2 of 4
2
Bright Horizon Pictures documentary - “What is Scientific Truth?”
Posted: 19 October 2010 02:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U

Let me ask you this, are those theories more valid than the theory of a Creator?  If yes please explain.

As far as your comments on Theism are concerned you seem to be lumping all theist together.  For instance you mentioned the Inquisition and Terrorism.  The inquisition was a one time act in history perpetrated by religious Roman Catholics.  It in no way followed the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible.  Terrorism is mainly an Islamic problem.  There’s a vast difference between Christianity and Islam.  Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, Muslims follow the Teachings of Mohammed.

But I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves though.  Perhaps we should keep with the Science for now, unless you’re willing to agree with me that there is a God.

You also said there is an ocean of difference between the Scientific Method and Theistic Dogma.  How about Atheistic Dogma?

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2010 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
KeithP - 19 October 2010 02:15 PM

Write4U

Let me ask you this, are those theories more valid than the theory of a Creator?  If yes please explain.

Scientific theories or paradigms are no more valid than Theist theory. The difference is that scientific theory is subject to scrutiny and verification (thereby becoming validated), whereas theistic theory is presented as fact and not subject to scrutiny and verification (therefore remaining without validity). 

As far as your comments on Theism are concerned you seem to be lumping all theist together.  For instance you mentioned the Inquisition and Terrorism.  The inquisition was a one time act in history perpetrated by religious Roman Catholics.  It in no way followed the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible.  Terrorism is mainly an Islamic problem.  There’s a vast difference between Christianity and Islam.  Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, Muslims follow the Teachings of Mohammed.

We are not addressing teachers or modes of teaching. We are addressing the possible existence of a God. Christianity, Catholicism, Islam all claim the existence of God.  Ask yourself, is the Christian god the same as the Muslim god? After all, if there is only One God, it must be the same God, seen from a different perspective. You may want to cite this as supporting evidence. However, some Eastern philosophies also present an explanation of Creation, by means of a Deity. Allow me to refer to David Bohm’s (physicist) writings, such as “The Implicate and Explicate Order”. 

But I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves though.  Perhaps we should keep with the Science for now, unless you’re willing to agree with me that there is a God.

By the laws of physics it is physically impossible for a god (intelligent, purposeful, intentional) to exist within or without the universe. Moreover, these qualities are proven to be unnecessary in the Creation of the Universe. Here Occam’s Razor applies.

You also said there is an ocean of difference between the Scientific Method and Theistic Dogma.  How about Atheistic Dogma?

I condemn both Rejection without knowledge and Assertion without knowledge.
Seems to me that the expression “Atheistic Dogma” is a contradiction in terms. Atheist do not have a Scripture to live by. Nor do they see the need for standing on a corner and proclaiming “worship a non existent God”. Any atheist writings or expressions are in response to the theist assertion that god “must exist”. As I am doing now.
On the other hand, Humanism does have a functional moral message (dogma), which may be followed by both theists and atheists without prejudice, unlike Christianity or Islam or any other “exclusive” beliefs based on the existence of God.

[ Edited: 24 October 2010 06:18 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2010 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U

When it comes to scrutiny that’s what you and I are doing in here,  We’re scrutinizing each others beliefs.  And there are many other theist who are willing to do the same thing.  Like me they say bring on the scrutiny and let’s discuss it.  Now here’s the thing we don’t have a scientific explanation for many things.  But many are still willing to rule a creator out as an explanation even though as previously mentioned a creator fits within the evidence.

We are not addressing teachers or modes of teaching. We are addressing the possible existence of a God.

This makes my point about getting ahead of ourselves.  When you start discussing who God is and the nature of God and Christian Doctrine we’ve moved beyond the simple discussion of whether he exist.

Christianity, Catholicism, Islam all claim the existence of God.  Ask yourself, is the Christian god the same as the Muslim god? After all, if there is only One God, it must be the same God, seen from a different perspective. You may want to cite this as supporting evidence. However, some Eastern philosophies also present an explanation of the Universe, by means of a Deity. Allow me to refer to David Bohm’s (physicist) writings, such as “The Implicate and Explicate Order”.

Again I don’t think we should trail off from science quite yet.  But I will say that different religions are worshipping different Gods.  And I would argue there’s one true God but we should save that discussion for later.

By the laws of physics it is physically impossible for a god (intelligent, purposeful, intentional) to exist within or without the universe. Moreover, these qualities are proven to be unnecessary in the Creation of the Universe.  Here Occam’s Razor applies.

With all due respect you’re going to need to back a statement like that up. 

I understand Occam’s Razor to mean go with the explanation with the fewest assumptions.  You say this disproves God I say it’s just the opposite.  You look at the extreme complexity of our bodies, and the Cinderella planet we live on, and the order that exists in our solar system.  This all points very strongly to a design and a design has a designer.  I’d argue the principle of Occam’s Razor absolutely points to a Creator not the absence of one.

I condemn both Rejection without knowledge and Assertion without knowledge.
Seems to me that the expression “Atheistic Dogma” is a contradiction in terms. Atheist do not have a Scripture to live by. Nor do they see the need for standing on a corner and proclaiming “worship a non existent God”. Any atheist writings or expressions are in response to the theist assertion that god “must exist”. As I am doing now

Now correct me if I’m wrong but the difference between Atheist and Agnostics is that Atheist hold to the belief that there is no God where as Agnostics say I don’t know.  Therefore Atheist have a firmly held doctrine or position that in a sense is like a Dogma.  Also you say Atheist don’t go out of their way to convince the public there is no God.  That’s certainly not true of all Atheists including perhaps the most famous Atheist Richard Dawkins. 

Just to give you the heads up I will be out of town between the 22nd and the 31st.  So I will try to respond when I can but it may not be as prompt.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2010 03:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
KeithP - 21 October 2010 01:41 PM

Write4U

When it comes to scrutiny that’s what you and I are doing in here,  We’re scrutinizing each others beliefs.  And there are many other theist who are willing to do the same thing.  Like me they say bring on the scrutiny and let’s discuss it.  Now here’s the thing we don’t have a scientific explanation for many things.  But many are still willing to rule a creator out as an explanation even though as previously mentioned a creator fits within the evidence.

I have scrutinized the bible, specifically the Old Testament and it is rife with inconsistencies and misinterpretation by people who lived thousands of years ago and had no clue of the scientific method of interpreting personal experience. 
I will stipulate that Creation (a Beginning) of the universe is scientifically possible (even probable), there are scientific arguments both for and against a Beginning. It does not follow that the creation of the universe was caused by an intelligent, intentional, purposeful God. What you seem to be doing is trying to fit Science into the concept of God, after the fact. But your concept and assertion of God (as claimed in Scripture) does not fit within the Scientific Method. Are you willing to assert that the Old Testament is scientifically accurate? Just because scriptures have been around for some 6000 years (in various forms), does not mean they have attained status of fact or are based on true premise. The fact scripture has been changed many times argues for false premises. After all Christianity and Islam are newer versions of religion incorporating elements of the Old Testament and Torah and addressing the same god described in those books.

W4U: Christianity, Catholicism, Islam all claim the existence of God.  Ask yourself, is the Christian god the same as the Muslim god? After all, if there is only One God, it must be the same God, seen from a different perspective. You may want to cite this as supporting evidence. However, some Eastern philosophies also present an explanation of the Universe, by means of a Deity. Allow me to refer to David Bohm’s (physicist) writings, such as “The Implicate and Explicate Order”.

