Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Perhaps it is because men as they have developed have become more full of themselves than ever previously.Why does the history of scientific discovery have numerous examples of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing natural explanations?
Because of the measuring standard being used (or not used).Why does the history of scientific discovery have numerous examples of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing natural explanations?
Perhaps it is because men as they have developed have become more full of themselves than ever previously.
The supernatural has been used forever to explain things we don't understand.Because of the measuring standard being used (or not used).
Also, because the supernatural has no need to prove anything, that is not the object or purpose.
That's a different "use" than I was referring to. My point was that true supernatural has no need to "use" anything to prove what they are not trying to prove.The supernatural has been used forever to explain things we don't understand.
Why does the history of scientific discovery have numerous examples of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing natural explanations?
God may be all knowing but Christians are not. Religion has never explained how our universe works, science keeps correcting religious knowledge on this subject.That's a different "use" than I was referring to. My point was that true supernatural has no need to "use" anything to prove what they are not trying to prove.
In other words, your question suggests that there is an equal race or competition going on between science and the supernatural (God)...but there is not. There is no contest, just milestones marking the events of science trying to learn what God already knows. So there is a notable learning curve for science, but not for God who is already all-knowing...and no milestones to sight.
Science is based on inductive reasoning with the presupposition that the laws of logic are immutable. This has worked wonderful for 500 years or so. Theories are the closest thing to truth science has and are considered facts. Many facts, other theories, and experiments, data, etc. go into a theory and the likelihood of a theory to be completely thrown out is negotiable.A good question, but one that also ignores the question why does science work?
There are limits to what can be seen, recorded and repeated in science. Explanations for events that are beyound the laboratory depend on theories, maths and presupositions.
What are you asking?So why when theories stress the random and chaotic is the result ordered, and comprehessable.
This is untrue. Scientists cannot consider anything that they cannot verify by reason and experimentation. Give them a way to test for god and they will. They have tested for the effectiveness of prayer leading to the conclusion that it does not do much. The Kalam is an argument, how do you test for that? The flaw in the Kalam is that an infinite regress is an asserted that has no basis. Just asserting that god did not begin to exist does not make it so. Also, which god does it "prove" exists?Why also do scientist refuse to consider ideas that don't fit with their presupositions.
eg the kalam etc arguement.
You along with many in science presume a lot. What you say is so in a measure. Not every follower of science or of religion or of God is arrogant and not all of them in any category are always correct.As science discovers how things work the supernatural explanations have gone away, has nothing to do with arrogance but with verifying what is actually true.
I agreeYou along with many in science presume a lot. What you say is so in a measure. Not every follower of science or of religion or of God is arrogant and not all of them in any category are always correct.
The difference is that science has a mechanism to correct itself. Religion does not. When science was found to be wrong it was corrected by other scientists not religionists.You say that supernatural explanations have gone away. I would say that some of those supernatural explanations were indeed in error at the start but the same is true of supposedly scientific explanations. What is the Truth?
What is it?Man will never find the "face to face" vision through science alone! There is only one Way to such a vision.
Ok, seems like you just don’t want to understand what I am saying and just put me down. Maybe I will get back to you Monday. I am going to spend time with my family. Hope you have a good weekend.Vince: "The difference is that science has a mechanism to correct itself. Religion does not. When science was found to be wrong it was corrected by other scientists not religionists."
Wrong! You really need to read the relevant posts before mindlessly pontificating. Religion has 3 "mechanisms to correct itself:"
(1) Progressive revelation (read the thread!)
(2) the gift of spiritual discernment
(3) upgrades in scholarly research in religious claims
You also overlook 2 established principles of the Philosophy of Science:
(1) That interpretation is to be preferred which makes the best sense of all the relevant data.
You freeze like Bambi in the headlights before spiritually relevant data and hide behind the hogus rationalization of been there/ seen that.
(2) To be worth pursuing, a theory is subject to the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness. That is, you must be able to specify how your position can in principle be falsifiable. You have failed to apply that principle to your atheism and instead just seek excuses for not watching the relevant posted videos and responding to posts that refute your positions. Your closed mindedness casts doubt on whether interacting with you has a constructive purpose other than making instructive use of you as an illustrative apologetic whipping boy.
