Ever notice anything about this forum?

[Reverend Rick]

One question, why do scientists believe in the possibility of life somewhere other than earth and even many believe in the possibility of superior life forms, completely dismiss that God may be one of these superior life forms?

All I am saying is, science has not disproved a God who may have played a part in life beginning on earth.

I willing to admit that the Bible cannot be read literally and may contain mistakes. Is it also true that science as we know it is flawed as well?

Science and Religion both assume many things.

 

[Madhuri]

What bugs me is why so many people think that the ToE is in some way, shape or form an attempt at "denying God".

The argument has been brought up before and is a very good one. Evolution is, quite obviously, not beyond God's capabilities and not at all denial of God's possible existence.

No scientist can or could ever legitimally say that the ToE proves or even hints that God does not exist, for much the same reasons that finding out, say, how tides or rain work is no denial of God either. It is just studying nature, and neither Atheists nor anyone else should expect God to need protection from the study of nature.

The countless argument I've had with my father trying to explain this...
It doesn't ever seem to get through.

 

[LuisDantas]

One question, why do scientists believe in the possibility of life somewhere other than earth and even many believe in the possibility of superior life forms, completely dismiss that God may be one of these superior life forms?

I don't know that they do. In fact, I can think of one or two faiths that seem to imply that they believe that living beings eventually "evolve" into godhood.

Still, I'm sure you remember the tale of the Babel Tower. At least some conceptions of God are simply way beyond study by natural sciences, be it visual observation by building a high enough tower or biological speculation by way of having a "sufficiently transcendental" genetic code.

On a more pragmatic level, there is simply no good reason for scientists to speculate about finding God in any way.

Using your example, what practical criteria could be used to tell a superior life form from a God (or The God)? Can you think of any particular reason why Biologists should be mindful of the possibility?

I don't quite think the danger of failing to recognize God due to mistaking him with some sort of particularly impressive lifeform is significant, but who knows.

All I am saying is, science has not disproved a God who may have played a part in life beginning on earth.

Science can't possibly disprove such a God. Not even hypothetically. It is plainly impossible to do so.

Heck, it is impossible for anyone, much less for Science, which has greater restraints and can't just go around saying that things are impossible.

I willing to admit that the Bible cannot be read literally and may contain mistakes. Is it also true that science as we know it is flawed as well?

It is a proven fact. But not to the extent of making Biological Evolution not a fact. Not without resorting to extreme scenarios such as the whole of existence being a dream or something like that.

I have occasionally toyed with the idea that it is conceivably possible for reality to present itself differently for theists and atheists without us realizing it. For all anyone really knows, maybe there IS a God and he likes to keep people discussing whether he exists. I wouldn't bet on it, but it is basically impossible to disprove.

Science and Religion both assume many things.

That is technically true, but the beauty of it is on how they deal with it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't know, I've seen some some truly dumb stuff claimed on other forums.
e.g.
Polar Bears were scared white by humans.
Ice is not frozen water.

LOL!

Seriously though, I've seen incredibly stupid stuff in just about every forum I've ever been in; such is the nature of the internet. But at times, sprinkled in amongst the crazy, is someone worth taking the time to respond to.

I've yet to see that at RF's EvC board.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's why I qualified my statement by saying “visiting forums like this”. I know that the vast majority of theists out there are not like the ones you meet on forums like this.

I know that too. I also know that those millions of “normal christians” don’t pretend that creationism is science. In fact, millions of Christians are very supportive of science and also accept scientific conclusions.

I think we agree.

They don’t sound like people who should roam the streets to me. They're scary. Completely irrational. They sound too similar to the rantings of those who flew into those buildings.

I don't agree here. All the creationists I've ever met in person are for the most part, totally normal. I honestly don't see any similarities between believing in YEC and supporting terrorism. I know it's tempting to demonize one's opponents to make it easier to dismiss them, but when you have the facts on your side it's not necessary.

To me it always seems the same. Theists on forums like this think I want to “prove” that their god or gods don’t exist. They don’t realize that my aim is to get evidence for making a decision on whether their particular god or gods or any god at all exists. They don’t realize that’s why I ask questions and point out inconsistencies. I’m trying to get meaningful conclusions. They think I am hostile to them. I do, however, turn hostile when the answers they give me are dishonest.

You have to understand, to a fundamentalist, simply questioning and expressing doubt are signs that the person is someone to be feared and opposed.

Ever read H.L. Mencken's dispatches from the Scopes Trial? To paraphrase, "The one thing they won't tolerate is doubt".

