|
Author
|
Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 22 of 506 (694631)
03-26-2013 11:53 AM
|
|
|
What Supernatural?
The problem is that the theists have defined the supernatural as being unevidenced, undetectable, and wholly unfalsifiable. It is the theists that keep the supernatural out of science, not the scientists. If the supernatural really did have effects on nature then science could study the supernatural. Period. Science does not need to exclude the supernatural because the supernatural has no effect on the natural. Science does not need to exclude beliefs since beliefs have no empirical effect on the natural world. What theists refuse to understand is that they need to provide a compelling reason why the supernatural should be INCLUDED in science. They have failed at every turn.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: What Supernatural?
You obviously have very strong feelings on the subject. Sometimes when people become emotional, they are unable to reason clearly. Will you be able to control those emotions when we begin to discuss the evidence? Why do you feel it necessary to poison the well? Why not just present the evidence? I'm not agitated or emotional about it. I am very matter-of-fact about it. Theists have not presented any compelling evidence that would allow us to include the supernatural in any explanation related to the natural world. None. There is not a single verified supernatural explanation for a natural phenomena. Not one. All of the verified and evidenced explanations we have are natural mechanisms. Every. Single. One. This isn't due to excluding supernatural explanations. This is due to the complete lack of any supernatural mechanisms working in nature.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: What Supernatural?
Let me ask you this. What is the minimum scientific evidence it would take for you to be convinced God exists? Can you conceive of any such evidence? What would it look like? In the biological realm, a creator God would be best evidenced by the appearance of modern animals in the Cambrian and a lack of a nested hierarchy. If a thousand foot deity came down from the clouds and threw lightning at my feet I am sure I would also be quite convinced.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Blue Jay
Many people operate with a type of unexamined premise, that the supernatural is not real and so discount any evidence of it. False. We think that the supernatural is not real because there is no evidence for it. Believers have had thousands of years to present that evidence, and none has been brought forth.
I agree that it is impossible for science to rule out a supernatural Creator. Why? Why is the supernatural automatically unfalsifiable? Just look at all of the natural explanations we now accept as true that were once explained by the supernatural. Hasn't the supernatural been falsified in those instances?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Hi Taq
You say there is no evidence and yet there are 2.2 billion Christians on the planet. Is it possible that there is evidence and you have not been convinced by it? Why don't you just present the evidence? Another post from a theist with zero evidence for a deity.
If you were to sit on a jury, the instructions from the judge would be to put aside any preconceptions, wait until all the evidence is in and then weigh all the evidence both for and against. THEN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE!!! What are you waiting for?
Disproving the existence of something that is immaterial and all-powerful is not impossible, but it is impossible by scientific means. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 55 of 506 (694673)
03-26-2013 5:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
03-26-2013 5:36 PM
|
|
Re: Hi Taq
I have to wonder what his "demonstration" was going to be. A "proof" that infinity is finite ? A much more enjoyable demonstration of proof:
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2013 5:36 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: What Supernatural?
If the God of the Bible is the Creator, then we can expect that He will not make himself to obvious in nature. You mean things like a pillar of fire that guides you through a desert, or food that rains down from heaven? Or the parting of an entire sea so that hundreds of thousands of people can walk through? Or perhaps a river turning into blood? Need I go on?
Just ask yourself, what about the Cambrian would be so surprising that it would cause me to begin a spiritual journey? Is there anything I might learn about the Big Bang that would cause me to read the Bible? How finely-tuned does the universe have to be before I start looking into Christianity? What point are you trying to make?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Hi Straggler
Is it possible science can show evidence of God's effects in creation? If God has effects on nature then the answer is obviously yes. So why don't you start showing us what these effects are?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
Thomas Nagel is still being persecuted for his criticism of Darwinism and he is an atheist. How is Nagel being persecuted? What is it with the constant use of the persecution card? "Oh, woe is me!!" is now an ID argument? Lame.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: What Supernatural?
