[__ Science __ ] All bets are off

[brujaq]

So I've been told that science must be free of the supernatural existence . I say ''what do you do with the elephant in the room'' . I've seen a lot of miracles, prophecy is coming true, and Jesus remains the same .
There are science and natural law created by God that he routinely intercedes and overrides at our request or according to his will . I love science and God together . I don't get how Atheists can throw God out of the science equation and look down their nose at believers .

 

[Milk-Drops]

Science tends to follow methodological naturalism. The point of science is to find out how everything works through experimentation and using the scientific method to test a hypothesis and theory with the gathered data. That means that factors have to be defined and catagorized and tested. When we are talking about miricals you need to define the parameters to explain it with science.

Many atheists ( including myself) that I have talked to don't look down at theists, but we mostly get frustrated trying to explain that simply saying "god did it" doesn't fulfil the burden of proof. Now if you believe God did something and you want to test the parameters to see how he did it, great. Also most of the atheists I know when talking about science and God left their religion because their faith stopped making sense the more they investigated their specific fields. That doesn't mean a Christian can't be a scientists, but we see in areas of Evolutionary Biology, Physics, and Geology that the more a person is invested in the field, the more likely they are to be religious.

That is about it really.

 

[brujaq]

Science tends to follow methodological naturalism. The point of science is to find out how everything works through experimentation and using the scientific method to test a hypothesis and theory with the gathered data. That means that factors have to be defined and catagorized and tested. When we are talking about miricals you need to define the parameters to explain it with science.

Many atheists ( including myself) that I have talked to don't look down at theists, but we mostly get frustrated trying to explain that simply saying "god did it" doesn't fulfil the burden of proof. Now if you believe God did something and you want to test the parameters to see how he did it, great. Also most of the atheists I know when talking about science and God left their religion because their faith stopped making sense the more they investigated their specific fields. That doesn't mean a Christian can't be a scientists, but we see in areas of Evolutionary Biology, Physics, and Geology that the more a person is invested in the field, the more likely they are to be religious.

That is about it really.

Like I've mentioned , I was an Atheist and a whole lot nastier than you could imagine . My beef is that much of the science community discounts supernatural events and imo that is dishonest . But I understand they have to protect their personal investment . I have a couple examples but I could write a book . I was asked by an Atheist ''non believer'' to come pray for his mother in law . She was blind for two years and scheduled for experimental surgery . I had met him random and prayed for his sick son who was in the emergency room healed by the time he made it back to the hospital, anyway I said sure . I went , prayed and anointed her with oil and the next day he was at the house again to tell me the Dr.s dropped their instruments as they were ready to begin and said ''she's healed, there's nothing wrong'' . These thing happen all the time but folks can't stand God or give Jesus credit . My Grandmother was lost in Alzheimers and she made an annoying sound with every breath she took the attendants at the nursing home had little regard for her . I fasted and prayed then anointed her with oil asking Jesus to give her something, anything, then I sang a couple hymms when she began to sing . From that moment til the day she died she sang with every breath she took, even began to play the piano and sing when local ministers would come to hold service . The Dr , staff, preachers , everyone was amazed and she became the darling of the nursing home instead of abuse .. So here's my point, If the supernatural exists and there's ever even been one instance of a supernatural event happening then it must be factored in imo ..God bless you ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

Like I've mentioned , I was an Atheist and a whole lot nastier than you could imagine . My beef is that much of the science community discounts supernatural events and imo that is dishonest . But I understand they have to protect their personal investment .

I think you miss the major reason why super natural events aren't taken into account. Science is about testing and building models to work with and explain the world. Super Natural elements are described as being "super natural" meaning its above what science can even test for, which is the natural world. Its similar to asking why a plumber doesn't comment on the electrical work, its not the correct field. Not to mention that super natural doesn't function anywhere near what the natural world functions as, so science can't even begin to tackle it without some kind of frame work that can be tested.

I have a couple examples but I could write a book . I was asked by an Atheist ''non believer'' to come pray for his mother in law . She was blind for two years and scheduled for experimental surgery . I had met him random and prayed for his sick son who was in the emergency room healed by the time he made it back to the hospital, anyway I said sure . I went , prayed and anointed her with oil and the next day he was at the house again to tell me the Dr.s dropped their instruments as they were ready to begin and said ''she's healed, there's nothing wrong'' . These thing happen all the time but folks can't stand God or give Jesus credit . My Grandmother was lost in Alzheimers and she made an annoying sound with every breath she took the attendants at the nursing home had little regard for her . I fasted and prayed then anointed her with oil asking Jesus to give her something, anything, then I sang a couple hymms when she began to sing . From that moment til the day she died she sang with every breath she took, even began to play the piano and sing when local ministers would come to hold service . The Dr , staff, preachers , everyone was amazed and she became the darling of the nursing home instead of abuse .. So here's my point, If the supernatural exists and there's ever even been one instance of a supernatural event happening then it must be factored in imo ..God bless you ..

