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


Message 31 of 506 (694645)
03-26-2013 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 12:32 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?
He should not make stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:32 PM designtheorist has not replied

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


Message 32 of 506 (694646)
03-26-2013 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 10:23 AM


Re: Not so Clear?
The Big Bang did not convince him to become a Christian. [...] He was finally convinced by the argument of Blaise Pascal in what is now called Pascal's Wager.
Try not to forget it.

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

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


(2)
Message 33 of 506 (694647)
03-26-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 12:14 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
You obviously have very strong feelings on the subject.
Heaven forbid that someone with an opinion should disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:14 PM designtheorist has not replied

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


(1)
Message 34 of 506 (694648)
03-26-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 12:14 PM


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?
Why do you feel it necessary to poison the well? Why not just present the evidence?
I'm not agitated or emotional about it. I am very matter-of-fact about it. Theists have not presented any compelling evidence that would allow us to include the supernatural in any explanation related to the natural world. None. There is not a single verified supernatural explanation for a natural phenomena. Not one. All of the verified and evidenced explanations we have are natural mechanisms. Every. Single. One. This isn't due to excluding supernatural explanations. This is due to the complete lack of any supernatural mechanisms working in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 12:14 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:09 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 35 of 506 (694649)
03-26-2013 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 11:45 AM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes:
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.
Fair enough. But, these were really just superficial summaries, and the reasoning and evidence behind them remain unclear.
For example, your anecdotes about Ross and Sandage indicate that their "scientific evidence" for creationism amounts to a faulty use of logic (specifically, affirming the consequent):
Premise: If there is a Creator, there would be a beginning of the universe.
Observation: There is a beginning to the universe.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is a Creator.
I do not accept the initial premise: it has not been demonstrated that a discrete beginning to the universe necessitates a Creator. Therefore, the existence of a discrete beginning to the universe is not evidence for the existence of a Creator.
In the absence of evidence, I have to remain silent on whether or not the Big Bang points to a Creator.
Most lines of reasoning that attempt to support the existence of the Creator have ended the same way for me. So, based on this history of personal experience, my current opinion is that a Creator can only be concluded from fallacious logic. This makes me highly skeptical toward the idea of a Creator. But, I stop short of believing that science can definitively rule out a supernatural Creator.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves 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 38 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 36 of 506 (694651)
03-26-2013 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2013 12:37 PM


Re: Regarding Allan Sandage
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?
By "mostly" and "to a large extent," I mean that most researchers are looking at very specific research interests. If you are studying quasars or the age of the universe, then you are not looking for the supernatural. But if you are looking for the best model related to origins, then it would be a mistake to automatically exclude from consideration evidence that may point to the supernatural. That type of philosophical, a priori, "the supernatural doesn't exist" mindset is not conducive to open and honest scientific enquiry.
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.
I am unconvinced by Dawkins arguments also. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day. I think Dawkins is right that science can say something about the supernatural, I just think he comes to the wrong conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 12:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 1:51 PM designtheorist has not replied

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


Message 37 of 506 (694652)
03-26-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
03-26-2013 12:43 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
Why do you feel it necessary to poison the well? Why not just present the evidence?
I apologize for offending you. It was not my intention. The evidence will be forthcoming in a later debate. Right now we are debating the issue of whether or not it is possible for science to say something about the supernatural or God.
Let me ask you this. What is the minimum scientific evidence it would take for you to be convinced God exists? Can you conceive of any such evidence? What would it look like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 12:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 1:21 PM designtheorist has replied

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


Message 38 of 506 (694653)
03-26-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Blue Jay
03-26-2013 12:47 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Fair enough. But, these were really just superficial summaries, and the reasoning and evidence behind them remain unclear.
Yes, that's true. But we have not gotten to the evidence yet. That comes later. Many people operate with a type of unexamined premise, that the supernatural is not real and so discount any evidence of it. That's the point of this debate. Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God?
In the absence of evidence, I have to remain silent on whether or not the Big Bang points to a Creator.
Most lines of reasoning that attempt to support the existence of the Creator have ended the same way for me. So, based on this history of personal experience, my current opinion is that a Creator can only be concluded from fallacious logic. This makes me highly skeptical toward the idea of a Creator. But, I stop short of believing that science can definitively rule out a supernatural Creator.
Fair enough. Human knowledge is finite and will always remain so. I agree that it is impossible for science to rule out a supernatural Creator. The interesting issue is that for some participants in this debate, it is possible for science to rule out a Creator but not possible for science to find evidence the Creator exists. I think this is exactly backwards.
Let me ask you. What is the minimum amount of scientific evidence on the supernatural that would cause you to begin a spiritual journey like the one Allan Sandage and Hugh Ross began?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2013 12:47 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 1:24 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2013 2:02 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2013 4:58 PM designtheorist has replied

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


(1)
Message 39 of 506 (694654)
03-26-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 1:09 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
Let me ask you this. What is the minimum scientific evidence it would take for you to be convinced God exists? Can you conceive of any such evidence? What would it look like?
In the biological realm, a creator God would be best evidenced by the appearance of modern animals in the Cambrian and a lack of a nested hierarchy.
If a thousand foot deity came down from the clouds and threw lightning at my feet I am sure I would also be quite convinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:09 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:15 PM Taq has replied

