Why can't science and God co-exist?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why can't science and God co-exist?

Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: God would be

e303 wrote:
God would be the only necessary being — if God existed.

Not the only one. You forget about Odin, Rah and the 397236 gods of the Aztecs. This in no way means that the asserted being (if it existed) is the christian god. Or rather it's pretty unlikely.

e303 wrote:
Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

The whole argument is based on the presupposition that

a) god exists AND

b) that he is the ONLY independent being that exists (good luck providing an argument for this, which isn't circular ie. quoting the bible).

And anyway, there are scientific hypotheses about how the universe came to be, which do not violate the laws of nature (eg. quantum fluctuation). It is not necessary that there must be a deity which created it.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I noticed that no one

I noticed that no one responded to this post on page 1 (which somewhat surprised me):

e303 wrote:
No problems just a misunderstanding.

It has been scientificly established the "Laws" don't apply to what most of the universe is made of by the leading scientist of our time.

I am open to discovery. I will say however the true cause of the big bang (the banger) is likely not made of or from the 4% we call home. It is possible then to seek new answers and laws that can allow both a creator and science to co-exist.

No, it is not established. Dark matter and dark energy interact with our physical reality and are therefore subject to science. We can observe the gravitational effect dark matter has and thus are able detect it and research it. Also dark matter and dark energy couldn't have existed "before" (whatever that means) the big bang. So it's unlikely that the "creator" is made up of that stuff. Smiling

 

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kemono

Kemono wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

 

Religion needs an imaginary deity; the discovery of a real one would be bad for business. If we regarded the possible existence of superhuman intelligences a scientific question (as we should), the clergy would find itself unemployed.

LMBAO. Well said Kemono very dry, very true.  

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote: I noticed

Mattness wrote:

I noticed that no one responded to this post on page 1 (which somewhat surprised me):

e303 wrote:
No problems just a misunderstanding.

It has been scientificly established the "Laws" don't apply to what most of the universe is made of by the leading scientist of our time.

I am open to discovery. I will say however the true cause of the big bang (the banger) is likely not made of or from the 4% we call home. It is possible then to seek new answers and laws that can allow both a creator and science to co-exist.

No, it is not established. Dark matter and dark energy interact with our physical reality and are therefore subject to science. We can observe the gravitational effect dark matter has and thus are able detect it and research it. Also dark matter and dark energy couldn't have existed "before" (whatever that means) the big bang. So it's unlikely that the "creator" is made up of that stuff. Smiling

 

It is very difficult to reconcile dark matter and energy with the known laws of nature.  So far the only thing that seems to interact with dark matter is gravity but even then not in a normal way. There is indeed much speculation about the properties but it seems certain it is not at all normal or held to normal laws.

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote: e303

Pile wrote:
e303 wrote:

It all breaks down in the end it seems...

I could say that you are not really an atheist because an atheist would take their lack of god argument and keep it in their hat. Once a lag of god concept is transfered by communication to another it becomes a concept of belief that is just as dogmatic as the Christian faith you seem to hate

As C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

As Pile puts it, "C.S. Lewis, that mysogynistic narcicisst, can blow me!"

Again, you aren't paying attention. This is Atheism 101: Atheism is not a belief or world view. Unlike dogmatic religions such as christianity, there are no "rules" regarding how an atheist is supposed to behave. There's no goddam atheist "Council of Nicea" where a bunch of us assembled a stupid book that says here's what you have to do to be an atheist.

There is a difference between an opinion, which can be considered a person's position on an issue, and a world view that is centered around very specific dogma.

If you don't understand this distinction, may I suggest you hit yourself in the head with a 2x4, wait a few moments and see if whatever is shaking around loose in your brain re-adjusts itself so your mind starts functioning better.

e303 wrote:

A riddle for you...

Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides.

Oooh, that's nice. I can add to that...

How much wood, could a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck on crack chucked wood?

e303 wrote:

Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being.

Ok, obviously, you need your medication adjusted or something. Seriously. It looks like you might have huffed too much Deepak Chorpa brand oven cleaner(tm).

e303 wrote:
The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being — if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

Which universe are you talking about? The one under your thumbnail, or the one in your crack pipe?

Seriously what are you smoking where your presupposition begins with claiming that you understand in its totality, the nature of the universe? Damn dude... you are like way out in la-la land. Seriously, what are you on? My guess is massive doses of lithium and zoloft.

 

Why the break down of normal communication? Agression without need = fear.

BTW I had to look up those meds you said I should take.  Keep them and let me put my points to you in another way.

Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi e303 What god are you

Hi e303

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote:e303

Mattness wrote:

e303 wrote:
God would be the only necessary being — if God existed.

Not the only one. You forget about Odin, Rah and the 397236 gods of the Aztecs. This in no way means that the asserted being (if it existed) is the christian god. Or rather it's pretty unlikely.

e303 wrote:
Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

The whole argument is based on the presupposition that

a) god exists AND

b) that he is the ONLY independent being that exists (good luck providing an argument for this, which isn't circular ie. quoting the bible).

And anyway, there are scientific hypotheses about how the universe came to be, which do not violate the laws of nature (eg. quantum fluctuation). It is not necessary that there must be a deity which created it.

