|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Why can't science and God co-exist?
Posted on: May 18, 2007 - 5:37pm
  Offline
Why can't science and God co-exist?
I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist. Why not?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
The argument and my personal argument has been that god is plausible. My position holds. I cannot at this time prove a God nor can you trully state science is against the idea. so to sum it up I say YEs science and god can co-exist. Anyone on this forum have their own sustainable opinon?
The topic of this forum was can god and science co-exist. I have offered a sound argument that it can.
I have faith there is a god and many seem to have faith there is not one. No matter, science makes us centric, if unwilling partners, in discovery. And we all can agree more needs to be learned.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
First, this is in agreement with what I said: Science is about asking answerable questions.
One cannot appeal to god as an answer to a question...ever.
Second, there is nothing in here about "predicting the unknown" whatever that's supposed to mean anyway.
I'll give e303 a clue. There is nothing that needs to exist.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Ridiculous. If you are an honest person and assess all the evidence at your disposal, there is no choice to believe or not believe. The evidence points to it or it doens't it. You either affirm the current honestly obtained and reported findings, in which case you are being scientific, or you deny those findings, in which case you are NOT being scientific (or honest with yourself).
While I gather reasonable evidence
I will give you some food for thought on one better thinker than anyone I have had the pleasure to communicate with on this site.
I am leaving this site for a few days as I fly out of town for biz. No fear I will return because these things are futile, interesting and important all at the same time.
December 21, 2004
Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is considered the world's best-known atheist, cited advancements in science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Anthony Flew was WAAAAAAY off base with his diatribe. You are a fool to be fooled by it. The idea is so full of holes it's hard for me to even put myself on a level of thinking so badly as to be able to talk about it.
If that's the best you have, you have nothing...
K Michau -
While I'm firmly on your side of the discussion and support your previous answers, you cannot just dismiss Anthony Flew as being Waaaay off base without justifying it.
That's the issue we have with the believers here. Being dismissive of arguments against themselves without having the wit or wisdom to actually negate them.
Please don't fall into that trap.
I'm not familiar enough with his writing to know how he may be way off base, but would appreciate reading your rationale.
I am back and here we go...
1) People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
Argument against this: Those people are all wacked, needed more sleep or had a minor forms of epilepsy (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy TLE) and thus had such a sheer will to believe something they could convince people something is true and real without any actual evidence.
Reply to this counter argument: No one can offer any substantial claim of denial outside of their own unverified opinion about any person's eyewitness accounts. Do you have to believe them? No. This argument only affirms skeptics remain skeptical in light of eye witness accounts and some have such a sheer will to not-believe in something they could convince people something is untrue and not real without any actual evidence.
2) Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why do we have empathy and sympathy. Where does our sense of justice come from? Why does it exist?
Argument against this: A few behavior studies have shown some social animals may have a sense of moral law citing that working together helps the species survive and thrive.
Reply to this counter argument: Animals do cooperate but to claim that any living thing other than a human has a sense of justice is simply wrong. Giving animals higher human qualities is called anthropomorphism. A common mistake of animal lovers everywhere.
3) The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Argument against this: They are likely eternal constructs or some part of them is. Why does the universe need a purpose? Nothing has shown us it does.
Reply to this counter argument: Nothing has shown that is does not though I agree natural laws are likely to contain eternal constructs the problem is most of the properties and conditions what is constructed of is unknown. I would further argue the point that the universe has indeed shown us things are connected and have in many cases, more often than not, had reasons for things being like they are. Given we have developed some ways of measuring intelligence absent of communication along with greater and greater scientific discovery coupled with forensic archaeology it is plausible evidence of an intelligent creator can be found that will satisfy the skeptical.
4) Observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused.
Argument against this: have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempt to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.
Reply to this counter argument: "All hail he multi and magical nothings." Since there is no evidence supporting this idea of multiverse (nor can there be, according to the laws of our universe it seems), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful design of the universe makes much more sense.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Counter counter argument. Relativism. animals display a relative sense of justice as selectively relevant to their own species survival as our sense of justice is to our own species survival.
Ack.... Occams Axe strikes again hacking off the leg with the toenail. I am justified in my distaste of the "hail parsimony" mantra.
The multiverse isn't all magical nothing, of course and there is indupitable evidence supporting the existence of something described precisely by the hypothesis of multiverse, but you're right, to conceive of a 'multiverse' you have to assume more than appears to exist in a single observation, poor Occam rolls over groaning. On the other hand, go ahead, escape such a thing and continue scientific discovery in the field of physics....... waiting........
