Science v religion...

[woot]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm happy you admit it is possible that extra-terrestrial intelligent beings not only exist, but have interacted with and influenced life on this planet.

That's all I asked of you, and you eventually complied and agreed.

We're fine now.

Is this your favorite tactic to annoy people or are you hearing voices in your head?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by woot

Is this your favorite tactic to annoy people or are you hearing voices in your head?

are you saying you disagree?

We can go through the whole process again. You disagree, and point out objections. I refute your objections. Then you claim that you never disagreed, etc.

Do we really have to do it again?

Does it hurt that much, to finally agree with me?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

Well this will be dead end, since it can always be claimed that God has natural work-arounds and that there really is no such thing as a miracle in the "supernatural" sense of the word, but I would point to healing the sick, raising the dead, the spirit world being here, all around us but in a supernatural dimension, God's ability to communicate with humans (whether he travels here or not), the whole idea of spirits, and the holy ghost. These all represent miraculous things that would seem to break the laws of nature. I don't think someone who claims that all these things are explainable and that they don't break natural law should also get to pick and choose scientific principles that they think back their claims.

Those things you mention are considered breaking natural law to us mere mortals. For us, they could be considered miraculous, but how do we know that they are incompatible with the natural law that God has to follow?

I believe God is omnipotent and lives in state of existence that we are incapable of understanding. For him, nothing is impossible nor is it improbable. It just is.

[woot]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are you saying you disagree?

We can go through the whole process again. You disagree, and point out objections. I refute your objections. Then you claim that you never disagreed, etc.

Do we really have to do it again?

Does it hurt that much, to finally agree with me?

Please point to where my position has changed. Use in-context quotes. I think God is possible, I think Russell's teapot is possible, I think invisible pink unicorns are possible. I think bending space-time to allow for time-travel is possible. Don't act like it's a victory that I think something is possible.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by woot

Please point to where my position has changed. Use in-context quotes. I think God is possible, I think Russell's teapot is possible, I think invisible pink unicorns are possible. I think bending space-time to allow for time-travel is possible. Don't act like it's a victory that I think something is possible.

You're just mad that I'm celebrating. "Sure you won the game, but why do you have to go around smiling? What a jerk."

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Those things you mention are considered breaking natural law to us mere mortals. For us, they could be considered miraculous, but how do we know that they are incompatible with the natural law that God has to follow?

I believe God is omnipotent and lives in state of existence that we are incapable of understanding. For him, nothing is impossible nor is it improbable. It just is.

Right. That's the response I predicted. But if that is true, then it's possible that everything science has ever discovered is false, and that God only made it seem like we were discovering something. Surely you see the logical issues with using science to back up a certain set of beliefs but immediately claiming that science doesn't work when it contradicts something.

[woot]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You're just mad that I'm celebrating. "Sure you won the game, but why do you have to go around smiling? What a jerk."

If you enjoy celebrating a change of position that occurred a decade or so ago, wait until you learn that we mapped the genome.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

Right. That's the response I predicted. But if that is true, then it's possible that everything science has ever discovered is false, and that God only made it seem like we were discovering something. Surely you see the logical issues with using science to back up a certain set of beliefs but immediately claiming that science doesn't work when it contradicts something.

Is it possible for God to have done that? Sure. But why would he do that? What benefit does God receive by doing that?

As for the logical issues of using science to explain beliefs and then claiming it doesn't work because of contradictions, I'll be honest and admit that I don't see what you see. If something happens that I don't understand, I don't worry about it. I don't see how it means that God isn't bound by natural laws. I just look at it as more of a "Ok, that was kinda cool" and move on.

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Is it possible for God to have done that? Sure. But why would he do that? What benefit does God receive by doing that?

As for the logical issues of using science to explain beliefs and then claiming it doesn't work because of contradictions, I'll be honest and admit that I don't see what you see. If something happens that I don't understand, I don't worry about it. I don't see how it means that God isn't bound by natural laws. I just look at it as more of a "Ok, that was kinda cool" and move on.

Oh I don't see it that way either. I just assume that there was a natural reason for it, or I go find out what reason that is. I agree that there are some important logical arguments against believing in a God who would deceive his supposed children, but those arguments are generally fruitless, since they require a nuance that someone willing to believe in a deceptive God doesn't generally possess.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh I don't see it that way either. I just assume that there was a natural reason for it, or I go find out what reason that is. I agree that there are some important logical arguments against believing in a God who would deceive his supposed children, but those arguments are generally fruitless, since they require a nuance that someone willing to believe in a deceptive God doesn't generally possess.

Understood.

I just know that I have enough problems of my own to worry about things that I don't understand, but I'll just be in trouble when my kids start to figure out that I really don't know everything.