Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Greater Miracle
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 31 of 199 (507071)
05-01-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
05-01-2009 2:42 AM


Re: Spectra
That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism.
Wouldn't the greater explanation still need to be the origin of said creator?
If you can't even slightly imagine that a simple molecular cell came about through natural chemical reactions, then how do you justify believing that something much, much more complex, such as your creator, could just exist requiring no explanation for it's origin and chance existance?
You say that it's too far of a leap of faith to think that a cell can originate by random chemical reactions, OK, but wouldn't the same random odds have to be applied to the creators existance as well? What formed it? Random, unguilded events? The very random, unguilded events that YOU say cannot form a cell CAN however form a God(s)?
Wouldn't the creators origin be a materialistic-type origin? In the fact that the creator does not require a creator for it's existance, so, it's safe to assume that a natural process of some kind took place for the creator to have come into existance, right?
Now THAT is a greater miracle if there ever was one.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 2:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 11:51 AM onifre has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 32 of 199 (507074)
05-01-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
05-01-2009 8:15 AM


Re: Miracularity ensues
Modulous writes:
What is more miraculous?
That through a slow and well understood process with significant evidentiary support, a crude and very limited intelligence emerged in the universe and that intelligence crudely imagined and then believed that it was created by a greater intelligence than itself.
Or
That a Great Intelligence simply exists, without any cause, explanation or process that brings into existence - and with all that Great Intelligence the Intelligence creates a mostly barren universe, creates life in a tiny subset of that universe and ushers it into an intelligent species that will last something like 0.0000...002% of the time the universe created to house them does and exists in only and 0.00000000000000000000...0000001% of the space created to house it. Oh and when that intelligent species looks at the evidence rigorously it concludes that it most likely happened naturally. A more casual/naive examination of the evidence ends up with the conclusion that the Great Intelligence Did It. And the casual/naive/easy methodology just happens to produce the correct results.
Don't know about you, but the argument that an Intelligent Creative agency exists that explains all those things we haven't explained yet - seems much more miraculous than positing that chemical reactions happened, and that we aren't sure of what all of them were.
Well as I've stated before, I think it takes far more faith to think that all of creation exists by chance but we disagree. Simple as that.
Interesting description of the world. I have no scientific background but I love reading about it through the likes of Greene, Hawking etc. What I read tells me that all matter that exists is made up of particles that are likely without dimension and that don't take on their function until they are measured or observed. I've read scientists that claim that time is an illusion and likely so is space. Apparently visible matter makes up roughly 5% of the universe. What is dark matter or dark ? For that matter what is energy period? This world is what we perceive it to be with our 5 senses.
I recently read a book called "Quantum Enigma" by physicists which postulates that fundamental to everything is consciousness.
We are quite happy to have scientists talk about other dimensions but if theologians talk of God's dimension it is quickly dismissed. It seems to me that the more we learn the more aware we become of how much we don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2009 8:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2009 12:35 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 199 (507085)
05-01-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
05-01-2009 10:18 AM


onifire writes:
Wouldn't the greater explanation still need to be the origin of said creator?
If you can't even slightly imagine that a simple molecular cell came about through natural chemical reactions, then how do you justify believing that something much, much more complex, such as your creator, could just exist requiring no explanation for it's origin and chance existance?
You say that it's too far of a leap of faith to think that a cell can originate by random chemical reactions, OK, but wouldn't the same random odds have to be applied to the creators existance as well? What formed it? Random, unguilded events? The very random, unguilded events that YOU say cannot form a cell CAN however form a God(s)?
Wouldn't the creators origin be a materialistic-type origin? In the fact that the creator does not require a creator for it's existance, so, it's safe to assume that a natural process of some kind took place for the creator to have come into existance, right?
Now THAT is a greater miracle if there ever was one.
I can't argue with the logic based on what we know based on materialistic knowledge. However when we say that the creator has to exist BEFORE creation and ask what existed BEFORE the creator we are assuming that time as we know it is the only way to experience change.
