Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 106 of 187 (604279)
02-10-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
02-10-2011 11:38 AM


DNA is not a blueprint
Each of these pages give the specific instructions where each of the different items are to be placed, as well as their specifications.
But nothing telling you how. I was a blueprint printer for a few years. I have also worked construction. I have looked at multitudes of blueprints. None of them tell you how. If DNA was like a blue print than trees that clone, like aspen, would have the exact number of branches. Funny how that doesn't happen.
To make your argument how about you load up a blueprint that shows you how to build that house. You wont even find that in the spec book.
You do know what a spec book is don't you?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 11:38 AM ICANT has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4718 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 107 of 187 (604291)
02-10-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dr Adequate
02-10-2011 8:36 PM


Spiritual, or Natural?
Dr. Adequate,
the computer was produced by intelligent beings and the tree was produced unintelligently by natural causes.
Could we say that your second clause is a product of naturalistic dogma? Whether or not a computer is a good comparison or not in my own mind, I believe your quibble with the analogy to be dogmatic. Consider points nos. 1, 2, and 3.
  • 1. - You observe the traits of a computer - that it performs basic to complex calculations, stores data by encryption, processes and interprets incoming data, obeys certain commands, etc. - and think, "what an incredible product of science" (perhaps). You do not consider the possibility that it
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes"
    but, in the face of overwhelming evidence, believe that
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    the computer was produced by intelligent beings
  • 2. - You then observe the traits of a tree - that it has a basic to complex transportation system, stores information via DNA, discerns between beneficial and non-beneficial nutrients, and reproduces - and think "I wonder how this complex thing came about". You do not consider (or at least do not seriously consider) the possibility that it
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced by intelligent beings
    but, in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence, believe that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes
  • 3. - So suppose that another man follows the line of reasoning in point #2, only he switches the conclusions around and, observing a tree, he does not consider the possibility that it
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes
    but, in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence, believes that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced by (an) intelligent being(s)
Yet you label point #3 religious dogma, and label point #2 sensibility. Why not vice versa? Why not label point #2 naturalistic dogma, and label point #3 sensibility? You assume a natural source, and the man in point #3 assumes a spiritual source.
If you wish to fantasize that at some point some tree was produced in a manner like that in which a computer was produced rather than in the manner in which trees are actually produced
Could we say yet again that your statements are a product of Uniformitarian dogma?
  • 1. - You observe a tree in the present: you observe the process of survival and reproduction, of evolution and extinction, and determine that all trees throughout all time were produced by the same basic principles that were used to produce the one you were looking at. At this point, being naturalistic, it is a foregone conclusion to you that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced unintelligently by natural causes
    and you then set out to determine the basic natural mechanism that produced it. You determine this basic natural mechanism to be uniformity + time.
  • 2. - Another man observes a tree in the present, observing precisely the same processes that you observed in point #1. At this point, being spiritual, it is a foregone conclusion to him that the tree
    Dr. Adequate writes:
    was produced intelligently
    and so he sets out to determine the basic, spiritual mechanism that produced it. He determines this basic spiritual mechanism to be creation.
Yet you label point #2 religious dogma, and point #1 sensibility. Once again: why not vice versa?
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : Title addition.
Edited by sac51495, : Bulletation (word coined by sac51495, 2-10-11, 11:40 P.M.)
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 8:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 11:53 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 12:01 AM sac51495 has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4718 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 108 of 187 (604292)
02-10-2011 11:27 PM


Formatting
I haven't been on here in a while, so I forgot how to do bulleting. I couldn't find any help on the Posting Tips thread by RAZD, so hopefully someone here can help me out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AdminModulous, posted 02-10-2011 11:33 PM sac51495 has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 109 of 187 (604294)
02-10-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by sac51495
02-10-2011 11:27 PM


Re: Formatting
Here is the dbcode list. You can access it any time by clicking to your right where it says dBCodes On (help) when typing your message.
abe: And by right I meant my right. Your left. Yeah.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by sac51495, posted 02-10-2011 11:27 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by sac51495, posted 02-10-2011 11:38 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4718 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 110 of 187 (604296)
02-10-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AdminModulous
02-10-2011 11:33 PM


