MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

No, it isn't. That's my whole point.

One says "I don't know the answer" the other says "I do know the answer". It's chalk and cheese.

I'm curious, which religion is it that let's you feel comfortable about abhorring people?

One says "I don't know the answer" the other says "I do know the answer".

Evolutionists like to use the term "magic" when it comes to God and what his follower believe. Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?

baddog1 wrote:

Evolutionists like to use the term "magic" when it comes to God and what his follower believe. Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?

No. Because saying you don't know the answer to something isn't the same as making up crap and saying that you do.

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Evolutionists like to use the term "magic" when it comes to God and what his follower believe. Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?

No. Because saying you don't know the answer to something isn't the same as making up crap and saying that you do.

Huh?

Please try to be a little more descriptive ros - perhaps I've had too much tea to follow you...

Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Evolutionists like to use the term "magic" when it comes to God and what his follower believe. Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?

No. Because saying you don't know the answer to something isn't the same as making up crap and saying that you do.

Huh?

Please try to be a little more descriptive ros - perhaps I've had too much tea to follow you...

baddog1 wrote:

Isn't it also "magical" when considering why the explosion and the origin of life?

No, it's not 'also' magical for science to say it doesn't know.

Science doesn't propose supernatural (magical) explanations for things it doesn't know.

There is a huge difference between saying, 'I don't know', and saying, 'God (magic) did it'.

Now please pass the tea

Then what do you say to the scientists who claim that God exists?

There is a huge difference between saying 'I don't know.' and 'I know that it cannot be supernatural because if it is then it is beyond the bounds of science, and that cannot be.'

There is a huge difference between saying 'I don't know.' and 'I know that it cannot be supernatural because if it is then it is beyond the bounds of science, and that cannot be.'

How does one know that there is nothing beyond the bounds of observation (science) if only observed (scientific) explanations are considered?

Doesn't it seem an absurd objection to say 'the supernatural cannot exist because no one has observed it with natural means' ?

Mint with your tea?

real life wrote:

There is a huge difference between saying 'I don't know.' and 'I know that it cannot be supernatural because if it is then it is beyond the bounds of science, and that cannot be.'

That's true. Luckily nothing in science says, 'I know that it cannot be supernatural because if it is then it is beyond the bounds of science, and that cannot be.'. Only you are saying that.

Science does not use (cannot use) supernatural explanations in its theories, but that doesn't mean it has proven that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Science uses methadological naturalism as a process, it does not seek to prove pure naturalism. I've explained this to you before, do you not understand it, or are you just trying to create another straw man to flay?

baddog1 wrote:

Then what do you say to the scientists who claim that God exists?

Prove it.

As I see it, science acts on belief from time to time. A scientist, however, may be less reluctant to abandon his beliefs when they are proven to be untrue.

Timetravel, for instance, is a scientific theory. Granted, it started as science fiction, as did many of the accepted theories of today. They started as beliefs and were confirmed to be true. Other sci-fi ideas have been rejected.

So maybe the distinction between science and religion is not that of faith versus proof. The difference lies in the attitude towards what is proved and what is not.
A scientist can act on belief. He's no less scientific for it, unless he doesn't relent when his beliefs are proven wrong.

Maybe the main differenc is how different people relate to their intuition.

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Then what do you say to the scientists who claim that God exists?

Prove it.

If you're claiming that God is unproven until scientific evidence applies - then clearly you must say the same about all things that are scientifically unproven - correct?

Yes, you've covered this before.

'Science doesn't seek to prove naturalism. Naturalism is an unproven assumption that the scientific method is based upon.'

In this way, we can pretend that there is nothing outside the realm of science. Science answers all.

In reality, true science is quite limited to the observable and the testable, and the scientific method has no need to be based on naturalistic philosophy. It works quite well as a functional, but limited , method of discovery.

Most of history is outside the realm of science, because of lack of reliable, recorded observation. Other types of proofs (not scientific) are used to establish the veracity of historical events, with science playing a minor supporting role.

But this is a large blow to the ego, so some have taken to expand the definition of science to include everything.

Ok then, I'll be more specific... to a scientist who claimed that god exists, I would say, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, prove it to the same level that other scientific facts have been proven". This is the level of proof which is implied when a scientist claims something exists. It shouldn't need to be said.

But I can tell you ahead of time that science can't prove the supernatural because the supernatural is not viable within science. So for anyone to prove 'god' exists, they would have to redefine the concept of god such that it was no longer supernatural.

Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions, however it is not very good in addressing the 'why' questions - which is where the "supernatural" as you call it comes in.

As scientists accept that science and religion can (and should) coexist;

they become more open-minded about the universe and beyond - which helps to expand their thought-process.

Those who dig their heels in (such as you choose to do) about the possibility of a God greatly limit their scientific potential.

You infer that PROOF is essential to existence - yet I'd bet that your life says otherwise. :wink: