Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 8:27 PM
333 online now:
AdminModulous (Modulous), JonF, Meddle (3 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,498 Year: 21,104/21,208 Month: 1,537/2,326 Week: 873/345 Day: 111/124 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
29303132
33
34Next
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 481 of 506 (697350)
04-24-2013 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by GDR
04-23-2013 1:57 PM


Re: ScienceFictionology
GDR writes:

From our reference point as it is outside the laws of our universe it is supernatural.

But when physicists suggest the existence of other universes that have different physical properties and laws than our own universe, as derived from string theory, they aren't postulating supernatural realms are they?

Is string theory a supernatural theory as far as you are concerned?

AbE - See new thread Is String Theory Supernatural?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by GDR, posted 04-23-2013 1:57 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4261
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 482 of 506 (697361)
04-24-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Straggler
04-24-2013 3:46 AM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
Straggler writes:

You, and the intelligence in question, would however be left wondering why the natural laws in that original universe are as they are. Your 'god' would himself be left wondering why there is something rather than nothing. Left wondering "Why am I here..."

Iím not trying to pretend that this is anything but highly speculative but it seems conceivable to me that an existence with higher dimensions might comprehend things much differently than we do. If one of the characteristics of such an existence did have 3 time dimensions, meaning that movement in time would be infinite as is our movement around in our 3 spatial dimensions is infinite then that question might be moot.

If Iím right Iíll let you know when we get there. Maybe weíll be able to get together for coffee last week.

Straggler writes:

The link I provided previoussy outlines how humans could theoretically harness the natural laws of our universe to create new universes, design life and suchlike.
If you (or I) were in possession of such technol ogies and able to use them would we qualify as supernatural gods?
Personally I know that no matter what gizmos I am armed with, and no matter how godly I may seem to anyone/anything else, I will never actually be a god.

If we could actually do that, I suppose that from the perspective of the life in the new universes we would. Itís all relative. However, would it really matter to this new life whether you considered yourself a god or not. Itís a bit like our relationship with our pets.

Straggler writes:

If godliness is just a matter of reference point then you or I armed with a Tazer, a packet or Oreos and a mobile phone could qualify as gods to a primitive tribe that had never had any contact with the modern world.
But - Again - I am no god and no amount of gizmology will ever change that.
I think your "reference point" dependent notion of godliness is pretty meaningless. What does or does not qualify as a god at any given time requires a sort of technology dependent theological relativism.

Maybe to that primitive tribe we would be worshipped as gods because we have all this technology but that is different than worshipping a god because that god is responsible for you having life and that you adhere to a moral code.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2013 3:46 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Straggler, posted 04-25-2013 7:47 AM GDR has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 483 of 506 (697370)
04-24-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by GDR
04-22-2013 11:37 AM


Re: Predictions
I'm simply saying that IMHO the belief that the root cause was intelligent is more plausible than not.

What makes it more plausible?

What realm does this intelligence reside in? How did that realm come about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 11:37 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 1:47 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4261
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 484 of 506 (697371)
04-24-2013 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Taq
04-24-2013 1:03 PM


Re: Predictions
We've been over all of that.

Taq writes:

What makes it more plausible?

Message 410

Taq writes:

What realm does this intelligence reside in? How did that realm come about?

You'll have to read through a lengthy discussion primarily with Straggler.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Taq, posted 04-24-2013 1:03 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2013 1:52 PM GDR has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 485 of 506 (697372)
04-24-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by GDR
04-24-2013 1:47 PM


Re: Predictions
In other words you hold that "blind chance" is much more likely to arrange the basic particles into a highly ordered intelligence capable of shaping our universe than it is to produce something as relatively simple as a hydrogen atom.

I don't really think that many people would share this view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 1:47 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 2:21 PM PaulK has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4261
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 486 of 506 (697373)
04-24-2013 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by PaulK
04-24-2013 1:52 PM


Re: Predictions
PaulK writes:

In other words you hold that "blind chance" is much more likely to arrange the basic particles into a highly ordered intelligence capable of shaping our universe than it is to produce something as relatively simple as a hydrogen atom.

I don't really think that many people would share this view.

Nor would I. I'm only suggesting that a first cause is not required in a universe that has no beginning or end. Our minds are restricted by time. Everything happens in sequence. If our minds weren't restricted by our single time dimension I suggest that we might be asking totally different questions.

