The Return of the God Hypothesis

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Regarding Menno's accusations about things I've supposedly said, let's all of us, atheists and Christians alike, take a moment to ponder the Eighth Commandment:

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,795
Reaction score
11,086
Points
113
Menno is tiny. Put away the hard Christian bent after getting banned and being resurrected as menno. Guess according to your join date....you were never around for tiny condemning people to hell on a regular basis.

and lol at this thread. Science and christianity are incompatible.
It's very obvious. But he lies and denies it. Jesus weeps at his sins.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Menno is tiny. Put away the hard Christian bent after getting banned and being resurrected as menno. Guess according to your join date....you were never around for tiny condemning people to hell on a regular basis.

and lol at this thread. Science and christianity are incompatible.

Menno was "resurrected", you say? Wow! It's a miracle!
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
To your last question. Assumptions drive the conclusions we derive from scientific data. The science and data are neutral, but the interpretation of that data is determined by the assumptions the scientist makes regarding that data. If one assumes complete random building of matter, then the interpretation of the data will be different than if one assumes a designer provided a mathematical code to produce a result.
So you're saying religion and science are NOT compatible if the scientist doesn't believe in a designer?
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
and lol at this thread. Science and christianity are incompatible.
We have a lot of Mayo Clinic scientists at our church. I'll be sure to tell them their career is incompatible with being a member of our church. 🙄
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,950
Reaction score
5,320
Points
113
We have a lot of Mayo Clinic scientists at our church. I'll be sure to tell them their career is incompatible with being a member of our church. 🙄

Not being a member of the church. But if they are biblical literalists....yah....science doesn't really jive with that.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Menno: please link one quote from me where I state that "only atheists can produce and accept scientific conclusions".

Thanks.
I cannot. I admit I extrapolate from your continual mantra that Christians are anti-science the idea that theists do not and cannot be elite scientists. I welcome your clarification.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
So you're saying religion and science are NOT compatible if the scientist doesn't believe in a designer?
Not at all.
I am saying that the assumptions a scientist brings to the data will affect the interpretation of the data.
I am saying that the math regarding the cosmos is best explained by an intelligent designer rather than by random chance.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Regarding Menno's accusations about things I've supposedly said, let's all of us, atheists and Christians alike, take a moment to ponder the Eighth Commandment:

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Do you expect me to say I am perfect? If I have misspoken regarding your position regarding scientists who are theists, I apologize.
Will you in turn confess your prejudice and distain for Christianity?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
Do you expect me to say I am perfect? If I have misspoken regarding your position regarding scientists who are theists, I apologize.
Will you in turn confess your prejudice and distain for Christianity?

I 'expect' a Christian to do his best to follow the Commandments he professes to believe so fervently in — or risk being exposed as a hypocrite. Therefore, no bearing false witness, Menno. If you accuse me of something, you'd best be able to prove my guilt. Otherwise you are speaking falsely.

That being said: Apology accepted.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
I 'expect' a Christian to do his best to follow the Commandments he professes to believe so fervently in — or risk being exposed as a hypocrite. Therefore, no bearing false witness, Menno. If you accuse me of something, you'd best be able to prove my guilt. Otherwise you are speaking falsely.

That being said: Apology accepted.
I understand what you expect. While following the law is a goal to shoot for, it's not hypocritical if a Christian fails to meet them. In fact it's impossible for any human to meet them and while you reject the reality of God, you are expected to meet them. You fail at the first one...Love the Lord your God.
Since all humans fail, we are all justly condemned.

The fact is, we can look at your first post in this thread and see how prejudiced you are against Christianity. The thread isn't even about Christianity and all you did was voice your hatred of Christianity. You are wrong to do this, yet I don't see you apologizing at all.

But, thanks for trying to guilt me and then pull out the hypocrite card. It's a pretty standard tactic from an atheist for whom morality is meaningless.

Now, do you have anything to talk about regarding the podcast I posted or are you still refusing to actually listen to science being discussed?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,322
Reaction score
2,780
Points
113
I understand what you expect. While following the law is a goal to shoot for, it's not hypocritical if a Christian fails to meet them. In fact it's impossible for any human to meet them and while you reject the reality of God, you are expected to meet them. You fail at the first one...Love the Lord your God.
Since all humans fail, we are all justly condemned.

The fact is, we can look at your first post in this thread and see how prejudiced you are against Christianity. The thread isn't even about Christianity and all you did was voice your hatred of Christianity. You are wrong to do this, yet I don't see you apologizing at all.

But, thanks for trying to guilt me and then pull out the hypocrite card. It's a pretty standard tactic from an atheist for whom morality is meaningless.

Now, do you have anything to talk about regarding the podcast I posted or are you still refusing to actually listen to science being discussed?

1) If you "understand" what I "expect", then why did you ask me if I expected perfection from you?

