RE: Why does science always upstage God?
September 24, 2021 at 11:57 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2021 at 12:00 pm by ayost.)
[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.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]