Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 9:27 AM
22 online now:
edge, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,602 Year: 6,639/19,786 Month: 1,180/1,581 Week: 2/393 Day: 2/30 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 107 (589)
12-11-2001 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by joz
12-11-2001 2:17 PM


secondly (and I hope you dont misinterpret this as a personal attack) I suggest that you are confused between science and pre big bang singularity (which I suggested was an equally viable candidate for the "it always existed coz it did" club.

I don't take this as a personal attach. I understand you are more than likely frustrated with me. I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God. Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there. If you deny everything I am claiming you really have to ask yourself why you deny it. Do you deny it because you think it's wrong, or because you just don't want to accept it. Because he who creates the world has the right to create the rules. Human nature doesn't like to follow rules.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 2:17 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 2:37 PM redstang281 has responded
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 12-11-2001 3:19 PM redstang281 has not yet responded
 Message 45 by nator, posted 12-11-2001 10:25 PM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 107 (590)
12-11-2001 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
You are missing the point:

1)If something interacts with the universe it is observable

2)If it is observable it can be studied experimentally.

Ergo a "big fellow" who interacts with the universe in any way is not as you claimed "above science"...

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that you think God doesn't exist because all of science's observations of the universe indicate scientific explanations. I am offering up two answers to that. 1) Man has not observed everything he thinks he has. 2) What man has observed has been inline with science because God did his manipulation in a scientific way. So therefor is unnoticed by man.


Actually I am saying that if the your God (or any of the other big fellas) exist and interacts with the universe it would be observable so any hypothetical big fella is Not above science...

I actually take the position that a lack of evidence means that one should avoid subscribing to any opinion until some data is available....

Also you seem to think that I am postulating current science as a complete explanation. I am well aware of the expansion of the boundaries of what is observable.

And once again you miss the point that if God interacts with the universe and has any effect then a complete enough set of measurements will show a result that could not be attributed to the starting conditions of the system....And that this interaction is necessarily observable.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:23 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:08 PM joz has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 107 (591)
12-11-2001 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
secondly (and I hope you dont misinterpret this as a personal attack) I suggest that you are confused between science and pre big bang singularity (which I suggested was an equally viable candidate for the "it always existed coz it did" club.

I don't take this as a personal attach. I understand you are more than likely frustrated with me. I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God. Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there. If you deny everything I am claiming you really have to ask yourself why you deny it. Do you deny it because you think it's wrong, or because you just don't want to accept it. Because he who creates the world has the right to create the rules. Human nature doesn't like to follow rules.


And once again my answer is that it is wrong to take a situation where there is no data and attribute any explanation to it.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:12 PM joz has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 107 (592)
12-11-2001 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by redstang281
12-11-2001 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
"It's interesting that your question is specifically aimed at scientists - "What was before the Big Bang?" But phrase it another way - "What was before the creation of the universe?" - "

My friend, this is exactly my point. The answer is God always existed. God is a being who is infinitely past our understand and logic, so of course his existence is as well. You can claim whatever you want to have started life, but you always have to conceive of what was before that. There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it. And that is God.

"To say "BEFORE" the beginning of time is like saying "NORTH of the north pole.""

The north pole ends, just as the beginning of time ends (or shall I say begins.)

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-11-2001]


Just realized that there may be a problem with this analogy in that it depends if you are talking about true or magnetic north....

if its magnetic north then the "pole" described by the unattached field line extends out to infinity.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 11:52 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 107 (593)
12-11-2001 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by joz
12-11-2001 2:34 PM


"Actually I am saying that if the your God (or any of the other big fellows) exist and interacts with the universe it would be observable so any hypothetical big fellow is Not above science..."

The mere fact of creation is above science (which from your POV is debatable.) The fact that the observations scientist have made have not let them to something they can not explain with science only means that they either are missing something or so far God has chosen not to present himself to them and just uses his forces in ways they label scientific. In any event it in no way limits God to potentionally express himself in an unscientific way. So therefor he is above science.

"I actually take the position that a lack of evidence means that one should avoid subscribing to any opinion until some data is available....
Also you seem to think that I am postulating current science as a complete explanation. I am well aware of the expansion of the boundaries of what is observable."

It sounds to me like you have something we Christians refer to as "faith." However yours is directed to science and something coming from absolutely nothing.