My main question then is what would be tested for? Science deals with testing and establishing replicatable experiments to see how a phenomenon works. You mentioned the anointing of oil, well what is the mechanics behind anointing oil and the person being healed? If there isn't a way to test the phenomenon then science can't do anything with it. In those instances scientists are able to say that just don't know or that they are skeptical on how it happens. That isn't dishonest or an insult, its just something the tool of science can't answer.

 

[brujaq]

It simply mean that something much bigger than you and I exists . Science and natural law are regularly intervened supernaturally by the same God who created it to begin with .. I do not accept ''well we don't know what happened'' . But the dishonesty comes for example when the big bang is taught with such confidence and surety then a few later changes then changes then changes then to something from nothing . Eggs are scientifically proven bad for you , then they're good, then they're bad , it goes on and on .. Then Earth age has to be adjusted according to approximations and calculations to how long it should take, sorry there is not enough time to accommodate it all, and you know this.. God bless you

 

[Milk-Drops]

It simply mean that something much bigger than you and I exists .

You can believe that, its cool.

Science and natural law are regularly intervened supernaturally by the same God who created it to begin with .. I do not accept ''well we don't know what happened'' .

Ok, I think you miss the point of what science is. Its a study of the natural world. When you start making super natural claims that can't be tested by science, science can't do anything with it. Its not meant to test claims that can't be broken down into mechanics and testable data.

But the dishonesty comes for example when the big bang is taught with such confidence and surety then a few later changes then changes then changes then to something from nothing .

On a college level Science is taught as a mehtodology and was is taught with confidence is the current findings and knowledge that we have. For instance the Big Bang ( Or the expanding universe model) is the most complete model we currently have that fits with all the data. Its confidently taught and if a model improves our understanding or replaces that model it will replace the Big Bang.

Eggs are scientifically proven bad for you , then they're good, then they're bad , it goes on and on ..

That is actually how popular media portrays studies done in research. Pop media doesn't necessarily care about big picture but about reporting on the studies that fit their narrative. Pop media also tends to follow trends. For instance eggs can be seen as good in a low carb diet but bad in a low cholesterol diet. Its comes down to context and what the research says when compared to the rest of the known research.

Then Earth age has to be adjusted according to approximations and calculations to how long it should take, sorry there is not enough time to accommodate it all, and you know this.. God bless you

That isn't how the Earth's age is calculated. The age of the Earth is calculated through radiometric dating. As the dating methods are more understood the better and more precise the dates can be determined. Plus there are several methods used to compare to to find the more accurate date.

 

[Barbarian]

So I've been told that science must be free of the supernatural existence .

Not quite. Science, depending on observation of the physical universe, is unable to say anything about the supernatural. It can't confirm or deny it.

While science can't approach the supernatural, scientists can. And if that puzzles you, think about it a bit.

 

[brujaq]

Wrong, they can confirm it they just can't explain it with science .

 

[Barbarian]

Wrong, they can confirm it they just can't explain it with science .

No. Science is limited to the natural universe. So it can't comment on the supernatural. But scientists can. And most of us aren't puzzled.

 

[brujaq]

No. Science is limited to the natural universe. So it can't comment on the supernatural. But scientists can. And most of us aren't puzzled.

But if one prophesy, one miracle, one anything supernatural has ever happened then the case is closed and evolution can quit trying to fit their round pegs into square holes . Right ? .. Did I tell you about the man I cast a drinking demon out of in Jesus name during fasting and prayer who was 300 miles away at the time ? I knew it the moment it left him and called this man who hadn't went a day without drinking for over 30 yrs to let him know it .. He give his life to the Lord shortly there after, he told me 8 weeks later ''I just don't have the taste for it any more'' .. But my boss who was also an alcoholic and drank everyday also had the demon cast out of him at the same time told me the same word for word 8 weeks later . He just didn't have the taste for it anymore ..

