Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God "allowed" by Science?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 8 (129097)
07-31-2004 5:53 AM


This is a continuation from a closed topic with Arkathon.
Arkathon,
quote:
That teeny little scientific rule that requires evidence is a problem for you?
  —mark
You can't evidence God physically, so He must be exempt from the usual criteria, otherwise you simply piss in the wind, and get all wet. You may not see Him blowing, but you ignore Him at your own loss.
Of course you can evidence god physically. He came to earth & banged out miracles. If he did it again it would be directly observable & testable. You could ask god to create a planet nearby for a couple of days. I think that would constitute physical evidence, wouldn't you?
I'll couch it scientifically. Our hypothesis of god is that he is all powerful. Prediction: god can create a planet for us on request. Prediction borne out when the being purpoting itself to be god creates said planet. There you go, perfectly legitimate scientific evidence of god. You could of course substitute any well tested law of physics busting miracle.
quote:
science requires evidence except for god which it must simply accept as being true. It's not consistent, equitable, or logical.
  —mark
It is the essence of logic, and it is certain science will adapt.
Meaningless. Adapt to what? Allow non-evidence for god but require evidence for everything else? That is the anti-essence of logic. It requires rules that aren't consistent.
quote:
There is no scientifically valid evidence that ANYONE or ANYTHING banged out miracles.
  —mark
Only because johnny come lately so called science, whose underlying philosophy is to count everything out that is of the spirit, doesn't chose to believe eyewitnesses, who gave their life as proof it was true.
Eyewitnesses, how do I contact one? How do I tell they aren't an invention? Where's the extra bibular corroboration? Do you think Watership Down is evidence of talking rabbits in & of itself?
You are attempting to do what all creationists do, try to make the bible self-evident. In order to to provide evidence for the bible, you quote the bible. This is circular reasoning where you are forced to accept your conclusion in order to accept the premises. There are no non-religious corroborations, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume the bible is an internally consistent story & nothing more.
It is a well known fact that He and they did bang out miracles.
No, it isn't. It is a well known assertion by Jews & Christians & no-one else. An assertion they have no evidence for. You have a very strange definition of the word "fact".
Unless you have a time machine, you can't detect this, and have only your disbelief.
Unless you have a time machine you can't detect this & have only your belief. You do realise that by your own reasoning you have just argued yourself out of the bible consisting of facts. Facts are checkable, no?
This does not change the facts, just because there was no real science much to speak of then, unless we count the 'wise men' who were said to purse true knowledge, and it led them smack dab to the Messiah!
What facts? You just told me I'd need a time machine to check them out! You can infer nothing from assertions.
quote:
Science is a process by which we inductively derive a hypothesis, & with the exception of anything arkathon wants to be true, we must have evidence for & deductively test that hypothesis
  —mark
Since you are so lame at testing for spiritual things, they can not fall under your current scientific handicap requirement of only physical, touchable, etc.
How do I test for something that is not evident to my senses? This should be interesting. I bet your answer basically boils down to, "accept the bible without question".
Otherwise the fair sounding 'we must be able to test it' becomes nothing in this world more than a filter to filter out God, and His creation.
See above, I have a test for god that is perfectly scientific. Ergo science doesn't filter out god.
quote:
s a point of fact, the Dark Ages are long gone & were filled with the kind of christianity you long for.
  —mark
No, they were in as much darkness as the evos in today's retard bubble! Probably more stinky, as they falsely laid claim on God.
There should be somerthing that checks the posters mental age before they are allowed internet access.
quote:
he moment you make an exception for something scientifically, it becomes pseudo-science.
  —mark
moment you don't make an exception to trying to fit the Almighty in a little box of physical criteria, you become science falsely so called!
Thank you arkathon, you just made god illogical. Logic=consistency.
quote:
The reason god can't be included in science is because there's no evidence.
  —mark
True, not in the 'physical only' allowed in the retard bubble of course he won't go in there. He's a Spirit! And besides, even though His fingerprints are all over creation, and eyewitnesses coming out of the woodwork, you don't want to acknowledge the evidence in the physical that we do have!
If god comes into the real world he should leave evidence. Where is it & how do I test for it?
That requires physical evidence for a spiritual God, yes. He's a well known exception to your rules, and philosophy of science.
LOL!!!! Basically an exception to those rules you so despise means we should accept anything & everything.
So how can anyone know god if he is purely spiritual. The instant you mention anything physical god becomes amenable to science. He also fails those alleged physical tests.
I have a couple of questions I want you to answer. They're from the text, above, but I don't want them ignored.
1/ If the scientific method requires the making of predictions that are observable to our senses, & one of those predictions is that god can suspend & alter the rules of physics. Then surely god appearing and creating matter/energy in the form of a large planet nearby (for example) on request, represents a legitimate scientific test?
2/ If something does not interact with our universe, how are we supposed to test its existence? Given this is a rhetorical question & the answer is that it cannot be tested. Then why should we accept the existence of something that cannot be tested?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2004 05:05 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2004 2:17 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 07-31-2004 2:53 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 01-15-2005 11:20 PM mark24 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 8 (129118)
07-31-2004 11:47 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 8 (129135)
07-31-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
07-31-2004 5:53 AM