"And once again you miss the point that if God interacts with the universe and has any effect then a complete enough set of measurements will show a result that could not be attributed to the starting conditions of the system....And that this interaction is necessarily observable..... "

I believe God has a hand in everything from the littlest to the smallest detail in everything. So I believe that God has a hand in everything regarding the universe. The hand of course could be one that corresponds to scientist reasoning or could be one that doesn't. I believe that sometimes it doesn't and in that event scientist make guesses on pure conjecture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 3:19 PM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 107 (594)
12-11-2001 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Of course time can be defined just as the numerical system with no beginning and no end, but how did time get here? Don't limit yourself to 2nd dimensional thought.

what thinking only in terms of length and breadth?

or do you mean 4 dimensional?

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-12-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:12 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 107 (595)
12-11-2001 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by joz
12-11-2001 2:37 PM


And once again my answer is that it is wrong to take a situation where there is no data and attribute any explanation to it.....

So we can end this on the note that as far as this topic is concerned Christians will always have an answer, but thus far evolution does not.

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-11-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 2:37 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 3:27 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18411
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 38 of 107 (596)
12-11-2001 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:34 PM


I think Joz is giving you the right answers, but maybe it would help if someone else took a shot at this.

Science takes no position one way or the other on things for which there is no evidence. Since there is no objective evidence for God one way or the other, science neither admits nor denies God's existence. It takes no position one way or the other.

You are naturally correct when you say there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in the philosophy of science, but science is merely a method for finding out all we can about the natural universe. The spiritual universe requires a different approach.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 3:25 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 107 (597)
12-11-2001 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
It sounds to me like you have something we Christians refer to as "faith." However yours is directed to science and something coming from absolutely nothing.

Really I would have said that the reluctance to take a position without data was indicative of a LACK of faith, please explain how it is otherwise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:08 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:51 PM joz has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 107 (600)
12-11-2001 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
12-11-2001 3:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I think Joz is giving you the right answers, but maybe it would help if someone else took a shot at this.

Science takes no position one way or the other on things for which there is no evidence. Since there is no objective evidence for God one way or the other, science neither admits nor denies God's existence. It takes no position one way or the other.

You are naturally correct when you say there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy of science, but science is merely a method for finding out all we can about the natural universe. The spiritual universe requires a different approach.

--Percy


Exactly, I can say "I do not believe there is a God". I cannot say "I can scientifically disprove God". This is because there is no data to go on....

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-11-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 12-11-2001 3:19 PM Percy has not yet responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 107 (601)
12-11-2001 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
So we can end this on the note that as far as this topic is concerned Christians will always have an answer, but thus far evolution does not.

I think you have confused science and evolution.....

And a better statement would be:

Thus far science refrains from taking a firm position in the absence of any data, religions speculate freely that its all due to the big fella....

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-11-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:12 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 107 (605)
12-11-2001 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by joz
12-11-2001 3:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Really I would have said that the reluctance to take a position without data was indicative of a LACK of faith, please explain how it is otherwise?

Your complete devotion to thinking that there is a reason for life besides God is your faith in man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 3:19 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by joz, posted 12-11-2001 4:06 PM redstang281 has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 107 (608)
12-11-2001 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Your complete devotion to thinking that there is a reason for life besides God is your faith in man.

Actually:

a)I dont have much faith in man as you put it. We are nasty malicious buggers for the most part....

b)Actually (and I thought I had already explained this) my position is that one should not ascribe a cause to any phenomenon in the complete absence of evidence.

c)My aversion to the its because of God hypothesis is that it offers no evidence not because of the inclusion of a big fella. If it offered proof of said hypothesis it would be worthy of consideration as an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:51 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:11 AM joz has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3330 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 44 of 107 (610)
12-11-2001 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by redstang281
12-11-2001 12:05 PM


Redstang281,

Some observations & comments.....

"So you presume to tell me that because science can not answer it now, that they will one day?"

You presume to tell me it won't?

"Nowadays scientist say that volcanos' erupt due to some natural force. But that doesn't mean God doesn't use that natural force to make the volcano erupt and to kill those people. All science discovers is the force that God uses to perform with."

Surely that would be "supernatural" force, not natural, if God made the Volcano erupt. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER supporting divine intervention in volcanic activity. Lets leave volcanoes to geologists, you only do a disservice to your argument here.

"Even if everything science has observed in the universe can be contributed by a pure scientific factor that doesn't mean God didn't do it."

But why, WHY, would you assume He did?