 

[Barbarian]

But if one prophesy, one miracle, one anything supernatural has ever happened then the case is closed and evolution can quit trying to fit their round pegs into square holes . Right ?

Nope. Science doesn't rule out the supernatural. It just can't say anything about it.

 

[brujaq]

We get this instead ..

 

[Runner]

So I've been told that science must be free of the supernatural existence . I say ''what do you do with the elephant in the room'' . I've seen a lot of miracles, prophecy is coming true, and Jesus remains the same .
There are science and natural law created by God that he routinely intercedes and overrides at our request or according to his will . I love science and God together . I don't get how Atheists can throw God out of the science equation and look down their nose at believers .

The naturalistic paradigm, which is essentially a religion with its own fundamentalist true believers, regards the non-existence of the supernatural as one of its axioms. The paradigm is inextricably tied to atheism. One might as well ask, "Why won't mathematicians consider the possibility that triangles have four sides?"

This is why the evidence for Intelligent Design is such a threat. The evidence on which the proponents of ID focus is precisely the sort of stuff that science has always investigated and analyzed. If the best inference from that evidence - again, what scientists do all the time - were "Intelligent Design," this would threaten the entire naturalistic, atheistic paradigm. A new paradigm would be required - which, again, has occurred throughout the history of science.

As the proponents of ID point out, the new paradigm would not have to posit the Christian God, or any god, as the Intelligent Designer. Perhaps our reality is a cosmic software program, and the Intelligent Designer is some cosmic version of a 15-year-old whiz kid working on his cosmic science project. Or perhaps beings in another dimension created our reality.

The new paradigm would simply be, "We may never know exactly who or what designed our reality, but the best inference from the evidence is that it was intelligently designed." But even this modest new paradigm would overthrow the old one and open the door to a theistic or even Christian explanation, which is why the proponents of the current atheistic paradigm attempt to ridicule and shout down the evidence for ID rather than confronting it directly. Again, this is what the true believers of a ruling paradigm have always done - read Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083.

The point is not that the evidence for ID has reached the stage that the naturalistic paradigm should be overthrown. It is that the evidence put forth by the proponents of ID is precisely the sort of evidence with which science has always dealt and should be given a fair hearing rather than being ridiculed and shouted down in order to preserve the current paradigm.

Max Planck famously stated, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I'm not sure exactly how this will play out since the current atheistic paradigm is so entrenched within the educational system and the scientific community, but it will be interesting to see what the landscape looks like in 100 years.

 

[Milk-Drops]

We get this instead ..

Oh that little interview. That pause at the beginning of that video was not Dawkins not having an explanation, he has written many books explaining just that. The actual silence was because the was the real end of the interview where Dawkins figured out he had been lied to about what the documentary the interviewers were working on was about and some versions of the video show him asking them to leave.

 

[Milk-Drops]

But if one prophesy, one miracle, one anything supernatural has ever happened then the case is closed

Here is the catch 22 for discussing miracles or anything supernatural. How do you know it was a miracle and not just something you don't understand?

and evolution can quit trying to fit their round pegs into square holes . Right ? ..

No, because its the same reason why 1 + 1 = 2. A miracle doesn't change the basis the mechanics are built on.

Did I tell you about the man I cast a drinking demon out of in Jesus name during fasting and prayer who was 300 miles away at the time ? I knew it the moment it left him and called this man who hadn't went a day without drinking for over 30 yrs to let him know it .. He give his life to the Lord shortly there after, he told me 8 weeks later ''I just don't have the taste for it any more'' .. But my boss who was also an alcoholic and drank everyday also had the demon cast out of him at the same time told me the same word for word 8 weeks later . He just didn't have the taste for it anymore ..

How do we know this actually happened? Can we talk to these people? How come you can cast out demons, but other people of faith can't. Why do some people get miracles and others don't?

This is why science can't test it, there is no set framework or way to verify if this stuff actually happened or is real.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The naturalistic paradigm, which is essentially a religion with its own fundamentalist true believers, regards the non-existence of the supernatural as one of its axioms. The paradigm is inextricably tied to atheism. One might as well ask, "Why won't mathematicians consider the possibility that triangles have four sides?"

This is why the evidence for Intelligent Design is such a threat. The evidence on which the proponents of ID focus is precisely the sort of stuff that science has always investigated and analyzed. If the best inference from that evidence - again, what scientists do all the time - were "Intelligent Design," this would threaten the entire naturalistic, atheistic paradigm. A new paradigm would be required - which, again, has occurred throughout the history of science.

