Jump to content


Science Vs The Supernatual....


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:25 PM

This is a branch off from another thread.


Science can investigate a supernatural claim if there is evidence to work with, science can for example prove that there is no paranormal forces acting in the areas of ‘spoon bending’ (i.e. Uri Geller), Astrology, Homoeopathy, water divining, etc.  The difficulty is in categorically stating that a phenomena is an act or god or it is natural, how can one tell with certainty and how would one eliminate the natural especially if it’s a new area of research. The default position is natural, that is the only workable solution to allow science to progress.


I would have to disagree. Science wants the supernatural to be something they can touch and feel. Sorry, it don't work that way.

Example 1). A preacher, on the 700 club. Had cancer. They showed video of his failing health. When he went to the doctors, they told him the cancer was all through his body and that chemo might give him a few extra weeks, but it would also cause more suffering. So he decided against it.

He continued to preach, and his sermons were taped. You could see him go from someone who did not look sick, to someone who was very sick and had to be on oxygen. When he could not preach, and had to stay home. his wife video shot his condition. He took off his shirt, and he looked like someone from a third world country that was starving to death. He had huge tumors all over his body, and all this was shown on t.v.. It was gross.

His church, plus several other churches were praying for him. It was down to the point where his life was in days or even hours. As the cancer started eating through his neck. But, one night, several people were awakened from their sleep. And felt that the preacher needed to be prayed for, in which they did. From that day forward, he got better. And now he is cancer free, and none of medical science can explain it.

The point is, no one in the naturlistic scientific field will accept this as a supernatural healing because it's not something they can touch, or feel. Even though this healing is all documented, including how sick this guy was. Science will never know the truth on this subject because they really don't want to know. And they really don't want to know God either.

Example: 2) While listening to the radio, a preacher was preaching, and told about an occasion (an event of a past service he did), where he was holding a service, where 6 doctors attended, who were atheist (he knew these doctors would be there). And he wanted them to know the Lord. So he prayed and prayed about it. The time came for him to do the service, and during the service, a child was healed of a leg being to short (the leg grew right in front of their eyes). All six doctors saw it because they sat on the very front row. They even admitted to seeing it. Out of the six, only one accepted it as an act of God. The others found excuses and walked out of the service when the alter call was given.

What point does this prove? People will only believe what they want to believe. It has nothing to do with evidence. They all saw, and only one believed. It works the same way with science. They all know there is actual evidence for creation and God. For if not, why do so many waste time figuring out ways to discredit it?

Finding evidence of god certainly would rock the world and not just the scientific one!

Finding things science can’t explain (immediately) is to be expected, it is often said that for every new answer, ten more questions are raised.

I am sceptical of creating matter from sound, as sound travels through a medium (air, water, solid).  I would need to have a link to read to understand this claim.  But I think if there is merit in the claim a Nobel prize would be in order for the scientist proving such.

View Post


Then there's that nobel prize. It's already a known fact that the people who vote that prize to someone don't always vote it to the one that really should recieve it. And this has happened several times. But people that should recieve have also recieved the prize. So it's not always a deserving award. Has any christians recieved it for accomplishments in the fields they work in? So God is not even on the list. And neither are His people.

#2 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 05 July 2005 - 10:14 PM

"While listening to the radio, a preacher spoke of an instance where he was doing a service where 6 doctors, who were atheist attended, and he wanted them to know the Lord."

I get the moral of this story, but this sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Would you mind cleaning it up a little? Thanks.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2005 - 10:57 PM

"While listening to the radio, a preacher spoke of an instance where he was doing a service where 6 doctors, who were atheist attended, and he wanted them to know the Lord."

I get the moral of this story, but this sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Would you mind cleaning it up a little? Thanks.

View Post


Is that any better?

Example: 2) While listening to the radio, a preacher was preaching, and told about an occasion (an event of a past service he did), where he was holding a service, where 6 doctors attended, who were atheist (he knew these doctors would be there). And he wanted them to know the Lord. So he prayed and prayed about it. The time came for him to do the service, and during the service, a child was healed of a leg being to short (the leg grew right in front of their eyes). All six doctors saw it because they sat on the very front row. They even admitted to seeing it. Out of the six, only one accepted it as an act of God. The others found excuses and walked out of the service when the alter call was given.



