Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I agree with those scientists who don't believe in God. You don't need a basis for not believing in something, surely. I'm not surprised. That's why there are scientists who'd been called quasi-scientists .....like Dawkins (who's been publicly accused of peddling "unsubstantiated assertions and counter-factual claims," by Lewontin. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/11/002-the-unraveling-of-scientific-materialism What kind of mind believe in something that has no basis at all? I'm not sure what happened with the quote function there, but I don't believe it was anything other than an accident. I didn't say I believed in something with no basis. I said you don't need a basis to not believe in something. The things I do not believe in could fill an infinite number of Universes, if each item was no bigger than a Neutrino. What I believe in, on the other hand, probably wouldn't. Quote
Bonam Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Was it necessary to use the passive voice in that sentence? Couldn't you have said "God hardwired those organisms" with the disclaimer that you don't know the details of what this "God" is? Yes, it was necessary, because it wasn't some unknown force that did the hardwiring but a well understood process. It is very simple to understand that something that makes copies of itself will become more numerous over time and something that does not make copies of itself will not become more numerous. First, you start with random chemicals. Some of them do nothing. Others break down over time. Others happen to react with their surroundings to make additional copies of themselves. Those that make copies of themselves become more numerous, and they have to compete with others for available resources, etc. Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) That's not the common use of the word "creationist". You are creating definitions... A creationist is someone who believes God (or gods) created the universe. Let's not make up new definitions of words and muddle the topic.... that's what Betsy is doing when she claims scientists are saying there's evidence for god and that it created the universe in the OP. How do I muddle the topic by posting a very straight-forward statement from the NAS, issued to the general public? Read it again..... "...many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html Reads quite clear and simple to me. I don't know how that would be muddled to you unless you've got problems with the English language. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I think the topic has already been muddled by people thinking they fully understand definitions that in reality are very abstract (like " God"). I think a semantic approach that deconstructs these terms can help to show that there really isn't that much disagreement between theists (or deists) and atheists. God is not abstract at all to most theists. The Abrahamic gods are not abstract at all. Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Betsy, can you REASONABLY explain why you don't believe in the many gods of Ancient Greece? Please, don't even bring up that term, "reasonably," here, when your out-of topic response is not being reasonable at all. Deal with the issue, Cyber. We're talking about Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the process......etc., Science says there are numerous evidences supporting this. From various areas of science. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 How do I muddle the topic by posting a very straight-forward statement from the NAS, issued to the general public? Read it again..... What they said is perfectly clear and probably reasonable. Here is the muddle: ...then you are in contradiction with science when you say that God does not exists, or that God is merely a fantasy, or a fairy tale. That took what they said about religion and faith and made a GIANT leap that god is now a scientific discovery. It's laughable. It's dishonest... or perhaps it is simply a lack of understanding. Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) God is not abstract at all to most theists. The Abrahamic gods are not abstract at all. That's another good topic, Squid. I can do a separate topic for that.....why I say, "the Abrahamic God is the God of Creation." Maybe later..... Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Yes, it was necessary, because it wasn't some unknown force that did the hardwiring but a well understood process.And that process is part of the whole TimeSpace continuum in which life forms and exists. For the lack of a better term, I've decided to call that continuum "God." I have no idea if that's an old man with a beard or some software code or some sort of pure energy, but whatever it is, it's "God" to me. So even though I approach this with agnostic scepticism, I wind up sounding like Betsy. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 God is not abstract at all to most theists. The Abrahamic gods are not abstract at all. I don't dispute that some people feel certain about things they have no logical reason to feel certain about. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Here is the muddle: That took what they said about religion and faith and made a GIANT leap that god is now a scientific discovery. It's laughable. It's dishonest... or perhaps it is simply a lack of understanding. If science says there are evidences that support God created the universe....isn't it only logical to think that therefore, there are evidences for God's existence? How can one say there are evidences that God created the universe, and then turn around and say.....there is no evidence for God's existence? Do you know what else The National Academy of Sciences say? "Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world." "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html Of course science can't make an outright declaration stating that God exists! They don't deal with the supernatural.....it's beyond science. So we use logic. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Science says there are numerous evidences supporting this. From various areas of science. Surely it has always been the case that, if one wanted to believe all the science, and say that it was all God's doing, then that was just fine. It certainly works for me, and it just come down to, "Oh yes she did", "Oh no she didn't". No winner there. It's when one starts believing the book that it becomes a problem. The age of the universe, natural selection, Adam and Eve or Dinosaurs, we can't have both, etc. And then there's the whole, "She's watching you" thing. Did Nasa say I have to go to Church? What did they say about Heaven and Hell? Quote