Here is a quote from Julian Barbour. Barbour's web site
quote:
Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things. Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions.
All of the sicence that I have read indicates that mathamatically time is symmetrical and yet we only experience it is one direction. Time is one of the things that we don't understand well at all. So when you say that God had to exist BEFORE creation and something had to exist BEFORE the creator you are making an argument based on time as we perceive it, which is likely a false understanding of what time really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 10:18 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2009 5:21 PM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 34 of 199 (507093)
05-01-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
05-01-2009 10:20 AM


Re: Miracularity ensues
Well as I've stated before, I think it takes far more faith to think that all of creation exists by chance but we disagree. Simple as that.
I don't think we do disagree. I don't have any commitment to the belief that the universe or 'creation' as you call it exists by chance. I'm not entirely sure that strictly speaking it makes sense to even say that: you think that creation happened by 'chance' in the sense that the creator 'just happened to exist by chance' and that 'by chance' it created us (as opposed to creating something else). On the other hand, I think that if we had access to the real answers we'd find that the universe could be no other way than the way it is, and that 'chance' is merely an illusion. Or we could flip it the other way around. Maybe you understand the antithesis of your position and you are taking a poorly chosen linguistic shortcut. Or maybe, you don't and you really think that 'it exists by chance' is a geniunely good summary of it. Either way - I don't think your summary is meaningful if it can be used to dismiss both actual positions.
Better, perhaps, would be to suggest that it takes more faith to believe that the universe (probably wise to avoid 'creation', for what its worth), exists without an intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs. That seems like a more accurate portrayal, would you agree?
I believe that intelligence and complexity existing without a universe or the like is highly improbable on the face of it. And that an intelligent agent with universe creating powers simply 'existing' is more miraculous than the universe gradually changing through simple physical reactions to have intelligence in it that goes on to erroneously conclude that an intelligent agent like itself but better was behind the whole shebang.
We are quite happy to have scientists talk about other dimensions but if theologians talk of God's dimension it is quickly dismissed. It seems to me that the more we learn the more aware we become of how much we don't know.
Scientists do the math. Theologians just wave their hands. That's why I am happy for the scientists to carry on doing their thing, and why I criticize theologians for pretending to be anywhere near capable of developing an explanatory framework with the same power that scientists do.
But your last sentence is precisely my point: we don't know much. In fact we often make mistakes.
So what is more likely: that the pre-scientific common-sense, intuitive notion that there is agency behind the universe is a mistake. A false positive on the old agency detector so to speak is triggered when dealing with concepts for which our brains were not evolved to handle.
Or
There is an agent that for no reason simply exists, and it created us or 'by chance' it happened to be the type of agent that was inclined to create a universe that looks like this with agents like ourselves in it.
Take a look at this picture. Which is more miraculous:
That the image is moving, but never goes anywhere, despite it being an image format with no animation in it and it continues to move even after you print it on paper...
Or
That the brain is taking a cognitive shortcut which leads to a very convincing perceptual mistake that the picture is moving - even when on another level you are sure that it isn't.
And we're only discussing one miracle - the deist's miracle, or perhaps a sequence of inter-related miracles (the right intelligent agent to create us (that is, the agent we have seems to be fine-tuned to create universes that are fine-tuned to create life like us), happens to be the one that, in reality exists, and not only is it capable and inclined to create such a universe, but actually goes ahead and does it! Miracle upon miracle!) . The religious rarely stop there, the intelligent agent sometimes creates things in a fashion that miraculously defies the known laws of physics, of the evidence discovered by geologists and biologists. It embodies itself the body of one of the lesser entities on one of the planets with intelligent life to give platitutes disguised as wisdom, perform some local miracles to credulous observers, raising from the dead, changing properties of physical matter, defying gravity/increasing surface tension of liquids, flying around on impossible chimerical beasts.
What's more miraculous: That one of these religions happens to be right? Or the 'god of the gaps' or near hands off deist-deity is right? Or that it's all a product of our clever, but very imperfect brains?
