Sign in or signup
Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsSITE
Events | Local | Blogs
New Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -2 sec
Top Sermons
Daily Log
Photos
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Sermon DashboardNEW
Members Only

Breaking News Home | All | Religion | Society | Tech | Choice | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  9/20/2019
Choice News SATURDAY, MAY 17, 2008  |  26 comments
Scientists, Theologians Debate Whether God Exists
WASHINGTON — Scientists hate God. Or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God, and so it's stupid to think God exists.

The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?

A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered.

Edited by Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer and backed by the John Templeton Foundation, the booklet features replies by 13 scholars and thinkers to the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.foxnews.com

Answers Academy: Big Bang
  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Answering Atheists • Phil Johnson | 4/15/2007
•  Answers Academy: Big BangDr. Jason Lisle | 6/1/2005
•  Interview with Young AtheistDr. Bill Jones | 6/18/2008
•  Atheism in America - It's Here • Kevin Swanson | 2/24/2009

   03/14/15  |  Another One Bites the Dust • 6 comments
   03/11/15  |  God Doesn't Want Matt Chandler to be Your Pastor • 21 comments
   01/08/14  |  Christian Post: Warning, this article may offend many Christians • 93 comments
   01/01/14  |  Michelle Obama praises lesbian TV anchor • 18 comments
   12/29/13  |  U.S. Slams 'Conservative Gender Norms' • 377 comments
MORE RELATED ( ) NEWS | MORE..
   09/19/19  |  Former Planned Parenthood President Speaks Out against the... • 2 comments
   09/19/19  |  OB/GYN confirms awful truth to Congress: Babies left to die • 3 comments
   09/18/19  |  China makes churches replace Ten Commandments with Xi Jinping... • 5 comments
   09/17/19  |  SermonAudio Tip: Enjoy Lamplighter Theatre on SermonAudio! • 1 comments
   09/17/19  |  Democrats Unanimous Forcing Schools To Let Male Athletes Compete... • 20 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 26 user comment(s)
News Item12/23/08 10:33 AM
A Bible Christian Who Believes  Find all comments by A Bible Christian Who Believes
It's THIS Issue on The Existence of GOD & of HEAVEN [Not Just GOD'S Dwelling Place (3rd Heaven); but Also the 2nd Heaven (The Outside Universe--Sun, Moon, Stars, Galaxies, Etc.) & 1st Heaven (Earth's Atmosphere)] & HELL that We, As Bible Christians, should be CONTINUALLY DISCUSSING & PRAYING about (As well as The Existence of EBEs, Aliens, ETs, Angels, Devils, Demons, Satan, The LORD JESUS, ALMIGHTY GOD, THE HOLY SCRIPTURE(S), ETC.); than playing silly games with THE TRUTH (THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH); and wastng precious TIME Disbelieving in/Denying the Existence of Almighty GOD:

& HIS Spiritual/Psychological/Physical CREATION (WHICH INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: EBEs, ALIENS, ETs, ANGELS; EVIL & ELECT, HUMANS, ANIMALS, ETC.): in and/or Round About This Planet (Earth)/Solar System/Universe (Galaxies, Quasars, Pulsars, Etc.)/Heaven (The SEAT & VERY THRONE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE:

"For There Are THREE That Bear Record In Heaven; The Father, The Word, And The Holy Ghost: And These THREE are ONE."

I John 5:7)

In relating His account of GOING to a Far Planet; in a Far Distant Galaxy: My Christian Friend & Br. JV said that the LORD asked him to look at the Northern Sky--and tell HIM if He saw anything. He said At First He Saw NOTHING. . . !

26

News Item5/29/08 2:14 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
It was probably pilot error, Neil, I'll see if I can't do better this time. [URL=http://www.icr.org/article/491/]]]Willingly Ignorant[/URL]. Besides, part of the problem, it was my FireFox pretending to be Microsoft's Internet Explorer and when your software imitates Microsoft it probably imitates its faults, also.
Vaccines, eh?
David A. Frenz wrote:
In a letter published by USA Today,...says in regards to human evolution: "This strange fiction issuing from the sands of Africa makes one thankful that these scientists avoided other careers of consequence. That they did not apply their energies to creating vaccines or structural members for high-rise buildings is a lucky stroke for society. Imagination in these cases is never an acceptable substitute for empirical results."
from, [URL=http://www.icr.org/article/834/]]]Inspired Guesses, Creative Imagination, and Science[/URL]
25

News Item5/28/08 2:33 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
"So please tell me in no uncertain terms where I'm using science dogmatically"

On the vaccine thread. There you said, "why people insist on listening to the gut instinct of untrained mothers ..., rather than the overwhelming data from large, double-blind, controlled clinical studies?"

