|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
The Big Bang did not convince him to become a Christian. Sandage's discovery in 1974 that the universe was going to expand forever was a startling defeat for The Cycle Theory. See Time magazine It meant that the Big Bang was a one-time event. A creation event. That proved to Sandage that God existed but he did not know which God. It started him on a two-year spiritual journey. He read books both modern and ancient on all kinds of topics. He said only the Bible could speak to the nature of God. He was finally convinced by the argument of Blaise Pascal in what is now called Pascal's Wager. He became a Christian in 1976.
BTW, just an interesting aside. Hugh Ross became a Christian in about 1962. Ross became a researcher at Caltech in about 1980 or 1981. Ross and Sandage knew each other. This would have been the period of time after Sandage had become a Christian but before Sandage had gone public about his faith in Christ, which happened in 1985. Ross left Caltech in 1986 to found Reasons to Believe. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It meant that the Big Bang was a one-time event. A creation event. That proved to Sandage that God existed but he did not know which God. I think this anecdote proves something other than what you suggest. The reasoning you quote for concluding that God exists is fairly porous. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I was not commenting on your claims just the rebuttal to it which I feel doesn't directly refute your claim.
However you said:
quote: Which has not been supported by anything that Sandage has been quoted as saying either. It appears that his path to belief remains inconclusive. I would suggest that it doesn't matter anyway. The topic is "can science say anything about a creator god". If it can or can not this can be shown by using tight logic without reference to authorities. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
One-time events are known as miracles. That is all Sandage is saying here. He did not say this, because he is not an idiot. How about your own existence? Does science consider that one time event a miracle? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, DT.
I'm terribly confused right now. Let me summarize all the salient points of your opening post here:
This is just a survey of various people's opinions, with no real substance to talk about. So, what, exactly, are we supposed to be discussing here? Are there some particular points of reasoning that you want to discuss? Like, for instance, "Is science restricted to working with direct observations?" or "In what way does the Big Bang point to a Creator?" or "Does nature do 'one-time events'?" Or, do you just want to tally everybody's opinion, then "summarize" the thread by restating your own opinion, like you did on the last thread?-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Some scientists say that science cannot comment on supernatural things, like the existence of a Creator. Some scientists say that science can comment on the supernatural, and has concluded that there is no Creator. Some creationists think the Big Bang points to a Creator. I (designtheorist) think science can comment on the existence of a Creator. That's not exactly right. Actually, both Ross and Sandage were atheists (not creationists) when the the Big Bang as a one-time event caused them to change their minds and believe a creator was responsible. If you have not yet read the excellent book God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow, I heartily recommend it to you. Jastrow is agnostic but he does a marvelous job telling the interesting story on the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Jastrow rather delights in talking about the scientists who are made uncomfortable to learn the Bible was right after all, that the universe did have a beginning. Interestingly, Sandage was one of those quoted as being uncomfortable with the idea. Of course, Sandage was still an atheist at that point.
This is just a survey of various people's opinions, with no real substance to talk about. So, what, exactly, are we supposed to be discussing here? Are there some particular points of reasoning that you want to discuss? Like, for instance, "Is science restricted to working with direct observations?" or "In what way does the Big Bang point to a Creator?" or "Does nature do 'one-time events'?" The question we are debating is: "Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God? Why do you hold this opinion?" I gave examples of scientists on both sides of the question. i provided the scientific evidence for scientists who changed their minds regarding God because of science. And I picked the side I'm on. Any questions you raise related to the main topic are welcome to be discussed and debated. I'm very interested to hear your views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
designtheorist writes:
Sure, it's possible. Science can say the same thing about the supernatural, God, Zeus, Thor, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, the big bad wolf, etc. It can say, "We can't find any evidence that they exist. Similarly, police can say, "We can't find Jimmy Hoffa." The question we are debating is: "Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God? Why do you hold this opinion?" Not being able to find something is not the same as saying that something doesn't exist. But you don't often see believers looking for evidence, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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?
My best advice to every participant is to not respond to posts here when you feel agitated. If you can wait until you calm down, it will raise the level of debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
But you don't often see believers looking for evidence, do you? Yes, I see it all the time. These believers are called Christian apologists. Dr. Hugh Ross is one. I'm curious. If science was capable of finding evidence for God's existence, what would it look like? What evidence would be compelling to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Scott's explanation was "it is not possible to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces under laboratory conditions and so the possibility of a supernatural cause is outside of what science can tell us. I think Ross is being fair to Scott's words ... And I don't, since he attributes to her a position she can't possibly hold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I tend to agree with you that if pressed for clarification, she would say things differently. On the other had, what is Ross to do? Ignore the actual record of what she said?
Just to clarify. I'm not throwing rocks at Eugenie. I'm not saying I think she is a bad scientist. Nothing like that. I think her comments indicate she is operating on a gut level here. I don't think she has really thought through the issues we are debating. This is just more evidence this is a much needed and important debate. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
designtheorist writes: If science was capable of finding evidence for God's existence, what would it look like? What evidence would be compelling to you? HEAVEN PHOTOGRAPHED BY HUBBLE TELESCOPE February 8, 1994 Just days after space shuttle astronauts repaired the Hubble Space Telescope in mid December, the giant lens focused on a star cluster at the edge of the universe — and photographed heaven!NEW HUBBLE IMAGES - Weekly World News What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
designtheorist writes:
Surely you understand the difference between looking for evidence and finding excuses for why there is none.
ringo writes:
Yes, I see it all the time. These believers are called Christian apologists. Dr. Hugh Ross is one.
But you don't often see believers looking for evidence, do you? designtheorist writes:
Ask Dr. Hugh Ross. You claim he's looking for it.
If science was capable of finding evidence for God's existence, what would it look like? designtheorist writes:
First, it would have to be objective - i.e. not just compelling to me but to everybody.
What evidence would be compelling to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am well acquainted with Allan Sandage. What Allan is saying in the lines you quoted is that knowing a creator exists does not tell us anything about the nature of the creator ... Actually, he's saying what he actually said.
Regarding Allan's view that you practice science as a material reductionist, I think this is mostly correct. [...] Allan did not think these were questions science can answer, but he still wanted answers. To a large extent, I think he is right. So are we finished with this thread, or when you qualify your statements with "mostly" and "to a large extent" do you have some exceptions in mind, and can you argue for them?
You still have to deal with Dawkins. He says the existence of God is a scientific question. Is he right? That depends what you mean by God. But what I've seen of Dawkins' arguments on the subject leave me unconvinced as to their merit. If you find them convincing, welcome to atheism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024