Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 46 of 72 (444716)
12-30-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by tesla
12-30-2007 2:24 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
tesla writes:
the reason why their is so many religions is because there are so many different opinions on who or what God is.
Since you're offering a different definition of God than creationists use, what makes you think your argument has any relevancy to the creation/evolution debate?
When you're typing into the reply box, if you look to your left you'll see the help link for dBCodes. Click on it and you'll see how to do quotes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 2:24 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 2:38 PM Percy has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 47 of 72 (444717)
12-30-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
12-30-2007 2:29 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
quote:
Since you're offering a different definition of God than creationists use, what makes you think your argument has any relevancy to the creation/evolution debate?
good question.
creationists define all that is in science by the text of Noah. science define it by observation. I'm not sure how to place ID, since some say that its the same thing as creationists just a new name, yet others claim that its just recognizing God under scientific law.
no science has said that life cannot include God eventually given proof, and God has not been shown in science to not exist.
I'm here to assert that God does exist in science (and in harmony of it). and wish to argue the logic.
quote:
When you're typing into the reply box, if you look to your left you'll see the help link for dBCodes. Click on it and you'll see how to do quotes.
thanks..attempting it now..hope it worked.
Edited by tesla, : spelling

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 2:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 5:10 PM tesla has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 72 (444737)
12-30-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by tesla
12-30-2007 2:38 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
Tesla, you're can't have meaningful discussions if you insist on using your own personal definitions.
tesla writes:
creationists define all that is in science by the text of Noah.
This isn't a creationist definition of science, and even if you did accurately cite a creationist definition of science, it would still be wrong because creationists want science to bypass the evidence requirement and a priori include God as an underlying axiom.
no science has said that life cannot include God eventually given proof,...
Is this missing a comma after the "no", or are you trying to agree with me? In any event, science doesn't seek proof, it seeks evidence. And science doesn't include or exclude anything in particular, it merely studies anything it can find evidence for. God isn't excluded from science, and invisible pink dragons on Alpha Centauri aren't excluded from science, but neither has any supporting evidence that science can study.
I'm here to assert that God does exist in science (and in harmony of it). and wish to argue the logic.
You can assert all you like, but unless you can produce real-world evidence of God then God isn't something that science can study. To assert otherwise is the opposite of logic.
You're saying creationists say science is this, then give a definition creationists wouldn't accept. Then you're saying science says science is that, then give a definition scientists wouldn't accept. What's the point?
There's also a [qs] form of the quote, which it what I'm using. "qs" stands for "quote shaded".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 2:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 5:39 PM Percy has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 49 of 72 (444743)
12-30-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
12-30-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
proof is established after evidence.
science has to ask the right questions before "evidence" can be found. because we are not aware of it does not mean we wont be.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 5:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 5:57 PM tesla has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 72 (444746)
12-30-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by tesla
12-30-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
Tesla, in each message you're using your own definitions of things like science and God. There's really very little point to formulating arguments based on definitions only you accept.
proof is established after evidence.
No, it isn't. Proofs are the province of mathematics, not science. Science develops theories from evidence, and theories are always considered tentative, no matter the volume of supporting evidence. Theories are never proved.
The scientific principle of tentativity is one of the reasons creationists need to modify the definition of science before they can include God, because as science is currently defined any theory of God would have to be tentative, and conservative Christians do not believe their God's existence is tentative.
I'm also Admin, by the way, and I see the same misunderstandings about science in your recent God in science thread proposal. It would probably make more sense to work out this definitional issue here before you tried making further improvements to the thread proposal.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 5:39 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 6:11 PM Percy has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 51 of 72 (444750)
12-30-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
12-30-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
proof is only a math definition?
prove it?
did you go to the bank today?
yes.
proof?
here's the receipt.
proof: the establishment of a fact by evidence.
tentatively: because science considers that it can only be considered such now, does not mean that it could not become assertive with evidence.
for example: God stands before you and all the rest of the world in undeniable evidence= proof. asserted.
a reason for debate is because science claims it is a tentative. others say it is not.
it would not be fair in a forum that boast a debate between the issues of evolution and creationism, to deny beleivers of either issue, the ability to debate "God" in their own language.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 5:57 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 6:21 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 52 of 72 (444752)
12-30-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by tesla
12-30-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Accepting God Without Evidence Would Destroy Science
i just realized your point.
I'm basing assertion on tentative science. withhold any action for the moment i wish to better think the argument.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 6:11 PM tesla has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 72 (444753)
12-30-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
12-29-2007 11:57 AM


