Yes I'm not an atheist, I'm a Christian and I came here to debate.
Does anyone see any faults with Christianity?
This seems like a very logical good ste and I'm exited to talk with you all.
:)

Views: 3304

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So you have a belief in the actual existence of that which you assumed into existence and that Natural Law has its origins in something supernatural – a monotheistic creator deity that you are able to communicate with and will grant you immortality?

You had me laughing out loud there Reg. Thanks for that!!!

I have a belief in all kinds of things we human beings assumed into existence.  Massless wave-particles, geometrical ways of thinking, mass-energy equivalence, on and on.

Those ideas are all based on an assumption of Natural Law, and in the history of human thought before a culture made that assumption they never looked for those kinds of explanations.  Why would they?  The more logical explanation is that the spirit of the object caused the phenomenon that they saw, not some "supernatural" law that applies to all objects everywhere.

"The more logical explanation is that the spirit of the object caused the phenomenon that they saw, not some "supernatural" law that applies to all objects everywhere."

I like that explanation, except that I'd say 'the more *seemingly* logical' explanation. Either way, it's a useful explanation, and either way, you and I have learned how to explain things and processes as if they had their own agency. In fact it's very difficult at times to *unlearn* that, and explain things and processes without employing animal/human-behavioral metaphors. (Just ask Mother Nature. I think she'll agree!)

I'm merely pointing out that, before we learnned to construct concepts of more advanced logic, we animals had evolved brains that can observe and predict the behavior of things, and the outcomes of some processes -- even before we could consciously understand or descibe what our brains could do.

Think of all the other god beliefs that came before our monotheistic God construction... they were our first attempts to explain different aspects of natural things and processes. Rock spirits, mountain spirits, rain spirits, lightning spirits, all eventually becoming eternal spirits that can be discussed and passed on culturally to the next generations.

I don't mean to argue against feeling that "first cause" came from God, but I do mean to discourage use of personal feelings about specific God(s) as "evidence" against continuing scientific discovery and explanations of natural things and natural processes.
Dr. Bob,

"I trust you don't really know many scientists, or that you haven't actually talked about this with them. I know quite a few; they fill my building and the surrounding 8 buildings or so. None of them think about these things the way you describe."

I recall you saying once that you never heard of The Discovery Institute (http://DiscoveryInstitute.org). You say there's no scientific method... you might as well say there are no scientists, either!

"We don't drop anything when we look for the subtle hand of God in Nature."

I don't mind that, but it's getting increasingly subtle! I do mind the not-so-subtle creationist myth "scientists" keep "researching". But they're fighting a losing battle.

I find the rest of your post relatively reasonable, except for the ending "but then nobody except you folks expect it to be [physics text]". I expect it to be full of myth, with a dose of good intention, seasoned with lots of righteous sadism to reflect the times.

It's so subtle it doesnt even exist.

"Dr." Bob is a scientific method denier and economics denier, he has zero credibility, IMO.

Dr. Bob is also a physicist and professor at an R1 university.  

He will fully admit to not being an economist.  Like most "hard" scientists, he has a bit of an attitude about the "soft" sciences and their lack of reliability / reproducibility.  

Besides, have you actually read any of the "research" by the Austrian school of economists?   Sheesh.   ;-)

I Demand you Supply evidence for that!! :-)

Marx, "Das Kapital", historical materialist socialist science, it's all there for you.

You say there's no scientific method... you might as well say there are no scientists, either!

Why would that be the case?  It was a group of top-notch scientists (led by a friend of mine who ran the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) who wrote the quote calling the Scientific Method a myth as part of a major commissioned report for the National Research Council

The Scientific Method is a childish notion.   It's something that barely belongs in elementary school.   It bears almost no resemblance to the actual practice of science in any of the disciplines.

@ The Bob:

"The Scientific Method is a childish notion. "

I don't accept what you or your friend at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center have to say because of your childish notions.

The Scientific Method is a childish notion.

Says the guy who believes in a 2000 year old fairy tale and a church where grown men walk around in colourful dresses and chant primitive like grunts about magic and miracles and paradise.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service