Science and religion

[jstrodel]

Your posts are trash Strodel, prove me wrong?

Sure, which posts? Cite one and your argument and I will reply back. I can write 4 or 5 pages if you want, and if that isn't enough, I can write 40.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've already presented my argument, your posts are trash, now get to proving me wrong. Chop chop. Maybe start at post #1 and continue from there (keep in mind that you'll have to post a rebuttal of my argument for every rebuttal post you make - it's going to be rough).

[thesummerqueen]

hahahaha. So strodel is now pissed because he's been called out for being fallacious and so thinks he's losing solely because we don't like HOW he's arguing... just to ignore the fact that he can't include a "what" in his argument.

[jstrodel]

Has science proven that miracles are possible? I mean the biblical ones. Has anyone turned water to wine? Walked on the surface of a lake or sea? Cured paralysis with a word? Cured blindness with spit and dirt? If miracles are scientific, then they can be reproduced and they can be verified.

No. That is a false sense of the word "scientific". There are many things presently unknown to science. That does not make them unscientific, as if they are similar to astrology or something like that. The fact that science cannot explain something does not prove that that doesn't exist, if that was so then the origin of life, the unity between cosmological and quantum physics, the nature of dark matter and the internal biological organization of the human body would all be considered "unscientific" because science does not know them.

That is an extremely arrogant way to look at the world, to assume that anything that you do not know falls into the category of some kind of superstitious belief.

And what is the essence of those rebuttals? Scientific explanations that allow us to reproduce miracles, or perform them under conditions that allow us to test and verify?

What if God doesn't want to prove H'shem's ways to people unless they have faith? What if the whole nature of miracles is to test peoples hearts to see who will seek God under conditions of repentance?

Many scientists recently have written about near death experiences. There is much written about natural theology. There is material written about the relationship between the big bang and theology and in fact the first to propose the big bang was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre.

Science is pretty straightforward; if miracles are scientific, then science understands the mechanics behind them and can reproduce them, or predict their occurrence reliably and record them clearly.

See above. Because there are some things that people cannot explain does not mean that there is something false about believing them. 100 years ago science could not explain many things that it does now.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you won't be proving me wrong then?

VICTORY!

[Tonus]

The fact that science cannot explain something does not prove that that doesn't exist

I think it's more accurate to say that the fact that science has not observed something does not prove that it does exist.

That is an extremely arrogant way to look at the world, to assume that anything that you do not know falls into the category of some kind of superstitious belief.

I think it's more arrogant to assert that "there's nothing unscientific about miracles" and then imply that it's because science just hasn't figured it out yet.

What if God doesn't want to prove H'shem's ways to people unless they have faith? What if the whole nature of miracles is to test peoples hearts to see who will seek God under conditions of repentance?

As I said elsewhere, the universe as described by the believer is remarkably similar to the universe as described by the non-believer. Maybe science hasn't caught up. Maybe god is hiding from us. Maybe he won't let us understand his grand ways.

Well... maybe he's not there, and that's why it seems as if he's not there.

[jstrodel]

I think it's more arrogant to assert that "there's nothing unscientific about miracles" and then imply that it's because science just hasn't figured it out yet.

Why? Saying something is "unscientific" implies that science has disproved it. There is no science anywhere not one journal not one paper no experiment nothing anywhere that you can point to anywhere that disproves the existence of miracles.

As I said elsewhere, the universe as described by the believer is remarkably similar to the universe as described by the non-believer. Maybe science hasn't caught up. Maybe god is hiding from us. Maybe he won't let us understand his grand ways.

I am glad you are open to this possibility. It is the only scientific position, since science cannot disprove the miraculous.

Well... maybe he's not there, and that's why it seems as if he's not there.

God doesn't seem like H'Shem is not there to me. I see miracles regularly. I know that they exist and it seems absolutely ridiculous to me for anyone to suggest that something I experience on a regular basis does not exist simply because they aren't spiritual enough to experience it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why? Saying something is "unscientific" implies that science has disproved it. There is no science anywhere not one journal not one paper no experiment nothing anywhere that you can point to anywhere that disproves the existence of miracles.

Yeah, actually, there's a mountain of it.

Prove me wrong.

[Ryantology]

Many alleged miracles have undergone scientific scrutiny. How many of them came out alive?

[Foxaèr]

Many alleged miracles have undergone scientific scrutiny. How many of them came out alive?

Indeed. Science has had a long-standing deal with believers of the supernatural for them to prove that their claims are real for the chance at a Nobel Prize. The prizes have yet to be claimed.