Again I don’t think we should trail off from science quite yet.  But I will say that different religions are worshipping different Gods.  And I would argue there’s one true God but we should save that discussion for later.

This is very much related to science. If God is indeed a three or four dimensional entity, the laws of relativism hold. Your viewpoint is no more valid than the next, taken from a different perspective. A claim of exclusivity demands proof.

w4U: By the laws of physics it is physically impossible for a god (intelligent, purposeful, intentional) to exist within or without the universe. Moreover, these qualities are proven to be unnecessary in the Creation of the Universe.  Here Occam’s Razor applies.

With all due respect you’re going to need to back a statement like that up.
I understand Occam’s Razor to mean go with the explanation with the fewest assumptions.  You say this disproves God I say it’s just the opposite.  You look at the extreme complexity of our bodies, and the Cinderella planet we live on, and the order that exists in our solar system.  This all points very strongly to a design and a design has a designer.  I’d argue the principle of Occam’s Razor absolutely points to a Creator not the absence of one.

a) I said it disproves the existence of an intelligent, purposeful, and even willful god.
b) The burden of proof does not lie with me. Science is not a belief system. Science is a practical application of gathering factual (measurable) data and drawing conclusions from that data. If you believe that God can be explained scientifically, then the burden falls on you to provide measurable data to support your beliefs. To me, a claim of the existence of a intelligent, purposeful and intentional God can only be considered at best a paradigm in science. One can hardly demand worship of a paradigm. What is the scientific purpose of prayer to a God who never answers?

W4U: I condemn both Rejection without knowledge and Assertion without knowledge.
Seems to me that the expression “Atheistic Dogma” is a contradiction in terms. Atheist do not have a Scripture to live by. Nor do they see the need for standing on a corner and proclaiming “worship a non existent God”. Any atheist writings or expressions are in response to the theist assertion that god “must exist”. As I am doing now

Now correct me if I’m wrong but the difference between Atheist and Agnostics is that Atheist hold to the belief that there is no God where as Agnostics say I don’t know.  Therefore Atheist have a firmly held doctrine or position that in a sense is like a Dogma.  Also you say Atheist don’t go out of their way to convince the public there is no God.  That’s certainly not true of all Atheists including perhaps the most famous Atheist Richard Dawkins.

Yes, Atheist’s doctrine is based on science (proof) as we know it today. Agnostic doctrine is also based on science, but does not exclude the possible existence of a scientifically addressable metaphysical or mathematical pre-condition (impersonal deity) which was causal to the creation of the universe, thus reserving the right to reconsider (see David Bohm).
But trust me, if you were to give up your claim of God as fact, Dawkins will not be heard from on that subject. As I said before Atheists only respond to unsubstantiated claims of God and have no other (more sinister) motives.

Both scientists and spiritualists are reaching for a TOE. But TOE requires a paradigm which can be verified before it is acceptable as firm theory. Until then it remains speculative and a theistic paradigm is no more valid than any of the various scientific or deistic paradigms which are currently being investigated.

However the attempt to incorporate scientific findings into a Theist paradigm, validates the Science, not the Theism. We are witnessing the evolution from Theism to Science and the Scientific Method.

[ Edited: 24 October 2010 06:13 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2010 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U

  Let’s try something different here.  Let’s have a review of your posts.  You say that you want to keep the discussion to a Scientific discussion on whether a Creator exist or not.

We are not addressing teachers or modes of teaching. We are addressing the possible existence of a God.

Yet your posts are filled with subjects that go beyond a scientific discussion.  It’s almost like your avoiding the hard scientific evidence while claiming it backs up your belief there is no Creator.

I should like to see your answer to the question why it is more reasonable and logical to Believe in a God, which has been so hopelessly misrepresented in scripture vs Trust in the Scientific method.

here your bringing in scripture which goes beyond discussing just the Scientific evidence.

I take exception to the term “believing in ideas” but other than that, yes. These ideas are presented as theoretical science and remain theory (or paradigm) until proven or discarded. No such objective analysis exists in theism. And in many instances, fundamental theists threaten those who would question the “truth” of their theistic claims with hell, damnation and even physical harm (inquisition, terrorism). I have never heard a theoretical scientist threaten another with death for questioning the facts or premise of a given theory.
There is an ocean of difference between the Scientific Method and Theistic Dogma, in the quest for Truth.

here your bringing in doctrine and Dogma which goes beyond discussing just the Scientific Evidence.

I have scrutinized the bible, specifically the Old Testament and it is rife with inconsistencies and misinterpretation by people who lived thousands of years ago and had no clue of the scientific method of interpreting personal experience. 
I will stipulate that Creation (a Beginning) of the universe is scientifically possible (even probable), there are scientific arguments both for and against a Beginning. It does not follow that the creation of the universe was caused by an intelligent, intentional, purposeful God. What you seem to be doing is trying to fit Science into the concept of God, after the fact. But your concept and assertion of God (as claimed in Scripture) does not fit within the Scientific Method. Are you willing to assert that the Old Testament is scientifically accurate? Just because scriptures have been around for some 6000 years (in various forms), does not mean they have attained status of fact or are based on true premise. The fact scripture has been changed many times argues for false premises. After all Islam is a newer version of religion incorporating elements of the Old Testament and Torah and addressing the same god described in those books.

here again your bringing the Bible into the discussion which again goes beyond discussing just the Scientific Evidence.

Now let me sum up what my position is and has been.  I will go into these discussions with you but for now we should keep with the Scientific Evidence.  When we’ve exhausted that discussion then we can move into these deeper topics.

Moving on now.

This is very much related to science. If God is indeed a three or four dimensional entity, the laws of relativism hold. Your viewpoint is no more valid than the next, taken from a different perspective. A claim of exclusivity demands proof.

If there is a Creator it would reason that he would not be trapped within his creation.  Therefore he would not be in subjection to any of the laws of nature that he also invented.

a) I said it disproves the existence of an intelligent, purposeful, and even willful god.
b) The burden of proof does not lie with me. Science is not a belief system. Science is a practical application of gathering factual (measurable) data and drawing conclusions from that data. If you believe that God can be explained scientifically, then the burden falls on you to provide measurable data to support your beliefs. To me, a claim of the existence of a intelligent, purposeful and intentional God can only be considered at best a paradigm in science. One can hardly demand worship of a paradigm. What is the scientific purpose of prayer to a God who never answers?

Again you offer no proof for your statement that an intelligent purposeful Creator is impossible by the laws of physics.  And you say you have no burden of proof.  How about the burden of proof to explain how all matter and Energy came into being, why why our bodies are so intricately complex, how conditions on Earth just happen to be perfect for sustaining life.  All of this very strongly points to a design and a design demands a designer.  You absolutely have a burden of proof to show how a designer is an impossibility.

Yes, Atheist’s doctrine is based on science (proof) as we know it today. Agnostic doctrine is also based on science, but does not exclude the possible existence of a scientifically addressable metaphysical or mathematical pre-condition (impersonal deity) which was causal to the creation of the universe, thus reserving the right to reconsider (see David Bohm).
But trust me, if you were to give up your claim of God as fact, Dawkins will not be heard from on that subject. As I said before Atheists only respond to unsubstantiated claims of God and have no other (more sinister) motives.