Re: Formatting
Oooh...thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AdminModulous, posted 02-10-2011 11:33 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 111 of 187 (604298)
02-10-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by sac51495
02-10-2011 11:12 PM


Re: Spiritual, or Natural?
Hi, Sac.
sac51495 writes:
You observe the traits of a computer - that it performs basic to complex calculations, stores data by encryption, processes and interprets incoming data, obeys certain commands, etc. - and think, "what an incredible product of science" (perhaps). You do not consider the possibility that it "was produced unintelligently by natural causes" but, in the face of overwhelming evidence, believe that "the computer was produced by intelligent beings."
I think Dr Adequate's conclusion about how computers are produced is strongly influenced by his observation that the process by which they are produced is pretty well documented, and is less influenced by an examination of its characteristics.
However, since the process by which trees were originally produced is not so well documented, Dr A has attempted to use the characteristics of computers as a means of diagnosing whether trees were produced by the same process as computers.
This method has not lead Dr A to the conclusion that trees were produced by the same process as computers.
I think this is very sensible.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by sac51495, posted 02-10-2011 11:12 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by sac51495, posted 02-11-2011 12:08 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 187 (604300)
02-11-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by sac51495
02-10-2011 11:12 PM


Dr. Adequate,
Hi sac! Long time no see. Nice to have you back.
OK, let's go round and round again.
You observe the traits of a computer - that it performs basic to complex calculations, stores data by encryption, processes and interprets incoming data, obeys certain commands, etc. - and think, "what an incredible product of science" (perhaps). You do not consider the possibility that it was produced unintelligently by natural causes.
Well, that's because I know how computers are in fact produced. If they grew on trees, I'd think that they grew on trees.
Could we say that your second clause is a product of naturalistic dogma?
No, it's a product of observation. We know how trees originate. They grow from seeds. They are not carved by intelligent sculptors out of wood. This, surely, is something we can agree on.
Could we say yet again that your statements are a product of Uniformitarian dogma?
You can say what you like --- but what you call "uniformitarian dogma" is something that you wager your life on with every action you take. When, for example, you put a pair of shoes on, you are implicitly relying on the proposition that nature is uniform, and that this time, like every other time, they won't grow teeth and bite your feet off at the ankles.
Now it seems to me to be hypocritical to trust your life to this mode of thought on a daily or hourly basis but to reject it when it starts conflicting with your religious beliefs.
I think I'll quote Hume at you again.
Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience.
So long as you keep on going out of the door and not the window, you have no standing to criticize others for employing "uniformitarian dogma". You trust your life to this "dogma"; and if you are unwilling to trust your religious opinions with it, I put it to you that this is because you know that it would be as destructive of your religion as it is protective of your life and well-being.
You observe a tree in the present: you observe the process of survival and reproduction, of evolution and extinction, and determine that all trees throughout all time were produced by the same basic principles that were used to produce the one you were looking at.
Well, that's certainly the way to bet.
Consider this apple tree.
Certainly an omnipotent God could have poofed it into existence, but if you were forced to stake money on it, you'd bet that it grew on from an apple pip, wouldn't you?
Now, what I said was not that we could be absolutely and dogmatically certain that every tree has always been produced in the way that trees are produced rather than in the way that computers are produced; I rather said that observation gives us no warrant for believing anything else.
The fact that a tree is a little like a computer might be faintly suggestive of the notion that it was produced by an intelligent process like a computer is; but this is surely trumped by the fact that a tree is exactly like a tree, which, in all our experience, isn't. (Similarly, my resemblance to a monkey may suggest that I live in a tree, but my still closer resemblance to other human beings suggests that I don't. If the weaker analogy has any merit, the stronger analogy must be conceded to have greater merit.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by sac51495, posted 02-10-2011 11:12 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by sac51495, posted 02-11-2011 12:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4718 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 113 of 187 (604301)
02-11-2011 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Blue Jay
02-10-2011 11:53 PM


