Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 10:30 AM
344 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, Larni, Tangle (4 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,318 Year: 23,924/21,208 Month: 1,889/2,468 Week: 398/822 Day: 8/50 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930313233
34
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 496 of 506 (697473)
04-25-2013 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Just being real
04-25-2013 6:34 PM


Re: Questions (again).
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.

No, that's wrong.

Is the sun's core hot? Does the process of nuclear fusion operate in the sun?What is the electron configuration for aluminum atoms?

The above are all examples of scientific questions for which essentially all, if not entirely all of the evidence is indirect.

Did OJ murder Nicole?

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; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ 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

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 497 of 506 (697479)
04-26-2013 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by GDR
04-25-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
quote:

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

Ah, the usual gambit of pushing the question back until we run out of answers so you can wheel out the conclusion you want to reach.

That's not rational thought, that's just the rationalisation of dodgy apologetics. Because if we found any answer other than God you'd just ask why THAT exists. Your arguing strategy is designed to end up with that one answer - and then arbitrarily stop. It's really quite transparent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by GDR, posted 04-25-2013 1:46 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by GDR, posted 04-26-2013 2:22 AM PaulK has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 498 of 506 (697482)
04-26-2013 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by PaulK
04-26-2013 1:23 AM


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

Ah, the usual gambit of pushing the question back until we run out of answers so you can wheel out the conclusion you want to reach.

That's not rational thought, that's just the rationalisation of dodgy apologetics. Because if we found any answer other than God you'd just ask why THAT exists. Your arguing strategy is designed to end up with that one answer - and then arbitrarily stop. It's really quite transparent.

That's nonsense. We can observe and study the processes that enable our universe to exist and how our lives came to be.

Let's look at evolution. Evolution has provided considerable evidence to suggest that all life evolved from single celled creatures that somehow formed from the raw materials on the planet.

We can look at all of that and draw our own conclusions. There isn't only one answer. One answer is that we just happened to be fortunate enough to live in the universe in the multi-verse where there was a chance combination of atoms that formed the first cell and that everything evolved from that, without an intelligent first cause. I'm not saying it is impossible to reach that conclusion. I have simply chosen a different answer than what you have.
Here is the question I asked.

GDR writes:

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

Why is there only one answer to that question. It seems that you and I have come up with two very different answers.


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 497 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2013 1:23 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2013 2:32 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 499 of 506 (697483)
04-26-2013 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by GDR
04-26-2013 2:22 AM


Re: Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
quote:

That's nonsense. We can observe and study the processes that enable our universe to exist and how our lives came to be.

And ?

quote:

et's look at evolution. Evolution has provided considerable evidence to suggest that all life evolved from single celled creatures that somehow formed from the raw materials on the planet.

We can look at all of that and draw our own conclusions. There isn't only one answer. One answer is that we just happened to be fortunate enough to live in the universe in the multi-verse where there was a chance combination of atoms that formed the first cell and that everything evolved from that, without an intelligent first cause. I'm not saying it is impossible to reach that conclusion. I have simply chosen a different answer than what you have.


I note that none of this actually addresses the point. In fact the last sentence looks like an attempt to brush my point under the carpet.

quote:

Why is there only one answer to that question. It seems that you and I have come up with two very different answers.

I never said anything about there only being one answer to your question. Nor did I even imply it.

If you're going to say that my points are "nonsense" you could at least address them and explain why you consider them nonsense instead of putting words into my mouth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by GDR, posted 04-26-2013 2:22 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 500 of 506 (697488)
04-26-2013 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by GDR
04-25-2013 10:54 AM


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

The question was about a first cause.

Not really. Here it is again:

quote:
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..."

But - On the subject of first causes - If the universe in which your god resides exists in the multiverse - Who/what created the multiverse.....?

GDR writes:

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.

Why? If I was designed by human scientists I wouldn'r consider them gods. So if I was ultimately designed by aliens in a parallel universe why would I consider them gods either?

GDR writes:

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

I think issues of humbleness or ego are irrelevant. I'm simply saying that if anything or anyone has concluded that I am either supernatural or a god (or both) - They are wrong. I'm neither. No matter what technology I have. No matter what I create.