Feel free to disagree - but do more than that - give us an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 10:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 2:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 35 of 199 (507104)
05-01-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
05-01-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Miracularity ensues
Modulous writes:
I don't think we do disagree. I don't have any commitment to the belief that the universe or 'creation' as you call it exists by chance. I'm not entirely sure that strictly speaking it makes sense to even say that: you think that creation happened by 'chance' in the sense that the creator 'just happened to exist by chance' and that 'by chance' it created us (as opposed to creating something else). On the other hand, I think that if we had access to the real answers we'd find that the universe could be no other way than the way it is, and that 'chance' is merely an illusion. Or we could flip it the other way around. Maybe you understand the antithesis of your position and you are taking a poorly chosen linguistic shortcut. Or maybe, you don't and you really think that 'it exists by chance' is a geniunely good summary of it. Either way - I don't think your summary is meaningful if it can be used to dismiss both actual positions.
Better, perhaps, would be to suggest that it takes more faith to believe that the universe (probably wise to avoid 'creation', for what its worth), exists without an intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs. That seems like a more accurate portrayal, would you agree?
Logically you make a good point in that when I talk about a creator I have no evidence to show that he/she/it didn't have to exist by chance. Your last statement in this quote does word it better. You Brits do have a way with the language. (Maybe it isn't called English for nothing.
Modulous writes:
I believe that intelligence and complexity existing without a universe or the like is highly improbable on the face of it. And that an intelligent agent with universe creating powers simply 'existing' is more miraculous than the universe gradually changing through simple physical reactions to have intelligence in it that goes on to erroneously conclude that an intelligent agent like itself but better was behind the whole shebang.
I'm not suggesting that intelligence and complexity exists without a universe. Personally my understanding would be more along the lines of a creator that exists alongside us in another dimension or universe. In a thread a couple of years ago cavediver described the universe as a projection,(sort of like Plato's cave), which would be somewhat consistent with that though certainly not the point that cavediver was making. I just read an interesting book by Gerald Shroeder of the university of Jerusalem that postulates that at their most fundamental, all particles are simply bits of "information". I don't mean any of this to be taken in a pantheistic sense.
Modulous writes:
Scientists do the math. Theologians just wave their hands. That's why I am happy for the scientists to carry on doing their thing, and why I criticize theologians for pretending to be anywhere near capable of developing an explanatory framework with the same power that scientists do.
This argument though discounts the idea that any knowledge exists that isn't scientific. You can't test philosophical and/or theological evidence in a lab or a particle accelerator, but that doesn't mean that we can't discern valid truths that can't be tested scientifically. I love my wife. Can we verify that in a lab? No. People can draw their own conclusions about whether I do or not on non-scientific grounds. Of course I would agree that philosophical answers will never be as definitive as scientific ones.
Modulous writes:
So what is more likely: that the pre-scientific common-sense, intuitive notion that there is agency behind the universe is a mistake. A false positive on the old agency detector so to speak is triggered when dealing with concepts for which our brains were not evolved to handle.
Or
There is an agent that for no reason simply exists, and it created us or 'by chance' it happened to be the type of agent that was inclined to create a universe that looks like this with agents like ourselves in it.
It is my contention that the pre-science common sense, intuitive notion that there is an agency behind the universe, was and isn't, a mistake. I don't see that science has in any way changed that point of view. I believe that we can learn about the creator through science, theology and philosophy.
Loved the image and I would agree that what the brain perceives is not always the way things actually are.
Modulous writes:
And we're only discussing one miracle - the deist's miracle, or perhaps a sequence of inter-related miracles (the right intelligent agent to create us (that is, the agent we have seems to be fine-tuned to create universes that are fine-tuned to create life like us), happens to be the one that, in reality exists, and not only is it capable and inclined to create such a universe, but actually goes ahead and does it! Miracle upon miracle!) . The religious rarely stop there, the intelligent agent sometimes creates things in a fashion that miraculously defies the known laws of physics, of the evidence discovered by geologists and biologists. It embodies itself the body of one of the lesser entities on one of the planets with intelligent life to give platitutes disguised as wisdom, perform some local miracles to credulous observers, raising from the dead, changing properties of physical matter, defying gravity/increasing surface tension of liquids, flying around on impossible chimerical beasts.