Sounds pretty dogmatic to me, as if only a fool would deny what researchers say. You think fallacious study results are superior to gut instincts. But scientists use *their* gut instincts (i.e., make arbitrary choices, say in using the statistical mean instead of the mode, in collecting 500 samples instead of 1000) in reaching conclusions from their data. Whose instincts are better? I couldn't say, for I'd have to conduct a fallacious study to find out! So the kettle is as black as the pot.

Who said I don't make assumptions in daily life? The difference is, I dare not confuse them with truth, but only consider them working hypotheses about nature which could be invalidated *at any time*, which has happened more than once in the history of science. Truth (properly so called) never changes, but science *always* does.

Jim, that URL is broken. Perhaps FireFox is to blame!

24

News Item5/28/08 2:07 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Yes, there are limitations to science, [URL=http://www.icr.org/article/3749/]]]Exploring the Limits of the Scientific Method[/URL]

Henry Morris, Ph.D. wrote:
Tipler has written a book entitled, The Physics of Immortality, which admits the possibility of god (not the Biblical God, of course, but a sort of relativistic god), and this has been unacceptable to the physics establishment. He notes, significantly, that over 90% of the distinguished physicists in the National Academy are admitted atheists.
from [URL=http://Willingly Ignorant]]]Willingly Ignorant[/URL]
23

News Item5/27/08 10:38 PM
ouini | Iowa  Contact via emailFind all comments by ouini
Neil wrote: "... people like you use it dogmatically ... You're the one making positive claims about science ... If these [axiomatic assumptions about nature and human understanding] can be shown to be logically flawed, then science cannot stand and your claims about it are mere superstition."

All right. I guess I wasn't getting that from your previous posts. I'll try to address or at least understand you.

So please tell me in no uncertain terms where I'm using science dogmatically instead of self-correctingly, which positive claims I'm making about science which have not been shown to be true, and the axiomatic assumptions (in which the scientific method are grounded) which you ignore or don't assume in your day to day life?

22

News Item5/27/08 6:16 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
"you seem to be trying to imply that science is worse than what I'm representing, or possibly even that there's a better way to know things."

Yes, it is worse since people like you use it dogmatically (see other thread), and whether there's a better way to know things is irrelevant now (fallacy of false alternative). You're the one making positive claims about science, which I therefore have a duty to question.

"I suppose we could have a meta-discussion about the nuances of how people make claims," etc.

We could and should, since the scientific method is grounded in several axiomatic assumptions about nature and human understanding. And again, I don't have to have an alternative on hand to question your claims. If these can be shown to be logically flawed, then science cannot stand and your claims about it are mere superstition. Bertrand Russell was honest enough to admit this.

21

News Item5/27/08 5:55 PM
ouini | Iowa  Contact via emailFind all comments by ouini
Neil, you seem to be trying to imply that science is worse than what I'm representing, or possibly even that there's a better way to know things. But each of your points seems to be more about semantics than about practical ways to discover things about the universe, or better ways to convey what we mean when we say "prove", "understand", "can be", etc.

I suppose we could have a meta-discussion about the nuances of how people make claims, but I'm not here to quibble over what "is" is.

And it's unlikely to demonstrate how some method beside the scientific method is better at defining the world around us. Do you know of such a method? More importantly, how would one logically demonstrate that such a method is better than the scientific method?

Perhaps I'm missing your point.

20

News Item5/27/08 4:25 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
It's not a quibble, but a fundamental logical flaw in empiricism.

"science proves things (in the commonly understood use of the word "prove") as well as they can be proven"

Define "commonly understood." Is this determined by a scientific poll? Are you scientifically *certain* most people share your qualified sense of *to prove*?

And what of "can be?" First, this implies you are certain that no better epistemology is possible. Whence this certainty? And to say that the absence of logically true information is adequate reason to accept as true that which is logically flawed, is an argument from silence, and even a dangerous one at that. Two centuries ago, doctors widely believed the Humoral Theory to be true, & many patients (like Geo. Washington) were thus bled to death. Accepting such a "dumbed down" version of truth (the best medical science of the day *could* do) can be fatal!

