It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

page: 20
16
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier


it owes it existence to an uncaused cause...


Say we agree that there has to be an eternal component to existence.

Why does that in your eyes have to be an intelligent agency? Why can't that just be an eternal Universe? Or anything else. Why god?



It is what we would expect to find if there was a god.




posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:37 AM
link   

...
THE Bible tells Christians to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, but today the religious fad is to trail off after the scientists who copy Greek philosophers. In the fifth century before Christ the Greek philosopher Empedocles believed in spontaneous generation of life, gradual evolution of organisms and survival of the fittest. In the following century Aristotle taught that “man is the highest point of one long and continuous ascent.” Greek philosophers in general preached the evolution idea.

Included in Paul’s warning, at Colossians 2:8 (NW), against traditions would be the evolutionary philosophies of these babblers, who were so wise in their own eyes and who mocked God’s wisdom as foolishness: “Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”

Christendom’s clergymen have been carried off as the prey of evolution. The ancient Greeks ensnared many in their day; the modern scientists take captive by their wisdom millions today, including many clergymen. Evolution is the club used to beat into submission those who once believed the Bible. Like the ancient Greeks, the scientists are the wise ones, they have the facts, they follow the scientific method. Any who do not agree with them because of the Bible record of creation are gullible ignoramuses. The proud clergy do not want to be classed as gullible ignoramuses. So they fall prey to evolution.
...

Source: Evolution Warps Religious Thinking

A bit more historical detail regarding some of the above (and if you watch more videos in that playlist you will also run across the historical details concerning some theological philosophies and doctrines, theosophies):
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

What is nowadays often referred to as "science" used to be referred to as "natural philosophy". Not to be confused with "philosophical naturalism" or "methodological naturalism" as people nowadays often perceive it when they think of "science".

Are Science and the Bible Compatible?

...
SCIENCE does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.
That point of view finds abundant support in the Bible. Says Romans 1:20: “[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” Likewise, Psalm 19:1, 2 states: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling. One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth, and one night after another night shows forth knowledge.” Despite all its wonders, however, the natural world reveals only some aspects of our Creator.

Where Science Is Limited

Many truths about God are beyond the scope of science. To illustrate, a scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that​—which most people would regard as the more important ones—​he needs to consult the person who baked the cake.

Similarly, science “gives a lot of factual information,” wrote Austrian physicist and Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger, “but it is ghastly silent about all . . . that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us.” This includes, he says, “God and eternity.” For example, only God can answer such questions as the following: Why is there a universe? Why does our planet have an abundance of life, including intelligent life? If God truly is almighty, why does he permit evil and suffering? And is there hope beyond the grave?
Has God answered those questions? Yes, in the pages of the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16) ...

edit on 26-6-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 04:27 AM
link   
A bit more about the word "philosophy":

The Greek word phi·lo·so·phiʹa means, literally, “love of wisdom.” In modern usage the term relates to human endeavors to understand and interpret through reason and speculation the whole of human experience, including the underlying causes and principles of reality.

The Greek words for “philosophy” and “philosopher” each occur only once in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Col 2:8; Ac 17:18) Evidently when Paul wrote to the congregation at Colossae in Asia Minor, some there were in danger of being affected by “the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.” Greek philosophies were then quite prominent. But the context of Colossians 2:8 shows that of special concern to Paul were Judaizers who were trying to bring Christians back to observing the Mosaic Law with its required circumcision, festival days, and abstinence from eating certain foods. (Col 2:11, 16, 17) Paul was not opposed to knowledge, for he prayed that Christians be filled with it. But, as he showed, one must appreciate the role of Jesus Christ in the outworking of God’s purpose in order to obtain true wisdom and accurate knowledge. (Col 1:9, 10; 2:2, 3) The Colossians were to look out lest perhaps someone with persuasive arguments carry them off as prey through a human way of thinking or outlook. Such a philosophy would be part of “the elementary things [stoi·kheiʹa] of the world,” that is, the principles or basic components and motivating factors of the world, “and not according to Christ.”​—Col 2:4, 8.

