Theological question of the day.

Well, In the above posts I put it in quotes because I don't like the term supernatural, as we can't define supernatural because everything that is a part of the universe is natural. Granted, I believe in God, but it extends as far as "I believe God exists". After that, I have no verifiable answers for you. Plus, it's all my own thoughts and beliefs. I believe the Big Bang occurred, I believe evolution is the mechanism by which life adapts and advances (I believe humanity evolved to our current state), the earth is billions of years old, and the universe billions of years older, and so on. It just makes good sense.

What I'm wondering is how my view that God exists makes me anti-science as Rick claims. My faith doesn't affect my understanding of science in any way, so how am I against science?

J.

Until that invisible T-Rex decides to take action. Regardless of that T-Rex's ridiculousness, you can't say, in fact, that it's either meaningful or meaningless.

And I think it incredibly naive to say that if something cannot be measured that it's meaningless to speak of it's potential existence. If it does happen to exist, and it was simply an incorporeal entity, then there could be meaning in the consideration of it's existence.

And I'd wager to say that if one found out that there was such an entity, regardless of the ability to measure it on any scale or by any unit, they'd want to know more about it.

Again, that statement is inherently flawed.

How can you say that something unexaminable is less likely to be true, if you can't examine it? To say that something is likely or not requires it's likelihood to be examined.

You can't prove that people just "made it up."

There's a reason it's called a notion.

That notion is inherently flawed, as well, and no amount of redundancy and double negatives will change that.

That notion implies that existence is an empirical phenomenon, which cannot be proven, and who's evidence is self-serving. It's circular logic.

I'm not being naive. I'm being logical. The invisible, incorporeal T-Rex that exists is exactly the same as the one that doesn't. It can't decide to "take action" without contradicting its properties as already described and becoming scientifically measurable.
You want to find out more about it? Sure, I'll tell you that it has an IQ of 180, has been to Alpha Centauri and likes jazz music. It's best friend is a Stegosaurus and they speak Latin to each other while watching Alfred Hitchcock movies.
Say that's all true. Is this useful or interesting information when it's absolutely indistinguishable from make-believe? What's the difference between it and make-believe?

And by the same token, what's the difference between a God that exists outside of any possible measurement, divorced entirely from the physical world and a God that isn't there?

It occurs to me that it doesn't matter whether you call what you believe in supernatural or "supernatural". If you try to insulate it from the scientific method by divorcing it so completely from the world we live in, you become anti-scientific, declaring that the pirvue of science is "this far and no farther" and that you only trust it up to that point.

Ah, but I don't insulate it from the scientific method. At this point, however, there simply is no method capable of indicating whether there is or is not a god. You're free to try, and I'd never stop you, so where is it I'm drawing the line?

You see, when I say the "why" I mean that things like God are relegated to philosophy rather than science, because there is no method for science to make those deductions. There is simply not enough evidence either way at this point. What this means is you get science classes free of Creationism, and philosophy classes do not fall under the scientific method. Has that occurred to you?

J.

Look John get it thorough your thick skull.....

To Rick, Dan and the others it doesn't matter what you say. As long as you believe in God you are a lesser being in their eyes and nothing you say or do will change that.

In their world they are the superior being and you are a useful idiot.

It pretty much boils down to this: which leads to :shakepope:

In that case, we're back at the start, and your beliefs aren't really "why" questions as you claimed at all. If they're testable in principle (just not at this point) then they're "what" questions.

Only rarely is something completely proven.

That said, there is considerably more evidence of the existence of the Big Band than there is for a God.

The two may or may not be connected; in any case, it is foolhardy to assert with total certainty that God does or does not exist.

I am of the belief that someone once found proof of God's existence. After that point, God has not existed.

Best. Typo. Ever. :jacklol:

Yeah. They're not satisfied with people just believing and not harming anyone. They have to nitpick until they can prove they're "right".

Yep.

/facepalm

J.

I apologize. I am currently using an iPhone, and the electrical discharges from my touch seem to disturb it.

I feared that might happen. I have seen the same reaction in Silk Spectre on many occasions.

There is no unfortunate for me.

I couldn't care less what other people think. My faith is personal.

It's you people who can't grasp people of faith can still embrace and believe in good science.

He sees the world in black and white.


J.

Truth is black and white. A personal belief in falsehood is no less objectively wrong that any other.

You and Dicky need to start a church.

J.

I'm not sure what your point is. What are your thoughts on the Big Bang theory?

No, it actually doesn't, because you can't talk something into existence.

YEAH.
That's what reasoning is.

So basically you draw an arbitrary line at how cool and science-y something sounds.

You can't talk something out of existence, either.

[yt=Babel Fish]dcncPpQ8loA[/yt]

Post 44,000!!

What a load of dingo's kidneys.

Bullshit.

You can become a christian without reading it at all (in it's entirety) - many christians never have I'm sure.

that's quite different than making an (incorrect) definitive statement on what it says.