Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
36 online now:
Britton, dwise1, Heathen, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,849 Year: 18,885/19,786 Month: 1,305/1,705 Week: 111/446 Day: 7/104 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "True science" must include God?
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1 of 47 (184062)
02-09-2005 7:57 AM


In Message 307 Simple wrote:

Once you cite ommision of God you contradict the claim that science is true science.

Now, others have made such claims in many venues, and they've been asked to explain how science that admits God as an explanation might work. Every one has either ducked the question or failed to come up with a workable methodology. Nobody's answered the core question: "How would that work?"

"God did it" can explain anything and therefore explains nothing. As a concrete example, take cold fusion. Fleischman and Pons announced that they had fused hydrogen at room temperature. Their work was not replicated and their careers were ruined (not because they made a mistake but because of the way they handled it). (There are a few "true cold fusion believers" left).

Now, why couldn't they just have said "It used to work but God changed the rules and now it doesn't work any more"?

If God can change the rules arbitrarily at any time, there is no such thing as prediction or continuity or replication ... or science at all.

OF course, we cannot predict what God will or will not do or tell Him what to do; he's the boss and we're not. So "He just wouldn't do that sort of thing" is not an acceptable answer. We've all been told that we can't know the Mind of God, right?

OK, simple, lay out the methodology of science in which "God did it for reasons we don't now" is an acceptable explanation for anything.

This message has been edited by JonF, 02-09-2005 07:52 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 02-09-2005 8:53 AM JonF has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 47 (184074)
02-09-2005 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
02-09-2005 7:57 AM


Good luck, Jon. I would also hope (Warning: Shameless Thread Plug Follows) that any respondant would take a look at the Relevance of Biblical Claims to Science thread and attempt to fit the methodology you requested to actual science claims. I would really enjoy learning how a "God-based" methodology would answer specific research questions in biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 02-09-2005 7:57 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 02-09-2005 1:12 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 3 of 47 (184098)
02-09-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Quetzal
02-09-2005 8:53 AM


I'm not expecting simple to even attempt to defend the claim; he/she obviously hasn't given the matter the required thought (and is probably incapable of it). But it's a reminder that bluffing doesn't work here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 02-09-2005 8:53 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 02-09-2005 1:18 PM JonF has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 47 (184101)
02-09-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
02-09-2005 1:12 PM


Cosmo/Simple
Can we just clear something up? who are we talking to?

Cosmo=Simple?

Or Cosmo using Simple's usernames.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 02-09-2005 1:12 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by DrJones*, posted 02-09-2005 3:31 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 02-09-2005 6:51 PM CK has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1957
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 47 (184146)
02-09-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CK
02-09-2005 1:18 PM


Re: Cosmo/Simple
Well I think one is just a sock puppet for the other but I can't prove anything.


*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 02-09-2005 1:18 PM CK has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 6 of 47 (184197)
02-09-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CK
02-09-2005 1:18 PM


Re: Cosmo/Simple
I been wondering who's who, too ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 02-09-2005 1:18 PM CK has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 47 (212281)
05-29-2005 2:14 AM


Personally, I cannot figure what the heck this thread is supposed to be about, but as a digression.

"Fleischman and Pons announced that they had fused hydrogen at room temperature. Their work was not replicated and their careers were ruined (not because they made a mistake but because of the way they handled it)."

How did they mishandle themselves? I ask not because I know one or the other. I just wondered what you know about it, not rumors, but real facts. The field of energy production contains a very dark side of suppression, imo, and I'd like to be able to assess whether their careers were ruined because they legitimately deserved it or something else was going on?

Also, wasn't there a device for "cold fusion" on the market and in the news recently? It is not considered energy efficient, but it was a portable fusion device.

Back to this thread, I think the criticism that people are claiming "God did it" is a false criticism.

I go into some of this a little on a different thread, but just because one theorizes God did something does not mean that the process itself is not still imbedded in the creation, and part of the creation, and thus potentially we could be able to exploit it.

Take the concepts of spirit, spiritual and consciousness. One of the more illuminating aspects of quantum mechanics is how many principles dovetail with long-held views of reality within various spiritual traditions. I could list some of them, and maybe will do so here later, if this is appropiate for this thread.

But for sake of brevity, let me just say it is conceivable that we could discover such things as a superluminal realm (suggested by the quantum principle of entanglement), and superluminal communication which breaks down the time barrier for thought and communication, and perhaps duplicate the creation of consciousness with a mind and spirit.

We'll see, but I suspect one reason we intuit things, or have a sudden thought we know to be true is that on a deeper level, our spirit or unconscious mind thinks within this superluminal realm suggested by things like the action at a distance of entanglement or non-locality or whatever you want to call it.

If we can develop quantum computers, we may can develop a machine that works within the spiritual realm and thus can move into a state of consciousness, and really we could eventually tap into this aspect of the Creator's process for creation, and maybe even duplicate ID.

