Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   These Fellows Is Crazy!
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 44 (61580)
10-19-2003 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rrhain
10-19-2003 4:30 AM


quote:
You'd think that if the evidence for god were so apparent, people would agree on the characteristics of that god, but we have yet to come up with a consistent description...even between people who claim to believe in the same god.
If I was trying to be disingenuous I might compare it with interpretations of quantum theory (eg: Copenhagen, hidden variables, many worlds etc) in which physicists looking at the same data come to different (often radically different) descriptions of what is happening. Of course, the history of science is such that when there have been similar disagreements in the past eventually new data and theories have settled into a single description - and there is no evidence of that ever happening in religion.
But, of course, parallels with science aren't entirely appropriate. The evidence for God is simply not capable of being analysed by the scientific method, as it is of a non-material nature. Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you. Personally I find assessing the evidence for God to be closer to describing why a particular bit of poetry is good - it just can't be done by science (remember that scene in "Dead Poets Society"?) and will result in a variety of "answers".
Alan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 10-19-2003 4:30 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 10-19-2003 5:57 AM Dr Cresswell has replied
 Message 21 by MrHambre, posted 10-20-2003 9:37 AM Dr Cresswell has replied

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


Message 17 of 44 (61584)
10-19-2003 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Cresswell
10-19-2003 5:37 AM


Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
and there is no evidence of that ever happening in religion.
That would appear to be an existential problem for religion, then, wouldn't you say? Thousands of years and still there isn't even the slightest bit of consensus on even the most basic characteristics of god?
quote:
Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you.
I don't recall saying or even vaguely hinting at such a thing. Why would you immediately jump to such a conclusion?
I am perfectly happy to keep this at a philosophical level, but the question still remains: Why is it that no two people can seem to agree about god?
quote:
Personally I find assessing the evidence for God to be closer to describing why a particular bit of poetry is good
Ah, but whether or not we agree about the poem being "good," we both agree that the poem exists. That it has certain structural aspects. That it was written within a certain cultural framework from which it takes its metaphors.
We can't even get to the question of the poem being "good" if we can't even agree that there is a poem in the first place.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-19-2003 5:37 AM Dr Cresswell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-19-2003 8:20 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 44 (61586)
10-19-2003 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rrhain
10-19-2003 5:57 AM


quote:
Thousands of years and still there isn't even the slightest bit of consensus on even the most basic characteristics of god?
While it's, obviously, true that there is little consensus there is some. Most religions believe that god exists, though some (such as hinduism) might well consider that different expressions of God may be considers as seperate gods (of course, Trinitarianism in Christianity may be said to approach a similar position) most religions are fundamentally monotheistic. There is some consensus towards God being, in some sense, Creator. Deism and philosophical buddhism may be said to have God so remote as to be absent, but otherwise most religions state he is interested in what we do (eg: he issues commands he wants us to follow, gives sacred texts, judges etc).
quote:
quote:
Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you.
I don't recall saying or even vaguely hinting at such a thing. Why would you immediately jump to such a conclusion?
I'm sorry. I meant a more generic "you" rather than refer to you specifically; you haven't stated that position, and indeed I'd be surprised if anyone who did think that would be spending a lot of time discussing things on a forum such as this. Allow me to phrase that so it better reflects what I meant, "Now, some people may believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial, but then I guess that's the end of the discussion for them"
quote:
Ah, but whether or not we agree about the poem being "good," we both agree that the poem exists. That it has certain structural aspects. That it was written within a certain cultural framework from which it takes its metaphors.
Which is why it's not a great analogy, sorry I couldn't think of a better one. Ultimately I do believe that "evidence for God" is only really evidence for people who have already made the step of faith that God exists (in the analogy, it's for people who agree that the "God exists" poem exists). But, then again I find that evidence for the absense of God unconvincing for possibly the same reason (I don't agree that the "there is no God" poem exists).
I know of no means to convince another person of the existance or otherwise of God. All I can do is point out evidence that is consistent with/supportive of the "God exists" axiom. And, my point in the earlier post, that that evidence is much more akin to appreciation of a work of art than scientific analysis.
Alan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 10-19-2003 5:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mike Holland, posted 10-19-2003 10:35 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2003 2:18 AM Dr Cresswell has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 19 of 44 (61602)
10-19-2003 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Cresswell
10-19-2003 8:20 AM


