Why does science always upstage God?

[Pat Mustard]

[quote pid='1675432' dateline='1513840811']
I'm glad you asked! Let's dig into this post and question what you've said. I will go one at a time and maybe we can get a good conversation going. I will defend the Christian God of the Bible. I am not advocating for a general theism. I think general theism has as many holes and inconsistencies as atheism.

You ask "why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation"

Because your conclusions are formed by your presuppositions. You're not a neutral truth seeking autonomous being and I'll show you why I say that:

1. You have decided there is no God and that "everything has a alternate, more feasible explanation." Even though that isn't true, and if it were true you couldn't prove that it's true because you don't know everything. In fact, I would challenge you that the big bang and evolution are both "more feasible". I think there is evidence to challenge that.

2. "More feasible" to you means naturalistic. So immediately you preclude the supernatural in your premises because you assume they are less feasible.

So this affects the way you look at the universe. There is nothing wrong with the evidence. It's very clear that God exists. In Romans 1 God tells us that people

"suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Meaning God has clearly shown you at least two things about himself: his eternal power and divine nature. And these two things are so clear that your unbelief is inexcusable. In fact, the word there "without excuse" is the Greek word we get apologetics from. So what he is actually saying is that you are without a reasonable defense.

You see, you never question yourself, your presuppositions, or what formed your worldview. The problem is not with the evidence, it's with you and the way you view the evidence.

Have you any evidence for the above bullshit?  Because that's the difference between science and religion  in science nothing is accepted without tons of evidence and then only provisionally.  In religion evidence is anathema.

---

Humans have and always will be tribal, so "good" is relative, not to be confused with morality or empathy.

To Hitler's rise he was "good" for Germans, but he was hardly moral in the grand scope. Same with Stalin and Saddam.

Ok, what's the grand scope of morality?

Society. Most definitely not some imaginary being who mandates mass murder, mass rape, mass torture, racially based chattel slavery and an extremely hierarchical social structure based on accident of birth.

---

There are tons of them which can do so, a great many used to be christian, after all.  Maybe you just travel in different social circles?  At any rate, study after study has confirmed what we experience on the boards every day.  Atheists know more about religions than their own adherents do.  It's probably an artifact of demographics.

There are an almost infinite number of christian positions on any issue. All ayost does is pick which position to stand under depending on what the atheist is presently arguing. So what that he constantly contradicts himself; he is an idiot, full of sound and fury, signyfing nothing.