10 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI feel the same way about skeptics.
One would find it much easier to be polite if my opponents would actually listen, think and use logic. For example, in the Natural selection forum we're currently talking about radioisotope dating. Despite several articles explaining the subject being shot over the the creationist lobby, they refuse to read them, think logically about them, or listen ...[text shortened]... n when they've been refuted already. We get STANG banned for spamming, why not dj2becker too?
They claim there's no evidence of God, and yet they dimiss anything that isn't scientific evidence of Him, while admitting that God is outside the realm of science. How I wish they would listen, think, and use logic on the topic of God just as they do on the topic of science.
DF
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendHey, I'm quite willing to say that we cannot disprove god, provided I'm allowed to attach the addendum that there is no evidence either for or against god. At that point, I appeal to parsimony, and say the simplest explanation is the absence of god (because a belief in god necessitates a belief in things that cannot be seen, felt, touched, tasted or measured in any way).
I feel the same way about skeptics.
They claim there's no evidence of God, and yet they dimiss anything that isn't scientific evidence of Him, while admitting that God is outside the realm of science. How I wish they would listen, think, and use logic on the topic of God just as they do on the topic of science.
DF
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou should change your addendum to say "no scientific evidence". Science measures nature. God is supernatural. Therefore, science will never discover God. But there's more to life than nature.
Hey, I'm quite willing to say that we cannot disprove god, provided I'm allowed to attach the addendum that there is no evidence either for or against god. At that point, I appeal to parsimony, and say the simplest explanation is the absence of god (because a belief in god necessitates a belief in things that cannot be seen, felt, touched, tasted or measured in any way).
I have felt the touch of God. I hear Him speak frequently. And I've had visions from Him. But on a couple of things you are right, I have not tasted nor measured my God.
DF
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendFair enough. I won't say there is no God, and you chaps can just keep out of the science then.
You should change your addendum to say "no scientific evidence". Science measures nature. God is supernatural. Therefore, science will never discover God. But there's more to life than nature.
I have felt the touch of God. I hear Him speak frequently. And I've had visions from Him. But on a couple of things you are right, I have not tasted nor measured my God.
DF
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, apparently one is the study of the realm of all things religious, which apparently is completely separate from the natural world and it's laws (which science investigates).
Say that to Rutherford, Bacon, Kepler, Newton and Einstein. Do you think religion and science are mutualy exclusive?
The people that you have mentioned lived in different times, when science and religion were seen as exactly, precisely the same thing. Apparently that's no longer the case as science continues to undermine the bibles authority on the way the world works.
Don't forget that Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold.
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do have to admit that we (from the science side of the debate) have mostly refused to buy and use those secret decoder rings. And we have also refused to accept Jesus Christ as our personal saviour - a definate prerequisite to understanding anything in the Bible.
One would find it much easier to be polite if my opponents would actually listen, think and use logic. For example, in the Natural selection forum we're currently talking about radioisotope dating. Despite several articles explaining the subject being shot over the the creationist lobby, they refuse to read them, think logically about them, or listen ...[text shortened]... n when they've been refuted already. We get STANG banned for spamming, why not dj2becker too?
However when it comes to science I still see no reason why a Christian should refuse to learn at least a little about basic nuclear physics such as half-lifes of isotopes. If thier claim is correct that the science surrounding that is wrong then we should be very worried because even minor mistakes will result in nuclear power stations either not working or exploding unexpectedly.
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I agree.
I do have to admit that we (from the science side of the debate) have mostly refused to buy and use those secret decoder rings. And we have also refused to accept Jesus Christ as our personal saviour - a definate prerequisite to understanding anything in the Bible.
However when it comes to science I still see no reason why a Christian should refuse to ...[text shortened]... nor mistakes will result in nuclear power stations either not working or exploding unexpectedly.
I do wonder that whilst the Christian science fraternity always tell us that our science is wrong, they seem completely incapable of actually pointing out in a logical coherent way exactly why our [wrong, incorrect] science is so good at producing things that actually work.
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzProvidence?
I do wonder that whilst the Christian science fraternity always tell us that our science is wrong, they seem completely incapable of actually pointing out in a logical coherent way exactly why our [wrong, incorrect] science is so good at producing things that actually work.