EvC Forum: Is God a Scientist?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Is God a Scientist?

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 6 of 33 (400418)
05-13-2007 1:17 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by lostcause
05-13-2007 9:34 AM

thanks for your perspective

welcome to the fray lostcause.

Unfortunately my position is not based on evidence but is merely an attempt to comprehend what science believes is the evolution of man and what was taught to me as a child being basically man (Adam) was created in the likeness of God and had a whole lot of kids and so forth.

As a deist, my faith cannot conflict with science, because science is just the way to understand how.

A friend of mine (creationist) looks at it as we were created according to the image in the mind of god: his image with a different perspective. In this way he sees god having imagined all of existence from start to finish, and somewhere in there are humans (as well as other species, possibly other life). Not knowing the actual original words and their meanings I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this idea, but find it interesting. One thing I have always had trouble with is that if we are in the exact image of god how come we are not god-like ourselves? Not even Adam had any supernatural powers as far as I can see.

My sitting on the fence point of view is that Adam was a single cell evolving into a multi cell organism, be it evolution or God that split that cell creating the female counterpart I couldn’t say. But once again I don’t think Mark, Luke or John could really explain that to the people.

That would explain taking out the rib to make females .... but it is an interesting perspective. I take it you don't have any trouble with time scales and the first evidence of life on earth being from over 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally and just a last stupid question, but could Dinosaurs be considered Gods lab rats, testing the environment before he chose to release a portion of his own DNA upon this world.

Then there have been several testing experiments -- the dinosaurs benefited from a mass extinction of previous dominant life forms just the way mammals did 65 million years ago.

But be that as it may, it looks like you are looking for a wider perspective, and have gotten a good start on the journey: enjoy the path.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by lostcause, posted 05-13-2007 9:34 AM		lostcause has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by DorfMan, posted 05-14-2007 10:53 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 13 of 33 (400486)
05-14-2007 9:44 AM

Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
05-14-2007 8:25 AM

Sometimes when you open the door there is someone there even though they don't ring the doorbell. If you only wait for the doorbell you will not see them.

If we don't know the answer, the correct thing to do is say we don't know the answer & continue looking for evidence that will lead us to the truth,...

That is why agnostic is the logical position. Some people make choices to believe beyond where the facts and evidence lead -- as long as they do not deny the evidence of what is real, what's the issue? I choose to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe in spite of a lack of evidence for it. That belief makes me interested in looking for the evidence.

If people maintain that god exists then the onus is on them to provide evidence. Ad hoc "what if" explanations & scenarios are a distraction.

If people maintain that god does not exist then the onus is on them to provide the evidence. Arguments of ignorance and incredulity are a distraction.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 12 by mark24, posted 05-14-2007 8:25 AM		mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2007 10:31 AM	RAZD has replied
	Message 16 by mark24, posted 05-14-2007 10:39 AM	RAZD has replied
	Message 19 by Taz, posted 05-14-2007 12:14 PM	RAZD has replied
	Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 5:54 PM	RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 22 of 33 (400646)
05-15-2007 8:47 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by Quetzal
05-14-2007 10:31 AM

another atheist vs. agnostic topic (shame on you for rather gratuitously bringing it up)

It seems to me those that respond to the word agnostic more than to the argument are the ones missing the point.

Mark played the atheist card in Message 12, where he also made the arguments from incredulity and ignorance:

quote:
But if there is no evidence of god then it's irrelevant. Why not the universe is snot from the galactic goat? Or the Flying Spaghetti monster? Or any other of the potentially millions of evidentially vacuous explanations?

There are many things where we have no evidence yet continue to "believe" that something is there: take dark matter (please).

... a sort of naive cartesianism ("we cannot 'know' anything with 100% certainty"), are not unchallenged.

Nor is that what is being claimed. We can know with certainty that the earth is NOT flat and that it is NOT young. We can eliminate concepts that are falsified. Where it gets uncertain is in defining the exact shape and age at any moment.

We don't have enough information for those kinds of knowledge, but we get closer to it with each advancement in our knowledge.

