Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree14Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 7th, 2013, 04:25 PM   #1
An Awesome Dude
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location:
Posts: 3,517
An interesting interview on the matter

www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html


Whats your opinions guys?
Dude111 is offline  
Old March 7th, 2013, 05:12 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Yep.

Take a look here:

Home | BioLogos
Thanks from Nienna
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 7th, 2013, 05:14 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
An interesting interview on the matter

Actionbioscience | Science and Religion


Whats your opinions guys?
Simply put:

Can science prove or disprove the existence of a higher being?

Miller: No, it canít. The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that itís a matter of personal belief.
Thanks from hoosier88
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:01 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,276
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher being, absolutely true.

What science CAN do, however, is explain more and more of what is in nature...maybe even to the point where a higher being is no longer necessary to explain anything.

So far science has explained a LOT of what used to be attributed to god....there is no reason to believe that the success of science is not going to continue.
Thanks from hoosier88
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:04 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher being, absolutely true.

What science CAN do, however, is explain more and more of what is in nature...maybe even to the point where a higher being is no longer necessary to explain anything.

So far science has explained a LOT of what used to be attributed to god....there is no reason to believe that the success of science is not going to continue.
There's every reason to believe that universe-bound science will never explain the origin or creator(s) of the universe ... or, even if it had an origin or creator(s).
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
There's every reason to believe that universe-bound science will never explain the origin or creator(s) of the universe ... or, even if it had an origin or creator(s).
And Nwolfe, if atheism wasn't your religion, you'd let go at that. But you can't any more than a evangelical religionist can let it go at that.

From Dude's link:

Quote:
In your book,_ Finding Darwinís God, _you write, ďin nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.Ē How is your view different from that of creationists or proponents of intelligent design, who argue against evolution?

Miller: I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:12 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
More:

Quote:
You also write in the same book, “There is a deeper problem caused by the opponents of evolution, a problem for religion.” Please explain.

Miller: When religion places itself in conflict with science, that is, when religion says that we have to reject scientific explanations for religious reasons, it basically means that every time science advances in understanding, religion contracts. If you define religion as being the things that science cannot explain, every time the realm of science expands—and every year we understand a little more about life, the world around us, and the cosmos—those areas become smaller. I think ultimately the rejection of mainstream science, and the rejection of evolution by the creationist movement, is a mistake for religion because it essentially argues that religion is disapproved by the mechanisms and tools of science. That’s a profound theological mistake.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:18 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
And Nwolfe, if atheism wasn't your religion, you'd let go at that. But you can't any more than a evangelical religionist can let it go at that.
And if you were not insistent that god must exist in the "gaps" then you would understand that atheism is not a religion.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 04:53 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
And if you were not insistent that god must exist in the "gaps" then you would understand that atheism is not a religion.
No, if you'd get off your atheistic soapbox, I might be inclined to believe atheism isn't your religion.

But I know evangelistic zeal when I see it. Billy Graham in his prime had nothing on Penn Jillette.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 8th, 2013, 05:06 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
No, if you'd get off your atheistic soapbox, I might be inclined to believe atheism isn't your religion.

But I know evangelistic zeal when I see it. Billy Graham in his prime had nothing on Penn Jillette.
The only reason that an atheistic "soapbox" even exists is because of the theistic "Carnegie Hall"

If theists would stop trying to force their religion into our lives via legislation...then we atheists would have nothing to "soapbox" about.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
, coexist, god, modern, science



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Modern Economics: Natural or Social Science? coberst Philosophy 10 July 15th, 2010 08:14 AM
Al-Qaida does not exist cansouth Conspiracy Theories 5 January 11th, 2010 04:18 AM
Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science coberst Philosophy 0 August 12th, 2008 12:49 PM
God, does he exist? the_eliot_one Opinion Polls 301 June 26th, 2007 04:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.