Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 16 of 506 (694623)
03-26-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by AdminNosy
03-26-2013 10:09 AM


Re: Not so Clear?
The Big Bang did not convince him to become a Christian. Sandage's discovery in 1974 that the universe was going to expand forever was a startling defeat for The Cycle Theory. See Time magazine It meant that the Big Bang was a one-time event. A creation event. That proved to Sandage that God existed but he did not know which God. It started him on a two-year spiritual journey. He read books both modern and ancient on all kinds of topics. He said only the Bible could speak to the nature of God. He was finally convinced by the argument of Blaise Pascal in what is now called Pascal's Wager. He became a Christian in 1976.
BTW, just an interesting aside. Hugh Ross became a Christian in about 1962. Ross became a researcher at Caltech in about 1980 or 1981. Ross and Sandage knew each other. This would have been the period of time after Sandage had become a Christian but before Sandage had gone public about his faith in Christ, which happened in 1985. Ross left Caltech in 1986 to found Reasons to Believe.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 03-26-2013 10:09 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 03-26-2013 10:32 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 03-26-2013 10:40 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 12:39 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 506 (694625)
03-26-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 10:23 AM


Re: Not so Clear?
It meant that the Big Bang was a one-time event. A creation event. That proved to Sandage that God existed but he did not know which God.
I think this anecdote proves something other than what you suggest. The reasoning you quote for concluding that God exists is fairly porous.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 10:23 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 506 (694626)
03-26-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 10:23 AM


Who to?
I was not commenting on your claims just the rebuttal to it which I feel doesn't directly refute your claim.
However you said:
quote:
Sandage knew nature does not do one-time events. In science, one-time events are known as miracles. This convinced Sandage that God created the universe, but like Hugh Ross, he did not know which God. After a two year long spiritual journey, Allan Sandage became a follower of Jesus Christ.
Which has not been supported by anything that Sandage has been quoted as saying either.
It appears that his path to belief remains inconclusive.
I would suggest that it doesn't matter anyway. The topic is "can science say anything about a creator god". If it can or can not this can be shown by using tight logic without reference to authorities.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 10:23 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 506 (694628)
03-26-2013 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 9:44 AM


Re: Allan Sandage's discovery
One-time events are known as miracles. That is all Sandage is saying here.
He did not say this, because he is not an idiot. How about your own existence? Does science consider that one time event a miracle?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 9:44 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 20 of 506 (694629)
03-26-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 10:39 PM


Hi, DT.
I'm terribly confused right now. Let me summarize all the salient points of your opening post here:
  1. Some scientists say that science cannot comment on supernatural things, like the existence of a Creator.
  2. Some scientists say that science can comment on the supernatural, and has concluded that there is no Creator.
  3. Some creationists think the Big Bang points to a Creator.
  4. I (designtheorist) think science can comment on the existence of a Creator.
This is just a survey of various people's opinions, with no real substance to talk about. So, what, exactly, are we supposed to be discussing here?
Are there some particular points of reasoning that you want to discuss? Like, for instance, "Is science restricted to working with direct observations?" or "In what way does the Big Bang point to a Creator?" or "Does nature do 'one-time events'?"
Or, do you just want to tally everybody's opinion, then "summarize" the thread by restating your own opinion, like you did on the last thread?

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 10:39 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 11:45 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 21 of 506 (694630)
03-26-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
03-26-2013 11:22 AM


Hi Blue Jay
Some scientists say that science cannot comment on supernatural things, like the existence of a Creator.
Some scientists say that science can comment on the supernatural, and has concluded that there is no Creator.
Some creationists think the Big Bang points to a Creator.
I (designtheorist) think science can comment on the existence of a Creator.
That's not exactly right. Actually, both Ross and Sandage were atheists (not creationists) when the the Big Bang as a one-time event caused them to change their minds and believe a creator was responsible. If you have not yet read the excellent book God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow, I heartily recommend it to you. Jastrow is agnostic but he does a marvelous job telling the interesting story on the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Jastrow rather delights in talking about the scientists who are made uncomfortable to learn the Bible was right after all, that the universe did have a beginning. Interestingly, Sandage was one of those quoted as being uncomfortable with the idea. Of course, Sandage was still an atheist at that point.
This is just a survey of various people's opinions, with no real substance to talk about. So, what, exactly, are we supposed to be discussing here?
Are there some particular points of reasoning that you want to discuss? Like, for instance, "Is science restricted to working with direct observations?" or "In what way does the Big Bang point to a Creator?" or "Does nature do 'one-time events'?"
The question we are debating is: "Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God? Why do you hold this opinion?"
I gave examples of scientists on both sides of the question. i provided the scientific evidence for scientists who changed their minds regarding God because of science. And I picked the side I'm on.
Any questions you raise related to the main topic are welcome to be discussed and debated. I'm very interested to hear your views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2013 11:22 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 03-26-2013 12:11 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2013 12:47 PM designtheorist has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 22 of 506 (694631)
03-26-2013 11:53 AM