19

News Item5/27/08 3:43 PM
ouini | Iowa  Contact via emailFind all comments by ouini
Neil wrote:
ouini, *nothing* is proven with a formally false methodology.
I think you might be quibbling, but making the same point as I am.

Except in the science of mathematics, I'm not familiar with any science ever having proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. But my (your) point is, science proves things (in the commonly understood use of the word "prove") as well as they can be proven.

And science is the best way anyone has ever come up with of learning things about the world around us.

18

News Item5/27/08 1:10 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
"Very little is *proven* with the scientific method"

ouini, *nothing* is proven with a formally false methodology. Show us a scientific conclusion that is immune the charge of incomplete induction or affirming the consequent.

17

News Item5/27/08 11:46 AM
ouini | Iowa  Contact via emailFind all comments by ouini
What is truth wrote:
Scientific truth has evolved and changed many times. Much [science] is now scientifically proven to be untrue.
Well, not quite. It's more accurate to say the scientific method makes predictions based on the evidence available. So, new evidence leads to new conclusions, as it should.

Very little is *proven* with the scientific method. Things are just shown to be fairly, very, or amazingly likely. Science doesn't claim absolute truth. It's just the best way we have of learning things.

Everyone uses the scientific method. When your phone doesn't work, and you wiggle the cable to see if that helps, you're actually creating and testing a hypothesis ("maybe my cable is loose"). That's the scientific method.

What is truth wrote:
Secular history attests to him...
I'd like to hear about that history. Outside of the Bible, I've never heard of written evidence of Jesus, except stuff (unfortunately) later shown to be a forged (like the doctored passages in Josephus. for instance).

Sherry C. wrote:
why do people who believe in aliens think that they are more intelligent than earthlings?
Pop culture thinks of aliens as high tech. Most scientists figure most alien life would be simple.
16

News Item5/24/08 9:50 AM
Jhawk44  Find all comments by Jhawk44
What is truth wrote:
Scientific truth has evolved and changed many times. Much of what was scientifically proven in recent history, is now scientifically proven to be untrue. Our own planetary system is the latest example. Therefore science does not have absolute truth.
Jesus Christ claimed to be the absolute truth. Nobody has proven He did not walk on this planet, although many have tried. Secular history attests to him, as well as the Bible. He claimed He was God in the flesh, so there is actually evidence that God exists
Excellent synopsis.
15

News Item5/24/08 9:46 AM
Sherry C. | Illinois  Contact via emailFind all comments by Sherry C.
Yet again another scientific debate to prove the existance of God-now that's insane since the results are always the same. Even if a God denying scientist concedes to Intelligent Design, they would say that it proves there is an alien nation in outer space that created it. An aside, why do people who believe in aliens think that they are more intelligent than earthlings? O.K., my suggestion is to use prophecies fulfilled to prove God's existance. No preterists allowed, however.
14

News Item5/24/08 7:01 AM
What is truth | South Pacific  Find all comments by What is truth
Scientific truth has evolved and changed many times. Much of what was scientifically proven in recent history, is now scientifically proven to be untrue. Our own planetary system is the latest example. Therefore science does not have absolute truth.
Jesus Christ claimed to be the absolute truth. Nobody has proven He did not walk on this planet, although many have tried. Secular history attests to him, as well as the Bible. He claimed He was God in the flesh, so there is actually evidence that God exists
13

News Item5/21/08 4:58 PM
Jean-Luc Picard  Find all comments by Jean-Luc Picard
A Bible Christian Who Believes wrote:
I DO KNOW for A FACT that GOD DOES INDEED EXIST--
And That EBEs, ETs & "Aliens", as ALMIGHTY GOD'S Creatures: DO EXIST TOO!
Yes but the question is, "Do YOU really exist?"

Exist means "to have actual being"
We are led by your alias to accept/or not that you exist as "A Bible Christian who believes."

But we question your actual being under this alias. Our view can realistically assume you to be otherwise, on the basis of your "belief" in extra terrestial life forms. There is no real empirical evidence to the contrary that the planets are empty rocks.
Faith is clearly a persuasion which can be erroneous; your own example of RCC is valid to that point.

So "Bible Christian who believes"
Do YOU really exist???