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


(2)
Message 40 of 506 (694655)
03-26-2013 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 1:19 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Many people operate with a type of unexamined premise, that the supernatural is not real and so discount any evidence of it.
False. We think that the supernatural is not real because there is no evidence for it. Believers have had thousands of years to present that evidence, and none has been brought forth.
I agree that it is impossible for science to rule out a supernatural Creator.
Why? Why is the supernatural automatically unfalsifiable?
Just look at all of the natural explanations we now accept as true that were once explained by the supernatural. Hasn't the supernatural been falsified in those instances?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:19 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 2:46 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 41 of 506 (694656)
03-26-2013 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 1:00 PM


But if you are looking for the best model related to origins, then it would be a mistake to automatically exclude from consideration evidence that may point to the supernatural. That type of philosophical, a priori, "the supernatural doesn't exist" mindset is not conducive to open and honest scientific enquiry.
There seems to be a shortage of such evidence.
I am unconvinced by Dawkins arguments also. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day. I think Dawkins is right that science can say something about the supernatural ...
But he says so for a very specific reason, namely that he thinks science rules out the supernatural. If he's wrong, he's wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:00 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 42 of 506 (694657)
03-26-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 1:19 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
dt writes:
Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God?
Science investigates that which can be detected. Science is a method for investigation.
If supernatural entities can be detected then we can apply the methods of science to investigate them.
If such entities cannot be detected then, whether they actually exist or not, any claims to have expererienced such entities tell us more about the internal workings of the claimants mind than they do any aspect of reality external to that mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 1:19 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:37 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 43 of 506 (694658)
03-26-2013 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taq
03-26-2013 1:24 PM


Hi Taq
False. We think that the supernatural is not real because there is no evidence for it. Believers have had thousands of years to present that evidence, and none has been brought forth.
You say there is no evidence and yet there are 2.2 billion Christians on the planet. Is it possible that there is evidence and you have not been convinced by it? We have not yet begun to examine the evidence put forward in the RTB Creation Model.
If you were to sit on a jury, the instructions from the judge would be to put aside any preconceptions, wait until all the evidence is in and then weigh all the evidence both for and against. I would ask the same of you now.
Why? Why is the supernatural automatically unfalsifiable?
Disproving the existence of something that is immaterial and all-powerful is not impossible, but it is impossible by scientific means. Science deals with inductive evidence. It is not possible to ever get enough inductive evidence to disprove God. You would have to have infinite knowledge and humans will never have that. It could be that a God, for his own reasons (possibly to cause people to rely on faith), would never allow absolute proof about his existence to be found.
It is possible to disprove a God from deductive logic. That is, if the God in question could be shown to have attributes that are mutually exclusive, then that God could be shown to be logically impossible. That approach to disprove the God of the Bible has been attempted and failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 1:24 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2013 3:14 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2013 3:31 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 03-26-2013 3:45 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2013 3:57 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-26-2013 4:30 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 5:02 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 03-26-2013 5:51 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 506 (694659)
03-26-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 10:39 PM


quote:
The first is Dr. Hugh Ross himself. He was an atheist until he was 15 years old. When he learned about the Big Bang, he realized there had to be a Big Banger. At first, he thought the creator was probably not interested in his creation (a deist view). When Ross was 17, he made a search of the holy books of the world’s major religions. He tested their statements scientifically. Ross thought that if the book was really from God, the book would get the science right. The first holy book he read said people lived on the surface of the Sun. Ross knew that wasn’t right. He put that book down and picked up another. Ultimately, Ross saw the Bible as accurate on scientific issues and he made the decision to believe in Jesus Christ. If not for the Big Bang, Ross would not have begun his search for the true God.
So Ross was the sort of atheist who is all too willing to jump to the conclusion that there is a God. And we know that his "fair" evaluation of holy books was nothing of the sort. Ross has to interpret the Bible based on the assumption of inerrancy to come to his views and overlooks serious problems such as the ages attributed to the pre-Flood generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 10:39 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 45 of 506 (694660)
03-26-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 2:46 PM


Re: Hi Taq
designtheorist writes:
You say there is no evidence and yet there are 2.2 billion Christians on the planet.
There are also millions of others believing in different gods, millions unsure and millions believing in none. This is evidence of nothing other than people seem to believe in different things and are confused.
Even if 100% of everyone on the planet believed in exactly the same God, it is not evidence of the existence of God.
If 100% of white, English children under the age of 10 believed in Father Christmas - which is highly probable - he still wouldn't exist.
Is it possible that there is evidence and you have not been convinced by it?
In most cases, it's rather the reverse. Atheists, like everyone else, are usually born into families that believe in something or other, so they do too. They only later discover that it's all a nonsense.
Then, of course, we've looked everywhere for evidence and never, ever found any at all - just a bunch of superstitions and outright lies.
We have not yet begun to examine the evidence put forward in the RTB Creation Model.
So it's time to shit or get off the pot, as my granddad used to say. Given the amount of verbal contortion presented so far, I have little hope of any evidence based revellation. But give it your best shot.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 2:46 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024