• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science and hell

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
To be published in Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152

Science is defined by its methods. The basic one is to assume the absence of God's
influence on nature, including the ``absence'' of God in doing the Big Bang.
Absence of a miracle while the Miracle of Creation of the Virtual World,
which 7000 years ago has become an actual thing, and remnants of this
virtual world are invisible Dark Matter and Dark Energy. So, there will
be no science in a better, sane world and God-driven society. Surely,
there will be research and knowledge (because ``I am the way'', says God in
the Bible), but we will manage it without methodological naturalism.

A believer would say, that nature itself should be the evidence of God's influence.
Why? It perfectly would work with Atheism or Deism, if one assumes the presence
of the laws of nature. God does not force us into the right theistic worldview,
because the knowledge does not save; for satan knows that God exists, but he
has the spirit of atheism. Yes, it is illogical, but there is no logic in
mentally sick satan.

Science assumes not Atheism, but Deism because methodological naturalism
assumes zero divine action on nature. But in Big Bang, it assumes
Atheism, not Deism, because God can not do Miracle of Creation
without doing the miracle. Christianity is not Deism. Thus, science denies
the most popular understanding of who God is. I am sorry to disappoint you,
but Science is the Babylon Babe from the Revelation. And we are addicted to her,
she is so beautiful and dirty!


If there will be no science in heaven, then there will be no scientists in heaven?
They will go to hell?
Because have created A-Bomb?

More to discuss, and my CV and life principles:
Science and Psycho | Religious Forums
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Science is defined by its methods. The basic is to assume the absence of God's influence on nature, including the "absence" of God in doing the Big Bang. Absence of a miracle while the Miracle of Creation of the Virtual World, which 7000 years ago has become an actual thing, and remnants of this virtual world are invisible Dark Matter and Dark Energy. So, there will be no science in a better, more sane world and God-driven society. Surely, there will be research and knowledge, but we will manage it without methodological naturalism.

If there will be no science in heaven, then there will be no scientists in heaven?
They will go to hell?
Because have created A-Bomb?

More to discuss, and my CV and life principles:
Science and Psycho | Religious Forums
There is no assumption of the absence of God in science. A basic assumption of science is that natural causes explain natural events. Since there is no evidence of God for science to consider, it says nothing about God at all.

Even if there is no science in Heaven, it does not follow that there will be no scientists there. You are instituting a non sequitur.

And here you are claiming to be a scientist too. If what you said were even remotely correct, that would not be too good for you either.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Google: methodological naturalism. It assumes zero divine action on nature.
Science assumes not Atheism, but Deism, because methodological naturalism
assumes zero divine action on nature. But in Big Bang, it assumes
Atheism, not Deism, because God can not do Miracle of Creation
without doing the miracle. Christianity is not Deism. Thus, science denies
the most popular understanding of who God is.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Science assumes not Atheism, but Deism, because methodological naturalism
assumes zero divine action on nature. But in Big Bang, it assumes
Atheism, not Deism, because God can not do Miracle of Creation
without doing the miracle. Christianity is not Deism. Thus, science denies
the most popular understanding of who God is.
Does scientists firstly believe there is a God than try to disprove this? Or do even christian scientists put away their belief when they work, and ask "what proof is ther for God scientificly"
And if they can not find "proof" of God, their conclution is "there can not be a God, because we can not find it" ?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Google: methodological naturalism. It assumes zero divine action on nature.
You have moved the goal posts. Your first claim is that science assumes an absence of God. Now you have moved to an assumption of zero divine action and switched to methodological naturalism. There seems to be no end to the logical fallacies and flaws that you will chase.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
So evangelical Christian scientists are going to hell in spite of their love for Jesus. I can tell them you said so.

There are a lot of them, too.

People are worried about the evils of science, but then people like this dude sell their snake oil to folks who are scared of what they don't understand in the hopes of protecting themselves from Covid...

5e72807185ecb.image.jpg
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Science assumes not Atheism, but Deism, because methodological naturalism
assumes zero divine action on nature. But in Big Bang, it assumes
Atheism, not Deism, because God can not do Miracle of Creation
without doing the miracle. Christianity is not Deism. Thus, science denies
the most popular understanding of who God is.
Science assumes neither atheism, deism nor anything remotely like that. Some scientists surely assume one or another of many philosophical positions like that, but none form part of the basis of science.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Science assumes neither atheism, deism nor anything remotely like that. Some scientists surely assume one or another of many philosophical positions like that, but none form part of the basis of science.
Science is defined by its methods. The basic is to assume the absence of God's influence on nature -- methodological naturalism. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Science is the Babylon Babe from the Revelation.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Science is defined by its methods. The basic is to assume the absence of God's influence on nature -- methodological naturalism. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Science is the Babylon Babe from the Revelation.

Says the person utilizing the internet to talk to people instantaneously all over the world (a product of scientific engineering)...

You know, there are communities that shun technology and medical advancements out there. If science is so bad, why not join one of them?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

From Rationalwiki
Methodological naturalism - RationalWiki

You are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
To be published in Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152

Science is defined by its methods. The basic is to assume the absence of God's
influence on nature, including the ``absence'' of God in doing the Big Bang.
Absence of a miracle while the Miracle of Creation of the Virtual World,
which 7000 years ago has become an actual thing, and remnants of this
virtual world are invisible Dark Matter and Dark Energy. So, there will
be no science in a better, sane world and God-driven society. Surely,
there will be research and knowledge (because ``I am the way'', says God in
the Bible), but we will manage it without methodological naturalism.

Science assumes not Atheism, but Deism, because methodological naturalism
assumes zero divine action on nature. But in Big Bang, it assumes
Atheism, not Deism, because God can not do Miracle of Creation
without doing the miracle. Christianity is not Deism. Thus, science denies
the most popular understanding of who God is. I am sorry to disappoint you,
but Science is the Babylon Babe from the Revelation. And we are addicted to her,
she is so beautiful and dirty!


If there will be no science in heaven, then there will be no scientists in heaven?
They will go to hell?
Because have created A-Bomb?

More to discuss, and my CV and life principles:
Science and Psycho | Religious Forums
You think science assumes deism? In those terms nature itself should be the evidence of God's influence.
 
Top