Re: Spiritual, or Natural?
Bluejay, (what happened to the bluejay?)
However, since the process by which trees were originally produced is not so well documented, Dr A has attempted to use the characteristics of computers as a means of diagnosing whether trees were produced by the same process as computers.
When I said, "in the face of overwhelming evidence", I had specifically in mind just what you said: the documentation. I was not however thinking of the inherent design features of a computer. The point in my message is not to highlight the strength or weakness of given evidences, but to highlight the differing interpretations thereof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 11:53 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4718 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


(1)
Message 114 of 187 (604302)
02-11-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 12:01 AM


Dr. Adequate,
I think maybe you have missed the point of my message. You dealt only with my accusations toward you of employing naturalistic and uniformitarian conceptions in your interpretation of the world around you. You did not however deal with the point of my message, the point being that what I call your naturalistic dogma and uniformitarian dogma is no less dogmatic than the supposed religious dogma of him who believes in a Creator God.
Well, that's because I know how computers are in fact produced. If they grew on trees, I'd think that they grew on trees.
I'm afraid you missed the point a little bit. This is primarily because you only responded to point #1, and said nothing of points #2 and #3, point #3 containing the crux of the matter.
But if indeed you are saying that - were you to see a computer growing off of a tree - you would assume the computer to have been "produced unintelligently by natural processes", you prove doubly that you have naturalistic preconceptions, in that you once again would not consider the possibility of an intelligent and spiritual source. You assume again that a tree is "produced unintelligently by natural processes", and label as religiously dogmatic any one who assumes the that the tree is "produced intelligently by spiritual processes".
We know how trees originate. They grow from seeds. They are not carved by intelligent sculptors out of wood.
You know how trees originate? Or do you mean how they reproduce? I have never denied that trees grow from seeds; the argument is from where did the first seed come? Was it produced unintelligently by natural processes, or intelligently by spiritual processes? If you claim presumption of an intelligent and spiritual source to be dogmatic, than how much more is presumption of an unintelligent and natural source dogmatic? I say that trees as a whole were created intelligently and spiritually: God merely created them with the ability to reproduce themselves, just as any slightly intelligent computer scientist would program the ability into a computer to perform certain tasks on its own.

Hume is quite insightful, isn't he? As for me though, having had the scales removed from my eyes by Jesus Christ, I cannot say that I would have any hope of surviving were it not for Him. Having known the true source (logos) of the universe, I know that were I to fall away from Him and be separated from His power and wisdom, and know then that I was completely reliant on a naturalistic universe, I would live in constant fear of those foundationless laws being violated at every turn, and would be unable - despite even years of experience - to place my faith in those laws which, without their Creator Jesus Christ, are wavering constructs of man's wicked heart, which itself is the most inconsistent pile of dung that the world has ever seen. In shorter terms, my faith being founded upon Jesus Christ, I see no alternative but to keep my faith in Him.
Now, to prevent an objection: I do not consciously think every step I take that "ooh, I would not be able take this step were it not for Jesus Christ". This would be foolishness. Jesus Christ is not our protection from natural laws, but He is the foundation of those laws. Do you see that the foundation of Jesus Christ is secure and unshakeable? Would anyone dare to reach for Him and change Him? Could anyone reach for Him and change Him? No. He is eternal, immutable, spiritual, independent, and necessarily unreliant on His Creation for sustenance or survival.
So you say that natural laws are, ultimately, the logos. I do not deny that natural laws do exist, but I do deny that they are the logos: Jesus Christ is the logos. This relates to why John famously wrote the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John was defying a Greek culture filled with Stoics which believed the logos to be essentially all and in all. The Stoics believed the logos was what animated the universe, and gave it life. They knew of it...how? From their own conjecture. John says, emphatically, "no", particularly by stating later in the chapter that he knows who the logos is because it "became flesh and dwelt among us". He says then, "Jesus Christ is the logos all you Stoics; you have been searching for the logos and have not found; you have blindly groped around in the abstract searching for it, and have not come to know it; here, I present it to you: Jesus Christ!".
Edited by sac51495, : Grammatical error.