#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:25 PM

(chance @ Jul 5 2005, 09:52 PM)
Science can investigate a supernatural claim if there is evidence to work with, science can for example prove that there is no paranormal forces acting in the areas of ‘spoon bending’ (i.e. Uri Geller), Astrology, Homoeopathy, water divining, etc.  The difficulty is in categorically stating that a phenomena is an act or god or it is natural, how can one tell with certainty and how would one eliminate the natural especially if it’s a new area of research. The default position is natural, that is the only workable solution to allow science to progress.



I would have to disagree. Science wants the supernatural to be something they can touch and feel. Sorry, it don't work that way.


From my examples above the supernatural can be explored, but it does depend upon the claims being made.

Example 1). (summarised) A preacher, Had cancer. the doctors, they told him the cancer was all through his body and that chemo might give him a few extra weeks, <snip>

But, one night, several people were awakened from their sleep. And felt that the preacher needed to be prayed for, in which they did. From that day forward, he got better. And now he is cancer free, and none of medical science can explain it.


Ok this is quite a good example. How can science investigate such things without a control? i.e. how do you know what events would have transpired if no one had prayed for him? Reasoning - Why was the cure slow, to me this implies a naturalistic remission of some sort, if it was a Miracle cure why was it not on a level far faster than expected by natural means?

The point is, no one in the naturlistic scientific field will accept this as a supernatural healing because it's not something they can touch, or feel. Even though this healing is all documented, including how sick this guy was. Science will never know the truth on this subject because they really don't want to know. And they really don't want to know God either.


Not so much because they don’t want to know, but because you cant make a valid conclusion.

Example: 2) While listening to the radio, a preacher was preaching, and told about an occasion (an event of a past service he did), where he was holding a service, where 6 doctors attended, who were atheist (he knew these doctors would be there). And he wanted them to know the Lord. So he prayed and prayed about it. The time came for him to do the service, and during the service, a child was healed of a leg being to short (the leg grew right in front of their eyes). All six doctors saw it because they sat on the very front row. They even admitted to seeing it. Out of the six, only one accepted it as an act of God. The others found excuses and walked out of the service when the alter call was given.


I would like to know what the excuses were, however I would be inclined to put this down as an elaborate hoax. Reasoning to confirm such a Miricle in advance I would allow the doctors to take measurements (possibly an X-Ray) to confirm the length. I would suspect the shorter leg was only a little shorter (claimed) and that a bit of ‘slight of hand’ could give the appearance of ‘growth before you eyes’. Now if the claim showed growing a new leg, the I would be taking notice.

What point does this prove? People will only believe what they want to believe. It has nothing to do with evidence. They all saw, and only one believed. It works the same way with science. They all know there is actual evidence for creation and God. For if not, why do so many waste time figuring out ways to discredit it?


I think it shows that some people are more sceptical than others. A litmus test for such claims is to be given prior access to the patient, and be in control of the situation so as not let the organiser direct the demonstration (the excuses will come thick and fast when such requirements are requested).


Then there's that nobel prize. It's already a known fact that the people who vote that prize to someone don't always vote it to the one that really should recieve it. And this has happened several times. But people that should recieve have also recieved the prize. So it's not always a deserving award. Has any christians recieved it for accomplishments in the fields they work in? So God is not even on the list. And neither are His people.


Well it is only an award, and I made the point only to emphasise the significance of the find.

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:36 PM

Chance,

If you were actually looking for truth. You would go to the 700 club website and ask for that tape. But instead, the healing has to be on your terms. And if it were all at once, as you suggested. What excuse would you find then? I bet I could find a tape where a documented healing was done all at once. But I'm not going to waste my time because by your reply, I know it is not truth you want. It is only to discredit what you believe is not true. For if it is not, then why are you here? At a forum that believes what you don't?

It's always funny to me that the evolutionist, old earther's, always have the same comment: Where's your evidence? And when it's presented, then it's not on their terms, it won't be accepted.

Based on how this evidence is documented, how it was filmed in the process. How medical science can't explain it. But yet you say: It was done naturalistically. Have you suddenly become smarter than all that are in the medical field? To make such a comment, as if you had an authority as such, you must have some medical credentials. Well?

How about we compare this to theories that are not even close in actual evidence as this healing, but are accepted anyway? Would you like me to list them and do comparisons? To show the bias that is really in science? So in comparing evolution evidence to this healing evidence, let's us look at the facts.

1) Was evolution filmed and recorded while in process?
2) Was it documented while it actually happened?
3) Was it actually observed by more than one person in the process of it happening?

No? But you still believe it?

I think evolution has gotten people so used to believing the most unprovable stuff that when it comes to something that is provable, no one knows how to accept it. This is what realitivism does to the mind. "This is my reality, regardless of how true you can make yours". So even if I could prove, and you could see it. You would not accept it.