We are only considering a deist god at this point and yes my beliefs do go beyond that, but this is the logical place to start any discussion of a deity. If you don't agree that there is a likelihood of an intelligent creator then there isn't much point in going any further.
Modulous writes:
Feel free to disagree - but do more than that - give us an argument.
I'm doing the best I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2009 12:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2009 3:35 PM GDR has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 36 of 199 (507113)
05-01-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
05-01-2009 2:42 AM


Evidence
You believe that all of creation came about strictly through a materialistic process.
What I believe is immaterial. That that is what the evidence points toward is material. That there is no evidence indicating intervention by a super being may or may not be material; that is up to the super being.
You agree that you can't prove it so you have to take it on faith that you are correct.
If you feel the weakness of your argument can be circumvented by misusing words go to town, but don’t expect me to be able to suss your meaning if you go too far off the reservation. You see, I don’t argue that your arguments are weak because they're founded on faith. I argue that they are weak because they are not founded on evidence. Deep down I take it on faith that I am not an elaborate computer program whose every bit of data is spoon fed by a nerd who can’t get a girlfriend so he entertains himself with my reactions to his input; wherein, what this guileful, quintessential dork (GQD) wants me to know is all I can know. But I could be wrong.
I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of life of all kinds, the fact that we have emotions, the fact that we can be altruistic etc. but you've heard it all before and you reject that as sufficient evidence.
I don’t reject them as insufficient evidence, I reject them as non evidence. There was something I was reading a while back if anyone knows fill me in please about an apologist for the Vatican defending the awful treatment of Bruno or Galileo over the issue of geocentrism because it does look like the Sun goes round the Earth from here. And his antagonist asked, What would it like if the Earth went round the Sun? Your evidence suffers a kindred defect. Natural history looks like it was directed by an omnipotent, intelligent agent. That’s not amazing. All possible natural histories look like they were directed by an omnipotent, intelligent agent. That’s because an omnipotent, intelligent agent could make it look any way he wanted it to. But what would natural history look like if it unfolded naturally? We’d find all kinds of restrictions. And what do we find? All kinds of restrictions; like nested hierarchies.
That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism.
So you’ve said; but why? Because you have real arguments somewhere that you dare not devulge because you’d have to kill me if you did, or because you have a psychological investment in the idea that you’re currently rationalizing?
I kinda imagine you're going to disagree.
Alas, imagination is not perennially oblivious.
but I wonder how many times that I've read on this forum that there is so much evidence for evolution that it is no longer a theory.
Evolution is a fact, it was never a theory. The Theory of Evolution is a theory and will never be a fact.
We come to different conclusions about the evidence but it is still evidence.
Except that you are not interpreting evidence; you are ignoring it. The greater part of the evidence is well bellow the threshold of casual observation. Have you ever noticed that human chromosome #2 looks just like it would if chimp chromosomes #13 and #14 fused. Why would an intelligent agent do that? It doesn’t serve a purpose. They function excellently as separate units.
If an alien were to examine a car, (without being able to observe us), he would be able to discern something about us through our creation, (if he concluded that it wasn't likely to exist by strictly materialistic forces).
He’d be able to discern those things because he’d notice that there are no indications of past or ongoing forces shaping the individual parts or causing the parts to arrange themselves in their relations to each other. It’s safe to assume an outside agent was necessary to do that. He'd then be able to note things like the molded parts having ribs, saving materials with a minimal loss of strength, and conclude we're parsimonious. We, on the other hand, can see the parts of a tadpole being constructed in situ, and not seeing any teeny-tiny mechanics can conclude that it’s either a natural process or magic. If it's a natural process we could look more deeply for chemical reactions that we'd not expect based on what we know about chemistry. If magic we could conclude that the magician was not very parsimonious because it used all kinds of wasteful behind the scenes stuff that would go unnoticed by the casual observer.
