Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 124 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 4:51 AM
351 online now:
Dredge, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,421 Year: 19,027/21,208 Month: 1,786/3,111 Week: 7/574 Day: 7/38 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 106 of 124 (671810)
08-30-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
08-30-2012 1:50 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Biology, Chemistry and Physics would have to say they were wrong as a start.
If hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water simply because some God or Designer decided that's how it would be until She changed her mind it eliminates all we know about chemistry.

If lightning is really just the result of God getting pissed then we need to rethink all we know about physics.


I would also have to disagree.

An old standard common-sense harmonization of science and religion says that religion is for answering the whodunnit and why questions about the universe, whereas science is for answering the how-it-works questions. Even if a god or designer were proven conclusively to exist, that would not change how the universe works and hence would not change science. Well, it may require some extra discipline to apply due dilligence to working out how something works instead of copping out with a goddidit "conclusion".

The only way that science would be affected would be if it were also discovered that things happen because of arbitrary supernatural intevention, such that there are no underlying natural laws. Such as your final example of realizing that lightning really is the "Finger of God".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 1:50 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9726
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 107 of 124 (671811)
08-30-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
08-30-2012 10:50 AM


Re: Back to the Topic
That could actually be a very interesting discussion if Marc would just stop distracting attention with his stilted definitions.

I think a bit more would be required of Marc before this discussion would be interesting. An acceptable definition of atheist would not help the discussion significantly. Marc's real objections are 1) that nobody is putting the brakes on specific lines of scientific inquiry that Marc finds objectionable, and 2) that ID isn't getting a fair shake.

Anybody who allows those things is, according to what Marc has posted in this thread, either an atheist or a lousy, stinking, collaborator. Tiding up the definition of atheist just determines how many people are in each of those two buckets.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 08-30-2012 10:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 108 of 124 (671813)
08-30-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 2:29 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Perhaps you can point out where I said that.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 2:29 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 3:49 PM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 109 of 124 (671814)
08-30-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
08-30-2012 3:44 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."

then

Biology, Chemistry and Physics would have to say they were wrong as a start.

This tells me you are saying that science has anything at all to say about gods.

They don't.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:44 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:51 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 110 of 124 (671815)
08-30-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 3:49 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Which is irrelevant to what you claim I said.

hoo writes:

And you are free to provide evidence that natural science has ANYTHING to say about gods since you are the one that made the claim.

I never said natural science has anything to say about gods.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 3:49 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 4:02 PM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 111 of 124 (671816)
08-30-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
08-30-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
I never said natural science has anything to say about gods.

What would science have to be wrong about, then, in regards to a creator/designer?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:07 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 112 of 124 (671817)
08-30-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 4:02 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
In NOT saying anything about the Creator or Designer and thinking that chemistry and biology and physics happened because of natural laws instead of whim.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 4:02 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 4:12 PM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 113 of 124 (671818)
08-30-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
08-30-2012 4:07 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
So they are wrong to not see evidence before it is presented? I guess Newton was wrong about relativity then too?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:07 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:24 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 114 of 124 (671819)
08-30-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 4:12 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Exactly correct. As I said in Message 96 that is the value of science.

quote:
The Dalai Lama was once asked "What if you found out that there was no God, no rebirth, no afterlife?" His reply was "Then we would have to say that we were wrong."

If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."

And that is the big difference.

Science is built on learning "We were wrong" and embraces that.


When new evidence is presented an honest scientist says, "Whoops, what I thought was the answer is wrong."


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 4:12 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 4:27 PM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 115 of 124 (671820)
08-30-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
08-30-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
When new evidence is presented an honest scientist says, "Whoops, what I thought was the answer is wrong."

Except for the fact that you've not shown how any answer would change with the addition of a creator god. The only way that it would is if said deity changed physical laws. Science doesn't address the god question so the addition of a god changes nothing aside from giving us something else to study.

It's really that simple. Science just doesn't give a damn if there is a god or not.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:34 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 116 of 124 (671821)
08-30-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 4:27 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, but I used the terms creator and designer for specific reasons, that the terms imply direct control.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 4:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 6:44 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 9:07 PM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 117 of 124 (671824)
08-30-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
08-30-2012 4:34 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
What, specifically, would change with the discovery of a designer or creator? What scientific discovery would change by simply finding out that there was a designer or creator? What scientific discovery or field implicates strictly natural origins and would be wrong with the discovery of a designer or creator? You named fields of science that would have to say "we were wrong". Why? What, specifically, would they be wrong about? Where and when has ANY field of science explicitly, or even implicitly, said "This theory ONLY works if it arose of natural origins"?

Stop beating off behind the bushes. Or is it too hard for you to speak more directly?

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want

My assertion/statement that NO field of science implicates strictly natural origins and would therefor need to admit itself to be wrong with the discovery of a creator is hardly an opinion. Especially since you cannot or refuse to backup your initial claim. Do not confuse the fact that so far we have ONLY found natural origins and no evidence for this designer for being wrong about there not being one, what with never even addressing that topic.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:34 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9726
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 118 of 124 (671841)
08-30-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
08-30-2012 4:34 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, but I used the terms creator and designer for specific reasons, that the terms imply direct control.

Actually those terms (creator and designer) do not imply direct control, at least not direct control of the kind that interferes with scientific inquiry. For example, a creator might be the entity Deist accept that set things into motion and no longer interferes. That creator could have done all of his designing via "front loading" with the end result being a universe according to the creator's intention accomplished without the interference Creationists insist on.

Or viewed another way, for you to be correct would imply that because the universe is currently in a state where biology and physics work there can be no creator for our universe. But the truth is that science does not address such a question.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 9:11 PM NoNukes has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 119 of 124 (671843)
08-30-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NoNukes
08-30-2012 9:07 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Maybe shudda wudda cudda.

But as you yourself point out that is not the Creator that is marketed by either the Creationists or ID Salesmen.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 9:07 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 9:31 PM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9726
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 120 of 124 (671847)
08-30-2012 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
08-30-2012 9:11 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
not the Creator that is marketed by either the Creationists or ID Salesmen.

It seems to match the kind of intelligent designer that Genomicus argues for.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 9:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 9:33 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017