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 July 2005 - 03:03 PM

If you were actually looking for truth. You would go to the 700 club website and ask for that tape. But instead, the healing has to be on your terms.


And for very sound reasons, without being in control of the situation, how can you tell if you are being fooled? Could a magician perform his art if you were to come out of the audience, examine his props, video his act in slow motion and examine it frame by frame? These are the criteria that science must work under, all I ask is for the same standard of rigor. I am looking for truth, and I want to be absolutely certain that what I see is not being manipulated. Is that too much to ask?




And if it were all at once, as you suggested. What excuse would you find then? I bet I could find a tape where a documented healing was done all at once. But I'm not going to waste my time because by your reply, I know it is not truth you want. It is only to discredit what you believe is not true. For if it is not, then why are you here? At a forum that believes what you don't?


I seriously doubt that I could come up with an excuse, but lets be absolutely certain of what I am saying. I would require a doctor to say Mr X has an <illness>, after the miracle is performed, the <illness> is gone straight away. A large external tumour would be good. Better would be the re-growing of a lost limb, because there is absolutely no possibility of the body doing this naturally.



It's always funny to me that the evolutionist, old earther's, always have the same comment: Where's your evidence? And when it's presented, then it's not on their terms, it won't be accepted.


Is it evidence or testimony? Much of the claims made rely heavily on the integrity of the person making the claim, lets eliminate all possibility of bias from the individual and stick to the cold hard facts.

Based on how this evidence is documented, how it was filmed in the process. How medical science can't explain it. But yet you say: It was done naturalistically. Have you suddenly become smarter than all that are in the medical field? To make such a comment, as if you had an authority as such, you must have some medical credentials. Well?


Because if seen it all before, faith healers in the Philippines, cures on stage in those Benny Hinn style extravaganzas, etc. It’s simply a matter of once bitten twice shy. I am not going to assume the miraculous without proper controls. Honestly, if it is so easily performed on demand, and one wished to prove it to the world, it would be ridiculously easy to demonstrate. If I or you had miraculous healing powers, one could simple walk through an emergency ward ’60 minuets, camera and crew, in tow and ……..Yet the people with these so call gifts never come out and do this, they ‘hide on stage’, keep you at a distance, swamp you with razzmatazz, and take your money.

How about we compare this to theories that are not even close in actual evidence as this healing, but are accepted anyway? Would you like me to list them and do comparisons? To show the bias that is really in science? So in comparing evolution evidence to this healing evidence, let's us look at the facts.

1) Was evolution filmed and recorded while in process?
2) Was it documented while it actually happened?
3) Was it actually observed by more than one person in the process of it happening?

No? But you still believe it?


Do you not see how easy it would be to fake the miraculous ‘tapes of evidence’, this is televisions and magicians stock in trade. Why do these miracle workers practice on those so willing to accept their word? Would it not be more beneficial to mankind to convince the sceptic as a priority? Think of all those lost souls that would be converted? And what excuse do they have for not giving the sceptic a priority, you ask them and you’ll get the same old excuses they always touted. In reality they are charlatans praying on the gullible (or desperate) for, as the deacon so aptly phrased it “Widower’s pennies”.

I think evolution has gotten people so used to believing the most unprovable stuff that when it comes to something that is provable, no one knows how to accept it. This is what realitivism does to the mind. "This is my reality, regardless of how true you can make yours". So even if I could prove, and you could see it. You would not accept it.


Then test the people you claim to have faith in (in the manner I have explained).
I guarantee you they will back of, claiming shock at your sudden lack of trust in them. Push the matter and they will distance themselves from you. Insist, and they will run.
This I swear will happen, why? …. because deep down they know they can’t do it.

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2005 - 07:02 PM

Chance,

Even before I wrote this last post, I knew exactly what you were going to say. "They faked the video". I should have included that in that post, but I wanted to see if you would play the: I don't want to believe blame game... Once again, you just proved that your not willing to even look. The christians fake everything, correct? And if that not what you meant, then what's the problem?

I have no problem that you have choosen not to believe. What I have a problem with is that you condemn what you really have not looked at, you make me look gulible, as all christians, by saying what you do. And the list just goes on and on. Do you think that every Christian is a gulible fool for believing in a God?

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 July 2005 - 07:37 PM

Even before I wrote this last post, I knew exactly what you were going to say. "They faked the video". I should have included that in that post, but I wanted to see if you would play the: I don't want to believe blame game... Once again, you just proved that your not willing to even look. The christians fake everything, correct? And if that not what you meant, then what's the problem?