Quantum Fluctuations may have indeed been a useful tool as a process in the creation of 4% of the material universe. Then again maybe not.  Either way it is an interesting idea that does not add nor detract from the ultimate questions.  Just for fun lets pick a fight with the Big Bang (though I think one occurred) just to place human knowledge of such things on the ground...From scienceagogo.com   In 1969, Russian scientists Rashid Sunyaev and Yakov Zel'dovich, predicted that galactic clusters - the largest organized structures in the universe - should in fact cast a shadow in the microwave background radiation. Clouds of free electrons in the these galactic clusters should bump into, and interact with, individual photons of microwave background radiation, deflecting them away from their original paths and creating the shadowing effect. But the UAH researchers, writing in the Astrophysical Journal, say the shadowing effect isn't being found where it should be. "If you see a shadow, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not," said Lieu. The UAH data shows a shadow effect of about one-quarter of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. "Either it [the microwave background] isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or... there is something else going on," said Lieu. (b) I am not here to convert anyone to any faith based cause.  I am here to place an decent argument that a God is at least plausible and there are some valid arguments and principles of thought for that position without need of a bible or a burning bush for everyone.  I also reject organized Atheism that charters ways to convert others to a non-belief becasue it then becomes a concept of belief.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

God is an answer to a question born of ignorance and superstition

? where does the wind come from. God made it

Science is an answer to a question born of rational examination

 ? where does the wind come from. it is mostly a difference in temperature between the land and the sea

If you answer the question with God then you don't need science

if you answer the question with science then you don't need God

God is an answer. that expects you not to question the answer

Science is an answer. that expects you to doubt and question the answer

The two are incompatible 

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

God is an answer to a question born of ignorance and superstition

? where does the wind come from. God made it

Science is an answer to a question born of rational examination

 ? where does the wind come from. it is mostly a difference in temperature between the land and the sea

If you answer the question with God then you don't need science

if you answer the question with science then you don't need God

God is an answer. that expects you not to question the answer

Science is an answer. that expects you to doubt and question the answer

The two are incompatible 

What point is there if you are going to ask and then answer yourself with "God made it as if everyone who thinks there is a god would answer that way?

Science and the persuit of a positive ID of a creator are hand in hand and should be.

So so far neither side can prove a thing but arguments are stacking.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
e303, Let's try something

e303, Let's try something new.

I am God.  I am your God.  Prove that I am not. 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:e303,

stuntgibbon wrote:

e303, Let's try something new.

I am God.  I am your God.  Prove that I am not. 

ok I will play.

I will even be brave and not hide in the cracks of saying I can't prove a false.

Here we go. Doubt cannot be feigned or created for the purpose of conducting philosophical inquiry. Doubt, like belief, requires justification. It arises from confrontation with some specific recalcitrant matter of fact which unsettles our belief in some specific proposition. Inquiry is then the rationally self-controlled process of attempting to return to a settled state of belief about the matter.

Here is a mathematical theorem: There is no largest prime number. And here is a proof:

Consider the list of all primes, pi, starting with p1 = 2. Suppose that there is a largest prime, p*. Then there are only a finite number of primes. Now consider the number X that we obtain by multiplying together all of the primes pi (exactly once each) from 2 to p* and adding 1 to the result. Then X is clearly larger than any of the primes pi. But it is not divisible by any of them, since dividing by any of them yields a remainder 1. Therefore X, since it has no prime factors, is prime. We have thus constructed a prime larger than p*, which is a contradiction. Therefore there is no largest prime.

Here is a scientific belief: General relativity accurately describes gravity within the solar system. And here is the argument for it:

GR incorporates both the relativity of locally inertial frames and the principle of equivalence, both of which have been tested to many decimal places. Einstein’s equation is the simplest possible non-trivial dynamical equation for the curvature of spacetime. GR explained a pre-existing anomaly — the precession of Mercury — and made several new predictions, from the deflection of light to gravitational redshift and time delay, which have successfully been measured. Higher-precision tests from satellites continue to constrain any possible deviations from GR. Without taking GR effects into account, the Global Positioning System would rapidly go out of whack, and by including GR it works like a charm. All of the known alternatives are more complicated than GR, or introduce new free parameters that must be finely-tuned to agree with experiment. Furthermore, we can start from the idea of massless spin-two gravitons coupled to energy and momentum, and show that the nonlinear completion of such a theory leads to Einstein’s equation. Although the theory is not successfully incorporated into a quantum-mechanical framework, quantum effects are expected to be unobservably small in present-day experiments. In particular, higher-order corrections to Einstein’s equation should naturally be suppressed by powers of the Planck scale.

You see the difference, I hope. The mathematical proof is airtight; it’s just a matter of following the rules of logic. It is impossible for us to conceive of a world in which we grant the underlying assumptions, and yet the conclusion doesn’t hold.

The argument in favor of believing general relativity — a scientific one, not a mathematical one — is of an utterly different character. It’s all about hypothesis testing, and accumulating better and better pieces of evidence.

Hypothesis (A ) A god path

Hypothosis (B) A non-god path

Descartes discovered that some truths have a nature or essence of themselves, completely independent of one's thoughts or opinions.

lol Some ideas about killing you Head Bash and seeing if you cameback did roll though my head. Now that I think about it, beliefs that lead to the best "payoff", that are the best justification of our actions, that promote success, are truths, according to the pragmatists. So I would die trying to kill you and gage your reaction to my actions.

The criticism that we don't now know what happens in the long run (can I kill you or no & did you react and how) merely shows we have a problem with knowledge, but it doesn't show that the meaning of "true" doesn't now involve hindsight from the perspective of the future and thus lend evidence of what is true.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: What point is

e303 wrote:

What point is there if you are going to ask and then answer yourself with "God made it as if everyone who thinks there is a god would answer that way?

Science and the persuit of a positive ID of a creator are hand in hand and should be.

So so far neither side can prove a thing but arguments are stacking.

 Well e303 This is your default answer isn't it ? God did it

 Especially in your misuse and out of date use of quantum physics / quantum mechanics. God did it

Some of the theories you have used to express doubt and uncertainty. have been resolved. undoubtedly the God did it has fully resolved the doubt and uncertainty and these questions no longer occupy your mind because of the answer "God did it"

 Although this is hardly a unique approach. history is resplendent with it

fortunately for you and me there have been people that didn't except the God did it answer. or else we'd still be throwing stones at our own shadows and dying of old age at twenty three

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Hi e303

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?

Did you miss this question ?  

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?

 

 

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:e303

Rev_Devilin wrote:
e303 wrote:

What point is there if you are going to ask and then answer yourself with "God made it as if everyone who thinks there is a god would answer that way?

Science and the persuit of a positive ID of a creator are hand in hand and should be.

So so far neither side can prove a thing but arguments are stacking.