2) Do you refer to The Ten Commandments as "The Ten Goals to Shoot For"?
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,996
Reaction score
311
Points
83
I understand what you expect. While following the law is a goal to shoot for, it's not hypocritical if a Christian fails to meet them. In fact it's impossible for any human to meet them and while you reject the reality of God, you are expected to meet them. You fail at the first one...Love the Lord your God.
Since all humans fail, we are all justly condemned.

The fact is, we can look at your first post in this thread and see how prejudiced you are against Christianity. The thread isn't even about Christianity and all you did was voice your hatred of Christianity. You are wrong to do this, yet I don't see you apologizing at all.

But, thanks for trying to guilt me and then pull out the hypocrite card. It's a pretty standard tactic from an atheist for whom morality is meaningless.

Now, do you have anything to talk about regarding the podcast I posted or are you still refusing to actually listen to science being discussed?
No, Murray thinks God is a hypocrite. It's all Moral Argument boy has got.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
1) If you "understand" what I "expect", then why did you ask me if I expected perfection from you?

2) Do you refer to The Ten Commandments as "The Ten Goals to Shoot For"?
1) Every human is a hypocrite by your standard, whereby you must perfectly obey the moral laws of God. Welcome to being a hypocrite with the rest of humanity.

When someone breaks a law, there is a consequence and a payment required. You and I owe a debt.

2) I refer to the moral laws of God as laws that prove my guilt. No human keeps these laws perfectly. Therefore all are guilty.

That you tried to use the law to make me feel guilty and claim I am a hypocrite, while you are equally guilty, makes you...equally a hypocrite. Welcome.

Mostly, I recognize this is your attempt to divert from the fact you won't listen to the interview, yet you will imagine you somehow own science while thinking theists don't recognize the usefulness of science.

Where theists differ from you is theists don't worship science as their authority for living. Theists recognize that morality is not formed by science, but is above science and guides science. To use an analogy of ancient Egypt, atheists worship the sun as the highest power, while theists worship the creator of the sun as the highest power.
Science is a created tool, not the creator. But, it is a valuable tool.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
Not being a member of the church. But if they are biblical literalists....yah....science doesn't really jive with that.
Well, I don't know too many biblical literalists besides maybe Menno and a few others on this board. But they certainly aren't representative of Christendom.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
Not at all.
I am saying that the assumptions a scientist brings to the data will affect the interpretation of the data.
I am saying that the math regarding the cosmos is best explained by an intelligent designer rather than by random chance.
Why would assumptions about God affect interpretation of the data, if science is science as you say? Math regarding the cosmos isn't random chance; it's governed by the laws of physics (or at least theoretical physics). Math is math; science is science. Assigning those principles to an intelligent designer is a leap of faith. Whether a person believes in God or not should be irrelevant to the science/math.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Why would assumptions about God affect interpretation of the data, if science is science as you say? Math regarding the cosmos isn't random chance; it's governed by the laws of physics (or at least theoretical physics). Math is math; science is science. Assigning those principles to an intelligent designer is a leap of faith. Whether a person believes in God or not should be irrelevant to the science/math.
Look at the OT board. You and I can observe the same event and look at the same data, but the assumptions we have will take the data and explain it in different ways.

When humans look at the math regarding the existence of a cosmos where life can exist, the data tells us it could only exist if a huge number of events all aligned. Starting with an assumption of no intelligent designer, the person looking at the data will explain the occurrence using a specific narrative. Starting with the assumption that such chances of randomness are mathematically nearly impossible and imply an intelligent designer, the data will be explained by a different narrative. The data never changed, but the narrative regarding explaining the data is quite different. Scientists don't just observe data, they also question data, interpret data and apply the interpretation of the data to real world situations. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
22,332
Reaction score
2,437
Points
113
If the Christians on the board want to have a discussion about belief, philosophy and religious conviction that's great. These are very rich topics. Just don't present beliefs, philosophies and religious convictions as fact. Also, don't label people who criticize you for presenting beliefs, philosophies and religious convictions as fact as anti Christians. They aren't. They are calling you out, not criticizing Christianity.

Secondly, don't assume that someone who disagrees with you is an "atheist." Even if that's the case, you act like that's something bad.
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,996
Reaction score
311
Points
83
Also, don't label people who criticize you for presenting beliefs, philosophies and religious convictions as fact as anti Christians. They aren't.

Is that a fact?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,950
Reaction score
5,320
Points
113
I have stockboy on ignore as well. $10 bucks he called me Tiny. 😅