What can I say? It’s in my nature to be sceptical. That being said, I want to make it perfectly clear that I would have no problems accepting evidence of the supernatural (including God), provided it passes the tests of rigour I would expect of science. To me, that’s a fair position to take, no one gets a free ride.

Regarding the video specifically, if the content can be viewed on the internet I’ll take alook.

I have no problem that you have choosen not to believe. What I have a problem with is that you condemn what you really have not looked at, you make me look gulible, as all christians, by saying what you do. And the list just goes on and on. Do you think that every Christian is a gulible fool for believing in a God?


Well I consider my personal philosophy has been derived differently from yourself and I take atheism to be the default position (we did not come into this world believing in anything), so to change my mind from this default I require convincing, that’s all.

I apologise if you inferred that I was inferring that religious people are gullible for believing in God. So NO, I do not think you are gullible for believing in God.

I had hoped that I had written carefully enough so that you would see that I am targeting those whom claim to have miraculous or supernatural powers, yet refuse to have these powers examined with a critical eye. Supernatural claims need not be restricted to God.

#9 Mikel Sevrel

Mikel Sevrel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:43 AM

I don't beleive that science can explore the realm of the supernatural, however we can use science to learn about what God has created. It is an important thing, I think.

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:45 PM

What can I say? It’s in my nature to be sceptical.  That being said, I want to make it perfectly clear that I would have no problems accepting evidence of the supernatural (including God), provided it passes the tests of rigour I would expect of science.  To me, that’s a fair position to take, no one gets a free ride.

Regarding the video specifically, if the content can be viewed on the internet I’ll take alook.
Well I consider my personal philosophy has been derived differently from yourself and I take atheism to be the default position (we did not come into this world believing in anything), so to change my mind from this default I require convincing, that’s all.

I apologise if you inferred that I was inferring that religious people are gullible for believing in God.  So NO, I do not think you are gullible for believing in God.

I had hoped that I had written carefully enough so that you would see that I am targeting those whom claim to have miraculous or supernatural powers, yet refuse to have these powers examined with a critical eye.  Supernatural claims need not be restricted to God.

View Post


If it's on the internet, you'll view it? I'm a creationist and I spend money to look at evolutionist videos. I view this as having enough info from both sides to keep my view from being to one sided, and being informed. I have been recently thinking of getting the video hawkins put out named: the answer to everything. Even though it cost about 50 bucks. Not that I'm rich, I like to stay informed.

Is the hawkins film on the internet? And should I base my viewing on whether it's on the internet? If I did, I would not know much. And I believe this is why you don't know much about what's being said here. You base your opinion on everyone else's opinion, and refuse to look at things, and form your own opinion. This has given you a mindset where your mind is already made up, and nothing will change it. People call Christians bias, single minded etc... I find the bias is more from the other side of the issue.

Example: In a court of law, would you want the jury to make a decision about you, based on someone's opinion that did not even see what happened? That's what your doing when you make pre-assumptions based on evidence not seen,

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2005 - 07:03 PM

If it's on the internet, you'll view it? I'm a creationist and I spend money to look at evolutionist videos. I view this as having enough info from both sides to keep my view from being to one sided, and being informed. I have been recently thinking of getting the video hawkins put out named: the answer to everything. Even though it cost about 50 bucks. Not that I'm rich, I like to stay informed.


Me too, but I prefer my local library, currently we have “Darwin’s black box”, “in the minds of men”, and a couple of others who’s titles escape me for the moment.
Is that Steven Hawkins? (author of, A brief history of time, and The universe in a nutshell). If it is, I’ll try a get my library to get a copy too.

Is the hawkins film on the internet? And should I base my viewing on whether it's on the internet? If I did, I would not know much. And I believe this is why you don't know much about what's being said here. You base your opinion on everyone else's opinion, and refuse to look at things, and form your own opinion. This has given you a mindset where your mind is already made up, and nothing will change it. People call Christians bias, single minded etc... I find the bias is more from the other side of the issue.


I feel I should clarify a few things about myself so you can get some perspective on what I am writing about. You would be surprised at just how open minded I am in real life. My current job in statistical analysis and related logistics earns us the title of being some of the most cynical, data hungry, grumpy old men on the planet.
Because we see decisions based on assumption that can lead to huge financial losses for the company, it is part of my job to rationalise what data can be trusted and what is to be discarded. The methods are based on hard science (mathematics) but can be intuitive as well (sounds like a contradiction, but it’s not, and would take rather a long time to explain).

