could science reasonably lead to faith?

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

This is probably a "dead" topic, by now. I don't tend to get on-line often. Sometimes I let my buddy's grandkids use my lap top, but I don't get on-line often. Though, I doubt they'd ever visit here .

I apologize for the "resurrection", or late posting...either way.

That being said. I think I discovered a way to explain my perspective.

There is a God. No question. Therefore, nothing is relative. NOTHING. Everything is absolute. Even if we don't understand it (yet).

There is a God (1)

He is absolute (2)

He created our, absolute, existence (3)

Anything we can observe, as creations, must be absolute (4)

We can never consider anything a "fact" without tests. Predictable tests. I reiterate: 'predictable tests'.

We can (and must) leave room for ideas, and data, that emerges in the future but that realization does nothing to alter the fact that there IS an absolute (even if we can't define said absolute). Which is "precisely" why we require predictable testing in order to consider anything factual. Even to CONSIDER it a fact.

Math is the language of science for good reason. Even then, it isn't definitive. It must still be "tested".

Some things: like the Big Bang, and Evolution have no confirmed testing (much less predictable testing). Any scientific idea can never be considered factual without predictable tests. It's absolute lunacy to accept any science (as fact) with no predictable tests. Absolute lunacy!

There "is" an absolute. We can leave ourselves only so much room for "interpretation", and eventual data.

If we don't know, we don't know. If we don't have the data, we don't have the data. It's as simple as that. Literally. There is a God, He is the God of the Bible. I know that. I claim that on faith. I can't "prove" that to anyone. Science has no such luxuries. Science can claim nothing on faith. It requires predictable tests, without fail.

All science can do is narrow the equation to its simplest form...until more data is available in the future. That fact requires the recognition that we can never claim anything as "absolutely true" unless we have all available data. If we could do that, we would be God. We're not.

Big Bang, Evolution, "Climate Change"...all these things are accepted as absolutely settled science without a stitch of pure evidence...certainly accepted without any predictable testing (or any testing, whatsoever). - antithesis of true science.

[Guest]

Big Bang, Evolution, "Climate Change"...all these things are accepted as absolutely settled science without a stitch of pure evidence...certainly accepted without any predictable testing (or any testing, whatsoever). - antithesis of true science.

 

 

A Globe-Wide Man-Made Man-Reversal ( By Laws And Taxes) Climate Change

 

"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease." Genesis 8:22 (NASB)

 

The Religion Of The Rascal

 

'They do not say in their heart, "Let us now fear the LORD our God, Who gives rain in its season, Both the autumn rain and the spring rain, Who keeps for us The appointed weeks of the harvest." Jeremiah 5:24 (NASB)

 

For The Blind

 

And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?" They became very much afraid and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?" Mark 4:39-41 (NASB)

[Guest]

The Rumble In

 

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12 (ESV)

 

The Science Classroom

 

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” Revelation 4:11 (ESV)

 

~

 

Why do questions about the merits of scientific theories allow the body of believers to divide so bitterly....

 

I presume similar questions could be asked about political differences and such also....

 

How could the merits of positions on stuff like origins....

 

be discussed without this occurring....

 

 

Beloved, Science (Knowledge)

 

"O LORD of Heaven's Armies, God of Israel, you are enthroned between the mighty cherubim! You alone are God of all the kingdoms of the earth. You alone created the heavens and the earth. Isaiah 37:16 (NLT)

 

Is Often Eaten While Crusted With Anti-Knowledge

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:1-5 (NIV)

 

"Knowledge" Standing In The Path

 

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. Colossians 1:16 (ESV)

 

Of Science (Knowledge)

 

It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. Jeremiah 10:12 (NASB)

 

So The Children

 

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:20 (NLT)

 

Sicken

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

IMO

 

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

[Alex Summers]

This is probably a "dead" topic, by now. I don't tend to get on-line often. Sometimes I let my buddy's grandkids use my lap top, but I don't get on-line often. Though, I doubt they'd ever visit here .

I apologize for the "resurrection", or late posting...either way.

That being said. I think I discovered a way to explain my perspective.

There is a God. No question. Therefore, nothing is relative. NOTHING. Everything is absolute. Even if we don't understand it (yet).

There is a God (1)

He is absolute (2)

He created our, absolute, existence (3)

Anything we can observe, as creations, must be absolute (4)

We can never consider anything a "fact" without tests. Predictable tests. I reiterate: 'predictable tests'.

We can (and must) leave room for ideas, and data, that emerges in the future but that realization does nothing to alter the fact that there IS an absolute (even if we can't define said absolute). Which is "precisely" why we require predictable testing in order to consider anything factual. Even to CONSIDER it a fact.

Math is the language of science for good reason. Even then, it isn't definitive. It must still be "tested".

Some things: like the Big Bang, and Evolution have no confirmed testing (much less predictable testing). Any scientific idea can never be considered factual without predictable tests. It's absolute lunacy to accept any science (as fact) with no predictable tests. Absolute lunacy!

There "is" an absolute. We can leave ourselves only so much room for "interpretation", and eventual data.

If we don't know, we don't know. If we don't have the data, we don't have the data. It's as simple as that. Literally. There is a God, He is the God of the Bible. I know that. I claim that on faith. I can't "prove" that to anyone. Science has no such luxuries. Science can claim nothing on faith. It requires predictable tests, without fail.

All science can do is narrow the equation to its simplest form...until more data is available in the future. That fact requires the recognition that we can never claim anything as "absolutely true" unless we have all available data. If we could do that, we would be God. We're not.

