Preachy hijack from Can Science Explain Everything Without God(s)

[B. John Jones]

 

Even science can't explain why a perfect god would create an imperfect world and then blame his children for disobedience and call it perfect love. But then, I wouldn't want it to bother.

 

God blames none for disobedience. He punished his own Son, who owns all of our disobedience.

Edited January 24, 2016 by B. John Jones

[B. John Jones]

I really do not understand your point. It is true that the rotation of the Earth, the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the orbit of the Moon around the Earth are reasonable things to use to build units of time duration and form a calendar. All these things are approximate in the sense that an actual trip around the Sun is not exactly a year, So what?

 

I don't really see any malignancies here, just a reasonable choice based on periodic motions.

Clearly, these are cyclical patterns in nature with a primary purpose to set times, established by a divinity.

 

Anyway, you seem to be hinting at the anthropic principle, which in modern forms says that the physical constants are just right to allow life (as we know it) to be present in the Universe.

 

Actually it's a principle of Providence.

So the reason it's created by a perfect God is that it's full of imperfections.

Do you actually think that makes sense?

 

That's actually not what I said. I said rather, that a harmonious universe, even in spite of all the anomalies, strongly affirms the divinity.

Edited January 24, 2016 by B. John Jones

[John Cuthber]

But it is not harmonious; it is full of imperfections.

So, by your argument there is no God.

(And I know I'm not good at using it either, but can you please sort out how to use the quote function. In that last post you attributed this "Actually it's a principle of Providence." to ajb)

 

In any event, you have completely failed to say anything to do with science, you have just preached (badly, in my opinion). Please stop.

Edited January 24, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

In any event, you have completely failed to say anything to do with science, you have just preached (badly, in my opinion). Please stop.

 

Agreed. This thread isn't about why someone believes in god(s). It's about scientific explanations for various phenomena, and how nothing supernatural is needed in those explanations. They seem to cover everything we know. It's only when people start imagining by guesswork that unobservable, unsupported, unfalsifiable solutions are proposed.

[B. John Jones]

Anyway, according to scripture God proclaimed His own stupidity by including the serpent in the garden of Eden.

 

Not quite. Satan, is an evil ruler, an evil authority--of the unseen¹world. He exercises mighty power, unlawfully, in this dark²world. Just as he can make suggestions subliminally in the human mind in this dark world, he can even completely occupy an inferior creature, such as a serpent. The serpent was good, without Satan's coercion.

 

^1-2 These are only two distinct worlds. There are also the heavenly realms.

But it is not harmonious; it is full of imperfections.

So, by your argument there is no God.

(And I know I'm not good at using it either, but can you please sort out how to use the quote function. In that last post you attributed this "Actually it's a principle of Providence." to ajb)

 

In any event, you have completely failed to say anything to do with science, you have just preached (badly, in my opinion). Please stop.

 

The base context for any thoughtful discussion should never be a closed world. The base context, for math, poetry, cooking for dummies and yes, even the holy grail (I mean science), must always be universal knowledge, and the base for that, if one is truly sound, must be wisdom.

Edited January 25, 2016 by B. John Jones

[John Cuthber]

...and the base for that, if one is truly sound, must be wisdom.

Rather than believing old books.

 

I'm ignoring the invisible worlds that you have to make up to support the story of an all powerful God who is subordinate to Satan. It's silly, and it's not science or logic.

Edited January 25, 2016 by John Cuthber

[B. John Jones]

 

Agreed. This thread isn't about why someone believes in god(s). It's about scientific explanations for various phenomena, and how nothing supernatural is needed in those explanations. They seem to cover everything we know. It's only when people start imagining by guesswork that unobservable, unsupported, unfalsifiable solutions are proposed.

