Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Serenity7855]

And so because it 'isn't observable', does that actually make the 'god of the gaps' a logical belief?

No, because it is not observable it is impossible to use the scientific method on it. It will never be anything more than a theory. It fails the scientific method. God is never and will never be a God of the gaps. He is the master scientist. The great architect of the universe.

 

[Serenity7855]

pssst....
highlight post #677

My little 8 year old grandson does that. That explains a lot.

 

[Bunyip]

No, because it is not observable it is impossible to use the scientific method on it. It will never be anything more than a theory. It fails the scientific method. God is never and will never be a God of the gaps. He is the master scientist. The great architect of the universe.

Evolution is observable - the theory explains the observations.
In science there is nothing higher than theory, so saying 'it will never be more than a theory' is like saying 'he will never be more than the greatest man ever'.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

This should help, I hope you enjoy it;

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

 

[Sonofason]

God is rather lousy at it, ain't he?

I don't know. He's proven Himself to me. Some people are just so smart, not even God Himself could change their minds about anything they already know.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know. He's proven Himself to me. Some people are just so smart, not even God Himself could change their minds about anything they already know.

So there are things god can not do? You do not see god as omnipotent?

 

[McBell]

My little 8 year old grandson does that. That explains a lot.

Over your head again?
that is so sad.

 

[McBell]

I don't know. He's proven Himself to me. Some people are just so smart, not even God Himself could change their minds about anything they already know.

Yes, you have already demonstrated that very thing numerous times during your short time on RF

 

[McBell]

Serenity

This should help, I hope you enjoy it;

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

I suspect that the facts to space ratio in the above quote bubble will be to difficult for some people....

 

[Sonofason]

Luck and magic is YOUR strawman, not mine.

Let's see,
Either the universe was created by God, or it just happens to appear out of nowhere. Which is more magical?

 

[Bunyip]

Let's see,
Either the universe was created by God, or it just happens to appear out of nowhere. Which is more magical?

Well god obviously. You can't argue that a natural emergence for the universe is MORE magical than the great sky wizard Yahweh making it. Positing a magical being as the source kind of ruins the idea.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes Mr. Sapiens, the God I happen to know too, is a healer, a provider, a saviour, a protector, one who answers our prayers, one who loves everybody with the same love and waits for every sinner to repent before it's too late,according to his perfect plan. I don't want to preach here as I see people misunderstand and get annoyed. God does not want to anger anybody,He is Love. The only way to find out how real and alive He is , is by reading the NT. Do it and you will see great result.God bless you☺

I have done it, of course, but it did not induce in me the nervous breakdown it seems to create in some others.

 

[McBell]

Let's see,
Either the universe was created by God, or it just happens to appear out of nowhere. Which is more magical?

False dichotomy.
When you are done knocking over the pieces and ****ting on the board, perhaps you can engage in honest discussion?
Or do you need a quick flight home to claim victory first?

 

[Ingledsva]

You read a very different bible to mine. You also judge God by the actions of men.

Like I said, most of you folks just listen to a preacher, or read/skim your Bibles. You need to study them and think about what they are actually saying.

*
Everything I mentioned - is in the Bible.

EDIT - Forgot to add "those actions of men," were using the supposed words and Laws of YHVH.

The people even say they were better off under the Goddess.(Of course a little genocide probably took place after the words, killing anyone refusing to worship the new YHVH!)

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jer 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Jer 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

*

 

[Sonofason]

So there are things god can not do? You do not see god as omnipotent?

Would you be surprised if there were things that God cannot do?
I believe there are likely some imaginable things that God cannot do. Furthermore, I believe that there are things that we can do that God is incapable of doing. However, this is just conjecture on my part. I certainly have no clear picture of what God is or is not capable of doing.

 

[Sapiens]

God can regrow a salamander's limb but not a mans.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, you have already demonstrated that very thing numerous times during your short time on RF

I'm not sure what you are saying. You're statements require too many assumptions on my part. Can you be more specific?

Are you saying that I have demonstrated that God has proven Himself to me numerous times during my short time on RF?
Are you saying that I have demonstrated that some people are so smart (*facetious) that not even God Himself could change their minds?
Are you saying that I have demonstrated that I am so smart that not even God Himself could change my mind?
Or are you saying that I have demonstrated that I am so smart that YOU can't change my mind about anything I already know?

Please try to be articulate, as it is quite an annoyance to have to help you formulate accusations against myself.

 

[Sonofason]

God can regrow a salamander's limb but not a mans.

What exactly is "a mans"?

 

[Sonofason]

Well god obviously. You can't argue that a natural emergence for the universe is MORE magical than the great sky wizard Yahweh making it. Positing a magical being as the source kind of ruins the idea.

Well then, if it is possible for nothing to become something, we should be able to repeat it. Let's see you do that. Or if you can't, show me someone who can.

 

[Sonofason]

False dichotomy.
When you are done knocking over the pieces and ****ting on the board, perhaps you can engage in honest discussion?
Or do you need a quick flight home to claim victory first?

Perhaps you're right. Can you please provide other possibilities?