Is the evidence for a completely materialistic creation conclusive?
Yes.
I remember reading the first third of the "Book of Buddha" and being struck by how closely the first Buddha's teachings were to that of Christ.
That they both conclude that we shouldn’t run with sissors is hardly surprising. The Jews were no less prone to stumbling then the Shakyans.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 2:42 AM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 199 (507114)
05-01-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
05-01-2009 2:29 PM


Good old British Empiricism
This argument though discounts the idea that any knowledge exists that isn't scientific. You can't test philosophical and/or theological evidence in a lab or a particle accelerator, but that doesn't mean that we can't discern valid truths that can't be tested scientifically. I love my wife. Can we verify that in a lab? No.
You can probably verify that in a lab, and failing that it should be straightforward enough to verify it 'in the field'.
What I am suggesting though, is not that we discount knowledge that isn't scientific. I am giving you a reason why it might feel like theologian's ideas about 'God dimensions' are more quickly dismissed that physicists ideas about 'tiny' dimensions. The physicist's do maths and make predictions and have to get everything precisely working and design experiments that test their predictions and so on. And physicists have a track record of using only physical principles and coming up with 'crazy sounding' ideas that lead to computers, lasers, PET scans and Satellite Navigation. Theologians have a track record of using theology to dispute the truth of bleeding edge scientific ideas until they are verified beyond dispute and then they use theology to explain how that was exactly the way their religion saw it all along (it was just misguided fools that hijacked their church that argued against it to begin with).
The two pursuits are very different.
The problem with trying to gain an understanding of the nature of nature by appealing to ideas that are untestable is that you have no way of knowing if you are just engaging in an entertaining mental pursuit or if you are actually onto something.
It is my contention that the pre-science common sense, intuitive notion that there is an agency behind the universe, was and isn't, a mistake. I don't see that science has in any way changed that point of view. I believe that we can learn about the creator through science, theology and philosophy.
You do realize that those same type of notions made us think there was agency behind crop failures, the success of wars and boat journeys, the weather patterns, eclipses, and swarms and so on? Science has done a lot to change that point of view. It seems very God-of-the-gaps that we are now talking about the ultimate origins of everything rather than why Fred had a good crop after appeasing Osiris with a sacrifice and I didn't after praying really hard to Min.
We are only considering a deist god at this point and yes my beliefs do go beyond that, but this is the logical place to start any discussion of a deity. If you don't agree that there is a likelihood of an intelligent creator then there isn't much point in going any further.
Well we are only really looking at what the 'greater/lesser miracles' are. When it comes to the deist god, it seems less miraculous that the universe just exists than God just exists and also created the universe.
I'm not suggesting that intelligence and complexity exists without a universe. Personally my understanding would be more along the lines of a creator that exists alongside us in another dimension or universe.
Hmm, this seems to muck about with causality though, which is one of the arguments for postulating a creator to begin with. We might find another greater miracle lurking around here if we delved deep enough.
You Brits do have a way with the language. (Maybe it isn't called English for nothing
I considered passing this up out of a mixture of modesty and national pride. If you heard what passes for English around here in 'sunny' Manchester...why the stories I could tell you {/curmudgeon}.
I'm doing the best I can.
I'm not criticising so much as I am throwing down a gauntlet or slapping you harmlessly with my glove. "You sir, are a cad, prepare to defend your honour!" etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 2:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 05-02-2009 11:19 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 38 of 199 (507129)
05-01-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
05-01-2009 10:03 AM


GDR writes:
I accept your point about proof, but I wonder how many times that I've read on this forum that there is so much evidence for evolution that it is no longer a theory.
Oh good God, are we doomed to be haunted by Gould's ghost forever!
Let me draw an analogy with gravity. That there has been gravity and that there is still gravity is a fact. But for example, that time slows down in a gravitational field according to certain mathematical equations is a theory.