 

Newton is, arguably, the penultimate scientist. We know about his faith in God. But Newton would have shunned what you just said for the simple reason, not concerning your exclusion of God from science, but for your disregard in the definition you just gave, for purpose, in science. If science is merely a pastime, you might as well specialize in extraterrestrial life. That said, Newton's foremost love was not science, but Christian faith. He would have chosen Christian ministry except that his faith was genuine. He was not willing to be ordained by the Church of England, so he focused on science. Well, listen to this, his basis for the notion that the same forces of gravity in the upper atmosphere apply very locally to the objects on the earth was . . . (drum-roll . . .) "that since the same God created the heavens as well as the earth, the same laws should apply throughout." He also vehemently affirmed that genuine science ultimately leads to stronger faith in God.

I'm ignoring the invisible worlds that you have to make up to support the story of an all powerful God who is subordinate to Satan. It's silly, and it's not science or logic.

 

One invisible world, and I didn't make it up. Paul said it in Ephesians 6. Satan is a pitiful pauper and can no more be compared to God than an ape (or Darwin) to Shakespeare.

Rather than believing old books.

 

Again, you misunderstand.

Edited January 25, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

B. John Jones: Newton, his life and times are irrelevant here. I also think that preaching you are doing is not helpful to the discussion. Your argument for why science needs a god seems to be 'because things have a purpose'. I rather doubt that much of anything has a purpose. Anyway, it is clear that you believe in God and that is really your final word on this issue.

[B. John Jones]

I rather doubt that much of anything has a purpose.

 

You have a divine purpose.

Edited January 25, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

You have a divine purpose.

Forget divine, but what is my purpose?

 

And even so, does a rock, or a grain of sand, or a comet, or a star have purpose? Do they have a reason for doing what they do?

[Robittybob1]

Forget divine, but what is my purpose?

 

And even so, does a rock, or a grain of sand, or a comet, or a star have purpose? Do they have a reason for doing what they do?

Adding mass to the cosmos.

[ajb]

Adding mass to the cosmos.

They cannot themselves have purpose as they are unable to reason! They just do what they do, which in part is indeed add mass to the Universe.

[Robittybob1]

They cannot themselves have purpose as they are unable to reason! They just do what they do, which in part is indeed add mass to the Universe.

I enjoy reading your replies (posts) That in itself is enough.

[Strange]

 

Not quite. Satan, is an evil ruler, an evil authority--of the unseen¹world. He exercises mighty power, unlawfully, in this dark²world. Just as he can make suggestions subliminally in the human mind in this dark world, he can even completely occupy an inferior creature, such as a serpent. The serpent was good, without Satan's coercion.

 

^1-2 These are only two distinct worlds. There are also the heavenly realms.

 

Why did your God create satan and these dark/unseen worlds? What was She thinking of? And having seen that they are Evil why doesn't She just destroy them?

 

Maybe your God is not as powerful as She wants you to think?

 

Or maybe She didn't create them, but just pretends to?

[Prometheus]

 

God blames none for disobedience. He punished his own Son, who owns all of our disobedience.

 

Then i'm reporting the obviously psychotic Father to child services.

[Strange]

 

God blames none for disobedience. He punished his own Son, who owns all of our disobedience.

 

That's brilliant. No need to obey Him/Her then! I'm booking my next holiday in Gomorrah.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

One invisible world, and I didn't make it up. Paul said it in Ephesians 6. Satan is a pitiful pauper and can no more be compared to God than an ape (or Darwin) to Shakespeare.

 

Again, you misunderstand.

I meant you in the plural sense.

It was made up by someone else- big deal, it's still imaginary.

This pitiful pauper seems to have been responsible for a lot of suffering. Why would a kind and loving God not stop him

 

You have offered nothing for me to understand.

[B. John Jones]

I meant you in the plural sense.

It was made up by someone else- big deal, it's still imaginary.

This pitiful pauper seems to have been responsible for a lot of suffering. Why would a kind and loving God not stop him

 

You have offered nothing for me to understand.

