There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[Jan Ardena]

In other words you cannot provide any rational answers to my questions and you cannot support your position.
Way to go: make claims, obfuscate, redirect, and then accuse me of wasting time while failing spectacularly to substantiate any of your statements.
Thanks Jan, you have, once more, shown yourself to be incapable of holding a rational position or sustaining a coherent "conversation".

You know, that's the most dangerous aspect to you guys, you are prepared to accept your foolishness as outright truth.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Really?
And what evidence do you have that these aren't explicable by scientific investigation?
Don't tell me. Because YOU say so.

What scientific explanation is there, that is a product of the scientific method?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You know, that's the most dangerous aspect to you guys, you are prepared to accept your foolishness as outright truth.
jan.

Coming from someone who has made claim after claim after claim and not supported a single one of them that's a rather fatuous remark.
But then that, too, is typical of you.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What scientific explanation is there, that is a product of the scientific method?
jan.

Let's try again. Please note that I am writing this in English.
You claimed that "the creation of living beings, consciousness...." is NOT explicable by scientific investigation.
How do you know?
Can you show that this claim is true?
Or are you simply falling back on belief? Again.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Let's try again. Please note that I am writing this in English.
You claimed that "the creation of living beings, consciousness...." is NOT explicable by scientific investigation.
How do you know?
Can you show that this claim is true?
Or are you simply falling back on belief? Again.

No I can't.
Can you answer my question?

What scientific explanation is there, that is a product of the scientific method?

thanks
jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No I can't.

So you were lying.
Thanks.

Can you answer my question?
What scientific explanation is there, that is a product of the scientific method?
thanks
jan.

Presumably you mean "what explanation is there now?"
As you well know, we don't have one. This does mean that we will never have one.
So I'll reiterate something I wrote earlier:

How has yet to be answered. Until it is answered (or shown to be impossible to answer) I'd prefer not to assign mythical beings as the cause simply because we don't know.

Post 106.

Let's try again: you decided that god is responsible because it has not (so far) been shown how life started.
You have made your mind up that, since we do not currently have an answer to this question, it must be god.
Do you also decide "god" is the answer for all questions you can't answer outright?

Care to respond?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So what was the point of;

"Anything that could only be god. I.e. something that isn't explicable by any ordinary scientific investigation. "

In response to what you would consider evidence.

jan.

 

[Rav]

Rav might have a better argument if he was talking about philosophy rather than science. Unlike science, philosophy isn't necessarily naturalistic. Philosophy often proposes exotic non-naturalistic theories for the kind of events that science would attempt to explain naturalistically. Examples of that might be the various kinds of philosophical idealism.

I'm about as naturalistic as you can get. I do not believe that anything that does not have physical properties can possibly exist. I'm as certain about this as I am about anything. But does this rule out the possibility of the existence of something we might call God? Not necessarily. It only means that God is not supernatural.

As you've pointed out before Yazata, discussions such as this one often suffer from the problems associated with not defining exactly what kind of God we are talking about. It seems that the default God on these forums is the one featured in Judeo-Christian theology but that is not the God I typically concern myself with. God is, to me, nothing more than a non-specific largely undefined philosophical concept.

The reason that I don't completely reject the idea of God like true atheists do is simply because there is no way to be absolutely certain that it is an impossibility. So when I respond the way I initially did to Dywyddyr, I am simply defending the intellectual position of agnostic atheism rather than a belief in any particular God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So what was the point of;
"Anything that could only be god. I.e. something that isn't explicable by any ordinary scientific investigation. "
In response to what you would consider evidence.
jan.

I'll try one more time.

Let's try again: you decided that god is responsible because it has not (so far) been shown how life started.
You have made your mind up that, since we do not currently have an answer to this question, it must be god.
Do you also decide "god" is the answer for all questions you can't answer outright?

And I will ask one more time:

And what evidence do you have that these aren't explicable by scientific investigation?

 

[John99]

The reason that I don't completely reject the idea of God like true atheists do is simply because there is no way to be absolutely certain that it is an impossibility. So when I respond the way I initially did to Dywyddyr, I am simply defending the intellectual position of agnostic atheism rather than a belief in any particular God.

I think you have to be one or the other.

Lets review the positions:

Theism = Belief a God exists.
Religious = Belief in a specific God
Agnostic = There may be a God
Atheism = There is no God

 

[Rav]

I think you have to be one or the other.

From the Wikipedia page I linked to:

"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists."

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'll try one more time.

And I will ask one more time:

Stop shifting goal-posts.

you said in response to what you would regard as evidence;

Anything that could only be god. I.e. something that isn't explicable by any ordinary scientific investigation.

I said living beings and consciousness.

Now, if these cannot be explained by process of the scientific method, what then?

The ball is in your court.
Deal with it.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Stop shifting goal-posts.

