Science confirms the Bible?

[fr0d0]

Actually, I think you'll find the real line of reasoning is that science reflects reality, and has no specific bias against god. That is, if your god exists, then one can devise a scientific method by which he could be proven, because things that exist leave evidence, and those things that don't are not only indistinguishable from things that don't exist, they are equally as ineffectual.

You, however, cry out "oh no, god's not a science thing, it's metaphysics!" as if that's a cover for your complete and utter, millenia long lack of evidence. It's you who claimed god is beyond the reach of science, not I: my initial post here explicitly stated my position.

I have never disputed that science addresses physical reality. I'm the one defending that here, but I'm glad to have you on board.

But then you contradict yourself in your second sentence. It's like you don't understand what we're talking about.

So which is it to be? Does science cover the physical only or also the metaphysical? You don't get to redefine god. Which is a shame because without that idea you'd be home dry. Damn reality for getting in the way huh!

As you're joining with the extraordinary claims, please explain how good should be explainable by science. All you have to do is provide a logically justifiable example. if what you claim is true, this should be a very simple exercise. I look forward to your answer.

[littleendian]

Science has done nothing to progress theology

Goodness knows it has tried, however. Theology cannot progress because it is unchanging, remaining in the lowest dredges of human existence where man is supposedly meant to be subservient to religion. When man escapes, what is the church's answer? Evil, sin, hell, the usual drivel purported to make man a slave to ignorance.

Science covers only the physical, by definition meta-physics is outside its reach. But the meta-physics of philosophy are just so much more interesting than relying on Religious dogmatic answers, which are boring and quite possibly wrong!

We ourselfs can reason about what may be the underlying reason for the world as we perceive it, or as the greatest German Goethe said:

So that I may perceive whatever holds // The world together in its inmost folds.

I suggest reading Schopenhauer, to me the greatest philosopher of meta-physics.

[Silver]

So which is it to be? Does science cover the physical only or also the metaphysical? You don't get to redefine god.

The metaphysical is another term for hokey-pokey-new-age-mumbo-jumbo. You very well might as well believe in leprechauns.

The fact that man reinterprets biblical scripture all the time alludes to the fact that he does in fact redefine god. Not to mention the fact that no two denominations can agree on a single interpretation of scripture when they all believe in the same god.

[Cato]

All you have to do is provide a logically justifiable example. if what you claim is true, this should be a very simple exercise. I look forward to your answer.

These requirements, yet you are still incapable of providing the same for your creator of the universe. Funny how that works.

[littleendian]

The metaphysical is another term for hokey-pokey-new-age-mumbo-jumbo. You very well might as well believe in leprechauns.

I must protest, it's not, it's a branch of Philosophy that deals with the question why the laws of nature exist and why they might be the way they are. It's as fascinating as philosophy gets and while it can never reach the scientific rigor due to its nature, we can still have very, very fascinating discussions about this indeed without any references to nebulous concepts like God.

[Esquilax]

So which is it to be? Does science cover the physical only or also the metaphysical? You don't get to redefine god. Which is a shame because without that idea you'd be home dry. Damn reality for getting in the way huh!

Which god? The distant, metaphysical deepity you're claiming him to be now that it's convenient, or the miracle weaving sky daddy your bible depicts him as?

As you're joining with the extraordinary claims, please explain how good should be explainable by science. All you have to do is provide a logically justifiable example. if what you claim is true, this should be a very simple exercise. I look forward to your answer.

Okay: does your god interact with reality in any way? Performs miracles? Heals the sick? Created the universe? Then congratulations! You've now made a claim testable by science.

Does he not do any of those things? No interaction with the universe at all? Then why should I or anyone else care whether he exists or not?

[Brian37]

Required reading for all atheists.

Victor Stenger "God The Failed Hypothesis"
Victor Stenger "The New Atheism"
Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"
Christopher Hitchens "God Is Not Great"
Sam Harris "The End Of Faith"

That is a short list.

[fr0d0]

All you have to do is provide a logically justifiable example. if what you claim is true, this should be a very simple exercise. I look forward to your answer.

These requirements, yet you are still incapable of providing the same for your creator of the universe. Funny how that works.

Seriously? There's a wealth of philosophical information on the subject. I can and do support my own reasoning extensively.

What I don't do though, is try to support scientific claims with metaphysical theory, and neither do I try to support metaphysical theory with science, as I see huge contradiction there. The guys here seem to disagree, and I'm trying to get them to logically justify their stance so that I can challenge myself there. I think it's a lost cause though.

---

So which is it to be? Does science cover the physical only or also the metaphysical? You don't get to redefine god. Which is a shame because without that idea you'd be home dry. Damn reality for getting in the way huh!

Which god? The distant, metaphysical deepity you're claiming him to be now that it's convenient, or the miracle weaving sky daddy your bible depicts him as?

The Christian God who is both metaphysical and who interacts with this reality. You've just heaped another claim onto your pile. How do you think that these physical manifistations should be proven? The bible is clear that they cannot be independently verifiable. indeed, Christianity would crumble to dust right now if you could substantiate this one. I think you could be on the brink of becoming very rich! Remember me won't you!

[Godscreated]

Or vice versa.

Correct, just look at what your supposedly holy church did to Galileo.

That may be the biggest lie told here yet.

[littleendian]

The bible is clear that they cannot be independently verifiable.

If I wanted to come up with a cult so I wouldn't have to work anymore and become plenty rich then that'd be the first thing I'd assert. Right after my own status as the son of our divinity, just to make sure any usurpers are nipped in the bud. Then I'd get a bunch of gullible fellows to follow me around and impress them a bit with a few magic tricks any kid can learn.

But I'd make very sure that I don't piss off the powers that be too early on, lest I might be cruzified... that was his one mistake, to claim the title rex judea.