Material/physical science could confirm or eliminate various religious claims that should be detected in the material world.

When the Hindu claims that a certain mountain range in India is actually a huge snake under the surface, science can falsify that. If the revealed portion of their religion demands that the snake hypothesis is true, then that "revelation" is false and the Hindu is in a dilemma if he wants to keep his view.

The Christian example of a 6,000-year universe is a case wherein the revealed portion of the religion does not demand a "young earth" view. Since the Hebrew language in Genesis allows (and seems to indicate in places) an old universe, the Christian can embrace that view in keeping with the evidence.

If tomorrow we discovered indisputably that the universe is only 6 to 10 - thousand years old (that ain't gonna happen), I would shrug my shoulders and say I guess the young-earth view was correct! It's not an essential of the Christian Faith but is a peripheral issue.

But in what way could the science you're talking about detect God himself? If God exists, he is immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, etc.  Science is therefore limited to investigating vestiges or indications of God predicted by theism or the revealed portion of the religion(s), but then any speculations as to what can be inferred by scientific studies moves out of the realm of science per se, and into the realm of philosophy.

So what are some things that Christian Theism would affirm or predict according to both Natural Theology and Revealed Theology that science could investigate? Examples would be:

  • A finite universe.
  • Widespread belief in God or an ontologically ultimate being.
  • An enduring "religious" interest and nature innate in every culture.
  • Intricate design in the universe from the Big Bang to biological systems.
  • Widespread belief in objective moral values and duties.
  • Archeological discoveries of sites and artifacts crucial to the claims of Christianity.
  • Historical confirmations and indications of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Secondly, even if certain scientific discoveries lead to considerations that God exists, it requires further philosophical/theological speculation as to which of the World Religions has the best candidate for God.

Finally, as a Christian Theist, I think scientific discovery will progressively confirm the following predictions:

  • Continual confirmation of cosmological models that require an absolute beginning (even in the case of multi-verses or oscillation).
  • Neurological studies that indicate mind and brain interact but are distinct to the extent that mind is not reducible to brain (or physical components).
  • Further discoveries of conditions and constants in the Big Bang itself that are fine-tuned for intelligent life.
  • No discoveries will conclusively overturn the historical and archeological confirmations supporting the origins of Christianity, but will continue to affirm it.

 

Views: 1009

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I know - it's like in one catastrophic plunge he turned into Bill Owen, and I used to think this one was the smart one.
The only difference is that he opened with what he thought were his 'big guns', ha ha ha.  Unlike Wild Bill, however, after his big guns were shredded he just didn't have the decency to crawl away embarrassed.  Now he's reduced to posts that are actually more lame than Wild Bill's initial posts, so it's sort of a devolution, if you will.  The sad part is that I think this one thinks he's still actually accomplishing something here aside from proving the absolute absurdity of theism.

I'm thinking he likes to regale his fellow parishioners each Sunday after morning service with narratives of how he is raising doubts in Atheist minds with his deeply philosophical posts.  He may even take printouts of his posts and the other skypilots ooh and aah at them with their brainwashed minds thinking surely those questions must be impossible for Atheists, ha ha ha

 

All of this sort of makes me feel like going to church.  If he can come here, why can't we go there, and then stand around in the lobby afterward posing unanswerable paradoxes for skypilots?  Can they legally throw us out if we don't believe in their invisible man?  Wouldn't that be discrimination?

Was I not clear enough? If Christian Theism is true, that means the universe had a beginning. Therefore, one can predict that scientific discovery will continue in the direction of an absolute beginning. (That will continue to lead to philosophical speculations as to what began it).

If Christianity is true, then no archeological evidence will ever overturn it, i.e. if it is conclusively discovered that Christ did not exist. Such discoveries would falsify Christianity.

Therefore, one can posit what one thinks is the best view then make predictions about future discoveries in various areas. A view that can make no predictions is not a very good view.

"Intuitions are worthless when it comes to understanding the deep rules and structures of existences."

You just offered an intuition concerning X that intuitions concerning X are worthless! That is self-refuting. The results of studies in physics and QM, etc. lead to speculation and intuitive reflection.

Silly season again for the "science cannot detect God" argument, by a religious theist no less.

 

Every major religion out there claims there was empirical evidence for the existence of their God. Abraham had an angel stop him from slaughtering his kid. Moses saw a burning bush. Several people saw Jesus killed by crucifixion, but saw him alive a bit later. Catholics have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary. An angel showed golden tablets to Joseph Smith. And on and on and on.

 

If any of this stuff happened, why can't you scientifically prove any of it? Why would God reveal clear evidence of herself to only a few select chosen folks but deny the great majority of humans any evidence of existence at all? Well, the most obvious answer are that those few select chosen folks are liars, insane, or really stupid.

Tell me how you scientifically verify historical events? Are you suggesting that historical events can be re-created in a lab? (Hint: the answer is forensic science and/or archeology).

Your comments are as Shakespeare once wrote "full of sound and fury signifying nothing". All of your claims have been refuted countless times. But, since religion is a psychological need, you ignore these refutations or intentionally distort them, e.g. "evolution is only a theory".

 

Why is it that people like you who prove nothing, demand proof from your opponents.

 

You claim to have evidence, but I am waiting to see even a single instance of this alleged evidence. No reliable, fasifiable, independently confirmed evidence is ever presented. Instead we get nonsense like "god works in mysterious ways" or "I see him in leaves of grass".

 

Also, as to your proud proclamation that you are a christian, I refer you to Ghandhi who wrote that he admired Jesus, but disliked christians because they are so unlike Christ.

 

I could go on restating the countless refutations of your evidence-free assertions, but it would be a waste of time, you long ago abdicated your humanity and are lost. But, perhaps there is still hope. Perhaps some day you will find the internal strength to leave the ranks of those who would rather die than think. If you do, you will find a joyful and abundant life that was hitherto unknown by you. And what you will find most astonishing is how you could ever have been so blind.

 

Finally, re existence of god (so conveniently and falsely put beyond the reach of proof and evidence by you) the position of Epicurus on an omnipotent loving god and the existence of evil still is succinct and applicable:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

That argument shakes down to:

1). If God is all powerful He could destroy evil.

2). If God is all good He would destroy evil.

3). Evil is not destroyed.

4). Therefore, God does not exist.

 

One little word is left out of premise #3:  "yet", i.e. "Evil is not yet destroyed (and it never will be)". Christian theology holds that evil is being, and will ultimately be, destroyed.

If God is all good, why allow evil to exist in the first place?
@Kevin - I have just re-read your post on page 2 that starts with “Very thoughtful! I think the most exciting field of study for now and the future is Mind/Body Dualism”.

I was going to reply to the various points made. It almost sounds like someone else wrote it. Kevin, please read it again. Surely you can see what is wrong with it.
Not sure what you mean. Mind/body dualism pertains to the existence of the immaterial self or the soul, and empirical discoveries could shed more light on that.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service