T
Tlaloc
Guest
When they say “non-scientific” they really mean “sloppy thinking slapped together.”
Whether it’s science or not a proof must still follow logical rules which all of the above “proofs” fail in spades.
- Status
Whether it’s science or not a proof must still follow logical rules which all of the above “proofs” fail in spades.
I
Inkman
Guest
Heather one thing that has always helped me, if you believe that Jesus did exist, is the fact that the apostles and disciples that were with Jesus when he preached and performed miracles were not there with Christ, at Calvary. They had left him because they were afraid, afraid of being captured, beaten, tortured and possibly put to death. The apostles had witnessed this man walk on water; command the seas and the wind, cure the blind, deaf, diseased and even the raise dead. Peter even recognized that he was God and yet the left him by himself to carry the cross on the way to his death. So why then knowing what they did and witnessing what they had that it was only after the master had died and left them they then go out to the world and preach the good news, why then did they become so fearless, daring enough to risk there necks to go out and preach among the very men that had their master put to death, a death that they themselves knew that they would surely face if the were to preach the message of Christ? If he was only a mere mortal, and never rose from the dead what would give them such strength to do this when they couldn’t do it in his presence, how could they do it when he wasn’t there? What other answer other than that they did witness the resurrection could possibly give them the strength (other than the Holy Spirit) to muster such courage?
D
DailyBread
Guest
Tell him this funny story I heard from Mgsr. Rielly:
So an atheist professor wanted to prove to everyone once and for all that there was no God. So one day he got up in front of his class of students and said “God if you truly exist, than strike me down where I stand” and he closed his eyes and waited. Next moment he found himself flying onto the floor. When he came too, he saw this little ROTC guy standing over him, who had just slugged him to the ground. The guy said “God was busy and decided to sit this one out. So he sent me!”
Sure, may not convince him, but it is a good story!
So an atheist professor wanted to prove to everyone once and for all that there was no God. So one day he got up in front of his class of students and said “God if you truly exist, than strike me down where I stand” and he closed his eyes and waited. Next moment he found himself flying onto the floor. When he came too, he saw this little ROTC guy standing over him, who had just slugged him to the ground. The guy said “God was busy and decided to sit this one out. So he sent me!”
Sure, may not convince him, but it is a good story!
H
Hermione
Guest
Here are some more good things for him to read:
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
That’s evidence for the Ressurection
sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm - Evidence for the historical Jesus
A
adnauseum
Guest
Actually science does NOT proceed as nice and logically as you pretend it does.
It’s very mushy, my friend. Intellectual assent most frequently precedes logical development. Decision comes before analysis.
Surely someone as worldly as you know that this topic is a matter of intense debate among philosophers of science.
It’s getting harder and harder for hard core materialists to prop up their 17th century world view.
M
ms_cilantro
Guest
In my oppinion faith does not come from intellectual reasoning alone. Faith comes through relationship. Have him tell the Lord, “I don’t know if you exist but I am open to knowing you” and see what happens. Do an experiment.
From my experience science confirms God. The laws of physics, the complexity of the cell etc. But there is something profoundly different in learning about someone and being in relationship with them.
Your friend knows you exist because he is in relationship with you. I am choosing to believe you exist and am writing a response.
From my experience science confirms God. The laws of physics, the complexity of the cell etc. But there is something profoundly different in learning about someone and being in relationship with them.
Your friend knows you exist because he is in relationship with you. I am choosing to believe you exist and am writing a response.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’ve worked as a spacecraft engineer for many years, so I am quite familiar with what science calls “laws” of the universe. They are nothing more than observations of reality. Laws of science are not a cause, but an observed effect of nature.
I’ve designed artificially intelligent algorithms, that have designed other outputs. The outputs of my algorithm is no proof of an undesigned reality. Just because, by my design, I’ve introduced a random element to the output, doesn’t mean that it is an uncreated entity.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
They fail for you. Yet I know several others who after learning about Schrodinger’s equation, failed to be convinced. The lack of your agreement doesn’t discount the veracity of the argument.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Tlaloc,
Your theory that “2” is uncreated is uncompelling. As noted by German mathematician Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891), “God created the natural numbers, and all the rest is the work of man.”
Science is about observations of reality. Science does not cause reality. The “law of gravity” doesn’t cause things to fall, for example. We don’t know the cause, but the “law of gravity” tells us the effect. I seems many who reject the existence of God try to convince us that the “laws of science” which are ideas created by man, are actually the cause of nature. On the contrary, science describes the effects observed in nature. It is by no means the cause.
