I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
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?Sam Lowry said:So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.
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.Waco1947 said: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?Sam Lowry said:So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
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.Sam Lowry said:So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.
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?Sam Lowry said: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.Waco1947 said: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?Sam Lowry said:So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.
Morals.Waco1947 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.Waco1947 said: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?Sam Lowry said:So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.
Science itself is amoral. How it is used, determines the morality of the act.Waco1947 said: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?Sam Lowry said:So you have no answer.TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.TexasScientist said:I gave it to you. Science based humanistic reasoning.Sam Lowry said:Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...TexasScientist said:
So says Nazis.
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.
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.
I hope you understand the reason why: science is amoral. It lacks even the language with which to answer questions outside its magisterium.
Waco, that has been answered many times.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)
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.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?
Sam Lowry said: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.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?
A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
I'm not looking for the "right answer," I am looking for your answer. Does God control physics? If so, how do you know?Oldbear83 said:Waco, that has been answered many times.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)
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.
Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
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.
There is abundant credible evidence that antibiotics are effective. There is no credible evidence for the efficacy of prayer.JXL said:quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
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.Sam Lowry said:Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
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.
JXL said:quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
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."TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said:Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
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.
Mengele made his position clear, even stating in his journal that he "had to liberate Germanic history from Roman and Catholic influences."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.
First, why don't you want to know what is right?Waco1947 said:I'm not looking for the "right answer," I am looking for your answer. Does God control physics? If so, how do you know?Oldbear83 said:Waco, that has been answered many times.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)
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.
"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.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.
Oldbear83 said:"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.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.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?
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.
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.