Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I disagree. By the choice of the philosophy that it chooses, naturalism, it eliminates God by default.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ask me about Evolution
- Thread starter Warren Clark
- Start date
I disagree. By the choice of the philosophy that it chooses, naturalism, it eliminates God by default.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
Not quite. It also depends on one's definition of a god.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
No, the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God. In addition, many scientists are agnostics.
Evolution certainly does not have anything to do with naturalism, which is quite obvious since millions of Christians accept it.
Perhaps aliens started life on earth.
It is plausible that naturalistic energy has existed eternally, and has the same "creative" attributes as the God of the Bible does regarding causing the Big Bang to occur, but lacks consciousness, and self-awareness like humans have, and like God supposedly has, and lacks the ability to have audible conversations with humans in their own languages.
What about the possibility of multiple universes, and the existence of more than one God?
Last edited:
Only if you believe it does.
It seems like some religious people are having a fight with science about something that science has never claimed, but that they believe it has. It's almost like you wish that science had claimed such things so that you could have a better fight against it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
No. It might eliminate a certain kind of Judeo-Christian God image, but it doesn't eliminate every possible kind of definition and image of God. Perhaps what you have to look for is the "God of Nature" instead of "God of Old-Sheep-Herders-Fantasies." Have you ever heard the term "Spinoza's God"? Well, Spinoza's God fits Naturalism, but a 2,500 year old holy book written by iron-age priests does not.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
That would be very interesting if that were true. It would beg the question how those aliens started.
Warren Clark
Informer
What if this naturalism was just what you perceive to be God?
Warren Clark
Informer
my sentiments exactly
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
AndromedaRXJ said:
Oh sure, but it would take care of the issue of how life started on earth.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Turtles all the way up?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
As much as to how God started. In essence, the anthropomophized God is an alien. If super aliens gave us life, maybe they're eternal and supernatural?
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
Isn't it "all the way down"?
Anyway, it could be that. Or it could be something as simply as life starting somewhere at least once in The Universe by chance.
The Universe is a big place afterall.
What is it that's designed perfectly?
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Yeah it is, I'm just a rebel who starts from the bottom.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nonsense.
Actually, it does match the data, which is why it is accepted theory. It's "crammed down your throat" because it's the best explanation that fits the data (after rigorous testing and examination). It has been verified and confirmed across practically every scientific field in existence.
Amazing, huh?
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
It's the data that led to the theory. Not the other way around. So the theory does fit the data, all too well. Special Creationism doesn't fit the data.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
There are multiple philosophies that match the data, but only one philosophy is called science because it is naturalistic in nature. By default the science philosophy is going to be the best explanation, whether it matches the data closer than the other philosophy or not. Hence, philosophy determines what is taught in school, not the truth necessarily.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
This is wrong because the data that is touted as evidence for the philosophy of evolution came after Darwin. Under Darwinian evolution there should not be any differences in micro vs. macro evolution, but we see that there is and even evolutionists are teaching that now at the colleges.
Philosophy is what one can do in an armchair; science is what takes a lab.
No, but non-scientific explanations are not going to be considered the best scientific explanation. Evolution is the best scientific explanation.