Big Bang, Evolution, "Climate Change"...all these things are accepted as absolutely settled science without a stitch of pure evidence...certainly accepted without any predictable testing (or any testing, whatsoever). - antithesis of true science.

Climate change should not be included in this list. There is a mountain of pure evidence and testing that backs up the theories behind the hypothesis that humankind is affecting the normal cycle of the planet.

[OneLight]

Climate change should not be included in this list. There is a mountain of pure evidence and testing that backs up the theories behind the hypothesis that humankind is affecting the normal cycle of the planet.

 

A butterfly affect how wind currents operate, so yes, it shoudl be included because there is evidence that volcanoes cause more CO2 damage than humans, though humans do their share.  People can't just ignore facts they disagree with or don't like ...

[Alex Summers]

Climate change should not be included in this list. There is a mountain of pure evidence and testing that backs up the theories behind the hypothesis that humankind is affecting the normal cycle of the planet.

A butterfly affect how wind currents operate, so yes, it shoudl be included because there is evidence that volcanoes cause more CO2 damage than humans, though humans do their share. People can't just ignore facts they disagree with or don't like ...

Volcanos emit roughly 350 million tonnes of CO2 per year, about 100 million of that is underwater.

Humans on the other hand are currently emitting about 29 Billion tonnes per year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

[Alex Summers]

Climate change should not be included in this list. There is a mountain of pure evidence and testing that backs up the theories behind the hypothesis that humankind is affecting the normal cycle of the planet.

A butterfly affect how wind currents operate, so yes, it shoudl be included because there is evidence that volcanoes cause more CO2 damage than humans, though humans do their share. People can't just ignore facts they disagree with or don't like ...

Here are some more facts about volcanos from the USGS.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

 

 

Climate change should not be included in this list. There is a mountain of pure evidence and testing that backs up the theories behind the hypothesis that humankind is affecting the normal cycle of the planet.

A butterfly affect how wind currents operate, so yes, it shoudl be included because there is evidence that volcanoes cause more CO2 damage than humans, though humans do their share. People can't just ignore facts they disagree with or don't like ...

Volcanos emit roughly 350 million tonnes of CO2 per year, about 100 million of that is underwater.

Humans on the other hand are currently emitting about 29 Billion tonnes per year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

Ok, Alex. You went into a direction that I hadn't anticipated. I admit.

The reason being is because climate change is (almost) never debated beyond human influence.

There're two good reasons for that. One: If we didn't influence it (if it's a natural state of the planet) there's little, to nothing we can do to alter it. All the tax money in the world won't change the course.

Two: if we did influence climate change (as humans) then we can alter it. Then, we can (conceivably) tax people against it.

I'm not arguing against natural developments for climate change. These are obvious...and "natural". There's not much we can do about termites, cows farting and volcanoes.

The general rule (now) is that it is "man made" climate change. In which case we can be "taxed" for it. If climate change is global (with marginal attributes of man) then no mount of money will change its course.

Only one stance helps our politicians. Guess which one?

So, If climate change is (as you suggest) a natural affair there is little, to nothing, we can do about it anyway. According to your reports it's a non issue (beyond building individual bunkers for the coming apocalypse).

Unless you're suggesting that we can alter the natural course of the Earth with our marginal contribution? In that case (back to square one) there is no definitive evidence for it. And, no tests, either. I haven't seen any evidence that humans have contributed to any (permanent or perceptible) climate change.

Either way...there's still no testing for the Big Bang, or Evolution.

Oh. Sorry. I read your links first and misinterpreted your evidence. I apologize, again. Please, forgive me. I got it now. After reading your links AND your posts... I still disagree that climate change is man made. I'm not even convinced it's a 'true' issue. But, at least, I did'nt misunderstand where you're coming from .

Hey, I understand. I used to watch Captain Planet every morning before I caught the bus to high school. I loved it, then. Yes, I rode the bus every year of high school (but I started my senior year at 16 and turned 17, I didn't have enough money to buy a car then). Either way, I used to be a big 'environmentalist'. I still believe in that. I just don't believe in it as much as my "tax hungry" government wants me to.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_

[Alex Summers]

Rodion,

I do not base my view of climate change on what the politicians may or may not try and do with it, that is just a smokescreen.

People have no problem believing that volcanos can affect the climate yet when mankind puts out 100 times the CO2, people do not seem to think that matters.

There is a mountain of evidence that man has affected the normal climate cycle.

Temp data is available to anyone that wants to look at it on the NASA website. You can freely download the data files and run them through any program you like. Same hold true for CO2 levels.

You can then look at the history of climate cycles and see if what is happening now is in line with those cycles. If it is not, which it isnt, then one would be inclined to look for a reason why. Scientist have look at multipe reasons why and only one makes any sense based on the data available...that pumping 100 times the CO2 of volcanos into the air has a consequence.

[Rodion_Raskolnikov_]

Rodion,

I do not base my view of climate change on what the politicians may or may not try and do with it, that is just a smokescreen.

People have no problem believing that volcanos can affect the climate yet when mankind puts out 100 times the CO2, people do not seem to think that matters.

There is a mountain of evidence that man has affected the normal climate cycle.

Temp data is available to anyone that wants to look at it on the NASA website. You can freely download the data files and run them through any program you like. Same hold true for CO2 levels.

You can then look at the history of climate cycles and see if what is happening now is in line with those cycles. If it is not, which it isnt, then one would be inclined to look for a reason why. Scientist have look at multipe reasons why and only one makes any sense based on the data available...that pumping 100 times the CO2 of volcanos into the air has a consequence.

NASA gets all its money from the government, and all the 'temp. records won't go much past 100 years (if that). This is regardless of anything NASA has to say. No. There's not much real evidence here.