Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

The plain fact TS ignores, is that the decision to give power to Hitler was political, not religious, and the available evidence is that no Christian leader, Lutheran, Catholic or any other denomination, supported Hitler as a moral leader.

The continued attempt to lay Nazism at the feet of Christianity is hypocrisy at best and malicious in all likelihood.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

Not humanistic but humanitarian standards

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

---

Science is amoral? How does a doctor do good work and save a person's life? Does he use science? If so, is science amoral?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

---

Science is amoral? How does a doctor do good work and save a person's life? Does he use science? If so, is science amoral?

---

Amoral, not immoral. Doctors may do good work or horrible experiments depending on which moral principles they observe, but the principles are a matter of faith. Science doesn't tell us what's right or wrong.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

---

I've mentioned before magisterium is a useles concept. Moral actions and judgements are made by humans interpreting from their source of reference. They can draw upon religious beliefs founded in myths, or humanism founded in science.

Saying ain't proving.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

---

Science is amoral? How does a doctor do good work and save a person's life? Does he use science? If so, is science amoral?

---

Amoral, not immoral. Doctors may do good work or horrible experiments depending on which moral principles they observe, but the principles are a matter of faith. Science doesn't tell us what's right or wrong.

---

That's not my point. I am saying doctors can do good works based on science alone. Science provides the tools. What does your moral God bring to the table?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

---

Science is amoral? How does a doctor do good work and save a person's life? Does he use science? If so, is science amoral?

---

Amoral, not immoral. Doctors may do good work or horrible experiments depending on which moral principles they observe, but the principles are a matter of faith. Science doesn't tell us what's right or wrong.

---

That's not my point. I am saying doctors can do good works based on science alone. Science provides the tools. What does your moral God bring to the table?

---

Morals.

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...

---

I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.

---

You gave me a set of facts (suffering, death, etc.), applied some moral assumptions that you call humanistic reasoning, and concluded that German Christians should have resisted Hitler. I could take the same set of facts, apply some religious assumptions, and reach the same conclusion. In neither case does the conclusion follow directly from the facts. So you've yet to explain how one of these arguments is any more valid or science-based than the other.

I'm not saying your reasons are no good. Lots of smart people have offered lots of good reasons for accepting religion, too. But those reasons carry no weight with you because they aren't scientific. All I'm asking of you is the same thing you ask of me. Prove your assumptions scientifically. Just restating them again and again isn't proof.

---

My assumptions are based upon scientific evidence as to what causes harm (proof), and applying humanistic reasoning to make moral judgement; as opposed to moral judgement drawn from religious conclusions based upon a code rooted in the myths of primitive people. Based upon science, humanism would tell you that the Nazi atrocities were wrong and immoral.

I don't believe I said German Christians should have resisted Hitler. They could have, but I'm not sure their religion would lead them to conclusively determine that Hitler's atrocities were immoral. Reread my comments. Most of German Christians obviously did not make that determination. I think I said that the god of the OT had no problem subjecting his own chosen people to plagues, famine, pillaging, plundering, rape, and murder from conquerors, nor to them doing the same to others. And after all, the god of the NT allowed the Jews to crucify Christ. I can see where Christian German religious views may lead them to think Nazi atrocities were ok and justified.

---

So you have no answer.

I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.

---

Science is amoral? How does a doctor do good work and save a person's life? Does he use science? If so, is science amoral?

---

Science itself is amoral. How it is used, determines the morality of the act.

For example, in 2006 I saw two different oncologists regarding my cancer. The first was not experienced with my type of cancer, and frankly he treated it like a rare stamp to add to hi collection. He made assumptions regarding my prognosis, wrongly told my wife my condition was terminal unless I underwent a drastic surgery which would have required 6 months of convalescence, after a full month in hospital, and when I said I wanted to seek a second opinion he refused to release my medical records to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (it took a formal letter from my attorney warning he was violating HIPPA, and would be sued if he did not release my records). The second oncologist was my specialist at MDA, who identified my stage, prescribed a simple regimen which has kept the tumors from growing, and generally allowed me a life much like my pre-cancer world.