A) $50 that menno, if he does actually have me ignore, viewed my post.
B) Everybody knows that menno is tiny. Not at all tricky that right after tiny was banned, menno shows up as another biblical literalist.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
1,309
Points
113
Atheists = yucky and worthless creatures. No reason to live (like short people).
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Well, I don't know too many biblical literalists besides maybe Menno and a few others on this board. But they certainly aren't representative of Christendom.
Historically, they are representative. In the late 1800s, liberalism abandoned interpretation of the Bible by using traditional grammatical laws. Instead, because liberals assumed miracles could not literally have happened, they required an interpretation that assumed miracles must be allegory.
What you have shared actually makes my point regarding interpretation of data. The assumptions people make affect the narrative people create from the data.
Liberal scholars read the data in the Bible and create a narrative based upon their initial assumptions. Conservative scholars do the same thing. While you may hold a modern assumption of the Bible and therefore hold a modern narrative, you must acknowledge that it is a new narrative that orthodox Christianity has never held from the Apostles to the present. As an orthodox Christian, I view modernism as a fad that will pass because it has no depth in its narrative. Many nonorthodox narratives have become popular only to fade away into the pages of history. It's congregants find the narrative empty of substance and the doors of the building become empty shrines of bygone years. History will continue to show this pattern while orthodox Christianity will continue to march forward. Enjoy your one shining moment, Nokomis.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
Look at the OT board. You and I can observe the same event and look at the same data, but the assumptions we have will take the data and explain it in different ways.

When humans look at the math regarding the existence of a cosmos where life can exist, the data tells us it could only exist if a huge number of events all aligned. Starting with an assumption of no intelligent designer, the person looking at the data will explain the occurrence using a specific narrative. Starting with the assumption that such chances of randomness are mathematically nearly impossible and imply an intelligent designer, the data will be explained by a different narrative. The data never changed, but the narrative regarding explaining the data is quite different. Scientists don't just observe data, they also question data, interpret data and apply the interpretation of the data to real world situations. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.
Jumping from theoretical physics to intelligent design isn't science. You're simply taking modern science and fitting it into your pre-established beliefs about God.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
Historically, they are representative. In the late 1800s, liberalism abandoned interpretation of the Bible by using traditional grammatical laws. Instead, because liberals assumed miracles could not literally have happened, they required an interpretation that assumed miracles must be allegory.
What you have shared actually makes my point regarding interpretation of data. The assumptions people make affect the narrative people create from the data.
Liberal scholars read the data in the Bible and create a narrative based upon their initial assumptions. Conservative scholars do the same thing. While you may hold a modern assumption of the Bible and therefore hold a modern narrative, you must acknowledge that it is a new narrative that orthodox Christianity has never held from the Apostles to the present. As an orthodox Christian, I view modernism as a fad that will pass because it has no depth in its narrative. Many nonorthodox narratives have become popular only to fade away into the pages of history. It's congregants find the narrative empty of substance and the doors of the building become empty shrines of bygone years. History will continue to show this pattern while orthodox Christianity will continue to march forward. Enjoy your one shining moment, Nokomis.
Are you a young earth creationist?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Jumping from theoretical physics to intelligent design isn't science. You're simply taking modern science and fitting it into your pre-established beliefs about God.
Theoretical...what does that mean to you?
Data is interpreted. Each scientist looks at the data and interprets through the lens of assumptions that they make. This is precisely why there are differing opinions in the world of science.
Here you are taking a specific assumption and labeling it "modern science." As you stated, science is science no matter the era. What changes is the assumptions of scientists, which then drive the narrative.
Tell me what you mean by "modern science." I could interpret that phrase to mean an atheistic narrative of the data that assumes complete random chance with no manipulation, but that may be incorrect.
What is the assumption of "modern science" according to Nokomis?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
1,363
Points
113
Are you a young earth creationist?
No. Are you a hindu reincarnationist?
Do you see how irrelevant your question is in light of the comments you quoted?
We observe the data. We ask questions about the data. We interpret the data through the lens of our assumptions. We apply the data to real life. This is basic inductive reasoning. It is scientific method.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
Theoretical...what does that mean to you?
Data is interpreted. Each scientist looks at the data and interprets through the lens of assumptions that they make. This is precisely why there are differing opinions in the world of science.
Here you are taking a specific assumption and labeling it "modern science." As you stated, science is science no matter the era. What changes is the assumptions of scientists, which then drive the narrative.
Tell me what you mean by "modern science." I could interpret that phrase to mean an atheistic narrative of the data that assumes complete random chance with no manipulation, but that may be incorrect.
What is the assumption of "modern science" according to Nokomis?
Theoretical physics is applying mathematical models to complex phenomena. We can't make a black hole in a lab, but we can develop mathematical models to try and understand them. That's my understanding of theoretical physics. But I'm certainly no physicist, so maybe I'm misusing that term.
I'm using modern science broadly to refer to our current understanding of the universe.
I think you have it backwards. Assumptions don't change, but science is ever-changing. We (humans) used to think the Earth was the center of the universe, but science has disproved that. The assumption that God made the Earth hasn't changed.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
819
Points
113
No. Are you a hindu reincarnationist?
Do you see how irrelevant your question is in light of the comments you quoted?
We observe the data. We ask questions about the data. We interpret the data through the lens of our assumptions. We apply the data to real life. This is basic inductive reasoning. It is scientific method.
It's relevant because that's the term you used in defense of Meyer. It's relevant because you often criticize others because they selectively follow the Bible. You seem to accept a nuanced interpretation of the Bible when it comes to geophysics but not when it comes to forming a church council. Do I have that right?
 
Top Bottom