Both scientists and spiritualists are reaching for a TOE. But TOE requires a paradigm which can be verified before it is acceptable as firm theory. Until then it remains speculative and a theistic paradigm is no more valid than any of the various scientific or deistic paradigms which are currently being investigated.

However the attempt to incorporate scientific findings into a Theist paradigm, validates the Science, not the Theism. We are witnessing the evolution from Theism to Science and the Scientific Method.

There you go again claiming you have proof there is no God while at the same time offering no proof.  Scientific evidence only goes so far and it absolutely doesn’t go as far as proving there is no Creator.  I’m going to be blunt with you, your kidding yourself if you think Atheism doesn’t require faith on your part.

it’s also interesting that you’re willing to call different dimensions of time and parallel universes theory and not speculative when there’s no evidence for them.

I agree with you that science is backed up by the scientific method.  What we can see, feel and hear.  But you seem to think that science has proved your Atheism which it hasn’t.

These posts are starting to resemble short novels.

Take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2010 09:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
KeithP - 24 October 2010 06:56 PM

Write4U

  Let’s try something different here.  Let’s have a review of your posts.  You say that you want to keep the discussion to a Scientific discussion on whether a Creator exist or not.

We are not addressing teachers or modes of teaching. We are addressing the possible existence of a God.

Yet your posts are filled with subjects that go beyond a scientific discussion.  It’s almost like your avoiding the hard scientific evidence while claiming it backs up your belief there is no Creator.

I should like to see your answer to the question why it is more reasonable and logical to Believe in a God, which has been so hopelessly misrepresented in scripture vs Trust in the Scientific method.

here your bringing in scripture which goes beyond discussing just the Scientific evidence.

Scientifically, a paradigm must contain a theoretical narrative and identification of its properties and resulting conclusion, which is then presented for “falsification”.
You have presented a theoretical narrative and a resulting conclusion. But you have not presented “properties which may be tested” . How can you expect a scientist to debate your paradigm of “god” when its properties are not known. Anything invisible might qualify as the god you present.
The burden is on you to state your paradigm in terms that can be addressed scientifically (falsified), or I am forced to look at the only available evidence contained in Scripture.

I take exception to the term “believing in ideas” but other than that, yes. These ideas are presented as theoretical science and remain theory (or paradigm) until proven or discarded. No such objective analysis exists in theism. And in many instances, fundamental theists threaten those who would question the “truth” of their theistic claims with hell, damnation and even physical harm (inquisition, terrorism). I have never heard a theoretical scientist threaten another with death for questioning the facts or premise of a given theory.
There is an ocean of difference between the Scientific Method and Theistic Dogma, in the quest for Truth.

here your bringing in doctrine and Dogma which goes beyond discussing just the Scientific Evidence.

I have scrutinized the bible, specifically the Old Testament and it is rife with inconsistencies and misinterpretation by people who lived thousands of years ago and had no clue of the scientific method of interpreting personal experience. 
I will stipulate that Creation (a Beginning) of the universe is scientifically possible (even probable), there are scientific arguments both for and against a Beginning. It does not follow that the creation of the universe was caused by an intelligent, intentional, purposeful God. What you seem to be doing is trying to fit Science into the concept of God, after the fact. But your concept and assertion of God (as claimed in Scripture) does not fit within the Scientific Method. Are you willing to assert that the Old Testament is scientifically accurate? Just because scriptures have been around for some 6000 years (in various forms), does not mean they have attained status of fact or are based on true premise. The fact scripture has been changed many times argues for false premises. After all Islam is a newer version of religion incorporating elements of the Old Testament and Torah and addressing the same god described in those books.

here again your bringing the Bible into the discussion which again goes beyond discussing just the Scientific Evidence.

Now let me sum up what my position is and has been.  I will go into these discussions with you but for now we should keep with the Scientific Evidence.  When we’ve exhausted that discussion then we can move into these deeper topics.

But you haven’t summed up anything other than “in the absence of proof to the contrary, my God must exist”, without explaining the properties of your God and how it is different from any other god.
Thus the Bible and other theistic scripture is the only way to even begin to understand what you are talking about. They are the only referential evidence you have for your claim of God. Please note that I have avoided religion in this discussion. Any reference to that effect was as a reference to a described god, for purpose of fashioning something resembling a paradigm for falsification.

Moving on now.

This is very much related to science. If God is indeed a three or four dimensional entity, the laws of relativism hold. Your viewpoint is no more valid than the next, taken from a different perspective. A claim of exclusivity demands proof.

If there is a Creator it would reason that he would not be trapped within his creation.  Therefore he would not be in subjection to any of the laws of nature that he also invented.

There are two fatal flaws in that reasoning.

a) How would God remove himself from his creation (also valid for Deism) while governing the subsequent universal evolution?
The last I heard is that the universe is trapped within god and everything is part of god. Correct me if I am wrong.
Moreover, how could you possibly infer the existence of something which by your admission has removed itself from the stage and is no longer accessible to any kind of inquiry, including theists?

b) In my opinion there is a fatal scientific contradiction in the argument that god can break his own laws. God IS the law. Why would god want to prove himself wrong?  Besides, in a perfect god there would not be need for breaking or even tweaking his own laws.
Thus in the god paradigm, by your assertion, we can state that god is both willful and fallible, and no longer present. Hardly scientific. How can you expect (nay, demand) a scientific response to such an inconsistent claim in your paradigm? 

a) I said it disproves the existence of an intelligent, purposeful, and even willful god.
b) The burden of proof does not lie with me. Science is not a belief system. Science is a practical application of gathering factual (measurable) data and drawing conclusions from that data. If you believe that God can be explained scientifically, then the burden falls on you to provide measurable data to support your beliefs. To me, a claim of the existence of a intelligent, purposeful and intentional God can only be considered at best a paradigm in science. One can hardly demand worship of a paradigm. What is the scientific purpose of prayer to a God who never answers?

Again you offer no proof for your statement that an intelligent purposeful Creator is impossible by the laws of physics.  And you say you have no burden of proof.  How about the burden of proof to explain how all matter and Energy came into being, why why our bodies are so intricately complex, how conditions on Earth just happen to be perfect for sustaining life.  All of this very strongly points to a design and a design demands a designer.  You absolutely have a burden of proof to show how a designer is an impossibility.

Not if I can show proof that the evolution of the universe and life has no need for a designer (Occam). Universal laws, given enough time, will inevitably shape and form the Universe as it exists today. The only claim you can possibly make is the creation of the universe and universal laws, which by your curious admission, cannot to be relied on. Science very much relies on them and has used them successfully in explaining what we kow to date. Basic elements such as H, O, C (and just a few more), are natural byproducts of a violent energetic event and are abundant in the universe and are not exclusive to a Cinderella earth. We already have several acceptable models for the natural and inevitable evolution of the universe in accordance with natural laws and we have been able to grow basic building blocks for life chemically, in a petrie dish.
Life?  Not such a big deal in the grand scope of the universe. It can manifest itself in some of the most hostile environments, where man would perish instantly. A scientific paradigm for life in other parts of the universe can be fashioned from current knowledge.