 Well e303 This is your default answer isn't it ? God did it

 Especially in your misuse and out of date use of quantum physics / quantum mechanics. God did it

Some of the theories you have used to express doubt and uncertainty. have been resolved. undoubtedly the God did it has fully resolved the doubt and uncertainty and these questions no longer occupy your mind because of the answer "God did it"

 Although this is hardly a unique approach. history is resplendent with it

fortunately for you and me there have been people that didn't except the God did it answer. or else we'd still be throwing stones at our own shadows and dying of old age at twenty three

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Hi e303

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?

Did you miss this question ?  

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?

I am talking about a creator of all things and I grew up Christian. 

Maybe God just started it. Fisrt cause >>> effect >> effect >> effect ... ect.

From a magical nothing leaped everything from it is just as fun as a counter to me don't you think?

 So god did it vs magical nothing did it.  Simply choose and move forward to support it.

BTW - You did know the examples I gave were simply to demo the two versions of understanding and not be the best and most comprehensive insight to those examples.  The lesson of the diffferences that both seem to have truth and yet.... was the point.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:stuntgibbon

e303 wrote:
stuntgibbon wrote:

e303, Let's try something new.

I am God.  I am your God.  Prove that I am not. 

ok I will play.

I will even be brave and not hide in the cracks of saying I can't prove a false.

Here we go. Doubt cannot be feigned or created for the purpose of conducting philosophical inquiry. Doubt, like belief, requires justification. It arises from confrontation with some specific recalcitrant matter of fact which unsettles our belief in some specific proposition. Inquiry is then the rationally self-controlled process of attempting to return to a settled state of belief about the matter.

Here is a mathematical theorem: There is no largest prime number. And here is a proof:

Consider the list of all primes, pi, starting with p1 = 2. Suppose that there is a largest prime, p*. Then there are only a finite number of primes. Now consider the number X that we obtain by multiplying together all of the primes pi (exactly once each) from 2 to p* and adding 1 to the result. Then X is clearly larger than any of the primes pi. But it is not divisible by any of them, since dividing by any of them yields a remainder 1. Therefore X, since it has no prime factors, is prime. We have thus constructed a prime larger than p*, which is a contradiction. Therefore there is no largest prime.

Here is a scientific belief: General relativity accurately describes gravity within the solar system. And here is the argument for it:

GR incorporates both the relativity of locally inertial frames and the principle of equivalence, both of which have been tested to many decimal places. Einstein’s equation is the simplest possible non-trivial dynamical equation for the curvature of spacetime. GR explained a pre-existing anomaly — the precession of Mercury — and made several new predictions, from the deflection of light to gravitational redshift and time delay, which have successfully been measured. Higher-precision tests from satellites continue to constrain any possible deviations from GR. Without taking GR effects into account, the Global Positioning System would rapidly go out of whack, and by including GR it works like a charm. All of the known alternatives are more complicated than GR, or introduce new free parameters that must be finely-tuned to agree with experiment. Furthermore, we can start from the idea of massless spin-two gravitons coupled to energy and momentum, and show that the nonlinear completion of such a theory leads to Einstein’s equation. Although the theory is not successfully incorporated into a quantum-mechanical framework, quantum effects are expected to be unobservably small in present-day experiments. In particular, higher-order corrections to Einstein’s equation should naturally be suppressed by powers of the Planck scale.

You see the difference, I hope. The mathematical proof is airtight; it’s just a matter of following the rules of logic. It is impossible for us to conceive of a world in which we grant the underlying assumptions, and yet the conclusion doesn’t hold.

The argument in favor of believing general relativity — a scientific one, not a mathematical one — is of an utterly different character. It’s all about hypothesis testing, and accumulating better and better pieces of evidence.

Hypothesis (A ) A god path

Hypothosis (B) A non-god path

Descartes discovered that some truths have a nature or essence of themselves, completely independent of one's thoughts or opinions.

lol Some ideas about killing you Head Bash and seeing if you cameback did roll though my head. Now that I think about it, beliefs that lead to the best "payoff", that are the best justification of our actions, that promote success, are truths, according to the pragmatists. So I would die trying to kill you and gage your reaction to my actions.

The criticism that we don't now know what happens in the long run (can I kill you or no & did you react and how) merely shows we have a problem with knowledge, but it doesn't show that the meaning of "true" doesn't now involve hindsight from the perspective of the future and thus lend evidence of what is true.


Oh silly human.  You must simply not understand my ways, for you to exhibit such disbelief.  Some things are outside the reasoning of your natural world you know, and since you don't have full knowledge of everything you cannot rule out the possibility I'm your God.  Killing me would prove nothing, since you're simply tempting my will and I may not even care to come back.  People all over your world claim to have a personal experience with God, and I tell you they've all had this personal experience because I control the entire cosmos and really have great interest in your moment to moment thoughts.  


Btw, the eternal torment I created is way worse than anything ever envisioned by the whole of religion on earth. So, you know, I'm not sure you want to play those odds.  Believe that I'm God, or you'll never know anything but suffering.



P.S. I love everything. 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pretty entertaining.

Pretty entertaining. Smiling

Intuitively the idea of a proof is it's just a verification of something. In experimental science, you verify truth by performing an experiment. Until that then everyone has to make a choice of belief.  err.. which is what I have always said.

Still claiming you are God does make your statement falsifiable

 "God does exist" is unfalsifiable, while saying "I am god." is falsifiable.

Though I am only able to experiment with your head with the transfer of ideas.  This does not preclude the knowledge required to prove your statement false or true cannot be found.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Hi e303

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?

e303 wrote:

I am talking about a creator of all things and I grew up Christian.

Are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ? ie Christianish god which you can described better than the Bible ?

Or the Christian deity himself as described in the Bible. and if so which one? Catholic Protestant Seventh-day Adventists Jehovah's Witness, Normans ect ect ect ect

Could you be more specific ? pls

 

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Hi e303

What god are you referring to ? specifically

Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?

e303 wrote:

I am talking about a creator of all things and I grew up Christian.

Are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ? ie Christianish god which you can described better than the Bible ?

