Science and religion

[jstrodel]

Science does not disprove Christianity. There is no scientific evidence anywhere that even remotely comes close to challenging any of the central tenets of Christian doctrine. Some science challenges a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Science began as a mostly Christian enterprise, now it is partially secular. Many, many scientists believe in God. Many of the greatest scientists in history have believed in God.
All of the major universities started as Christian universities and still are Christian to a large degree. 55% of scientists believe in God.

http://biologos.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

@jstrodel
The amount of scientists believing in God is a bit irrelevant. This is an apeal to a majority/authority argument, but i'm sure you've realized that. If 65% of americans didn't believe you existed, would that make it more likely? Of course not! Secondly, the "central tenents" of Christianity that cannot be disproven are no different than the central tenents of any other religion that are unfalsifiable. Christianity is no more true than mormanism. If I told you I have an invisisble leprechaun in my pocket that only I can see. In what way would you begin to apply the scientific method to my claim? There is no reproducible data with this claim. It is simply a claim. There are thousands of claims around the world that are no different. They are all unfalsifiable hypotheses. It doesn't make them plausible, probable and it especially doesn't make them true. They are claims not grounded in any sort of evidence or reproducible data. There is no reason to welcome science into the challenge of disproving your "central tenents" as they are ever changing and adapting to what feels right to the believer. No matter how much you may think it makes sense, without data or measurable results, all you have as an opinion.

What you are saying is true in some sense that many parts of Christianity are not falsifiable. There are many good arguments for God's existence, however, as well as evidence from prophecies and history.

As a practicing Christian, you have a great deal of evidence that God is real. What you call an "opinion" is a very controversial scientism that is extremely political. There is no reason to accept this epistemology, which basically give all the power in societies to universities using scientific models of knowledge.

Alvin Plantinga, a well known epistemologist wrote several large books defending an epistemology in which Christianity is said to have warrant. There are many people that disagree with you and you have no provided evidence for accepting your scientism.

[thesummerqueen]

There are many good arguments for God's existence,

Care to actually cite some?

evidence from prophecies

Not evidence

and history.

Bible doesn't constitute as history.

[Foxaèr]

There are many good arguments for God's existence, however, as well as evidence from prophecies and history.

That is false. After all, if it was true, there would be no room for faith or doubt.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are many good arguments for God's existence, however, as well as evidence from prophecies and history.

Present a single example of any of the above.

[Creed of Heresy]

What you are saying is true in some sense that many parts of Christianity are not falsifiable. There are many good arguments for God's existence, however, as well as evidence from prophecies and history.

There are many people that disagree with you and you have no provided evidence for accepting your scientism.

Ad populum fallacy. Didn't this shitbricker already try to call me on that before? Yet now he's resorting to it? This time where it IS a fallacy? Wooow.

[jstrodel]

Citing the existence of many scientists who deny that Christianity is inconsistent with science is not ad populum, it is an argument from authority (obviously).

[TromboneAtheist]

What is God, a kindergartener playing hide and seek like a little brat?

God should not have to be sought, because left to one's own devices void of logic and reason anything can be found that automatically aligns with what the individual is seeking regardless of there being no proof of its existence.

H'shem tests peoples hearts to see who is selfish and wants self and who wants to know God.

If H'shem revealed God's nature, then you would be able to believe in H'Shem just to receive a reward. H'shem wants people to love rather than to grapple for position.

If God is real, there should be absolutely no reason that He cannot find a way to reveal himself to everyone in such a way as to make His existence irrefutable.

God does. H'Shem has in my life and so many others.

---

You have millions of verified examples of miracles which have survived rigorous scientific examination unscathed but you can't share a single one?

That's what I'm asking for. If I want examples of confirmation bias, you have 477 other posts I can read, so making another is unnecessary.

You presuppose that science can properly handle miraculous events. What is your evidence that science is suitable for dealing with the miraculous?

My confirmation bias is this: I have seen a lot of miracles. I don't care what science says. I have seen objects physically translate. I have seen people prophesy details of my life without them knowing anything about me, telling me my name, occupation, I have seen the holy spirit visible manifest, I have seen many lives transformed by God. I have felt the unction of the Holy Ghost many times.

What about your confirmation bias: You have no experience of God and you are reasoning about something you have probably spent less than 20 hours of your life thinking about. I have spent 8 years seeking God as the main thing that I do, a major part of that the supernatural.

So yes, I have a confirmation bias, which is that I know the things I am talking about are true, from a non-scientific source.

Do you think it is possible that there is anything in life that science doesn't have the best possible approach to? You realize science is something that is substantially influenced by industrial production processes.

Wow. Now I know he's insane. By the way, I've been indoctrinated with Christianity and Catholicism all my admittedly short life.

[Ryantology]

How many scientists are true, dedicated, believing and actively practicing Christians, and how many of them pay lip service?

[TromboneAtheist]

I'd imagine quite a lot

[thesummerqueen]

No, strodel that entirely depends on whether you're claiming that fallacy based on the number of scientists or the fact that they are scientists at all.