Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 506 (694709)
03-27-2013 1:07 PM


"We'll get to the evidence..."

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 62 of 506 (694710)
03-27-2013 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
03-26-2013 3:57 PM


Hi Paul
So the hypothesis of an immaterial all-powerful being is low on explanatory and predictive power.
Score another hit against the RtB model.
No. That's not what I'm saying. It's impossible to disprove God's existence in the same way it is impossible to disprove anything that actually exists.
I think the RTB Creation model is high in explanatory and predictive power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2013 3:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2013 1:18 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-27-2013 1:26 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 506 (694711)
03-27-2013 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 12:15 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
designtheorist writes:
... when Christians who are scientists look for evidence of God, they do not expect to see 1000 foot deities throwing lightning.
When believers claim that God can do something - e.g. throw lightning - then that is exactly what scientists want to see evidence of. If God can throw lightning, then the minimum evidence would be Him demonstating throwing lightning. Of course, that still would not mean that He necessarily throws all of the lightning.
If "Christians who are scientists" are willing to accept lesser evidence, they're not being true to science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:15 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 64 of 506 (694712)
03-27-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 12:15 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
If the God of the Bible is the Creator, then we can expect that He will not make himself to obvious in nature.
You mean things like a pillar of fire that guides you through a desert, or food that rains down from heaven? Or the parting of an entire sea so that hundreds of thousands of people can walk through? Or perhaps a river turning into blood? Need I go on?
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?
What point are you trying to make?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:15 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:25 PM Taq has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 65 of 506 (694713)
03-27-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
03-26-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
First Caroline Crocker was censored. Except she wasn't.
I happened to have lunch with Caroline a couple of months ago at a science conference. Yes, she suffered because of her views. Many people in her organization are fearful of retribution. Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist.
Then Dawkins was in denial. Except he wasn't.
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.
Then Eugenie Scott claimed science was "limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." Except she didn't.
Again, this is not true. Eugenie was quoted correctly. I think if she had time to really think through her answer, it would have been different - but she was accurately quoted.
DT, could you please stop making new misstatements before correcting the old?
Could you please stop making false assertions about me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 03-26-2013 3:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:22 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 1:28 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2013 1:36 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2013 3:37 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 03-28-2013 9:45 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 506 (694714)
03-27-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:08 PM


Re: Hi Paul
quote:
No. That's not what I'm saying. It's impossible to disprove God's existence in the same way it is impossible to disprove anything that actually exists.
Well THAT isn't what you said. In fact if that is all you meant you might as well have claimed that you believe that God exists. It would be far less misleading.
quote:
I think the RTB Creation model is high in explanatory and predictive power.
So it can be disproved, right ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:08 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 5:22 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 67 of 506 (694715)
03-27-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 12:37 PM


Re: Hi Straggler
Is it possible science can show evidence of God's effects in creation?
If God has effects on nature then the answer is obviously yes. So why don't you start showing us what these effects are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 12:37 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 68 of 506 (694716)
03-27-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:18 PM


Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist.
How is Nagel being persecuted?
What is it with the constant use of the persecution card? "Oh, woe is me!!" is now an ID argument? Lame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:18 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 69 of 506 (694717)
03-27-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
03-27-2013 1:15 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
What point are you trying to make?
I'm trying to get you to think scientifically. Can you come up with a null hypothesis? Can you come up with an alternative hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:29 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 140 by Larni, posted 03-29-2013 11:23 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 506 (694719)
03-27-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:08 PM


Re: Hi Paul
Reasons to believe really doesn't have a Creation Model just claims and assertions. If you hope to influence anyone you will certainly need a lot more than the nonsense from Reasons to believe.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:08 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 71 of 506 (694720)
03-27-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:18 PM


Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
Yes, she suffered because of her views
No, she suffered because she expressed her views in an inappropriate venue. She decided to express her views in that venue and lost her position, quite rightly, for doing that. She decided to teach inappropriate material, knowing that her position would be put in peril by those actions, and so it was. If she said "I decided to protest and accepted the consequences" I would have some respect for her. But she has no reason to complain about what happened.
Then Eugenie Scott claimed science was "limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." Except she didn't.
Again, this is not true. Eugenie was quoted correctly
No, she was paraphrased (which you acknowledged), and paraphrased in a way that did not reflect her actual views. See Message 9 and The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose. Nowhere did she mention direct observation.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:18 PM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:35 PM JonF has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 72 of 506 (694721)
03-27-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:25 PM


Re: What Supernatural?
I'm trying to get you to think scientifically. Can you come up with a null hypothesis? Can you come up with an alternative hypothesis?
What is scientific about what would or would not emotionally inspire you? That makes ZERO sense. What is scientific about these questions?
quote:
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?
How does that even relate to a null hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:25 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 73 of 506 (694722)
03-27-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
03-27-2013 1:28 PM


Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
No, she suffered because she expressed her views in an inappropriate venue. She decided to express her views in that venue and lost her position, quite rightly, for doing that. She decided to teach inappropriate material, knowing that her position would be put in peril by those actions, and so it was. If she said "I decided to protest and accepted the consequences" I would have some respect for her. But she has no reason to complain about what happened.
Quite right. Imagine if she was hired to teach a class on vertebrate physiology, but spent the entire class talking about conservative politics. If she was fired for this, could she claim that she was being persecuted for her political views? Obviously not.
Ironically, her contract was not renewed because the students complained about the class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 1:28 PM JonF has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 74 of 506 (694723)
03-27-2013 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
03-27-2013 1:18 PM


Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
quote:
I happened to have lunch with Caroline a couple of months ago at a science conference. Yes, she suffered because of her views.
I think you mean that she "suffered" the deserved consequences for her actions. For abusing her position, not getting her contract renewed was the least she could expect.
quote:
Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist.
You mean that people dare to criticise the arguments in his book ?
quote:
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.
The fact is that Dawkions had a good response to Ventner, and Ventner's response was at best misleading and inadequate. A point which you refuse to address or even acknowledge.
quote:
Again, this is not true. Eugenie was quoted correctly. I think if she had time to really think through her answer, it would have been different - but she was accurately quoted.
Then you won't have any problem providing the original source so that we can see the context for the quoted phrases, will you ? Because without seeing that you couldn't possibly know that the quotes were accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-27-2013 1:18 PM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 1:51 PM PaulK has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 75 of 506 (694724)
03-27-2013 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
03-26-2013 4:58 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
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.
Come on, Blue Jay, you can do better than that. Think like the scientist I know you are. Before you do an experiment, you want a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis, right? Think it through when faced with this scientific challenge.
Scientists detect things which are not directly observable regularly. Dark matter and dark energy are two of my favorite examples. If you can see the effects of these things, then you know they exist. You might not know everything about them you might want to know - but you know something is there. We can use the same methods to determine if a supernatural being exists and is active in creation.
I'll get you started.
You know many scientists have been bewildered and challenged by the Big Bang. What new information about the Big Bang would lead you to consider the possibility Big Bang had a supernatural cause? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis?
You know many physicists, most of them agnostics or atheists, have pointed to the fine-tuned universe and detected design. How much fine-tuning can be explained as accident or chance? How much can be explained some other way? What new evidence would lead you to consider design by an intelligent being? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis?
Many scientists are fascinated with the Cambrian explosion. Can you think of any new evidence regarding the Cambrian that would lead you in the direction of the work of an intelligent being? Can you think of a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis?
Edited by designtheorist, : Didn't like that comma.
Edited by designtheorist, : Oops. Left out a word. I hate when I do that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2013 4:58 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 03-27-2013 1:54 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 2:00 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2013 11:53 AM designtheorist 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