As the proponents of ID point out, the new paradigm would not have to posit the Christian God, or any god, as the Intelligent Designer. Perhaps our reality is a cosmic software program, and the Intelligent Designer is some cosmic version of a 15-year-old whiz kid working on his cosmic science project. Or perhaps beings in another dimension created our reality.

The new paradigm would simply be, "We may never know exactly who or what designed our reality, but the best inference from the evidence is that it was intelligently designed." But even this modest new paradigm would overthrow the old one and open the door to a theistic or even Christian explanation, which is why the proponents of the current atheistic paradigm attempt to ridicule and shout down the evidence for ID rather than confronting it directly. Again, this is what the true believers of a ruling paradigm have always done - read Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083.

The point is not that the evidence for ID has reached the stage that the naturalistic paradigm should be overthrown. It is that the evidence put forth by the proponents of ID is precisely the sort of evidence with which science has always dealt and should be given a fair hearing rather than being ridiculed and shouted down in order to preserve the current paradigm.

Max Planck famously stated, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I'm not sure exactly how this will play out since the current atheistic paradigm is so entrenched within the educational system and the scientific community, but it will be interesting to see what the landscape looks like in 100 years.

Most of the big name people that are against ID aren't against it for what you stated. Its actually pretty simple why most are against it and its just not testable. How do test for "Intelligence" when discussing how things formed? Most arguments I've seen tend to anthropamorphize the situation rather than try to look at it from an objective light.

 

[brujaq]

Oh that little interview. That pause at the beginning of that video was not Dawkins not having an explanation, he has written many books explaining just that. The actual silence was because the was the real end of the interview where Dawkins figured out he had been lied to about what the documentary the interviewers were working on was about and some versions of the video show him asking them to leave.

Come on man , that is one question Dawkins should never waver on and he still never answered the question and you can't either, and never mind trying to come up with any BS now, it ain't there .

 

[brujaq]

Here is the catch 22 for discussing miracles or anything supernatural. How do you know it was a miracle and not just something you don't understand?

No, because its the same reason why 1 + 1 = 2. A miracle doesn't change the basis the mechanics are built on.

How do we know this actually happened? Can we talk to these people? How come you can cast out demons, but other people of faith can't. Why do some people get miracles and others don't?

This is why science can't test it, there is no set framework or way to verify if this stuff actually happened or is real.

Well you don't know, do you ? Did I tell you about the canteen lady who I hardly knew in passing called and asked me and my friend for prayer , she was on her way to Duke medical , her mother had suffered a severe heart attack, tested and was in helicopter flight , we prayed and when she got to Duke her mother was sitting fine and waiting in the emergency waiting room to go home . Now why would God let you see anything, you're not God , he is . I pray you slow down and seek God but he doesn't need you, you need him .. He's already thrown everything but the kitchen sink at you .. And oh, you need to get out more ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

Come on man , that is one question Dawkins should never waver on and he still never answered the question and you can't either, and never mind trying to come up with any BS now, it ain't there .

No here is the thing, the question is "can you give an example of an evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" There is a few problems with this question, it almost gibberish. What is accepted as information? What is meant by seen? When the interviewer asks about the evolutionary process is she asking about through mechanics or through natural selection?

Off the top of his head he would have to remember the exact sequence of genes and their names, and have to pick a specific lineage to explain. Now its easier to show through allele frequencies and applying it to a populations over time because you can test for new alleles and see how it spreads over a population with the Hardy Weinberg equation. Plus Dawkins isn't a geneticist, he is an evolutionary biologist. His field is about applying and studying the mechanics of the theory, not necessarily about what the names of the genes that specifically affect the genome. That would be a Geneticist or Phylogonist. Scientists don't have encyclopedia brains where they can recall, scientists are skilled researchers that know a lot about a specific topic, but not an encompassing knowledge of all of science.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well you don't know, do you ? Did I tell you about the canteen lady who I hardly knew in passing called and asked me and my friend for prayer , she was on her way to Duke medical , her mother had suffered a severe heart attack, tested and was in helicopter flight , we prayed and when she got to Duke her mother was sitting fine and waiting in the emergency waiting room to go home . Now why would God let you see anything, you're not God , he is . I pray you slow down and seek God but he doesn't need you, you need him .. He's already thrown everything but the kitchen sink at you .. And oh, you need to get out more ..

You have told me that story before, and just like the last one, how can we verify this story to test what was going on? Are there other witnesses? Can we talk to this canteen lady?