We also have concepts that cannot be falsified, that are outside the realm of science to answer, and these involve philosophy and religion. God as a concept cannot be falsified, just as no-God as a concept cannot be falsified. That leaves the philosophically logical position somewhere in between, no matter what you believe.

Meanwhile, since these responses were made the title of the thread changed.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2007 10:31 AM		Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 28 by mark24, posted 05-16-2007 7:46 AM	RAZD has not replied
	Message 33 by aviator79, posted 05-16-2007 12:08 PM	RAZD has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 33 (400648)
05-15-2007 9:05 PM

Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
05-14-2007 10:39 AM

I disagree. Agnosticism is the position that nothing can be known about god (or whatever).

That is one definition, but not the only one:

ag·nos·tic -noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Also review:

de·ism -noun The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

And leaving no evidence that is discernable or that is different from natural phenomena. Deists also believe that god is unknowable so this is not exclusive to agnostics and this of itself is not sufficient then as a definition of agnostic.

If god exists & he is omnipotent, then there can be evidence of him.

And the evidence would be everything in the universe, exactly as it is. What you cannot eliminate is the hand behind the process: everything we understand is about the process.

A-theism is the only logical choice. ... but then I do have the advantage of 1/ not saying that, & 2/ therefore being consistent.

It seems to me that you did just inconsistently say exactly what you said you did not say.

Now can we get back to the topic or do we need to open\reopen another thread to continue this discussion?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 16 by mark24, posted 05-14-2007 10:39 AM		mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 27 by mark24, posted 05-16-2007 6:12 AM		RAZD has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 24 of 33 (400649)
05-15-2007 9:16 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by DorfMan
05-14-2007 10:53 AM

Re: Supernatural powers? Such as Superman? or Omega Man

quote:
A friend of mine (creationist) ...

We equate with the information we have, and supernatural powers are of our imagination and hollywoodian.

This was Jim\Myshkin.

quote:
One thing I have always had trouble with is that if we are in the exact image of god how come we are not god-like ourselves? Not even Adam had any supernatural powers as far as I can see.

... that's why he could not bend space (etc) the way they can or is done for them. Adam was meant to do what he did and no more.

So not in the full image eh? Or just not yet?

quote:
I take it you don't have any trouble with time scales and the first evidence of life on earth being from over 3.5 billion years ago.

I assume this is data developed with the measurements developed by people who need time scales and have done so?

By people who have pieced together the evidence that eliminates younger ages from possibilities. Any belief that excludes reality is delusion.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by DorfMan, posted 05-14-2007 10:53 AM		DorfMan has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 25 of 33 (400650)
05-15-2007 9:19 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
05-14-2007 5:54 PM

The evidence is that there is no evidence; absence of evidence is evidence of absence. (What else would be?)

A classic argument from incredulity. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence of evidence and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2007 5:54 PM		crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2007 10:32 AM		RAZD has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 26 of 33 (400651)
05-15-2007 9:35 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
05-14-2007 12:14 PM

You can't prove a negative.

Which is why agnostic is the logical position.

If I want to prove that the immaterial pink unicorn doesn't exist,...

Another argument from incredulity.

The burden of proof is always on the side that claims the positive, in this case the existence of god (aka immaterial pink unicorn).

Only as long as they claim that proof is possible. Don't confuse science with philosophy and faith.

You don't claim that proof of evolution is possible: it is a scientific theory, it is falsifiable, and the best it can ever be is heavily validated; it can never be proved to the level of logic you are asking here.

Deists believe that god is not necessarily knowable and that all we can really know is how the natural universe operates. Perhaps it is all an experiment, under observation, as our original post proposes. That is not a god that can be proven: it is not a scientific hypothesis, it is not intended to be one. It is based on faith not logic.

Now let the poster argue his concept and see where it leads eh? I'd like to see where he goes as he develops his thesis.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : pytos

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 19 by Taz, posted 05-14-2007 12:14 PM		Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2007 10:42 AM		RAZD has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), xongsmith
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0