If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Materialism

[Tart]

I personally think we are all born with a wonder in our consciousness. Something that tells us that our reality might not be as what it seems, that there may be something mysterious and unexplained in our consciousness.. Something beyond our reasoning...

And we see this manifesting in peoples thoughts all the time... There are sooo many claims (even scientific claims) that go beyond our reasoning.. Like mind over matter, or infinite parallel universes, multiverses, aliens, ghosts, the afterlife, telekinesis, out of body experiences, past lives, the "matrix", mysticism, sorcery, magic, etc... We see people, who honestly wonder about the possibilities of many of these things, perhaps all of us have had these kinds of thoughts amusing the unexplained...

I mean even science, and scientist, and even atheist scientist have amused some of these possibilities, like the multiverse.. The multiverse (something that there is no evidence of) is a theory that came up in a rebuttal against God creating THIS universe... (Ill put a scientific video below that suggest "mind over matter" is a real thing)

But then when we come to the idea of God, all of these wonders turn away and people are certain that God cant exist, that miracle cant happen, that there is no after life, there is no soul, etc.... As soon as God gets into the picture, all these wonders that we are born with contemplating, are trashed as a means of mocking and discrediting anything out of the inexplicable, and everything boils down to cold hard science... This is Scientific Materialism.... This is why David Berlinski (atheist philosopher) says in his book "The Devils Delusion" that "scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"... It is this notion that nothing inexplicable exist, that everything is explained, and anything beyond explanation (like God) is mocked...

Its a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt...

To me, this seems like a complete indoctrination of atheism... And is there any proof that there is nothing beyond these cold hard explanations? No... But it is assumed....

So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically? If something like "mind over matter" is true, how can you say the divine is false? (example: video below)...

(Personally i think Christianity explains in perfectly.. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

[youtube][/youtube]

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 9 by Tart]

Did you watch the entire video... On how observation can change how matter behaves?

As DeMotts pointed out, you are misunderstanding the double slit experiment and how quantum mechanics works. Read up on Schrödinger's cat, or how quantum computers work, etc. Wavefunction collapse upon observation does not "change how matter works." A quantum system can be in many states at once (superposition) and collapse to a given state upon observation. The old double slit experiment was just an early demonstration of that, and you are completely misunderstanding what it implies.

People play with these kinds of thoughts all the time, and even atheists, but then when we get to God it is automatically assumed God cant do anything, the divine doesnt exist, miracles that support God dont happen, and the ability for this transcendent mind of God cant sway physics. (Oh but maybe our mind can sway physics, but not God...)

You first have to convince an atheist that a god exists before any of the above makes any sense. If no gods exist, then none of the things you are attributing to "god" can be caused by this god. So step #1 is to prove that your god exists, and until you can do that none of the points you are making are valid.

Quoting bible verses is meaningless to someone who doesn't believe the bible is a divinely-inspired document. So there is no point continuing to do that if you are addressing atheists on some of the points you are making. And if you are addressing Christians you are preaching to the choir. Adherents of other religions may debate you on some of these points as well, especially if they do not accept the Christian bible as the "word of god."

[Tart]

[Replying to post 6 by Tart]

Certainly, gods have been created by humans, and they have opposed to the one and true God...

Every god-based religion claims that their god is the only "true" god. This is a general characteristic of such religions. How do you know the god you believe in is any more or less "true" than any of the other thousands of gods created by humans?

The same way a jury might find one person accused of murder as guilty, and another accused of murder innocent... By the evidence.

I assume you were born in America, and you dont believe in Christianity, or any other religions, right? Kind of funny how that contradicts your own argument... (this is a genetic fallacy)....

You obviously completely missed the point, which was that there are many different and incompatible religions, each claiming that their god is the "true" god. My question was how anyone knows that their religion's particular god is the true god. But my response was to Overcomer, not you.

No physical proof? Did you know the word "physics" comes from Aristotle in a book by the name of "physics", which argued that creation itself is physical proof of God? And the order in nature is physical proof of God?