I searched my library, but could not find a 'There is no God' poem, but thought you might like this one by Roger Woddis.
There was an Old Man with a beard
Who said: 'I demand to be feared.
Address Me as God,
And love Me, you sod!'
And Man did just that, which is weird.
Mike.
[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 10-19-2003]
[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 10-19-2003]
[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 10-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-19-2003 8:20 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied

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


Message 20 of 44 (61712)
10-20-2003 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Cresswell
10-19-2003 8:20 AM


Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
Ultimately I do believe that "evidence for God" is only really evidence for people who have already made the step of faith that God exists
Which makes it a circular argument...no good there.
quote:
All I can do is point out evidence that is consistent with/supportive of the "God exists" axiom.
But the axiom is a self-fulfilling one. What evidence would you accept that would call that axiom into question?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-19-2003 8:20 AM Dr Cresswell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-20-2003 2:22 PM Rrhain has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 21 of 44 (61756)
10-20-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Cresswell
10-19-2003 5:37 AM


quote:
The evidence for God is simply not capable of being analysed by the scientific method, as it is of a non-material nature. Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you. Personally I find assessing the evidence for God to be closer to describing why a particular bit of poetry is good - it just can't be done by science (remember that scene in "Dead Poets Society"?) and will result in a variety of "answers".
The point is not that anything outside of the scientific realm is trivial or nonexistent, just meaningless in a scientific context.
You can believe that extramaterial or supernatural things exist. They just don't matter scientifically unless they can also be said to exist in our material, natural plane. This is the only way science can be done, the first step in formulating hypotheses about the natural world: nothing is included that cannot be detected or verified.
------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-19-2003 5:37 AM Dr Cresswell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-20-2003 2:16 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 36 by Peter, posted 10-22-2003 11:28 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 22 of 44 (61780)
10-20-2003 1:15 PM


Verifying 14 billion year old universe
I'm having trouble with this statement -
quote:
Instead, the evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old can be found by going outside and looking up. Anybody can do it.
I'm not denying that there is evidence for the age of the visible universe at or around 14 billion years, but you have to make some very broad assumptions to get there if your methodology as stated above is followed to arrive at that conclusion. Nobody can go outside at night, look up in the sky and say, "Yep, that looks like about 14 billion years alrighty" without first subscribing to some other source of information saying it's that old.
So now that I'm calling you that your eyes ain't as good as the Hubble Tele for distant light gathering, what information are you using to deduce the age of the universe and how are you employing the information so that you feel comfortable with the 14 billion year value?
I'm gleaning info and knowledge from you more than activily engaging debate, but if you really are spot on with your science, you should be able to convincingly explain it to an average intellect carbon unit like me in such a way that I easily can walk away from any notion of a young universe possibility.
Just looking for truth, not spin so if you choose to answer my request, I reserve the right to compose a follow-up question to any of the information you post, and thanks for reading mine.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2003 6:50 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 44 (61788)
10-20-2003 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by MrHambre
10-20-2003 9:37 AM


quote:
You can believe that extramaterial or supernatural things exist. They just don't matter scientifically unless they can also be said to exist in our material, natural plane. This is the only way science can be done, the first step in formulating hypotheses about the natural world: nothing is included that cannot be detected or verified.
Which is also my point. But, it is a big step from "don't matter scientifically" to "don't matter at all" ... which is a step some athiests seem to want to make.
Alan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by MrHambre, posted 10-20-2003 9:37 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by MrHambre, posted 10-20-2003 3:00 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2003 6:54 PM Dr Cresswell has replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 44 (61790)
10-20-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
10-20-2003 2:18 AM


quote:
But the axiom is a self-fulfilling one. What evidence would you accept that would call that axiom into question?
Well, it isn't necessarily self-fulfilling. If I was to say that, for example, God always answers prayer then the undeniable fact that he doesn't negates my statement. Now, I admit that my position is somewhat circular (though I might say more like a spiral ... in that it is constantly open to refinement where new experience can often go back and cause me to reassess parts of my position). But, ultimately, like any axiom, it would take something very significant to reject the whole axiom in favour of another one.
Also, I would note, that a position of "there is no God" is equally axiomatic.
Alan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2003 2:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2003 7:03 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 25 of 44 (61791)
10-20-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Cresswell
10-20-2003 2:16 PM


