|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is String Theory Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
None. For that matter I don't believe God dictated the Bible. Good grief, I have had enough arguments with Faith and others on that point. Then why make the following claim? "I am not using science to legitimize my beliefs, I am using science to help form them." You claim that you are using science to form your beliefs, but when asked for the science you claim there is none.
Because I believe that science can tell us a great deal about the world. I agree. Where we differ is in your claims that you are using science to form your beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Taq writes: Then why make the following claim?"I am not using science to legitimize my beliefs, I am using science to help form them." You claim that you are using science to form your beliefs, but when asked for the science you claim there is none. My belief is that God created us. Science informs me about processes that He used to bring it about.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Science informs me about processes that He used to bring it about. Around we go. What scientific studies demonstrate that God used anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Taq writes: Around we go. What scientific studies demonstrate that God used anything? I keep answering that and you keep asking it. The answer is none. I look at the science with my pre-existing theistic beliefs, so when I look at the science I start with the assumption that God did it. However, when it comes to the science itself my pre-existing theistic beliefs don't cause me to reject any of the science on those grounds. I'm just re-wording the same answer. I don't see what else I can do.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Around we go. I keep answering that and you keep asking it. I understand where GDR is coming from. And, as usual, he can slap me around if I get this wrong. He is not saying science shows god did this. When science says this is how it happened GDR says So that's how god made this happen. Interesting. Whenever science comes up with an accurate effective model GDR pulls out his trusty sledge hammer and beats on Occam's Razor till it's all warped bent and dull then adds his god to the equation purely as a blind article of faith. Science is not saying his god did it but science has informed him of the model so he can say this is how his god did it. Quite refreshing from the usual religionist NO NO NO CANT BE. YOU SCIENTISTS ARE ALL WRONG. YOU KNOW NOTHING! THE BIBLE SAYS... Just as wrong but refreshing none the less. Edited by AZPaul3, : usual
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think we have reached a point where you need to explain in exactly what way you think your beliefs are 'congruent' with science. You seem to readily admit that your theistic beliefs are not evidenced, supported or even suggested by science. Furthermore you seem to recognise that some of your theistic beliefs are entirely inconsistent with everything we scientifically know (e.g. miracles such as the resurrection)
Does being 'congruent' with science simply mean invoking other universes to explain away anything you believe that science would otherwise describe as 'unscientific'...?
GDR writes: I realize that what scientists are looking at is by no means theistic nor even close to what I’m suggesting. Then where is this much proclaimed congruency?
GDR writes: The point is that Christianity has had the position that God is ever-present and interacts with this world. The sort of interaction you have put forward is however far from 'congruent' with science. Nothing physicists are talking about allows for the sort of interaction you have described at all.
GDR writes: Here is a wiki article on The Hard Problem of Consciousness It seems to me that it is conceivable that it is our consciousness which is the point at which we interlock with some part of the 95.5% of the universe that we don’t perceive. Invoking substance dualism whilst arguing that one's beliefs are 'congruent' with science is rather contradictory.....
GDR writes: My belief is that God created us. Science informs me about processes that He used to bring it about. What specifically do the conjectures of theoretical physicists regarding parallel universes tell you about God's processes?
Straggler writes: So, if we follow the logic of your argument, physicists are in fact putting forward supernatural explanations for observable phenomena. GDR writes: I don’t intend to go that far. In what way does the parallel universe you are postulating as the dwelling place of your god differ from the parallel universes physicists are invoking as potential explanations for observable phenomena (e.g. gravitational effects of dark matter)?
Straggler writes: How is this different from saying that complex intelligent entities just randomly exist rather than not? I thought one of your key objections to non-theistic origins was randomness.? No? GDR writes: That was a long way of saying that I don’t really have a problem with randomness. Oh. Then on what basis can one conclude that a hyper-intelligent-ready-made-complex-being just randomly exists rather than the simple-constituents-that-in-time-lead-to-the-moderately-intelligent-beings-that-are-us just randomly exists?
Straggler writes: So if we are the science project of an alien in another universe that alien is God..... GDR writes: I would say yes as they are outside the physical laws of the universe that we are able to directly perceive. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that your beliefs as described are not only incongruent with science but with Christianity as well. The position you are putting forward sounds more like a rival to scientology than anything else.
Straggler writes: Maybe this god of yours worships a higher being? GDR writes: I don’t believe that to be the case but so what if He did? Then he wouldn't be the supreme supernatural being that seems to be a general requirement of monotheistic faiths such as Christianity and I would further argue the case that the position you are advocating is neither congruent with science nor really Christianity. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1524 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi AZPaul3,
Just as wrong but refreshing none the less. To do otherwise would be to ignore scientific evidence and embrace ignorance. I know a good deal of people who believe in God, attend Christian Churches and have occupations in the field of medicine as physicians. How they square their faith with science baffles me but they somehow manage to do it. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I keep answering that and you keep asking it. The answer is none.
Then you are not using science to form your beliefs as you claimed earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
You believe that your car was created by the great Ford in the sky (under the sign of the big T). Your study of how the car works (somehow) confirms this belief. Even a visit to the factory (somehow) confirms your belief.
I look at the science with my pre-existing theistic beliefs, so when I look at the science I start with the assumption that God did it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I keep answering that and you keep asking it. The answer is none. Then you are not using science to form your beliefs as you claimed earlier. I think you could be a little more fair here. Let's say he comes to a belief that god created man. Then, through science, he learns that man evolved over time. Then he modifies his belief to include evolution in god's creative process. That would be using science to form his beliefs even though science doesn't include god in the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I think you could be a little more fair here. Let's say he comes to a belief that god created man. Then, through science, he learns that man evolved over time. Then he modifies his belief to include evolution in god's creative process. That would be using science to form his beliefs even though science doesn't include god in the process. As you admit above, he came to the belief that god created man before learning about the science. The belief is that god created man, and nowhere in that belief do we find a reference to science nor a scientific source as the foundation of that belief. The belief exists independent of any scientific study or theory. The belief is just tacked on to the scientific theory. Nowhere does the scientific theory lend itself to the belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
As you admit above, he came to the belief that god created man before learning about the science. The belief is that god created man, and nowhere in that belief do we find a reference to science nor a scientific source as the foundation of that belief. The belief exists independent of any scientific study or theory. The belief is just tacked on to the scientific theory. Nowhere does the scientific theory lend itself to the belief. But he's still using science to form... wait... what does he mean by "form" the belief? If we're talking about creating the belief, then sure, you're right. But I was thinking he meant that he's using the science to modify the belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But he's still using science to form... wait... what does he mean by "form" the belief? Form? Who said "form?" What I read from GDR was "inform." [aside] Damn CS, the more I see that avatar the more intreguing it becomes. Good show, man. [/aside] Edited by AZPaul3, : added aside
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Form? Who said "form?" What I read from GDR was "inform." So what science informed GDR that God used evolution to create humanity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Form? Who said "form?" What I read from GDR was "inform." Taq said 'form' in the Message 98 that I originally replied to. In the message that that is a reply to, GDR said:
quote: So I'm right as to what he meant. He's even cheered my message. I haven't looked back to see if that's what he has actually "said", tho. Taq writes, in Message 104:
So what science informed GDR that God used evolution to create humanity? As he's admitted, there isn't any. Science hasn't provided the information for God. Its just "forming" it. ABE:
[aside] Damn CS, the more I see that avatar the more intreguing it becomes. Good show, man.
[/aside] Oh, yes. Thank you. There's a lot of meaning there for me. Is there an "avatar" thread? Care to start one? I've seen some doozies Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024