Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 708 (708221)
10-07-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
10-06-2013 10:28 AM


Re: Welcome
Adding deities, whose nature and behaviors are based entirely on speculation, to a model would put one in the realm of philosophy or theology more than science no matter how accurately the laws of physics were modeled.
Or Science Fiction!
Don't forget about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2013 10:28 AM Coyote has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 47 of 708 (710187)
11-02-2013 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
10-05-2013 11:46 PM


Logic, a foundational stepping stone for Science.
Dear Mr. Coyote,
Thank you for the warm welcome to this string.
I agree with you 100% that Science deals with evidence, which in turn is used to construct hypotheses.
However, your argument against logic can also be used against ‘Science’, and everything else for that matter. In any endeavor, if you start off with a faulty premise you’re going to get the wrong answer; would you not agree?
Not only that; but I would go as far as to say if you get faulty information anywhere in an equation you’re going to get something other than the absolute correct answer. You may get something close but sometimes even ‘close’ can be detrimental.
I would also say that Logic is a foundational stepping stone for Science.
(Please note here when I use the word ‘Logic’ I’m talking about: convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. Dictionary.com)
In any scientific endeavor you must be able to strip away emotional attachments, preconceived ideas, and self-willed dogmas to get to what is factual; for anyone of these can lead you down the wrong path. Would you not agree?
Mr. Coyote writes:
It would seem that if you are going to discuss, scientifically, the properties and behaviors of deities, as you propose, it would first be necessary to produce evidence that deities exist. Then the scientific method and logic could come into play.
I’m sorry; I beg to differ.
The ‘scientific method and logic’ must be used to determine if a deity/deities exist; and if they/it exists then those same method should be employed to determine what roll they/it played/plays in the existence and operation of the universes. Would you not agree?
Great hearing from you,
JRTjr01

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2013 11:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2013 11:24 PM JRTjr01 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 48 of 708 (710188)
11-02-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by JRTjr01
11-02-2013 10:55 PM


Re: Logic, a foundational stepping stone for Science.
I agree with you 100% that Science deals with evidence, which in turn is used to construct hypotheses.
However, your argument against logic can also be used against ‘Science’, and everything else for that matter. In any endeavor, if you start off with a faulty premise you’re going to get the wrong answer; would you not agree?
Not only that; but I would go as far as to say if you get faulty information anywhere in an equation you’re going to get something other than the absolute correct answer. You may get something close but sometimes even ‘close’ can be detrimental.
I would also say that Logic is a foundational stepping stone for Science.
I have made no argument against science or logic. I have pointed out that logic can only be useful if the information you are using is useful. This is also true of science, but science has more testing and error correction built in than does logic.
Mr. Coyote writes:
It would seem that if you are going to discuss, scientifically, the properties and behaviors of deities, as you propose, it would first be necessary to produce evidence that deities exist. Then the scientific method and logic could come into play.
I’m sorry; I beg to differ.
The ‘scientific method and logic’ must be used to determine if a deity/deities exist; and if they/it exists then those same method should be employed to determine what roll they/it played/plays in the existence and operation of the universes. Would you not agree?
The scientific method works by first gathering facts, generally through observation. Groups of facts can then be tentatively explained through hypotheses, or, after rigorous testing of those hypotheses, by development of a theory. In other words, science is facts and theories. Facts by themselves lack meaning.
But the scientific method can't operate in the absence of those facts (also called evidence).
I do agree that the scientific method and logic will play a roll, but only after you come up with some evidence (facts).
But the bottom line is--if you want to establish the existence of deities, find some evidence that science can deal with. Then the scientific method and logic can be applied.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JRTjr01, posted 11-02-2013 10:55 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by JRTjr01, posted 11-03-2013 12:21 AM Coyote has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 49 of 708 (710189)
11-02-2013 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NoNukes
10-06-2013 12:57 AM


The universe is real!?
Dear NoNukes,
Thank you for your response.
Talk about a paradox. I can give evidence both for the existence of God and that He operated outside of our universe; however, to do that you must be willing to look at the evidence and accept it.
This is a function of our ‘Free will’; the evidence for God’s existence and operation in our universe is overwhelming, but, if you’re not willing to accept the possibility that there is a Creator then no evidence will persuade you.
This is why we do these discussions on this website, why we have zillions of religions around our world. Because different people accept different things as factual and based on their ‘rose colored glasses’ believe in different things.
We have to fight beyond what we want to believe (trust in, cling to, rely on ) and be willing to go wherever the evidence (Facts, what is actual verses what is imagined ) leads us if we want to know what is true/factual/actual and real.
So, if you’re willing to strip away everything to get to the truth (what is factual, actual and real); then you must start with the first premise.
Do you agree that there is enough scientific evidence to state that: The universe is real (Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL.)
Please, don’t laugh, I’m not joking; I’ve actually had someone on this website trying to argue that ‘we all live in the matrix; and that we cannot know reality’.
Like with a lot of things having to do with science; there is not simple 1+1=2 answer to this problem. So, if you’re interested, we can take it one step at a time.
Thanks for your interesting question; I look forward to your answer,
JRTjr01

