Science/Faith And origins Of Life!

[Aaron]

Aaron, before you get yourself out on a limb that you cannot defend, you should realize that this IS true. We can no more prove God than the atheists can disprove Him.

That depends upon what one calls proof. If one buys into the basic premise of the atheist, that only the material things are real, then nothing can be "proven." There are those immaterial aspects of our carnal existence, e.g. law, logic, love and other forms of rational thought which are no less real than flowers and rocks. More real, actually. Try dissecting liberty and justice in a lab, or try to find it with a telescope. No one will go to war over E=mc2.

It is self-contradictory to say that science is just about material things. Science is about how one thinks about material things, and not them only, but also about how one thinks of his own thoughts.

Even if we buy into the "horse hooey" that science is only about the material universe, the testimoney of the Spirit is that enough to render a man without excuse on the day of judgment, the ultimate reality. God's existence, His power and righteousness are proven.

We can no more prove God than the atheists can disprove Him.

I will agree I have no power to give sight to the blind.

 

[Aaron]

Bad science would include or exclude God.

Leaving alone for the moment the absolute impossibility of simultaneous inclusion and exclusion, would you agree that only the wicked do not include God in all their thoughts? (Psalm 10:4)

 

[Crabtownboy]

Leaving alone for the moment the absolute impossibility of simultaneous inclusion and exclusion, would you agree that only the wicked do not include God in all their thoughts? (Psalm 10:4)

If you mean literally every thought then I do not believe any human has ever lived who included God in all their thoughts.

 

[JesusFan]

Aaron, before you get yourself out on a limb that you cannot defend, you should realize that this IS true. We can no more prove God than the atheists can disprove Him. He is true when His Holy Spirit confirms with our spirit that He is true, and we can see His effects all around us, but "proof" is not possible, only belief in faith. I expect that God intends it that way on purpose.

To further discuss this issue we will have to gravitate to a discussion of the immanent and transcendent properties of God. While we can see "evidences" based on God's immanence, we can never even begin to penetrate His transcendence, for that is extra-cosmos in nature -- an area that we can never discover save for God's self-revelation.

"True' Science would be done by scientists who are "open" to where the actual facts lead them for a conclusion!

they would be thosew whom would see the evidence for a Creator, based upon scientific facts!

That is biggest problem with those circles...

Already made up that there HS to be a naturalistic world view, so no God, nor supernatural explanation to account for Universe and man!

 

[glfredrick]

Please read a little more carefully, I said that "true science" should be as you say altruistic in nature. Yes, often times science is as I SAID driven by all sorts of agendas. I would love for you to expound on the "sinfulness" and the horse hooey of science.

I don't really have to... The battle ground within Science is well documented.

You have one against another in a dog-eat-dog race to be the one on top of the totem pole. (How's that for adding a few more metaphors to the mix?)

If you are wondering about the "sinfulness" of Science, that is rather simple. ALL Science (that is the sort of "true" Science that you seem to favor) is nothing more than observation and testing of a cosmos that is sin-cursed. There will (and can) never be a day when Science perfectly arrives at the "truth" that equals God's truth, for they are flawed human beings observing and postulating about a flawed cosmos (by that I mean entailing the entirety of the universe, including numbers). Hence, any arguments that Science makes that go astray of the actual true revelations of God are either wrong interpretations, wrong observations, or otherwise mired in some alternative form of sinful wrongness. That is not to say that Science has not contributed great understanding and great technological advances to the human race -- they have -- but only that at the core of what makes for Science, they cannot duplicate nor explain the ultimate truth that is God. The simple facts that I have laid out here are why Science will always be in flux. There will never arrive a day when they can sit back and say, "This is IT. We completely understand and it is perfectly correct."

 

[glfredrick]

That depends upon what one calls proof. If one buys into the basic premise of the atheist, that only the material things are real, then nothing can be "proven." There are those immaterial aspects of our carnal existence, e.g. law, logic, love and other forms of rational thought which are no less real than flowers and rocks. More real, actually. Try dissecting liberty and justice in a lab, or try to find it with a telescope. No one will go to war over E=mc2.