Your theory that “2” is uncreated is uncompelling. As noted by German mathematician Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891), “God created the natural numbers, and all the rest is the work of man.”
Science is about observations of reality. Science does not cause reality. The “law of gravity” doesn’t cause things to fall, for example. We don’t know the cause, but the “law of gravity” tells us the effect. I seems many who reject the existence of God try to convince us that the “laws of science” which are ideas created by man, are actually the cause of nature. On the contrary, science describes the effects observed in nature. It is by no means the cause.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Tlaloc,
I’m figuring Peter Kreeft, a doctor and professor of philosophy, may have a better grasp on philosophical discourse than you do. But maybe not. What degrees of philosophy have you been awarded? In what way are you more qualified to judge the veracity of philosophical proofs than he?
A
adnauseum
Guest
Let me pile on.
Fermat’s last theorem.
It was asserted dogmatically by Fermat in the margin of a notebook. Without proof.
Yet it became the object of seeking.
When an attempted solution was claimed, it was too difficult for all but a handful of people to understand. Even the small handful was never quite sure if the solution was “logical” or not.
The final attempt has been accepted by the very small handful of those who would know. The rest of the intellectual world accepts their word on the faith of their reputation and character.
Science and religious faith are more similar than materialists would like to think.
I’m not talking about the content of the findings; obviously they are not comparable. I’m talking about the process of reaching certainty. It is a fairy tale to construe the scientific manner of knowing as superior merely because it deals with material.
Fermat’s last theorem.
It was asserted dogmatically by Fermat in the margin of a notebook. Without proof.
Yet it became the object of seeking.
When an attempted solution was claimed, it was too difficult for all but a handful of people to understand. Even the small handful was never quite sure if the solution was “logical” or not.
The final attempt has been accepted by the very small handful of those who would know. The rest of the intellectual world accepts their word on the faith of their reputation and character.
Science and religious faith are more similar than materialists would like to think.
I’m not talking about the content of the findings; obviously they are not comparable. I’m talking about the process of reaching certainty. It is a fairy tale to construe the scientific manner of knowing as superior merely because it deals with material.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
There are certainly issues but the distributed nature of science means that those kinds of things are pretty well ironed out. Few bad scientists are charismatic enough or prestigious enough to convince the rest of the scientific community of a position unsupported by data.
Existence is also debated by philosophers. That’s what they do: debate things others take for granted. It’s good work if you can get it.
Just so we’re clear I don’t deny God. I deny any proof of God. So does the Christian Faith, that’s why it’s called a faith rather than say the “Christian Proof.” God may or may not exist, it’s simply not a question you can answer with a real proof.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Very true. The fabric of reality is the cause, science is how we map out that fabric. But as the semantic inclined like to say “the map is not the territory.”
Writing an algorithm is different than plotting a fractal. The algorithm is designed. The fractal is only explored. It is a mathematical consequence which a person decides to map out. It has phenomenal properties but requires no designer. Symmetry is a wonderful thing.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
They fail basic logical tests, that means they fail for anyone who is unbiased and knowledgable of logic.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
But if I can show how “2”, or a snowflake, or a fractal requires no creator then you cannot use their existence as proof of one.
True, as above, perhaps I phrased it badly.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
I’m a physicist. That means I’m trained in breaking down large problems into smaller more managable ones. Its a good skill.
The logic of his arguments which is sorely lacking. He may well be a smart man but he wants to find a proof of god and so lets himself make extremely specious logical leaps. By all means look at my discussions of his flaws and try to point out where I’m wrong.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Actually what you just showed was that bad science and religious faith are similar. I agree completely. Faith is fine as long as it doesn’t claim to be science. Science is fine as long as it doesn’t claim to be faith. It’s when the two cross borders, by intent or accident, that problems occur.
No you’re wrong. For the questions that science can answer it is infinitely superior. But that list is finite. There are many worthy questions like “does God exist” that science cannot address. In those cases science is useless, and harmful if forced to work on the issue.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
By all means, attempt to show this. It has been tried many times before. All prior attempts seem as specious to me as Peter Kreeft’s arguments seem to you.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
By all means, attempt to show this. It’s been tried before, and these attempts seem me as specious as Peter Kreeft’s argument appear to you.
- Status