Yes, Atheist’s doctrine is based on science (proof) as we know it today. Agnostic doctrine is also based on science, but does not exclude the possible existence of a scientifically addressable metaphysical or mathematical pre-condition (impersonal deity) which was causal to the creation of the universe, thus reserving the right to reconsider (see David Bohm).
But trust me, if you were to give up your claim of God as fact, Dawkins will not be heard from on that subject. As I said before Atheists only respond to unsubstantiated claims of God and have no other (more sinister) motives.

Both scientists and spiritualists are reaching for a TOE. But TOE requires a paradigm which can be verified before it is acceptable as firm theory. Until then it remains speculative and a theistic paradigm is no more valid than any of the various scientific or deistic paradigms which are currently being investigated.

However the attempt to incorporate scientific findings into a Theist paradigm, validates the Science, not the Theism. We are witnessing the evolution from Theism to Science and the Scientific Method.

There you go again claiming you have proof there is no God while at the same time offering no proof.  Scientific evidence only goes so far and it absolutely doesn’t go as far as proving there is no Creator.  I’m going to be blunt with you, your kidding yourself if you think Atheism doesn’t require faith on your part.

Wait a minute. I did not claim to have proof that a God or Deity or a Mathematical Natural pre-cursor condition does not exist. I placed them at the level of paradigm, subject to “falsification”. I do believe I have made a case against your, by your assertion, True God.
On the contrary, you have no proof of your god and so far you have been unable to present a descriptive paradigm (other than scripture) that is scientifically addressable.
I will refrain from the question of who is kidding whom.

it’s also interesting that you’re willing to call different dimensions of time and parallel universes theory and not speculative when there’s no evidence for them.

I suggest you read my posts more closely. I did in fact call those various theoretical models “paradigms”, subject to falsification.

I agree with you that science is backed up by the scientific method.  What we can see, feel and hear.  But you seem to think that science has proved your Atheism which it hasn’t.

I feel I have adequately explained my atheism in regard to the intelligent, willful, fickle, unpredictable, absent creator and designer of the universe as you have presented to date.

These posts are starting to resemble short novels.

Or short exercises in Critical Thinking.

Be well, Keith
W4U

[ Edited: 25 October 2010 02:27 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2010 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  I had previously mentioned that I would refrain from diving into further Scientific topics because of an upcoming public debate.  Well I’ve changed my mind let’s dive further into the scientific evidence.  First let’s sum up the debate so far.  I previously stated the question of the first law of Thermodynamics.  That Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  And I argue based on the Scientific Evidence of that First law that belief in a Creator is more reasonable than not believing in a Creator.  Now my position always has been that I can’t prove God to you but it’s also true that you can’t disprove God.  Another area is Non-living matter becoming living matter.  You address this in your previous post so I’m going to respond to that right here.

We already have several acceptable models for the natural and inevitable evolution of the universe in accordance with natural laws and we have been able to grow basic building blocks for life chemically, in a petrie dish

What Scientist have grown in a petri dish is amino acids.  Amino acids are made up of basic elements such as Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Etc.  It’s not surprising that scientist have been able to combine these elements in a lab and created amino acids.  But these amino acids are a far cry from life.  In fact it takes hundreds of amino acids stringed together to form one protein.  But even a protein isn’t life in and of itself although they are essential for life.  Also the amino acids created were a 50/50 mix of left handed and right handed amino acids.  Yet all life uses only left handed amino acids.  Again these facts point to a designer not the absence of one.

Now let me address the other points in your previous post.

Scientifically, a paradigm must contain a theoretical narrative and identification of its properties and resulting conclusion, which is then presented for “falsification”.
You have presented a theoretical narrative and a resulting conclusion. But you have not presented “properties which may be tested” . How can you expect a scientist to debate your paradigm of “god” when its properties are not known. Anything invisible might qualify as the god you present.
The burden is on you to state your paradigm in terms that can be addressed scientifically (falsified), or I am forced to look at the only available evidence contained in Scripture

My arguments are based on reasonable beliefs.  I agree that you’re not going to be able to take the Creator into a laboratory and experiment on him.  But what I’m demonstrating with our arguments is that believing in a creator is a reasonable proposition based on scientific evidence.  Let me restate a question I posed ealier.  Considering that Matter and Energy can’t be created or destoyed.  This points to there being no natural explanation for how everything came into existence.  Next we bring in scientific topic number two how did non-living matter become living matter.  Again as mentioned earlier the Scientific facts surrounding both of these topics points to a Creator not the absence of one.  By you wanting to jump ahead of a discussion on the scientific evidence demonstates your desire to avoid that discussion. You’re also unwilling to admit that it takes at least as much faith to believe those other postions (different dimentions of Time, Parallel universes, creating amino acids somehow demonstrates life can arise naturally).

But you haven’t summed up anything other than “in the absence of proof to the contrary, my God must exist”, without explaining the properties of your God and how it is different from any other god.
Thus the Bible and other theistic scripture is the only way to even begin to understand what you are talking about. They are the only referential evidence you have for your claim of God. Please note that I have avoided religion in this discussion. Any reference to that effect was as a reference to a described god, for purpose of fashioning something resembling a paradigm for falsification

Actually what I’m trying to demonstrate is that in the absence of proof both you and I have to side with a belief.  Your belief is that there is no Creator.  Mine in which I believe best fits the evidence is that there is a Creator.  Moving into scripture pushes the discussion into who that creator is.

If there is a Creator it would reason that he would not be trapped within his creation.  Therefore he would not be in subjection to any of the laws of nature that he also invented.

There are two fatal flaws in that reasoning.

a) How would God remove himself from his creation (also valid for Deism) while governing the subsequent universal evolution?
The last I heard is that the universe is trapped within god and everything is part of god. Correct me if I am wrong.
Moreover, how could you possibly infer the existence of something which by your admission has removed itself from the stage and is no longer accessible to any kind of inquiry, including theists?

b) In my opinion there is a fatal scientific contradiction in the argument that god can break his own laws. God IS the law. Why would god want to prove himself wrong?  Besides, in a perfect god there would not be need for breaking or even tweaking his own laws.
Thus in the god paradigm, by your assertion, we can state that god is both willful and fallible, and no longer present. Hardly scientific. How can you expect (nay, demand) a scientific response to such an inconsistent claim in your paradigm?

a)Let me put it to you this way.  When is the last time you’ve seen someone build something in which they were trapped within it?  It makes no sense that a Creator would be trapped within his own creation.  That doesn’t mean he can’t enter his own creation such as someone who builds a house.

b)generally speaking I agree that a Creator would not break his own laws.  But that doesn’t mean he can’t or that in certain circumstances he has.  Keep in mind if a creator created those laws it would also reason that it’s within his power to break them.

again I understand these points are philisophical and not Scientific.  But they make sense and are in no way contradictory.  Again I make no claims you can experiment on a Creator, my position is a Creator is a reasonable belief based on scientific evidence.