It is self-contradictory to say that science is just about material things. Science is about how one thinks about material things, and not them only, but also about how one thinks of his own thoughts.

Even if we buy into the "horse hooey" that science is only about the material universe, the testimoney of the Spirit is that enough to render a man without excuse on the day of judgment, the ultimate reality. God's existence, His power and righteousness are proven.

I will agree I have no power to give sight to the blind.

You touch on a couple of important tenets, i.e., that much of Science is philosophical or metaphysical in nature, and also that Science is invading territory where no observation can occur, for who can observe transcendance? God is quite literally "outside the box" that makes up the universe with which we created beings are bounded.

After that, I am quite familar with the arguments made in an apologhetic sense concerning proofs for God. All fail at some point or another. Perhaps the best is the one currently made by Plantinga, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument."

1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2.The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
3.The universe has a cause of its existence.
4.If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God; Therefore:
5.God exists.

 

[JesusFan]

You touch on a couple of important tenets, i.e., that much of Science is philosophical or metaphysical in nature, and also that Science is invading territory where no observation can occur, for who can observe transcendance? God is quite literally "outside the box" that makes up the universe with which we created beings are bounded.

After that, I am quite familar with the arguments made in an apologhetic sense concerning proofs for God. All fail at some point or another. Perhaps the best is the one currently made by Plantinga, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument."

science says that either matter some how "came" from nothing.... OR
Science says that the Universe is Eternal OR
Science says its a big circular loop, superstring theory of Stephen Hawkings..

ANY way that we slice it, they are saying God has to exist, just refusing to admit that He is there and is silent!

 

[Aaron]

You touch on a couple of important tenets, i.e., that much of Science is philosophical or metaphysical in nature, and also that Science is invading territory where no observation can occur, for who can observe transcendance? God is quite literally "outside the box" that makes up the universe with which we created beings are bounded.

Who can observe law? Who can observe justice? God is omnipresent. Though the material universe does not contain Him (neither does Heaven), He is very much present in the natural world, and there is a knowledge of Him that men can gain without supernatural revelation. It is a carnal knowledge, and men will reject it, but it is there nonetheless. We can perceive the concepts of law and justice because they really exist.

We have allowed atheists to define science as only those things that can be perceived through sensory input. If it can't be sensed with material senses, than it can't be known, and is, therefore, in any practical sense unreal.

That is science falsely so-called.

 

[glfredrick]

Who can observe law? Who can observe justice? God is omnipresent. Though the material universe does not contain Him (neither does Heaven), He is very much present in the natural world, and there is a knowledge of Him that men can gain without supernatural revelation. It is a carnal knowledge, and men will reject it, but it is there nonetheless. We can perceive the concepts of law and justice because they really exist.

We have allowed atheists to define science as only those things that can be perceived through sensory input. If it can't be sensed with material senses, than it can't be known, and is, therefore, in any practical sense unreal.

That is science falsely so-called.

I'm on the same page with you, but none of the above presents "proof" for the existence of God. Wish that it did, we could just dispense with all this belief by faith stuff and prove once and for all that God IS. No further need for evangelizing and all... But, of course, that is not what God revealed, is it?

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't really have to... The battle ground within Science is well documented.

You have one against another in a dog-eat-dog race to be the one on top of the totem pole. (How's that for adding a few more metaphors to the mix?)

If you are wondering about the "sinfulness" of Science, that is rather simple. ALL Science (that is the sort of "true" Science that you seem to favor) is nothing more than observation and testing of a cosmos that is sin-cursed. There will (and can) never be a day when Science perfectly arrives at the "truth" that equals God's truth, for they are flawed human beings observing and postulating about a flawed cosmos (by that I mean entailing the entirety of the universe, including numbers). Hence, any arguments that Science makes that go astray of the actual true revelations of God are either wrong interpretations, wrong observations, or otherwise mired in some alternative form of sinful wrongness. That is not to say that Science has not contributed great understanding and great technological advances to the human race -- they have -- but only that at the core of what makes for Science, they cannot duplicate nor explain the ultimate truth that is God. The simple facts that I have laid out here are why Science will always be in flux. There will never arrive a day when they can sit back and say, "This is IT. We completely understand and it is perfectly correct."

