Theist and Atheist disputes about science

[annieo]

Perhaps from a religious sense. But science cannot draw on anecdotal evidence, or idiosyncratic evidence. Science has no choice but to reject such evidence. And sometimes, religious people say science must be wrong, as it is contradicted by Scripture.

 

These people are safely in their trench, heads below ground, therefore easy to ignore.

[annieo]

Got to do some research. Will go google "number value of Avogadro" immediately. Although, if their is an omnipotent (irrascible) God, it could alter the code anytime it wanted.

 

Meant "there" not "their".

[InsanityImpaired]

Although, if there is an omnipotent (irrascible) God, it could alter the code anytime it wanted.

Yes, but that gives the following problems:

1) God is actually interfering with nature. Thus, he is more than just the First Cause. Thus he should be detectable in some way by the scientific method.

2) it has a huge impact on epistemology. That means that knowledge cannot be certain, because the truth content of a factual statement changes over time, independent of the laws of nature as we know them. Thus we cannot accurately predict future events. An example of this would be the lunar cycle in the example below.

Ultimately the laws of nature as we know them can be proven false.

 

Say God decides to alter some gravity constants. So today the distance to the moon is roughly 240,000 miles. Then God changes things. The result may be that the distance is 400,000 miles. Then God changes things again. Then the result might be that the distance is 145,000 miles.

This means that our understanding of gravity would be so inaccurate, that we cannot use our limited understanding to predict anything. Ultimately it will lead to a very severe skepticism.

 

Interestingly enough, that cannot be used as conclusive evidence for the existence of God. It might be the method that gives these wild results, it might be that the tried formulae of the past are simply inaccurate, et cetera.

 

Descartes arguments on the matter of deception by God are an interesting read, and are highly recommended if you want to analyze this debate.

[annieo]

Yes, but that gives the following problems:

1) God is actually interfering with nature. Thus, he is more than just the First Cause. Thus he should be detectable in some way by the scientific method.

2) it has a huge impact on epistemology. That means that knowledge cannot be certain, because the truth content of a factual statement changes over time, independent of the laws of nature as we know them. Thus we cannot accurately predict future events. An example of this would be the lunar cycle in the example below.

Ultimately the laws of nature as we know them can be proven false.

 

Say God decides to alter some gravity constants. So today the distance to the moon is roughly 240,000 miles. Then God changes things. The result may be that the distance is 400,000 miles. Then God changes things again. Then the result might be that the distance is 145,000 miles.

This means that our understanding of gravity would be so inaccurate, that we cannot use our limited understanding to predict anything. Ultimately it will lead to a very severe skepticism.

 

Interestingly enough, that cannot be used as conclusive evidence for the existence of God. It might be the method that gives these wild results, it might be that the tried formulae of the past are simply inaccurate, et cetera.

 

Descartes arguments on the matter of deception by God are an interesting read, and are highly recommended if you want to analyze this debate.

 

First of all, I said IF It/god potentially could alter physical norms, assuming omnipotence. I didn't say he would: I am using a lot of vague qualifiers because I DON'T KNOW. But I love to pose a questions, and mull upon them.

 

I am conjecturing wildly here, but perhaps only those element of life that It chooses to keep hidden/constant, will be. If it doesn't suit the supreme intelligence of the universe to shift the relative distance between moon and earth, why the hell would it? To screw up a bunch of people at MIT/NASA?

It might have other puzzles to solve ?

And you make a huge, and pardon me, rather arrogant assertion when you state that if "god" is more than a First Cause, then it would "surely be detectable" using scientific method. You are putting all of your eggs in one basket. There are many ways to detect/perceive. The scientific method is one way, but not the only one. And if something is omnipotent and wants to remain unknowable, who's going to stop it?

What we "know" can change and is at least partially uncertain. When, throughout history, has this not been the case. If you wait/live long enough then intellectual/technological advances will supposedly clarify, or at least shift, our view of our life here on earth and in the universe. I don't believe in constants, that's my prejudice. Constant for a billion years, if it one day alters, is not a constant, in my opinion.

[InsanityImpaired]

First of all, I said IF It/god potentially could alter physical norms, assuming omnipotence.

And I expanded upon the if.