You could ask god to create a planet nearby for a couple of days. I think that would constitute physical evidence, wouldn't you?
i've thought about writing hovind a nice letter offering hime 500,000 (double or nothing on his bet) if he can prove creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt. this would be one of the tests: getting god to create another universe in lab conditions.
No, it isn't. It is a well known assertion by Jews & Christians & no-one else.
untrue, you forgot muslims and mormons
I bet your answer basically boils down to, "accept the bible without question".
i think accepting anything without question is just plain stupid. question everything. especially the bible.
See above, I have a test for god that is perfectly scientific. Ergo science doesn't filter out god.
no, it just proves that a god who cares about your test doesn't exist and/or can't make it. i for instance have a test for your existance. simple come over to my house, sign this form i have here, we'll have coffee or something, and that'll be it.
Thank you arkathon, you just made god illogical. Logic=consistency.
who ever said god was logical? it's also irrational too, don't forget that.
If god comes into the real world he should leave evidence. Where is it & how do I test for it?
god is defined as being supernatural. therefore, no natural tests should be able to prove or disprove his existance. even if we had a booming voice from the sky... well, i might just be space aliens with a really nice stereo system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 07-31-2004 5:53 AM mark24 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 8 (129142)
07-31-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
07-31-2004 5:53 AM


I'm not at all sure these will be the answers that you want, but here goes anyway.
1/ If the scientific method requires the making of predictions that are observable to our senses, & one of those predictions is that god can suspend & alter the rules of physics. Then surely god appearing and creating matter/energy in the form of a large planet nearby (for example) on request, represents a legitimate scientific test?
Having the capability of doing something and actually doing it are two different things. What you propose is not a test of the ability to do something, but of the intent to actually do so.
Matthew 4 (Mark 1 and Luke 4 as well) contains the story of the devil tempting Jesus. Jesus is asked to perform like a trained dog, to show off his powers. He refuses in each case. That does not show that he was incapable of any of those acts, but rather that he chose NOT to perform those actions.
2/ If something does not interact with our universe, how are we supposed to test its existence? Given this is a rhetorical question & the answer is that it cannot be tested. Then why should we accept the existence of something that cannot be tested?
The existance of GOD is a matter of belief. It is personal and as you say, not subject to testing. But there are vaild reasons behind such a belief.
While IMHO, some of what was posted in the thread was just plain silly, I can see GOD in the world around us. As we learn more and more about evolution, about physics, about cosmology, about biology and genetics, we find a beauty, an aesthetic sense to the underlying rules that seem to govern all interaction. As we learn more, at each step we are finding yet more detail behind and driving what only a moment before we thought the most basic. And behind that, there reamins the question of WHY. WHY did something that may have existed for all time, some primal singularity, change state?
While I fully support Evolution and the Theory of Evolution, support the evidence of the Universe we live in and those rules that seem to govern its form and creation, that still does not address the question of WHY.
GOD is the answer that I have found to the question of WHY.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 07-31-2004 5:53 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 07-31-2004 3:07 PM jar has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 8 (129153)
07-31-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
07-31-2004 2:53 PM


Jar, Arachno,
The purpose of test 1/ is to show that god is potentially tesrable scientifically. Given that this IS the case, then science doesn't exclude god, as arkathon asserts.
It doesn't matter if god doesn't want to play ball, it's a thought exercise to falsify the science-rejects-god-outright-&-will-accept-no-evidence-in-support-of-his-existence-claim. Given that this is the case then there is a basis for further discussion based upon the rationale & logic of the scientific method.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 07-31-2004 2:53 PM jar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 8 (177317)
01-15-2005 6:50 PM


Bump for cosmo
Cosmo in the thread discussing the supernova 1987a said:
Then, I guess we take what we can see here, and have experience with, or can theorize about, and then try to apply that to the far reaches of the cosmos, all the while, of course not allowing for any non physical explanations. Seems somewhat of a stretch so far, to me!
Perhaps this is a good thread to "allow for any non physical explanations"?
Could you explain supernovae or pulsars with a "non physical" explanation?
How would we tell this might be a little bit correct?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-15-2005 18:50 AM

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 8 (177410)
01-15-2005 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
07-31-2004 5:53 AM


Well, I think it is possible to find evidence concening God, but not possible to prove God.
Although God is of the metaphysical realm and humans are of the physical realm, these two realms don't remain inherently isolated. God does act in the physical realm, too, so we look for evidence of the work of the metaphysical in the physical realm.
Second, it is possible to look for scientific proofs of stories found in religious texts. These do make it possible to believe some of the stories contained in these religious texts.
But ultimately, since God is of the metaphysical realm, you may find evidence of God, but you can never prove something that lies within the metaphysical realm.
And that's where faith comes in...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 07-31-2004 5:53 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Nyogtha, posted 01-17-2005 10:53 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Nyogtha
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (177994)
01-17-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
01-15-2005 11:20 PM


quote:
Second, it is possible to look for scientific proofs of stories found in religious texts. These do make it possible to believe some of the stories contained in these religious texts.
  —commike37
Are you talking about bible?
I'd really like to see these scientific proofs. Could you perhaps shed some light on this matter, please?
quote:
But ultimately, since God is of the metaphysical realm, you may find evidence of God, but you can never prove something that lies within the metaphysical realm.
  —commike37
The latter part does not hold any value, because you're leaning this entirely on assumption that there is a god, but you just can't proove its existence.
EDIT: Oh bummer, I rushed to write a reply to this without noticing the date of the posts. Sorry for digging up an old topic.
This message has been edited by Nyogtha, 01-17-2005 22:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 01-15-2005 11:20 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024