|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
So the hypothesis of an immaterial all-powerful being is low on explanatory and predictive power. Score another hit against the RtB model. No. That's not what I'm saying. It's impossible to disprove God's existence in the same way it is impossible to disprove anything that actually exists. I think the RTB Creation model is high in explanatory and predictive power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
designtheorist writes:
When believers claim that God can do something - e.g. throw lightning - then that is exactly what scientists want to see evidence of. If God can throw lightning, then the minimum evidence would be Him demonstating throwing lightning. Of course, that still would not mean that He necessarily throws all of the lightning. ... when Christians who are scientists look for evidence of God, they do not expect to see 1000 foot deities throwing lightning. If "Christians who are scientists" are willing to accept lesser evidence, they're not being true to science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If the God of the Bible is the Creator, then we can expect that He will not make himself to obvious in nature. You mean things like a pillar of fire that guides you through a desert, or food that rains down from heaven? Or the parting of an entire sea so that hundreds of thousands of people can walk through? Or perhaps a river turning into blood? Need I go on?
Just ask yourself, what about the Cambrian would be so surprising that it would cause me to begin a spiritual journey? Is there anything I might learn about the Big Bang that would cause me to read the Bible? How finely-tuned does the universe have to be before I start looking into Christianity? What point are you trying to make?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
First Caroline Crocker was censored. Except she wasn't. I happened to have lunch with Caroline a couple of months ago at a science conference. Yes, she suffered because of her views. Many people in her organization are fearful of retribution. Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist.
Then Dawkins was in denial. Except he wasn't.
Not true. Did you watch the video clip? He totally disagreed with Craig Ventner regarding the fact there is not one LUCA. Dawkins obviously is either unaware of the Koonin papers and is in denial. Koonin says we have to stop talking about the tree of life and begin talking about the forest of life. Dawkins has not come to terms with the evidence from genomics. Those are facts.
Then Eugenie Scott claimed science was "limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." Except she didn't. Again, this is not true. Eugenie was quoted correctly. I think if she had time to really think through her answer, it would have been different - but she was accurately quoted.
DT, could you please stop making new misstatements before correcting the old? Could you please stop making false assertions about me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well THAT isn't what you said. In fact if that is all you meant you might as well have claimed that you believe that God exists. It would be far less misleading.
quote: So it can be disproved, right ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Is it possible science can show evidence of God's effects in creation? If God has effects on nature then the answer is obviously yes. So why don't you start showing us what these effects are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist. How is Nagel being persecuted? What is it with the constant use of the persecution card? "Oh, woe is me!!" is now an ID argument? Lame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
What point are you trying to make? I'm trying to get you to think scientifically. Can you come up with a null hypothesis? Can you come up with an alternative hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Reasons to believe really doesn't have a Creation Model just claims and assertions. If you hope to influence anyone you will certainly need a lot more than the nonsense from Reasons to believe.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Yes, she suffered because of her views No, she suffered because she expressed her views in an inappropriate venue. She decided to express her views in that venue and lost her position, quite rightly, for doing that. She decided to teach inappropriate material, knowing that her position would be put in peril by those actions, and so it was. If she said "I decided to protest and accepted the consequences" I would have some respect for her. But she has no reason to complain about what happened.
Then Eugenie Scott claimed science was "limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." Except she didn't. Again, this is not true. Eugenie was quoted correctly No, she was paraphrased (which you acknowledged), and paraphrased in a way that did not reflect her actual views. See Message 9 and The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose. Nowhere did she mention direct observation. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I'm trying to get you to think scientifically. Can you come up with a null hypothesis? Can you come up with an alternative hypothesis? What is scientific about what would or would not emotionally inspire you? That makes ZERO sense. What is scientific about these questions?
quote: How does that even relate to a null hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
No, she suffered because she expressed her views in an inappropriate venue. She decided to express her views in that venue and lost her position, quite rightly, for doing that. She decided to teach inappropriate material, knowing that her position would be put in peril by those actions, and so it was. If she said "I decided to protest and accepted the consequences" I would have some respect for her. But she has no reason to complain about what happened. Quite right. Imagine if she was hired to teach a class on vertebrate physiology, but spent the entire class talking about conservative politics. If she was fired for this, could she claim that she was being persecuted for her political views? Obviously not. Ironically, her contract was not renewed because the students complained about the class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I think you mean that she "suffered" the deserved consequences for her actions. For abusing her position, not getting her contract renewed was the least she could expect.
quote: You mean that people dare to criticise the arguments in his book ?
quote: The fact is that Dawkions had a good response to Ventner, and Ventner's response was at best misleading and inadequate. A point which you refuse to address or even acknowledge.
quote: Then you won't have any problem providing the original source so that we can see the context for the quoted phrases, will you ? Because without seeing that you couldn't possibly know that the quotes were accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I don't know. If I knew what evidence in favor of the supernatural would look like, that would seem to imply that I know enough about how the supernatural works to make predictions based on it. But, I'm relatively confident that I don't have the slightest idea how the supernatural would work if it existed. So, I can't make predictions nor give you any indication of what evidence might make me believe in the supernatural. Come on, Blue Jay, you can do better than that. Think like the scientist I know you are. Before you do an experiment, you want a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis, right? Think it through when faced with this scientific challenge. Scientists detect things which are not directly observable regularly. Dark matter and dark energy are two of my favorite examples. If you can see the effects of these things, then you know they exist. You might not know everything about them you might want to know - but you know something is there. We can use the same methods to determine if a supernatural being exists and is active in creation. I'll get you started. You know many scientists have been bewildered and challenged by the Big Bang. What new information about the Big Bang would lead you to consider the possibility Big Bang had a supernatural cause? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis? You know many physicists, most of them agnostics or atheists, have pointed to the fine-tuned universe and detected design. How much fine-tuning can be explained as accident or chance? How much can be explained some other way? What new evidence would lead you to consider design by an intelligent being? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis? Many scientists are fascinated with the Cambrian explosion. Can you think of any new evidence regarding the Cambrian that would lead you in the direction of the work of an intelligent being? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis? Edited by designtheorist, : Didn't like that comma. Edited by designtheorist, : Oops. Left out a word. I hate when I do that!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024