Replies

Here we go, so we use evolution as an excuse to deny god?

Incredible leap there.

So you agree with tactic #378, I suppose you do, since you just used it.

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, SCIENCE cannot use god as a causation, because god cannot be PROVEN to exist, therefore to use god as a causation would be unscientific.

Get it?

so, are you saying that ALL hard science, is a way to deny god?

That is what it sounds like.

Again, I will say this until you religionists get it.

Science CANNOT use god as a causation, WHY? Because you cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of god.

When the existence of god is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then science can use it as a causation, until then, to say not using god is a way to deny him, is ridiculous.

"Here we go, so we use evolution as an excuse to deny god?"

Absolutely! Many do!

"So you agree with tactic #378, I suppose you do, since you just used it."

Why, yes, I do.

"Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, SCIENCE cannot use god as a causation, because god cannot be PROVEN to exist, therefore to use god as a causation would be unscientific."

I agree.

"so, are you saying that ALL hard science, is a way to deny god?"

Nope. In fact many of those most involved in bioligical sciences are Christians.

"That is what it sounds like."

It's not what I meant.

"Again, I will say this until you religionists get it.
Science CANNOT use god as a causation, WHY? Because you cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of god."

I agree. Most open minded evolutionists I've read admit they are trying to explain what caused certain obvious facts, as well ad verify they are correctly interpreting the facts (which jaw bone goes with which scull). It is the evolutionist apologist "lay people" who try to turn this into a dogmatic "evolution did it, not God" argument.

"When the existence of god is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then science can use it as a causation, until then, to say not using god is a way to deny him, is ridiculous."

I agree. Funny thing is, one can take that route while all the time being a strong Christian that firmly believes in ID.

However, many are, in their own small way, using the findings of these well meaning and sincere scientists to do just that. They may not be as powerful, but these individuals are using the information, in their own small way, just like characters such as Hitler did. It is what is in the heart that counts.

Science CANNOT use god as a causation, WHY? Because you cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of god.

Again, I will say this until you materialists get it: one cannot scientifically prove that "scientific proof" is the only way to prove anything. There is no such thing as "scientific proof" anyway, since science is not about proving things. Science is the process of observing things using our physical senses and reasoning from these perceptions to form hypotheses about the nature and attributes of the physical universe we seem to inhabit. Please note, however, there is no way to objectively know anything about the physical universe except through sensory impressions, which exist in the mind -- and are therefore subjective. In fact, there is no way to demonstrate that what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell outside of ourselves is really there at all; we take it on faith that a universe exists external to ourselves, but there's no way to objectively demonstrate that such a universe exists. (We could all be dreaming, for example; there's no way to know for sure that we're not.) Therefore, to use your terminology, one cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of anything at all; as with all systems of thought, materialism (such as you espouse) is ultimately based on blind faith.

As honest skeptics, we are forced to doubt the existence of everything not objectively demonstrated to exist. But, since we can only perceive the universe through our subjective sensory experiences, it necessarily follows that we must doubt the existence of that universe as well. With this in mind, it is obvious that the only things we can know for sure are things we experience directly, without the use of our subjective senses; in other words, we can know for sure that we ourselves exist, because we directly experience ourselves existing from moment to moment -- Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" -- and, since we know that we exist, we can know that Existence exists -- in other words, we can know that the very Essence of Being exists. We call this Essence of Being itself God -- that necessarily self-extant Entity by which all other real things have being. ("I AM that I AM").

When the existence of god is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then science can use it as a causation, until then, to say not using god is a way to deny him, is ridiculous.

When the existence of Aric2000 is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then Aric can claim to exist. Of course, since all the knowledge I possess regarding Aric2000 is subjective sensory impressions, there's no way to objectively demonstrate that Aric2000 exists. (I believe that you exist, of course, but I do so as an act of faith; I cannot "prove" it.)

Of course you know that you yourself exist, Aric. But can your scientifically prove it?