PeterS

The question I have to ask is why would we think there was an infinite living all-powerful divine creative intelligence? I look around and I see a world that is largely explained by science. Why then would we need a god to fill in the last few details?

And you should know that a supernatural being doesn't come into existence simply because the majority of the population believes it exists. If no one believed in gods existence that wouldn't make any difference in his existence would it? So by that same logic, a belief in god means nothing in the question of whether god is real or not real.

PeterS

Why would deism or atheism be devoid of love? Are you assuming that we can't provide love ourselves? If so, I would very much disagree with you. As for your god of love I have to ask where he is because as I look around I don't see that love shining through his followers. And it's his followers isn't it who are supposed to provide the example of gods love for others to follow?

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

"RC- Agreed"

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

There is a great preponderance of evidence for the need of a Prime Mover and an Intelligent Designer to create the universe and the paradise world on which we live. The probability of this all happening by chance is harder for the faithful to believe than it is to have faith in God. So there is a "faith default".

You are correct when you say faith isn't needed when you have proof. But faith is valuable- Jesus told his apostles, "you see me and you believe. But blessed are those who do not see and yet still believe."

Love must be freely chosen. I've never "seen" God but I freely choose to love Him. If you love creation, at least consider the creator.

Christian faith is not without reason because there are a plethora of writings, experiences and feelings that support the faith.

The thing about faith is, an explanation is insufficient to those that don't have it and unnecessary to those that do.

Faith is a Gift from God. He gives it to some but not to others. But the others can have it for the asking. "Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be given to you, knock and it shall be opened unto you."

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The statement that science is the only way to t***h contradicts itself because the statement has no basis in science.

Science doesn't make moral judgments,
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments,
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge,
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations,
Science cannot prove an Existential T***h, a Moral T***h, a Logical T***h, a Historical T***h, an Experiential T***h, or a Religious t***h.

Science cannot explain why we need sleep, why people and animals yawn,
Science cannot explain why a bicycle remains upright when moving,
Science cannot explain water or why ice is slippery,
Science cannot explain the Placebo Effect or why 9 out of 10 people on earth are right-handed,
Science cannot explain why a Giraffe has a long neck,
Science cannot explain Gravity.

The five senses - see, hear, taste, touch and feel - do not have a monopoly on applying logic and reason to seeking knowledge of this universe and especially life itself.

The search for knowledge and t***h demands a meta-narrative based on absolute referents, and only then can the five disciplines in realizing a propositional t***h - Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Anthropology, and Theology - be applied.

PeterS

Well, I am not looking for faith and your "plethora" of experiences and feelings aren't evidence. No one has ever been able to reason with their feelings or emotions. This is why the supernatural falls into the realm of irrationalism--it requires faith and can only be experienced by those who are truly faithful. This was the point my college mentor was trying to make. Irrationalism isn't a negative--it is the only way one can experience god and the more we try to use reason for that purpose the further away from god we become.

Look, I think we have more in common than not and I don't think we are that far apart in how we think. Every human is comprised of the rational and the irrational and I don't intend the use of 'irrationalism' as an insult nor should it be construed that way. There exists no way to reason our way to an understanding of the supernatural. 1) That's why it's supernatural--if we understood it, it would be part of the natural world. 2) We can piece together anecdotal evidence (a preponderance) but even with that, it takes faith to have a complete belief that it is true. So even if we use a building block approach to prove god we still have to have faith that our approach is true.

PeterS

The majority of Evangelicals wouldn't v**e for Bill Clinton because they saw him as adulterous and immoral. Today, the majority of Evangelicals 80% plus support Donald Trump even though he was boastful of the number of times he committed adultery on his many wives with nary a thought of repenting.

You speak of absolutes yet behave in a relative manner. Without pulling out my dictionary I can tell you the average Evangelical who supports Donald Trump--including yourself--would fail at least 2 (Ethics and Theology) of the propositional t***hs you speak of simply because they've allowed your world to become morally relative based on what is politically expedient. If someone can benefit you politically you overlook their sin, and I am pretty sure if you are looking for absolute t***h you can't find it if you behave politically expediently.

As for what science can give you and can't give you--in most programming languages you have the (if-then-else) statement so I could say that [if] I committed adultery [then] I am immoral [else] I haven't committed adultery so I am moral. So I have been able to define 'scientifically' what is moral and immoral in absolute terms. And I could probably do the same with each of your statements if time permitted. Instead, just go back to the dark ages and start there with all the things we believed impossible that science proved otherwise. It would seem to me that to place limitations on science is where the mistake is made. Look at AI and more and more each day it is able to model human behavior. Do you want to say a machine will never behave morally? I say the otherwise, that machines will be what we want them to be without the flaw that we have--that they are subjective--and look for the t***h that meets with our belief system whether it is absolutely true or not...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Donald Trump has not committed adultery or engaged in any sexual indiscretions since he was elected president. IOW, in the WH.

Though I have no hope it will get through, I'm gonna tell you this one more time. I did not v**e FOR Donald Trump, I v**ed AGAINST Hillary Clinton. My primary v**e went to Ted Cruz. But, when T***p w*n the nomination, I had no choice. If you want to call that political expediency, I don't give a s**t.

President Trump is not a clergyman, he is not a bishop, pastor or priest, he is not The Christian Crusader leading the Christian churches. However, he whole-heartedly supports the Judeo-Christian world view. No one, not president Trump, and certainly not you, can ever threaten my faith and belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Have you ever read any Philosophy of Science? The post on what science cannot do comes from science, not me. If you want to try to refute them and find absolutes with some ridiculous computer language exercise, go for it. Next time try (Either/Or) rather than (if-then-else).

Yeah, I agree, it is wrong to place limitations on science, so why do you do it? Seems you think scientific research is limited to the observable universe, yet scientists are already looking far beyond that.

Science, in its pure form, is chiefly concerned with what is observable, testable, and repeat­able. It is restricted in that sense to the physical study of physical matter. But “science,” both in the past and present, has often had its fingers in another pie: metaphysics, the philosophical inquiry into the ultimate and foundational basis for reality—i.e., religion. And more concerning, science has become increasingly interested in exploring the possibilities of tapping into the supernatural.

Maybe you should read some reports from the field of neuroscience and its research into consciousness. To suggest science is incapable of observing the supernatural is putting a limit on science, and that is irrational.