When in Athens Paul had an encounter with “the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers.” (Ac 17:18) They termed the apostle a “chatterer,” using the Greek word sper·mo·loʹgos, which literally applies to a bird that picks up seeds. The word also carries the thought of one who picks up scraps of knowledge and repeats such without order or method. Those philosophers disdained Paul and his message. Basically the Epicurean philosophy was that the obtaining of pleasure, particularly mental pleasure, was the chief good in life (1Co 15:32); though it acknowledged gods, it explained these as being beyond human experience and concern. The philosophy of the Stoics stressed fate or natural destiny; one should be of high virtue but strive for indifference to pain or pleasure. Neither Epicureans nor Stoics believed in the resurrection. In his speech before such men, Paul highlighted the relationship and accountability of the individual to the Creator and connected therewith Christ’s resurrection and the “guarantee” this provided men. To Greeks asking for “wisdom” the message about Christ was “foolishness” (1Co 1:22, 23), and when Paul mentioned the resurrection, many of his hearers began to mock, although some became believers.​—Ac 17:22-34.

In his inspired letters Paul emphasized a number of times that the wisdom and falsely called knowledge of the world is foolishness with God and is to be avoided by Christians.​—1Co 1:18-31; 2:6-8, 13; 3:18-20; 1Ti 6:20.

Source: Philosophy: Insight, Volume 2
edit on 26-6-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: randyvs

But "these people", who I haven't specifically named, believe I am an infidel and because I do not believe in their views, I am an enemy and should be killed, based on their holy text.

You yourself have said you have no issue with any word in the bible. The small percentage of these people (which equates to roughly 75-100 million), while not following the bible, follow their religious texts very...'religiously'. And these texts have very explicit views on non-believers and non-followers of their faith.

So when I said millions of people want people like me dead, I was not exaggerating.


Dont you think there is a large amount of
varibles at play here. If you really believed
millions wanted you dead how could you
not be afraid to go anywhere?

If millions wanted you dead? I'm pretty sure
one of them would've been able to achieve
the goal by now.

God didn't make anything to die
that wouldn't even be Godly or
God like.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Which is why religious faith is not worth a drop of respect... They SAY they follow but are lousy adherents. If muslims were actual good muslims according to their own definitions, they would be outlawed across the board as murdering lunatics.

The fact everyone is a lame ass flake is what gives confidence to leave the house. And failure to understand how FAKE AND PHONY these people are is called mental depression.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prene
a reply to: randyvs

Which is why religious faith is not worth a drop of respect... They SAY they follow but are lousy adherents. If muslims were actual good muslims according to their own definitions, they would be outlawed across the board as murdering lunatics.

The fact everyone is a lame ass flake is what gives confidence to leave the house. And failure to understand how FAKE AND PHONY these people are is called mental depression.


If someone says they're a carpenter, but their furniture breaks, this doesn't discredit the profession of carpentry, it only shows that those claiming to be carpenters are hypocrites. To think carpentry is a waste just because some claim to be such, and are not, would be to totally miss out on the joys of being an actual adherent to the skill of carpentry.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Prene

Do I need to point out the difference between
faith in religion and faith in Jesus Christ?



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: randyvs
Then who created man?

Maybe aliens? But I suspect not.

Logically? Probably? Realistically? A process over billions of years.

But you wouldn't understand it, Randyvs. It uses non-Bible words.
?

Pitiful



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Luthier:

God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific


Excuse me, what of 'God' is not science, and to what do you refer by using 'it's'? Are you referring to the age-old debate where science is seeking to prove God does not exist? There's never been any such debate. As far as I am aware, no particular science discipline has ever been used to prove the non-existence of God, it has all been philosophical and theological debate.

Certain scientific methods have been employed to prove the existence of preternatural powers and paranormal events, but always inconclusive.


The topic of God's real or unreal nature, existence, non existence, etc rests entirely in philosophy.


No. It rests entirely in the debate between philosophy and theology. The former seeks to use rational logic, whereas the latter seeks to use irrational and rational logic...crazy huh?


There is no conceivable falsifiable test for God unless the parameter is refined to something very specific.


What parameter could you assign to the 'idea' of God, that could be used as a proof to take him out of a conceived abstract concept into the realms of actual existence? What specific 'something' could be applied?


Asking to prove God's existence is not a scientific question to begin with.


It is still a valid challenging question to a claim of improbable existence. If you said to me that last night you travelled around the astral plane, what obligation do I have to believe you? If you keep repeating the claim in public, and I challenge you to prove it, that too, is not a question of science, but it is one of verifiability and validity. For me, the case would not be predicated on what you claim, but on the curiosity I would hold and the want for me to know if you lie or not? So, I would be interested in what 'method' you would use to verify and validate your claim, in such a way that I would not consider you disingenuous. Once that is established, we can then look at what you claim.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


God does not provide a falsifiable scenario.


seems like a pretty strong indicator.


