In a Nut Shell

relaxxx- which creator theory? are you dismissing all of them? creation is a natural force. i don't see how anyone can deny that. what of awareness? intelligence?

random?

 

I saw a video of Eugenie Scott say this very elloquently. Similar to what you posted, she communicate to a church full of people that science does not try to explain God, and is not inherently atheistic or antireligion, and does not push a specific moral code. (This is the same talk, for those that follow him, where Hugh ross said "God loves whales" and that he "can put God in a test tube").

Science by its very nature relies on the assumption that god does not interfere in that natural worold, but by its very nature it cannot argue that God cannot interfere.

 

this thread is calling my name..

 

It makes me really sad to read things like this...

 

No much I can reply to Okie's big post about nothing and the priest talking about his `Proofs'; I've said it all before, there is really no such thing as NOTHING or we would not be here. EVERYTHING is something, SOMETHING always was and always will be. Nothing is perfect, the universe being something is not perfect and therefore energy exists. Energy IS the propagation of balance, energy flows until there is balance but the universe is not perfect and can not obtain perfect balance so energy cycles for eternity. If there was a big bang I do not believe it was a beginning so much as phase change in an endless cycle, I'm sure Hawking also believes this. It is just like theist creationists to take scientists out of context and warp parts of what their saying into a bullshit circular argument which is exactly what this Robert Spitzer is doing in the video.

The world is choked full of crazy people. I myself have had days where I felt I could barely hold on to my sanity. Out of millions of stories of alien abductions and contact with ghosts or Gods, I believe they are all bullshit and certainly proof of nothing except human nature.

 

I feel your pain. It reminds me of the feelings I get when I watch FOX news or listen to friends who think Sarah Palin would make a great president. And I know these people are majorly out to lunch, and I can bring up lots of evidence that I think would persuade any reasonable person of that conclusion. But alas, I can't "prove" it, so I'm told that it's "just my opinion", on a par with theirs, and I accept the reality that that's their opinion and move on. What bothers me about some of your of your posts is that you present your opinions as scientific fact, and they aren't. They are plausible metaphysical propositions, most of which are not testable, others of which are unlikely to be tested in our lifetime. What Stephen Hawing believes about cosmology is always more interesting than what Pat Robertson believes, but it is still metaphysical speculation--highly informed, brilliant speculation, but speculation none the less. Highly informed, empirically grounded speculation about the ultimate questions is as good as it gets.

I happen to agree with you that perfection is unattainable in the real world except as an aspiration, and that's why, much as I respect science, I'd never pronounce any scientific theory as "fact". The reason I respect the theory of human evolution and don't respect "Scientific creationism", is that the former is refutable and the latter is not. Evolution is based on an impressive body of findings from a variety of fields which as so far held up under numerous challenges and extensive peer review. Yet it is always one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian away from being discredited. So far, no rabbits. And that is its virtue. Scientific Creationism is a pretentious term for a discipline that produces and tests no theories, generates no new knowledge, and concentrates entirely on trying to poke holes in natural selection. Yet the fact remains we can know nothing for sure--maybe not even that. Although some scientists continue to pursue the TOE (Theory of Everything), and sometimes claim to have found it, at present that seems like the quest for the Holy Grail.