Or the Christian deity himself as described in the Bible. and if so which one? Catholic Protestant Seventh-day Adventists Jehovah's Witness, Normans ect ect ect ect

Could you be more specific ? pls

 

 

I accept the biblical values though I understand the bible was written by men.  To me the intention of the scripture is to transfer some of those values and ways of thinking along with some historical accounting of life and lives of the past but certainly not all lives and life on earth.

Free will allows me to place spiritual value along with historical value of a document.

I think evloution did happen and I think not ALL animals were on a boat with noah etc. ect.

If you wish I can say the sky is blue and you can refute that postion and say it only appears to be.  I will say fine and you are right.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


ajay333
Theist
ajay333's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
TO: Any 'professing atheist'

{Edit - deleted for spam}


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
ajay333, there is good

ajay333, there is good reason why the thread is in trollville... you might want to contemplate about that. Smiling

You demonstrated very "elegantly" that you have no clue what the definition of atheism is in the first post.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: I accept the

e303 wrote:

I accept the biblical values though I understand the bible was written by men. To me the intention of the scripture is to transfer some of those values and ways of thinking along with some historical accounting of life and lives of the past but certainly not all lives and life on earth.

Free will allows me to place spiritual value along with historical value of a document.

I think evloution did happen and I think not ALL animals were on a boat with noah etc. ect.

If you wish I can say the sky is blue and you can refute that postion and say it only appears to be. I will say fine and you are right.

Smiling indeed color is perceived by the mind

So far we have a god roughly based upon the Judaic Christian biblical scripture ? is this correct

But which biblical scriptures ? the original roman Catholic Bible. or would you include all biblical scriptures from before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church ?

 


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:
Quantum Fluctuations may have indeed been a useful tool as a process in the creation of 4% of the material universe. Then again maybe not.

Please, you obviously have no knowledge of these hypotheses. A quantum fluctuation would have caused the entire universe, not only the visible matter, but space and time itself. Plain and simple, the entire universe (including all matter and energy). I was pointing out in my earlier post that you propose a false dichotomy, either there is a creator or the universe always existed. You didn't take the possibility of a natural origin into account.

e303 wrote:
Either way it is an interesting idea that does not add nor detract from the ultimate questions.

I thought the ultimate question is the origin of the universe, please explain how this has nothing to do with the topic...

Also the quote about the CBR (which is nearly half a century old, the first precise measurement of the CBR began almost 10 years later) doesn't do anything to contribute to this discussion.

e303 wrote:
(b) I am not here to convert anyone to any faith based cause. I am here to place an decent argument that a God is at least plausible and there are some valid arguments and principles of thought for that position without need of a bible or a burning bush for everyone. I also reject organized Atheism that charters ways to convert others to a non-belief becasue it then becomes a concept of belief.

To place a decent argument for 'god' you first have to define what 'god' you're talking about. You seem to be talking about a deistic god, which frankly is not at all comparable to the notion of a theistic god, moreover if you want to establish god as 'the uncaused cause' and 'prime mover', you'll have to clearly answer following questions first, everything else would renders your argumentation meaningless:

Dan Barker wrote:

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

  1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
    • If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
    • If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
  2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
    • If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
    • If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
  3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
    • If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

In the absence of good answers to these questions, we must dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

It'd be awesome if you could adress my complete posts in the future and not cherry pick the parts you like. Eye-wink

 

 

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
sigh.. Is it really so

sigh.. Is it really so hard?

Quantum fluctuations = a creation chain of process.

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause. The process is NOT the cause.

 

I will get to the other part f you question later (tonight or tomorrow).  Real life has its obligations and battle hungry athiest are not really a priority.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I will read all text

I will read all text concerning the topic of creation.   I have not been to "church" in years.  The funny thing is I could careless about athiest or their new non-admitted religion until the silly debate caught my attention.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

 "I had no need of that hypothesis."

~Pierre-Simon Laplace in reply to Napoleon Bonaparte after being asked why he did not mention the creator in his book regarding the system of the universe. 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Pretty

e303 wrote:

Pretty entertaining. Smiling

Intuitively the idea of a proof is it's just a verification of something. In experimental science, you verify truth by performing an experiment. Until that then everyone has to make a choice of belief.  err.. which is what I have always said.

Still claiming you are God does make your statement falsifiable

 "God does exist" is unfalsifiable, while saying "I am god." is falsifiable.

Though I am only able to experiment with your head with the transfer of ideas.  This does not preclude the knowledge required to prove your statement false or true cannot be found.


You forgot you can't measure my other-dimensional self, which is the part with the "real" powers. I suppose the point is still the same.   
The theist logic loop:I make a series of untestable assertions.  Then I claim then because you can't test them at all in "our" world, there's no way you can know they are untrue.  Therefore, they are true.

Basically each time you poke a hole in this loop, I can add a new story/excuse to the loop to encompass that.  


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:

It is very difficult to reconcile dark matter and energy with the known laws of nature. So far the only thing that seems to interact with dark matter is gravity but even then not in a normal way. There is indeed much speculation about the properties but it seems certain it is not at all normal or held to normal laws.

And what? Since we don't understand something.. let me guess...

GODDIDIT!

Think about that.

Think about how the whole notion of "god" as a concept to explain the unknown makes science and progress grind to a halt, and honestly ask yourself, even if faith and science can co-exist, should they be anywhere near each other?

What has the church done to further the comfort and security of humankind since its inception, compared with science?  And how many times has religion tried to stop scientific research and progress? 


Arigato
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Why can't science and God co-exist

At this point in time, what we term science is a vast collection of testable hypotheses that haven't yet proven false. This is how we explore and define the universe.

Something must be testable BEFORE being deemed unfalsifiable. In that regard He is only a hypothesis.

If the God concept became a testable, unfalsifiable theory, it would negate science as merely arguments that try to explain God's will (assuming, as most religions do, that God tinkers with the universe on an ongoing basis).

They could only co-exist if an unfalsifiable God set up the rules of the universe and then stayed out of it, but at that point what's the different between that scenario and no God at all?


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: sigh.. Is it

e303 wrote:

sigh.. Is it really so hard?

Quantum fluctuations = a creation chain of process.