The claims of God are philoshical. Not scientific.


so this god thing is a philosophy, not an actual cosmic monarch who literally owns our souls and all of reality or anything like that. if we could have only established that from the start!

edit on 8-7-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Ah, you're confused.

What I mean is, you wouldn't understand my post because it refers to logic and reason and not biblical references, so... yeh. You wouldn't get it.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Luthier:

God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific


Excuse me, what of 'God' is not science, and to what do you refer by using 'it's'? Are you referring to the age-old debate where science is seeking to prove God does not exist? There's never been any such debate. As far as I am aware, no particular science discipline has ever been used to prove the non-existence of God, it has all been philosophical and theological debate.

Certain scientific methods have been employed to prove the existence of preternatural powers and paranormal events, but always inconclusive.


The topic of God's real or unreal nature, existence, non existence, etc rests entirely in philosophy.


No. It rests entirely in the debate between philosophy and theology. The former seeks to use rational logic, whereas the latter seeks to use irrational and rational logic...crazy huh?


There is no conceivable falsifiable test for God unless the parameter is refined to something very specific.


What parameter could you assign to the 'idea' of God, that could be used as a proof to take him out of a conceived abstract concept into the realms of actual existence? What specific 'something' could be applied?


Asking to prove God's existence is not a scientific question to begin with.


It is still a valid challenging question to a claim of improbable existence. If you said to me that last night you travelled around the astral plane, what obligation do I have to believe you? If you keep repeating the claim in public, and I challenge you to prove it, that too, is not a question of science, but it is one of verifiability and validity. For me, the case would not be predicated on what you claim, but on the curiosity I would hold and the want for me to know if you lie or not? So, I would be interested in what 'method' you would use to verify and validate your claim, in such a way that I would not consider you disingenuous. Once that is established, we can then look at what you claim.


The concept of God is in many cultural philosophical and theosophical inquiry into what came first. How anything became something if there was ever nothing etc.

It also comes from fear and reverence for nature and in earlier forms like animism is more obvious.

Theology is a branch of philosophy. In terms of what possible concepts exist for cosmology today whether in physics or philosophy creation by beings greater than humans who could be perceived or considered "gods" still exists. The concepts of a simulation for instance. Or forced evolution provide possibility of creators.

These types of debates still can use logic and reason. Moat people have not studied philosophy or cosmology so don't really understand the discussions to begin with.

Broad topics and concepts like God usually are not great for scientific methods.

If I said a large one eyed purple god lives in my garden however you could use the scientific method to disprove that statement at least in this dimension of reality.

Proving an uncaused cause must exist on not is a little harder. Or a necessary being, why things appear fine tuned etc..they are philoshical concepts that require a different kind of debate. Metaphysics in general require a different set of falsifiers than science.
edit on 10-7-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier


God does not provide a falsifiable scenario.


seems like a pretty strong indicator.


The claims of God are philoshical. Not scientific.


so this god thing is a philosophy, not an actual cosmic monarch who literally owns our souls and all of reality or anything like that. if we could have only established that from the start!


Not all things worth thinking about are falsifiable or even understandable due to our own limitations..

The second part of you conversation I agree with. However the roots of these concepts are found in earlier religions like Hinduism (which is very different now do to nearly being eradicated by the muslim invaders and watered down by the brittish) with sets of very different concepts for how the universe exists or what your soul is.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Not all things worth thinking about are falsifiable or even understandable due to our own limitations..


if it isnt falsifiable then its very existence is in question. all current facts are falsifiable.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: endercreeper01

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier


it owes it existence to an uncaused cause...


Say we agree that there has to be an eternal component to existence.

Why does that in your eyes have to be an intelligent agency? Why can't that just be an eternal Universe? Or anything else. Why god?



It is what we would expect to find if there was a god.


but that is just it though...how do we know what to expect in the event of a god? this expectation requires falsifiable data that simply is not available due to the overwhelming philosophical nature of the question. there is no empirical angle to be considered and therefore no true standard to be observed. you cannot expect the inexplicable.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

go mow the lawn now




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join