|
Author
|
Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
She claims science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions. Where does she claim this?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Another atheist who came to believe in God because of the Big Bang was Allan Sandage. Not according to him.
quote:
Q. Do recent astronomical discoveries have theological significance?
I would say not, although the discovery of the expansion of the Universe with its consequences concerning the possibility that astronomers have identified the creation event does put astronomical cosmology close to the type of medieval natural theology that attempted to find God by identifying the first cause. Astronomers may have found the first effect, but not, thereby, necessarily the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas.
And this has already been pointed out to you, and pointed out to you, and pointed out to you, and pointed out to you, and pointed out to you. Moreover, Sandage disagrees with you about the topic of this thread. He says: "Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists ( as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) ..." It is his opinion, then, that science requires the methodological exclusion of the supernatural. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Regarding Eugenie Scott
Scott's explanation was "it is not possible to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces under laboratory conditions and so the possibility of a supernatural cause is outside of what science can tell us. I think Ross is being fair to Scott's words ... And I don't, since he attributes to her a position she can't possibly hold.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Regarding Allan Sandage
I am well acquainted with Allan Sandage. What Allan is saying in the lines you quoted is that knowing a creator exists does not tell us anything about the nature of the creator ... Actually, he's saying what he actually said.
Regarding Allan's view that you practice science as a material reductionist, I think this is mostly correct. [...] Allan did not think these were questions science can answer, but he still wanted answers. To a large extent, I think he is right. So are we finished with this thread, or when you qualify your statements with "mostly" and "to a large extent" do you have some exceptions in mind, and can you argue for them?
You still have to deal with Dawkins. He says the existence of God is a scientific question. Is he right? That depends what you mean by God. But what I've seen of Dawkins' arguments on the subject leave me unconvinced as to their merit. If you find them convincing, welcome to atheism.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Regarding Eugenie Scott
I tend to agree with you that if pressed for clarification, she would say things differently. On the other had, what is Ross to do? Ignore the actual record of what she said? He should not make stuff up.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Not so Clear?
The Big Bang did not convince him to become a Christian. [...] He was finally convinced by the argument of Blaise Pascal in what is now called Pascal's Wager. Try not to forget it.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: What Supernatural?
You obviously have very strong feelings on the subject. Heaven forbid that someone with an opinion should disagree with you.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
But if you are looking for the best model related to origins, then it would be a mistake to automatically exclude from consideration evidence that may point to the supernatural. That type of philosophical, a priori, "the supernatural doesn't exist" mindset is not conducive to open and honest scientific enquiry. There seems to be a shortage of such evidence.
I am unconvinced by Dawkins arguments also. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day. I think Dawkins is right that science can say something about the supernatural ... But he says so for a very specific reason, namely that he thinks science rules out the supernatural. If he's wrong, he's wrong.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Taq
You say there is no evidence and yet there are 2.2 billion Christians on the planet. You say there is evidence, and yet my grandfather wears purple socks. Wait, are we not playing non sequiturs?
We have not yet begun to examine the evidence put forward in the RTB Creation Model. No, we haven't. You seem content instead to waste your time and ours with an argumentum ad populum.
Disproving the existence of something that is immaterial and all-powerful is not impossible, but it is impossible by scientific means. Science deals with inductive evidence. It is not possible to ever get enough inductive evidence to disprove God. You would have to have infinite knowledge and humans will never have that. It could be that a God, for his own reasons (possibly to cause people to rely on faith), would never allow absolute proof about his existence to be found. If you're trying to convince us that the scientific method can tell us something about God, then declaring his existence unfalsifiable and then inverting the burden of proof is hardly the right way to go about it.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 53 of 506 (694670)
03-26-2013 5:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
03-26-2013 5:02 PM
|
|
Re: Hi Taq
THEN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE!!! What are you waiting for? Yeah, it's like watching the Dance Of The Seven Veils. But without the same expectation of seeing something interesting when the last veil comes off.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Taq, posted 03-26-2013 5:02 PM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2013 5:36 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Hi Straggler
If scientific methods were not up to the task of learning more about the Creator God whose effects we can see scientifically, would you be willing to read the Bible or go to church to learn more? If scientific methods were not up to the task of learning more about talking rabbits, would you be willing to read Alice in Wonderland to learn more?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
Not true. Did you watch the video clip? He totally disagreed with Craig Ventner regarding the fact there is not one LUCA. Dawkins obviously is either unaware of the Koonin papers and is in denial. Koonin says we have to stop talking about the tree of life and begin talking about the forest of life. Dawkins has not come to terms with the evidence from genomics. Those are facts. No, those are things that you've made up, as anyone can see by watching the video. Note in particular when Ventner says: "There may be a bush of life" and Dawkins replies: "I concede that point".
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 5:51 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Hi JonF
Ross summed up lied about her view saying: "She claims that science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." FTFY.
It appears Eugenie has not thought the issue through clearly. Actually, it appears that Ross makes stuff up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Since the quantum fluctuations observed in the casimir experiments require certain parameters in order to "fluctuate" (such as the metal plates) ... No they don't.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Hi Blue Jay
I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking ... I've done that. The fine-tuning argument is rubbish. Are we done here, then?
Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design. Can you quote them saying this?
Victor Stenger has written a book titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us." Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a really bad book. You know the book is not going to be what is generally understood as science when Stenger says things like "the moon might be real" and "we can make gravity be whatever we want it to be." Are these real things he's actually said, or things that creationists have made up? After your performance on this and other threads, no-one can believe a word you say about what scientists think. Your persistent misrepresentations of their thoughts --- I shall not speculate whether through stupidity or malice --- is one of the most consistent features of your posts.
|
™ Version 4.2