|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
First Caroline Crocker was censored. Except she wasn't.
Then Dawkins was in denial. Except he wasn't. Then Eugenie Scott claimed science was "limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." Except she didn't. DT, could you please stop making new misstatements before correcting the old? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
We have not yet begun to examine the evidence put forward in the RTB Creation Model. It seems to me that most people in this thread agree that evidence from the natural would could contain evidence of the existence of a creator god. We're all ready for you to move past that point and present some.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So the hypothesis of an immaterial all-powerful being is low on explanatory and predictive power. Score another hit against the RtB model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You say there is no evidence and yet there are 2.2 billion Christians on the planet. Is it possible that there is evidence and you have not been convinced by it? We have not yet begun to examine the evidence put forward in the RTB Creation Model. I say no evidence has ever been presented that there are miracles, the supernatural or any GOD(s) even though I am a Christian. In addition any evidence that you could present to science could only show that there is NOT supernatural, miracles or GOD(s).
It is possible to disprove a God from deductive logic. That is, if the God in question could be shown to have attributes that are mutually exclusive, then that God could be shown to be logically impossible. That approach to disprove the God of the Bible has been attempted and failed. Of course that is simply a false statement so filled with errors, omissions and misrepresentations as to be laughable. First there is no such thing as "The Bible". There are several different mutually exclusive "Bibles" Second there is no "God of the Bible", rather there are many very different mutually exclusive gods described in any of the different Bibles.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes: Yes, that's true. But we have not gotten to the evidence yet. That comes later. I don't understand why it's so important to separate this debate into all these different phases. You stated flatly in the last thread that you didn't expect a consensus, we didn't reach one, you left prematurely, and everybody was left wondering what the point of it was. Are your expectations for this thread the same? You seem to think that it's vital that we get these preliminary debates out of the way before we move on to the big debate. But, if we don't reach a consensus on any of these threads, we haven't really gotten them out of the way. So, it seems rather pointless to separate them like this.
designtheorist writes: Let me ask you. What is the minimum amount of scientific evidence on the supernatural that would cause you to begin a spiritual journey like the one Allan Sandage and Hugh Ross began? I don't know. If I knew what evidence in favor of the supernatural would look like, that would seem to imply that I know enough about how the supernatural works to make predictions based on it. But, I'm relatively confident that I don't have the slightest idea how the supernatural would work if it existed. So, I can't make predictions nor give you any indication of what evidence might make me believe in the supernatural.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
You say there is no evidence and yet there are 2.2 billion Christians on the planet. Is it possible that there is evidence and you have not been convinced by it? Why don't you just present the evidence? Another post from a theist with zero evidence for a deity.
If you were to sit on a jury, the instructions from the judge would be to put aside any preconceptions, wait until all the evidence is in and then weigh all the evidence both for and against. THEN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE!!! What are you waiting for?
Disproving the existence of something that is immaterial and all-powerful is not impossible, but it is impossible by scientific means. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Don't forget that we're still waiting for his "easy" demonstration from Message 203 But apparently he's bailed on that thread.
I have to wonder what his "demonstration" was going to be. A "proof" that infinity is finite ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have to wonder what his "demonstration" was going to be. A "proof" that infinity is finite ? A much more enjoyable demonstration of proof:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
We have not yet begun to examine the evidence put forward in the RTB Creation Model. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Why don't you just present the evidence? Another post from a theist with zero evidence for a deity. These threads won't be providing any such evidence. Instead you will be facing attempts to show using Ross's heuristics that RtB is more likely valid than empiricism based theories. But do not expect any direct attempts to validate non-science. If designtheorist could pull that off, he would not be bothering with this stuff. We know that Christians accept Christianity by faith because such faith is the pathway Jesus offers. I accept Christianity by faith. But I also know that Hebrews 11:1 is poetic language. Faith is not empirical. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
In the biological realm, a creator God would be best evidenced by the appearance of modern animals in the Cambrian and a lack of a nested hierarchy. I'm glad to hear you say this. Some of the evidence to be presented will relate to the Cambrian.
If a thousand foot deity came down from the clouds and threw lightning at my feet I am sure I would also be quite convinced. Yes, but this is closer to maximum evidence. If the God of the Bible is the Creator, then we can expect that He will not make himself to obvious in nature. When Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas he said "Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29. You don't have to believe the verse is inspired by God, but you need to understand that when Christians who are scientists look for evidence of God, they do not expect to see 1000 foot deities throwing lightning. The next time we see Christ visibly, the time for faith will be over because the test we are currently will be over. Just ask yourself, what about the Cambrian would be so surprising that it would cause me to begin a spiritual journey? Is there anything I might learn about the Big Bang that would cause me to read the Bible? How finely-tuned does the universe have to be before I start looking into Christianity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9513 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
designtheorist writes: If the God of the Bible is the Creator, then we can expect that He will not make himself to obvious in nature. You seem to have forgotten a few things. Burning bushesPillars of salt Manic bears Lazarus Floods Plagues Famines Parting of Seas Virgin births Resurrections Walking on water Loaves and fishes Water and wine etc etc etc Just ask yourself, what about the Cambrian would be so surprising that it would cause me to begin a spiritual journey? Is there anything I might learn about the Big Bang that would cause me to read the Bible? How finely-tuned does the universe have to be before I start looking into Christianity? Haven't you picked up the vibe yet? We're all sick of this priestly teasing - we've lost patience with it; get on with your claim before we all go elsewhere.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Science investigates that which can be detected. Science is a method for investigation. If supernatural entities can be detected then we can apply the methods of science to investigate them. These are reasonable statements. Let's probe a little deeper. Science has detected both dark matter and dark energy. We believe they exist because we can see their effects. We can attempt to apply methods to investigate dark matter and dark energy but they are distant and it's difficult to progress. We cannot control them or examine them in a laboratory. Special laboratories have been established to study dark matter, but dark matter is not present in the lab. Is it hot dark matter, cold dark matter or something we haven't thought of yet. Some are suggesting it isn't even matter at all. The point is there is something there and it needs to be investigated. Inquiring minds want to know. There are similarities here to God. Assume for a moment that scientific methods can demonstrate God's effects in creation. We will get to the evidence soon but I want to do a thought experience now. Assume further that this Creator God is the God of the Bible - immaterial, omniscient and omnipresent. He is all around us but impossible to measure or verify using normal scientific methods. Would you pursue other means of inquiry to learn more about this Creator God? 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? This is the approach Allan Sandage chose and I think it is a reasonable and rational response to the evidence. What do you think? Is it possible science can show evidence of God's effects in creation? Would it matter to you if it could?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024