Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "True science" must include God?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 47 (212321)
05-29-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
05-29-2005 2:14 AM


What I want to know is this.
What benefit to inquiry will be gained if we allow the supernatural to be used as an explanation for phenomena in science?
For example, what does it mean if a scientist is able to point to some phenomena and say "God did/made that."?
Does it mean that we should stop studying it?
If we keep studying it and we find evidence of a naturalistic explanation, will this be allowed?
Doesn't declaring "Godidit" just stop research altogether, implying that we can somehow be certain that there is no possible naturalistic explanation for the phenomena, even though humans are far from being omnicient?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:14 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2005 12:26 PM nator has not replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-29-2005 2:36 PM nator has not replied
 Message 12 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:39 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 47 (212592)
05-30-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
05-29-2005 2:39 PM


quote:
If it's part of reality, it is part of reality, period, and we can perhaps address it via science. It may be, like string theory, that we lack the technology to test for it, but the idea that what we call the supernatural is off-limits arbitrarily is, imo, somewhat silly.
Well, how can we tell the difference between a naturalistic phenomena that we do not understand, and may not ever have the technological sophistication or the plain ol' smarts to ever understand, and a supernaturally caused phenomena?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 1:12 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 47 (212798)
05-31-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
05-30-2005 1:12 PM


quote:
I submit that the difference is aritrary, and the distinction should not be made between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena. If there is a phenomena, then it is real and part of reality and should be accepted as such.
How is the supernatural testable or falsifiable?
If the "supernatuiral" obeys physical laws, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural.
If the supernatural does not obey natural law, then we cannot make predictions about a supernatural phenomena, nor can a supernatural phenomena be falsifiable if it does not obey natural law.
so, I fail to see how we can address the supernatural with the tools of science.
quote:
Of course, that doesn't mean there are not areas of science and research we lack the technological ability to test for, such as string theory for example, but there is no need, from a science perspective, to categorize reality into separate parts.
If we cannot predict or falsify a supernatural event, how can the investigative tools of science be used to understand it?
Wouldn't it just end up being subjective experience of individuals?
quote:
When we want to discuss references to phenomena or ideas that come from outside of science, then of course we will have to see where they would fit as far as reality. In this discussion, I think it is germane to consider where and if spirituality fits into reality. Most spiritual traditions share some common features about their view on reality.
In the past, it was not so possible to scientifically determine if those ideas had merit, but quantum physics has begun, for 80s years now, to accidentally verify the exact same principles, which is powerful evidence that the realms QM effects involves are what certain traditions have called "spiritual."
Well, if true (and I am not convinced that QM verifies anything of the sort) then I would conclude that what certain traditions have called "spiritual" have not been spiritual at all, but natural in origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 1:12 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 1:14 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 47 (212938)
05-31-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
05-31-2005 1:14 PM


quote:
The answer is it is not supernatural necessarily, from a scientific perspective. It may be merely something that entails a process we have not observed yet, or involved principles that we have not understood yet.
Correct, but then you go on to say:
quote:
In other words, even if it is something that "God did", there is no reason to dismiss it as out of the realm of science since it may be we can discover how God did it, and perhaps even duplicate it. The mechanism for creation may, in other words, be embedded within the creation.
But who is to say that "God" did anything?
How do you tell the difference between something god did and something nature did that we may or may not ever understand?
quote:
The aspects most ascribe to God, consciousness and Intelligence, or an Intelligent Force, etc,....and what one would logically assume would be involved if one were to begin to uncover the creative mechanism's God uses, well, we are seeing that discovered in quantum physics in my opinion.
Most of the aspects people have ascribed to God over the millenia have been pretty anthropomorphic. A father or mother figure and sometimes animalistic or a force of nature, but generally a lot like us in many aspects.
Why on earth would you assume that the aspects "most ascribe to god" are correct?
It seems to me that you are approaching this with an enormous monotheistic bias that a great many people in the world do not share.
What if the Hindus are correct and there are thousands of gods, or what if the Buddhists are correct and there is no human-like conscious god, only a univeral life force that is shared by us all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 1:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 11:20 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 47 (212949)
05-31-2005 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
05-31-2005 11:20 PM


