Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

The evidence for design and a designer

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 153 (585839)
10-09-2010 11:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 57 by tesla
10-09-2010 11:35 PM

Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:
​
What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key.
Accepted by whom?
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 11:35 PM tesla has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:37 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 74 of 153 (585997)
10-10-2010 7:06 PM 		Reply to: Message 66 by tesla
10-10-2010 6:37 PM

Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:
​
What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key.
​
ringo writes:
​
Accepted by whom?
Scientists.
No problem then. There is a scientific definition of God that is accepted by scientists. It goes something like this:
​
quote:
God is a factor that can not be observed objectively and has no known effect on the observable universe.
You may not like that definition but scientists do agree on it. Whether they're Hindu or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that's one thing that scientists agree on.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:37 PM tesla has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 7:12 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 76 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:14 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 81 of 153 (586015)
10-10-2010 7:41 PM 		Reply to: Message 76 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:14 PM

tesla writes:
​
I'm not concerned of what scientists believe today. That is subject to change tommorrow.
Well, I asked you who needed to agree on the definition and you said, "Scientists."
​
I'm getting too old to chase goalposts. If you want all scientists to agree for all time, then that ain't gonna happen. That flies in the face of what science is. As jar pointed out, scientists need to accept change when new evidence is found. (By the way, let's take jar's revision and say that scientists haven't observed God or any effects of God yet.)
​
So let's try again: Who has to agree on a definition of God? Aren't you just trying to get scientists to agree to your definition of God?
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:14 PM tesla has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 85 of 153 (586027)
10-10-2010 8:11 PM 		Reply to: Message 82 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:47 PM

tesla writes:
​
The definition of God can be mathematically analyzed for potential.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing your mathematical analysis. You will, of course, have to provide a definition of "potential".
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM tesla has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 92 of 153 (586084)
10-11-2010 12:13 AM 		Reply to: Message 89 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:17 PM

tesla writes:
​
Potential=possibility of relevance for scientific discovery.
"Relevance for scientific discovery" requires tangible evidence, not just mathematical speculation. And if we had that tangible evidence, what would be the point of the calculated potential? Pardon me for sounding cynical but it looks to me like you want to use mathematical mumbo-jumbo as a substitute for real-world science.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024