GDR writes:

Maybe in the world you create they would worship you as Straggler, and have great debates about your nature.

They might then tell tales of GDR who refused to listen to the infallible divine wisdom of the mighty Straggles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by GDR, posted 04-25-2013 10:54 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 501 of 506 (697492)
04-26-2013 9:36 AM


This thread topic posed the question of rather or not science can say something significant about the existence of God. My answer in short is "Yes it can."

But it depends on your definition of God. If your definition is a Supernatural being (an entity that is beyond what is possible to exist) then of course not. But if your definition is a Supreme being (the greatest of all that is possible to exist) then absolutely science can say a lot.

Anything with an intended purpose (specified information) must logically come from an intelligent agent. Specified information can be detected when an observer recognizes the relationship between the transmitted information and the receiver that uses that information. Some would have us to believe that this somehow changes when we are talking about biological specificity, however I've never seen a sound logical explanation as to why. Many attempts to do so employ the similarity arguments, but fail to recognize that when the competing theory also predicts similarity, something more observable must be employed.

One poster claimed my expectation for observable evidence was unrealistic and even tried to compare it to a tobacco companies claim that no one has ever observed tobacco smoke cause a single cancer cell. Of course there is a big difference in looking for one specific change in an arena where the pure statistics demonstrate the problem, and looking for any kind of change anywhere in an arena where no such stats exist and there is a very viable competing theory.

In the end opponents to design theory, seem to me, to hinge their arguments more on personal bias than on real observable scientific evidence.

Just Being Real


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 502 of 506 (697499)
04-26-2013 11:46 AM


Well, we've had "designtheorist" misinterpreting scientists, as usual, and "Just being real" rehashing his previous failures concerning "specified information". Same ol' same ol'.

As to the question in the title of the OP, maybe and maybe not. Science could certainly find out about particular creator gods, if they existed. For example, fiat creation of species 6,000 years ago would stick out like a sore thumb, and we can definitely reject that version of a "creator god" on scientific grounds. Others would be harder to detect. If someone made the Big Bang go bang and then walked away (and if one were to classify such a being as a god) then in our present state of scientific knowledge we could hardly distinguish that from a case in which something else altogether caused the Big Bang.

Hence science allows us to eliminate certain creator gods while leaving us agnostic concerning others. Obviously no-one has yet produced good scientific evidence in favor of a creator god, and this thread, if it serves no other purpose, demonstrates what a mess people make when they try.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 503 of 506 (697509)
04-26-2013 1:14 PM


Summary - What Science Can Say About God
Show me.

Edited by ringo, : Fixed subtitle.


  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 504 of 506 (697517)
04-26-2013 1:46 PM


Summary
Science can address many of the claims made by religions. Examples: a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago, both of which have long since been disproved.

Other claims are not subject to direct scientific testing (a talking snake), but can be addressed indirectly: no snake species known to science is capable of talking.

But the primary problem is that believers have been able to present no convincing evidence to support their claims of deities and the supernatural. We are asked to take things "on faith" but science doesn't work that way.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 505 of 506 (697519)
04-26-2013 1:50 PM


OP never delivered.

Message 61


  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 506 of 506 (697680)
04-28-2013 10:55 PM


I'd suggest science can tell us things about a creator God. People used to assume that God created two humans, (Adam and Eve), to get things rolling.

Other than for a small group who believe in a Bible as a book dictated by God we now know that God created through an evolutionary process.

Science has told us that there was a T=0 and that has certain theological implications.

I contend that science when it talks about other universes and dimensions it gives us insights into the possibilities of how God might co-exist with us and live eternally. (Yes, I agree that it is, at least at this point highly speculative.) Maybe as science develops further we will gain a far better understanding of that.

I strongly believe that we are teleological beings. I think that the fact that we have intelligence and are able to reason is a strong indication of that. If that is correct then obviously we are intended to use that reason. One of the things that Christ did was to heal people. Science has been responsible for a great deal of healing as a result of human intelligence and reason.

As a Christian I believe that the study of the creative world is a natural theology and that it has a great deal to tell us, and has yet to tell us about a creator god.


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


    
RewPrev1
...
2930313233
34
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017