 

And you make a huge, and pardon me, rather arrogant assertion when you state that if "god" is more than a First Cause, then it would "surely be detectable" using scientific method. You are putting all of your eggs in one basket.

I am open to suggestions, but I am not going to take anyone's word for the existence of God. Or the non-existence. And this includes "God's Word" (after all it is people saying it is, and they could be wrong).

 

And if something is omnipotent and wants to remain unknowable, who's going to stop it?

Exactly. But the only way an omnipotent being can remain undetactable is by means of deception. That is why Descartes felt he needed to assume that God does not deceive man.

 

Say God has mass - we would be able to detect it in some way. Mass measurements. Yet he deceives us, by changing his mass to zero, whenever we do an experiment. Thus he is never detected. However a change in mass has an effect on the properties of light that passes near him. Which has an effect on measures of termperature et cetera.

His properties must have an influence on some measure (else he'd be propertyless, which is of course a huge contradiction); so eventually the methods humans use to survey the universe will simply be prone to deception, just to ensure that God remains undetected. Which is completely possible if he is not interfering within the universe to change the law of gravity, Euler's constant, the electrical charge of an electron. However, once he does that, our instruments simply become totally unreliable, and thus skepticism is warranted. To return to Descartes, he was desperate to defeat the skeptic's argument.

 

What we "know" can change and is at least partially uncertain.

Yes, but no matter what advances will happen in the field of research on gravity, a new formula, which expresses better understanding of the nature of the attraction of masses to each other, will never result in the gravitational force of an object falling down (on earth) suddenly to be double what it is with our current understanding.

 

The worst that could happen is that the concept of gravitational force is totally worthless in the improved understanding. And I am not betting against that. However that it expressed relatively well what happened (as measured in the actual world).

 

Even though Newtonian mechanics have been shown to be incorrect, they are still highly accurate as long as we assume nothing about the mass of a photon, and as long as an object is not travelling at speeds near the speed of light.

 

The speed of an (actual) apple falling from a tree is not dependent on the formula. It can be factually registered. And the formula serves as an approximation of the process that happens out there.

[FleshNBones]

Say God decides to alter some gravity constants. So today the distance to the moon is roughly 240,000 miles. Then God changes things. The result may be that the distance is 400,000 miles. Then God changes things again. Then the result might be that the distance is 145,000 miles.

This means that our understanding of gravity would be so inaccurate, that we cannot use our limited understanding to predict anything. Ultimately it will lead to a very severe skepticism.

I think someone willing to put a lot of time and energy into something would take his work more seriously than you do.

 

Why do you assume that there is a set of universal laws that apply everywhere? Can you prove they apply everywhere? Can you think of a few places where they don't?

[InsanityImpaired]

I think someone willing to put a lot of time and energy into something would take his work more seriously than you do.

 

Why do you assume that there is a set of universal laws that apply everywhere? Can you prove they apply everywhere? Can you think of a few places where they don't?

Can you prove God exists everywhere?

[FleshNBones]

Can you prove God exists everywhere?

I know how shaky your evidence is.

 

You seem so sure of yourself, but you don't seem like much of a scientist.

Amuse me with one of your lectures.

[InsanityImpaired]

I know how shaky your evidence is.

 

You seem so sure of yourself, but you don't seem like much of a scientist.

Amuse me with one of your lectures.

Nah. I asked first, so amuse me with your proof. Then when you have actually proven what was asked, I will amuse you with one of my lectures.

[FleshNBones]

I don't believe in constants, that's my prejudice. Constant for a billion years, if it one day alters, is not a constant, in my opinion.

Dimensionless constants exist outside of space and time.

For example, PI appears in many places so it exists, but is dimensions.

[FleshNBones]

Exactly. But the only way an omnipotent being can remain undetactable is by means of deception. That is why Descartes felt he needed to assume that God does not deceive man.

 

Say God has mass - we would be able to detect it in some way. Mass measurements. Yet he deceives us, by changing his mass to zero, whenever we do an experiment. Thus he is never detected. However a change in mass has an effect on the properties of light that passes near him. Which has an effect on measures of termperature et cetera.

I am wondering about the ethical implications of this. God has a consciousness and a will. So far, he has been uncooperative with scientific inquiry. Forcefully experimenting on him would be a serious ethical breach. He owes you nothing, and you cannot justify forced experimentation.