12

News Item5/21/08 4:04 PM
A Bible Christian Who Believes  Find all comments by A Bible Christian Who Believes
It's very interesting that while "Scientists, Theologians Debate Whether God Exists"

Roman-Catholics/Vaticanists & Christians/Bible-Christians are Debating Whether EBEs, ETs & 'Aliens' Exist--

@ sermonaudio's News Item:

"Vatican: Space aliens might actually exist"

Although I KNOW for A FACT that Ultimately NOTHING GOOD Can-Ever/Ever-Does/Ever-Will Come Out Of Satan's Seat in The Roman Vatican:

I DO KNOW for A FACT that GOD DOES INDEED EXIST--

And That EBEs, ETs & "Aliens", as ALMIGHTY GOD'S Creatures: DO EXIST TOO!

11

News Item5/21/08 2:20 PM
ouini | Iowa  Contact via emailFind all comments by ouini
Mike wrote: "... we certainly agree about those who hold to macroevolution."

I don't think we do. I mean, I think when people disagree about the extent evolution happened, it's not a matter of insanity, it's more a matter of not looking into the topic deeply enough.

People tend to read articles, websites, and publications which agree with and bolster their point of view. It's a rare layman who bothers looking at the arguments from both sides. Either side's argument can be pretty convincing, when one avoids looking at counter-arguments.

I'd say those who avoid digging for the truth aren't insane, just gullible, a bit lazy, and possibly afraid of having to change their minds.

Those who seek out and dig through the data and research, and see the undeniable evidence, but choose not to believe it (or come up with their own rationalizations or conspiracy theories to reconcile it) -- those are the ones I agree are insane.

10

News Item5/19/08 5:37 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
"Mike wrote: "It seems reasonable to conclude that those who deny the existence of ultimate Reality, are by definition insane."

I'd agree. In fact, I'd add that those who believe something about reality in contradiction with evidence, or despite a complete lack of evidence, are by definition insane."

Good. Then we certainly agree about those who hold to macroevolution.

9

News Item5/19/08 5:06 PM
ouini | Iowa  Contact via emailFind all comments by ouini
Jhawk44 wrote: "... we win by majority opinion (... that's what these scientists think determines rules: what is most accepted is an absolute truth, and everything else is hogwash)"

I think that's a gross mischaracterization -- nearly opposite of reality. Science has nothing to do with democracy. In science, one goes where the evidence leads, *despite* popular opinion.

Jhawk44 wrote: "... there was no debate, just a stark, unanimous rejection."

Again, I don't understand. With Christians of various stripes included in the publication, agreement on God is anything but unanymous.

Mike wrote: "It seems reasonable to conclude that those who deny the existence of ultimate Reality, are by definition insane."

I'd agree. In fact, I'd add that those who believe something about reality in contradiction with evidence, or despite a complete lack of evidence, are by definition insane.

8

News Item5/17/08 5:13 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
It seems reasonable to conclude that those who deny the existence of ultimate Reality, are by definition insane.
7
There are a total of 26 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 | last
Last PostTotal
SermonAudio Tip: Show Latest Sermon Preached On Your Own Site!
flanagan6415 from 14301 industrial ave n maple h: "you can get the best service of..."
-34 min 
SermonAudio Tip: SermonAudio Channel v3.0 for the Roku TV...
silversingles from united states: "his is extremely helpful info!!thank you for..."
-1 hrs 71 
NBC News Asks Americans To Confess Their Climate Change Sins
the quiet christian: "i've suggested before that progressives want to shame others..."
-2 hrs 


Don Green
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism
Midweek Service
Truth Community Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS

Beware the flatterer
Shane Stegemann

Drew McKeown
Restoring the Hopeless:..

Fearless in Faith
Drew McKeown
Play! | MP3

Rev. Arnoud T. Vergunst
Marriage Enrichment (6) The..

Marriage Enrichment
Netherlands Reformed
Transcript!Play! | MP3

Kevin Swanson
Warnings About Public Schools

Finally Time to Get Them Out?
Generations Radio
Play! | MP3

Sermon:
La Llegada Del Poder
Mark S. Wisniewski

SPONSOR | 3,900+

SPONSOR




                   
In heaven is no warfare but all well-fare. ... John Boys


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App
Watch
Android
Church App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts
2-MINUTE TIPS

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
SA Newsroom New!
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES
Sermon Dashboard | Info
Audio | Video | Podcast
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Live Webcasting
Listen Line
Events Support
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards
Business Cards
SOLO Sites
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Goodies
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Auto-Upload Sermons
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox
Picasa
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Privacy Policy | Support Us | Stories