Not if I can show proof that the evolution of the universe and life has no need for a designer (Occam). Universal laws, given enough time, will inevitably shape and form the Universe as it exists today. The only claim you can possibly make is the creation of the universe and universal laws, which by your curious admission, cannot to be relied on. Science very much relies on them and has used them successfully in explaining what we kow to date. Basic elements such as H, O, C (and just a few more), are natural byproducts of a violent energetic event and are abundant in the universe and are not exclusive to a Cinderella earth. We already have several acceptable models for the natural and inevitable evolution of the universe in accordance with natural laws and we have been able to grow basic building blocks for life chemically, in a petrie dish.
Life?  Not such a big deal in the grand scope of the universe. It can manifest itself in some of the most hostile environments, where man would perish instantly. A scientific paradigm for life in other parts of the universe can be fashioned from current knowledge.

I’ve already partially responded to this earlier.  But you’ve brought up (Occam) again but you haven’t responded to my point that (Occam) actually points to a Creator.  You say that given enough time everything will inevitably form.  This is a convenient belief on your part.  It’s not based on any observable evidence and in fact the odds of everything eventually being formed is so astronomical it’s basically statistcally zero.  Also I don’t recall making any statement that natural laws can’t be relied on I only said that a creator of those laws would be able to break them.  Every living creature has the ability to adapt to it’s environment.  Some animals have been able to adapt to some very hostile environments.  But these are examples of changes within a Kind and I would argue they’re strong evidence for an intelligent Creator.  There is no evidence of living creatures just arising from non-living matter.

Wait a minute. I did not claim to have proof that a God or Deity or a Mathematical Natural pre-cursor condition does not exist. I placed them at the level of paradigm, subject to “falsification”. I do believe I have made a case against your, by your assertion, True God.
On the contrary, you have no proof of your god and so far you have been unable to present a descriptive paradigm (other than scripture) that is scientifically addressable.
I will refrain from the question of who is kidding whom

I suppose this means you’re an Agnostic and not an Atheist. You claim I’ve made no case but I’ve now addressed two areas of scientific evidence that point to a creator and there’s more to come.  And as far as scripture goes you’re the only one who has brought it into the discussion.  I’ve only stated that I will discuss that with you after we’ve discussed the scientific evidence.  Again it stands that you’re unwilling to call it faith on your part when it comes to the questions that there is no scientific answer to.

I suggest you read my posts more closely. I did in fact call those various theoretical models “paradigms”, subject to falsification.

Here’s what you said.

I take exception to the term “believing in ideas” but other than that, yes. These ideas are presented as theoretical science and remain theory (or paradigm) until proven or discarded.

I’ll give you credit for putting or Paradigm in parentheses after calling them theories.

I feel I have adequately explained my atheism in regard to the intelligent, willful, fickle, unpredictable, absent creator and designer of the universe as you have presented to date

Which is it are you an Agnostic or an Atheist?  I would respectfully argue you have not adequately defended your position.  In fact I’m now not totally sure which camp you’re in.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2010 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

KeithP

a)Let me put it to you this way.  When is the last time you’ve seen someone build something in which they were trapped within it?  It makes no sense that a Creator would be trapped within his own creation.  That doesn’t mean he can’t enter his own creation such as someone who builds a house.

b)generally speaking I agree that a Creator would not break his own laws.  But that doesn’t mean he can’t or that in certain circumstances he has.  Keep in mind if a creator created those laws it would also reason that it’s within his power to break them.

again I understand these points are philisophical and not Scientific.  But they make sense and are in no way contradictory.  Again I make no claims you can experiment on a Creator, my position is a Creator is a reasonable belief based on scientific evidence.

a)That statement is a perfect example of someone being (mentally) trapped within a house of his own making (your belief). Unfortunately you are unable to step outside of it and see the other houses on the block. You are the one who rejects all other possible gods, deities, or metaphysical creation mechanisms in favor of your exclusive god.

b)Yes, it is called the “uncertainty effect”, fortunately this happens at the subatomic level and is unpredictable in a narrow meaning. This has nothing to do with a “guiding hand” from and intelligent being. But the admission of an “imperfect god” is in itself a disqualification for the assumption of Perfection. Unless you will concede that god is imperfect. In that case, we have yet another rational complication.

I appreciate your admission that your beliefs are philosophical and not scientific. By your own admission, you cannot prove it. In science that can never be considered as anything more than a vague paradigm, based on incomplete knowledge and evidence. It would also be reasonable to say that creation happens as it must, mathematically, and without intentional and purposeful intelligence. I’ll take the latter.
You say the laws of thermodynamics (conservation) makes it reasonable to assume the existence of a god. But the laws of thermodynamics only hold until we reach our “event horizon”. Theoretical science is exploring other dimensions, where these laws do not hold. If we find other dimensions where thermodynamic law does not hold, would that negate your belief or would it be reasonable to infer that god must exist there also?
Question: Did god create matter and energy before he invented the laws of thermodynamics, or did he create TD law before he created matter and energy? In either case how did he create something from nothing, when that is impossible by god’s own laws. Ah, we must assume that god is not subject to his own laws and has the ability to do both, even if they are self contradictory.
I cited Occam’s razor, because your assumption of purposeful intelligent designer as being the least complicated is false. The assumption of a sentient designer presents so many scientific obstacles that the assumption of a creation from mathematical probabilities is much more reasonable by comparison.
I believe in knowledge, but I do not discount a generic fundamental causality to the universe(s), you call it god, science calls it TOE. I am not a gnostic.

From Wiki:
“The gnōsis referred to in the term is a form of mystic, revealed, esoteric knowledge through which the spiritual elements of humanity are reminded of their true origins within the superior Godhead, being thus permitted to escape materiality.[5] Consequently, within the sects of gnosticism only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnōsis; the hylic or Somatics, though human, being incapable of perceiving the higher reality, are unlikely to attain the gnōsis deemed by gnostic movements as necessary for salvation”.

So what are you, a pneumatic or psychic? And what is meant by “salvation”? Salvation from what? From a benign God? What is the purpose of religion as it pertains to the workings of the universe? Saving a soul? Is the Soul another reasonable assumption (in the absence of proof to the contrary)? If our souls have access to god, is it not reasonable to asssume that souls are of the same stuff as god? But if humans have a soul and god is the soul of the universe, the picture becomes even more complicated. If our souls are independent of a universal soul, they must be spiritual entities unto themselves. More gods? Angels? Demons? Reasonable assumptions after reasonable assumptions. The further you travel along the path of theism, the more assumptions are required and rationality (reasonableness) breaks down.
But if you want to worship and kneel before a “reasonable assumption”, you are welcome to do so. It does not seem rational to me. I place it in the realm of wishful thinking.
I experience ecstasy when I sit on back porch, on a clear fall evening, looking up into a velvet void sprinkled with diamonds, while listening through headphones to a Tomita recording of Ives’ “the unanswered question”.
As musician I “know” the feeling of being part of and in harmony with the universe, the symphony of life, music of the spheres, string theory, the quest goes on.
I also like the word Potential, I think your God is a philosophical equivalent of my metaphysical paradigm of Potential.

[ Edited: 01 November 2010 03:09 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2010 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  Let me start off pointing out an area you failed to address in my previous post.  I talked about there being zero evidence that life arose through natural means, and how a 50/50 mix of left and right handed Amino Acids created in a lab doesn’t even come close to life. 