Assuming God: any consequences?
question: by admitting to "God" does science lose its grounds?
Why would it? Science attempts to uncover why and how something is. Whether it was intentional or capricious seems to be inconsequential to the natural questions.
question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?
Not necessarily. For me, I don't think so much that God exists, as much as I believe that He is the existence. Does that make any sense?
I think that while God establishes universal laws, that does not mean that God micromanages every detail. For instance, if you see some ants working together, I don't believe that God is "directing" them. This seems to go along with freewill anyhow.
question: so a scientist accepting that an intelligent entity was first may not be religious?
I honestly don't believe so. The teleological argument is different from an ontological one. I know many people that believe in God that certainly would not characterize themselves as being "religious." That's why it kind of bothers me when people say that ID is just religion in disguise. I have no doubt that some would try to misappropriate it. And I can appreciate that. But for me, theology and science are two totally different subjects. While I think they can converge at times, they are not one and the same.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 11:57 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 6:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 54 of 72 (444755)
12-30-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
12-30-2007 6:23 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
quote:
Not necessarily. For me, I don't think so much that God exists, as much as I believe that He is the existence. Does that make any sense?
exactly my point. if the law is a law that states: energy cannot be created or destroyed, the fact anything exists at all would , by all logic, lead to one thing.
one thing being timeless. and because of the scale and complexity of the universe that was spawned from this one thing that was first would show intelligence as a necessity since order cannot be established from chaos and exist. (logically).
this would mean that the term God could be used to this first thing, which would have to be existence. since nothing can exist unless existence first was.
the problem is establishing this in science. despite all logic points to it as true. (IF the law : energy cannot be created or destroyed is not tentative)
if science does not observe the law of existence then science will be too tentative and misdirected in enquiry.
a marvelous problem. I'm not sure i alone have the intelligence to bring the topic to a acceptable tentative probability given the fact existence is not a tentative subject.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
Edited by tesla, : connot=can

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2007 6:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 9:27 PM tesla has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 72 (444790)
12-30-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by tesla
12-30-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
Tesla, just correcting a few things...
exactly my point. if the law is a law that states: energy cannot be created or destroyed,...
In science, law is just a synonym for theory. Some theories are called theories, some are called laws. Usually the term law becomes applied to theories that can be mathematically expressed relatively simply. Laws, just like theories, are tentative.
About not being able to create or destroy energy, it all depends upon how you define energy. If you define energy as distinct from matter, then you can actually create energy from matter and vice-versa. Einstein's E=mc2 equation defines the relationship.
Even if you instead define matter as a form of energy, the way you stated the law still isn't true, because quantum theory allows conservation laws like these to be broken for extremely short periods of time. This is a relatively recent realization, and it is an example of why it is a bad idea to think of theories as timeless truths, because future evidence could always force modifications or even rejection.
...the fact anything exists at all would , by all logic, lead to one thing.
one thing being timeless. and because of the scale and complexity of the universe that was spawned from this one thing that was first would show intelligence as a necessity...
I doubt that anyone but you sees the logic in this. Just continually repeating how logical you are doesn't make you logical.
...order cannot be established from chaos and exist.
This is wrong, too, as we know from thermodynamics and just everyday experience.
this would mean that the term God could be used to this first thing, which would have to be existence.
Once again you're making the mistake of postulating a phenomenon (God) for which there is no evidence.
since nothing can exist unless existence first was.
Our scientific understanding of why something instead of nothing is extremely limited at present. All I can say about your statement, namely that existence has been eternal, is one of the possibilities, but the evidence is too insufficient by far to reach any conclusions.
(IF the law : energy cannot be created or destroyed is not tentative)
As I pointed out before, this statement is incorrect because energy can be created and destroyed for short time periods, and of course the theory is tentative, like all scientific theories.
if science does not observe the law of existence then science will be too tentative and misdirected in enquiry.
a marvelous problem. I'm not sure i alone have the intelligence to bring the topic to a acceptable tentative probability given the fact existence is not a tentative subject.
I don't believe this expresses anything meaningful.
Even if you completely reject the accepted definition of science, it would still be a good idea to acquire a proper understanding of it so you can criticize it for things it actually says, instead of for things you erroneously think it says.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 6:40 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:10 PM Percy has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 56 of 72 (444796)
12-30-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
12-30-2007 9:27 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
statement: in the begging there was only God
(as an intelligent all powerful force and the beginning of all things)
in the beginning there was only existence (as an intelligent entity from which all things came)
my "theory" of this as law is how God and existence are concluded as one.
if anyone was to truly attempt to define existence with or without science in the equation, and could admit that the creation of all that is is much to grand in scale and perfection of its harmony to be without intelligence, will arrive to a similar if not same conclusion. "logically".
if i put rocks and metal and oil in a box, whats the chances of it becoming a computer given time and chance?
if i take all the elements of the universe, and stuck it in a box..
this is my logic. if you disagree, and science refuses to even explore it, then so let it be so.
on a side note: the law of thermodynamics is tentative.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 9:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Organicmachination, posted 12-30-2007 10:27 PM tesla has replied
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 7:09 AM tesla has not replied