quote:
But, it is a big step from "don't matter scientifically" to "don't matter at all" ... which is a step some athiests seem to want to make.
In fact, it is the creationists who have trouble keeping these separate. Phillip Johnson explicitly denies that there is any difference between methodological naturalism (the basis of evidential empirical induction) and ontological naturalism (atheism). This type of belief is the opposite of faith, since it insists that it can be supported by evidence.
------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-20-2003 2:16 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied

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


Message 26 of 44 (61809)
10-20-2003 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Lizard Breath
10-20-2003 1:15 PM


Re: Verifying 14 billion year old universe
Lizard Breath responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:
quote:
quote:
Instead, the evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old can be found by going outside and looking up. Anybody can do it.
I'm not denying that there is evidence for the age of the visible universe at or around 14 billion years, but you have to make some very broad assumptions to get there if your methodology as stated above is followed to arrive at that conclusion.
Not at all. The reason why everybody in the astronomical community has come to the same conclusion regarding the age of the universe is because they have all done the work, sometimes in mutually exclusive processes, and come to the same answer. And you can run your own experiments, too, in order to see what you come up with. You don't have to take their word for anything.
The point I am making is that calculating the age of the universe does not require the universe to bestow upon you the glory of faith. It simply requires you to take the time to do the work required to find out.
quote:
Nobody can go outside at night, look up in the sky and say, "Yep, that looks like about 14 billion years alrighty" without first subscribing to some other source of information saying it's that old.
You're being disingenuous. The fact that I need to use physical instruments to make measurements does not change the fundamental concept of what it is that I am doing: I'm going outside and looking up. I'm not relying on other people to do it for me. I'm not relying upon a book to tell me what it is I'm supposed to find. I'm not relying upon some special voice in the back of my head for guidance.
Instead, I am tackling the question head on by doing the work myself. The fact that I need to make some tools does not change the fact that I am the one that's doing the looking. If I want to know how old the universe is, I have to look at the universe. That's the only way to know for sure.
quote:
I'm gleaning info and knowledge from you more than activily engaging debate
No, you're playing a game of gotcha and I don't play that.
quote:
but if you really are spot on with your science, you should be able to convincingly explain it to an average intellect carbon unit like me in such a way that I easily can walk away from any notion of a young universe possibility.
Are you willing to do the work? Just how far back to the fundamentals do I need to go in order for you to follow along? Do I need to discuss the nature of light and provide you with experimental evidence that it has an upper limit on its speed? Are you willing to wait the six months required for the earth to move to the opposite side of the sun in order for you to measure the parallax generated and thus make a direct calculation of the distance of certain cosmological objects?
I'm willing to do it, but there's a much better route for you to take. Go to your local college or university and take some coursework in astronomy. They will be much better equipped to answer all of your questions as well as having appropriate equipment for you to use to carry out your experiments. It's kinda hard to have you look through my telescope when you're not here to look through it.
quote:
Just looking for truth, not spin so if you choose to answer my request,
No, you're looking for a game.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-20-2003 1:15 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

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


Message 27 of 44 (61810)
10-20-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Cresswell
10-20-2003 2:16 PM


Dr Cresswell writes:
quote:
But, it is a big step from "don't matter scientifically" to "don't matter at all" ... which is a step some athiests seem to want to make.
Evidence, please?
I know that people like to say this about atheists, but I have yet to find a single one who seems to think that atheists don't care about anything that can't be examined "scientifically."
F'rinstance, science can tell you everything about a sound wave...it's amplitude, frequency, how far it will travel in certain media, etc., etc.
It cannot tell you if it is music.
Every atheist I know will handily agree that there are plenty of things, important things, that cannot be examined scientifically, that are inherently subjective.
Again, even if we disagree over whether or not a poem is good, we agree that the poem exists.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-20-2003 2:16 PM Dr Cresswell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Cresswell, posted 11-01-2003 8:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 28 of 44 (61811)
10-20-2003 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Cresswell
10-20-2003 2:22 PM


Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
quote:
But the axiom is a self-fulfilling one. What evidence would you accept that would call that axiom into question?
Well, it isn't necessarily self-fulfilling.
With no evidence to justify the claim, how can it not be? You can make your god do anything to fit whatever outcome comes along.
quote:
If I was to say that, for example, God always answers prayer then the undeniable fact that he doesn't negates my statement.
No, it doesn't.
"Do not think prayers go unanswered. Every prayer is answered. It's just that sometimes the answer is no."
(Christopher Durang, Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All to You)
quote:
Now, I admit that my position is somewhat circular (though I might say more like a spiral ... in that it is constantly open to refinement where new experience can often go back and cause me to reassess parts of my position). But, ultimately, like any axiom, it would take something very significant to reject the whole axiom in favour of another one.
Like what?
As soon as you allow the possibility that the results can be both positive and negative, then you're axiom is worthless.
quote:
Also, I would note, that a position of "there is no God" is equally axiomatic.
But that isn't what atheists generally claim. Instead, that's just a shorthand for the larger statement that there is no evidence for the existence of god, hasn't been for quite some time, no promise of any in the future, and such a huge quagmire of contradictions among those who claim that there is one, that the only thing left to conclude is that it appears that there isn't one.
Pretty much every atheist out there, however, could come up with an event that would make them change their mind.
What would it take to change a theist's mind?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-20-2003 2:22 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 29 of 44 (61915)
10-21-2003 9:10 AM


Rrhain,
I think I misworded my post to you incorrectly and am coming across as someone looking for a game to be played. Sorry, that wasn't my intent, I was looking for some info from you as far as the most convincing observational evidence that you have read / discovered that sets it in stone the acceptable age of the universe.
True, I can go to a university and study astronomy and physics and find out the answers that way, it seems apparent that you are not going to share what you have found out with me and I can accept that. I do apologise if I sounded sarcastic in my dialect of how I asked the questions but for the record, you seem to know your stuff in the realm of science and astronomy so I was truly interested in the set of core scientific facts that you employ and the logic tools that you use to lock the picture of the age of the universe as well as it's formation into clear focus.
I didn't mean to offend or set you on the defensive but as I read my original post I can see how that happened once I put myself in the addressee's shoes intead of my own.
As far as the spin was concerned, I have listened to some creationists talk and when I have asked specific questions about how they arrive at certain conclusions, they seem to go on the defensive and say "because the Bible says so!" or something like that to deflect the question. That's what I was trying to avoid and what I ment by spin but I gets it's the same game on both sides of the isle. It's either "Go read Genesis" or "Go back to College".

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2003 6:45 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 33 by Rrhain, posted 10-21-2003 7:33 PM Lizard Breath has replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 30 of 44 (61919)
10-21-2003 9:49 AM


To anyone other than Rrhain,
I know that if you put an upper limit on the speed of light it is impossible to come up with a universe that was created in 6 literal days or that it can fit within a 6000 year old literal Biblical interpretation. If the speed of light was always roughtly the same speed as it is today, I gues we shouldn't be able to see the back side of our own galaxy yet or even much more than a third of the Orion arm of it. I guess what I'm asking is, Is it possible to explain how the upper limit of the speed of light was determined - to a non scientist like myself? Probably not.
I have observed the spread pattern of matter and energy from explosions and it appears that the pressure is equal as the energy expands outward in a sphere until it hits some type of solid resistance. I have read that space appears to be spread out like a curtain instead of a speriod, so is there a possiblity that after the "Big Bang" the energy encountered some form of resistance in space in order to shape the universe in this way. Again it would seem to me that if the explosion was uniform, the universe should be just one giant super galaxy or even just a globular cluster sitting static.
I realize that there are a few more factors weighing in to shape the universe than what happens in a typical explosion, but I find it puzzling the number of Galaxies and their odd orientations to each other vs. all being aligned to a focal point somewhere in the direction of the initial instant of the Big Bang.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by sidelined, posted 10-21-2003 11:28 AM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 10-21-2003 7:53 PM Lizard Breath has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024