable, hence excluding the supernatural. It has not been "redefined," nor does empirical science "reject the possibility of God" or any other supernatural deity or phenomenon.

It is telling that you feel that the pursuit of knowledge of others threatens your own personal beliefs. Fortun ...[text shortened]... ely, many other religious people don't feel the same way and make valuable contributions to science.

I have no issues with seeing the supernatural through science, we can look at
some of the founders of science who were men of faith looking at the universe
and what they saw they praised God for. The redefining is taking place now, it
started not to long ago. You can see it in much of the written works we see today. I
could more than likely look at your posts and find some examples, but I'll quote
Dawkins from His book Blind Watch Maker,

"The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated
things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

This is both acknowledging design and deny it at the same time, the only way this
happens is if it is presupposed. Suggesting it can happen without showing it
happening from beginning to end is faith, it most certainly isn't an observable
event.

We can see the information required in life, we cannot come up with any other
way this information can occur except an intelligence put it there. There are no
other sources for this type of thing. Please note, by information I'm talking about
instructions for work that is required, the stop starts, the forms, the complexity
of many things working together inside and outside of each lifeform.

As it has been pointed out by others it is the placement that matters not the fact
that somethings are there, the arrangement. I can show you letters and give them
to you different ways, only one carries a meaning that can be read meaningfully.

Random letters
boeGiidLeneIv

Letters in order
bdeeeGiiILno

Or letters giving the appearance of ID, because it is ID.
I believe in God

My personal beliefs are not threaten by whatever sciences says, but if I were an
Atheist, then there are a lot of issues that would arise from the possibility that
natural processes cannot answer some basic questions about where everything
in the universe come from, how did it all start, where did all the information
within living systems come from, how did that start?

Excluding the supernatural is a set of blinders, if life best explanation is someone
created it, then it will never be acknowledged by those who think doing so is
wrong using science. So science again turns circular.

@kellyjay said
I have no issues with seeing the supernatural through science

It's literally impossible to "see the supernatural through science." The things we can see with science are by definition not supernatural.

@kazetnagorra said
It's literally impossible to "see the supernatural through science." The things we can see with science are by definition not supernatural.

Do you think anyone can use the same methods Darwin used and find evidence
for ID, or do you think the suggestion alone is bogus due to how you seeing
science operate?