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 57 of 72 (444797)
12-30-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tesla
12-30-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
statement: in the begging there was only God
(as an intelligent all powerful force and the beginning of all things)
in the beginning there was only existence (as an intelligent entity from which all things came)
my "theory" of this as law is how God and existence are concluded as one.
First of all, God transcends existence, as existence is a purely physical aspect. If God is truly a supernatural all powerful force, he is not restricted to the physical world. Thusly, God envelopes existence, but they are not one and the same.
f i put rocks and metal and oil in a box, whats the chances of it becoming a computer given time and chance?
if i take all the elements of the universe, and stuck it in a box..
this is my logic. if you disagree, and science refuses to even explore it, then so let it be so.
Rocks and metals do not behave like elements and atoms and free radicals. The latter spontaneously react to form other compounds like lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids. They form our genetic code and are the basis of natural selection. Of course a box of rocks will never become a computer, but chemical reactions between compounds can lead to wondrous things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:10 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:33 PM Organicmachination has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 58 of 72 (444798)
12-30-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Organicmachination
12-30-2007 10:27 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
quote:
First of all, God transcends existence, as existence is a purely physical aspect. If God is truly a supernatural all powerful force, he is not restricted to the physical world. Thusly, God envelopes existence, but they are not one and the same.
impossible. because if god was before existence, he would not "be"
quote:
Rocks and metals do not behave like elements and atoms and free radicals. The latter spontaneously react to form other compounds like lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids. They form our genetic code and are the basis of natural selection. Of course a box of rocks will never become a computer, but chemical reactions between compounds can lead to wondrous things.
is that tentative? from where did the atoms and elements and free radicals come into existence from?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Organicmachination, posted 12-30-2007 10:27 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Organicmachination, posted 12-30-2007 10:39 PM tesla has replied

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 59 of 72 (444800)
12-30-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by tesla
12-30-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
I'm not saying that God was before existence. I'm merely saying that God encompasses existence. Existence was a concept created by God at the time of God's coming into existence. For this reason, God and existence are like a mobius strip, or the representation of a chicken and the egg problem. However, it is not incorrect to say that God is at a higher level than the concept of existence, just like a chicken is at a higher level than the egg. They are parallel ideas, but one, God, is of a grander and more omnipotent nature than the other, existence, an esoteric and intangible concept.
Atoms and elements and free radicals came into existence from the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:33 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:43 PM Organicmachination has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 60 of 72 (444801)
12-30-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Organicmachination
12-30-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Assuming God: any consequences?
by your definition of existence, it would be apparent that the possibility would remain to "not exist".
that's impossible. whom should i say is asking?
existence cannot be considered intangible and you honestly be existing at the same time.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Organicmachination, posted 12-30-2007 10:39 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Organicmachination, posted 12-30-2007 10:48 PM tesla has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024