|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I was hoping to get into the evidence regarding Dr. Ross's RTB Creation Model, but it seems we have another important topic we need to debate first.
Forum: Is it Science?Title: Can science say anything about a Creator God? Ross writes:Since the birth of the scientific method, science has been defined as the pursuit of systematized knowledge and understanding about the way the universe, with its governing laws and all it contains, operates. Such a definition leaves the investigation open to consideration of the causal agent(s) that may be responsible for these operations. P. 18 Ross reports that new definitions of science have been published which specifically exclude any investigation into the why questions humans often ask. Here are some examples: Science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. (italics in the original) - Eugenie Scott Science assumes that natural processes have natural causes. - Lawrence Krauss Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. - AAAS These redefinitions of science trouble Ross. He writes: Acknowledging the blatant censorship inherent in such redefinitions of science, Scott has tried to soften her stance by saying it’s not that science denies God’s existence or his possible role as Creator. It’s just that science is incapable of ever detecting it. Because it is not possible to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces under laboratory conditions, Scott concludes that the possibility of a supernatural cause is outside of what science can tell us. She claims science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions. However, many scientists realize that Scott’s definition guts much, if not most, of the scientific endeavor. It eliminates historical and theoretical science disciplines including theoretical physics, astronomy, paleontology, geophysics, theoretical chemistry, and physical anthropology, as well as mathematics. P.19 Ross and I disagree with the view that science is incapable of detecting God and his role as creator. I know of two scientists who came to believe in God because of the Big Bang. 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. Another atheist who came to believe in God because of the Big Bang was Allan Sandage. In 1974, Sandage made the discovery the universe was going to expand forever. This meant the Cycle Theory, a popular view at the time that said the universe was eternal and was either in a state of expansion or contraction, was wrong. It also meant the Big Bang was a one-time event. 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. Even Richard Dawkins believes that science can tell us something on this important question. In an interview with Time magazine, Dawkins said: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.Time magazine Dawkins and Ross are on opposite sides regarding the existence of God, but they agree that science can say something important about the question. I agree with Ross and Dawkins on this point. Science can say something significant about the existence of God. And the evidence should be followed wherever it leads. What do you say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Thank you for your reply. Experts in a courtroom are given latitude to give their opinion. Their opinion may not be correct. It would be more helpful if you could provide some quotes from the 16th century to support your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
She claims science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions. Where does she claim this? 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 as we have them recorded. It is likely Scott would clarify her position if asked followup questions, but has not done so as far as I know. The main point is that Scott does not think science can tell us anything about God and Dawkins thinks it can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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 (Aquinas and Anselm were trying to prove God existed and it was the God of the Bible). Allan's spiritual journey took two years. This is nothing in the Big Bang itself to tell us if the creator is the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran or some other god. That is all he is saying here.
Regarding Allan's view that you practice science as a material reductionist, I think this is mostly correct. When doing astronomy, you are looking for the natural order God created. You are not looking for angels behind every quasar. On the other hand, Allan was very much interested in the why questions. He wanted to know the purpose behind the creation. Allan did not think these were questions science can answer, but he still wanted answers. To a large extent, I think he is right. Science is not able to answer every question we may ask. But that does not mean that we should not follow the evidence where it leads as much as is possible. You still have to deal with Dawkins. He says the existence of God is a scientific question. Is he right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I am being honest about the conversion of Allan Sandage. Please see the top of page five of The Conversion of Allan Sandage.
"Speaking about the fact the Big Bang only happened once, Sandage said this comes close to saying that this universe was created. It is unique. A little further down Sandage says:Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural event. There is no way to predict this in physics as we know it. It is truly supernatural, that is, outside our understanding of the natural order of things, and by this definition a miracle. Nature does not do one-time events. One-time events are known as miracles. That is all Sandage is saying here. Sandage did get some criticism for becoming a Christian. Some said it would affect his ability as a scientist. There is no evidence this was true. He continued to publish a large number of papers every year. But he did say some things to attempt to silence his critics. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3832 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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. I'm glad to hear you say this. Some of the evidence to be presented will relate to the Cambrian.
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. Yes, but this is closer to maximum evidence. If the God of the Bible is the Creator, then we can expect that He will not make himself to obvious in nature. When Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas he said "Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29. You don't have to believe the verse is inspired by God, but you need to understand that when Christians who are scientists look for evidence of God, they do not expect to see 1000 foot deities throwing lightning. The next time we see Christ visibly, the time for faith will be over because the test we are currently will be over. 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024