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2013 12:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2013 12:30 AM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 11-08-2013 12:16 PM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 259 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2014 7:51 PM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 50 of 708 (710191)
11-03-2013 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
11-02-2013 11:24 PM


Re: Logic, a foundational stepping stone for Science.
Dear Coyote,
Great hearing back from you,
Coyote writes:
if you want to establish the existence of deities, find some evidence that science can deal with. Then the scientific method and logic can be applied.
I am sorry; I don’t think I am making myself clear.
I was trying to say that ‘collecting evidence’ is a function of ‘science’; not a prelude to it.
Could you agree with that?
Thanks again for your thoughts,
JRTjr01

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2013 11:24 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2013 12:40 AM JRTjr01 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 708 (710192)
11-03-2013 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by JRTjr01
11-02-2013 11:53 PM


Re: The universe is real!?
Do you agree that there is enough scientific evidence to state that: The universe is real (Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL.)
Is there a reason to get my buy in before you present your argument?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by JRTjr01, posted 11-02-2013 11:53 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by JRTjr01, posted 11-03-2013 1:06 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 52 of 708 (710193)
11-03-2013 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by JRTjr01
11-03-2013 12:21 AM


Re: Logic, a foundational stepping stone for Science.
I was trying to say that ‘collecting evidence’ is a function of ‘science’; not a prelude to it.
Could you agree with that?
While it is true that collecting evidence is a part of science, not much can be done in science without evidence.
About the only thing I'd think you could do without any evidence at all is highly theoretical modeling. But the results of any model would have to be compared against evidence for them to be of any use. Perhaps the search for dark matter might be an example.
But normally, science begins with data (observations, etc.) and applies the scientific method.
Perhaps if you could clarify your point relating science to deities that would help.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by JRTjr01, posted 11-03-2013 12:21 AM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by JRTjr01, posted 11-03-2013 1:52 AM Coyote has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 53 of 708 (710195)
11-03-2013 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by NoNukes
11-03-2013 12:30 AM


Re: The universe is real!?
Dear NoNukes,
Thanks for your interest.
NoNukes writes:
Is there a reason to get my buy in before you present your argument?
Two, things:
First, I could give you a ten page thesis on the existence and operation of a Creator in and outside of our universe; however, I have been asked to keep my posts to a single page or so. So, to present the entire argument I would have to do so in another venue.
Secondly, I am presenting my argument; one statement at a time. This way we can discuss each facet of it without going into tens of pages reviewing each point, and counter point.
This also gives me, and you both, an idea where each of us is coming from and what evidence respectively will be accepted.
If you want the whole thing at once; I could e-mail you a word document detailing my argument for the existence of a Creator. Just give me a week or so to pull it together and finalize it.
If you care to continue here we can still do that as well.
Great hearing from you,
JRTjr01

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2013 12:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2013 10:16 AM JRTjr01 has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 54 of 708 (710196)
11-03-2013 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Coyote
11-03-2013 12:40 AM


Re: Logic, a foundational stepping stone for Science.
Dear Coyote,
Coyote writes:
Perhaps if you could clarify your point relating science to deities that would help.
I’m sorry Coyote, I do not remember making any points about science as it relates, or may relate, to a deity. I was talking about the relation of ‘Evidence’ to ‘Science’.
Coyote writes:
While it is true that collecting evidence is a part of science, not much can be done in science without evidence.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree.
I would, also, go further and say that: ‘Evidence without contexts is no evidence at all’. In other words, if you have a piece of evidence, but fail to place that evidence in its proper contexts you’re going to get a distorted model (a distorted view of what that evidence means).
Thank you again for your continued interest,
JRTjr01

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2013 12:40 AM Coyote has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 708 (710219)
11-03-2013 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by JRTjr01
11-03-2013 1:06 AM


Re: The universe is real!?
If you want the whole thing at once; I could e-mail you a word document detailing my argument for the existence of a Creator.
What I asked about was your contention that free will and God directing every detail were not contradictory. I don't need proof or argument that God exists given that I accept that without proof. So perhaps I don't need the ten pager.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by JRTjr01, posted 11-03-2013 1:06 AM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by JRTjr01, posted 11-08-2013 5:17 AM NoNukes has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 56 of 708 (710650)
11-08-2013 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
11-03-2013 10:16 AM