Can't happen because what does not appear to exist is definitely in the observation whether we like the succinctness of that or not. Occam will have to continue rolling; put away the axe; the multiverse, or in other words, the best coherent proposition for observed phenomenology of our universe is still the better choice of two.
Also, the quantum universe is not competing with the finite universe hypothesis, it overtook it long ago. The two are cleanly compatible, one leads to the other with very little loss of continuity.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Nice.
I'd say that it is a mistake to assume that the universe must accept the categories we place upon it. By this I mean to say that our world is a continuum, not a set of categories.
So we'd not expect to see a clear dividing line between ourselves an animal, just as we'd never expect to see a real line drawn across the equator.
So I'd say that we'd see a rudimentary form of 'justice' in simians... and we do... we see grudges, retribution, even a very basic form of hierarchial politics, as Sagan said, it's quite difficult to draw a real dividing line between humans and chimps.
As for the cosmological musings of "E", I suggest he read abook on cosmology before proceeding, but only if he really wants to learn something concerning the claims he makes... otherwise, the books would just get in the way of his assertions....
As for this quote:
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
I see this as an interesting confession from Lewis - he feels it doesn't explain itself. It's a poetic argument from ignorance and personal incredulity
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If you're already fooled by such incandescent nonsense, my debunking it won't change anything.
Relativism is correct and so is perspective. The rudimentary form of 'justice' is interpretive and most behaviorist if given a complete view of the animals experiences could explain the 'justice behavior' as a form of fear and self preservation. Example: The attack before attacked mentality.
Animals "sense" of justice is more about our interpretation of the observation but to think a great ape who lost his brother in a forage/hunt to a specific big cat would hunt down that very cat to enact revenge on it would indeed be something to see.
Reason: Remove the cat from sight is to reduce or remove the fear of being harmed.
In fact, even if we had a great ape that showed this (and we don't) it would not prove anything as simple comparisons between humans and the anthropoid apes are highly informative about behavior in general, it would be wrong to try and make sense of this small taxonomic group’s characteristics without taking a broader comparative perspective that encompasses the two hundred other extant primate species.
Great cosmology dig but what is the point of rereading what is dated and irrelevant to my arguments.
Cosmology 2007 is where I would like to stay.
A finite universal argument really hinges upon how much matter is present in the universe, which determines whether the universe is "closed" or "open." It does appear today that dark matter (predicted and verified via lensing) tips the hat toward a closed and thus a finite universe. Ignore this if you wish.
The poetic argument from ignorance and personal incredulity is exactly where we all stand though on opposite sides of the fence at times.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
The observational problem would have to apply to (other) humans too. If you consider yourself just, the only person you could be sure about is you. That you observe similar justice-like behavior in other people doesn't mean they are doing anything other than following instinct. Appeals to solipsism never solve anything.
You're picking and choosing. There are, by obersavtion, ethics shared between apes and humans. You come up with one example, say this is the case for us but not for them, and thereby conclude that the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater...and even then all the similarities can be discounted because they are interpretive. With standards like this, you should believe in absolutely nothing.
Reply 1: No. We can communicate our inner thoughts and feelings, ask questions balance answers about human behavior and thus add to the observation.
Reply 2: I am not picking and choosing. Give me some clear applied ethics examples shared between apes.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
The hat tips back and forward all the time, sweating on which way it goes to prove or disprove god is a bit faithless don't you think? The hall of mirrors does not make microscopic quantum theory a dead issue. The results must reconcile with each other to be any brand of accurate cosmology regardless. If you ask me how do I like my quantum coherence I don't say gone forever preferably because it threatens my God and neither will I say that about Dark Matter clumps or their respective ageness. Nothing threatens my God, it's only my ideas that are questioned and that's the way I like it.
You say that the finite universe argument hinges of the amount of matter there is in the universe, but that is precisely the reason multiverses are an essential composite to the problem, how are we accurately identifying matter in the universe? It's nice to have faith in your definitions but once they no longer function as definitions your faith is consciously misplaced. Regardless of where the hat tips, we reconcile truth with truth. No God I'd believe in would require me to throw any of it out for his vain sake.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Not faithless at all. I have always held that the big bang needed a banger. I still do and a finite universe leans toward a need to be caused. (banger?)
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
? how did this banger come into existence
Another banger ? and what created this other banger
Another banger
And so on infinitely but this would be silly
Unless you state the banger is self creating
And if you do then the universe itself can be self creating removing the need for a banger
Which will it be e303 ?
Easy.
Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
And how did this God of your imagination. come into existence ?
1) No we can't! You are only sure about you. Your observations about what other people do are interpretive.
2) There are many excellent books on the subject, probably none of which you have ever read. I invite you to read them. Otherwise, I am not being paid to be your remedial tutor.
