Science and hell

[Irate State]

Explain the comment, especially if I took it wrong seen as I’m not part of your choir, are you a good soldier?

First, I posted the commentary on things science discovered that were (never) disproven by spiritual explanations.
Second, you'll directing a comment to a member that looks closely like an ad hominem, so thread lightly.
Third, my post was half joking half serious, and I stand by it. You just posted a response to it that was clearly a non sequitur. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ElishaElijah]

First, I posted the commentary on things science discovered that were (never) disproven by spiritual explanations.
Second, you'll directing a comment to a member that looks closely like an ad hominem, so thread lightly.
Third, my post was half joking half serious, and I stand by it. You just posted a response to it that was clearly a non sequitur. Nothing more, nothing less.

Didn’t have a problem with your original post.
Didn’t have a problem with another member jumping in.
Didn’t see anything wrong with answering someone’s comment using their own language.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

This is a little hard to follow, but I'm interested. So I hope you can explain more about what you mean. I like to start at the beginning, so I hope you'll bear with me.
You say at the beginning, "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." I'm curious if that is true, so I'll ask those in the forum about evolution if they think that is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

You think science assumes deism? In those terms nature itself should be the evidence of God's influence.

OK Dan, I see you're here in this thread. So would you agree with the initial poster's statement that "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."
I was not trained as a scientist, but I think if I had a choice to choose a profession again, I might like to become a lab technician or even researcher. So, I'm not against science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why?

It perfectly would work with Atheism or Deism, if one assumes the
presence of the laws of nature.

Why? Maybe I don't understand your comment. Would you say the laws of nature are God?

 

[questfortruth]

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.

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

 

[questfortruth]

As I said, science is morally neutral, like fire. One can use it for good or ill.

"Dirty?" How so? Science -- 'knowledge' -- is morally neutral.

Christian God is not morally neutral. It is my Allmighty God. You might have some other.

 

[questfortruth]

Science doesn't say there can't be a God, it says that there's no evidence of one, as yet. That's how science works, it withholds belief in things like phlogiston, dark matter or God, till evidence be found.
Experience. Nothing has ever been found to have a magical cause. Why assume one just cause you don't yet understand a phenomenon?

published in Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152

 

[questfortruth]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in the supernatural.

Thus, the atheist does not believe, that God exists. Thus, atheist thinks, that there is no God, because "there is no proof of God". However, it is not logical. The atheists would have a logical right to think, that there is no God if there would be made proof of the "non-existence" of God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Christian God is not morally neutral. It is my Allmighty God. You might have some other.

Can i ask why you try to use Gods wisdom in science?
Are they not two different ways of thinking?

 

[questfortruth]

Can i ask why you try to use Gods wisdom in science?
Are they not two different ways of thinking?

If you are really interested in why I became such a dude like I am, then please comment there in the other thread, it is my CV and first principles:
Science and Psycho | Religious Forums

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you are really interested in why I became such a dude like I am, then please comment there in the other thread, it is my CV and first principles:
Science and Psycho | Religious Forums

Isn`t my question in this thread valid to answer in this thread?

 

[questfortruth]

Isn`t my question in this thread valid to answer in this thread?

There are two areas of human endeavor:
1. Finding truths about nature,
2. Study God and the divine. To study Holy Bible and Koran.
Having the problem with 1+2 is to be sick of schizophrenia: the split of personality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without nature nothing can be natural. There was no nature until after the big bang.

Again, this makes no sense.
"nature" refers to the "natural state of affairs". So whatever "realm" or "dimension" or whatever-you-wish-to-call it, which brought forth the universe in a natural manner, is part of nature.

"Nature" in this context isn't just grass and trees, you know.

Exactly its unknown

Which isn't a license to just make sh!t up.

Anyone claiming other wise is claiming blankly.

Especially if one has to invent additional non-supportable, and even extra-ordinary and unfalsifiable, stuff in order to make it work. Like the supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nature is the natural world; consisting of all things

Which would include the universe and whatever realm to sprang out of, if such is the case. Including all other universes in case a multi-verse is the case.

So your statement that "nature only exists after the big bang", is not accurate, under this definition.

While natural is that exists and evolved within the confines of a ecosystem.
We go out into nature and see the natural things that have evolved.

Or like an eco system to brings forth a universe, or many universes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When will science be moot? At the Judgement when everyone gets to meet with God in person. All the arguments don’t amount to much. The way God set up spiritual law is that you must have faith in God in order to call on Him in the first place, then you call on God and you get your proof because He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. He rewards you with His Spirit and continuously reveals Himself to you as you seek Him. This is all done by believing that Christ died for your sins, was buried and rose the third day according to the Scriptures. This is the only way to know God. Science and reason won’t do it, they cannot detect the spiritual and unseen realm.

Then your god promotes gullibility while punishing rational thinking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hold my beer, what number would this one be?
“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭20

The same number as Ragnarok.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thus, the atheist does not believe, that God exists. Thus, atheist thinks, that there is no God, because "there is no proof of God".

No.

Not believing the claim "there is a god" does not necessarily mean that you do believe the claim "a god does not exist".

"i don't believe x" does not mean the same thing as "i believe x is false".

If you really don't understand that, then I think you should give back that "gold medal" of yours.

The atheists would have a logical right to think, that there is no God if there would be made proof of the "non-existence" of God.

How do you produce proof of the non-existance of anything at all?

Please, provide me with proof that the following don't exist nore have ever existed:
- centaurs
- unicorns
- dragons and dragon riders
- pixies
- leprechauns
- mermaids
- ...

Good luck with that.

 

[questfortruth]

How do you produce proof of the non-existance of anything at all?

God is even inside your head. For He is Omnipresent. Thus, to prove Him is easy.

"i don't believe x" does not mean the same thing as "i believe x is false".

If you really don't understand that, then I think you should give back that "gold medal" of yours

Please explain why not.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then your god promotes gullibility while punishing rational thinking.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
On the Day of Judgement everyone will get the opportunity to present their case to God and receive their reward. Maybe you can out think and debate God. If so I will admit I was wrong.