by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Seraph. I did not volunteer mathematical theory into the discussion.
I did not say science iS proof, I said science seeks proof, note the difference.
What science predicates (says in context) about a theory does not mean its taken to be true until proved false its actually vice versa,
Theists / deists on the other hand believe the god theory first and dare science to disprove it, should they not also seek proof for such a fantastical theory /belief?
I believe in God galaxie but I wouldn’t call it a theory, nor would I dare science to disprove it as such. Those who do are making an error in my view. It’s not possible to get material proof of something immaterial. Evidence for miracles if true is also not proof because there can be no proof for miracles even if they happen. If one believes, it is down to their own judgement at the end of the day. Science may seek proof but it will wait a long time for it in my view.
thank you, all above posters^^^^^
This page is (for me)the most civil and useful Post Script to the Epic Tsunami Thread (officially titled "the Pastor of My Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday").
I feel as though I can retire from the forum for a while and just....get on with my life.
It is good food for thought.
Maeve
theism has NOT made science impossible at all - DD
Your right is hasn't. However theism does make science impossible in theory.
Theists can only do science by what I called a "benevolent hypocrisy" in the OP.
They can assert on a Sunday that god is immanent and active in the world, but in the lab on a Monday morning they must resolutely affirm that he does not.
Or they believe that God wont interfere with the general order of things.
Then they are deists not theists. Please see OP for specific example.
Seraph. Have you taken an interest in much debate about belief/ non belief in god.
The theists/deists constantly ask for proof from science of the non existence of god as a counter argument.thats putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'.
If you don't see belief that god exists as a theory, how do you rationally explain the existence. Even belief through faith is no more than guess work.
You say you can't get proof of something material from something immaterial, do you therefore discount the accounts in the bible where that has supposed to have occurred?
You say there can be no proof for miracles, why do theists/deists believe them? Do they just like supernatural fairy stories.
You say if you believe its down to your own judgement? Would it not be more intelligent/productive to have something concrete to base it on.
Science should be congratulated for at least trying to give an answer no matter how long it takes.
Now when he collates the results of the trial how does he factor-in the answers to prayers?
As JeffT alluded to, the hidden assumption in this statement is that the scientist HAS to somehow factor-in his prayers in the trial. But he doesn't. All he is doing is measuring results using the scientific method. If the old ladies heart is improved in the trial results, that's all he would report on. He may privately wonder whether the improvement is an answer to his prayers or purely the new drug, or wonder if God helped him create the new drug, or if God guided his career choice as a life-saving scientist, or whatever, but that's irrelevant. Nor does it proves he is some kind of hypocrite.
Yadda - The theist doctor believes that god hears prayers for healing.
Of course he can only report using the rules of double-blind trials, but in doing so he is forced to accept that his results on the efficacy of the new heart drug are flawed.
A theist must believe that god is active in the world - a scientist must assume he is not. Thus the reference to "benevolent hypocrisy".
Cofty I said general order, thus allowing for individual and specific instances of God acting in the physical world. These would exclude interfering in the case of scientific experiments.
Galaxie I am quite interested in the belief and non-belief debate as you surmise. I think that science is not the only rational enterprise out there but when it comes to the natural world and its perceived laws, I see this as evidence of something non-scientific because I don’t see science explaining science. Where did science come from or the natural laws as they are seen to work? The universe apparently did come from immaterial energy, even though no one really knows what this energy would look like without some kind of form.
When it comes to miracles I don’t see them as proof or scientific evidence but evidence of a non-scientific variety. Take the Turin shroud for an example. It is possibly the result of forgery or a natural process. However it could also be the result of a non-natural cause or miracle, as such things are called. Scientific enquiry will either come up with an unknown as the cause, or substitute a best scientific guess no matter how unlikely that guess might be. It can never say a miracle, as this is non-scientific by definition, even if it were a miracle. The evidence for a believer comes from how unlikely the scientific guess is and the amount of provenance connected to the event or object in question. It is not conclusive in the scientific sense but enough to convince beyond mere guess work. So in this sense it is down to one’s own judgement in these areas and even more so if the event is personal.