 

Making a mockery of God is shameful, and tells us a great deal about your true character.

A bad attitude and contemptible effort won't win many supporters.

 

God should be revered.

I feel like I sullied myself with my past few posts.

[InsanityImpaired]

I am wondering about the ethical implications of this. God has a consciousness and a will. So far, he has been uncooperative with scientific inquiry. Forcefully experimenting on him would be a serious ethical breach. He owes you nothing, and you cannot justify forced experimentation.

 

Making a mockery of God is shameful, and tells us a great deal about your true character.

A bad attitude and contemptible effort won't win many supporters.

 

God should be revered.

I feel like I sullied myself with my past few posts.

Again, no proof for God has been forecoming from your part, so I see no reason to assume I am wrong. So come on big boy, show me your proof.

[annieo]

Again, no proof for God has been forecoming from your part, so I see no reason to assume I am wrong. So come on big boy, show me your proof.

 

There's a difference between knowing something exists and believing it. I have reconcilled myself to the fact that I will probably never have any proof that God exists while I am in corporeal form, but I have a feeling (sorry for the wishy-washy female way of putting it) that there is something else operating within/without the universe. I also accept the possibility that I could be totally wrong, but it suits my purposes, here and now, to believe.

 

I think what irks me most about people who are confirmed athiests (and I am married to one) is their belief in the absolute infallibility of science. II, you do not to seem to be one of those people, but the fanaticism of many pro-science, anti-religion types reminds me a LOT of the bible thumpers who always go running back to their literal interpretations of scripture to justify their closed-mindedness. Anyone who does not allow for the possibility that they are wrong is laughably smug, and kind of dumb, IMO.

[FleshNBones]

I think what irks me most about people who are confirmed athiests (and I am married to one) is their belief in the absolute infallibility of science. II, you do not to seem to be one of those people, but the fanaticism of many pro-science, anti-religion types reminds me a LOT of the bible thumpers who always go running back to their literal interpretations of scripture to justify their closed-mindedness. Anyone who does not allow for the possibility that they are wrong is laughably smug, and kind of dumb, IMO.

This one is more vulgar than resolute.

What he does not realize is that I am not trying to win him over. He wants to play a game where he makes the rules, and he has every intention of winning.

 

One way to mock a prudish card player is to show him your hand.

[annieo]

This one is more vulgar than resolute.

What he does not realize is that I am not trying to win him over. He wants to play a game where he makes the rules, and he has every intention of winning.

 

One way to mock a prudish card player is to show him your hand.

 

Are you referring to me or Insanity Impaired? And btw, if it IS me, I'm a woman, so "he" doesn't apply.

What do you mean by vulgar? Vulgar makes me think of someone wearing too much make-up and a red dress to a funeral. Or using an expletive during Thanksgiving dinner, while children are present. Not sure that word is apt in this situation.

And by "prudish" do you mean "prudent"? Sorry if I'm nitpicking about vocab issues, but you might want to get yourself a dictionary.

Can we please get back to the original and very interesting point of this discourse? II, I look forward to hearing from you.

[FleshNBones]

My apologies. I was referring to InsanityImpaired.

[Lovelybird]

I am wondering about the ethical implications of this. God has a consciousness and a will.

:)So true, people try to use science to approach God, is like to use science to approach their loved ones

 

Suppose the scientist's gf made a sweater, and this scientist start to study the sweater in order to learn his gf, that won't work. Oh, maybe this scientist will be awed by her skills of sewing the sweater, but won't add to their intimate relationship

Edited March 30, 2008 by Lovelybird

[Moai]

Science is inherently atheistic. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. Never has been, never will be.

 

For all their talk of looking for the "truth" theists really aren't when it comes to science. Just read this thread. Not only are arguments advanced that have been debunked long before as if that didn't happen, the "questions" raised are easily answered by a visit to the local library, or a ten-second search on Google.

 

If someone was really interested in evolutionary biology, why not take a class at the local community college? Why not read any one of a thousand books on the subject?

