Science and God

May 31st, 2015 at 1:28:32 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4926
Quote: Evenbob

"Our belief in the God of the Bible does not rest on scientific evidence
or philosophical proof, but on the person of Christ and our experience
of the Holy Spirit."


I have absolutely no objection to that excellent quote. You are mistaking my proposition that there is scientific evidence that points to a creator of our universe as if I am saying that faith depended on being proven by science. All I am saying is that it is more than reasonable to believe in a creator or God of our universe, much more reasonable than to not believe in God at all. You also have to remember that this God that exists is not necessarily the Triune God of Christianity. To discover this truth you need to encounter the living person of Christ and experience the Holy Spirit and believe what is revealed.

Quote:
This is a new thing the
Christians have got going, all of a sudden faith means
nothing, it all must be proven with science. Since
when?


fides quarens intellectum

This is NOT a new concept. It has always been a deeply held Catholic belief that "faith seeks understanding" and that science's study of the natural world and religion's reflections on divine revelation, both being created by the same God and both that seek after truth cannot be in real conflict.
May 31st, 2015 at 2:00:25 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10375
Quote: FrGamble
All I am saying is that it is more than reasonable to believe in a creator or God of our universe, much more reasonable than to not believe in God at all.


Reasonable to you because you have a
religious agenda. I do not, so it's not
reasonable at all to me. In fact, it's
totally beyond reason. I look at the world
and see the world, not a creation. I
don't thank god for sunsets and mountains
and rainbows, like my dorky relatives
do. I just accept them are a part of nature,
a part of a universe that has always been
here.

Quote:
This is NOT a new concept. .


Just keep tilting at those windmills, trying
to prove a fantasy is real with science.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
June 1st, 2015 at 8:43:57 AM permalink
Mosca
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 16
Posts: 385
Quote: Evenbob
I just read a long paper written by a Christian
about the pro's and cons of the BBT being
a sign that god exists. He exhausts all the
avenues of discussion and at the very end
concludes, who knows. This is the last
sentence he writes:

"Our belief in the God of the Bible does not rest on scientific evidence
or philosophical proof, but on the person of Christ and our experience
of the Holy Spirit."

EXACTLY! That's why it's a religion and not a science,
there is no proof it's real. This is a new thing the
Christians have got going, all of a sudden faith means
nothing, it all must be proven with science. Since
when? It just leads to them chasing their tails and
gloming onto any theory that might validate their
religion. It makes them look weak and unsure, and they
don't even see it.


I think it is ironic when non-believers have to give a Catholic priest his best and most forceful argument.
June 1st, 2015 at 8:46:37 AM permalink
Mosca
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 16
Posts: 385
Quote: FrGamble
I have absolutely no objection to that excellent quote. You are mistaking my proposition that there is scientific evidence that points to a creator of our universe as if I am saying that faith depended on being proven by science. All I am saying is that it is more than reasonable to believe in a creator or God of our universe, much more reasonable than to not believe in God at all. You also have to remember that this God that exists is not necessarily the Triune God of Christianity. To discover this truth you need to encounter the living person of Christ and experience the Holy Spirit and believe what is revealed.


"Reason" is from logic, not science. Logic starts with a system already in place. Science starts with observation of the world. The only way you can apply reason to science and arrive at a creator is by starting with the belief in a creator.
June 1st, 2015 at 8:55:57 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10241
Quote: Mosca
The only way you can apply reason to science and arrive at a creator is by starting with the belief in a creator.


Yes, exactly.

Belief in a creator goes back to the very earliest civilizations. Very likely the belief precedes them. Old ideas die hard.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
June 1st, 2015 at 11:18:40 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10375
Quote: Mosca
The only way you can apply reason to science and arrive at a creator is by starting with the belief in a creator.


It always (and I mean alwayscomes back
to this. Somebody thinks they see a creation,
so they look for a creator till they find one.

I always get the same visceral reaction from
Christians on two subjects. When I say there
is no sin, prove it. And you don't know the
universe was 'created', it might have been
here forever in one form or another. They
get really upset because they want everybody
to take these two concepts for granted, sin
and creation, because they imply a god.

All Christians are salesmen, they're selling
god. Every salesman needs a foot in the
door. If you believe none of what they're
selling, you will indeed be a very hard nut
to crack. Heck, FrG accused Nareed the
other day of 'pretending' not to believe
in god. FrG really doesn't see that god isn't
obvious at all, unless you're halfway sold
on it to start with.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
June 1st, 2015 at 4:02:55 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4926
Quote: Mosca
"Reason" is from logic, not science. Logic starts with a system already in place. Science starts with observation of the world. The only way you can apply reason to science and arrive at a creator is by starting with the belief in a creator.


Reason from logic tells us that things that begin to exist have a creator. Science points to the universe having a beginning. Therefore it seems pretty clear that it is a reasonable suggestion to say that the universe has a creator.

I'm not starting with a belief in a creator. I'm starting with logical truths we arrive at using our reason and applying them to the available scientific evidence. I don't see what the problem is.
June 1st, 2015 at 4:49:45 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10241
Quote: FrGamble
Reason from logic tells us that things that begin to exist have a creator.


Not so.

Everything within the universe has a beginning, or a cause, and was formed or came into being. the Sun, for instance, was formed out of a cloud of hydrogen, plus dust and other gasses. We've seen similar stellar formation processes elsewhere and at various stages. We have NOT seen any evidence at all of a sentient being directing, manipulating or otherwise influencing how stars form.

The logical conclusion which follows from this is that stars form spontaneously.

Quote:
I don't see what the problem is.


Read what I wrote above this quote.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
June 1st, 2015 at 4:55:41 PM permalink
Mosca
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 16
Posts: 385
Quote: FrGamble
Reason from logic tells us that things that begin to exist have a creator. Science points to the universe having a beginning. Therefore it seems pretty clear that it is a reasonable suggestion to say that the universe has a creator.

I'm not starting with a belief in a creator. I'm starting with logical truths we arrive at using our reason and applying them to the available scientific evidence. I don't see what the problem is.


You might not think that you are, but you are. Logic starts with postulates. The very first thing you are doing is postulating a creator.
June 1st, 2015 at 5:00:41 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10375
Quote: FrGamble
Reason from logic tells us that things that begin to exist have a creator.


But you have no idea if the universe
even had a beginning. If there was
a big bang, you don't even know
if it was the only one. One theory is
there are an infinite number of them
and infinite universes.

You keep trying to take 6000 year old
ideas and make them have meaning
today, when they are completely outdated.
You wouldn't build a car with 1910
technology, why maintain a religion
with outdated logic.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.