One doctor was thinking only of his advantage and gain, and he did not give a rat's rear end about my pain or the worry it gave my wife. The other doctor focused on my well-being and health, and was very informative and considerate to my wife and daughter, who were just as invested in the outcome as myself.

The science in that matter was amoral, a tool to be used for good or ill. It was the person using that science who acted with good or bad morality.

God's Do you believe it? Oldbear
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?

I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events,
2) relationships
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)

Waco1947 said:

---

God's Do you believe it? Oldbear
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?

I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events,
2) relationships
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)

---

Waco, that has been answered many times.

You either believe Scripture, or you do not.

Focusing just on Jesus, if He really did walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind and lame and raise the dead, then absolutely God controls physics and all natural laws.

If you deny Scripture, then you are no Christian and therefore have much bigger problems than losing an argument here.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

God's Do you believe it? Oldbear
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?

I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events,
2) relationships
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)

---

Waco, that has been answered many times.

You either believe Scripture, or you do not.

Focusing just on Jesus, if He really did walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind and lame and raise the dead, then absolutely God controls physics and all natural laws.

If you deny Scripture, then you are no Christian and therefore have much bigger problems than losing an argument here.

---

I'm not looking for the "right answer," I am looking for your answer. Does God control physics? If so, how do you know?

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.

---

Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.

---

Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.

---

Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

---

There is abundant credible evidence that antibiotics are effective. There is no credible evidence for the efficacy of prayer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.

---

Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.

---

Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.

---

His work, unfortunately, was way more effective than prayer. I imagine all of the people he worked on were praying for different results to no avail. BTW - Mengele was a Catholic.

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

---

One is not a waste of time.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.

---

Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.

---

Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.

---

His work, unfortunately, was way more effective than prayer. I imagine all of the people he worked on were praying for different results to no avail. BTW - Mengele was a Catholic.

---

Please. Mengele was no Catholic. I actually thought about choosing a different example on the remote chance that someone would try to make something of his religious upbringing, but then I was like, "Nah...there's no way anyone would reach that far."

More to the point, his efforts were ultimately less effective. Prayer gave people the courage to shelter his potential victims and the moral sense to reject his worldview. Like other "science-based" ideologies, it was destined to survive only as an example of hubris and failure.

Some of the same people that are quick to say OU's QB is NOT a homophobic person because he made a lame statement when he was 14 or 15. Will take the opposite stance that a person is Catholic or Lutheran as an adult be cause they were as a child.

TS I believe has said before that he was raised in the church but he doesn't claim it now. Different rules for different folks I guess.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Some of the same people that are quick to say OU's QB is NOT a homophobic person because he made a lame statement when he was 14 or 15. Will take the opposite stance that a person is Catholic or Lutheran as an adult be cause they were as a child.

TS I believe has said before that he was raised in the church but he doesn't claim it now. Different rules for different folks I guess.

---

Mengele made his position clear, even stating in his journal that he "had to liberate Germanic history from Roman and Catholic influences."

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

God's Do you believe it? Oldbear
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?

I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events,
2) relationships
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)

---

Waco, that has been answered many times.

You either believe Scripture, or you do not.

Focusing just on Jesus, if He really did walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind and lame and raise the dead, then absolutely God controls physics and all natural laws.

If you deny Scripture, then you are no Christian and therefore have much bigger problems than losing an argument here.

---

I'm not looking for the "right answer," I am looking for your answer. Does God control physics? If so, how do you know?

---

First, why don't you want to know what is right?

Second, I have made my answer plain. If you didn't read it, that would only be because you ignored it.

Denying Scripture makes sense for an atheist, but is anathema for an ordained minister.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

"Objective truth" depends on an objective source, Ergo, a human in a lab coat is no more trustworthy than a human in a cassock. In both cases you would do well to listen with discernment.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?

"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"

Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?

Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?

---

As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.

---

No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.

---

A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.

---

No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.

---

"Objective truth" depends on an objective source, Ergo, a human in a lab coat is no more trustworthy than a human in a cassock. In both cases you would do well to listen with discernment.

---

The guy in a cassock might be useful if he's Jesuit.