Weak answers kmisho.
Once agan, if we had a great ape that showed true ethics (and we don't) it would not prove anything as simple comparisons between humans and the anthropoid apes are highly informative about behavior in general, it would be wrong to try and make sense of this small taxonomic group’s characteristics without taking a broader comparative perspective that encompasses the two hundred other extant primate species.
If you think not step up and present.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
God has no need to have been created, since God exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of a plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the skeptic is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
Its all about belief.
Faith based systems. God exists = faith BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE = A God does not exits = faith.
Where did our non-god go?
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Even something outside our own universe thus outside our time would not automatically become eternal that's just silly, a point of creation is still needed. thus if this God of your's has "never been created " then he doesn't exist
You've just killed Him off
Unless you wish to invoke a point of creation for this god. and subsequently a creator for this god say another god and so on indefinitely.
So ? should I worship God number 34 or 1034 or 10000000034
Or the nonexistent god that you've just killed off ?
Tricky decision
lets cover all species in you're desperately needed education
lesson one fish
Altruism and ethics of fish
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060621_rude_fish.html
lesson two will commence once you've absorbed and understood the above information
Please explain exactly what you mean by "outside time".
Hence walrus cock.
The universe as we know it began at that time. It could have existed in another state or states before hand.
I wouldn't say "never", but I'd say we're more likely to discover evidence for an eternal universe than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sorry, no. There is no such thing as having a belief in a non-belief.
Legoland.
And your answers are typical creationsit dodges. No matter what are the findings od science, you will forever cry 'the evidence isn't in, the evidence isn't in' and push the criteria for the evidence being in farther out than they already are.
1) When I said "No we can't! You are only sure about you. Your observations about what other people do are interpretive" I was using YOUR OWN LOGIC. In denying my answer you have denied your own answer. It's called contradicition.
In fact, when you said "Animals 'sense' of justice is more about our interpretation of the observation" you pushed the evidential criteria out to infinity. I'm forced to conclude that you do not accept evidence. Which validates my accusation of nihilistic solipsism on your part and explains why I refuse to talk evidence with you.
2) Was just a nice way of saying you are too ignorant of the subject to discuss it, which is not surprising from someone who has a foolproof method for denying any evidence in opposition to his cherished preconceptions.
"This conversation can serve no purpose anymore."
No contridiction. You missed the point. The point was we can get a better interpretive understanding of behavior and thus better individule conclusions about why a subject did what they did due to all the things that seperate us from apes.
Example
Q: How did you know they guy wanted revenge?
A: I asked him.
Still waiting for the ethical and justified feeling example...
2) Don't get unhinged and call names as it undermines the little ground you stood on.. Just think and respond.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Or don't think and don't respond as you have demonstrated let's try again
lets cover all species in you're desperately needed education
lesson one fish
Altruism and ethics of fish
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060621_rude_fish.html
lesson two will commence once you've absorbed and understood the above information
"Just think and respond"
Let's skip all those lessons and allow me to give you a lesson in behavior. Parasitic relationships gradually evolve into commensalistic relationships, which gradually evolve into mutualistic relationships.
I do love the idea of ethical fish though.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
e303 wrote:
Please explain exactly what you mean by "outside time". e303: Before the matter in this universe was created there was no cosmo time. Maybe a meta time but certainly not our time.Hence walrus cock.e303 : Saying there is no God or chance of a God creates a belief concept. Non-god dodge is just a corner to hide in while keeping faith no god exist. One can argue that the transfer of a non-god concept to another creates an affirmation of belief and thus what is not possible is to debate something that isn't.
The universe as we know it began at that time. It could have existed in another state or states before hand.e303: Maybe but observational evidence suggest we live in a finite universe. If there was/is a multi verse it is not of our space/time and beyond our ability to observe.
I wouldn't say "never", but I'd say we're more likely to discover evidence for an eternal universe than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.e303 : I disagree.
Sorry, no. There is no such thing as having a belief in a non-belief.e303: Once a non-belief is conveyed to another it changes. Thus there is no such thing as a "non-belief."
Legolande303: Fair enough and agreed.»
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
You forgot symbiotic relationships. you get a B
But if you understand how and why ethical behavior evolves in any social group and the evolutionary benefit of such behavior then you can achieve an A if you research prisoners dilemma . to complete your understanding then it's A+
No need to look I have a grasp of this basic game theory in fact my company banks on a mod of certain game theory models.
Mutually helpful does not = ethical.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Mutually helpful is the evolutionary beginning of ethical behavior
The more complex the species the more complex the ethics
I'll show you
Do you lie ?
