seeds wrote:
...it can only be concluded that no matter what anyone says to Nick, he will still insist that no one here is capable of providing a logical explanation for the issue he brought up.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:35 pm
It isn’t that people are incapable but rather they are closed to what I call the necessary reconciliation between science and religion.
Again, Nick, you made the claim that no one here is able to provide even an “intellectual” explanation for the process beginning with the immaculate conception and concluding with the virgin birth.
I therefore provided you with a perfectly reasonable intellectual explanation (from a philosophical perspective) and you simply didn’t accept it due to your own biased take on reality.
Furthermore, I am not only open to the “necessary reconciliation between science and religion,” I vigorously promote it in my own writings.
The point is, stop painting everyone on the forum with your wide brush.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:35 pm
Science is true and the essence of religion is true. Truth cannot be in opposition. People who understand this try to find out the cause of the conflict. Could the virgin birth be acceptable to science? Yes, but we are far from any collective appreciation....
When it comes to virgin births and science, the only thing that would be acceptable to science is something that could explain an immaculate conception in purely materialistic terms.
For example, you could have a hermaphroditic female that is not only born with ovaries, but perhaps due to a strange misfiring of her own DNA is also equipped with an internal deformity in the form of a testicle that is capable of introducing sperm into her uterus.
Now that (albeit extremely unlikely) would be a form of immaculate conception that science could live with.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:35 pm
An understanding of God that doesn’t insult the scientific mind already exists...
As
Arising_uk has already requested of you, what exactly is the “already existing” understanding of God that doesn’t insult science?
Please layout the details of this “understanding” in a way that doesn’t come across as some vague and highly questionable personal theory.
Seriously, Nick, do you actually think that you are free to make bold statements such as the one quoted above and not be expected to back it up with a logical explanation of what you are talking about?
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:35 pm
...Consider why there are no posters on this site willing to express a non-secular scientific explanation for the virgin birth. They are driven away.
The phrase - “non-secular scientific explanation” is going to seem a bit oxymoronic to the average reader.
Nevertheless, I gave you a non-secular (i.e., a theistically based) scientific explanation.
The problem is that human science simply doesn’t accept the possibility of divine agency.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:35 pm
I was hoping to meet someone on this thread more open to what would enable the virgin birth and its relationship to the Immaculate Conception. An all powerful being having a need to juggle around a woman’s inside just is not scientifically satisfying.
How about this:
The real need for the idea of an “Immaculate Conception” has always been tied to the effort to square reality with human mythologies, and that there has never actually been an instance where it occurred through divine intervention...
...
(or if it has, it will have occurred in a way that will seem logical and explainable by science).
_______