Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Explanation Rules Out God/demons?


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

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 December 2011 - 07:34 PM

If we can explain some observed process through scientific theory or laws, does that mean God or demons have no influence on these processes?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 December 2011 - 10:05 PM

The question is: How do laws come into existence, Science would have us believe that laws just exist and are able to work together and allow things to work the way they do. Yet they cannot show one speck of proof for this claim. The only reason they make such a claim is because it is the only one that will support their naturalistic theory of evolution that does not support anything intelligent,

But since they will make this claim let's see if:
1) They can show proof of this?
2) Explain the process of this?
3) Show how each law some how just came into being balanced to bring order to what would have been chaos?

Let's use some examples:

1) Laws of thermodynamics:
The first law makes it clear the difference between energy transfer as work, and energy transfer as heat.
The second law shows the differences between reversible and irreversible physical processes.It also shows the existence of a mathematical quantity called the entropy of a system.
The third law shows the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature.

Now does all these things take math, logic, conclusion etc...? Now does all that take intelligence to make work or poof it just happens? I could go on and on with each type law and work out the same conclusions.

Math takes intelligence,
Logic takes intelligence,
Conclusions take intelligence.
And to put it all together to make it work would take someone with endless knowledge.

And guess what. all that fits. Science cannot even begin to explain how laws came to exist naturally, So when science explains something using the laws that exist, they are using laws that have to be created by an intelligent being.

#3 Richard

Richard

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, Florida
  • Interests:Family, Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Creation/Evolution Debate, Scuba Diving, Fishing,
  • Age: 56
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola

Posted 13 December 2011 - 07:03 AM

If we can explain some observed process through scientific theory or laws, does that mean God or demons have no influence on these processes?


Can you be more specific? For instance, I have no problem with the "Big Bang," because I see it through the filter of my belief in a Creator. For me, the first "Big Bang," was simply "In the beginning, God…" Now, I think mixing the supernatural and the natural when discussing science is something that generally should not be done or be done with extreme care when talking about science with non-believers because it opens the believer up to the criticism of appealing to the supernatural for the things we don't understand and I think that is sometimes a legitimate criticism leveled against creationists such as the argument that God made the stars 6000 years ago but made them instantly millions of light years away, or that God made rocks old from the beginning. My own opinion is that when I'm talking science, I like to stick with what can be scientifically demonstrated or inferred, but that's just me.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 December 2011 - 07:31 AM


I think mixing the supernatural and the natural when discussing science is something that generally should not be done or be done with extreme care when talking about science with non-believers because it opens the believer up to the criticism of appealing to the supernatural for the things we don't understand and I think that is sometimes a legitimate criticism leveled against creationists such as the argument that God made the stars 6000 years ago but made them instantly millions of light years away, or that God made rocks old from the beginning. My own opinion is that when I'm talking science, I like to stick with what can be scientifically demonstrated or inferred, but that's just me.




The major problem with that line of thinking is the hypocrisy of the evolutionist who appeals to the supernatural every time they make the statements “evolution did this” or “nature did that” (etc…). The evolutionist simply cannot sustain an argument on the subject of the “supernatural”, “metaphysical”, and “incorporeal” (etc…) without constantly tripping over their own religiosity.


Further, until the evolutionists became “entrenched” in leadership roles of academia, NOTHING was ruled ‘a priori’ out of the scientific conversation.

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 December 2011 - 01:20 PM

The major problem with that line of thinking is the hypocrisy of the evolutionist who appeals to the supernatural every time they make the statements “evolution did this” or “nature did that” (etc…). The evolutionist simply cannot sustain an argument on the subject of the “supernatural”, “metaphysical”, and “incorporeal” (etc…) without constantly tripping over their own religiosity. Further, until the evolutionists became “entrenched” in leadership roles of academia, NOTHING was ruled ‘a priori’ out of the scientific conversation.


I found this also quite odd, when Junior-Darwinists speak of nature or Evolution as if they had some kind of agency. But to the point. Spiritual Beings are simply of a different substance then Uranium reactors Pizzas. So you won't detect them only using ordinary senses or instruments. That doesn't mean you'd disproved them scientifically. Just like you don't disprove the existence of sound using your eyes or some kind of optical devices only.

#6 Richard

Richard

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, Florida
  • Interests:Family, Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Creation/Evolution Debate, Scuba Diving, Fishing,
  • Age: 56
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola

Posted 13 December 2011 - 02:29 PM

The major problem with that line of thinking is the hypocrisy of the evolutionist who appeals to the supernatural every time they make the statements “evolution did this” or “nature did that” (etc…). The evolutionist simply cannot sustain an argument on the subject of the “supernatural”, “metaphysical”, and “incorporeal” (etc…) without constantly tripping over their own religiosity.


Further, until the evolutionists became “entrenched” in leadership roles of academia, NOTHING was ruled ‘a priori’ out of the scientific conversation.


I agree. Both evos and creos need to avoid the "(fill in the blank) did it," arguments. We should call them on it when they resort to the "Evolution did it," argument, and point out the hypocrisy of it just as they don't hesitate to point out and ridicule, anything that resembles the "God did it," argument. In fact, I'm sure you would agree, "God did it," has become a punch line for evo mockery on some boards.

