Stealthparx, I would like to have a formal debate with you on whether this post is defensible. Actually, I will let you choose the topic as you like and I will take either side. Do you have enough confidence in your position to defend it in a formal debate?[/QUOTE]stealthsparx;257311 wrote:One will be quite accurate in using the achievements of science to support a belief in a supernatural creator.. The study of the natural world unlike ever before in man's history has greatly increase mans capacity to appreciate where it all comes from..rog;257289 wrote:Go on then, please explain themstealthsparx;257287 wrote:rational arguments for GOD
Of course, Science in itself, can not and will not ever establish or give a definitive answer to the question of why were here? What is our purpose for living? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there a right way to live? What is the meaning of it all? Science remarkably fails with all of these questions..Science has inherent limitations in its scope of what it can discover and figure out..It has a justified prejudice towards everything explainable in the natural world..That's why the temptation to equate naturalism with science is very profound..However, where science doesn't fail is in allowing man the ability to have a greater appreciation of the role of science itself...
Dr. Richard Swinburne once said, "I do not deny that science explains, but i postulate GOD to explain why science explains." Swinburne, as many other great thinkers have before him from Galileo, to Kepler, to Newton, acknowledges that the study of the natural world point dramatically to an extant creator who is behind it all..Needless to say, that this coincides with Paul statement in Romans 1:20,"Gods...eternal power and divine nature...have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"...T
he composition of the natural world is a contingent creation..It is a "creation"..Key word here is "creation"..That says it all, logically speaking..The history of mankind has of yet to record of anything in the natural world that has the ability and power to create itself..Science for its part, only has the power to explain the mechanisms of creation, not where those mechanisms came from..Science will never have that ability because science, in and of itself, is a man-made affair with nature..The created universe itself is a divine act...I leave you with the words of Prominent Nanoscientist from MIT, Dr. James Tour, "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes ways from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to GOD"...
I posted this on another thread but to be a formal challenge, I guess I should post it here too.
I wrote, "I will let you choose the topic as you like and I will take either side. " which I do mean, but I would hope that you would choose something like, "Is there a rift between science and religion?" or, "Is religious faith compatible with science/the scientific method?" or "Is belief in God rational?" or, if you really think W.L. Craig has a defensible argument, I would be happy to debate you on any of his arguments for faith in God, although that may not be what you were getting at in this post.
I am sincere in my challenge and not blinkered by materialist glasses. Nor by religious glasses for that matter. I will not dismiss your arguments based on materialist prejudices and I will entertain any religious arguments you may wish to make and give them a fair shake. I am not an atheist either so you won't be stuck with a peanut gallery that favors me over you by default.
I have a sincere curiosity regarding how people support and defend arguments and I also have been searching for an argument that I can understand regarding theism. I do not believe that the scientific method is the only way to learn or acquire knowledge, but, in my experience, knowledge gained through other means ought not make predictions which contradict data collected scientifically (or just carefully) without providing an explanation for the contradicting data (like how the method of collection was flawed or something.)
I am extremely open-minded, have had a few deeply spiritual experiences which shape my entire life today in many ways, and, if you present an argument which seems to tie things together for me, or which I cannot see any flaws in, I will accept your argument as better than mine and adjust my future perspective accordingly. I will also let you judge the winner based on your perception of our arguments because I do think you know what you mean and will be able to tell whether I managed to understand your argument better than I would be able to tell if I understood your argument. Of course, you are also welcome to have a poll, but if my argument seems more acceptable to the materialist heavy population of this forum, the results may not reflect your experience so it is your choice. That is not a foregone conclusion though since the more staunch atheists on this forum who also consider themselves materialists or some relative of materialism don't seem to be able to understand me very well and might well not agree with my arguments (judging from past experience). I do take the responsibility for that as my own. Enough people have remarked about what they perceive to be weak or incoherent posts from me that I have to accept that it could be on my end rather than theirs.
I would hope you to be direct and point out what doesn't make sense in my posts, whether through logical errors or simple incoherency. I will do my best to edit my posts before I submit.
In short, I want a debate entirely on your terms because I want to understand your argument (which is very difficult in a thread setting because you have so much time soaked up answering the barrage of posts that you haven't been able to focus your argument enough for me to tell what it is.) I will defend or rebut a topic you choose framed the way that you think gives you the best opportunity to explain it.
Are you willing?
