A Scientist Asks the God Question.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

A scientist Asks the God Question.

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

I don't get it... what question is being asked...? I hear a "homework" assignment ("does the multiverse exist") but I believe that's intended for the viewer (i.c. me, and I don't consider myself to be the God)... so, sorry, but I really don't get it...

 

[Key]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

I don't get it... what question is being asked...? I hear a "homework" assignment ("does the multiverse exist") but I believe that's intended for the viewer (i.c. me, and I don't consider myself to be the God)... so, sorry, but I really don't get it...

 

In a roundabout way, she asks do scientist think God exists? Answers, they can neither say that a God exist, nor that one doesn't exist, as there are no observable consequence. (Short version.)

Edited November 22, 2019 by Key
grammar

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

In a roundabout way, she asks do scientist think God exists? Answers, they can neither say that a God exist, nor that one doesn't exist, as there are no observable consequence. (Short version.)

 

 

I put this video up because of my irritation with Dan.  I got tired of his assertion -- yet again -- that Atheism is religion.  That Atheism is a belief.  I wanted to demonstrate how a real scientist thinks about God.

 

Real scientists don't argue about God's existence.  Neither for it nor against it.  The idea of God, is not considered useful.  That's it.  It's a non-issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I put this video up because of my irritation with Dan.  I got tired of his assertion -- yet again -- that Atheism is religion.  That Atheism is a belief.  I wanted to demonstrate how a real scientist thinks about God.

 

Real scientists don't argue about God's existence.  Neither for it nor against it.  The idea of God, is not considered useful.  That's it.  It's a non-issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I figured all that. Not sure he'd have gotten the gist until you just explained it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 minutes ago, Key said:

Yeah, I figured all that. Not sure he'd have gotten the gist until you just explained it.

 

 

 

Your confidence in Dan is misplaced.  In Dan's world, we either believe the Bible and love God -- or reject Scripture and hate God.  There is no middle ground.  No grey.  No nuance.  He thinks science is an Atheist religion.  I have tried and I have given up.     

 

 

 

[Key]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

 

Your confidence in Dan is misplaced.  In Dan's world, we either believe the Bible and love God -- or reject Scripture and hate God.  There is no middle ground.  No grey.  No nuance.  He thinks science is an Atheist religion.  I have tried and I have given up.     

 

 

 

Didn't say he'd have accepted it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

57 minutes ago, Key said:

Didn't say he'd have accepted it.

 

 

Dan can't understand the distinction between Atheist and Agnostic.  Do you really think he can understand the difference, between Atheism and Science?

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

An Agnostic Scientist

 

 

 

[Key]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Dan can't understand the distinction between Atheist and Agnostic.  Do you really think he can understand the difference, between Atheism and Science?

 

 

 

 

Maybe he understands, but...as I previously said...he doesn't accept it. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 minutes ago, Key said:

Maybe he understands, but...as I previously said...he doesn't accept it. 

 

 

 

I used to think that Dan was deceptive.  That he was playing mind games.  I was mistaken.  What we see is what there is.  Dan does not understand.  This is not about intelligence.  Dan's world outlook is so rigid, that some ideas are simply not permitted into his head.  In his own terms, it is the Armor of God.  I'm not being mean.  I'm speaking the truth as I have come to know it.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

A Scientist Discusses Faith

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

A Different Discussion About God

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

On 11/22/2019 at 5:52 PM, Key said:

In a roundabout way, she asks do scientist think God exists? Answers, they can neither say that a God exist, nor that one doesn't exist, as there are no observable consequence. (Short version.)

 

 

Hmkay, thanks! That got lost - to me - in translation. But I get it (now)....

 

 

[Dan56]

On 11/22/2019 at 12:30 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I put this video up because of my irritation with Dan.  I got tired of his assertion -- yet again -- that Atheism is religion.  That Atheism is a belief.  I wanted to demonstrate how a real scientist thinks about God.

 

Real scientists don't argue about God's existence.  Neither for it nor against it.  The idea of God, is not considered useful.  That's it.  It's a non-issue.

 

 

Atheism (noun) is the Belief that no deities exist.. I would not call it a religion per se, but it is a belief. I don't necessarily conflate atheism with science, although many Atheist formulate their belief on the basis of what science can reveal, and science can't reveal anything divine. Belief is a decision and so is non-belief, whatever we decide to choose formulates our decision; i.e; I believe in God or I believe in no gods. 

 

On 11/22/2019 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Your confidence in Dan is misplaced.  In Dan's world, we either believe the Bible and love God -- or reject Scripture and hate God.  There is no middle ground.  No grey.  No nuance.  He thinks science is an Atheist religion.  I have tried and I have given up.  

 

True, there is no middle ground for me. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). Your either in on all fours or your not in at all. Faith is not about partial belief or compromising with what science can or cannot prove.  I view science as agnostic, it can't factually conclude the existence or nonexistence of God, so science is essentially a dead-end street on the subject. I agree that science should be neutral on the issue since it can't substantiate anything.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Atheism (noun) is the Belief that no deities exist.. I would not call it a religion per se, but it is a belief. I don't necessarily conflate atheism with science, although many Atheist formulate their belief on the basis of what science can reveal, and science can't reveal anything divine. Belief is a decision and so is non-belief, whatever we decide to choose formulates our decision; i.e; I believe in God or I believe in no gods. 

 

 

True, there is no middle ground for me. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). Your either in on all fours or your not in at all. Faith is not about partial belief or compromising with what science can or cannot prove.  I view science as agnostic, it can't factually conclude the existence or nonexistence of God, so science is essentially a dead-end street on the subject. I agree that science should be neutral on the issue since it can't substantiate anything.

 

 

And there we are.  Unchanging and unyielding.  Impervious to nuance or distinction.  And proud of it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Atheism (noun) is the Belief that no deities exist.. I would not call it a religion per se, but it is a belief. I don't necessarily conflate atheism with science, although many Atheist formulate their belief on the basis of what science can reveal, and science can't reveal anything divine. Belief is a decision and so is non-belief, whatever we decide to choose formulates our decision; i.e; I believe in God or I believe in no gods. 

 

 

True, there is no middle ground for me. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). Your either in on all fours or your not in at all. Faith is not about partial belief or compromising with what science can or cannot prove.  I view science as agnostic, it can't factually conclude the existence or nonexistence of God, so science is essentially a dead-end street on the subject. I agree that science should be neutral on the issue since it can't substantiate anything.

There are many who subscribe to the label of Atheist, and you give only one possibility as to why, when there is at least another reason. Atheist can believe there is or isn't a God, but absent proof of existence, won't.

Just like believing there's life on planet X  that resides in a galaxy millions of light years away from Earth. That life may be there, or it may not, so until there's evidence of it, some won't believe it does, or doesn't, for that matter. There's no compelling reason to believe, without evidence.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 minutes ago, Key said:

There are many who subscribe to the label of Atheist, and you give only one possibility as to why, when there is at least another reason. Atheist can believe there is or isn't a God, but absent proof of existence, won't.

Just like believing there's life on planet X  that resides in a galaxy millions of light years away from Earth. That life may be there, or it may not, so until there's evidence of it, some won't believe it does, or doesn't, for that matter. There's no compelling reason to believe, without evidence.

 

 

That was a nice try.  A really nice try.  It won't do any good.  Dan's standard response at this point, will be about receiving belief by faith.  He will also tell you that accepting belief is a choice.  He will say this and he will be sincere.

 

I can't do it any more.    

 

Have fun.