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause. The process is NOT the cause.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote:Dan Barker

Mattness wrote:

Dan Barker wrote:

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

  1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
    • If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
    • If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
  2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
    • If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
    • If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
  3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
    • If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

In the absence of good answers to these questions, we must dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god.

I disagree...

It should be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.

Using Occam's Razor like the book of all answers will not help as it is no answer but a guess that is not without its own set of cracks. While I agree, Occam was a great thinker, I doubt he would make a huge leap of faith and claim the universe just existed. He was also human and even in his day had his own critics and contradictions.

Stephen Hawking explains:

"Empirical evidence is also required and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against it."

Let's turn to a chap by the name of Walter Chatton.

He stated:

"If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on." - This is pretty good and more often right because it does not allow for being wrong.

Today, Occam's razor is the more popular one because it allows everyone a guess but no empirical answer.

Lets combine the two in the sake of human progress.

"In science when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions it is often useful to guess simply and act on that guess until no new guesses are needed."

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Stephen Hawking

e303 wrote:
Stephen Hawking explains

Oh dear quoting Stephen Hawking is truly scraping the bottom of the physics barrel. he is a celebrity and his ideas are still taken seriously by the general public.but virtually nobody in the physics community has taken him seriously for ages

And a god did it hypothesis. for the creation of the universe. 

? How did this god come into existence

If it is feasible to assumen that this God created himself. then it must also be feasible that the universe created itself.

Although personally I believe the answer unknown at this time. would be a more applicable answer

 Anyway who is this god you keep referring to ?

Your definition so far ---- a god that is roughly based upon the Judaic Christian biblical scripture ? is this correct

But which biblical scriptures ? the original roman Catholic Bible. or would you include all biblical scriptures from before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church ?

 


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Lets combine

e303 wrote:

Lets combine the two in the sake of human progress.

"In science when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions it is often useful to guess simply and act on that guess until no new guesses are needed."


"Exactly the same"? Yeah... no.
Prediction 1: The universe just existsPrediction 2: The Flying Spaghetti Monster just exists and in turn created the universe
One of these things is not like the other. One postulates the plausable idea that matter is axiomatic. The other invokes pixie dust. I personally find it a much smaller "leap of faith" to go with the first rather than the second. No "guess" necessary.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:
e303 wrote:

Lets combine the two in the sake of human progress.

"In science when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions it is often useful to guess simply and act on that guess until no new guesses are needed."


"Exactly the same"? Yeah... no.
Prediction 1: The universe just existsPrediction 2: The Flying Spaghetti Monster just exists and in turn created the universe
One of these things is not like the other. One postulates the plausable idea that matter is axiomatic. The other invokes pixie dust. I personally find it a much smaller "leap of faith" to go with the first rather than the second. No "guess" necessary.

During the last 3 years we have learned as much as 96% of the universe is hidden but verified by calculation, prediction and lensing.  I understand there are those who will deny this evidence for their own reasons and arguments. All well and fine.

In my opinion person leaning on science and discovery can make all statements they like about 4% of the known observable universe and its properties should probably leave off from there as it all then turns to err...um... pixie dust or whatever you want to call the rest.

My message: If you are going to use science you should not use it where it verifiably has not ventured nor verified any variables needed to sustain any creation arguments that entail all the latest discoveries about the nature and contents of the universe.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:e303

Rev_Devilin wrote:

e303 wrote:
Stephen Hawking explains

Oh dear quoting Stephen Hawking is truly scraping the bottom of the physics barrel. he is a celebrity and his ideas are still taken seriously by the general public.but virtually nobody in the physics community has taken him seriously for ages

And a god did it hypothesis. for the creation of the universe. 

? How did this god come into existence

If it is feasible to assumen that this God created himself. then it must also be feasible that the universe created itself.

Although personally I believe the answer unknown at this time. would be a more applicable answer

 Anyway who is this god you keep referring to ?

Your definition so far ---- a god that is roughly based upon the Judaic Christian biblical scripture ? is this correct

But which biblical scriptures ? the original roman Catholic Bible. or would you include all biblical scriptures from before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church ?

If you wish to give me the history lesson about how some thing in the bible were left out and how men created the bible, x about of years, after the fact etc. ect. ect. It will be nothing new.

Once again I grew up as a Christian and so the God of Abraham. I have not been to church since I was a child so I at 35 I don't think I am qualified to speak on the text or traditions though I am well read in many religious studies.

I stand before you stating a creator (god) is plausible. I once thought I was atheist in high school and continued to think this during most of my time in the military. As an infantry soldier a lot of time passes in the field with one's own thoughts. At some time I questioned whether or not I could really intuitively think there was not a cause of all things. A creator concept that took me back to my early childhood was the clear picture at the time.

Shortly after the first gulf war, I decided to explore these idea in college a bit more. Since then I have analyzed and evaluated the strong conceptual position and irrational claim, "The universe simply exist." and found it wanting. You need more support to make a claim of conviction or you are just saying it out of personal belief in light of all that is unknown about the universe and its contents.

At that time, I accepted I was probably closer to the agnostic belief but decided to continue exploring my thoughts about these subjects and let the chips fall where they may.

So I simply started taking both religion and science to task for answers about creation starting at normal matter and time creation.  It is, after all, the place where science and many religions meet. I did this for most of my college years and found no real answers but instead more questions. Still it was not a waste as I did come away with some interesting and at times eclectic lines of thought to continue to explore the question about ultimate creation.

Today, I am all for people believing what they want. Intuitively I believe there is a first cause creator which does open the doors for further exploration and explanation and possibilities. It is without question belief that offers less mental protection from our own ponderance tendencies but is the most logical path without empirical evidence.

That said I believe there must have been a first cause because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.

Additionally as scientific discovery moves forward, we are faced with more answers about the nature and make up of the universe. So much so that any conclusion about the actual nature of most of the universe and its properties are in question. The laws we held to be so true to everything are now very valid but as it turns out valid about almost nothing.

Simply, no one can use science to explain away god if they are honest about the most current scientific discoveries and several contradictory hypothesis that have stemmed from experiment and observations.

