Science is Dead:Hawking(Stephen) says and other renowned scientists ag

[ncn]

 

 

 Ergo,

they have all the answers... 

 

 

I disagree in so far that any scientist who said they have all the answers would be talking themselves out of a job. 

[Bonky]

Not so.  God is the explanation that science can't reach.  Science can only detect what is in the natural world.  That doesn't mean that this natural world is all that there is.  Science cannot rule God out as the uncaused cause for everything that has come into existence in the natural world.

While what you say is true, it also applies to things in our imagination.

 

It's not the case that we don't know.   It's the case that you simply don't want to believe beyond what science can detect.   An all-knowing, all-powerful God is simply the best and most rational answer for the existence of the material world.

Well the all-knowing, all-powerful thing is complete conjecture. It's not that I don't *want* to believe in things that science can't establish, it's just that I'll need something to convince me that it's worthwhile believing anyway. At this point in time, I thinks it's quite possible that there's an explanation for our Universe that doesn't involve a divine being.

 

The truth is that it explains perfectly what science can't explain.  And it is an explanation that agrees with the human experience.  Nothing we use ever comes into existence on its own.  Everything is created. We know that.  I don't have to meet the author of book to know that a book must have an author.

 

No one saw Stonehenge being made but our experience tells us, just by looking at Stonehenge that human beings built it.  It has every earmark of design and even if I never saw it being made, never saw any evidence for the existence of the ones who made it, I would not be convinced by any one that Stonehenge is a randomly occurring rock formation that just appeared that way.   I know it was made by someone even if I can't tell you who made it and cannot provide on shred of evidence outside of Stonehenge for the existence of its makers/designers. 

 

No scholar would ever stake their reputation on a theory of Stonehenge that included the idea that those rocks of uniform shape and size just fell into place without the aid of an intelligent causality.   Yet that is the very form of intellectual suicide that we are expected to commit when it comes to the existence of our universe, which is far more complex than Stonehenge, that we should look at the obvious earmarks of wisdom and design and just pretend that everything just popped into existence for no good reason and by no intelligent cause.   That doesn't square with our experience and frankly isn't intellectually satisfying.

What applies to things IN the Universe doesn't necessarily apply to the Universe itself. It's not like we've witnessed a dozen Universes being established and saw the process [a creator creating them].

[Bonky]

Well, in general it's the scientific community that claims that they have the answers.

When I hear them talk about cosmology/origins, they claim, more often than not, that

whatever they are proposing "proves" that God is not relevant to the "beginning"... that

their model demonstrates that everything has a scientifically explainable genesis. Ergo,

they have all the answers...

You can't prove that God is not relevant. Science doesn't prove anything. I've heard of professors like Hawking state that God isn't needed to explain the Universe, but I'm not aware of him stating that there isn't any God [as if it has been established as truth].

[Hawkins]

 

Who is claiming that scientists [or the scientific community] have all the answers??   When I hear cosmologists talk about the Universe, I hear of multiple models that they discuss because there are a lot of things we don't understand. 

 

 

The point is, the people who are not a scientist may not know that the scientists have several models to ponder and cannot firmly confirm which should be the actual truth. They will worship the "science" to say that science says that big bang is the truth such that God doesn't exist. Worst still, they reject God this way in a much subconscious way perhaps without their own awareness. Similarly, they worship the "science god" the same way subconsciously thinking that this universe has already been well explained by science for them to reject other possibilities.

[Guest Teditis]

 

Well, in general it's the scientific community that claims that they have the answers.

When I hear them talk about cosmology/origins, they claim, more often than not, that

whatever they are proposing "proves" that God is not relevant to the "beginning"... that

their model demonstrates that everything has a scientifically explainable genesis. Ergo,

they have all the answers...

You can't prove that God is not relevant. Science doesn't prove anything. I've heard of professors like Hawking state that God isn't needed to explain the Universe, but I'm not aware of him stating that there isn't any God [as if it has been established as truth].

 

 

Well that's double talk from his ilk... if God is not needed to explain the creation of the Universe

what does that leave? And what's more important is where does that leave God and His role in

Creation?

You see... God is needed, and they don't like that.

They need God in more ways than they know but refuse to acknowledge that notion.