#7 Richard

Richard

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, Florida
  • Interests:Family, Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Creation/Evolution Debate, Scuba Diving, Fishing,
  • Age: 56
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola

Posted 13 December 2011 - 02:40 PM

I found this also quite odd, when Junior-Darwinists speak of nature or Evolution as if they had some kind of agency. But to the point. Spiritual Beings are simply of a different substance then Uranium reactors Pizzas. So you won't detect them only using ordinary senses or instruments. That doesn't mean you'd disproved them scientifically. Just like you don't disprove the existence of sound using your eyes or some kind of optical devices only.


Well, aren't angels and demons really of no substance found on physical earth other than "spirit" which is beyond scientific examination? Ghostbusters aside, we really can't reach into the spirit realm and take a sample of a spirit's "ectoplasm, " so angels are not of a "different" substance. They are of no substance just as God is a spirit. The spirit realm is a reality but it's a reality that is beyond physical science.

#8 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 14 December 2011 - 05:29 AM

I bring this up because I have heard a small number of people claim that since we now have a better of understanding of what illness is, it is silly to say that demons cause disease as the Bible states. This view implies that the Bible is unreliable, untruthful. I have mostly heard friends say this or antagonistic atheists online.

Christians believe that God, a spiritual being, has influence over physical matter. We also believe that demons have similar influences. Science can explain a physical process but it cannot rule out spiritual influence on physical processes, since, as many of you have said, spiritual beings are beyond our five senses.

#9 Richard

Richard

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, Florida
  • Interests:Family, Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Creation/Evolution Debate, Scuba Diving, Fishing,
  • Age: 56
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola

Posted 14 December 2011 - 07:40 AM

I bring this up because I have heard a small number of people claim that since we now have a better of understanding of what illness is, it is silly to say that demons cause disease as the Bible states. This view implies that the Bible is unreliable, untruthful. I have mostly heard friends say this or antagonistic atheists online.

Christians believe that God, a spiritual being, has influence over physical matter. We also believe that demons have similar influences. Science can explain a physical process but it cannot rule out spiritual influence on physical processes, since, as many of you have said, spiritual beings are beyond our five senses.


I'm not sure the Bible says demons cause disease. God causes disease -- sometimes as punishment for sin or to build faith and character.

Genesis 12:17
But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai.

Exodus 15:26
He said, “If you listen carefully to the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you.”

Deuteronomy 7:15
The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you.

Deuteronomy 28:21
The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess.
Deuteronomy 28:20-22 (in Context) Deuteronomy 28 (Whole Chapter)

Deuteronomy 28:22
The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish.
Deuteronomy 28:21-23 (in Context) Deuteronomy 28 (Whole Chapter)

Deuteronomy 28:60
He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.


Satan and his demons have no power over God's people that God doesn't grant them for God's purposes. Satan had to ask God's permission to attack Job and his family. Jesus seems to distinquish between demon possession and disease.

Matthew 4:24
News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them.
Matthew 4:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 4 (Whole Chapter)

Mark 1:34
and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

#10 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:20 PM

good point Richard

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 December 2011 - 08:41 PM

I bring this up because I have heard a small number of people claim that since we now have a better of understanding of what illness is, it is silly to say that demons cause disease as the Bible states. This view implies that the Bible is unreliable, untruthful. I have mostly heard friends say this or antagonistic atheists online.

Christians believe that God, a spiritual being, has influence over physical matter. We also believe that demons have similar influences. Science can explain a physical process but it cannot rule out spiritual influence on physical processes, since, as many of you have said, spiritual beings are beyond our five senses.


Because we are physical beings we get sick due to illnesses that are also physical. Cancer is physical, yet doctors cannot explain why it just disappears when someone is healed.

So my question is: How would you want an illness to be so that it could be proven that only the supernatural could be explained? And do you really think that even if it were that way they would ever admit to that?

#12 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 December 2011 - 02:32 AM

I meant "nuclear reactors" or "pizzas" as example of consisting of physical substance.

Well, aren't angels and demons really of no substance found on physical earth other than "spirit" which is beyond scientific examination? Ghostbusters aside, we really can't reach into the spirit realm and take a sample of a spirit's "ectoplasm, " so angels are not of a "different" substance. They are of no substance just as God is a spirit. The spirit realm is a reality but it's a reality that is beyond physical science.

I did use the term substance a bit different the just referring to physical substance. To me there can be non-physical substances as well, like spirit. By trying to measure non-physical substances with means for physical substances and hence disprove existence ideological materialists make category mistakes.

#13 Richard

Richard

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, Florida
  • Interests:Family, Theology, Philosophy, Politics, Creation/Evolution Debate, Scuba Diving, Fishing,
  • Age: 56
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:39 AM

I meant "nuclear reactors" or "pizzas" as example of consisting of physical substance.
I did use the term substance a bit different the just referring to physical substance. To me there can be non-physical substances as well, like spirit. By trying to measure non-physical substances with means for physical substances and hence disprove existence ideological materialists make category mistakes.