In a similar manner, that evolution has happened and is still happening is a fact. That evolution is due to descent with modification combined with natural selection is a theory.
The fact that we, this world, and this universe exists is evidence. We come to different conclusions about the evidence but it is still evidence.
I understand your position, but how's it working for you? Have any researchers identified phenomena that can only be explained by unknown and unseen forces?
Interestingly enough, the answer is yes, they have, repeatedly, and they've all been resolved in favor of natural explanations.
But a new force has recently been uncovered through our discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There is no known force that could cause this, so science speculates that there is a force called dark energy that is stretching out the cosmos. Experiments that would more directly detect or measure dark energy (rather than just inferring its existence based upon observations of its effects on the universe) are being designed as we speak.
The history of science is one of resolving one mystery after another. In the entire history of science, not one mystery has ever been resolved in favor of unknown and unseen forces, and we expect this record of all scientific mysteries resolving to natural explanations to continue with dark energy. When it comes to the natural versus the supernatural, the natural has won about 12 million times in a row. This is one reason why we have so much difficulty fathoming the thinking of those who believe the possibility of a resolution of some scientific mystery in favor of the supernatural is the lesser miracle. It feels very much like a flaw in thinking, a victory of wishful thinking over rationality and logic.
Concerning application of the Hume Maxim to the world's religions, I couldn't discern a clear statement of your position. Would it be correct to say that you believe the lesser miracle is that some religious beliefs are true rather than that none are true?
Actually when I say it that way I would have to agree that it's very unlikely that there are no religious beliefs that are true, but that includes beliefs like the Biblical history of Palestine, and I believe that though the Bible is an imperfect and biased record, there is a not insignificant amount of its history that is accurate. And some religions include beliefs that are in perfect agreement with science.
But we can agree we're not talking about those types of religious beliefs, right. We're talking about unknown and unseen forces and things of this nature that contradict science. So if we stick strictly to a context that only includes religious beliefs that contradict science, would it still be correct to say that you believe that the lesser miracle is that some religious beliefs about such things are true? Even though science has never resolved anything in favor of such a belief?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 05-01-2009 10:03 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2009 7:42 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 05-02-2009 12:26 PM Percy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 199 (507137)
05-01-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
05-01-2009 6:10 PM


Nitpik
But for example, that time slows down in a gravitational field according to certain mathematical equations is a theory.
That it slows down is an experimental fact. General relativity is the theory which explains why and why it is of the magnitude it is.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 6:10 PM Percy has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 40 of 199 (507157)
05-02-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
05-01-2009 3:35 PM


Re: Good old British Empiricism
Modulous writes:
What I am suggesting though, is not that we discount knowledge that isn't scientific. I am giving you a reason why it might feel like theologian's ideas about 'God dimensions' are more quickly dismissed that physicists ideas about 'tiny' dimensions. The physicist's do maths and make predictions and have to get everything precisely working and design experiments that test their predictions and so on. And physicists have a track record of using only physical principles and coming up with 'crazy sounding' ideas that lead to computers, lasers, PET scans and Satellite Navigation. Theologians have a track record of using theology to dispute the truth of bleeding edge scientific ideas until they are verified beyond dispute and then they use theology to explain how that was exactly the way their religion saw it all along (it was just misguided fools that hijacked their church that argued against it to begin with).
The two pursuits are very different.
The problem with trying to gain an understanding of the nature of nature by appealing to ideas that are untestable is that you have no way of knowing if you are just engaging in an entertaining mental pursuit or if you are actually onto something.
I have no problem with any of that, but I would say that theologians
were talking about other dimensions, (though not by using that term), long before science was.
In the end, we all live according to some code of behaviour. An agnostic or atheist would presumably base it on what he himself believes to be right or wrong, (as influenced as well by the culture), whereas someone who adheres to a religious faith will use that specific religion to be the foundation of how he believes he should behave. (Sorry to keep being gender specific - it's just easier.) In the end we all, on faith, believe we have come to the correct conclusion.
