You have to wonder what the best possible response he expects by posting this tosh here. He'd be much better off venting his mouse story on an xtian forum where they'll lap it up with blessings and amens.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: That seems to be a 'learn-ed' man's silly perception. That once 'science' can explain a 'natural phemona' works it can no longer be of God. My question to you is why is that? Why can't 'science' be the how God does what He does, rather than the so called 'proof' their is no God?

If you think about it for a moment God is the creator of the NATURAL Universe. Which means He would have been the being who put all of the laws that govern how everything works into place. The same laws we are recording and giving our own names and titles to. So if this is the case why would God create a universe that He has to move or circumvent the natural laws inorder to make something happen. Not to say God can circumvent the natural world, if He wanted, but why would you create something that you have to circumvent everytime you want something done??? If it is in your power to create something that will only in the end lend itself to you and your end game wouldn't that be smarter?
...

You have just explained one of the reasons why the god described in the Bible is imperfect.  A perfect being would NEVER perform a miracle, because, if he created anything (which he wouldn't, but that is a topic for another conversation) he would have set things up right in the first place.

A god that has to perform miracles to tweak things is an incompetent buffoon who failed to set things up properly in the first place.  Thus, if there is a perfect being, it cannot be the god of the Bible, as it would NEVER perform miracles.

The Bible is a false, blasphemous book, that you should reject.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:31 am)Stimbo Wrote: Instead of shifting the burden of proving that "God" couldn't do these things, how about some indication that it could - or dare I say it, did?

Again, if you see proof of God, then you must A/S/K it from Him. asking me to provide 'proof' is in fact shifting the burden as I am not the source of said claim.

It would be no different than one of you quoting a dawkins argument and I ask for proof that he said it, then you point back to your source material.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:33 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Drich, listen carefully, it's very simple.

Prove. It.

Jonny come lately,

Stimbo says it you say it again.

My answer to him speaks to you as well.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:33 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: A god that works through the natural laws and our understanding of science is indistinguishable from a god that simply does not exist.

"our understanding of science"

That's a cute term that can include or exclude whatever you want it to. For example The German "understanding of science" in the 1930's and 40s said that non-Aryan races were not infact human, but a sub class, which needed to be purged from the planet.

'Science' as you understand it/have defined it is an excuse to not believe in God. Similarly 'science' can also be a tool used to show how God operates.

As long as a human has to make a case for the existence of god, be it you or me, he is only becoming less convincing. Let the big guy do the talking, Dripsy.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:38 am)Nope Wrote: Yes, a deity could work the way you describe; however, it would seem silly/cruel of him to expect that people worship him under those same conditions. In your analogy, the pianist isn't expecting the mice to worship him. You can make a case for a deist type of god that leaves his/her creation alone after setting things in motion but it is a big jump from there to the type of god described in Christianity.

What makes you think God has left us alone? In the story the third mouse stopped at discovering the mechanical workings of the paino, but as you well know there is much more to a piano making music. If the 3rd mouse kept looking, he would have discovered the keys and ultimately the hands that operated those keys... But again the point of the story was to illustrate that the mouse stopped looking once he could describe how the piano works.

We too stop looking in 'science' once we discover how the 'piano works.' but do not consider the being operating the keys. IF science always stops where the 3rd mouse stops then that would indicate a huge flaw in 'science' Again IF in fact there is a God.

(June 24, 2015 at 8:10 am)Drich Wrote: 'Science' as you understand it/have defined it is an excuse to not believe in God. Similarly 'science' can also be a tool used to show how God operates.

I have no doubt that your "understanding of science" can be used to show (in your mind) anything you would like, of which you really have no understanding at all.

Drich, do you any answer to where god came from, other then the typical special
pleading answer of it always existed?

(June 23, 2015 at 9:41 am)Tonus Wrote: Science simply is a way to try to understand how things work.  Science does not prove or disprove god at any point, because that is not its aim.  If scientific research into a particular phenomena were to turn up god as the answer, then that is the answer.  They may continue to research that phenomena because that's how we further our knowledge and understanding.  But there is no reason that science could not show god as the answer to any particular question.  The fact that it has not done so (in spite of so many scientists being believers throughout the centuries) is very telling in itself, but it is not a failing of science.  Nor is it due to science trying to disprove god.

lol, maybe in some idealic setting, but just look at how your peers are defending the use of science to disprove God, or the distain they have when I attribute a scientific understanding to how God operates..
Again, science has become an excuse as to why God can not exist, despite what 'purist' think science should be.

The search for the 'God partical' (with the hydron super collider) is a good example of 'science being used to disprove God.

Quote:That seems like a question for a theist to contemplate, not a scientist.  Once we place god outside of the natural world, any attributes can be assigned to him. He can be outside of space and time.  He can be powerful enough to create a massive and expansive universe and write its laws while not being subject to them.  He can violate those laws at will with only the specific consequences he desires.  And if we are stumped by what seems to be an illogical conclusion, we simply admit that his ways are a mystery to us.

so?

Quote:What can we do with such a being?  There literally are no rules that we can apply to it, so that we can determine that it should do one thing or another, or that anything we discover is or isn't proof of his existence.  Science can only continue to learn about the things we can actually study.  And if god never shows up during that journey, we must reach a conclusion.  Some of us decide that it means he isn't there.  Some of us decide that he's there, but can't be seen via conventional means because of what I described in the previous paragraph.  Which of those seems more reasonable?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that one does not have to be in a specialized field of study in order to have full access to God. God has given us access to Him if we simply A/S/K for Him, yet we take His formula and apply it to all sorts of other disciplines and endeavors instead.