Logic

Originally posted by PatNovak
It would be true that science can’t address the question of a deist god, but it could possibly address the question of a god like the Christian god. A deistic god just sets things in motion and doesn’t intervene after that, so it would be virtually impossible to detect a god like that. However, the Christian god is portrayed as a “living god” that routinely ...[text shortened]... laim it has), then the claim enters the realm of science, and can be put to scientific scrutiny.

You strike near the truth with your comments. There can be no proof of God because proof would undermine a key concept in religion, that of free will. So yes, God takes pains to prevent proof of His existence from being recorded. Man must come to God through faith alone. Proof destroys this. Consider that God has only shown Himself (or spoken to) those who already had faith in Him. This is also the reason there can be no "young earth creation" for, if proved, this would absolutely prove a divine hand was responsible. Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression. Man not only has to learn to have enough faith to believe in God, he also has to be given the alternative so that he could also logically choose another way. Free will must be maintained. Just as the mark of the beast will not be "forced" on mankind, it must be accepted willfully in order for man to be condemned by it, so must God be "chosen" willfully, through faith, from the available alternatives. In this way, man's fate is in his own hands. We choose our own fate, and this is why free will is so critical. All that is left is for us to choose... "wisely".

Originally posted by Penguin
It was a young-earth-creationist to whom his post was directed. I don't think you should feel any need to leap to RJ's defense here.

Penguin

I am hardly coming to his defense. He does Christianity as a whole no favors. He offers our entire religion up as the ravings of a bunch of "whack jobs".

What I am trying to do is come to the defense of Christians who are not "whack jobs", yet are thrown in the same boat as people like RJH.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You strike near the truth with your comments. There can be no proof of God because proof would undermine a key concept in religion, that of free will. So yes, God takes pains to prevent proof of His existence from being recorded. Man must come to God through faith alone. Proof destroys this. Consider that God has only shown Himself (or spoken to) those ...[text shortened]... te, and this is why free will is so critical. All that is left is for us to choose... "wisely".

Your argument seems to assume (erroneously in my view), that anyone who was offered irrefutable proof of the Christian god’s existence would automatically side with this god, and that the only way to have the possibility of not siding with the Christian god is if we have a lack of proof of this god’s existence. I can certainly imagine a scenario where someone viewed the Christian god in a negative light, and would choose to side against this god, even if they were certain of his existence.

Your argument that free will is only possible in the absence of proof, I find uncompelling. If free will is dependent on anything, it is freedom, not information. Free will does not disappear when a certain level of information is achieved.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I do not see why I have to constantly try to disprove this kind of thinking in this forum.

There happen to be some theists who do not subscribe to the kinds of literal, unimaginative theories that these YECs claim are true. Their "truth of the Bible" comments are egotism in the extreme. What they mean is the "truth of their interpretation of the ...[text shortened]... sides of the same truth coin. That each side derides the other as somehow false is ridiculous.

As Penguin indicated, my post was a response to RJHinds, and was not intended to be a sweeping generalization of Christians. I realize that you and RJ often disagree, but I find it surprising that you would object to this specific post. You and RJ both seem to be arguing that evidence for Christianity cannot be seen without first having faith, so this seems to be a point you agree on.

Originally posted by PatNovak
As Penguin indicated, my post was a response to RJHinds, and was not intended to be a sweeping generalization of Christians. I realize that you and RJ often disagree, but I find it surprising that you would object to this specific post. You and RJ both seem to be arguing that evidence for Christianity cannot be seen without first having faith, so this seems to be a point you agree on.

People like suzianne and sonship, who are willing to compromise on evolution and the age of the earth, believe that YEC people like me are a hinderance to the cause of the gospel message of Jesus because we take the Genesis account literally. They don't think I should be challenging any of the current accepted so-called scientific opinions because they think it makes Christians look stupid. This seems to especially irritate suzianne when they start calling us Christians names like "whack jobs".

Originally posted by RJHinds
People like suzianne and sonship, who are willing to compromise on evolution and the age of the earth, believe that YEC people like me are a hinderance to the cause of the gospel message of Jesus because we take the Genesis account literally. They don't think I should be challenging any of the current accepted so-called scientific opinions because they thin ...[text shortened]... s to especially irritate suzianne when they start calling us Christians names like "whack jobs".

I usually put young earth creationists under the same hat as "Bermuda triangle", "Area 51", "Never landed on the moon", and all other conspiracy tin-foil-hat people.

YECers makes the christian people look stupid.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There can be no proof of God because proof would undermine a key concept in religion, that of free will.

So just to be clear, what did I get wrong about your stance? Are you saying that we could find scientific evidence for God, but that it could never be conclusive evidence?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I usually put young earth creationists under the same hat as "Bermuda triangle", "Area 51", "Never landed on the moon", and all other conspiracy tin-foil-hat people.

YECers makes the christian people look stupid.

Well, that is probably better to suzianne than "Whack Jobs."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, that is probably better to suzianne than "Whack Jobs."

You are in the exact same position of late Flat Earthers who insist our planet is some kind of flat pancake and you will fall off if you take your boat out too far in the ocean.