I don't pretend to have all the answers any more than anyone else and probably a lot less than most here. However, as I said to Straggler I have taken the current scientific thinking, (at least as far as I can understand it), and also looked at what a believe on the theological side and speculated as to how the two might fit together.

As far as the basic question is concerned, ( Can science say anything about a Creator God?), my answer would be yes.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2013 1:52 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2013 4:04 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 488 by Taq, posted 04-24-2013 5:22 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 487 of 506 (697376)
04-24-2013 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by GDR
04-24-2013 2:21 PM


Re: Predictions
But your plausibility assertion is based on the very claim that you now say that you don't agree with. And the post you referred back to said nothing about first causes at all. So it seems that you don't even understand your own posts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 2:21 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 488 of 506 (697377)
04-24-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by GDR
04-24-2013 2:21 PM


Re: Predictions
I'm only suggesting that a first cause is not required in a universe that has no beginning or end.

Now you need a universe with no beginning or end as well as an unevidenced intelligent cause. You are adding more and more unevidenced entities. That is not a good sign. Your intelligent cause is growing more improbable by the minute.

I don't pretend to have all the answers any more than anyone else and probably a lot less than most here. However, as I said to Straggler I have taken the current scientific thinking, (at least as far as I can understand it), and also looked at what a believe on the theological side and speculated as to how the two might fit together.

The real question is why include your beliefs at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 2:21 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 489 of 506 (697413)
04-25-2013 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by GDR
04-24-2013 11:25 AM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
Straggler writes:

You, and the intelligence in question, would however be left wondering why the natural laws in that original universe are as they are. Your 'god' would himself be left wondering why there is something rather than nothing. Left wondering "Why am I here..."

GDR writes:

Iím not trying to pretend that this is anything but highly speculative but it seems conceivable to me that an existence with higher dimensions might comprehend things much differently than we do.

How could a higher number of physical dimensions conceivably assist with questions of purpose?

Straggler writes:

The link I provided previously outlines how humans could theoretically harness the natural laws of our universe to create new universes, design life and suchlike. If you (or I) were in possession of such technologies and able to use them would we qualify as supernatural gods?

Personally I know that no matter what gizmos I am armed with, and no matter how godly I may seem to anyone/anything else, I will never actually be a god.

GDR writes:

If we could actually do that, I suppose that from the perspective of the life in the new universes we would. Itís all relative.

Then you and I have a very different notion of what we mean by 'god'. I didn't think we were talking about theological relatavism based on technological ability.

GDR writes:

However, would it really matter to this new life whether you considered yourself a god or not. Itís a bit like our relationship with our pets.

I would consider it a matter of honesty. If the intelligent beings in the universe I had created with my 'design a universe zPod app' came to me and asked if I was a god worthy of worship etc. I would be compelled to inform them that all I did was follow the 'design-a-universe' wizard and then press the big red 'create now' button.

I would tell them I am not a god and that they shouldn't waste their time worshiping me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 11:25 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by GDR, posted 04-25-2013 10:54 AM Straggler has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4261
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 490 of 506 (697439)
04-25-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by Straggler
04-25-2013 7:47 AM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
Straggler writes:

How could a higher number of physical dimensions conceivably assist with questions of purpose?


If you look back at the question you asked you can see that my response wasn't referring to a question of purpose. The question was about a first cause.

Straggler writes:

Then you and I have a very different notion of what we mean by 'god'. I didn't think we were talking about theological relatavism based on technological ability.

I was simply pointing out that from the perspective of a created being with intelligence it would be reasonable to assume that this being would consider their creator a god.

It is another step to say that the creator had a larger purpose for the created beings that involved morality.

Straggler writes:

I would consider it a matter of honesty. If the intelligent beings in the universe I had created with my 'design a universe zPod app' came to me and asked if I was a god worthy of worship etc. I would be compelled to inform them that all I did was follow the 'design-a-universe' wizard and then press the big red 'create now' button.

I would tell them I am not a god and that they shouldn't waste their time worshiping me.

It seems to me that there is an underlying understanding in your point that assumes that worship is about the ego of the creator. My understanding of worship is all about the heart of the created being.

Look at my signature. What God wants of us is that we humbly love kindness and justice. From the Christian perspective worship is about our own humility and has nothing to do with satisfying the ego of God.

If you were to create beings in another universe you might very well adopt the attitude that it was an interesting project and just look in once in a while to see how they're doing but not have further involvement. However on the other hand you might have a purpose and a specific desire for what you created so you remain involved. God is a word that we have come up with. Maybe in the world you create they would worship you as Straggler, and have great debates about your nature.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Straggler, posted 04-25-2013 7:47 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Taq, posted 04-25-2013 11:00 AM GDR has responded
 Message 500 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2013 8:47 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 491 of 506 (697442)
04-25-2013 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by GDR
04-25-2013 10:54 AM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
If you look back at the question you asked you can see that my response wasn't referring to a question of purpose. The question was about a first cause.

Right, and you are saying that it is more probable that we started with an intelligence that came from . . . nowhere I guess . . . than to produce an intelligence from processes that we can observe all around us.

I was simply pointing out that from the perspective of a created being with intelligence it would be reasonable to assume that this being would consider their creator a god.

I don't consider my parents to be gods even though they created me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by GDR, posted 04-25-2013 10:54 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by GDR, posted 04-25-2013 1:46 PM Taq has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4261
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 492 of 506 (697449)
04-25-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Taq
04-25-2013 11:00 AM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
Taq writes:

Right, and you are saying that it is more probable that we started with an intelligence that came from . . . nowhere I guess . . . than to produce an intelligence from processes that we can observe all around us.

The question is about the process itself. The question is how and why the process existed in the first place.

Taq writes:

I don't consider my parents to be gods even though they created me.

Once again that is just part of the process. What a brilliantly designed process.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Taq, posted 04-25-2013 11:00 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Taq, posted 04-25-2013 5:52 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 497 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2013 1:23 AM GDR has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 493 of 506 (697457)
04-25-2013 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by GDR
04-25-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
The question is about the process itself. The question is how and why the process existed in the first place.

Why not?

Once again that is just part of the process. What a brilliantly designed process.

Designed by what, and based on what evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by GDR, posted 04-25-2013 1:46 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1433 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 494 of 506 (697465)
04-25-2013 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by NoNukes
04-23-2013 8:19 PM


Re: Questions (again).
we do have indirect evidence that multi-celled biological systems have evolved. I understand that the evidence does not convince you, but it is there.

Well don't be too hasty to judge me. If you've got evidence that's been drawn by a logical conclusion based on observation of the data I'd like to see it. But here's the thing... you can't just say "We believe so and so evolved from so and so and therefore since we observe some similarity between the two this proves it." In order to make that kind of conclusion and have it be anything more than only an assumption, you would have to have at least one case in which something was observed evolving into something else (finely graduated chain of fossils with no large jumps). Or at least one case where the process believed to drive the phenomenon was actually observed (mutation adding new information to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organim which gives it a selective advantage). To my knowledge neither exists. If you are aware of something I'd love to see it.

Evidence is not limited to my or your directly watching organisms evolve.

A man is found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to the head. One officer believes it was a suicide and another officer believes it was a murder. Evidence is not limited to direct observation but it is limited "by" it. Specially if there are two competing theories on how a historical event occured, then more and better observations are just naturally going to be required.

we have absolutely no evidence, direct or indirect, that any biological system has been designed by humans or non-humans. None at all.

What we do have ample evidence for is that information being transmitted with specific intent to a receptor, requires an intelligent source to produce. Therefore the most logical conclusion, when we observe the highly specified code in DNA and how it is transmitted and used, is that it had an original intelligent source. Specially devoid of any observations that show specified information could arise gradually through the evolutionary process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 8:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2013 7:12 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 496 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2013 8:01 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 495 of 506 (697471)
04-25-2013 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Just being real
04-25-2013 6:34 PM


Re: Questions (again).
What we do have ample evidence for is that information being transmitted with specific intent to a receptor, requires an intelligent source to produce.

Yes, but we don't have any evidence of specific intent for any biological organism (other than that of the organism itself). If we had any real such evidence, the debate over whether there was a Specific Intender would be over.

Instead you observe function in unintelligent biological systems and label that function as programmed intent. Making that labeling is nothing less or more than asserting the conclusion.

you would have to have at least one case in which something was observed evolving into something else

I'm going to presume you mean a multi-celled something. There is plenty of 'nearly direct' evidence that viruses and bacteria evolve.

And you would still be wrong. What you are describing is what it would take to prove common descent to you and not what's needed to reach an accurate scientific conclusion. Your argument is of exactly the same form that the Tobacco institute used to use. "Nobody has actually seen a lung cell mutate due to inhaled cigarette smoke." The statement was true, but completely irrelevant.

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)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ĎThat the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.í Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Just being real, posted 04-25-2013 6:34 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
29303132
33
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017