 

This is borne out in the Dover trial. In Dover, PA a group of Creationists tried to get ID taught in the public schools. They failed, of course, but during the course of the trial, Michael Behe, the poster child of the ID movement was asked about the evolution of the immune system. He claimed that it could not have evolved, and that nobody knew how it could have. The lawyer for the defense then produced a stack of material two feet high all about the evolution of the immune system. ID apologists claim that this was just a lawyers trick, and that Behe couldn't possibly read all that material and still do his job as a biochemist, etc. If that is so, then why did he make the claim that nobody could explain it? Why didn't he use Google to learn about the immune system, or call down the hall to the biology department at Lehigh University and ask them? Because he isn't interested in the "truth" any more than his minions are.

 

Go to http://www.richardawkins.net and look at what is going on with the "Expelled" movie. If ID is so scientific, and is so commonsensical, why all the obfuscating, misdirection, and outright lying?

 

They don't do their own work, either. Dembski, a mathematician who lectures about ID has used film he stole from Harvard about how cells work, providing his own voice-over in place of the Harvard narration (the people ho actually did the work). Intellectually dishonest, and also ILLEGAL. It turn out that this same animation is used in "Expelled" and it may be that the release of the film has been delayed because they got caught using it--without permission.

 

And why did they need to use this footage? Because no Creationists do their own research--because they can't. The better ones are lawyers, the lamer ones are in jail for income tax evasion--or at least under indictment for fraud in their home countries. They have diploma-mill degrees at best. Not only that, because they have no theory in the scientific sense, there is no way to test their ideas. So, they spend their time gleaning the work of the people actually doing science, misrepresent it, and claim that it is "evidence." Go to reasons.org, AIG or Creation Research and read for yourself. Or try CARM (one of my personal favorites). They rely on the fact that their minions are largely ignorant about biology, and that they are just looking for anything that will support their a priori belief that "god did it".

 

IF ID/Creationism is tenable, why all the dishonesty from the leaders of the movement? Does Jesus want people to lie for him? Do the ends justify the means when it comes to salvation?

 

I must say I owe Creationists a debt of thanks. I know more about biology now, and am a very pro-science atheist because of them. Some time ago I heard about a Kansas trial about Creationism in schools. I was a believer who thought that evolution was true but god-directed, and thought that the issue had been solved. Out of curiosity I began to read about the trial, and the evidence presented by both sides. The Creationists disgusted me so, and the answers to their "challenges" were so readily available that I abandoned my "faith" and have never been happier.

 

How is it that I could so easily find answers to my questions, and yet others seem to repost the same ones over and over and over, as if there are no responses to their inquiries? Simple. I approached the question with an open mind, and looked at the evidence. Anyone who does the same will reach the same conclusion I did. Nobody who understand evolution rejects it.

 

There is no controversy about any of this. Virtually nobody working in the biological sciences disputes evolution--it is an observable fact, after all. The theory itself is hotly debated--and that is a great thing--but the fact is not. ID and Creationism lost 150 years ago. You'd think that they would have heard of that by now.

[FleshNBones]

Science is inherently atheistic. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. Never has been, never will be.

Would invisible unknown outside force work for you?

Obviously, if space and time did not exist, then the universe couldn't create itself. Physicists are more enlightened. At least they know the limits.

[Moai]

Would invisible unknown outside force work for you?

Obviously, if space and time did not exist, then the universe couldn't create itself. Physicists are more enlightened. At least they know the limits.

 

Uh-huh. Thanks for the update. You left out the words "undetectable" and "impossible" in your first sentence though. By definition, anything OUTSIDE of space-time cannot EFFECT space-time.

 

Your grasp of physics is certainly dizzying, to say the least.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Moai

[FleshNBones]

IF ID/Creationism is tenable, why all the dishonesty from the leaders of the movement? Does Jesus want people to lie for him? Do the ends justify the means when it comes to salvation?

Why did atheistic ideas lead to the bloodiest war in history?

How is it that I could so easily find answers to my questions, and yet others seem to repost the same ones over and over and over, as if there are no responses to their inquiries? Simple. I approached the question with an open mind, and looked at the evidence. Anyone who does the same will reach the same conclusion I did. Nobody who understand evolution rejects it.

I remember you posting this before. I am sure everything from the athiest side has been repeated more than once. I am disappointed by the lack of insight and original ideas. Seriously, do you guys put any thought into it? It seems more like a stupid turf war.