 

And what do you mean that science doesn't prove anything? It proves a lot of things.

That is the very definition of science...

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Not so.  God is the explanation that science can't reach.  Science can only detect what is in the natural world.  That doesn't mean that this natural world is all that there is.  Science cannot rule God out as the uncaused cause for everything that has come into existence in the natural world.

While what you say is true, it also applies to things in our imagination.

 

Except, faith in God isn't based on imagination.   We need to be able to distinguish between the invisible and the imaginary. 

 

 

It's not the case that we don't know.   It's the case that you simply don't want to believe beyond what science can detect.   An all-knowing, all-powerful God is simply the best and most rational answer for the existence of the material world.

Well the all-knowing, all-powerful thing is complete conjecture. It's not that I don't *want* to believe in things that science can't establish, it's just that I'll need something to convince me that it's worthwhile believing anyway. At this point in time, I thinks it's quite possible that there's an explanation for our Universe that doesn't involve a divine being.

 

I know you want to cling to that futile hope that there is something out there that will explain the universe apart from God, but there isn't any.   The fact is that all knowing all powerful Creator who is able to be everywhere at once is a far better explanation for the origin of our universe, no matter how you slice it. And such an explanation fits perfectly with the evidence of universe and how it works.

 

 

What applies to things IN the Universe doesn't necessarily apply to the Universe itself.

 

1.  And you base that on what???

 

2.   Everything in the universe is part of the universe.  You cannot logically separate the universe from its component parts.   Everything in our experience has a cause.  Everything in the universe has starting point.  Cause and effect is part of our existence in every context.  

 

So to argue that the universe has no intelligent cause despite the fact that it behaves intelligently, is irrational.

 

It's not like we've witnessed a dozen Universes being established and saw the process [a creator creating them].

 

No one has witnessed the building of Stonehenge and we have not one shred of evidence for the existence of it builders and designers, but no one is willing to argue that it has no intelligent cause.    No one has witnessed the building of the pyramids and even our modern engineers have problems understanding how they were built but no one argues that they appeared out of thin air.

 

So your argument there is irrelevant.

[Guest Teditis]

 

 

 

 Ergo,

they have all the answers... 

 

 

I disagree in so far that any scientist who said they have all the answers would be talking themselves out of a job. 

 

 

Well you would think so... but if a scientist claims that God is irrelevant*, they are by implication

saying that that have proven an improvable event... and they should be out of a job for making

such a nonsensical claim, yet they thrive.

(*And that would constitute "all the answers" in regard to God.)

[Bonky]

Well you would think so... but if a scientist claims that God is irrelevant*, they are by implication

saying that that have proven an improvable event... and they should be out of a job for making

such a nonsensical claim, yet they thrive.

(*And that would constitute "all the answers" in regard to God.)

I'm not sure what specific example you may be referring to, but I would offer that it may be wortwhile to examine the context of the statement. It's one thing to hear a scientist offer his or her *view* and suggest that "God is irrelevant" and it's a whole other thing if they say "I know God is irrelevant" [in some empirical sense]. If it's the former [which is my guess], then they are simply stating their view of the topic. I've heard both Krauss and Dawkins use language that shows they don't know for sure there isn't a God. I specifically picked those two because they're both pretty vocal [even arrogant] atheists.

[Bonky]

Well that's double talk from his ilk... if God is not needed to explain the creation of the Universe

what does that leave? And what's more important is where does that leave God and His role in

Creation?

You see... God is needed, and they don't like that.

They need God in more ways than they know but refuse to acknowledge that notion.

 

And what do you mean that science doesn't prove anything? It proves a lot of things.

That is the very definition of science...

**Video link removed **

All videos posted on worthy must be placed in the video forum first.

The videos placed in the appropriate forum are then watched and approved by a members of the ministry prior to being released. 

Edited January 2, 2015 by ncn

[Guest Teditis]

I'm not sure how to even respond to the statement that you both make that science doesn't prove things?

Science can both verify as well as falsify things.

 

How about humans aren't snails... does science prove or disprove that?

And the distance of the moon from the Earth... can we not verify this?

 

**Video comment removed**

Edited January 2, 2015 by Teditis
When you see a link to a video outside of the video form please report and not quote it