Now let me address all of your points.

a)Let me put it to you this way.  When is the last time you’ve seen someone build something in which they were trapped within it?  It makes no sense that a Creator would be trapped within his own creation.  That doesn’t mean he can’t enter his own creation such as someone who builds a house.

a)That statement is a perfect example of someone being (mentally) trapped within a house of his own making (your belief). Unfortunately you are unable to step outside of it and see the other houses on the block. You are the one who rejects all other possible gods, deities, or metaphysical creation mechanisms in favor of your exclusive god

You managed to take a jab at me while at the same time not addressing my question and further points.  As far as why I side with a particular Creator being the true creator is something we’ll get to, but right now you’re again trying to jump ahead of the scientific evidence discussion.

b)generally speaking I agree that a Creator would not break his own laws.  But that doesn’t mean he can’t or that in certain circumstances he has.  Keep in mind if a creator created those laws it would also reason that it’s within his power to break them.

b)Yes, it is called the “uncertainty effect”, fortunately this happens at the subatomic level and is unpredictable in a narrow meaning. This has nothing to do with a “guiding hand” from and intelligent being. But the admission of an “imperfect god” is in itself a disqualification for the assumption of Perfection. Unless you will concede that god is imperfect. In that case, we have yet another rational complication.

The uncertainty Principal is only a limitation on our ability to predict a particles motion and future location.  This wouldn’t place any limitation on a Creator who would also have created that part of physical law.  This isn’t an example of a Creator breaking physical laws it’s an example of physical law.  Also nothing I said would lead one to conclude that the creator is imperfect.  A creator who creates physical laws and has the ability to break them is an all powerful creator.

I appreciate your admission that your beliefs are philosophical and not scientific. By your own admission, you cannot prove it. In science that can never be considered as anything more than a vague paradigm, based on incomplete knowledge and evidence. It would also be reasonable to say that creation happens as it must, mathematically, and without intentional and purposeful intelligence. I’ll take the latter

The only points I said are philosphical are the points a) and b) that were just discussed.  But this is not the first time you’ve put words in my mouth.  And you’re right I admit I can’t prove a creator, now will you be honest and admit you can’t disprove a creator.  Your final statement “I’ll take the latter” is starting to sound like an admission of faith.

You say the laws of thermodynamics (conservation) makes it reasonable to assume the existence of a god. But the laws of thermodynamics only hold until we reach our “event horizon”. Theoretical science is exploring other dimensions, where these laws do not hold. If we find other dimensions where thermodynamic law does not hold, would that negate your belief or would it be reasonable to infer that god must exist there also?

You say Theoretical Science is exploring other dimentions as though they’ve found other dimentions.  This is speculative science and these other dimentions only exist as a concept someone thought up.  You love saying your positions are based on the Scientific Evidence but you’re continually willing to jump to these areas of speculation.  As far as would it negate my belief that there’s a creator if the first law is proven breakable.  No it would just force me to reexamine that as an argument for a creator.  That is only one argument.

Question: Did god create matter and energy before he invented the laws of thermodynamics, or did he create TD law before he created matter and energy? In either case how did he create something from nothing, when that is impossible by god’s own laws. Ah, we must assume that god is not subject to his own laws and has the ability to do both, even if they are self contradictory

It wouldn’t matter which he created first if he’s the creator and has the ability to violate his own laws.  If we’re talking an all powerful creator he can create something from nothing.  Your other two options are that everything has always existed or that things came into existence on their own.  Both of those positions do not fit the laws of Thermodynamics.

I cited Occam’s razor, because your assumption of purposeful intelligent designer as being the least complicated is false. The assumption of a sentient designer presents so many scientific obstacles that the assumption of a creation from mathematical probabilities is much more reasonable by comparison

We’ll let the evidence decide this one as we dig deeper.  When all the evidence stacks up to point to a creator/designer.  Occam’s Razor will also point to a Creator/Designer.

I believe in knowledge, but I do not discount a generic fundamental causality to the universe(s), you call it god, science calls it TOE. I am not a gnostic.

I never called you a Gnostic I said your statement sounded like it’s coming from an Agnostic.  There’s a big difference.

Agnostic - Agnostos
The English term “agnostic” is derived from the Greek “agnostos,” which means, “to not know.” An agnostic is one who admits, “I don’t know.” The term is applied specifically to those who don’t know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover

Here’s what you said before.

Wait a minute. I did not claim to have proof that a God or Deity or a Mathematical Natural pre-cursor condition does not exist. I placed them at the level of paradigm, subject to “falsification”.

So what are you, a pneumatic or psychic? And what is meant by “salvation”? Salvation from what? From a benign God? What is the purpose of religion as it pertains to the workings of the universe? Saving a soul? Is the Soul another reasonable assumption (in the absence of proof to the contrary)? If our souls have access to god, is it not reasonable to asssume that souls are of the same stuff as god? But if humans have a soul and god is the soul of the universe, the picture becomes even more complicated. If our souls are independent of a universal soul, they must be spiritual entities unto themselves. More gods? Angels? Demons? Reasonable assumptions after reasonable assumptions. The further you travel along the path of theism, the more assumptions are required and rationality (reasonableness) breaks down.
But if you want to worship and kneel before a “reasonable assumption”, you are welcome to do so. It does not seem rational to me. I place it in the realm of wishful thinking

Alright let me simply sort this one out.  First off you’re asking me questions that pertain to the definition of a Gnostic.  I’m not a Gnostic.  And again you demonstrate a prime example of how you actually want to dodge the Science discussion and jump to these other topics.  Well I’m going to continue on with the Scientific Evidence and we’ll eventually come to all those questions you pose.

I experience ecstasy when I sit on back porch, on a clear fall evening, looking up into a velvet void sprinkled with diamonds, while listening through headphones to a Tomita recording of Ives’ “the unanswered question”.
As musician I “know” the feeling of being part of and in harmony with the universe, the symphony of life, music of the spheres, string theory, the quest goes on.
I also like the word Potential, I think your God is a philosophical equivalent of my metaphysical paradigm of Potential

That’s a nice story but has nothing to do with the discussion of Scientific Evidence.

Alright let’s introduce the next area of Scientific Evidence.  The complexity of the Human body.  The Human body has trillions of cells.  Different estimates place the number between 10 and 100 trillion cells.  Each cell has between 20,000 and 30,000 Human Genes.  The Human body has many organs each with it’s unique function which contributes to the body as a whole.  Some of the Bodies organs or systems are irreducibly complex such as the Human eye and the Blood clotting system.  And this is a simple rundown on the complexity of the Human Body.  This Scientific Evidence points very strongly to a Creator/designer.

take care,
Keith Perna

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2010 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Sorry for the way that posted.  I’m not sure how it all ended up appearing as a quote.

Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2010 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

I never called you a Gnostic I said your statement sounded like it’s coming from an Agnostic.  There’s a big difference.

If you feel that my statements sound agnostic, then you must be a gnostic by the same reasoning (see definition in #23)
Actually I consider myself a Metaphysical Naturalist.

From Wiki:

Metaphysical naturalism
Metaphysical naturalism holds that all concepts related to consciousness or to the mind refer to entities which are reducible to or supervene on natural things, forces and causes. More specifically, it rejects the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause, such as occur in humanity’s various religions, as well as any form of teleology. It sees all “supernatural” things as explainable in purely natural terms. It is not merely a view about what science currently studies, but also about what science might discover in the future.

