Conversation between Goku and Mike the wiz:
mike the wiz, on 30 Aug 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:
I don't believe men with their official scientific answers, always hit the nail on the head. I believe that God created the universe and all the creatures and that mankind tries to give a scientific answer to a creation, like I would try and give a mathematical explanation to why two people divorced. Now my mathematics might not even be faulty, you might even say ; "no mathematician worth his salt would fault the calculations in this theory of divorce". That may be so, but it doesn't matter because the explanation was never mathematical because those two people didn't get divorced because of maths.
In the same way the creation I believe we overtly see, isn't a scientific matter, ultimately. There is no collection of processes that add up to an answer because the best answer is the obvious one, that a Creator is the cause of a creation. The various evolutions they use to try and pretend it was a collection of processes, doesn't strike me as strong science, but the historical and weak conjectural sort.
So I basically do see the scientific processes, the various evolutions, as an attempt to say how each stage happened on it's own. To give a scientific answer instantly is to give a materialistic, Godless one in a sense, if you are going to say the created things are explainable scientifically, in the sense that science can't include God in it's conclusions. Think the logic through;
1. Science can't include God.
What law of the universe backs this Jehovian decree? Me thinks it an attempt to form a neurotic agreement. "Lets all agree to believe God is unreasonanable (unscientific). And yet our claim is God created our ability to reason (practice science)! Go figure! So, I did an experimenmt and told myself to think about God. I did! I felt no force preventing me from doing so! I am unaware of any limits on my reasoning process (practice of science).
2. Scientists INSIST that everything in nature can be explained scientifically.
It can! So, explain it already! Isn't that what humans do?
3. Scientists then provide or attempt to provide scientific answers, saying various processes cause everything.
In other words they create a just so story! Whic is true because they say it is! Sounds like circular reasoning to me!
So then, under those parameters, it is a tautology that all of those answers will be a-theistic answers. A-theistic to a Creator God, Who claims responsibility for creating those things the scientists say created themselves.
Yes because the neurotic agreement to exclude God from our reasoning pprocess mean we don't have to consider creation a valid reason for things existing! We never seem to realize the irony that intelligent beings "created" the idea that their just so story is "the truth!" After all they thought it up and said the magic words, "It's scientific!" LOL
I think the scientific answers are sound answers within their respective purview of explanation. It seems that your underlying objection is that because science deals with natural explanations that therefore means science itself is antithetical to belief in God or the supernatural, a non sequitur. You seem to conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
What is nature and where did it come from? Who died and left it in charge? Sounds like some people believe in magic (nature).
2. I don't know what you mean by that statement, but the tools available to scientific inquiry only allow natural explanations so the whole game of science is to look for natural explanations.
Personification rears it's ugly deceitful head again! We decide what we wish to think! All options are open! For example, the alleged big bang is supposedly is an anomaly--not observable testable or repeatable. It is therefore unreasonable (unscienific). LOL
3. No. Every scientific theory has a purview of explanation. Outside of that purview the theory doesn't attempt to give an explanation. The big bang theory explains that the universe as we know it started off as a 'singularity' and then expanded. Talk of God not being involved or the ultimate creator is both beyond the scope of the theory itself as well as beyond the philosophical scope of science itself.
All theories were created and written by intelligent beings who can include in their theory any ideas they wish.
Beyond the scope of science itself? Give me a break! Who set this limit? Got to watvh making those nerotic agreements. I am not buying this one!
As an alleged Atheist, consider; "Theisitic Evolution" believed by some.
Many atheists consider those that believe this contradiction of terms "useful idiots!" LOL
Science is grounded in methodological naturalism, so of course all scientific answers don't invoke God. This doesn't mean that God wasn't involved or that God doesn't exist, it simply means that science cannot test such ideas and thus ignores them. There is nothing preventing you from believing that God created the big bang; it just isn't a scientific explanation, but to say that God doesn't exist and didn't form the universe is not a scientific stance either.
But one thing you need to admit the big ban is an explanation created by an intelligent being who seems lacking the power to actually cause what they claim allegedly happened! But then again, they weren't there to observe! Somone might consider their created answer "unscientific!" LOL
The persssonification needs to end! It's very unscientific! Time to leave Babylon LOL