Some of them are saying that even today and much more forcefully a hundred or two hundred years ago.

But the progress in science has silenced 99.999% of them and with good reason.

It is EXACTLY the same with you and your ilk.

A ever reducing minority till the last YEC'er jumps from the Empire state building in despair knowing full well the battle is over, he and his dead buddies have lost big time and the rest of the world says good riddance and we move into a new world where science obstructionists like you no longer pollute the minds of the young.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I do not see why I have to constantly try to disprove this kind of thinking in this forum.

There happen to be some theists who do not subscribe to the kinds of literal, unimaginative theories that these YECs claim are true. Their "truth of the Bible" comments are egotism in the extreme. What they mean is the "truth of their interpretation of the ...[text shortened]... sides of the same truth coin. That each side derides the other as somehow false is ridiculous.

I want to address the topic of what makes someone pro- or anti-science. Being pro-science does not mean that one agrees with the conclusions of science, but instead means that one agrees with the way science approaches problems. If one person believes the Earth is a few thousand years old because of primarily religious reasons, and another person believes the earth is a few billion years old for primarily religious reasons, then both of those individuals are equally anti-science, even though the second person’s conclusion matches scientific consensus.

In another post, you said, “… there can be no 'young earth creation' for, if proved, this would absolutely prove a divine hand was responsible. Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression.” This makes it clear that you have come to your conclusion about the Earth's formation through religious reasons, and this makes you just as anti-science as a YEC on this issue, even if your position coincides with scientific consensus.

When a person says that faith is a prerequisite to find evidence of god (as you have indicated elsewhere in this thread), they are declaring that you must accept the conclusion of a hypothesis as proven to be true before you can investigate the hypothesis. This way of thinking is the opposite of the scientific method. People who advocate this way of thinking are declaring themselves to be anti-science, and it makes no difference how often their conclusions coincide with scientific consensus.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So just to be clear, what did I get wrong about your stance? Are you saying that we [b]could find scientific evidence for God, but that it could never be conclusive evidence?[/b]

What you get wrong about my stance is that I support science and every advancement in science. But no, science will never find proof of God. Of course, Christians maintain that the universe is full of the evidence of God, but evidence is not proof.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I want to address the topic of what makes someone pro- or anti-science. Being pro-science does not mean that one agrees with the conclusions of science, but instead means that one agrees with the way science approaches problems. If one person believes the Earth is a few thousand years old because of primarily religious reasons, and another person believes t ...[text shortened]... ence, and it makes no difference how often their conclusions coincide with scientific consensus.

No, this is outrageously false. Just because I support a Creator's existence, and that He used established laws of physics and nature to have done the work of creation does not mean that I eschew the science behind the creation. Mankind would still be in the Dark Ages without science, and it is a testimony to the intelligence our Creator has endowed us with. To say that everything is the pure result of science is as stupid as saying everything is the pure result of a supernatural being waving his magic wand and "poof"ing things into existence. Both together form the basis of the truth of the matter, and I seem to be the only one in this entire forum with this view. Yes, I understand that both sides will have their "purists". But both types of "purist" are wrong.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What you get wrong about my stance is that I support science and every advancement in science.

I did not say otherwise.

But no, science will never find proof of God. Of course, Christians maintain that the universe is full of the evidence of God, but evidence is not proof.
So are you saying the evidence is inconclusive? That there are other, reasonable interpretations of the evidence, or are you saying that the evidence, although it points towards Gods existence is just not good enough to be considered proof?

Originally posted by Suzianne
.... and it is a testimony to the intelligence our Creator has endowed us with.

Except that science tells us that evolution endowed us with intelligence. You can't honestly claim to accept science and then throw out all its results.

To say that everything is the pure result of science is as stupid as saying everything is the pure result of a supernatural being waving his magic wand and "poof"ing things into existence.
Actually its sillier. I am guessing you meant 'the pure result of scientific laws', then it might make some sense.

Both together form the basis of the truth of the matter, and I seem to be the only one in this entire forum with this view.
A fact that should give you pause for thought. If it is so lacking in silliness, and every one elses position is silly, why are you having so much trouble convincing others that your position is right?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, this is outrageously false. Just because I support a Creator's existence, and that He used established laws of physics and nature to have done the work of creation does not mean that I eschew the science behind the creation. Mankind would still be in the Dark Ages without science, and it is a testimony to the intelligence our Creator has endowed us wi ...[text shortened]... , I understand that both sides will have their "purists". But both types of "purist" are wrong.

Saying that you support the way science approaches problems, except when it conflicts with your beliefs, is not an acceptance of scientific thinking, but a rejection of it.

Calling me a "purist" and comparing me to “purists” on the other side is nothing more than an attempt at an ad hominem attack, and does not address any of my arguments. Also, I dispute your notion that being the centrist in a debate, even were it true of you in this case (which I would also dispute), makes your position more likely to be true (see the Argument to Moderation Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation).

Your post does not address any of my arguments, but merely restates your position that because you accept science when it doesn’t conflict with you beliefs, that makes you pro-science. My contention is that this makes you anti-science, and I stand by my claim and arguments.