Does this mean we must concede equal status to well-grounded scientific theories like evolution and beliefs like Young Earth creationism? I don't think so, because literal Genesis is in clear conflict with a massive body of scientific evidence, and the convoluted efforts of creationists to defend their position (as opposed to casting doubt on this or that aspect of evolutionary theory), seem to be simply farfetched. In the third century, Origen, even without the aid of modern science, did an excellent job of showing the weakness of a literal Genesis, and St. Augustine provided a more muted but compelling case against it. I accept nothing which seems to contradict logic and science. But we have to contend with the fact that there a lots of people who don't seem to share that view. I've had numerous exchanges in the Christian "Sanctuary" on such matters as the Age of the Earth. One participant argued that the Earth is 6,000 years old. When I pointed to scientific evidence of human artifacts, including impressive artwork, thousands of years before that time, he said the scientists were mistaken and were deluded by a belief in evolution. When I asked was he saying a majority of scientists from a variety of disciplines, including paleontology and archaeology, could be thousands of years off in their calculations, and that whole fields of science and departments of major universities, and studies published in peer reviewed journals could be completely out to lunch, he said Yes. And this, he said, was based on his own calculations from biblical geneology, including patriarchs who lived for hundreds of years. Can we prove him wrong? I'd say that people who give any credence to such arguments are beyond the reach of proof. They say it's "just my opinion". And I have to concede they're right, along with the backers of "Palin for President". I've chosen to accept a worldview in which we can rely on reason and science for answers. They've chosen a worldview that rejects those answers if they conflict with those of a Bronze Age Book. What do we do? Make dogmatic pronouncements that we're right and they're wrong? Or be secure in the knowledge that we've made a rational choice and are willing to bet our lives on it.

 

Why's that?

 

Its an obvious misapprehension of how science works..

saying "science relies on the assumption that god does
not interfere in the natural world". seems to disregard
the fact that if god did exist, it is what science would be
explaining.

Gravity is intelligent falling WITHOUT the assumptions.

But they both function the same way

 

Strange that you get sad about what is at worst a turn of phrase that doesn't suit you. That science assumes that the phenomena it studies have natural causes is hard to dispute, as is the fact that this is an assumption, not something science has proved. So what's your beef? That the word god was mentioned at all? You may be allergic to the word, but a majority of the people in this country are believers, making it relevant to point out for them and non-believers alike what the boundaries of science are. You and Relaxx have a tendency to engage in question begging--acting as though science has disproved religion or regards it as unworthy of consideration. The fact that science has done nothing of the sort needs occasionally to be pointed out, as a corrective to anti-religious propaganda.

And this seems to disregard the fact that if the idea of god didn't exist, this Forum wouldn't either.

 

My beef is with the natural vs supernatural distinction

Because if we could apply natural knowledge to understand
supernatural causes (like your doing when you say "supernatural") then
by definition, they would not be supernatural.

Though this depends on what limits you are placing on the natural.

"Supernatural" is a meaningless word.

 

The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" has analytical utility in describing the reality that science has ruled certain phenomena like gods out of bounds in considering explanations of things. Your statement contains the important word "if". "If" science could explain everything naturalisticly, then the distinction would no longer be useful. But to forget the distinction between "if" and "is" is very unscientific.

 

There is no opposing will. Do you have a question, an expectation, that is why you are here, seeking.

We are not separate in fact.

Mercy is not required but desired. You desire to be understood.

 

The world is not valuable for what it has to offer.

 

Is economic progress a state of human being? Seems so much landfill to me.

 

Of course we have free will, we have no choice...

 

The will is freely available but it is binding, as in inviolate.

 

It is a matter of personal preference to "allow the sunrise to effect the quality of day". I find all ingenuity to be ingenuous, that is artless, in that light of dawn.

 

su·per·nat·u·ral


1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Seems as though it does have a meaning, and a reasonable one at that.

You are an adherent of the religion of Scientism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I'll accept this mans credentials and expertise on the subject before yours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyFdGd6mKaE"]YouTube - Questions of Consciousness with Charles Tart, Part 2

 

Speaking of the natural and supernatural, advances in science and philosophy raise doubts about how much we can depend on them in making generalizations about ultimate reality. First Kant in the eighteenth century made us aware that we are prisoners of our unreliable senses. Then relativity theory and quantum physics demolished the security of a mechanistic Newtonian universe. In light of this, it's remarkable that people can still be confident that its just a matter of time before we have all the answers, or at least most of them.

 

I think i see what your doing and i'l try to explain....

You are saying that there are two different "everythings".

An "everything" that we can understand as humans, and an everything that
actually exists, which is synonymous with universe.

The distinction is meaningless because the word "universe", when spoken by a
human, demands a human understanding. What we know as being beyond our
understanding is necessarily within it BECAUSE it is of our understanding.

Anyways, If the supernatural is necessarily a mystery to us, it could provide no
grounds on which to judge scientific models...