Man's Will & God's Will
Dear NoNukes,
I’m sorry; I misunderstood your original question.
I thought you wanted me to give evince for the existence of God, then evidence for His operation independent of our universe, and then how ‘Free Will’ and ‘a god having total control’ can be true.
I did not notice you had already acknowledged the first two premises; my sincerest apologies.
As to the Paradox:
First, if I may, let me play ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here for a moment.
You ask: show that ‘a god having total control’ and us having ‘Free will’ is not inherently contradictory.
To which I could simply answer: God, having total control of all that is, in no way impacts our ‘Free Will’ so long as it is His will that we have ‘Free Will’.
In other words: the All Mighty, using His ‘Total Control’ of the universe, chooses to give us the freedom to make choices.
No contradiction. If the All Mighty, using His ‘Total Control’ of the universe, did not give us the freedom to make choices, and we were making choices without his allowing them then that would be a contradiction.
However, I do not think that is exactly what you meant to ask; is it?
I believe what you meant to ask is: If God chooses who is ‘saved’ and who is condemned then how can I have a choice to accept or reject salvation?
So, just to be clear, are you asking me: Explain how the Bible can teach ‘Freedom of Choice’ and ‘Pre-destination’ simultaneously and still not be contradicting itself?
Example: Proverbs 16: 9, Joel 2: 32
If that is really your question; can we talk about something simple, like trigonometry?
;-}
All kidding aside; you have to understand a little about multi-dimensional physics to make sense of how God selects who will be save and, at the same time, without opposing God’s will, we can chose to be saved.
Just like it is difficult for most people to understand, and accept, that something happening on a timeline outside of our universe does not have a place on our timeline.
However, I have attached a link to this page to an audio clip from a series by Dr. Hugh Ross called ‘Biblical Paradoxes’ that may clear up some of the confusion.
He explains it far better than I ever could.
This clip is almost 52 minutes long; the entire series is over 10 Hours.
P.s.
NoNukes writes:
I don't need proof or argument that God exists given that I accept that without proof.
I am glad to hear that you do not need to be convinced that God exists; however, I would like to suggest that no one should take anything as true without at least some evidence.
"But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast."
(1 Thessalonians 5:21 AMP)
Hope this helps you,
JRTjr.
Edited by JRTjr01, : Added on ‘P.s.’, and minor editing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2013 10:16 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2013 7:18 AM JRTjr01 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 708 (710653)
11-08-2013 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by JRTjr01
11-08-2013 5:17 AM


Re: Man's Will & God's Will
In other words: the All Mighty, using His ‘Total Control’ of the universe, chooses to give us the freedom to make choices.
In other words, God relinquished total control. He is not controlling every detail because doing so does not allow for free will.
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 believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by JRTjr01, posted 11-08-2013 5:17 AM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by JRTjr01, posted 11-10-2013 3:52 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


(3)
Message 58 of 708 (710671)
11-08-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by JRTjr01
11-02-2013 11:53 PM


Re: The universe is real!?
JRTjr01 writes:
I can give evidence both for the existence of God and that He operated outside of our universe; however, to do that you must be willing to look at the evidence and accept it.
It may be a tautology but evidence is evident. You don't get to have your own set of evidence. If it ain't evident (to most people, on an objective basis) it ain't evidence. If it needs to be accepted a priori it ain't evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by JRTjr01, posted 11-02-2013 11:53 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by JRTjr01, posted 11-10-2013 5:09 AM ringo has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 59 of 708 (710747)
11-10-2013 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
11-08-2013 7:18 AM


Re: Man's Will & God's Will
Dear NoNukes,
Great hearing from you again.
NoNukes writes:
In other words, God relinquished total control. He is not controlling every detail because doing so does not allow for free will.
I’m sorry, I do not understand your contention; how does God giving mankind the freedom to make choices cause Him (God) to loose ‘Total Control’ over anything?
Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2013 7:18 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2954 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 60 of 708 (710748)
11-10-2013 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ringo
11-08-2013 12:16 PM


Evidence is Evident
Dear Ringo,
Thanks for joining the festivities; hope you enjoy your stay.
Ringo writes:
It may be a tautology but evidence is evident.
You are absolutely correct; I agree with you 100%.
Ringo writes:
If it ain't evident (to most people, on an objective basis) it ain't evidence.
Unfortunately, I have to, respectfully, disagree with you on this one.
Just because ‘most people’ agree on something does not make it true/factual/correct.
Thousands, even hundres, of years ago ‘most people’ thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; that did not mean it was true, factual or correct.
I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth.
Ringo writes:
If it needs to be accepted a priori it ain't evidence.
Again, I agree with you 100%; however, I’m not saying you must first accept something as true and then find evidence for it. I’m saying that: if you want to get to the Truth (what is factual/real) you must be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For instance: some Atheists have said ‘There is no god therefore there can be no evidence for god’. They are putting a presupposition before the evidence and calling that science.
The only thing that I see that we need before evidence is a conviction that there is reality.
In other words: there are things that are True, Real, and Factual outside of what we want or chose to believe as individuals or collectively.
Great hearing from you,
JRTjr
Definitions:
Truth:
2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect.
Fact:
2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy].
Science:
1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
Real:
1Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 11-08-2013 12:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 11-12-2013 11:33 AM JRTjr01 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