And you singularly failing to understand.

you said in response to what you would regard as evidence;
I said living beings and consciousness.

Now, if these cannot be explained by process of the scientific method, what then?
The ball is in your court.
Deal with it.
jan.

So, once again; are these unexplainable by the scientific method?
Yes or no?
Bearing in mind that you have (at least once before) claimed they are NOT explicable using science and then also stated that you can't show this to be true.

The only thing I have to "deal with" is your persistent ignorance.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

"religion is all about believing something specifically where there is no evidence (faith), whereas science is all about evidence".

The above quote is absurd and weak. But that is not the faith of Catholicism, which has for 2000 years had some of the greatest minds in history probing both natural and divine revelation using the tools of logic and rationality. Heck, that is why there is such a field as theology in the first place. The Catholic faith is a rational faith, which is not a faith based upon lack of evidence, but rather overwhelming evidence to believe in something not directly seen.

The trouble with science, on the other hand, is that it's "evidence" is restricted to the material realm and by definition could not explain or even observe immaterial evidence. So while science may be "all about evidence," it is evidence of only a particular sort and is blinded to the bigger picture.

However, this all can be "worked out" by synthesizing the two. By understanding that science answers "how" God did/does things, and religion (faith) answers "why" God does things. Both of which are aided by revelation, both natural (the laws of physics and chemistry) and supernatural (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium), as well as reason, philosophy, and logic.

 

[John99]

From the Wikipedia page I linked to:

"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity...

...and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists."

So it is saying that Atheism does not exist or, in reality, cannot exist? In point of fact all Atheists are Agnostic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The above quote is absurd and weak.

Wrong.

But that is not the faith of Catholicism, which has for 2000 years had some of the greatest minds in history probing both natural and divine revelation using the tools of logic and rationality.

And has, so far singularly failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for its claims.

The Catholic faith is a rational faith, which is not a faith based upon lack of evidence, but rather overwhelming evidence to believe in something not directly seen.

I.e. something with zero evidence.

The trouble with science, on the other hand, is that it's "evidence" is restricted to the material realm and by definition could not explain or even observe immaterial evidence. So while science may be "all about evidence," it is evidence of only a particular sort and is blinded to the bigger picture.

Could you please give an example of "immaterial evidence" in this context?
Could you also give an example of something in the "immaterial realm" that can truly be shown to exist?

However, this all can be "worked out" by synthesizing the two. By understanding that science answers "how" God did/does things, and religion (faith) answers "why" God does things.

Except that accepting religious answers as part of the synthesis also means working from an unevidenced basis.

Both of which are aided by revelation, both natural (the laws of physics and chemistry) and supernatural (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium), as well as reason, philosophy, and logic.

Please define what you mean by "revelation" (specifically supernatural revelation) and show how this revelation can be shown to be true.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddy,

So, will you accept the presence of life and consciousness, as evidence of God, as per your response. Or can you show otherwise?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So, will you accept the presence of life and consciousness, as evidence of God, as per your response.

No, since there is no requirement to do so. As per my response.

Or can you show otherwise?

I will ask again:

So, once again; are these unexplainable by the scientific method?

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, since there is no requirement to do so. As per my response.


I will ask again:

Let's try again: you decided that god is responsible because it has not (so far) been shown how life started.
You have made your mind up that, since we do not currently have an answer to this question, it must be god.
Do you also decide "god" is the answer for all questions you can't answer outright?

This is not a response to my question, and as such irrelevant.

You laid down a challenge, which was met.
Whether or not I think they they are explicable, or not, by scientific method, should have no bearing on the outcome of your answer, as this is not the point of our discussion.
However, I imagaine that if it were explicable by scientific method you would have blurted it out by now. So I can only assume that you are now stuck between a rock and a hard place, why you are constantly diverting the attention toward me, and away from your mistake.



thanks,
jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is not a response to my question, and as such irrelevant.

Incorrect.
Or do you somehow not consider the word "no" to be a response to a question?

You laid down a challenge, which was met.

Also incorrect.

Whether or not I think they they are explicable, or not, by scientific method, should have no bearing on the outcome of your answer, as this is not the point of our discussion.

Pardon?

However, I imagaine that if it were explicable by scientific method you would have blurted it out by now.

You are being disingenuous, as usual.

So I can only assume that you are now stuck between a rock and a hard place, why you are constantly diverting the attention toward me, and away from your mistake.

And as usual you are mistaken. And resorting to lies.
I will repeat my position as given:
Let's try again: you decided that god is responsible because it has not (so far) been shown how life started.
You have made your mind up that, since we do not currently have an answer to this question, it must be god.
Do you also decide "god" is the answer for all questions you can't answer outright?
And: are these unexplainable by the scientific method?