"Ah, my friend but science can not work like that. Science can not abide by the excuse that it just is. That will never be justifiable by any scientific law now, or anyone to ever be invented, created, or discovered. The only law of something just existing is God's law for himself. For if you could believe that science could just exist, than how can you not believe in God? "

My friend, the 1st law of thermodynamics says matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, ergo, in one form or another it DID exist forever. So it would seem something existing forever IS defined by science & not God after all.

As for the last part, a methodological way of thinking can hardly be compared with a belief in God.

"The Scottish Liturgy uses the formulation "He is the Word existing beyond Time, both source and final purpose." This preserves the infinite nature of God which, by use of time-scoped words you were inadvertently mitigating."

With respect, how do they know that? Secondly, what is Gods purpose?

"I understand what you're saying. You are saying that you think God doesn't exist because all of science's observations of the universe indicate scientific explanations. I am offering up two answers to that. 1) Man has not observed everything he thinks he has. 2) What man has observed has been inline with science because God did his manipulation in a scientific way. So therefore is unnoticed by man."

Why, does God make volcanoes go off in such obvious fashion (to you), & is then so secretive when it suits you?. See your earlier post.

"I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God."

Such as?

"In any event it in no way limits God to potentionally express himself in an unscientific way."

How would God express himself in an unscientific way? This is an important one, I need a reply to this question if you reply to no other.

"I believe God has a hand in everything from the littlest to the smallest detail in everything. So I believe that God has a hand in everything regarding the universe. The hand of course could be one that corresponds to scientist reasoning or could be one that doesn't. I believe that sometimes it doesn't and in that event scientist make guesses on pure conjecture."

That would be you making guesses on pure conjecture! Why does science produce such predictable results on Newtonian motion, for example. If what you say is correct, then observations where objects accelerate whilst no force was applied would be made, because God wanted it "over there". NOTHING like this has been observed. What you are describing are things that we can't predict, like Aunty Mable getting run over. What your statement doesn't take into account is where science can predict things with absolute accuracy. Where does your God go then? It seems Scientific Laboratories are places God can't enter. You only have an argument where there are unknown variables.

"Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there."

1st Law Of Thermodynamics again, I'm afraid. Things can just exist. Pre-Big Bang, still there.....

The statement that you "don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with", really puts it in a nutshell better than I ever could. This says to any reader that your mind is CLOSED.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 12:05 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:30 AM mark24 has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 107 (613)
12-11-2001 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:34 PM



Redstang wrote:
I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God.

Please realize that science does NOT develop theories in order to deny the existence of God. Science does not address the supernatural at all.

What you have been engaging in, largely is a philosophical and logical debate, not a scientific one.


Redstang wrote:
Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science.

This is not an accurate portrayal of how science treats the supernatural.

It is simply not useful in science to say "Godidit". It doesn't explain anything. So, we say "We don't know".


Redstang wrote:
God is the only thing can just exist.

That is a statement of faith, and faith alone. You have no positive evidence for the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent deity, so you believe on faith. That is perfectly fine, of course, but please realize that it is a leap of faith that you make, that others whom have likely contemplated the same issues you have, do not have to make.


Redstang wrote:
I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there.

Why does there "always" have to be something that put it there? There is no evidence to suggest that "something put the universe in place, so it is more accurate to say we don't know what put the universe in place, and we may never know. Faith is what some people hold in order to get past the "I don't know".
Also, if you say that there *had* to be something that created the universe, then the next logical statement is, "the creator *had* to likewise have a creator." And so on, and so on.


Redstang wrote:
If you deny everything I am claiming you really have to ask yourself why you deny it.

It's not a matter of denial of your claims. It is a matter of your lack of evidence to support your claims.

You are asking for a leap of pure faith, not based upon any evidence. Most people have some kind of faith, others say "I don't know" and leave it at that, and still others say "I
do not believe".


Redstang wrote:
Do you deny it because you think it's wrong, or because you just don't want to accept it.

Why should anyone "accept" your version of faith? Because you say so?


Redstang wrote:
Because he who creates the world has the right to create the rules.

This is just another statement of faith.


Redstang wrote:
Human nature doesn't like to follow rules.

I strongly disagree. Humans are all about rules. Wars and oppression largely happen because one group wants other groups to follow the same religious, ethical, or societal rules as they themselves do.

One of the reasons humans have come to dominate the planet is because we have been selectd to be able to work in groups, and follow community rules, to achieve group objectives.

Allison

------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-12-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 12-12-2001 8:49 AM nator has responded
 Message 51 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:53 AM nator has responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019