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe this might be your answer. :sorry1:

Wait....you've been here for over 4 years, posted almost 11,000 times, and you still say things like:

As I see it, we are all ignorant of what caused the big bang. If this where not true, the theory of evolution would be fact and not called a theory.

Unbelievable.....

 

[outhouse]

What bugs me is why so many people think that the ToE is in some way, shape or form an attempt at "denying God".

The argument has been brought up before and is a very good one. Evolution is, quite obviously, not beyond God's capabilities and not at all denial of God's possible existence.

No scientist can or could ever legitimally say that the ToE proves or even hints that God does not exist, for much the same reasons that finding out, say, how tides or rain work is no denial of God either. It is just studying nature, and neither Atheists nor anyone else should expect God to need protection from the study of nature.

Evolution doesnt prove god doesnt exist at all, even the vatican in the past has admitted the science behind evolution is solid.

I believe the problem lies in the bibles wording that "god created man in our image" and those who literally interpret the words.

usa has a %60 belief in creation so this is not a small number

 

[outhouse]

All I am saying is, science has not disproved a God who may have played a part in life beginning on earth.

they never will Rick, they will never focus their energy in that direction ever.

If one studies enough biology and chemistry the mystery of how life started on earth turns out not to be a mystery at all.

Science cannot or does not prove anything, but on one side we have a pretty clear picture as to how life started on its own, from the natural elements the universe is made of . Opposed to guessing and speculation that god or aliens ever interviened because a book or ancient fable said a god made us. [depending on which culture your from]

 

[Quagmire]

Your rebuttals clearly indicate...we are not on the same page.
Not trying to manipulate.....are you?

Ya know, I really didn't expect you to give a demonstration of the kind of behavior everyone is talking about here, but for some reason you are.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Science and Religion both assume many things.

Religion assumes everything.

 

[Thief]

Ya know, I really didn't expect you to give a demonstration of the kind of behavior everyone is talking about here, but for some reason you are.

Now we are on the same page.

See how it works?

 

[painted wolf]

One question, why do scientists believe in the possibility of life somewhere other than earth and even many believe in the possibility of superior life forms, completely dismiss that God may be one of these superior life forms?

All I am saying is, science has not disproved a God who may have played a part in life beginning on earth.

I willing to admit that the Bible cannot be read literally and may contain mistakes. Is it also true that science as we know it is flawed as well?

Science and Religion both assume many things.

Well speaking as a theist and a scientist, I don't dissmiss God. I just realize that God can't be used to dismiss things that have natural explanations.

Naturally science has flaws, but part of the process of science, is trying to identify and fix those flaws.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

So are we to the point where science will not be used to dismiss God?

If so...why not put Him where He belongs?

The title is Almighty...and Creator.

 

[LuisDantas]

Now we are on the same page.

See how it works?

Do you?

 

[LuisDantas]

So are we to the point where science will not be used to dismiss God?

Why do you think science has such an impressive and unsuspected supernatural power?

If so...why not put Him where He belongs?

Most people probably do put him where they believe him to belong.

I mean, it is free and all.

The title is Almighty...and Creator.

No one is stopping you. Go ahead.

Just be aware that no one has any duty to share that belief with you.

 

[Revoltingest]

So are we to the point where science will not be used to dismiss God?
If so...why not put Him where He belongs?

I already do.

 

[Thief]

Okay then.....

God is the First....self aware entity. (I Am)

Now consider what it is to be First.

The universe (one word)....is at hand....
and though it responds to your touch...it does not really...'respond'.

Creating your own image (reflection) would seem easy enough, but
the conversation might be...predictable.
No question...without answer.
No surprise response.

It is the linear and limited existence you have that makes you...unique.

After all...why 6billion copies of an experiment.....
all of it.... headed to the ground?
No survivors?

Maybe some of us won't fail to stand up from the dust.

Thinking that Man has only one fate.....is as shallow as the grave.

 

[Quagmire]

Now we are on the same page.

See how it works?

Yes I do. Read:

So far I see a definitive bias.

So a good creationist is someone with a 'misconception'.....
and you would have your 'science'....change his mind?

Abandon faith in favor of not believing in God?

Strawman: no one suggested this or anything like it.

I have the impression that faith and religion do press a nod of the head
toward dogma.
And then the scientists come along and 'boo hoo' about 'myths' and
'sky daddy'.

Another Strawman: any examples? which scientists?

Science would have the believer dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.

That won't happen.