This is utterly irrelevant in 2018. Is a philosophical set of arguments from a man living more than 2000 years ago, when science knowledge was a miniscule fraction of what is it today, all you can produce to support any physical proof of a god?

Well you should be aware that every time you use the word "physics" and every time you say the is no physical proof of God... The word was coined as a means of supporting Gods existence...

And by your logic, if you are older then me... Im right and your wrong... Glad we figured that out.

You dont believe in Hindu's gods right? Why are you right and everyone else wrong? Just a note that this exact criticism of Christians, that they have the one true God, or the Truth, is a poison atheist themselves think... Everyone is wrong accept atheism... Thats the same argument...

Again, you're missing the point and evidently don't understand what atheism is. Atheists don't believe in the existence of ANY gods, and atheism is not a belief system. It is simply the lack of belief in gods. Show me some evidence that any god exists and I'm happy to admit I was wrong. Gods are creations in the minds of men/women, and many thousands of them have been invented by humans. Not one of them has ever been shown to exist.

Ya ok, Jesus as the Christ, the risen Messiah... This is proof of God. (seek and ye shal find)

But unlike atheism that has no proof, i point to the positive proof of God, Jesus Christ (Who, FYI, told us the world will have many false prophets and gods)...

Atheism doesn't need any proof, because it does not claim anything for which proof is needed. It is those who believe that certain gods exist that need to supply some sort of proof because they are making a claim of existence. If I claim that mermaids exist then the onus is on me to prove that they do in fact exist. It is not the job of someone who is skeptical of my mermaid claim to prove that mermaids do not exist. The stuff about Jesus Christ and false prophets is just preaching.

Ok, so i believe in God because the evidence convinced me of God... And you have nothing you can say to me, or anyone like me, that atheism is true?

Do you guys have any valid reasoning or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?

Yes ... the complete lack of evidence that any gods exist now, or ever did exist. That is the valid reasoning for taking an atheist position. Again, we don't need evidence to show that an atheist position is "accurate and correct" because we are not making any claims to the existence of something (eg. a god). You don't seem to appreciate that fundamental and important point.

Ok, so there is absolutely nothing you can say to me to show me atheism is correct?

Well, sorry to dash your hopes but that isnt going to happen (note the prophecy above)...

"The prophecy above" is meaningless. Religions come and go and have done so throughout time, and will continue to do so. Come back in 2000 years and see what the religious landscape looks like. No prophecies in the bible or any other holy book have ever come to pass that weren't obvious generalizations.

lol, you havent studied the prophecies have you?

You think "this message will be preached to all nations" is like self fulfilling or something? That a small poor man, living 2000 years ago, could get soemthing like this right by chance...

Thats funny... Have you studied the prophecy?

During this post, you claimed gods are human inventions... Do you have any evidence or reasoning that Christianity is not inspired by God, but instead falsely forged by men?

Since I don't believe that gods of any kind exist, I don't believe that they could inspire anything. Show me evidence that any god of any kind exists and we can debate what they might inspire.

Jesus as the Christ.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by Tart]

Well you should be aware that every time you use the word "physicist" and every time you say the is no physical proof of God... The word was coined as a means of supporting Gods existence...

And by your logic, if you are older then me... Im right and your wrong... Glad we figured that out.

The subject of physics has nothing whatsoever to do with how or when the word was coined. Are you seriously trying to claim that details of the origin of the word physics is somehow proof that a god of some sort exists? That is far too much of a stretch to take seriously. And of course it does nothing to support your argument.

And you missed the point entirely again ... my comment about Aristotle was that he lived in a time when science knowledge was nearly nonexistent, and compared to the knowledge of today he was completely ignorant of physics or science in general. It has nothing to do with how old he was in person, and that is not "my logic." It is you just twisting words again to try and make a point, and not succeeding. Do you still think we should use leeches for medical purposes because it was thought to be a good idea by the ancients?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 12 by Tart]

Well you should be aware that every time you use the word "physicist" and every time you say the is no physical proof of God... The word was coined as a means of supporting Gods existence...