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 If science says there are evidences that support God created the universe....isn't it only logical to think that therefore, there are evidences for God's existence? Science said nothing of the sort... You're making this up. Quote
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 If science says there are evidences that support God created the universe....isn't it only logical to think that therefore, there are evidences for God's existence? When you use the term "God", do you mean it in the same way those scientists mean it? Is your definition of "God" different than how I've defined it (i.e., the circumstances that led to the existence of life in time/space)? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 Surely it has always been the case that, if one wanted to believe all the science, and say that it was all God's doing, then that was just fine. It certainly works for me, and it just come down to, "Oh yes she did", "Oh no she didn't". No winner there. It's when one starts believing the book that it becomes a problem. The age of the universe, natural selection, Adam and Eve or Dinosaurs, we can't have both, etc. And then there's the whole, "She's watching you" thing. Did Nasa say I have to go to Church? What did they say about Heaven and Hell? These are scientists, Bcsapper. The National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be issuing a statement that says there are evidences supporting Creation by God.....if they hadn't done what scientists are supposed to do! The NAS is made up of many nobel prize winners. This organization is the creme de la creme. It's the organization that offers scientific advice/ explanation to governments. Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 Science said nothing of the sort... You're making this up. You're in denial. You're ignoring the NAS statement. Okay....bye for now. Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Anyway.....so far, no atheist had explained the basis for their belief. We're now simply going around in circles, and the issue (along with the NAS statement), is being ignored. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 These are scientists, Bcsapper. The National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be issuing a statement that says there are evidences supporting Creation by God.....if they hadn't done what scientists are supposed to do! The NAS is made up of many nobel prize winners. This organization is the creme de la creme. It's the organization that offers scientific advice/ explanation to governments. And yet you've never had any issues ignoring science and scientists in the past! LOL This was a statement about separating faith from science. It wasn't a scientific study that found "God did it". Massive leap.... Quote
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 Anyway.....so far, no atheist had explained the basis for their belief. We're now simply going around in circles, and the issue (along with the NAS statement), is being ignored. The belief that gods don'tr exist? I, as an atheist, don't have that belief, so I can't say anything about it... Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 When you use the term "God", do you mean it in the same way those scientists mean it? Is your definition of "God" different than how I've defined it (i.e., the circumstances that led to the existence of life in time/space)? I mean it as God the Creator. I can do a separate topic though giving my argument(s) why I say the Abrahamic God is the God the Creator. Quote
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 When you use the term "God", do you mean it in the same way those scientists mean it? Is your definition of "God" different than how I've defined it (i.e., the circumstances that led to the existence of life in time/space)? I guess if people made too much effort to define their terms on this topic, it would spoil all the fun of arguing about it. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 And yet you've never had any issues ignoring science and scientists in the past! LOL This was a statement about separating faith from science. It wasn't a scientific study that found "God did it". Massive leap.... I haven't ignored science in the past. I've always maintained that science and religion are not incompatible. I believe that science is created to reveal to us about God..... I've also said that unlike atheists, Christians can follow where the evidence leads. We can even own evolution - as you now can see. What are you on about? Quote
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 I haven't ignored science in the past. I've always maintained that science and religion are not incompatible. How old do you think the Earth is? Quote
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Posted March 25, 2016 "God the Creator" is really no different than "God the circumstances that led to the formation of life in time/space". The only difference seems to be the concept that God existed before creation, which isn't something you can really wrap your head around anyway. So, again, I think we're largely on the same page. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) How old do you think the Earth is? I don't give a hoot how old the earth is.....so I wouldn't bother giving you an answer. The age of the earth isn't important to me. God didn't say to believe earth is this or that old. He says to believe that He's the Creator. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) "God the Creator" is really no different than "God the circumstances that led to the formation of life in time/space". The only difference seems to be the concept that God existed before creation, which isn't something you can really wrap your head around anyway. So, again, I think we're largely on the same page. Except that I've got arguments why the Abrahamic God is the only possible God the Creator. But that's for another topic. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.