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD. (I Cor. 1:21,27-31)
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 12:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 2:37 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 3:46 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 4:03 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 115 of 187 (604306)
02-11-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by sac51495
02-11-2011 12:57 AM


I think maybe you have missed the point of my message. You dealt only with my accusations toward you of employing naturalistic and uniformitarian conceptions in your interpretation of the world around you. You did not however deal with the point of my message, the point being that what I call your naturalistic dogma and uniformitarian dogma is no less dogmatic than the supposed religious dogma of him who believes in a Creator God.
To which I replied by pointing out that you too rely on this supposed "dogma" for all practical purposes --- you only abandon it when it interferes with your faith.
And really, "dogma" is too strong a word for it. It is perfectly reasonable and natural not to live in fear that next time I put my shoes on they'll bite my feet off. This is based, not on faith, but on experience. To call a belief with such a basis a "dogma" is to broaden the scope of the word until it becomes vacuous --- and would, of course, have to be deprived of all its negative connotations.
But if indeed you are saying that - were you to see a computer growing off of a tree - you would assume the computer to have been "produced unintelligently by natural processes", you prove doubly that you have naturalistic preconceptions ...
That wouldn't be a preconception, that would be an observation. Trees aren't intelligent.
If you claim presumption of an intelligent and spiritual source to be dogmatic, than how much more is presumption of an unintelligent and natural source dogmatic?
Not more, less. Experience tells me that most things aren't produced by miracles; so that's the way to bet.
And this is not something I hold dogmatically --- I am quite willing to consider the possibility of a miracle. But we require positive evidence to believe that a rule (in this case, that most things aren't created by divine fiat) has been broken in some particular instance.
In the words of William of Conches: "God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."
And remember, you are usually in just the same position --- you are usually just as deeply committed to the "dogma" you deride as I am. If I tell you that yesterday I levitated like Simon Magus, you might admit the possibility, but you wouldn't actually believe me without some sort of corroborating evidence, would you? Because it is much more common for people to lie than to levitate.
The difference between us is that you drop this perspective when you consider certain claims to which you are particularly attached, such as the story in the Bible about the talking snake, whereas I can afford to behave with greater integrity, since none of my views require this sort of protection from scrutiny.
To return to our trees, then, our experience is that they grow from seeds or by vegetative cloning. While I admit the possibility that some tree might have been produced in a different way, I should need positive evidence to believe it; unless and until I have such evidence, the default position is that all trees have been produced in the same sort of way.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by sac51495, posted 02-11-2011 12:57 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by sac51495, posted 02-12-2011 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 187 (604307)
02-11-2011 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by sac51495
02-11-2011 12:57 AM


I know that were I to fall away from Him and be separated from His power and wisdom, and know then that I was completely reliant on a naturalistic universe, I would live in constant fear of those foundationless laws being violated at every turn, and would be unable - despite even years of experience - to place my faith in those laws which, without their Creator Jesus Christ, are wavering constructs of man's wicked heart, which itself is the most inconsistent pile of dung that the world has ever seen.
In the first place, no you wouldn't. People don't. Well, not sane people.
In the second place, remind me again which of us is meant to be the uniformitarian.
In the third place, how can you get your faith in the constancy of the laws of nature from the Bible, of all places? This is the book containing Pharaoh's magicians, the plagues of Egypt, the bush which burned without being consumed, water turning into wine, the dead rising from the grave and wandering round Jerusalem, the Witch of Endor, demonic possession, and so forth. This is the book that promises us that any day now we might witness such distinctly non-uniformitarian phenomena as the seas turning to blood and the stars falling from the heavens.
So when the last and dreadful hour
This crumbling pageant shall devour,
The trumpet shall be heard on high,
The dead shall live, the living die,
And Music shall untune the sky!
If you do not live, if not in "constant fear", then at least with some nagging anxiety, that the laws of nature may be violated, then I would question your sincerity. Tomorrow Satan could magic you up to the top of a mountain to test your faith like he did to Jesus --- and leave you to make your own way down. If this prospect doesn't worry you at all, I should say that that is because like most people you have a solid basis of common sense beneath your veneer of religion. And, returning to your original claim, I should guess that it would worry you (if possible) even less if you no longer believed in supernatural beings such as Satan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by sac51495, posted 02-11-2011 12:57 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 117 of 187 (604308)
02-11-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by sac51495
02-11-2011 12:57 AM