So are you building up your point so that you can dismantle it. No one has said science will ever arrive as the "holy grail" of an equation for everything. The role of "true science" is to seek after physical truth where ever that may lead. Yes all of creation is flawed but one could apply your same argument to mans seeking after the knowledge of God (theology) as well.

 

[Iconoclast]

Life is a natural phenomenon. It is highly likely that any planet where the conditions are similar to that on earth will have life of some kind. This, IMHO, does not make life less of a miracle. Someday it will be discovered that life does exist on other planets ... maybe even intelligent life. Does God love that life, if it exists? The answer is yes.
There is no universal agreement on what the word "life" means.

Can I prove the above. No. However it cannot be disproven either.

This is the language of unbelief

Life is not a natural phenomenon...it is supernatural.

Do you believe the biblical creation account? or not?

Someday it will be discovered that life does exist on other planets ... maybe even intelligent life

What do you see in scripture to possibly support this evolutionary idea?
Do you believe in evolution?//

 

[glfredrick]

So are you building up your point so that you can dismantle it. No one has said science will ever arrive as the "holy grail" of an equation for everything. The role of "true science" is to seek after physical truth where ever that may lead. Yes all of creation is flawed but one could apply your same argument to mans seeking after the knowledge of God (theology) as well.

Of course! Not sure how I am building anything so I can dismantle it. All this stuff is fairly well settled in my mind. Especially after working through somewhere in the neighborhood of 250+ books on the subject over the past decade or so. I'm informed concerning the history and philosophy of Science, and am cognizant of current theroetical work in a number of fields related to things pointing godward.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I don't really have to... The battle ground within Science is well documented.

You have one against another in a dog-eat-dog race to be the one on top of the totem pole. (How's that for adding a few more metaphors to the mix?)

Seems a weak argument to me. The battlegrounds within Christianity are well documented. You have Calvinist pitted against everyone else in and in their view, or at least in their posts they are in a dog-eat-dog race to the top of the theological pole. The Catholics against the Protestants. etc.

If you are wondering about the "sinfulness" of Science, that is rather simple. ALL Science (that is the sort of "true" Science that you seem to favor) is nothing more than observation and testing of a cosmos that is sin-cursed. There will (and can) never be a day when Science perfectly arrives at the "truth" that equals God's truth, for they are flawed human beings observing and postulating about a flawed cosmos (by that I mean entailing the entirety of the universe, including numbers). Hence, any arguments that Science makes that go astray of the actual true revelations of God are either wrong interpretations, wrong observations, or otherwise mired in some alternative form of sinful wrongness. That is not to say that Science has not contributed great understanding and great technological advances to the human race -- they have -- but only that at the core of what makes for Science, they cannot duplicate nor explain the ultimate truth that is God. The simple facts that I have laid out here are why Science will always be in flux. There will never arrive a day when they can sit back and say, "This is IT. We completely understand and it is perfectly correct."

I doubt you really want to go into the sinfulness within Christian history. That also is well documented, the wars, the burning of witches, the pogroms, the inquisition, etc., etc.

Neither of your statements are strong arguments. In fact, in light of the history of religion it makes them even weaker.

 

[Iconoclast]

The answer is no.It is impossible for science to prove the origin of life on earth.
The reason is the definition of science;
""knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws"

The creation of life on earth was a supernatural event, ( a miracle) by God outside the laws of science and cannot be duplicated in practice. Science cannot prove how life started. All they can do is speculate and make false statements as if they know.

Correct again FAL.....

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

SCIENCE will never get it!

