Worst disaster in U.S. History

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Really? 

 

Premise:  God exists.

Conclusion 1: There is a devil.

Conclusion 2: The goal of the devil is to deceive.

 

I'm sorry, but that is not a valid argument.

 

 

FE wrote: ... using science (the STUDY of God) [the devil] has been able to manipulate many into beliefs that contradict the entire goal of the study of science (instead of focusing on God, many scientists now focus on man made ideas that eliminate God, hence most "science professors" are now athiests...

 

Ok.  There is clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of science here.  Let's try an example.  Assuming that the bible is fully correct, god exists, etc.

 

Question:  What makes a car go forward?

 

Sample religious answer:  God.

 

Sample scientific answer:  The engine.

 

Note - both answers are correct, and neither contradicts the other.  No religious person would be offended by the scientific answer.  Some scientists might roll their eyes at the religious answer, but mainly because it doesn't provide much useful information.

 

Then the follow-up:

 

 

Again, both answers are correct and not contradictory.  We could of course keep going down this path ad infinitum.  "God did it" is ALWAYS a correct answer in a christian environment - it just isn't a very informative answer.

 

The problem here is that the two answers are actually answering two different questions that just sound the same.  The religious answer is actually the answer to "what is the ultimate cause of X?"  The scientific answer is the answer to "what is the immediate cause of X?"  The religious answer provides the "why" and the scientific answer provides the "how."

 

Scientists generally aren't out to get rid of god - god just isn't a very useful answer when you are trying to figure out "how." 

 

 

 

Science doesn't care if something is designated as "super-natural,"

I would venture this to be incorrect based on your own previous statement, but honestly we're crossing streams of definition. If something is "super-natural" then it is not able to be measured, observed, and studied.

The classification of "natural" is rather important here.

If it can be observed it can be measured, and if it can be measured it can be studied.

And by definition the super-natural cannot be measured. And because it cannot be measured it cannot be observed. And because it cannot be observed, it cannot be studied.

If a ghost appears and is able to be studied, it's no longer super-natural. It is now a part of the natural world.

 

God, at least the Christian god, can be experienced by humans - that's kind of the whole point.

Neurological impulses acting at the result of chemical reactors can be experienced. Nothing science has offered as of yet can point to that reaction as the experience of "God."

And because god can be experienced by humans, god can be studied by science.

Above-stated reactions can be studied. Cultural implications of belief in God can be studied. Anthropological implications of belief in God can be studied. Psychological reactions to the belief in God can be studied.

God, though, cannot be studied.

 

Now, as a practical matter, many scientists disregard the "supernatural" - I agree with FE on that point - but they do so incorrectly.

Citations?

I've seen many a study where the data is completely inconclusive, and such inconclusiveness is stated. I've seen many a discussion where nothing can be attributed to any causal effect. I've never seen a study where the super-natural - something that by nature cannot be observed or measured in any way - is disregarded, because disregarding requires regarding to start with.

"Nothing in this study or other studies can be attributed or controlled for to achieve X" is not the same as "We're not counting out the possibility that a ghost did X."

"Supernatural," as far as I am concerned, is not a meaningful label, at least from a scientific point of view.  The issue is whether it can be observed.

I believe this is case in point of us speaking the same language in different dialects.


Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 July 2011 at 9:25pm