I will state again that I am not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking or any faith based cause including the atheistic faith based cause that has manifested itself on websites like this one. I am here however, to place an decent argument that a creator god is plausible and to test if a god can be further validated by diminishing the self-proclaimed atheist arguments that deny a god's existence.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:During the

e303 wrote:

During the last 3 years we have learned as much as 96% of the universe is hidden but verified by calculation, prediction and lensing? I understand there are those who will deny this evidence for their own reasons and arguments. All well and fine.

In my opinion person leaning on science and discovery can make all statements they like about 4% of the known observable universe and its properties should probably leave off from there as it all then turns to err...um... pixie dust or whatever you want to call the rest.

Not sure where the 96% figure comes from. In any case, sounds like you worship the God of the Gaps. You're welcome to him, just keep him out of my science books.

 

e303 wrote:
My message: If you are going to use science you should not use it where it verifiably has not ventured nor verified any variables needed to sustain any creation arguments that entail all the latest discoveries about the nature and contents of the universe.

Unless I gravely misunderstand your message, it's essentially  either a defeatist position in regards to scientific progress or an elaborate God Of the Gaps argument. I will concede there is a lot we don't know about the universe. However, given the history of inquiry, I can more than safely assume that when the "ultimate answers" eventually fall into place (if religious nuts don't nuke us off the planet first),  they will be coming from the same place they've been coming from since the Enlightenment. In the meantime, saying "Goddidit" helps neither of us.


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

Not sure where the 96% figure comes from. In any case, sounds like you worship the God of the Gaps. You're welcome to him, just keep him out of my science books.

When a theist starts talking about dark matter and black holes, you know those gaps are getting mighty small.

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote: Eight Foot

Pile wrote:
Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

Not sure where the 96% figure comes from. In any case, sounds like you worship the God of the Gaps. You're welcome to him, just keep him out of my science books.

When a theist starts talking about dark matter and black holes, you know those gaps are getting mighty small.

 

Let's start a new thread about the God of Gaps tagline and how its use undermines your postion in a week or so.  I am launching some new bussiness aps this week and may not have time to get to it.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:

If you wish to give me the history lesson about how some thing in the bible were left out and how men created the bible, x about of years, after the fact etc. ect. ect. It will be nothing new.

Once again I grew up as a Christian and so the God of Abraham. I have not been to church since I was a child so I at 35 I don't think I am qualified to speak on the text or traditions though I am well read in many religious studies.

God of Abraham. thee impossible God, quite literally this God cannot exist it is a false God

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_omnis_the_bible_assertions_of_the_christian_gods_omnipotence_omniscience

Would you care to try another God ?

Personally I'd suggest you try this one aša undoubtedly being a well read scholar of religious studies you would kown the significance of this God in relationship to Abraham.

Or would you like to create your own personal God out of your imagination. this would make your God far more flexible

Our knowledge of the universe is still quite limited. but this is hardly surprising considering we'd only got around to inventing digital watches 30 years ago. and religion severely hampered mankind's early progress. the Catholic Church band the use of 0 (zero) on pain of death for ages. but this is only one tiny example of how religion hampered mankind's progress. and it's still doing it's best hamper mankind's progress today

There are still lots of unknowns. now we either say you're imaginary God explains this unknown. and we can all go home in contented ignorance. or we can call it unknown and try our best to make it known for the benefit of mankind

So e303 which will you choose

My imaginary God explains everything

Or unknown at the present time

Make your decision


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin - I have tried

Rev_Devilin -

I have tried to answer most of the questions on this post. If I have missed some, my apologies and it is mostly due to time. All I can say is take your fight with religion to someone else. It is not my place to fight over religious text or practice or belief. while I have said this many times I do think a creator exist. This belief allows me to think also there are answers to the all legends and lore about creation, the universe and existence as well as my own personal understanding and convictions that I have neither the time nor desire to explain to you.

I will say I am not here for the sake of arguments sake but to dispel the Atheist arguments

I gave you my answer about my faith and history and it is enough. I can't answer your canned questions because I don't think the "God of Gaps" tagline holds water in light of The Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Here is why:

"The proposition there exists a space-time that contains a quantum mechanical vacuum meets the two conditions for being a sufficient reason for there are contingent concrete objects (which is logically equivalent to there are positive contingent truths).

Since the concept of a quantum mechanical vacuum analytically entails that it is a source of virtual particles, which are a species of contingent concrete objects, the sufficient reason mentioned relevantly entails there are contingent concrete objects."

For example, there may be a sufficient reason why there are particles rather than no particles at all. But that does not imply there is a sufficient reason for the existence of each particle or if any of these particals are found in most of the material universe.

"Indeed, PSR is necessarily true if God necessarily exists or if space-time necessarily exists and contingently contains a quantum mechanical vacuum. If PSR is necessarily true, part of the “mystery of being” is unveiled, namely, the mystery of why there are any positive, contingent truths at all, rather than no positive, contingent truths.

All this aside, which if you understand it, you will see it is a better explanation than the magical nothing that gave us everything. Your very own "no-god gap".

You don't have to like it or accept it but you will be hard pressed to change the logic of it without evoking personal feelings and your own set of beliefs. Faith in the great nothing.

Here are the actual choices we have if we are not to pick from personal feeling and faith:

1) A magical creator.

2) A magical non-creator

Part of my justification for #1 is written above.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

Science and a literal interpetation of scripture and dogma cannot coexist. Remove the dogma and you can compartmentalize your brain to the point where both are compatable.

I certainly don't see that as ideal or necessarily logical, but it is possible, I've seen it.

In fact, and I've said it numersous times, if theists wish to hang onto their beliefs in the long term, they MUST reconcile said beliefs with science. That means refraining from moralistic judgements, applying scripture to things that science explains suffiently well, etc.

You can still have, "how did we get here" and "what happens when we die" - at least for now (though I do think both of these questions are already answered to a satisfactory degree). You cannot have ridiculous things like literal six day creation and what not - at least not without being looked at as a fool.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Mattness

e303 wrote:
Mattness wrote:

Dan Barker wrote:

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

  1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
    • If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
    • If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
  2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
    • If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
    • If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
  3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
    • If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

In the absence of good answers to these questions, we must dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god.

