Let us develop a scientific Religion

[mynameisDan]

If gods have any effect whatsoever on the natural world, we should be able to detect it. Of course, there can be no claims to god existence that are credible unless a clear effect demonstrating the existence of gods has been observed. If not, the claims are worthless.

I didn't say the God has had no effect upon the natural world, but the only way you could "detect it" would be if it occured in your observation and it was repeatable. Science is not the right method for this. God chooses to let the natural world opperate naturally most of the time. But this in no way deny's the existance of God or the supernatural world.

The existance of the natural world is itself evidence for God, as is the existance of living things. Science has taught us that living things do not spontaneously generate from "lifeless" matter. It just doesn't happen. No explanation has ever been advanced to explain it other than divine creation. Life comes from life, this is scientific fact, not just so stories and fairy dust. Perhaps this is why former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle once remarked, There must be a God! Perhaps this is also why Dr. Dean Kenyon who wrote the book on abiogensis, reversed himself and admitted that it is impossible. He is now a Christian in the ID movement.

Other ways of arriving at God are through evidences offered by Christian faith, which include fulfilled prohecy and the resurrection miracle, the internal consistancy of the bible etc.. One former athiest, Dr. Antony Flew, stated that for a christian to believe in their faith because of the evidence for the resurrection miracle alone is completely "rational". And of course. Dr. Flew, the foremost atheist of the last Century who has debated more theists and written more books on the subject, should know. He is now a deist because like Aristotle, he "must follow where the evidence leads". Now I ask you. If believing in God is equivalent to faith in a flying spagetti monster in the center of the universe", how do you explain Dr. Flew???? Answer, you can't, but no matter, we really didn't expect a rational answer from an atheist anyway

 

[spidergoat]

I guess you never heard of abiogenesis?

 

[Avatar]

evidences offered by Christian faith

I'm tempted to frame this somewhere.
If I would have done this in Sciforums, I'd have a gallery by now.

Any way, this is degrading fast into a religious discourse. So a warning - all further faith talk will be dealt with. Painfully.

 

[Avatar]

The ascension to heavens is not within the 4 dimensions we know about...

11 dimensions according to M-theory. Any way, that's exactly my point - a metaphor has been interpreted (abused) by stating that it's a fact.

 

[S.A.M.]

I wonder when people will realise that doubt hesitates, when faith moves?

 

[(Q)]

I didn't say the God has had no effect upon the natural world, but the only way you could "detect it" would be if it occured in your observation and it was repeatable. Science is not the right method for this.

On the contrary, science, by definition, has the unequivocal attributes to analyze repeatability of observational results.

The existance of the natural world is itself evidence for God, as is the existance of living things.

Your jumping to a conclusion that makes no sense, the only evidence that the natural world exhibits is it's own existence, and from that science helps to learn how nature works.

No "Made in Heaven" stickers or labels have yet to be found.

Science has taught us that living things do not spontaneously generate from "lifeless" matter.

That is a lie.

It just doesn't happen.

That is your faith based opinion.

No explanation has ever been advanced to explain it other than divine creation.

The fact that you haven't bothered to understand those explanations does not preclude the fact explanations contained within the bible must advocate the use of supernatural magic while those put forth beyond biblical scriptures observe nature itself.

Other ways of arriving at God are through evidences offered by Christian faith, which include fulfilled prohecy and the resurrection miracle, the internal consistancy of the bible etc..

The bible is self consistent in that no other sources other than to "itself" can be compared.

One former athiest, Dr. Antony Flew, stated that for a christian to believe in their faith because of the evidence for the resurrection miracle alone is completely "rational".

And of course. Dr. Flew, the foremost atheist of the last Century who has debated more theists and written more books on the subject, should know. He is now a deist because like Aristotle, he "must follow where the evidence leads". Now I ask you. If believing in God is equivalent to faith in a flying spagetti monster in the center of the universe", how do you explain Dr. Flew???? Answer, you can't, but no matter, we really didn't expect a rational answer from an atheist anyway

He's in his mid 80's and has Alzheimer's?

The good doctor does not hold YOUR beliefs, he is NOT a Christian. He is simply advocating a form of Intelligent Design, creationism.

Let's also not forget the good doctor was a philosopher, not a scientist.

 

[Avatar]

Thread closed and some posts deleted due to religious interference.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

This thread will be unlocked in a few days, maybe.