I'm trying to get you to think scientifically. Can you come up with a null hypothesis? Can you come up with an alternative hypothesis? What is scientific about what would or would not emotionally inspire you? That makes ZERO sense. What is scientific about these questions?
quote:
Just ask yourself, what about the Cambrian would be so surprising that it would cause me to begin a spiritual journey? Is there anything I might learn about the Big Bang that would cause me to read the Bible? How finely-tuned does the universe have to be before I start looking into Christianity?
How does that even relate to a null hypothesis?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 73 of 506 (694722)
03-27-2013 1:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
03-27-2013 1:28 PM
|
|
Re: Questions Waiting to be Answered
No, she suffered because she expressed her views in an inappropriate venue. She decided to express her views in that venue and lost her position, quite rightly, for doing that. She decided to teach inappropriate material, knowing that her position would be put in peril by those actions, and so it was. If she said "I decided to protest and accepted the consequences" I would have some respect for her. But she has no reason to complain about what happened. Quite right. Imagine if she was hired to teach a class on vertebrate physiology, but spent the entire class talking about conservative politics. If she was fired for this, could she claim that she was being persecuted for her political views? Obviously not. Ironically, her contract was not renewed because the students complained about the class.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by JonF, posted 03-27-2013 1:28 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Hello Taq
I think it is valuable for you to do your own reasoning on these points, but I am willing to give you an example. Let's say you are interested in the question of detecting the effects of a Creator God in the area of the fine-tuned universe. Plug in your own numbers here, this is just an example. You are wandering all over the place from one inane utterance to the next. You need to focus on what you are trying to convey. I am interested in YOUR reasoning. I am interested in YOU supporting YOUR claims. Please start presenting evidence that supports your claims.
You may say, if the fine-tuning only involves six parameters and the tuning has a range of 25%, then I would consider that to be not extremely fine-tuned. It could well be these numbers result from pure chance. You may also say, if the fine-tuning involves 20 parameters and the universe falls apart if the value of those parameters is off by 1%, then that is extreme fine-tuning and the universe has to be the result of an intelligent Creator. You need to decide a priori what you expect to find and what those findings will mean to you. Would you say no amount of fine-tuning would convince me a Creator was involved? I cannot. At some point, theoretically speaking, you have to say 'The is beyond the realm of a chance happening. This shows intention and purpose.' I hope that helps. What are the chances that we would be here to observe a universe that is incapable of supporting life?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 11:24 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Blue Jay
Fine-tuning has been detected by lots of physicists, many of them atheists. They do not have any problem saying fine-tuning presents the "appearance" of design. Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose and many, many more have all written and spoken about fine-tuning and the appearance of design. The question is: At what point to we start putting this evidence together and start building a theory around design? There needs to be a way to do that scientifically. Let's use the lottery as our example. For ease of mathematics, let's say that the odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 100 million. Let's also assume that there has been one winner in each of the last 5 lotterys. Those winners are John A., Ralph P., Frank L., Susan B., and Polly P, in that order. What are the chances that those specific people would have won the lottery? Well, that is 1 in 100 million to the 5th power, or 1 in 10^40. That's a pretty big number. We can only assume that the lottery had to be fine tuned so that those specific people would win. But is that right . . . What this model ignores is all of the losers. That is what you are ignoring as well. You need to show that our universe is the only universe in existence. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake as the lottery example above.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi Percy
This is a common thought among many people. The problem, of course, is that the multiverse is not, in the normal sense, a scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis that this is the only universe in existence suffers from the same problem.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Hi PaulK
He was clearly speaking of chance in the normal sense of naturalistic random events. As I mentioned before, the combination of his atheism and his calculations showing the Big Bang could not have a naturalistic cause as an initial event, Based on what evidence?
As I said before, I would like to see some evidence the commenters here are mentally prepared to weigh evidence. I would like to see some evidence to back your claims.
|
™ Version 4.2