|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2984 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024