Friends and acquaintances - as I have travelled extensively you tend to have a very jaded view of belief systems in general, this seem to be in part because of the different theologies in so much as the reverences in which they are held, and finding no real difference in assessing the validity of either. I have for instance some Christian friends, (one of them rather a literal believer) whom have some very interesting discussions much like on this forum. Two others, have fallen for the cult like Mormons, and Jehovah witnesses, which IMO, has pretty much destroyed their lives (and wallets).

Example: In a court of law, would you want the jury to make a decision about you, based on someone's opinion that did not even see what happened? That's what your doing when you make pre-assumptions based on evidence not seen,


A very good example and the short answer is no. But lets explore this aspect further - good lawyer stick to the facts, when opposing council begin to use opinion, an objection is requested of the judge. This method of arguing is in sharp contrast to that on popular day time TV (e.g. Jerry Springer, Opra Winfrey) one only has to see this style of argument to see that reason has been thrown out the window, and the ‘winner’ is often the one who can bring emotion or bullying to best effect.

How is does this exonerate me in dismissing the claims of miraculous healings – I am guilty of pre-assuming in this specific case – but I justify that claim with what I know about physics, biology and human nature, and other claims of that nature that have fallen short. To convince me, I now simply state that ‘trust’ is not good enough.
Taking this to a law situation - if the ‘healer’ had to defend his case in court, we would get the situation where the prosecutor states that he is a charlatan and request evidence that he can do what he claims he can do. Testimonials wont be admit into evidence unless there is some evidence of a pre existing condition and certification that the condition has been healed by the proposed healer. In short the healers last recourse will be to ‘put up or shut up’ in the court room, and at that point I would bet a penny to a pound that he would settle out of court.

#12 futzman

futzman

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Tulsa, OK

Posted 22 July 2005 - 05:14 PM

I don't beleive that science can explore the realm of the supernatural, however we can use science to learn about what God has created. It is an important thing, I think.

View Post


Mikel I have to disagree with you on this statement, primarily because I've been involved in using science to investigate the supernatural. Specifically, I spent a couple of years investigating "hauntings" and strange phenomena with my own video production company. We used many controls when attempting to record ghostly phenomena including multiple camera angles, personal voice recorders as controls for EV phenomena, stereo cameras and controlled conditions to reproduce phenomena like so-called "orbs". Using controls and testing theories are all part of the scientific method. In the case of "miracle" healings I'd say it would be possible to conduct a statistical study to analyze whether people get well faster when they "believe" than when they don't. That would be science testing the supernatural, don't you think?

Richard

#13 kclark

kclark

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 29
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Washington DC

Posted 26 September 2005 - 02:08 AM

But, one night, several people were awakened from their sleep. And felt that the preacher needed to be prayed for, in which they did. From that day forward, he got better. And now he is cancer free, and none of medical science can explain it.

The point is, no one in the naturlistic scientific field will accept this as a supernatural healing because it's not something they can touch, or feel.



I hate to be a doubting Thomas, but isn't this an example of Post Hoc, Ergo propter hoc? To say that he was definately healed because people prayed for him make the assumptions that:

A. God "changed his mind" about the man's cancer because it was prayed on.

B. The prayers shrank the tumors without the aid of any external environmental elements. Even sans treatment, there could be several environmental variables contributing to the outcome.

C. Prayer was the ONLY way to help this man, so much so that several people needed to be disturbed from slumber by a supernatural force in order to render such aid in a simultanious manner...suggesting that prayer does not manifest in a cumulation, but in VOLUME.

...I have the biggest problem with "C", because it makes no sense to me. If 1,000 people prayed at SEPERATE times for "A" to occur, and 1,000 people prayed at the SAME time for "A" to occur; Why would God favor one over another as is suggested by the prayer simulcast? Either way, you have 1,000 souls pleading for a possible outcome...to God, why would there be a difference? In any case, I don't believe God gives this kind power to ordinary people so that they can "show off" by performing "miracles". What would the point be? The only relevant form of prayer I recognize asks not for selfish ends, but that "God's Will be done". I doubt very much that the wisdom of God's will can be up-ended by the Pope himself, much less a few good intentioned backwater clergy folk. Just my .02..../me goes off to watch the "tale of the tape".