Dogma
If you claim presumption of an intelligent and spiritual source to be dogmatic ...
Just to clarify my point about goldrush's apparent dogmatism. Goldrush has given reasons (albeit what I think to be bad reasons) for believing in a creator of the universe and a creator of life. But he has given no reasons whatsoever for his implicit or explicit assumptions about the creator: for example that the creator of the universe and of life are one and the same; that there was one creator of life or the universe rather than a team; that the designer and creator are identical (why should they be?); that this creator is not merely intelligent, but that he is perfectly intelligent; and that this creator is not merely powerful enough to create this universe, but actually omnipotent.
These are religious dogmas --- this is not to say that they are necessarily untrue, or that they cannot be arrived at by reason, but the fact is that so far he has not attempted to arrive at them by reason. And since he has claimed that his views are the product of rationality rather than dogma, I feel that either he should try to provide reasons for these beliefs or he should cease to make statements which go further than his reasoning can take him.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by sac51495, posted 02-11-2011 12:57 AM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by goldrush, posted 02-11-2011 11:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 118 of 187 (604335)
02-11-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 4:03 AM


Another thing I want to add...
The scientific method is not intended to replace the need for logical inference, only to establish a basis of objectivity for logical inference. All it does is try to limit variables to uncover certain laws, principles, or "truths". Science though, is only a tool not an explanation. It does not explain away a need for a Creator, or explain anything by itself. Nor does it do all the work for you. A scientist, or layperson using science still has to put it all together, make inferences, draw conclusions, rationalize and think. Like other tools, science is rather useless if you do not know how to use it. Science, at its best, is a very useful tool to help us to peer into, or uncover (to an extent) the Creator's handiwork, and his established laws. Through science, little by little, we discern underlying principles and laws which we reason on for beneficial (sometimes not, lol) application in our own designs. This is the beauty of science. But the laws we discover do nothing to diminish the reality of the eternal whole, the Lawmaker, the eternal Creator (Who existed "before" the Big Bang or the "beginning"). Even though science may have difficulty empirically identifying the Creator, the reasoning minds we have been endowed with are able to penetrate it's barriers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 4:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 12:06 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2011 1:06 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 6:35 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 11:38 AM goldrush has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 187 (604339)
02-11-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by goldrush
02-11-2011 11:59 AM


The scientific method is not intended to replace the need for logical inference, only to establish a basis of objectivity for logical inference. All it does is try to limit variables to uncover certain laws, principles, or "truths". Science though, is only a tool not an explanation. It does not explain away a need for a Creator, or explain anything by itself. Nor does it do all the work for you. A scientist, or layperson using science still has to put it all together, make inferences, draw conclusions, rationalize and think. Like other tools, science is rather useless if you do not know how to use it. Science, at its best, is a very useful tool to help us to peer into, or uncover (to an extent) the Creator's handiwork, and his established laws. Through science, little by little, we discern underlying principles and laws which we reason on for beneficial (sometimes not, lol) application in our own designs. This is the beauty of science. But the laws we discover do nothing to diminish the reality of the eternal whole, the Lawmaker, the eternal Creator (Who existed "before" the Big Bang or the "beginning"). Even though science may have difficulty empirically identifying the Creator, the reasoning minds we have been endowed with are able to penetrate it's barriers.
But... it put a man on the freakin' moon!
Science works.
When's the last time a logical deduction pointing to a creator ever did anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by goldrush, posted 02-11-2011 11:59 AM goldrush has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 187 (604351)
02-11-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by goldrush
02-11-2011 11:59 AM


Even though science may have difficulty empirically identifying the Creator, the reasoning minds we have been endowed with are able to penetrate it's barriers.
Are they? How do you know the barrier being penetrated isn't the barrier between truth and fiction?
The human mind, after all, has a powerful capacity to make things up. How do you know that's not what you're doing when you arrive at conclusions about the existence of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by goldrush, posted 02-11-2011 11:59 AM goldrush 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