I disagree...

It should be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.

I should add that it was you who claimed Kalams argument. You basically just stated that the notion of a theistic prime mover is gibberish and hell I'm glad to hear this from a theist! Smiling

And you seemed to have missed the little part I added at the end of my post

Mattness wrote:
It'd be awesome if you could adress my complete posts in the future and not cherry pick the parts you like. Eye-wink

e303 wrote:

Here are the actual choices we have if we are not to pick from personal feeling and faith:

1) A magical creator.

2) A magical non-creator

Part of my justification for #1 is written above.

I've already pointed out that this is a false dichotomy. First off, magical or supernatural bears no meaning (http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts) and you're still using Kalams argument for a "creator" (singular), although you agreed that the argument is meaningless.

How did you come to the conclusion that these are the only "actual" choices? How did you rule out all natural explanations and how do you think this negative claim is provable (which frankly is impossible)?

e303 wrote:

During the last 3 years we have learned as much as 96% of the universe is hidden but verified by calculation, prediction and lensing? I understand there are those who will deny this evidence for their own reasons and arguments. All well and fine.

How does the existance of dark matter / energy work for the argument of a god? It seems like a plain ol' argumentum ad ignorantiam. Does this make the unknown holy? I don't think so. Dark matter is as holy as photons are. Why? Photons don't interact with the strong force. Dark matter? Only interacts with gravity. Is this an argument for god? Nope.

e303 wrote:
In my opinion person leaning on science and discovery can make all statements they like about 4% of the known observable universe and its properties should probably leave off from there as it all then turns to err...um... pixie dust or whatever you want to call the rest.

Wow, I agree. We should stop all fruitful cosmological research! Since we couldn't possibly figure out how the universe works! No, we've neither observed nor proven the existence of dark matter and we aren't analysing how it interacts with galaxies. Such things just don't happen. We should have prayed for answers in the first place, yes. I'm sure god would share his infinite knowledge of dark matter with us. If he doesn't we just haven't prayed hard enough. Or maybe it's because of the gays and lesbians? */sarcasm off*

 

 

 

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote:e303

Mattness wrote:
e303 wrote:
Mattness wrote:

Dan Barker wrote:

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

  1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
    • If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
    • If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
  2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
    • If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
    • If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
  3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
    • If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

In the absence of good answers to these questions, we must dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god.

I disagree...

It should be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.

I should add that it was you who claimed Kalams argument. You basically just stated that the notion of a theistic prime mover is gibberish and hell I'm glad to hear this from a theist! Smiling

And you seemed to have missed the little part I added at the end of my post

Mattness wrote:
It'd be awesome if you could adress my complete posts in the future and not cherry pick the parts you like. Eye-wink

e303 wrote:

Here are the actual choices we have if we are not to pick from personal feeling and faith:

1) A magical creator.

2) A magical non-creator

Part of my justification for #1 is written above.

I've already pointed out that this is a false dichotomy. First off, magical or supernatural bears no meaning (http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts) and you're still using Kalams argument for a "creator" (singular), although you agreed that the argument is meaningless.

How did you come to the conclusion that these are the only "actual" choices? How did you rule out all natural explanations and how do you think this negative claim is provable (which frankly is impossible)?

e303 wrote:

During the last 3 years we have learned as much as 96% of the universe is hidden but verified by calculation, prediction and lensing? I understand there are those who will deny this evidence for their own reasons and arguments. All well and fine.

How does the existance of dark matter / energy work for the argument of a god? It seems like a plain ol' argumentum ad ignorantiam. Does this make the unknown holy? I don't think so. Dark matter is as holy as photons are. Why? Photons don't interact with the strong force. Dark matter? Only interacts with gravity. Is this an argument for god? Nope.

e303 wrote:
In my opinion person leaning on science and discovery can make all statements they like about 4% of the known observable universe and its properties should probably leave off from there as it all then turns to err...um... pixie dust or whatever you want to call the rest.

Wow, I agree. We should stop all fruitful cosmological research! Since we couldn't possibly figure out how the universe works! No, we've neither observed nor proven the existence of dark matter and we aren't analysing how it interacts with galaxies. Such things just don't happen. We should have prayed for answers in the first place, yes. I'm sure god would share his infinite knowledge of dark matter with us. If he doesn't we just haven't prayed hard enough. Or maybe it's because of the gays and lesbians? */sarcasm off*

Clearly missed my position.

I am all for God and science meeting.  In fact think they must.   I will let my arguments stand and the answer to your questions have been answered in this thread.   BTW dark matter has been verfied by calculation prediction and lensing. The point was if you can't test most of the make up of the universe with science you can't use science at this time to make any prediction about its origin, properties etc etc etc.   All the past eveidence arguments are great if you want to box everything on 4% of the total but it is clearly not science to do that. It is simply a belief and a guess and nothing more.  I think we should continue to seek answers in the new paths science has formed.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Science deals in asking

Science deals in asking answerabel questions and then goign about answering them. Any appeal to the miraculous necessarily lies outside of science. Yet any appeal to a non-miraculous god makes god irrelevant as the answers will lie inside the realm of science. Either way, god cannot be used to answer questions.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Science deals in asking

Science deals in asking answerabel questions and then goign about answering them. Any appeal to the miraculous necessarily lies outside of science. Yet any appeal to a non-miraculous god makes god irrelevant as the answers will lie inside the realm of science. Either way, god cannot be used to answer questions.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: Science

kmisho wrote:

Science deals in asking answerabel questions and then goign about answering them. Any appeal to the miraculous necessarily lies outside of science. Yet any appeal to a non-miraculous god makes god irrelevant as the answers will lie inside the realm of science. Either way, god cannot be used to answer questions.

 

No. Science starts with what is known to predict the unknown.  

