Skip to comments.Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
Posted on 10/01/2012 11:16:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
click here to read article
The sad part is you're are playing lawyer against people who disagree with the scientist (and journalist) who thinks he can disprove God. The original topic of this thread.
What on earth are you talking about? I am not the one ascribing characteristics to science that are really characteristics of religion.
You have a warped view of objectivity, then. It involves no subjectivity; try that as a starting point.
The only thing wrong with my view of objectivity is that it doesn’t agree with your subjective opinions of other people’s religious beliefs and their inferiority to your own.
That’s a subjective view. Can’t call it objective by talking about agreeing or disagreeing. I never expressed an opinion about anyone’s religious beliefs, nor did I fully express my own. Please refrain from the loaded statements.
Do you agree that religion isn’t a substitute for science and that the Bible shouldn’t be used as a science book?
The post I originally replied to was a declaration that “god created evolution” was not an acceptable answer. This was not expressed as a personal opinion, but as an unqualified statement of fact.
Why are you asking this loaded question?
I agree that science is not a substitute for religion and that scientific dogma (it exists) ought not be used as a holy book. I never made any claims about the Bible; you are the only one that brings up that book (it has some interesting stuff, such as pointing out the earth is spherical and “hangs upon nothing”, but nobody ever claims it is the repository of all scientific knowledge given its focus).
The phrase not quite is not synonymous with the phrase this is not an acceptable answer. Logically, if God is omnipotent, He does not need evolution. It is not unfactual that evolution has not been proven. Anything else? or should we continue to keep the thread off topic?
No, not quite. Besides, God does not need evolution, which frankly has never been proven at any time.
Presuppositions are found in the opinions of all,...atheists and theists alike. For the atheist scientist to deny presupposionalism is simple sophistry.
Science is not blind. Scientists have presuppositions just as the theists do. Science is a slave to philosophy. One cannot engage in scientific endeavor without presuppositional allegances. They presume the metaphysics of numbers, logic, reason, and rational thought. Without those presuppositions noone could do science. One cannot do science without logic and reason, but science cannot prove logic and reason without the use of logic and reason. In doing so, his reasoning is circular and therefore meaningless.
What about religion not being a substitute for science? I ask because you won't say whether you hold religion to the same high standard as you do for science.
What high standard do you mean? This is why I called this an apples/oranges comparison before. Are science and religion the same or are they different? If they are different, then scientists had better stop trying to make them the same.
I am unaware of instances where religion substitutes for science. I cannot find any.
Science is susceptible to fraudhighly so. If by “high standard” the words “integrity and honesty” would better serve, then given science’s focus, it had better measure up.
How is that any different from the following?
Religion is susceptible to fraudhighly so. If by high standard the words integrity and honesty would better serve, then given religions focus, it had better measure up.
That the answer was not acceptable was not determined by the phrase "not quite", but by the fact that you felt you needed to correct him. If that answer had been acceptable, there would be no reason to do that.
Logically, if God is omnipotent, He does not need evolution. It is not unfactual that evolution has not been proven.
We've already discussed that. You've agreed that while God does not need to use evolution, there is no reason he could not. Since the question is not about what He needed to do, but what he actually did, that observation is irrelevant to the question.
But it appears that after having admitted there's no reason he could not have done it even though he didn't need to, the fact that he didn't need is still going to be presented as proof that he didn't.
We've come full circle, and there's apparently nothing new to be had so I guess we're finished.
Still coming from the standpoint that religion and science are the same thing? That is what the question “how is such-and-such any different, et cetera” is implying.
Science should be used for areas such as biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology and in general increasing our knowledge of the world around us.
That sounds about right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.