What Supernatural?
The problem is that the theists have defined the supernatural as being unevidenced, undetectable, and wholly unfalsifiable. It is the theists that keep the supernatural out of science, not the scientists. If the supernatural really did have effects on nature then science could study the supernatural. Period. Science does not need to exclude the supernatural because the supernatural has no effect on the natural. Science does not need to exclude beliefs since beliefs have no empirical effect on the natural world.
What theists refuse to understand is that they need to provide a compelling reason why the supernatural should be INCLUDED in science. They have failed at every turn.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:14 PM Taq has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 23 of 506 (694634)
03-26-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 11:45 AM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
designtheorist writes:
The question we are debating is: "Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God? Why do you hold this opinion?"
Sure, it's possible. Science can say the same thing about the supernatural, God, Zeus, Thor, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, the big bad wolf, etc. It can say, "We can't find any evidence that they exist. Similarly, police can say, "We can't find Jimmy Hoffa."
Not being able to find something is not the same as saying that something doesn't exist.
But you don't often see believers looking for evidence, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 11:45 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:19 PM ringo has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 24 of 506 (694635)
03-26-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taq
03-26-2013 11:53 AM


Re: What Supernatural?
You obviously have very strong feelings on the subject. Sometimes when people become emotional, they are unable to reason clearly. Will you be able to control those emotions when we begin to discuss the evidence?
My best advice to every participant is to not respond to posts here when you feel agitated. If you can wait until you calm down, it will raise the level of debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 12:40 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 12:43 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 25 of 506 (694637)
03-26-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
03-26-2013 12:11 PM


Looking for evidence
But you don't often see believers looking for evidence, do you?
Yes, I see it all the time. These believers are called Christian apologists. Dr. Hugh Ross is one.
I'm curious. If science was capable of finding evidence for God's existence, what would it look like? What evidence would be compelling to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 03-26-2013 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-26-2013 12:37 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 03-26-2013 12:37 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 506 (694638)
03-26-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 9:12 AM


Re: Regarding Eugenie Scott
Scott's explanation was "it is not possible to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces under laboratory conditions and so the possibility of a supernatural cause is outside of what science can tell us.
I think Ross is being fair to Scott's words ...
And I don't, since he attributes to her a position she can't possibly hold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 9:12 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 27 of 506 (694640)
03-26-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2013 12:19 PM


Re: Regarding Eugenie Scott
I tend to agree with you that if pressed for clarification, she would say things differently. On the other had, what is Ross to do? Ignore the actual record of what she said?
Just to clarify. I'm not throwing rocks at Eugenie. I'm not saying I think she is a bad scientist. Nothing like that. I think her comments indicate she is operating on a gut level here. I don't think she has really thought through the issues we are debating. This is just more evidence this is a much needed and important debate.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 12:38 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 28 of 506 (694642)
03-26-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 12:19 PM


Re: Looking for evidence
designtheorist writes:
If science was capable of finding evidence for God's existence, what would it look like? What evidence would be compelling to you?
HEAVEN PHOTOGRAPHED BY HUBBLE TELESCOPE
February 8, 1994
Just days after space shuttle astronauts repaired the Hubble Space Telescope in mid December, the giant lens focused on a star cluster at the edge of the universe — and photographed heaven!
NEW HUBBLE IMAGES - Weekly World News

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:19 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 506 (694643)
03-26-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 12:19 PM


Re: Looking for evidence
designtheorist writes:
ringo writes:
But you don't often see believers looking for evidence, do you?
Yes, I see it all the time. These believers are called Christian apologists. Dr. Hugh Ross is one.
Surely you understand the difference between looking for evidence and finding excuses for why there is none.
designtheorist writes:
If science was capable of finding evidence for God's existence, what would it look like?
Ask Dr. Hugh Ross. You claim he's looking for it.
designtheorist writes:
What evidence would be compelling to you?
First, it would have to be objective - i.e. not just compelling to me but to everybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:19 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 506 (694644)
03-26-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 9:25 AM


Re: Regarding Allan Sandage
I am well acquainted with Allan Sandage. What Allan is saying in the lines you quoted is that knowing a creator exists does not tell us anything about the nature of the creator ...
Actually, he's saying what he actually said.
Regarding Allan's view that you practice science as a material reductionist, I think this is mostly correct. [...] Allan did not think these were questions science can answer, but he still wanted answers. To a large extent, I think he is right.
So are we finished with this thread, or when you qualify your statements with "mostly" and "to a large extent" do you have some exceptions in mind, and can you argue for them?
You still have to deal with Dawkins. He says the existence of God is a scientific question. Is he right?
That depends what you mean by God. But what I've seen of Dawkins' arguments on the subject leave me unconvinced as to their merit. If you find them convincing, welcome to atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 9:25 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024