#14 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:22 PM

Actually, healing is a quite complicated process with many varibles that are all controlled by God. When I'm not so tired, like I am now, I will explain some of them.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:44 PM

this from the abiogenesis discussion for springer

chance> There is no way science can investigate a supernatural claim.

springer> That is a popular proclamation of evolutionists, but it is without scientific basis. Please explain yourself.

chance> I’ll go one better, I’ll prove it to you, go to, Science Vs The Supernatual.... in the Miscellaneous topics.


OK springer, my claim are:

A. “there is an invisible pink dragon on my shoulder” (from the Carl Sagan’s book 'A demon haunted world'), or for a more contemporary version,

B. “We actually do live in The Matrix”

Explain how science can confirm or deny these claims.

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2005 - 06:59 PM

this from the abiogenesis discussion for springer
OK springer, my claim are:

A. “there is an invisible pink dragon on my shoulder” (from the Carl Sagan’s book 'A demon haunted world'), or for a more contemporary version,

B. “We actually do live in The Matrix”

Explain how science can confirm or deny these claims.

View Post


Neither example you gave is what anyone would call supernatural. They are more along the lines of imagination. By your definitions, you should have no problem with science investigating the supernatural, since goo-to-you evolution is 100% imagination, and does not involve emperical/observational science in the traditional sense.

There is no scientific basis for 100% materialism, and that's what is meant when someone says that science cannot investigate the supernatural. Its purely a philosophical position, and results in an attempt to win the debate by definition, and nothing more. As I mentioned to you earlier, information has a supernateral cause since its demonstrable that information cannot be the result of materialistic processes. Therefore science can discover characteristics about the supernatural. This is what the Word of God means when it says:

ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

IOW, what we can see and deduce from nature tells us there is a God.

ROM 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The lie in today's world is that evolution, and darwinism created what we see, a lie that man has used to reject God and deny his glory that he deserves for his creation. A lie which is now worshipped by many people, and its even promoted in public schools.

When you can produce an observable materialistic explanation for Information and Intelligence, then you will have an arugment. Until then, its materialistic imagination, or as you say investigation into the supernatural.....

Terry

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 November 2005 - 02:14 PM

Neither example you gave is what anyone would call supernatural. They are more along the lines of imagination.


It was the best I could come up with at the time. Plus I am only trying to demonstrate the principle, do you have a some example you would consider more appropriate?


By your definitions, you should have no problem with science investigating the supernatural,


There has to be some materialistic thing (although mathematics seems to be a bit borderline) to investigate, else it’s philosophy.

There is no scientific basis for 100% materialism, and that's what is meant when someone says that science cannot investigate the supernatural. Its purely a philosophical position, and results in an attempt to win the debate by definition, and nothing more.


I am of the position that science can only investigate materialism, and that is the reason I posted the two examples.


As I mentioned to you earlier, information has a supernateral cause since its demonstrable that information cannot be the result of materialistic processes.


Whoa there, that’s a mighty big claim, you may have stated such, but from memory the stuff Dr Gitt authored is mightily floored as you and I (and others) have discussed in ”Does DNA contain a code”, and “restarting the information debate”


When you can produce an observable materialistic explanation for Information and Intelligence, then you will have an arugment. Until then, its materialistic imagination, or as you say investigation into the supernatural.....


I would have thought there is ample evidence for both, i.e:

information requires a sender and receiver and an agreed common frame of reference etc.

Intelligence is the product of specific brain activity in certain areas, quite easily demonstrated.

#18 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2005 - 03:07 PM

information requires a sender and receiver and an agreed common frame of reference etc.


Who sent the information contained in DNA?

Intelligence is the product of specific brain activity in certain areas, quite easily demonstrated.


Your assuming that its a pure mechanistic process, something for which there is no scientific basis.

The fact that man is the origin of new information, means that he has a non-material component to him. That non-material component works through the brain, and the result is intelligence.

Dr. Gitt's theorems are not flawed at all. You've never read his book, only an online primer. He makes his claims in universities internationally, and as far as I know no one has refuted his claims yet, and I don't think they ever will.

Terry

#19 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2005 - 03:08 PM

It was the best I could come up with at the time.  Plus I am only trying to demonstrate the principle, do you have a some example you would consider more appropriate?


"An intelligent being created the genetic code."

Terry

#20 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 04 November 2005 - 12:37 PM

I am of the position that science can only investigate materialism...

View Post

Nothing in the universe cannot be investigated. Our lack of ability to do so does not limit the fact. God is beyond the universe and our investigating because He created from beyond it and contains it. However, all He created within it and all that has occured is verifiable. Claims to be unable to investigated (supernatural) are a cop-out.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users