22 Nov 13
Lets make that assumption.
Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of that have any effect whatsoever on the
question of "Is there a god?"
Because it seems to me that Creationists continually attack Evolution and
Cosmology and Quantum Theory and Radiometric Dating and ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!!
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Why in the world would you want to think such a thing?
Lets make that assumption.
[b]Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of ...[text shortened]... nd ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!![/b]
Kelly
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well, we Christians believe that the Holy Bible is true. The Theory of Evilution is contrary to the Genesis account that God created the animal kinds and made them able to reproduce after their own kind. Also it is contrary to the Genesis account that God created it all in just 6 days and not over millions or billions of years.
Lets make that assumption.
[b]Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of ...[text shortened]... nd ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!![/b]
So Evilution and long periods of time and no Creator is an attack on our Christian faith. So we attribute this evil idea to the evil one called Satan the devil.
The Instructor
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Science only explains the material world. It makes no judgment as to it's origins and the power behind the curtain.
Lets make that assumption.
[b]Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of ...[text shortened]... nd ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!![/b]
Those with a specific rigid interpretation of Genesis would beg to differ, but I'm not one of them.
My only question is, how could anyone have rigid thinking when it comes to creation? There is lots to learn. It makes what we know about creation dwarf in comparison.
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Sounds as if you may be a science teacher; if so, I'm guessing your students love your sense of humour.
Lets make that assumption.
[b]Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of ...[text shortened]... nd ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!![/b]
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59To play along.
Lets make that assumption.
[b]Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of ...[text shortened]... nd ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!![/b]
Science can explain anything, from the most complex to simplest
phenomenon. That does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean it mean
it is correct.
There is no if with respect to science knowing where everything came
from, as you and I have talked about before. There isn't a theory out
there that addresses everything from nothing.
The fossils skeletons, I agree do not answer if there is a God.
Science cannot touch is there a God, since it cannot test for it.
Kelly
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI think this thread if only for RJ.
To play along.
Science can explain anything, from the most complex to simplest
phenomenon. That does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean it mean
it is correct.
There is no if with respect to science knowing where everything came
from, as you and I have talked about before. There isn't a theory out
there that addresses everything from nothing.
...[text shortened]... r if there is a God.
Science cannot touch is there a God, since it cannot test for it.
Kelly
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59If we accept that Genesis is not true, then there is no reason to accept what Jesus taught, because He referred to the creation of man and woman from the beginning in is teachings. He also referred to the flood of Noah's day.
Lets make that assumption.
How does any of that have any effect whatsoever on the
question of "Is there a god?"
Some try to reinterpret Genesis to include billions of years within those 6 days and claim God used evilution in His creation method. However, I do not believe this is being honest with the text.
I can see where the story of the fall of Adam and Eve, because of the tempting by the Serpent, could be a metaphor. However, I do not see any hint of that sort of thing in the main creation account.
Sure, one could believe in a god without believing in the Genesis account of creation, but it would be a different god than the one Jesus talked about.
The Instructor
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Very simple. It makes certain definitions of 'God' possible. It doesn't prove their existence but it sure is better than them being impossible as they would if science were correct.
Lets make that assumption.
How does any of that have any effect whatsoever on the
question of "Is there a god?"
In fact the word 'supernatural' is a claim that science is not universally correct (although it is based on a misunderstanding of science). If science were correct and could be universally applied then the supernatural could not exist.
22 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59You could take it further: as a thought experiment, suppose that all our explanations (philosophical/metaphysical and religious, for example, as well as science) are ultimately wrong. Suppose that the syntactical structure of our consciousness is ultimately inadequate to accurately decipher the grammar of the cosmos.
Lets make that assumption.
[b]Thought experiment.
All science is wrong.
The whole lot.
Not even close ...
Science cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon.
Don't know where the universe came from, nor the sun, nor the earth.
Don't know how animals got here.
No idea what those big fossilised skeletons are all about ....
How does any of ...[text shortened]... nd ...
......... as if it somehow 'proves' their religion.
I really don't get it!!!!!!!!!!![/b]
Now you’re getting close to Zen. Not that Zen makes such an assertion, but that Zen consciously allows for it.
“How do you explain that cypress tree in the clearing?”
“That’s not a cypress tree.”
“How do you explain that, then?”
“Look! A cedar tree in the clearing!”
“And how do you explain the cedar tree in the clearing?”
“Is it not enough?”
[That is a koan. Pretty bare bones, but does anyone think it is about botany?]
___________________________________________
Here is the universe, such as it is, including us—in and of that suchness (tathata). Our wondering and seeking and inquiring—that too. No one has a view from “nowhere”, from which to objectively and definitively know “the whole truth”. The integrity of science is that it knows that: a thousand observations cannot unquestionably verify a theory; one observation can falsify it (the black swan effect)—and apparently how we make our observations may not be without effect.
And so there is a temptation, in the delusive desire for absolute certainty, to create a system that is not subject to falsification—which means, is not subject to testing at all. If such a system is internally consistent (logically non-contradictory), then it can be even more seductively attractive. Such systems provide psychological advantage to “the faithful”: (1) They proffer definite answers, (2) they are internally consistent, and (3) they are not testable/falsifiable—and so invite dogmatic belief. They seduce certainty.
Zen looks at the world as it is—and as science is able to tell us it likely is—and asks: “Is it not enough?” And if the world turns out to be different than we thought it was, Zen will look at that and ask: “Is it not enough?” Is reality not enough? Silly question. Suppose all of the appearances of reality that we hold are wrong—but we never know it: is the appearance not then reality for us? How can all that there is, however it is, be less than enough? And that “however it is” includes our perception and consciousness, just as it is, however limited it is—and has for as long as we’ve been here. It is that existential recursiveness that is so often forgotten in our claims to objective knowledge. And that is a point of focus of Zen.
I am old enough to have suffered some in this world (more than some, not as much as many more). Here I sit, this day, now—it is what it is, however it is. Is it not enough? If not, and this is what is—what then? Should I make something up?
I look at the clock. It is midnight.
“So, you have sat up till midnight nipping the vodka and writing about Zen! How do you account for your behavior?”
What, is it not enough?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am more and more inclined to think that the supernatural is invoked (with whatever language, whatever alternative terms) precisely to attempt to evade all possibility of testing and potential falsification (pace my longer-winded post above). You have pointed out the flaw in this before.
Very simple. It makes certain definitions of 'God' possible. It doesn't prove their existence but it sure is better than them being impossible as they would if science were correct.
In fact the word 'supernatural' is a claim that science is not universally correct (although it is based on a misunderstanding of science). If science were correct and could be universally applied then the supernatural could not exist.
