Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9010 total)
48 online now:
frako, kjsimons, ringo, Tangle (4 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,669 Year: 13,417/23,288 Month: 347/795 Week: 48/95 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 536 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 259 of 899 (819364)
09-10-2017 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by NoNukes
09-09-2017 10:54 PM


Re: Atheistic science?
NoNukes writes:

quote:
This thread is not about whether God exists, which yes, is beyond the realm of science

No, it isn't. Not that the thread isn't about this or that but rather that the question of god's existence is "beyond the realm of science."

No, it isn't. God is an object. Any object that interacts with us will necessarily leave traces. Those trace can be examined by science. It's how we know that somebody was in the room with the dead body and thus the body died not from any sort of natural cause or accident but because of murder.

A god that leaves no trace upon the universe is not actually interacting with the universe and thus, has no connection with it nor is it responsible for anything we might see in it.

Note, this isn't denying that god's work might be subtle and difficult to detect. Instead, it's about the claim that it is "beyond the realm of science." By stating that, you necessarily remove god from any possible position within the universe. God either interacts with the universe or not and if god does, then god is susceptible to scientific investigation.

For example, there are those who claim that god create a world-wide flood approximately 4500 years ago.

That is a claim that can be scientifically examined. Should that examination determine that there was no world-wide flood approximately 4500 years ago (or any time), then that necessarily means that that god does not exist.

So no, the question of the existence of god is most definitely within the realm of science.

You just need to define what you mean by "god." Of course, a definition that is so vague that it cannot be used means it does not exist for objects without definition by necessity do not exist.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2017 10:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 9:48 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 536 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 819 of 899 (820223)
09-17-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by NoNukes
09-12-2017 9:48 AM


Re: Atheistic science?
NoNukes responds to me:

quote:
Not if the interaction is magical and undetectable.

If it is undetectable, then it didn't happen. Note, not merely "undetected" but truly "undetectable." "I moved the couch across the room, but you can't detect it...to you it looks like it's still where it always was, but it's really over here. I know it looks like you're sitting on the couch where it always was, but you're really floating in mid-air because the couch is really over here."

That makes no sense. If an action is to have an effect, it necessary leaves a trace: Specifically, the effect. I can't see gravity. And we really don't have that great of an idea as to what it is. But we can most certainly see its effects. The very concept of "dark matter" comes from the fact that we can't detect where the (presumable) gravitational force is coming from. But the reason we think there's something there is because we can detect the effect: The galaxies are spinning beyond what our understanding of gravity can account for.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If something touches you, then you necessarily touch it. If this god is going to affect things in the universe, then we will be able to see them when they happen...and thus perform experiments. If there are no effects that can be detected no matter what, then there is no cause.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

quote:
If God is magically inserting a spirit into each human at say, conception, and the spirit is immaterial, then such insertion would not be detectable.

And if it does absolutely nothing, then it doesn't exist. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

quote:
Since I don't accept your first premise, I am not led to your conclusion. The existence of God is not provable or disprovable by philosophy or science.

And since I don't accept your claims, I am not led to your conclusion. The existence of god is most decidedly provable or disprovable by science given a useful definition of "god."

So now what?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 9:48 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2017 7:39 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 536 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 894 of 899 (820649)
09-25-2017 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 892 by NoNukes
09-24-2017 7:39 PM


Re: Atheistic science?
NoNukes responds to me:

quote:
I wonder what the meaning of such a statement is. Can you detect life on an exoplanet? Since you cannot, should we assume that no life exists on any of them?

As Percy pointed out, you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation and disingenuousness. I was very specific about what I meant by "undetectable." Let's try it again since it seems you didn't read my post before you responded:

If it is undetectable, then it didn't happen. Note, not merely "undetected" but truly "undetectable." "I moved the couch across the room, but you can't detect it...to you it looks like it's still where it always was, but it's really over here. I know it looks like you're sitting on the couch where it always was, but you're really floating in mid-air because the couch is really over here."

That makes no sense. If an action is to have an effect, it necessarily leaves a trace: Specifically, the effect. I can't see gravity. And we really don't have that great of an idea as to what it is. But we can most certainly see its effects. The very concept of "dark matter" comes from the fact that we can't detect where the (presumable) gravitational force is coming from. But the reason we think there's something there is because we can detect the effect: The galaxies are spinning beyond what our understanding of gravity can account for.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If something touches you, then you necessarily touch it. If this god is going to affect things in the universe, then we will be able to see them when they happen...and thus perform experiments. If there are no effects that can be detected no matter what, then there is no cause.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

I've highlighted some relevant portions. Perhaps you'll notice them this time. What do you think they mean?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2017 7:39 PM NoNukes 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