But who is to say that "God" did anything?
How do you tell the difference between something god did and something nature did that we may or may not ever understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 11:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 11:44 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 47 (212958)
06-01-2005 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
05-31-2005 11:44 PM


quote:
How do you tell anything Shraf.
Hypothesis => predictions => testing of predictions = positive evidence or falsification of hypothesis.
repeat.
If you get a lot of positive evidence for a particular hypothesis that has been tested vigorously from many angles, then it becomes confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural?
What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?
If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 05-31-2005 11:44 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 47 (213431)
06-02-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
06-01-2005 2:21 AM


quote:
How do you tell anything Shraf.
Hypothesis => predictions => testing of predictions = positive evidence or falsification of hypothesis.
repeat.
If you get a lot of positive evidence for a particular hypothesis that has been tested vigorously from many angles, then it becomes confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural?
What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?
If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 06-01-2005 2:21 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 06-02-2005 1:27 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 47 (213823)
06-03-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
06-02-2005 1:27 PM


What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural?
quote:
The claim is made that if God did something in the natural world, that is supernatural and off-limits to science,
Nope.
The claim is made that if god did something in the natural world, it would be natural, and therefore would fall under science.
quote:
but claiming that something that occurred in the natural world is by definition supernatural is nonsensical, illogical, and internally inconsistent.
Right.
quote:
As such, the line of reasoning and arguments to dismiss something by labelling it supernatural is not valid and should be dismissed a priori, and those that make such arguments are committing to a fallacy completely at odds with science. If something happens, whether God or some other agent did it, it is by definition part of reality, and hence "natural" in this context.
In the context of science, "real" and "abiding by natural law" are not sysnonymous.
But if "godidit" and "naturedidit" are indestinguishable to observation, why do you think Godidit?
How do you rule out "Godidit" as a cause? Or, how do you rule out "naturedidit" as a cause?
How is "Godidit" falsifiable?
What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?
quote:
2. The question is misworded. The argument is not that God could not be involved in creating something, or that God could be behind natural processes, as much as the issue is distinquishing between how things occur, and more pointedly, are there more direct means that God may directly influence and design a natural thing. Specifically, if you posit attributes presented as belonging to God or the divine, specifically Intelligence and Consciousness, and discover how these 2 concepts inter-relate with matter, as we have discovered in quantum physics, then that is strong evidence for some sort of mechanism where Intelligence and Consciousness can play a determinative role to a degree on the physical world. That, imo, has been verified. The preponderence of evidence suggests that is the case in ID.
No, the question is not misworded.
You have answered some other question, but that's not the one I put forth.
What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?
In other words, how could "godidit" be falsified?
quote:
Now, you may ask, well, how do we know "it" is God. What if "it" is something else? We cannot prove what "it" is. Fine, but we can discuss the mechanism and the attributes of this potential for direct engineering, and as far as what "it" is, that's another issue. We know "it" exists and plays a role. It may be that science is indeed limited at this stage for ultimately defining and quantizing God.
What are the potential falsifications of your "it" theory?
quote:
We can nevertheless prehaps study the mechanism this "divine force" uses since the mechanism is part of the creation.
What evidence would falsify this "divine force" as a mechanism of creation?
quote:
Thus far, we study the mechanism of proposed natural selection affecting a first life form, and evolving into all of the life without really know what that form is, what caused that form, or even, imo, a valid scientific, empirical explanation for how this first life form could emerge, on it's own, without any assistance from an Intelligent Agent from chemistry to biology.
We have no mechnanisms for how an intelligent creator could have created life, either, but at least we have a few physical clues regarding life on Earth at the earliest stages, such as the strong liklihood that carbon was part of first life.
quote:
But do you discount the entire study of evolution because one part of the story really cannot be falsified?
It can all be falsified. All scientific theories are held tentatively, ready to be inproved in light of new evidence.
What would falsify your proposal?
If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?
quote:
3. You cannot prove that God is not ultimately involved, but you can test for the different mechanisms involved. For example, you claim that natural selection and mutation, etc,... are the mechanisms involved in speciation, but there is no way to exclude God from that process. He could be intimately involved there, but arguably it would be an indirect involvement through these processes.
It's fine to believe this, but that personal belief is irrelevant to scientific investigation.
quote:
But I would argue quantum physics has presented us with definite evidence of an ID mechanism, namely the direct connection and involvement with consciousness, intelligence, and all matter. There is hard evidence for this, as anyone can verify by just reading the interpretations of wave/particality duality, and eminent physicists involved with such work.
But what are your predictions of what we should see in physics, or nature at large, if God did or does X?
Predictions and falsifications and evidence.
That's what science is.
If you don't have any of those, you aren't doing science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 06-02-2005 1:27 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by 1.61803, posted 06-03-2005 3:01 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 47 (213940)
06-03-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by 1.61803
06-03-2005 3:01 PM


Re: But why???
I agree.
I like it that way, too.
That's why I'm agnostic. There's no use agonizing over something unknowable, so I jut leave it alone.
Other people are not comfortable with such ambiguity, so they decide to belive that God is the cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by 1.61803, posted 06-03-2005 3:01 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024