What exactly does this mean?

See what I'm saying? Without examples, for all anyone knows this is just an unnecessary rant against imaginary enemies.

My first guess is that you're telling us about something (and in the vaguest terms possible) because you have nothing to show.

The post below was in response to a detailed post with a clear point.

Your response is again vague and makes no attempt to address the point. Instead, once again, you "tell" us that something was wrong with the post without showing us how or why.

Instead, you segue into an expanded rehashing of points you've already made, and that have already been addressed.

Actually.....you rebuttal technique is precisely the point.

The scientific crowd do make denial of God.
The constant retort is ....'prove it'....

And of course faith....by definition requires no proving....
and the scientific crowd can't handle that.

Why believe if there is no equation...photograph.....fingerprint....experiment...

A scientist reach for 'something' he cannot touch?....won't happen.

But I happen to love science...got exceptional good grades and all that.

I believe in God...and evolution.

God did it.

The post below was in response to a detailed explanation of my objections to your previous assertions.

I made several clear points and showed how and why I believe they disqualify your complaint.

Instead of addressing any of the points I make, you restate your original complaints, again: vaguely and minus examples.

Also: in the last cpl of lines of your post you begin to subtly change the subject. These lines are an attempt to get the focus off of yourself, your position, and the fact that you're not addressing any of my points.

To do this you're using the evasive maneuver the kinds of people this thread is discussing almost always use when they feel they're losing ground: you're trying to change the subject by making erroneous speculations about me, my motives, and my beliefs.

I think we have a difference of opinion revolving around experience here at the forum.

Several participates here insist on some proving...and when none is delivered they insist that God does not exist.

As soon as the science ...and the equations ....are dropped then a discussion of theology can be accomplished.

Are you waiting for 'proof'?...I don't think so.....

But I don't think you believe....and for lack of proof?

Another strawman (below): addressing a point no one made.

And how would believers speak of creation without God in the picture?

More evasion below: instead of answering my questions or addressing any of the points in my post, you once again decide you'd rather talk about me.

If your faith in God includes the power of creation....and the forming of Man...

Then perhaps you have something to share?

Below, instead of addressing any of the rebuttals to your posts or any one else's posts or points, you once again launch into an expanded attack on a point that no one has made.

So one suggests no mention of God when discussing creation....
not likely.....

And the other says contrary....go ahead and say so....

and discussing creation without God would be a discussion?

I more than suspect a resistance to ...God behind all things....
is a position resistant.....due to personal feelings....more so than fact.

Leave God out?....why?....
because someday you might have to face a greater Being?

Nullifying the existence of God is quite... futile.
Rebuttal against a Spirit as source of life....futile.

God set all of this chemistry in motion.
Of course something would come of it.

Science without God....is a dead art.

This, my friend, is the kind of behavior people are objecting to. No one is objecting to anyone else's beliefs in this thread. People are objecting to other people coming into a debate forum with no intention of debating.

When someone act this way all they're really trying to do is to punsih people for making them feel lss secure about their own beliefs.

 

[Thief]

Yes I do. Read:



Strawman: no one suggested this or anything like it.



Another Strawman: any examples? which scientists?



What exactly does this mean?

See what I'm saying? Without examples, for all anyone knows this is just an unnecessary rant against imaginary enemies.

My first guess is that you're telling us about something (and in the vaguest terms possible) because you have nothing to show.

The post below was in response to a detailed post with a clear point.

Your response is again vague and makes no attempt to address the point. Instead, once again, you "tell" us that something was wrong with the post without showing us how or why.

Instead, you segue into an expanded rehashing of points you've already made, and that have already been addressed.



The post below was in response to a detailed explanation of my objections to your previous assertions.

I made several clear points and showed how and why I believe they disqualify your complaint.

Instead of addressing any of the points I make, you restate your original complaints, again: vaguely and minus examples.

Also: in the last cpl of lines of your post you begin to subtly change the subject. These lines are an attempt to get the focus off of yourself, your position, and the fact that you're not addressing any of my points.

To do this you're using the evasive maneuver the kinds of people this thread is discussing almost always use when they feel they're losing ground: you're trying to change the subject by making erroneous speculations about me, my motives, and my beliefs.



Another strawman (below): addressing a point no one made.



More evasion below: instead of answering my questions or addressing any of the points in my post, you once again decide you'd rather talk about me.

Maybe we're not on the same page after all.....

Good luck....

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe we're not on the same page after all.....

Good luck....

I can only hope not.