And by your logic, if you are older then me... Im right and your wrong... Glad we figured that out.

The subject of physics has nothing whatsoever to do with how or when the word was coined. Are you seriously trying to claim that details of the origin of the word physics is somehow proof that a god of some sort exists? That is far too much of a stretch to take seriously. And of course it does nothing to support your argument.

And you missed the point entirely again ... my comment about Aristotle was that he lived in a time when science knowledge was nearly nonexistent, and compared to the knowledge of today he was completely ignorant of physics or science in general. It has nothing to do with how old he was in person, and that is not "my logic." It is you just twisting words again to try and make a point, and not succeeding. Do you still think we should use leeches for medical purposes because it was thought to be a good idea by the ancients?

No, but it doesnt make sense logically to say that our thoughts from ancient times are invalid becuase they dont know what we know today... This is the foundations of our societies, and of our knowledge, our philosophies, and our academics... This is building blocks, like making a tower. Without our foundation, there would be no pent house or roof. This is deductive reasoning.. It is just a bad argument to say Aristotle is wrong because he lived in a time of no science... Aristotle is argued to be the father of science itself, and you're saying his philosophies are nonsense because he preexisted science... Thats just bad reasoning, period... The evidence shows us that our knwoledge, and our wisdom started with God, creation, and Logos. From the start. But you guys are having us believe that our foundations are nonsense, and that they arent true... Sorry but if you guys were in charge of constructing our towers, there would be no foundation, these things would be collapsing in on themselves.

And more so, is it true? Is the physical world evidence of God, or the properties of the order of nature, evidence of God?

I think it clearly is yes...

You first have to convince an atheist that a god exists before any of the above makes any sense. If no gods exist, then none of the things you are attributing to "god" can be caused by this god. So step #1 is to prove that your god exists, and until you can do that none of the points you are making are valid.

No no no, lets be honest, I dont have to convince you of anything... You are not my jury for determining whether or not Christianity is true. You are more like the prosecution then anything.

[Neatras]

That video of the double slit experiment comes from the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? This film constantly misrepresents science and introduces pseudoscience. It states scientific observations with a mysticism slant and fails to provide any real evidence that quantum mechanics relates to spirituality. You should do better to find videos that support your narrative than this tripe.

If we're posting videos, here's a series of video essays done that thoroughly tears apart the film in its entirety on a visceral level. I trust you'll pay special attention to how the video presenter does his due diligence when the filmmakers obviously haven't:

Critical Analysis of 'What The Bleep Do We Know'

[Tart]

That video of the double slit experiment comes from the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? This film constantly misrepresents science and introduces pseudoscience. It states scientific observations with a mysticism slant and fails to provide any real evidence that quantum mechanics relates to spirituality. You should do better to find videos that support your narrative than this tripe.

If we're posting videos, here's a series of video essays done that thoroughly tears apart the film in its entirety on a visceral level. I trust you'll pay special attention to how the video presenter does his due diligence when the filmmakers obviously haven't:

Critical Analysis of 'What The Bleep Do We Know'

Well this topic is not dependent on this video, but that the pondering of the unknown and the beyond reason... Personally I dont think it to be unreasonable to say that "mind over matter" (what the video deals with) may be possible, and a lot of people agree with me. Lots and lots of people amuse the idea of the unknown... Even atheists... Like, iv seen atheist amuse the idea of a multiverse, which is totally and completely unknown to us. Thats the point.


Given that, why then do people claim to know the unknown is impossible when it comes to God? Its easy to amuse such thoughts when God isnt involved, and everyone does it becuase we are born with creative minds that can think, and we ponder these things... Really, its like part of our nature... Even science, and scientist, and atheists scientist ponder these things, with science...

But then God comes into picture, and all of a sudden everyone knows the unknown is impossible. That there is nothing that goes beyond our reasoning and can be unexplained. That all of a sudden Scientific Materialism is a hard cold fact...

