Christian Science: Here's your Chance

[McBell]

I wouldn't go as far as saying 'logical fallacies'. The term is quite abused and therefore ends up becoming a victim of it's own meaning.

The logic is quite solid. Science is a technique of discovery and advancement. It contains nothing beyond speculation about the origins of our reality.
On a smaller scale, science tends to be subjective, which means that a lot of times it only takes into account a given hypothesis.
Evolution is a monumental example of this.

With this being the case, it certainly does take a little bit of faith to want to believe in atheistic views, as science bears no proof of a godless reality.
There is no proof of biblical accounts because there is not much such occurences leave behind. Are we to find proof that rivers filled with blood 3500 years ago?
If you are of the Christian persuasion, God sent the Messiah and left man to their bidding until the final days, so what visible miracles such as seas splitting are going to happen? How can you declare these things are impossible if this is the case?
Of course, this is only the view of a Christian. I am pretty sure any of the Abrahamic religions have other defenses on the subject. Religion does not need to succomb to science because there is nothing to succomb to.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

It's hard to accept such a thing, I know. If you needith challenge me on the popular arguments of atheism, such as radio-metric dating, go right ahead I do not speak with biased influence.

 

[McBell]

I do not speak with biased influence.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Alright, let me put it another way, since you seem to think that all theists are completely biased.

I did not become Christian and then look at the pitfalls of scientific theory. I looked at the pitfalls of scientific theory and became Christian
Among other things, but lets stay on topic.

You wouldn't be hesitating there, would ya?
I would think an agnostic would be interested with this more than anything, as I used to be agnostic myself.

 

[McBell]

Alright, let me put it another way, since you seem to think that all theists are completely biased.

Interesting the assumptions you make.

I did not become Christian and then look at the pitfalls of scientific theory. I looked at the pitfalls of scientific theory and became Christian
Among other things, but lets stay on topic.

You wouldn't be hesitating there, would ya?
I would think an agnostic would be interested with this more than anything, as I used to be agnostic myself.

What is it that I would be hesitating about?
You made the claim that you are not biased, I called it for the bull **** it is.
No hesitation there at all.

And before you start whining about stereotyping theists, I base the claim you are biased on your posts in this thread.

 

[ericoh2]

At the time, the conditions allowed for their creation.

-Why?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Interesting the assumptions you make.


What is it that I would be hesitating about?
You made the claim that you are not biased, I called it for the bull **** it is.
No hesitation there at all.

And before you start whining about stereotyping theists, I base the claim you are biased on your posts in this thread.

Hmm.. hesitate to discuss the topic of this thread and labeling it as *********.

I simply made the claim that science does not undo religion. Is there nothing you can think of in defense?
I'd be disappointed if you can't, because I love to debate these things.

Also,, how is saying things such as 'we can't prove rivers flowed with blood 3500 years ago' considered biased?
A biased remark would be saying something such as 'we would find minerals and particles evident to blood', as if that is even remotely realistic.

 

[McBell]

Hmm.. hesitate to discuss the topic of this thread and labeling it as *********.

I simply made the claim that science does not undo religion. Is there nothing you can think of in defense?
I'd be disappointed if you can't, because I love to debate these things.

Also,, how is saying things such as 'we can't prove rivers flowed with blood 3500 years ago' considered biased?
A biased remark would be saying something such as 'we would find minerals and particles evident to blood', as if that is even remotely realistic.

Your sad attempt to drag science down to the level of mere faith shows your bias.

It is as though you know that faith will never come close to science so instead of building up faith, you attempted to drag science down.

The fact is that science does undo loads of religious beliefs.
The disappearing god of the gaps has made so many theists desperate to put god somewhere, anywhere it seems is better than nothing.

If their deity is as all powerful and all knowing as they claim, why are they so worried about him?

And if you were to pay attention you would notice that it is not the thread topic I labeled as Bull ****, it is your claim of not being biased I label as bull ****.

Now if your reading comprehension is so lacking as to not to be able to discern the difference on that point, perhaps your not ready for a debate?

 

[dmgdnooc]

Ok everyone here's your chance to put forward your Christian Science proof of God.

I'm curious to see what they have come up with.

Please note articles disproving evolution are not proof of god, if they are indeed correct, they are only proof that evolution is wrong. So please don't waste our time and bandwidth by posting them.

I promise to respectfully and open mindedly discuss you articles (hopefully everyone else will as well).