Religion and philosophy
Creation myth, stories of the supernatural creation of the Earth and its inhabitants in various cultures
Creationism, the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity
Genesis creation narrative, creation as described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible
The universe may be called “Creation”, in the sense that some believe it was created by a god
Creatio ex nihilo, Latin for “creation out of nothing”, a phrase used in philosophical and theological contexts

Science and technology
Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter
Big Bang, theory of the beginning of the universe
Cosmogony, scientific theories of origins of the universe
Invention, the act of creating a new process or device
Matter creation, the appearance of elementary particles, in physical processes such as pair production

Theism
In the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]

Which Creator are you referring to? Or are you referring to a Creative Mechanism or Condition?

But I will say that different religions are worshipping different Gods.

Thus you admit there are more than one god?

Actually what I’m trying to demonstrate is that in the absence of proof both you and I have to side with a belief.  Your belief is that there is no Creator.  Mine in which I believe best fits the evidence is that there is a Creator.  Moving into scripture pushes the discussion into who that creator is.

Everyone agrees there was/is a creative mechanism or process.  A mechanism or process does not imply a sentient god.

The uncertainty Principal is only a limitation on our ability to predict a particles motion and future location.  This wouldn’t place any limitation on a Creator who would also have created that part of physical law.  This isn’t an example of a Creator breaking physical laws it’s an example of physical law.  Also nothing I said would lead one to conclude that the creator is imperfect.  A creator who creates physical laws and has the ability to break them is an all powerful creator.

And by the laws of science and physics, cannot exist. But you want it both ways. You demand that science disproves your god, but when we run into a possible example, you claim that god is exempt from science, because he is all powerful. That is not intellectual honesty.

W4U “I cited Occam’s razor, because your assumption of purposeful intelligent designer as being the least complicated is false. The assumption of a sentient designer presents so many scientific obstacles that the assumption of a creation from mathematical probabilities is much more reasonable by comparison. I’ll take the latter”.

Your final statement “I’ll take the latter” is starting to sound like an admission of faith.

???

It wouldn’t matter which he created first if he’s the creator and has the ability to violate his own laws.  If we’re talking an all powerful creator he can create something from nothing.  Your other two options are that everything has always existed or that things came into existence on their own.  Both of those positions do not fit the laws of Thermodynamics.

No, here you make an assumption that there are only two options (in contradiction to TD). I submit that there are several possible explanations apart from the two you mentioned. And some may not be subject to (standard) TD laws.
A tachyon apparently does not function in accordance to TD. We know it is not retricted by the law of SOL, moreover it has negative mass. Try to fit that into TD.
Nevertheless, it is a contradiction to say that God created matter and energy from Nothing, in spite of his own law that you cannot create matter and energy from nothing. Else follows the logical question, “who created god without affecting the condition of nothingness”?

But in the absence of any proof of god, the assertion that god must be the Creator is just not persuasive, its a philosophical assumption. It is dishonest to demand scientific proof to the contrary. Science is not even allowed to address your proposition as it has no properties for analysis.

You made the statement that god exists, the burden of proof falls on you, and not on someone else to disprove. That is intellectual trickery and that is why I have evaded getting into the science. Logic alone defeats your presumption of a specific god as the sentient creator of everything.

W4U. “I also like the word Potential, I think your God is a philosophical equivalent of my metaphysical paradigm of Potential”

That’s a nice story but has nothing to do with the discussion of Scientific Evidence

I challenge you to disprove my Potential paradigm with scientific evidence and/or your still unstated properties of God.

p.s. The comment on being “trapped” was not intended as ad hominem. It was my interpretation (using your example) of your refusal to consider possibilities other than God or Nothing. Perhaps I could have put it in more diplomatic terms.

[ Edited: 03 November 2010 07:48 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2010 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U

You made the statement that god exists, the burden of proof falls on you, and not on someone else to disprove. That is intellectual trickery and that is why I have evaded getting into the science. Logic alone defeats your presumption of a specific god as the sentient creator of everything.

I’m going to start off addressing this one.  Again I’ve argued my point using Scientific Evidence.  There’s no trickery, I’ve laid out several Scientific facts and presented my case for a creator.  In response you have by your own admission evaded getting into the Science.  This demonstrates the weakness of your position and that your position is the one that is illogical.  If yours was the logical position you would have no problem discussing the Scientific Evidence.

Now I’m going to make this simple.  Here’s all the non-science related rabbit trails you’ve brought up.  You say I sound like a Gnostic.  In what way am I like a Gnostic?  You made reference to my comment that different religions worship different Gods.  I should of put God with a lower case g since what I mean is that anyone can worship anything as a god.  You will also note I said I believe in one true God.  But again you’re diverting from science.  You continue to try to claim a creator would have to be subject to the laws he created.  Quite simply put that makes no sense.  Why would a creator create a law that rules over him.  The physical laws rule over the creation not the creator.  You bring up Tacyons, this is another example of a hypothetical that your describe as real.

I challenge you to disprove my Potential paradigm with scientific evidence and/or your still unstated properties of God.

po·ten·tial [ pə ténshəl ]

adjective
Definition:
 
1. possible but as yet not actual: having a latent possibility or likelihood of occurring, or of doing or becoming something

I suppose this at least means your willing to say a Creator is a possibility.  But I’ve been showing that a Creator is much more than a possibility but rather a reasonable and logical faith based on evidence.

And the running tally of unanswered evidence by you is stacking up.
1) Non-living matter become living matter.
2) the extreme complexity of the Human body pointing to a designer.

Here is scientific topic number 4.  Pay close attention to this.  There is no known mechanism for Darwinian Evolution.  Nothing showing how one kind of animal can evolve into a completely different kind of animal.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2010 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
KeithP - 04 November 2010 04:00 PM

Write4U

You made the statement that god exists, the burden of proof falls on you, and not on someone else to disprove. That is intellectual trickery and that is why I have evaded getting into the science. Logic alone defeats your presumption of a specific god as the sentient creator of everything.

I’m going to start off addressing this one.  Again I’ve argued my point using Scientific Evidence.  There’s no trickery, I’ve laid out several Scientific facts and presented my case for a creator.  In response you have by your own admission evaded getting into the Science.  This demonstrates the weakness of your position and that your position is the one that is illogical.  If yours was the logical position you would have no problem discussing the Scientific Evidence.

You have not presented any scientific evidence. All you have proposed that in absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, your assumption is fact. Hardly scientific.

Now I’m going to make this simple.  Here’s all the non-science related rabbit trails you’ve brought up.  You say I sound like a Gnostic.  In what way am I like a Gnostic?  You made reference to my comment that different religions worship different Gods.  I should of put God with a lower case g since what I mean is that anyone can worship anything as a god.  You will also note I said I believe in one true God.  But again you’re diverting from science.  You continue to try to claim a creator would have to be subject to the laws he created.  Quite simply put that makes no sense.  Why would a creator create a law that rules over him.  The physical laws rule over the creation not the creator.  You bring up Tacyons, this is another example of a hypothetical that your describe as real.

Ah, we have a concession. From God (a specific entity) to god (a creative force or condition). We are getting there.