I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you asking if the spirit realm can be scientifically tested or measured?

#14 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 December 2011 - 05:55 PM

So my question is: How would you want an illness to be so that it could be proven that only the supernatural could be explained? And do you really think that even if it were that way they would ever admit to that?


Scientists are never satisfied with an unknown cause, and therefore, since we cannot detect a supernatural cause, it would remain unknown, and the scientist would not be satisfied.

#15 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:19 PM

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you asking if the spirit realm can be scientifically tested or measured?

My statement is that spirit is a kind of substance as well, just not physical.
I meant that the spirit realm can not be tested or measure by methods applicable to the physical realm. Hence you can't disprove it, by referring by tests and measurements made with that method. Still that is essentially what atheists and materialists are doing.

#16 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 17 December 2011 - 05:07 AM

I bring this up because I have heard a small number of people claim that since we now have a better of understanding of what illness is, it is silly to say that demons cause disease as the Bible states.


Might I bring in the "Placebo" for this subject.

If illness's are strictly a physical ailment of a physical structure then how can a placebo have any affect at all?

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2011 - 05:25 PM

If we can explain some observed process through scientific theory or laws, does that mean God or demons have no influence on these processes?




Yet all we observe and "experience" is "experienced as non-material phenomena as experience itself"

Furthermore, how does knowing HOW a process occurs disqualify the influence of God or demons etc? As I have believed, Science and Religion are opposite sides of the same coin. Science mostly shows how things occur whereas Religion mostly shows why.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:46 PM

Might I bring in the "Placebo" for this subject.

If illness's are strictly a physical ailment of a physical structure then how can a placebo have any affect at all?



I was taught that a placebo has no effect but is used in medical trials to ensure that all patients think they have the drug, this is to reduce the random error or variations caused by human behavior. If someone knew they were not given the actual drug he / she may act differently than if he / she was, which in turn may create a random error or variance on what "would" or could have occurred. This is based on the assumption that all people will behave the same when all treated the same, yet we know this is not true.

The placebo group is also a control group, from which data can be correlated with the test group to show if there were any improvements in overall patient condition.


Of course such practices are governed by heath boards and are only used when there is no / minimal risk to human life.

#19 Bonobo Loco

Bonobo Loco

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Seattle

Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:26 PM

If we can explain some observed process through scientific theory or laws, does that mean God or demons have no influence on these processes?


God and demons are not supported by evidence so not within the boundaries of what science can research.

The question is: How do laws come into existence, Science would have us believe that laws just exist and are able to work together and allow things to work the way they do. Yet they cannot show one speck of proof for this claim. The only reason they make such a claim is because it is the only one that will support their naturalistic theory of evolution that does not support anything intelligent,

But since they will make this claim let's see if:
1) They can show proof of this?
2) Explain the process of this?
3) Show how each law some how just came into being balanced to bring order to what would have been chaos?

Let's use some examples:

1) Laws of thermodynamics:
The first law makes it clear the difference between energy transfer as work, and energy transfer as heat.
The second law shows the differences between reversible and irreversible physical processes.It also shows the existence of a mathematical quantity called the entropy of a system.
The third law shows the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature.

Now does all these things take math, logic, conclusion etc...? Now does all that take intelligence to make work or poof it just happens? I could go on and on with each type law and work out the same conclusions.

Math takes intelligence,
Logic takes intelligence,
Conclusions take intelligence.
And to put it all together to make it work would take someone with endless knowledge.

And guess what. all that fits. Science cannot even begin to explain how laws came to exist naturally, So when science explains something using the laws that exist, they are using laws that have to be created by an intelligent being.


Re: Laws. We use the english word "law" but it's not meant the same way you'd mean when you talk about the legal system, for example. The "laws" of science are really just descriptions of how things work. Something like the laws of thermodynamics are descriptions of how heat travels. Molecules move from a more excited state to a less excited state because to go in the other direction would require an input of energy. Would it logically make sense if the universe worked the other way?

Something like the "law" of gravity is a description of the fact that objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass. So when we're talking about the "laws", all we're really saying is that the universe has qualities. There is a way the universe is and a way it is not. None of this is evidence that the universe needed a "maker". Would it make sense for the universe to not have properties? Is that even logically possible? No, this argument fails.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:01 AM

God and demons are not supported by evidence so not within the boundaries of what science can research.



Re: Laws. We use the english word "law" but it's not meant the same way you'd mean when you talk about the legal system, for example. The "laws" of science are really just descriptions of how things work. Something like the laws of thermodynamics are descriptions of how heat travels. Molecules move from a more excited state to a less excited state because to go in the other direction would require an input of energy. Would it logically make sense if the universe worked the other way?

Something like the "law" of gravity is a description of the fact that objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass. So when we're talking about the "laws", all we're really saying is that the universe has qualities. There is a way the universe is and a way it is not. None of this is evidence that the universe needed a "maker". Would it make sense for the universe to not have properties? Is that even logically possible? No, this argument fails.


Even though you are banned I will rebut anyway, Basically you did not prove anything scientifically. Just words which means you failed,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users