I mean if something like the multiverse is possible, how do you know that God cant be possible, and be beyond your understanding or reasoning? That God could work in ways that are unclear to you, how do you know thats not the case?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 16 by Tart]

Tart you seem to think that we don't want anyone to think about new ideas or ponder anything. Of course we have creative minds, and we dream up concepts like multiverses or new inventions or whatever.

Here is the difference we are talking about: When someone has an idea in a scientific field, they have to prove it or it is regarded as speculative.

Physicists and cosmologists talk about the possibility of something like the multiverse. There is debate right now about whether it is even a scientific topic as traditionally the scientific method has required experimentation as a means of disproving a theory. It may really be more of a philosophical question. The point is that nobody knows whether the multiverse is real, and if they tell you they know for sure they're clearly lying.

But you barging in here and telling us you KNOW that god exists and it's the christian god and the bible has all these verses that explain everything - that's like us telling you that we KNOW the multiverse is 100% real and you just have to trust us.

They are both speculative, and neither should be assumed to be true without proof. If you think you have proof, lay it before us and convince us! If it's simply something that has personally happened to you, understand that such evidence is not convincing to someone that has not experienced it.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 16 by Tart]

Tart you seem to think that we don't want anyone to think about new ideas or ponder anything. Of course we have creative minds, and we dream up concepts like multiverses or new inventions or whatever.

Here is the difference we are talking about: When someone has an idea in a scientific field, they have to prove it or it is regarded as speculative.

Physicists and cosmologists talk about the possibility of something like the multiverse. There is debate right now about whether it is even a scientific topic as traditionally the scientific method has required experimentation as a means of disproving a theory. It may really be more of a philosophical question. The point is that nobody knows whether the multiverse is real, and if they tell you they know for sure they're clearly lying.

But you barging in here and telling us you KNOW that god exists and it's the christian god and the bible has all these verses that explain everything - that's like us telling you that we KNOW the multiverse is 100% real and you just have to trust us.

They are both speculative, and neither should be assumed to be true without proof.

Well this is about the unknown.... The point of the discussion is to bring to light that scientific materialism, or scientific atheism, where we "know" things of the unknown are not true. That is to say "knowing" (its a truth claim) that God cant exist, that its not possible for divine acts to happen, etc... These truth claim are precisely the reason why most atheist i talk to reject God. They claim its simply not possible to, for example, raise Christ from the dead. That is the foundation of why they dont believe. And yet at the same time, amuse things that are unknown...

How do you guys know God cant work outside of your own rational? That God can do things beyond your understanding?

(and this is the point when pretty much every atheist becomes agnostic...lol)

If you think you have proof, lay it before us and convince us! If it's simply something that has personally happened to you, understand that such evidence is not convincing to someone that has not experienced it

Certainly personal experience plays a role in beliefs (this is true for everything)... But the proof you ask for is Jesus, and him as the "Christ".

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 18 by Tart]

You're right about truth claims - making a truth claim that something DEFINITELY doesn't exist is nearly impossible. But usually the burden of proof is on the person claiming that something does exist. Very few atheists (and none that I've seen on here) will say "I KNOW god isn't real". I myself am just saying - I'm not convinced.

Let's flip it around. How do you know god exists? How do you know god can work outside of your own rational? That god can do things beyond your understanding? How do you make those truth claims?

Or do you not claim to know with certainty - it's merely what you feel to be true?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 18 by Tart]

You're right about truth claims - making a truth claim that something DEFINITELY doesn't exist is nearly impossible. But usually the burden of proof is on the person claiming that something does exist.

Let's flip it around. How do you know god exists? How do you know God can work outside of your own rational? That God can do things beyond your understanding? How do you make those truth claims? Or do you not claim to know - it's merely what you feel is true.

No i think we can know truth... Truth can be known for certainty... In fact, that is the nature of "truth"...

Id point to Christ for the proof of God.