 

People hold sway in this world. You (a plural majority) are faithless. God made people sovereign on earth. "My own people perish for lack of knowledge." When you people (I'm taking my liberty now) refuse to acknowledge God, you forfeit your right to complain about wickedness running rampant. Now if I'm censored for being harsh, shouldn't you for maligning the church when you claim we "make things up?"

 

Now, you people say that if I make a claim, it must be testable. So let's test the Word of God. You say there is no God. Some here might say, "if there is a God we can't know him." Now, if godlessness is better, then the scientific establishment should hold sway. But if God is Almighty, then the church on Oahu, Hawaii will sweep the nations! And if science is god, then let her be God.

Edited January 29, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

People hold sway in this world. You (a plural majority) are faithless.

 

The overwhelming majority of people are religious. Although not all of them believe in your god, of course. Which is part of the problem: what if they are right and you are wrong?

 

 

So let's test the Word of God. You say there is no God. Some here might say, "if there is a God we can't know him." Now, if godlessness is better, then the scientific establishment should hold sway. But if God is Almighty, then the church on Oahu, Hawaii will sweep the nations!

 

A bit of a vague test. But it seems that science wins, as it is an important positive force in the world while most people have never heard of Oahu, never mind the church there.

[ajb]

When you people (I'm taking my liberty now) refuse to acknowledge God, you forfeit your right to complain about wickedness running rampant.

This is a quite typical religious statement of nonsense. In no way does you believing in God give you the exclusive rights to morality! Of course those of thus that are not religious can state our discontent with the actions of others. I don't understand why you would think otherwise.

 

Anyway this is getting off topic.

 

Now if I'm censored for being harsh, shouldn't you for maligning the church when you claim we "make things up?"

You are suggesting that religion, or at least Christianity, be outside of criticism? To some extent it already is with blasphemy laws, the extent of which depend on where you are. That said, I believe that nothing should be protected from criticism.

 

Now, you people say that if I make a claim, it must be testable.

To be a scientific claim yes. This is at the key of all of this thread and the question of 'needed a God of the gaps'.

 

So let's test the Word of God.

Assuming a God does exist in one form or another, how do you know what they said?

 

Now, if godlessness is better, then the scientific establishment should hold sway.

It is not a statement of better or worse, though we can argue that somewhere else. The point is we do not see evidence of a God and so many of us reject the idea as a human made fantasy.

 

Anyway, your preachy style has not changed much... I am saddened by this.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

The overwhelming majority of people are religious. Although not all of them believe in your god, of course. Which is part of the problem: what if they are right and you are wrong?

 

Then by all means, let them be God!

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

Then by all means, let them be God!

 

That doesn't make much sense. Who said they are, or want to be, God? And it doesn't answer the questions either.

[B. John Jones]

You are suggesting that religion, or at least Christianity, be outside of criticism? To some extent it already is with blasphemy laws, the extent of which depend on where you are. That said, I believe that nothing should be protected from criticism.

 

That's not criticism. It's a claim, and unfounded. We can test that too, before I'm banned, if time permits.

[ajb]

That's not criticism.

I put it to you as a question... are you suggesting that Christianity not be subject to criticism?

 

I think this is getting more and more off topic. You might want to start a new thread in the religion section. Still, I should remind you that we do not want to be preached at.

 

...before I'm banned, if time permits.

You seem to be setting out to get banned, as if that were some badge of honour or something.

 

Anyway, we should try to keep this thread on topic and refrain from drifting to far.

 

So, some of us here reject the idea that we need a 'God of the gaps', you say that such a God is needed. You then go off on a personal based preaching session rather than trying to argue the real need for such a God. I hope you appreciate my position here?

[Prometheus]

 

... before I'm banned, if time permits.

 

So i don't understand why someone who wishes to save the mortal souls of people would engage in behaviour they know will get them banned. Who learns from that? These are not the actions of someone who genuinely cares for people, but of someone playing the martyr; one who wishes to emulate her favourite child sacrifice perhaps.