 

So only an ignorant person would reject evolution. The only thing rejected was abiogenesis unless I missed something. It was in one of the earlier posts.

I do reject evolution as an alternative explanation for chemical and nuclear reactions among other things. Chemists of the world lament.

I approached the question with an open mind, and looked at the evidence.

I don't think God will provide you with the evidence you are looking for.

Who is the real winner and who is the real loser in that kind of situation? Isn't it all about winning?

ID and Creationism lost 150 years ago. You'd think that they would have heard of that by now.

Not with the Big Bang theory. A universe with a begining is a serious threat to Athiesm.

[FleshNBones]

By definition, anything OUTSIDE of space-time cannot EFFECT space-time.

Says who?

Your grasp of physics is certainly dizzying, to say the least.

You might learn something.

[Moai]

Why did atheistic ideas lead to the bloodiest war in history?

 

They didn't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a supreme being. There is only one "atheistic" idea. The fact that you pluralize it shows your grasp of the subject.

 

Assuming that you mean Nazism and Communism, Nazism is not an atheistic political philosophy (you would do well to read more about it. Look up what a "pogrom" is, and Martin Luther), and while Communism has atheism as one of its tenets, that is not the driving idea behind it. Otherwise, all atheists would also be Communists, which is plainly not so.

 

I remember you posting this before. I am sure everything from the athiest side has been repeated more than once. I am disappointed by the lack of insight and original ideas. Seriously, do you guys put any thought into it? It seems more like a stupid turf war.

 

Yes, I am sure something like this has been posted before. That's because "you guys" won't go accept the fact that you have been defeated and go away. There is no room for god in the science classroom--any science. Biology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, medicine...name it. And yet, you rename Creationism "Intelligent Design" and hope that will snow people into letting theism into schools, and that people are obtuse enough to not notice that by "Intelligent Designer" you really mean "god" and by extension, the Christian god.

 

Let's say we do teach god in the biology classroom. We shall do so thusly: "God created life. He is responsible for all the diversity of life-forms we currently see. We commonly refer to Him as Allah." Sound good? Why or why not?

 

So only an ignorant person would reject evolution. The only thing rejected was abiogenesis unless I missed something. It was in one of the earlier posts.

 

Yes, only an ignorant person rejects evolution. Evolution is mentioned in the first post as well. How life arose is not understood, but scientists are actively working on the problem as I type this. "God did it" is not a working hypothesis in any of those labs.

 

I do reject evolution as an alternative explanation for chemical and nuclear reactions among other things.

 

Proof right there that you don't understand it. Evolution has nothing to do with chemical or nuclear reactions. Evolution is what happens to life forms over time as DNA replicates. It is a biological principle, not a principle of chemistry or nuclear physics. Simply put, it is, "the change in allele frequency over time."

 

Chemists of the world lament.

 

I am sure every chemist everywhere is upset and shocked to learn that you reject their life's work. Or, more probably, they realize you are ignorant and don't care and are going to work anyway.

 

I don't think God will provide you with the evidence you are looking for.

 

I don't either, since I don't think that he/she/it exists.

 

Who is the real winner and who is the real loser in that kind of situation? Isn't it all about winning?

Not with the Big Bang theory. A universe with a begining is a serious threat to Athiesm.

 

No, a Universe with a beginning is no threat to atheism whatsoever. Every atheist I know or have heard of living today accepts the Big Bang. If it were so threatening, why is it that the vast majority of people working in the field of cosmology are atheists?

[Moai]

Says who?

 

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning Physicist currently at the University of Texas-Austin. For one. Dr. Victor Stenger, professor of Physics at the University of Hawaii and author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis" for another. And finally, Common Sense.

 

You might learn something.

 

Ah, sweet, sweet irony.

[FleshNBones]

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning Physicist currently at the University of Texas-Austin. For one. Dr. Victor Stenger, professor of Physics at the University of Hawaii and author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis" for another. And finally, Common Sense.

If space-time did not exist, how did it come into existence? Stephen Hawking called it a singularity.

 

Did they provide an alternative theory (hypothesis) to the Big Bang?

 

 

Steven Weinberg seems to specialize in particle physics.

Victor Stenger appears to be another specialist in particle physics.

There seems to be a pattern, but I need more names to confirm.

 

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist. A better source on this subject in my opinion.