Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
And finding a *natural* explanation for something does not eliminate God, or the need for God, nor is it the only possible explanation for an event.
Just because scientists claim something has a natural explanation does not settle the issue.
You misunderstand. Having a 'natural explanation' neither confirms nor denies God.
Of course it's real. That's why it's called reality. It's also perfectly logical and it's not hidden from examination.
"God is very logical.. its just which God you comprehend.. There are many Gods.. including the real one."
There are many gods? No! There's only the numerous and varied testimony of many gods. If they don't show up in person and tell us who they are, then they should be considered to not exist. Only one showed up, claimed to be God and taught folks who He was. That Person was perfectly logical, not just very logical.
"If you have NO God then your God becomes yourself."
That's a ridiculous statement. If there's no god, or a person does not know Him, or someone rejects illogical testimony then those are the facts and no such transformation of one's person to deity ensues.
Evidence of their reality can be observed and that evidence can be examined by the scientific method. Also note that evidence just is andd theory is never "proven". Theory is such, because it is entirely supported by evidence.
What need is there for a god to exist?
The claim that “we know science doesn’t know everything [yet]” and simultaneously making absolutist statements about science and knowledge about God discerned in “non-scientific” manners, are contradictory.
Science is God people make many contradictory statements.
Plus it’s all about post dated checks. “We’ll know more when we do more research, so we need more gov’t funding”. “I realize our previous knowledge is now found to be wrong, but scientific enlightenment is just around the corner” etc.
Truth is a logical value of an observable, or statement. Logic and the scientific method can be used to determine the truth, or likelihood of truth, that an observable, statement, hypothesis, or theory is true.
MM: No one is saying that it's *magic*. But there is reality that exists that science can't deal with.
I'm a bit confused as to what you believe is "magical" in Scripture. All the events that are beyond our understanding, such as Jesus Christ rising from the dead, were witnessed by hundreds if not thousands. The term "magic" is how Simon Magnus viewed things because he was convinced they were done by trickery.
Earlier Kosta you said that the inability to explain something doesn't prove the existence of God. The point wasn't the failure of Darwin's theory of the origin of the species but that the complexity of simple cells points to a designer. My point to you after you accepted this was Scripture points to who the designer is.
As I said, it's a philosophical consideration, not something that can be determined by scientific investigation. It's a subjective determination, not an objective measurement of material parameters.
I dont know why you keep pinging me, but look I have plenty enough burdens without the ones you want to put on me.
You want to chuck the Bible, no one can stop you. I would jump into a raging river to rescue a few kids but I wont go where you are headed.
Where did I say that spunkets?
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
AS CHRIST SAID SO OFTEN . . . IT IS WRITTEN . . .
Which then brings up the question that if you refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the supernatural, why do you bother to post on the Religion Forum?
##############
Lots of little boys love to play with sharp pointy sticks.
If they can catch a kitty and make him yeowl, ‘tis evidently all the better.
INDEED . . .
It’s always such fun to watch
how INCAPABLE
pseudo-super rationalists
are
of living within their own cosmology.
Prissy-ness about facts, criteria, standards, objective realities etc. evidently fly out the window when the shoe is on the other foot! LOL.
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you and this thread. It's been hectic around here...
That Young Earth Creationists call themselves Creationist does not constitute a trademark.
Absent a trademark filing, anyone who believes that Creation happened whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever has just as much right to call themselves Creationist.
Personally, I perceive no conflict at all between God the Father's revelation in 1) the Person of Jesus Christ, 2) the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, 3) Scriptures and 4) Creation both spiritual and physical.
I agree with Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder that, applying relativity and the inflationary theory, an equivalent week at the inception space/time coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our present space/time coordinates. For my "primer" on matter, relativity and beginnings, click here.
I also perceive the first three chapters of Genesis referring to the Creation of both heaven and earth, spiritual and physical - that God is the only observer and the author, the perspective is His, not man's. The events He describes are not ipso facto occuring in the physical realm (emphasis mine.)
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:9
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7
I likewise agree with some early Christians and Jews that Adamic man was appointed a week which is 7,000 years and that the last day, the Sabbath, is Christ's 1,000 year reign on earth. Depending on whether one uses Christian dating or Jewish dating, Christ is due to return any time now or in a couple of centuries.
Bottom line, I'm YEC from the inception space/time coordinates and OEC from our present space/time coordinates.
I am a Creationist.
Truly, there is no excuse for anyone to not be a Creationist:
Mathematical structures are universal per se and do not have a physical caveat (e.g. Tegmark's Level IV.) For instance, whether a circle (plane) exists in this galaxy or another, in this universe or another, whether large or small, physical or non-physical, etc. - pi is the ratio of the circle's circumference to its diameter.
You are of the Aristotlean paradigm whereas betty boop and I are of the Platonist paradigm.
In mathematics (see Barrow's Pi in the Sky) the difference is that the Aristotlean says that mathematics is an invention, a description only whereas the Platonist says that the math, e.g. geometry exists, and the mathematician comes along and discovers it.
In my view most all mathematicians are Platonist to some degree because every time they include a variable in a formula, they attest to its universality.
The difference in paradigms also affects science, in particular physics (mathematical, theoretical, geometric.)
The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.
Tegmark, Max, “Parallel Universes,” Scientific American, May, 2003
So not surprisingly, we point up like Plato in Rafael's School of Athens - and you point down like Aristotle in the same painting.
Both paradigms yield good results for getting work done. But of course I believe the Aristotlean paradigm is myopic. It's the frog view.
God's Name is I AM.
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.