Thankyou,

-Q

The proof for God, to my mind, lies in the observation that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.
　
You, I, are greater than a collection of cells; we are living, breathing, thinking human beings.
The Sun is greater than its collective fusing atoms; it is the engine of this Solar system.
The Universe is greater than its various bodies, galaxies and clusters hurtling through an ever expanding space/time; its 'greaterness' is God, the be all and end all of all creation.
　
And science?
Man has begun to acquire a reasonable grasp of matter, energy and space/time; most of that knowledge has been fairly recently acquired.
As to the other 95% of the universe (its dark matter and dark energy) we know virtually zip.
Of possible other dimensions, we only speculate.
So science can have only a very limited application to the 'God question'; science's current horizon rests only a little farther than the end of our nose.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

No dmg this thread isn't an argument over the existence of god (even if it was, your argument comes nowhere near it)

This thread is about christian science. Do you have any christian science concepts to put forward?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Dear Thread Readers

Please note that this thread is about

Christian Science

Also please note that the assumption

that God exists because there is

something we don't know is NOT science.

Thankyou.
​

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And if you were to pay attention you would notice that it is not the thread topic I labeled as Bull ****, it is your claim of not being biased I label as bull ****.

And before you start whining about stereotyping theists, I base the claim you are biased on your posts in this thread.

I'm sure nothing more is needed to state your contradiction.

Anyways, the only real way to make religion evident is to work backwards. What other evidence can one bring forth? Am I to ask God to come out from the Heavens, or somehow prove that seas have split?
You create an impossible enigma by asking us to present 'evidence', which automatically presents an undeniable biased construct on your part.

This is why I have been asking you to present something.

 

[McBell]

I'm sure nothing more is needed to state your contradiction.

Anyways, the only real way to make religion evident is to work backwards. What other evidence can one bring forth? Am I to ask God to come out from the Heavens, or somehow prove that seas have split?
You create an impossible enigma by asking us to present 'evidence', which automatically presents an undeniable biased construct on your part.

This is why I have been asking you to present something.

You seem to have me confused with someone else.
I never once asked you for evidence of anything.

Perhaps you need to review the thread?

 

[McBell]

I'm sure nothing more is needed to state your contradiction.

Well, if you are claiming that I have contradicted myself, then yes, you are going to have to do much better than that.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Well, if you are claiming that I have contradicted myself, then yes, you are going to have to do much better than that.

And if you were to pay attention you would notice that it is not the thread topic I labeled as Bull ****, it is your claim of not being biased I label as bull ****.

And before you start whining about stereotyping theists, I base the claim you are biased on your posts in this thread.

You're seriously going to sit here and further insult your own intelligence? These two things ARE your contradiction all by themselves. There was nothing biased about my posts, and you have demonstrated quite thoroughly your take on Christian science by saying they were, as you hold science in an unrealistic light.
By extension, you are calling Christian science ************.

I've never been one to argue ridiculous semantics. We have something called reason. Use it.

Anyways, I'll just kick-start the debate by re-posting what I stated in another thread:

Part of religious proof is the absence of proof that goes against it. Evolution becomes more far-fetched the farther it goes back in time, the odds of how life naturally occurred are practically less likely in scientific terms than a maker, dating techniques rely heavily on assumption and many variables within it's mathematics, and last but not least, there is not much science can answer that the Bible cannot account for.

As for why we do not see divine occurrences in this modern day is simple: there is no real reason for God to split seas anymore. He has already exemplified His existence and does not wish to stir man until the last days.
This alone presents a problem with science vs creationism: you cannot compare divine happenings with natural causes. So automatically, creationism wins in that respect.

For example, what isn't 'divine' about quantum leaps? (in which electrons pop in and out of existence, and reappear in another location, essentially defying every proven idea of physics) This remains an enigma until shown otherwise, does it not? So how can anything really be proven impossible? What is the difference between natural occurrence and divinity when the universe just appeared? Can our logic know beyond speculation?

 

[McBell]

You're seriously going to sit here and further insult your own intelligence? These two things ARE your contradiction all by themselves. There was nothing biased about my posts, and you have demonstrated quite thoroughly your take on Christian science by saying they were, as you hold science in an unrealistic light.
By extension, you are calling Christian science ************.

I've never been one to argue ridiculous semantics. We have something called reason. Use it.

Anyways, I'll just kick-start the debate by re-posting what I stated in another thread:

I am not the least bit interested in your strawmen.

You attempted to drag science down to the same faith based level as religion.
You then claimed that you are not biased.
The fact that you tried to drag science down to the same faith based level as religion shows that you are biased.
So I called bull **** on your claim that you are not biased because you have clearly showed that you are in fact biased.

You inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to see/understand/comprehend what is being talked about is something you will have to work on.
All I can do is point it out.

 

[dmgdnooc]

No dmg this thread isn't an argument over the existence of god (even if it was, your argument comes nowhere near it)

This thread is about christian science. Do you have any christian science concepts to put forward?

The OP asks for 'proof of God' and repeats 'proof of God'.
Which is what I provided, my 'proof' at least.
Reasoning from observation is the basis of science and I have observed that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.
The observation is age-old, in fact, and not my personal property; and time and again, as I have brought it up in various forums, it has not been answered.
So I suppose that you are dodging its logic, as many before you have also.
　
And humanity has come to realise, in very recent times, that science offers a partial understanding of 5% of the universe.
Perhaps you could discuss, or refer me to articles that discuss, the current understanding of dark physics, dark chemistry, dark geology, dark biology, etc, those articles would surely have a greater bearing on our understanding of the totality of this universe in which we live.
Because, what we call 'normal' matter and energy is hardly 'normal' on a universal scale; it is, in fact, greatly in the minority.
Or perhaps you can say that these avenues of scientific enquiry do not, and will never, exist.
　
It may be that by 'christian science' you are specifically referencing to Mary Baker Eddy's spiritual studies.
If so a reply to thedope should have been offered and just about everyone else should have had it explained that you were only interested in posts that conformed with Ms Eddy's teachings.
　
At this point you have the appearance of one who makes the rules and changes them whenever he likes.
Have you ever considered a career in politics?
You seem eminently suited to one.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I am not the least bit interested in your strawmen.

You attempted to drag science down to the same faith based level as religion.
You then claimed that you are not biased.
The fact that you tried to drag science down to the same faith based level as religion shows that you are biased.
So I called bull **** on your claim that you are not biased because you have clearly showed that you are in fact biased.

You inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to see/understand/comprehend what is being talked about is something you will have to work on.
All I can do is point it out.

As I stated long before, religion bears little 'proof', and will be dismissed by the sheer size of science in comparison (however vastly unproven). Prove that science is right, or let me state what I want on science as you do religion.
If science cannot be touched in this debate, than there is really no reason for this thread to exist other than to bash Christians. Part of religious proof is the lack of proof going against it.
Getting all technical and absurd just because I mention the idea shows how biased you are, and really shows your true intent of being on this thread.

Here's a good example on why science must be examined for credibility: There is much indication of a worldwide flood in the past, but it doesn't fit into any hypothesis of evolution.
A flood can account for why there are fish fossils on top of mountains, but it does not fit into the hypothesis of a geologist. A flood can account for fossil fuels, but that doesn't fit into the quite false idea that they must take 1000's or even million years to form.

Science cannot give any realistic conclusion in lieu of religion, and yet non-religious people demand it of theists. It's quite asinine. These religions were around long before all this scientific intrigue. It's not our responsibility to prove anything, but rather the other way around if you want to be technical and absurd about it.

So please either debate or stop with the nonsense.

 

[ninerbuff]

yes sure

but im not a scientist, so i'd also be interested in what they may think of his reasoning

a few of his points

1. the smallest organism known to exist is a micro plasma - it has 468 genes, some researchers tried to reduce those genes but they could only get to as low as 200 genes. So how could evolution begin with zero genes? (at this point the evolutionist reminded him that evolution is not about 'origin' of life, but i can completely understand why creationists seem to go back to the origin...because you cant have evolution without an origin if you know what im saying)

2. Natural selection cannot occur unless life is present

3. Mutations cannot occur without genes


Yes it seems to go back to origins of life, but lets face it, without an origin there could not have been anything to evolve in the first place... so with all the research pointing to the functioning genetic code requiring a certain number of genes before it can function, it kind of puts a damper on the idea that things evolved from simple celled organisms to more complex organisms.

seems much more reasonable to me that the first organisms were created and the change over time came later.

You do believe in extinction right? Like you said, KNOWN TO EXIST. Do you think we will stop discovering?

 

[ninerbuff]

Science cannot give any realistic conclusion in lieu of religion, and yet non-religious people demand it of theists. It's quite asinine. These religions were around long before all this scientific intrigue. It's not our responsibility to prove anything, but rather the other way around if you want to be technical and absurd about it.

So please either debate or stop with the nonsense.

Of course they were around. With no way to explain phenomenons or why storms, lighting, earthquakes happen, something had to be made up to explain to those who wanted answers.