GDR writes:
It is my contention that the pre-science common sense, intuitive notion that there is an agency behind the universe, was and isn't, a mistake. I don't see that science has in any way changed that point of view. I believe that we can learn about the creator through science, theology and philosophy.
Modulus writes:
You do realize that those same type of notions made us think there was agency behind crop failures, the success of wars and boat journeys, the weather patterns, eclipses, and swarms and so on? Science has done a lot to change that point of view. It seems very God-of-the-gaps that we are now talking about the ultimate origins of everything rather than why Fred had a good crop after appeasing Osiris with a sacrifice and I didn't after praying really hard to Min.
I stand by my statement. We have a intuitive sense to find out the truth of things. Science is part of that, as is philosophy and theology.
I'm suggesting that in the end there is an ultimate truth. That ultimate truth must mean that science, philosophy and theology have to be 100% compatible. That can become a "god of the gaps" way of looking at things but science in general tells us different things about our world than does either philosophy and theology. I have no issues with any branch of science.
Modulus writes:
I considered passing this up out of a mixture of modesty and national pride. If you heard what passes for English around here in 'sunny' Manchester...why the stories I could tell you
The two writers that have had the greatest impact on my life have both been Brits. The first was CS Lewis and more recently it has been NT Wright. (The Bishop of Durham.) I recently attended a series of talks by John Polkinghorne, (another Brit) who of course is both a renowned physicist and theologian. In the end I guess those of in the colonies know to whom we have to look for wisdom and knowledge.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2009 3:35 PM Modulous has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 41 of 199 (507166)
05-02-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
05-01-2009 6:10 PM


Percy writes:
I understand your position, but how's it working for you? Have any researchers identified phenomena that can only be explained by unknown and unseen forces?
Interestingly enough, the answer is yes, they have, repeatedly, and they've all been resolved in favor of natural explanations.
How do you prove a negative. If I were to say to you that because we don't know what energy is so it must be God you would accuse me of going the "god of the gaps" route and you'd be right. We don't have any idea of what the limits of science are.
What is energy? What is gravity? There are a few things to be resolved yet. Sure science will learn more and more about those things but it still comes back to first cause. As Modulus puts it, I still contend that it takes more faith to believe that the universe exists without an intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs than it does to believe in the opposite.
Percy writes:
The history of science is one of resolving one mystery after another. In the entire history of science, not one mystery has ever been resolved in favor of unknown and unseen forces, and we expect this record of all scientific mysteries resolving to natural explanations to continue with dark energy. When it comes to the natural versus the supernatural, the natural has won about 12 million times in a row. This is one reason why we have so much difficulty fathoming the thinking of those who believe the possibility of a resolution of some scientific mystery in favor of the supernatural is the lesser miracle. It feels very much like a flaw in thinking, a victory of wishful thinking over rationality and logic.
See my post to Modulus. I have no problem with any branch of science but I do contend that science can't resolve all of the issues. Science for instance can't resolve issues surrounding miracles. Science will say that when someone dies, and that other than for cases of resuscitation, they stay dead. Christianity claims that Jesus was resurrected. This would be an unrepeatable event that occurred 2000 years ago. Science can say nothing about it.
Percy writes:
Concerning application of the Hume Maxim to the world's religions, I couldn't discern a clear statement of your position. Would it be correct to say that you believe the lesser miracle is that some religious beliefs are true rather than that none are true?
Yes
Percy writes:
Actually when I say it that way I would have to agree that it's very unlikely that there are no religious beliefs that are true, but that includes beliefs like the Biblical history of Palestine, and I believe that though the Bible is an imperfect and biased record, there is a not insignificant amount of its history that is accurate. And some religions include beliefs that are in perfect agreement with science.
I'm a Christian and I believe that there are no contradictions between science and my faith. As a matter of fact I see science as fundamentally a theological pursuit.