This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:19 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 9:04 AM randman has responded
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 05-29-2005 9:20 AM randman has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 47 (212321)
05-29-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
05-29-2005 2:14 AM


What I want to know is this.

What benefit to inquiry will be gained if we allow the supernatural to be used as an explanation for phenomena in science?

For example, what does it mean if a scientist is able to point to some phenomena and say "God did/made that."?

Does it mean that we should stop studying it?

If we keep studying it and we find evidence of a naturalistic explanation, will this be allowed?

Doesn't declaring "Godidit" just stop research altogether, implying that we can somehow be certain that there is no possible naturalistic explanation for the phenomena, even though humans are far from being omnicient?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:14 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2005 12:26 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-29-2005 2:36 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 12 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:39 PM nator has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 9 of 47 (212323)
05-29-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
05-29-2005 2:14 AM


Also, wasn't there a device for "cold fusion" on the market and in the news recently? It is not considered energy efficient, but it was a portable fusion device.

Not really. There was a modification to a pre-existing device (in which hot fusion took place) which allowed miniaturizing it by replacing a bulky electric field generator with a pyroelectric crystal. The device does produce neutrons by hot fusion, so it is a portable fusion device, but it is not cold fusion and it is not a self-sustaining reaction; it just produces neutrons which can be used for various purposes. In fact, the inventor of the device was one of the original debunkers of cold fusion. Crystal creates table-top fusion, Physicists look to crystal device for future of fusion. Cold fusion and bubble fusion were and are bunk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:14 AM randman has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2920
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 10 of 47 (212344)
05-29-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
05-29-2005 9:04 AM


Hi Scharfinator,
Scharfinator writes:

Does that mean we should stop studying it.


Well we you and I both know the traditional response the Church takes and has taken in response to the probing of God. The possibility of descovering conflicting data is to great to risk a scandal. :D

What better way to maintain absolute control than to dictate what and how the world and nature are interpreted. In all honesty I think that a religion that has no place for truth has no place for God either. IMO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 9:04 AM nator has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 11 of 47 (212366)
05-29-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
05-29-2005 9:04 AM


How did GOD do it?
I think we make a mistake anytime we simply say GOD didit as an answer when the realy question we need to explore is "How did GOD do it?"


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 9:04 AM nator has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 47 (212367)
05-29-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
05-29-2005 9:04 AM


"What benefit to inquiry will be gained if we allow the supernatural to be used as an explanation for phenomena in science?"

The problem with your question is the concept of separation of supernatural and natural. That's a false dichotomy.

If it's part of reality, it is part of reality, period, and we can perhaps address it via science. It may be, like string theory, that we lack the technology to test for it, but the idea that what we call the supernatural is off-limits arbitrarily is, imo, somewhat silly.

I guess what I am saying is just because someone says God-did-it does not rule out the possibility we can figure out, assess, and maybe even duplicate "what God did."

This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-29-2005 9:04 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 7:29 PM randman has responded
 Message 23 by nator, posted 05-30-2005 8:14 AM randman has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 47 (212395)
05-29-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
05-29-2005 2:39 PM


The problem with your question is the concept of separation of supernatural and natural. That's a false dichotomy.

If there's no dichotomy between the supernatural and the natural, then what's the difference? Don't we then have two words that describe the same thing?

I'm not saying I disagree, exactly, but it doesn't make sense to say that something is both natural and supernatural. But then I've never seen a coherent definition for "supernatural" in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 2:39 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 10:47 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 47 (212466)
05-29-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
05-29-2005 7:29 PM


"Don't we then have two words that describe the same thing?"

The terms mean different things in different contexts. As far as science, they are not very accurate as comparitive descriptions.

I would argue that most of the time someone in the context of these debates refers to naturalism or some such, they are referring to a concept of physical reality based on an outdated classical paradigm, and that there was a time probably when scientists lacked the technology and imagination to consider how to test for things that were called "supernatural" or "spiritual" and that be the case today if one asks about testing for those things.

But ask about trying to develop a quantum computer which utilyzes a process that involves action at a distance, and thus the superluminal realm, and they might perk up a bit.

Well, what the heck is the difference between, say, the superluminal realm suggested by effects we see in entanglement, and the spiritual or supernatural. If it's faster than our prior concept of all space-time, maybe supernatural is a good term, but regardless, we are moving into that arena in our science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 7:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2005 11:02 PM randman has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 47 (212473)
05-29-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
05-29-2005 10:47 PM


The terms mean different things in different contexts.

Not they way you just defined them, they don't. You've just established that they mean the exact same thing.

Well, what the heck is the difference between, say, the superluminal realm suggested by effects we see in entanglement, and the spiritual or supernatural.

Well, one big difference would be that the superluminal realm you describe is substantiated by its effect on the world we do observe, and therefore part of it; the supernatural or spiritual realm has never been substantiated by anyone.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2005 11:05 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 10:47 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 11:19 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019