Wiki -

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: kmisho

e303 wrote:
kmisho wrote:

Science deals in asking answerabel questions and then goign about answering them. Any appeal to the miraculous necessarily lies outside of science. Yet any appeal to a non-miraculous god makes god irrelevant as the answers will lie inside the realm of science. Either way, god cannot be used to answer questions.

 

No. Science starts with what is known to predict the unknown.

Wiki -

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

That's not true, science can investigate the unknown without prior knowledge. Guess what empiricism is all about... The quote you cited, does not support your viewpoint at all.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:
Mattness wrote:
e303 wrote:
Mattness wrote:

Dan Barker wrote:

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

  1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
    • If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
    • If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
  2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
    • If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
    • If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
  3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
    • If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

In the absence of good answers to these questions, we must dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god.

I disagree...

It should be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.

I should add that it was you who claimed Kalams argument. You basically just stated that the notion of a theistic prime mover is gibberish and hell I'm glad to hear this from a theist! Smiling

And you seemed to have missed the little part I added at the end of my post

Mattness wrote:
It'd be awesome if you could adress my complete posts in the future and not cherry pick the parts you like. Eye-wink

e303 wrote:

Here are the actual choices we have if we are not to pick from personal feeling and faith:

1) A magical creator.

2) A magical non-creator

Part of my justification for #1 is written above.

I've already pointed out that this is a false dichotomy. First off, magical or supernatural bears no meaning (http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts) and you're still using Kalams argument for a "creator" (singular), although you agreed that the argument is meaningless.

How did you come to the conclusion that these are the only "actual" choices? How did you rule out all natural explanations and how do you think this negative claim is provable (which frankly is impossible)?

e303 wrote:

During the last 3 years we have learned as much as 96% of the universe is hidden but verified by calculation, prediction and lensing? I understand there are those who will deny this evidence for their own reasons and arguments. All well and fine.

How does the existance of dark matter / energy work for the argument of a god? It seems like a plain ol' argumentum ad ignorantiam. Does this make the unknown holy? I don't think so. Dark matter is as holy as photons are. Why? Photons don't interact with the strong force. Dark matter? Only interacts with gravity. Is this an argument for god? Nope.

e303 wrote:
In my opinion person leaning on science and discovery can make all statements they like about 4% of the known observable universe and its properties should probably leave off from there as it all then turns to err...um... pixie dust or whatever you want to call the rest.

Wow, I agree. We should stop all fruitful cosmological research! Since we couldn't possibly figure out how the universe works! No, we've neither observed nor proven the existence of dark matter and we aren't analysing how it interacts with galaxies. Such things just don't happen. We should have prayed for answers in the first place, yes. I'm sure god would share his infinite knowledge of dark matter with us. If he doesn't we just haven't prayed hard enough. Or maybe it's because of the gays and lesbians? */sarcasm off*

Clearly missed my position.

I am all for God and science meeting. In fact think they must. I will let my arguments stand and the answer to your questions have been answered in this thread. BTW dark matter has been verfied by calculation prediction and lensing. The point was if you can't test most of the make up of the universe with science you can't use science at this time to make any prediction about its origin, properties etc etc etc. All the past eveidence arguments are great if you want to box everything on 4% of the total but it is clearly not science to do that. It is simply a belief and a guess and nothing more. I think we should continue to seek answers in the new paths science has formed.

I think it's you who is missing my point (not to mention that you have not answered any of my (relevant) questions).

e303 wrote:
the answer to your questions have been answered in this thread

Where?

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ask away....  

Ask away....

 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Mattness wrote: e303

Mattness wrote:
e303 wrote:
kmisho wrote:

Science deals in asking answerabel questions and then goign about answering them. Any appeal to the miraculous necessarily lies outside of science. Yet any appeal to a non-miraculous god makes god irrelevant as the answers will lie inside the realm of science. Either way, god cannot be used to answer questions.

 

No. Science starts with what is known to predict the unknown.

Wiki -

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

That's not true, science can investigate the unknown without prior knowledge. Guess what empiricism is all about... The quote you cited, does not support your viewpoint at all.

This definition of science from wiki is pretty damn bad. I can only suspect that afficianados of religion have been tinkering with it.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh for the love of a

Oh for the love of a magical nothing...

Steps of the Scientific Method Detailed Help for Each Step

Ask a Question: The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?

And, in order for the scientific method to answer the question it must be about something that you can measure.

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work:
"If _____[ this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen or explain [this]."

A hypothesis should be constructed in a way to help you answer your original question.

Test the Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: The experiment should tests whether a hypothesis is true or false. It is important the experiment to be a fair test. One conducts a fair test by making sure that they change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.

You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident or misread data.

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Once the hypothesis experiment is complete, one should collect the measurements and analyze them to see if the hypothesis is true or false.

Scientists often find that their hypothesis was false, and in such cases they will construct a new hypothesis starting the entire process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was true, they may want to test it again in a new way.

Communicate Your Results: by publishing the final report in a scientific journal or by presenting their results on a poster at a scientific meeting.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: I will say I

e303 wrote:


I will say I am not here for the sake of arguments sake but to dispel the Atheist arguments

Here is why:

"Indeed, PSR is necessarily true if God necessarily exists or if space-time necessarily exists and contingently contains a quantum mechanical vacuum.  if PSR is necessarily true, part of the “mystery of being” is unveiled, namely, the mystery of why there are any positive, contingent truths at all, rather than no positive, contingent truths.

All this aside, which if you understand it, you will see it is a better explanation than the magical nothing that gave us everything. Your very own "no-god gap".

You don't have to like it or accept it but you will be hard pressed to change the logic of it without evoking personal feelings and your own set of beliefs. Faith in the great nothing.

 "PSR" Principle of Sufficient Reason”,

" Each true proposition has a sufficient reason why it is true "

(1) God necessarily exists

(2) space-time necessarily exists

Please provide sufficient reason for this truth

Without evoking personal feelings your own set of beliefs or  Faith Smiling

Or conceded it as false

e303 I suggest you conceded it as false, unless you think you're not already over your head in this subject of metaphilosophy

And If you've going to use dark matter as a basis for your hypothesis, then please try to keep up with the latest events in quantum physics