Percy writes:
But we can agree we're not talking about those types of religious beliefs, right. We're talking about unknown and unseen forces and things of this nature that contradict science. So if we stick strictly to a context that only includes religious beliefs that contradict science, would it still be correct to say that you believe that the lesser miracle is that some religious beliefs about such things are true? Even though science has never resolved anything in favor of such a belief?
I'm not completely clear on what you would consider that contradicts science. Does the resurrection contradict science. I would say no in that if it is true it is an unrepeatable event and not accessible to scientific investigation. I also don't believe that the concept of an intelligent creator is contradictory to science. In this case, if there is an intelligent creator science can only work at discovering how he/she/it created such as in the case of evolution.
The simple answer to your question though is again yes. I keep going back to the basic question of whether or not there is a intelligent creator. If we decide, as I have, that such an entity does exist then I have accepted the fact that there had to be at least one miracle to have brought something into existence at the beginning of time. Once I have accepted that it makes the possibility of other miracles seem less miraculous and even likely.
Science is the study of the natural. A miracle is a supernatural event and not accessible to scientific study, so science cannot resolve anything in favour of such a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 6:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Michamus, posted 05-02-2009 1:32 PM GDR has replied
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-02-2009 6:10 PM GDR has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 42 of 199 (507172)
05-02-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by GDR
05-02-2009 12:26 PM


GDR writes:
Science will say that when someone dies, and that other than for cases of resuscitation, they stay dead. Christianity claims that Jesus was resurrected. This would be an unrepeatable event that occurred 2000 years ago. Science can say nothing about it.
Bold added by me
As does pretty much any other religion that existed at the time.Resurrection is certainly not unique, or original to Christianity.
A small list of gods that were resurrected:
  • Osiris, Isis, Horus were resurrected in Egyptian religion
  • Tammuz of the Sumerian and Babylonian religions.
  • Bodhidharma in Zen Buddhism
  • Adonis of the Phoenicians
  • Latter Day Saints believe EVERYONE will be resurrected
These are just a few examples, that by your own argument would become "untouchable by science", and hold equal merit to your own claim.
GDR writes:
Does the resurrection contradict science. I would say no in that if it is true it is an unrepeatable event and not accessible to scientific investigation.
As demonstrated, the resurrection is not unique to Christianity, nor was Christianity the first to claim it to have occurred. If you don't believe all these religions to be true, then you must also reject their central belief in the resurrection of their "God(s)", at which point, you would have no choice but to reject the very notion of your own religion's claims.
What is more likely?
A few scribes made up the whole story, and some powerful men took advantage of that story (Think council of Nicaea) in which a completely non-original event occurred, in that yet another god was resurrected.
-or-
Christianity's claim of a resurrection is the only story in which a god was ACTUALLY resurrected, and that same god is the single creator of everything, and all the other religions that pre-date Christianity by HUNDREDS of years, made their resurrection stories up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 05-02-2009 12:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 05-02-2009 5:12 PM Michamus has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 199 (507192)
05-02-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
04-30-2009 9:55 AM


GDR writes:
quote:
If science can explain how abiogenesis happened then great, but it still doesn't explain why it happened.
Ooh! We're at one of those questions I always ask and never get an answer to:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 9:55 AM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 199 (507193)
05-02-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
04-30-2009 7:11 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
There always has to be a why.
Why?
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 7:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 199 (507194)
05-02-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
04-30-2009 11:48 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
I want to see the proof that it is just matter and energy that control everything on the planet.
Nice try, but that's you're burden of proof. You're the one saying that there is something more. We can see matter and energy and we can see how they interact with each other to result in everything we see on the planet. If you're going to demand that there are chocolate sprinkles on top, then you're going to have to show not only that they are there (which you haven't) but also that they are required (which you also haven't).
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote:
There is nothing there to disagree with, but how does that prove that there is no initiating or guiding force behind all of those processes.
Because if there is no need for such a "guiding force," what evidence is there that it even exists?
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 04-30-2009 11:48 PM GDR 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