I have lied and prob will again. ThoughI understand your direction I must add the real test of ethics is whether the animal is willing to do the right thing even when it is not in their own self-interest. I don't see this sacrifice in the animal world.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Well, no, that premise is false. You can treat any dimension as time for the sake of cause and effect. As long as you have more than one dimension there is still a dimension available for time. So in order to be timeless you have to have only one dimension. If you only act in one dimension, you can't do much of anything except count in indeterminate quanta with no cause and no effect. You can't be timeless AND cause things to happen. Really, you couldn't act at all.
Here's time in two dimensions:
t=0, v=14
t=1, v=21
t=2, v=27
t=3, v=27
If we expand the second dimension into binary we can see the cause and effect. Watch the zeros:
t=0, v=01110
t=1, v=10101
t=2, v=11011
t=3, v=11011
They come together and remain in place. With big enough numbers (dimensions are big places) you can make more dimensions. You can already see how I treated the second dimension as two dimensions. So in reality, the natural progression is 1 dimension, 2 dimension, 3 dimension, etc.
You can't just have one dimension without ending up with all of 'em, because they're all just different representations of the same data.
? like dolphins for instance.
go on ask for proof
Why do scientists think dolphins save drowning people by instinct? Well, if a dolphin behaves like it might be drowning, another dolphin will push it up to the surface of the water so it can breathe. An injured dolphin is hoisted on the back of a fellow dolphin and carried to shallow waters where it is able to breathe and recover. This is an innate pack/species specific survival instinct. This innate behavior makes it understandable that dolphins haved saved a handful people.
Additionally, it is a well known fact that dolphins are very tractable and learn from trial and error very quickly. Any positive human interaction can indeed make many dolphins more apt to interact with humans and thus a greater chance to react instinctively.
I would love to think dolphins are ethical though. They are certainly intelligent but you should also know recent research has shown that the amount of brain cells found in dolphins is comparatively small so the dolphin is probably less intelligent than once thought.
Then there is the Navy dolphins who were trained and released into the wild... that is a whole other subject though.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Post big bang we don't even need to use your example. I would also say that quantum particles have no x,y or z dimension when momentum is known so that is obviously possible to have time, even within the realm of spacetime physics. So what does this do to our argument? Nothing because I have already mentioned a meta-time and allow for it before creation (big bang) that formed all those dimensions in this universe we enjoy.
Q) If the universe was empty thus no movement of any particle, would time stop? Where is time without even one dimension?
I think cosmological time would be over but I think a meta-time could continue. Big Bang to Big Rip to >>> no dimentions and thus no more cosmological time.
Meta time requires relative perspective of something beyond our dimensional universe was and is my position. A meta time (god's clock) may be required in fact, for finite 13.4 billion year old universe that had no space time or dimension. The again maybe not but we can only draw up a series possibilities. Still ,the universe seems to be finite and cosmological time bound with it regardless of its creation.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Dolphins Keep going there is more (wink)
Keep going? Like the Enegizer Bunny or CPR?
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Ohhh I like the Enegizer Bunny,
I heard that a lady saved by CPR sued the man who saved her for breaking her ribs in the process of saving her
Anyway Dolphins have also been credited with saving people from shark attacks ? I wonder if they considered suing the Dolphins
So what have we got so far altruistic dolphins, moralistic fish
What would you like next ?
Well Rev. dolphins attack their natural enemy, the shark, when the conditions warrant it with or without a human in the water. Goes back to the attack before being attacked defense response of pod/pack animals.
Altruistic dolphins and moralistic fish? Send this to myth busters for further busting if I am not getting through.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060621_rude_fish.html
Or alternatively you could contact the editors of nature magazine and explain where these poor deluded scientists went wrong and ask for a retraction
Please make a copy of how you debunked this science for this thread
The fish exhibit normal mutualistic behavior and the staff writers would agree. Once again... Parasitic relationships gradually evolve into commensalistic relationships, which gradually evolve into mutualistic relationships.
The above explains how nature makes these relationships at times. There is nothing ethical to reward vs risk learning. It is simply natural. A free lunch is a free lunch.
REINFORCED BEHAVIOR
NOTE: The article does not go into the any details about how the little cleaners taste compaired to the clients prefered food source or what triggers the cleaners to activate the behavoir. In many cases it is AFTER the big fish has had its fill.
If that is not enough, the article even states this is a LEARNED (mimic) behavior.
"A new study, detailed in the June 22 issue of Nature, reveals that "client" fish choose their cleaners by watching them go to work on other fish."
MIMIC BEHAVIOR
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
He's still just playing the nihilism card, which I nailed him for, but selectively...whenever it's necessary for him to imply that human actions go beyond instinct.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis