Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
196 online now:
DrJones*, Theodoric (2 members, 194 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,794 Year: 1,542/23,288 Month: 1,542/1,851 Week: 182/484 Day: 105/77 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?
tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 1 of 72 (444422)
12-29-2007 11:57 AM


question: by admitting to "God" does science lose its grounds?

assertion: by scientific enquiry, believing that the base of all things came from one intelligent source only directs science to explore the science in observations of that law, which would assert that chaos is only apparent, and that purpose exists for items under scientific scrutiny.

question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?

assertion: no. he only asserts that the basis was of intelligence and designed some, but scientific data does not assert that all was designed. IE: a man takes a tank, fills it with water, and adds chemicals to see how they will react, the reaction was not controlled, but allowed freedom in a contained environment to "become"

question: so a scientist accepting that an intelligent entity was first may not be religious?

assertion: true. religion makes assertion based on divine inspirations. a man who eats magic mushrooms can believe he had involvement with the divine. religion also has been targets of corruption, and nothing man mandated is totally infallible.

the scientist in question, may find science in the religions to be impressive, and perhaps even of divine assertion, yet acknowledge that flaws in overall religion and writings of man were not written by the hand of the divine, and therefore, while acknowledged, may not be religious.

the acceptance that by scientific principle, that which was first had intelligence only directs the enquiry of science to the assertion of order within boundaries, and chaos only apparent.

debate?

Edited by tesla, : my grand typing skills: typoes

Edited by tesla, : topic change

Edited by tesla, : spelling

Edited by tesla, : spellcheck whoohoo!

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 2:32 PM tesla has responded
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2007 7:29 PM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2007 6:23 PM tesla has responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 72 (444471)
12-29-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
12-29-2007 11:57 AM


Not sure what this has to do with creationist scientists. Sounds more like a deistic scientist. Creationist scientists, if we are using our terms as commonly understood would be fideistic rather than deistic.

I think therefore that either the title should be changed, or the content. If the title is changed, I don't think there is a great deal to debate.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 11:57 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 2:48 PM AdminModulous has responded

tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 3 of 72 (444475)
12-29-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminModulous
12-29-2007 2:32 PM


eh?
so creationism only is relative as a science if one is admitting all life was designed?

what then is deistic science? I've never heard of any debate on it...

(which this is only suggesting creationism as a science, which if its a biblical understanding only, would mean its not.)

creationist assert that there was a supreme being, by accepting this assertion does not mean that a scientist would have to have a religion in order to admit a supreme being..

if this is not creationism, then creationist don't even agree on what creationists are?

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 2:32 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 3:06 PM tesla has responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 4 of 72 (444478)
12-29-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
12-29-2007 2:48 PM


Re: eh?
If you want to, you can have this be a semantic argument over the term 'creationist' versus 'deist'. You can have it be about creationist scientists who are scientists that happen to believe the universe was created by a deity who intervened in the case of earth and/or life (creationism but with no specific religion necessarily). You can have it about scientists who believe that the universe was created by a deity that subsequently let the universe run without intervention with life and the earth being drawn out from those original rules (with no specific religion...essentially called deism). You can have the discussion that is inclusive of both of these positions.

Either way: it isn't entirely clear from your first post what is to be debated - and it might help if you include your own position and what conclusions you draw from it.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 2:48 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 3:14 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 5 of 72 (444480)
12-29-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminModulous
12-29-2007 3:06 PM


Re: eh?
what I'm suggested is more in between.

a scientist who accepts that God "tweaks" or makes adjustments in the "created" world, but not on every level.

I'm suggesting a scientist that can accept creationism, without religion to explain it, rather, to look for clues in science.

anomalies would not be accepted wholly as "God acted" but neither would it be dismissed as a probability.

am i describing here, a creationist, or a deist?

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 3:06 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 3:23 PM tesla has not yet responded

tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 6 of 72 (444482)
12-29-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by tesla
12-29-2007 3:14 PM


Re: eh?
i changed the topic, does that clarify?

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 3:14 PM tesla has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 7 of 72 (444484)
12-29-2007 3:53 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Percy
Member
Posts: 19319
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 72 (444504)
12-29-2007 5:28 PM


I'm not getting a clear picture of the intent of this thread, but I'm interested in the general topic area, so I'll just wing it for this first reply.

Science studies the natural world. If we can detect it with our senses, either directly or indirectly with our instruments, then it can be studied by science.

Science neither accepts nor rejects God. It's just that science has no evidence from the natural world of God, so science cannot say anything about God's possible presence in the natural world.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 5:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 9 of 72 (444509)
12-29-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
12-29-2007 5:28 PM


so if God was accepted?
so if by the evidence in scientific law, that an intelligent entity is logically accepted as the basis of all things; (for the argument lets say it is so), would this acceptance hinder scientific enquiry?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-29-2007 5:28 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 6:54 PM tesla has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 72 (444518)
12-29-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by tesla
12-29-2007 5:40 PM


Re: so if God was accepted?
so if by the evidence in scientific law, that an intelligent entity is logically accepted as the basis of all things; (for the argument lets say it is so), would this acceptance hinder scientific enquiry?

If the evidence indicated that an intelligent entity - that could not hinder scientific inquiry. If there was no evidence of an intelligent entity and a scientist believed that it existed, then it could only hinder scientific inquiry if they believed that this entity influenced whatever it was they are studying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 5:40 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 7:13 PM Modulous has responded

tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 11 of 72 (444525)
12-29-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
12-29-2007 6:54 PM


Re: so if God was accepted?
then it could only hinder scientific inquiry if they believed that this entity influenced whatever it was they are studying.
~quote from modulous~

acceptance of an intelligent being would influence how?

let me try better to put this,

what laws of science would be established by the admission of intelligence?

would it negate evolution? (by the above assertions, no.)
would it negate the big bang? (by the above assertions, no.)

my point of argument is to show that if science admits to an intelligent being being first, that science is only proof of the "how" of God, and no explanation of "why" of God.

in effect, I'm asserting that the admission would not affect science negatively, but rather, compliment it.

but I'm not sure this can be said logically without first questioning scientists on the effect on current science.

based on the initial assertions, the acts of God in science are only potential, and not definite.

even if science was to acknowledge God definitively.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 6:54 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 8:00 PM tesla has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 72 (444529)
12-29-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
12-29-2007 11:57 AM


No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 11:57 AM tesla has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 72 (444536)
12-29-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by tesla
12-29-2007 7:13 PM


Re: so if God was accepted?
acceptance of an intelligent being would influence how?

It depends on how this being influences stuff. If it periodically stabs wicked people in the chest - then it might affect forensic science inquiry if the consensus of forensic scientists is convinced it exists. This is a psychological effect rather than a logical one.

would it negate evolution? (by the above assertions, no.)

It depends whether or not said intelligence is involved in the diversity of life as to how much the science of evolution would be affected.

would it negate the big bang?

That depends on what influence the entity has over the geometry of space/time.

If said entity has no influence upon the thing being studied - then it cannot affect the study of that thing. If it does affect the thing being studied then it has the possibility of affecting study.

my point of argument is to show that if science admits to an intelligent being being first, that science is only proof of the "how" of God, and no explanation of "why" of God.

Indeed - many scientists hold this position. For example, to differentiate from creationists, some people call themselves theistic evolutionists. A lot of the time, they simply say evolution was how God did it. Occasionally, the idea that god 'tweaks' things along from time to time creeps in. Normally it doesn't affect the science that is produced by these people, but I do think it devalues the god they believe in: after all either god pings it all into existence and doesn't need to make any changes other than to account for the actions of beings with free will OR god creates a wonderful algorithm that beautifully creates that which it willed in the first place. Any god that has to tinker with its creation to get it going in the direction it wants seems inferior to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 7:13 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 8:13 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-29-2007 8:14 PM Modulous has responded

tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 14 of 72 (444540)
12-29-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
12-29-2007 8:00 PM


Re: so if God was accepted?
question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?

assertion: no. he only asserts that the basis was of intelligence and designed some, but scientific data does not assert that all was designed. IE: a man takes a tank, fills it with water, and adds chemicals to see how they will react, the reaction was not controlled, but allowed freedom in a contained environment to "become"

modulous, you forgot the above assertions. I'm talking about God within the context of proven science.

the God you just proposed would be outside of the principles of proven science, and therefore, false.

however, an intelligent entity acknowledged within science (therefore not in contradiction of science law)is a different view of God, yet acknowledging the existence of an intelligent energy that was first.

within the observance of the initial assertions, would God effect science?

and the "why" of God belongs to religion, science is only the scrutiny of the "how"

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 8:00 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 8:08 AM tesla has not yet responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 15 of 72 (444541)
12-29-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
12-29-2007 8:00 PM


The tweaker God
Any god that has to tinker with its creation to get it going in the direction it wants seems inferior to me.

This may well be going badly off-topic but...

I personally have no problem with a God that might sometimes adjust the parameters of his/her/its experiment. God thinks - "Well, this evolution experiment is interesting, but I wonder what would happen if I here influence the pathway a bit?"

Maybe some sort of theistic evolution topic might be spun off this thing. Me, I'm too lame of a writer to pull it off.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 8:00 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 8:22 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 8:09 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020