I challenge you to disprove my Potential paradigm with scientific evidence and/or your still unstated properties of God.

adjective
Definition: 
1. possible but as yet not actual: having a latent possibility or likelihood of occurring, or of doing or becoming something

Potential (noun), “That which may become reality” . Every argument you have used for god applies to Potential, except for the assumption of intelligence. And there’s the rub.
As I said before, I do not rule out a mathematical condition or fundamental causality. I rule out intelligence. And you have not proved intelligence as the only way for the universe to come into existence. Its all speculation

I suppose this at least means your willing to say a Creator is a possibility.  But I’ve been showing that a Creator is much more than a possibility but rather a reasonable and logical faith based on evidence.

I already stated that there must have been a Causality. Nothing new .

And the running tally of unanswered evidence by you is stacking up.
1) Non-living matter become living matter.
2) the extreme complexity of the Human body pointing to a designer.

Actually it is a running tally of unanswered questions (not evidence). I purposely avoided having you place me in a position of defending science for being (as yet) unable to answer all questions. Yours is a god of the gaps. Hardly proof. But then you have already admitted that yoiu cannot prove your god. And now you accuse me of not answering a tally of unanswered “evidence”??

1) Have you ever watched a crystal grow? Apparently nature has found a way for inanimate matter to multiply.
2) I would argue the opposite. The Universe is much too complex for an intelligent designer. Only a mathematical construct could possibly handle the action of every sub-atomic particle in the universe

Here is scientific topic number 4.  Pay close attention to this.  There is no known mechanism for Darwinian Evolution.  Nothing showing how one kind of animal can evolve into a completely different kind of animal.

You are completely wrong here. Humans belong to the genus (family) Hominidae, which includes the great apes. The miniscule differences in DNA between all of them is clear evidence of a common ancestor.
btw. The Vatican (holy see) cosmology department has accepted Evolution as fact. Seems you are arguing against yourself here.

I am sorry Keith, your attempts to draw me into a scientific discussion of the Intelligence of a Universal Causality, is an exercise in futility with me.

Be well

[ Edited: 05 November 2010 09:15 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2010 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

Now, answer me this.
What was God’s Motive (Free Will) for the Creation of the universe?
Why does god refer to himself as That?  “I am That, I am.”
How is it that the “silvery salamander” is able to reproduce asexually? They are all female and identical clones!
How is it that Jesus was born from a virgin yet is male? By god’s own law of procreation, without male DNA Jesus would have had to be a female and a clone of Mary. Or did He (It) disguise himself (Itself) as a swan when impregnating Mary?

But of course I already know the answer. God can do anything he (It) wants, regardless of His (Its) established natural law.

But I should like to hear your answers to that anyway.

[ Edited: 06 November 2010 02:44 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2010 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

You have not presented any scientific evidence. All you have proposed that in absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, your assumption is fact. Hardly scientific.

Your statement that I haven’t presented Scientific Evidence is completely false and I think you know that.  Let me run down the facts I’ve presented again.

a)I’ve stated the the First law of Thermodynamics, a well established law of Science.
b)I’ve explained what an amino acid is and that all life has only left handed amino acids.
c)I’ve presented a simple rundown of the complexity of the Human body.
d)This one I haven’t gone into detail yet but I stated that there is no known working mechanism for Darwinian Evolution, A scientific fact.

Ah, we have a concession. From God (a specific entity) to god (a creative force or condition). We are getting there.

There’s no concession,  I’ve simply reiterated what I said before and clarified it better.  My position is the same as before.  I believe there is one True God however anyone can worship anything as their god.  You could worship yourself as a god if you choose to, however you’re not a god so you would be worshipping a false god.

Potential (noun), “That which may become reality” . Every argument you have used for god applies to Potential, except for the assumption of intelligence. And there’s the rub.
As I said before, I do not rule out a mathematical condition or fundamental causality. I rule out intelligence. And you have not proved intelligence as the only way for the universe to come into existence. Its all speculation

To the contrary I’ve presented some very compelling evidences for as Intelligent Creator.  But regardless of your lack of admission you are choosing to believe the opposite.  I’ll run through them again.

a) Matter and Energy can’t be Created or destroyed through natural means.
b) There’s nothing in Science showing how life can arise from non-life.
c) The exteme complexity of the Human Body points to a designer.
d) The fact that there’s no working Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution demonstrates that a belief in Evolution is faith based and is far less plausible than animals being created in their current forms.

Actually it is a running tally of unanswered questions (not evidence). I purposely avoided having you place me in a position of defending science for being (as yet) unable to answer all questions. Yours is a god of the gaps. Hardly proof. But then you have already admitted that yoiu cannot prove your god. And now you accuse me of not answering a tally of unanswered “evidence”??

1) Have you ever watched a crystal grow? Apparently nature has found a way for inanimate matter to multiply.
2) I would argue the opposite. The Universe is much too complex for an intelligent designer. Only a mathematical construct could possibly handle the action of every sub-atomic particle in the universe

You’re right each one of these areas I’ve brought up presents a question that Science has no answer for.  And these are some serious questions that are foundational to a belief.

a)How did all the Matter and Energy come into existence?
b)How did Life come into existence?
c)Why does the Human Body and just about everything else appear to have a design to it?
d)(This one I will need to qualify) This is a question for the Evolutionist.  Why should I believe Darwinian Evolution when there’s no evidence of how it works?
e)Let me throw in the next one.  Why should I believe Evolution when there’s no evidence that it has occured in the past.

Scientific topic number five.  There are no Transitional fossils in the fossil record showing Darwinian Evolution.

Now let me address your response to my previous topics.

1)With crystals forming there is not new matter being formed it’s some kind of liquid changing into crystals through Crystallization.  And like you said they’re inanimate so that has nothing to do with life arising from non-life.
2)Too much complexity proves it wasn’t designed.  Of all the ridiculous arguments that one perhaps tops the list.  When is the last time you saw an intricate painting or a complex piece of machinery and said to yourself that thing is way to complex to have been designed, It must of came about by itself.

You are completely wrong here. Humans belong to the genus (family) Hominidae, which includes the great apes. The miniscule differences in DNA between all of them is clear evidence of a common ancestor.
btw. The Vatican (holy see) cosmology department has accepted Evolution as fact. Seems you are arguing against yourself here.

Humans and Apes have 96% similiar DNA, Humans and mice have 85% similiar DNA, Humans and Bananas have 50% similiar DNA.  Having similiar DNA doesn’t prove we have a common ancestor.  Even that 4 percent difference is a big difference in the world of DNA.  This I would argue is just as easily evidence if not more likely evidence for a common Creator.  This of course doesn’t address my statement before though that there is no known Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution.  Your statement about the Vatican just proves they are equally wrong about Evolution.  By the way I’m not Catholic, so I don’t put much stock in what the Vatican has to say.

I am sorry Keith, your attempts to draw me into a scientific discussion of the Intelligence of a Universal Causality, is an exercise in futility with me.

You can continue to ignore the Scientifc discussion if you want.  But I’m probably not alone in this when I say it only further shows the weakness of your argument.

as far as your other questions I’ll pull the only science related one out of the bunch since that’s what we’re currently discussing.

How is it that the “silvery salamander” is able to reproduce asexually. They are all female and identical clones

There is still a lot of mystery surrounding these Salamanders.  They are apparently part of a complex of five Salamanders.  But their asexual reproduction doesn’t line up more with Evolution than that of a Creator.  They’re an ongoing study that both Evolution and Creation Scientist are still studying.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
‹‹ The Starship Enterprise      "Cult" Abuse ››