Consider the case of Dr. Kenneth Miller who has written standard high school and college text books on biology and is often sought as the mouthpiece for defending evolution against creationists. Google his name and YouTube for relevant videos. He, like Francis Collins, grasps the evidence for evolution in far more detail and sophistication than you do, and yet, finds it necessary to postulate an Intelligent Designer beneath the whole process.
W
Because many of the things science claims it explains it does not.Why does the history of scientific discovery have numerous examples of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing natural explanations?
amadeus said: ↑
You along with many in science presume a lot. What you say is so in a measure. Not every follower of science or of religion or of God is arrogant and not all of them in any category are always correct.
This is a step in the right direction. We both admit that men on both sides of this fence [if that is a good word here] are sometimes in error.Vince said: I agree
Amadeus said:
You say that supernatural explanations have gone away. I would say that some of those supernatural explanations were indeed in error at the start but the same is true of supposedly scientific explanations. What is the Truth?
Vince said: The difference is that science has a mechanism to correct itself. Religion does not. When science was found to be wrong it was corrected by other scientists not religionists.
Amadeus said:
Man will never find the "face to face" vision through science alone! There is only one Way to such a vision.
Vince said: What is it?
Again, you error.God may be all knowing but Christians are not. Religion has never explained how our universe works, science keeps correcting religious knowledge on this subject.
This is all based on a claim that has not been supported by evidence in my opinion.Vince: "The difference is that science has a mechanism to correct itself. Religion does not. When science was found to be wrong it was corrected by other scientists not religionists."
Wrong! You really need to read the relevant posts before mindlessly pontificating. Religion has 3 "mechanisms to correct itself:"
(1) Progressive revelation (read the thread!)
(2) the gift of spiritual discernment
(3) upgrades in scholarly research in religious claims
You also overlook 2 established principles of the Philosophy of Science:
(1) That interpretation is to be preferred which makes the best sense of all the relevant data.
You freeze like Bambi in the headlights before spiritually relevant data and hide behind the hogus rationalization of been there/ seen that.
My position does not need falsifiability because I am not making a claim. Theists are making a claim, how can your claim be falsified? I don't see how. Your insistence that I did not watch the videos seems to be because I don't have the same conclusions you do and that I have some questions that you refuse to address.(2) To be worth pursuing, a theory is subject to the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness. That is, you must be able to specify how your position can in principle be falsifiable. You have failed to apply that principle to your atheism and instead just seek excuses for not watching the relevant posted videos and responding to posts that refute your positions. Your closed mindedness casts doubt on whether interacting with you has a constructive purpose other than making instructive use of you as an illustrative apologetic whipping boy.
Ok, so what? Can he give sufficient evidence for his intelligent designer claim?Consider the case of Dr. Kenneth Miller who has written standard high school and college text books on biology and is often sought as the mouthpiece for defending evolution against creationists. Google his name and YouTube for relevant videos. He, like Francis Collins, grasps the evidence for evolution in far more detail and sophistication than you do, and yet, finds it necessary to postulate an Intelligent Designer beneath the whole process.
My point is that science has lead to the discovery of vaccines, farming techniques, medical equipment etc. as well as horrendous things such as bombs, nerve gasses etc. Where has any theist made a significant discovery that changes the world only due to their theistic writings?Again, you error.
Science...as I said...is simply noting milestones of discovery about what God already knows. But to say that "religion has never explained how our universe works"...what is religion? I am not speaking for "religion." Perhaps that is the problem with you not seeing God... If you look to religion, you will see men, not God.
You have not given me any reason to believe you over others that say something different about the nature of god.As for how our universe works...have I not told you? Indeed, I have. But your focus is on men.
I disagree on some of these but just because science cannot explain some things yet does not mean it is worthless or that god exists.Because many of the things science claims it explains it does not.
It is not explained the existence of the universe.
It does not explain the statistical impossibility of life occurring by accident.
It does not explain how the walls of Jericho in defiance of science.
It is not explaining how moths and butterflies can exist.
It is not explained duckbilled platypus.
And a whole lot more.