 

[glfredrick]

Seems a weak argument to me. The battlegrounds within Christianity are well documented. You have Calvinist pitted against everyone else in and in their view, or at least in their posts they are in a dog-eat-dog race to the top of the theological pole. The Catholics against the Protestants. etc.

Nice use of intentional fallacy... What does that have to do with what science has or is doing? Equivocation seems to be the order of the day around here.

I doubt you really want to go into the sinfulness within Christian history. That also is well documented, the wars, the burning of witches, the pogroms, the inquisition, etc., etc.

Why not? Let's go into them, only let's take that discussion into another thread. We can decide if those practices were actually "Christian" in the sense of the biblical mandates or "religious" in the sense of man's efforts to do things for God. I expect that you have some insight into the latter and barely any into the former. Might make for an interesting conversation.

Neither of your statements are strong arguments. In fact, in light of the history of religion it makes them even weaker.

Except that the history of religion has little to do with the history of Science, except that of course Science as we currently know it could not exist without its Christian worldview roots. I'm not sure how any of that makes my argument weak, save that you just don't like it. Do you actually have a rebuttal, or are you going to continue to pursue a rabbit trail?

 

[JesusFan]

Nice use of intentional fallacy... What does that have to do with what science has or is doing? Equivocation seems to be the order of the day around here.





Why not? Let's go into them, only let's take that discussion into another thread. We can decide if those practices were actually "Christian" in the sense of the biblical mandates or "religious" in the sense of man's efforts to do things for God. I expect that you have some insight into the latter and barely any into the former. Might make for an interesting conversation.



Except that the history of religion has little to do with the history of Science, except that of course Science as we currently know it could not exist without its Christian worldview roots. I'm not sure how any of that makes my argument weak, save that you just don't like it. Do you actually have a rebuttal, or are you going to continue to pursue a rabbit trail?

Weren't many of the famous scientists from the past driven to explore science , as they believed in God , and were looking for Him in His creation, as they were guided by God having established order and laws in universe, and wanted to discover them?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Weren't many of the famous scientists from the past driven to explore science , as they believed in God , and were looking for Him in His creation, as they were guided by God having established order and laws in universe, and wanted to discover them?

Most definitely many famous scientists were doing just what you stated. We have much to thank them for in the results of their work.

There is no real conflict between science and religion. Those who misuse either cause problems for both.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is the language of unbelief

Life is not a natural phenomenon...it is supernatural.

LOL, I have a very strong belief in God! I also believe God created natural law that he created in order to create. I do not believe that God created natural law so he could violate what he himself created. As Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Do you believe the biblical creation account? or not?

I believe that God created. I do not get hung up on how.

What do you see in scripture to possibly support this evolutionary idea?
Do you believe in evolution?//

Read Genesis Chapter One, it follows evolution very nicely, from the simple to the complex.

How God created is not nearly so important as that HE CREATED. My belief in Him is not dependent on understanding how. There is much I do not understand about God, but my faith is not dependent on understanding all. Faith, true faith leaves room for not knowing, not understanding, indeed even room for doubt. God is a big God. God never condemns the honest searcher with or without doubts.

 

[quantumfaith]

Nice use of intentional fallacy... What does that have to do with what science has or is doing? Equivocation seems to be the order of the day around here.





Why not? Let's go into them, only let's take that discussion into another thread. We can decide if those practices were actually "Christian" in the sense of the biblical mandates or "religious" in the sense of man's efforts to do things for God. I expect that you have some insight into the latter and barely any into the former. Might make for an interesting conversation.



Except that the history of religion has little to do with the history of Science, except that of course Science as we currently know it could not exist without its Christian worldview roots. I'm not sure how any of that makes my argument weak, save that you just don't like it. Do you actually have a rebuttal, or are you going to continue to pursue a rabbit trail?

It is commentary such as this which speaks volumes, regardless of how well read, informed and educated you are (or you suppose yourself to be).

 

[OldRegular]

"In the beginning God...." (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible does not set out to prove the existence of God, rather it assumes it.

The Bible does not assume the existence of GOD. The Bible DECLARES GOD! Big difference!