Re: A monkey is the Pope's uncle.

by darth omar Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:10 am

SamCogar wrote:
darth omar wrote:
As believers we not only know that God is, we know that He is rewarder of those that dilligently seek Him.

And the Bible tells you that, ..... right.

Brian, found any good Administrator jobs lately?

.

Hmm..no, Sammy. Was I supposed to be looking for one?

by darth omar Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:37 am

ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:
ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:Hi Stephanie,

1-Matter and energy have always existed.
2-Matter and energy came out of nothing.
3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

or 4- That matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

What is the difference between 3 and 4 and what is the consequence of that difference?

Number 3 infers, demands actually, the recognization of existencies beyond the natural world.

Number 4 is indicative that we simply do not fully understand what we witness in nature.

I agree with #3, Zig. That matter and energy owe their existence to something beyond nature is defacto evidence that there are other existences beyond nature. And it would follow from there that nature is not a self-contained system that explains itself; or put another way, we cannot tell from observing nature how nature came to exist.

I.e., it is a question that ultimately lays beyond science. And by 'science' I mean science strictly speaking, as opposed to materialist conjecture.

Science relies on observation, repeatability and falsification. Such things as these rely on the physical constancy of nature itself in order to exist in the first place. Therefore, scientifically speaking, we can not only be sure that we are ignorant of what brought the cosmos into existence, we can rest assured that such ignorance will remain complete. Since, whatever it was, by definition, lies beyond both nature and science.

Thus negating, your 4th postulate, Zigmiester.

by ziggy Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:15 pm

I agree with #3, Zig.
That matter and energy owe their existence to something beyond beyond nature
is defacto evidence that there are other existences beyond nature.

I do not believe that we have established that matter and energy owe their existence to something beyond nature.

Science relies on observation, repeatability and falsification. Such things as these rely on the physical constancy of nature itself in order to exist in the first place. Therefore, scientifically speaking, we can not only be sure that we are ignorant of what brought the cosmos into existence, we can rest assured that such ignorance will remain complete. Since, whatever it was, by definition, lies beyond both nature and science.

By some "definition", maybe. But certainly not by any definition having even modestly universal credibility.

by **Stephanie** Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:59 pm

darth omar wrote:
ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:
ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:Hi Stephanie,

1-Matter and energy have always existed.
2-Matter and energy came out of nothing.
3-Matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond anything we witness in nature.

or 4- That matter and energy exist due to reasons that go beyond what we fully understand in nature.

What is the difference between 3 and 4 and what is the consequence of that difference?

Number 3 infers, demands actually, the recognization of existencies beyond the natural world.

Number 4 is indicative that we simply do not fully understand what we witness in nature.

I agree with #3, Zig. That matter and energy owe their existence to something beyond beyond nature is defacto evidence that there are other existences beyond nature. And it would follow from there that nature is not a self-contained system that explains itself; or put another way, we cannot tell from observing nature how nature came to exist.

I.e., it is a question that ultimately lays beyond science. And by 'science' I mean science strictly speaking, as opposed to materialist conjecture.

Science relies on observation, repeatability and falsification. Such things as these rely on the physical constancy of nature itself in order to exist in the first place. Therefore, scientifically speaking, we can not only be sure that we are ignorant of what brought the cosmos into existence, we can rest assured that such ignorance will remain complete. Since, whatever it was, by definition, lies beyond both nature and science.

Thus negating, your 4th postulate, Zigmiester.

I disagree completely with your assertion that science will never be able to tell us how the cosmos came into existence. Science also builds on the foundation provided by previous discoveries. Every step we take leads science closer to discovering what matter and energy owe their existance to. While I doubt we will know in my lifetime, I know that if scientists are allowed enough years of unhampered investigation they will likely learn and prove things we cannot even dream of yet.

by darth omar Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:14 pm

Stephanie wrote:
I disagree completely with your assertion that science will never be able to tell us how the cosmos came into existence. Science also builds on the foundation provided by previous discoveries. Every step we take leads science closer to discovering what matter and energy owe their existance to. While I doubt we will know in my lifetime, I know that if scientists are allowed enough years of unhampered investigation they will likely learn and prove things we cannot even dream of yet.

In an unabashed attempt to escape certain implications regarding both a finite universe and the anthropic principle some speculate about meta-universes that gave birth to this one, now. But universes that lie beyond this one, might as well be God, because our instruments cannot go beyond this universe to detect another universe any more than they can detect a transcendent Creator.

Hence, the point in my prior post about the distinction between true science and materialist conjecture.

by ziggy Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:30 pm

In an unabashed attempt to escape certain implications regarding both a finite universe and the anthropic principle some speculate about meta-universes that gave birth to this one, now. But universes that lie beyond this one, might as well be God, because our instruments cannot go beyond this universe to detect another universe any more than they can detect a transcendent Creator.

So if those universes might as well be God, then why not this one might as well be God- or actually be God?

by darth omar Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:57 pm

ziggy wrote:
In an unabashed attempt to escape certain implications regarding both a finite universe and the anthropic principle some speculate about meta-universes that gave birth to this one, now. But universes that lie beyond this one, might as well be God, because our instruments cannot go beyond this universe to detect another universe any more than they can detect a transcendent Creator.

So if those universes might as well be God, then why not this one might as well be God- or actually be God?

I think my point was more along the lines that both God and other universes lie beyond science. And here is an interesting thing about that: A meta-universe that includes the one we inhabit would also neccessarily include a 'meta-principle' or 'meta-law' that would allow the formation of multiple universes. And this law or principle would, in effect, be transcendent in quite the same sense the God of the Bible is.

The only difference would be that said law or principle would be impersonal or 'natural', as it were. [though it wouldn't be 'natural' in the strict sense because we define 'natural' according to our known natural laws and other universes would presumably have their own laws and 'nature' but I digress]

The bottom line being that the materialist has no real bias vis a vis transcendency, in principle, just verses unembodied personal Creator beings.

At any rate, many do believe that this universe is God insofar as they assign God-like creative creative powers to Nature, as it were.

by **SheikBen** Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:05 pm

And such people are every bit as "religious" as we are, dear saint.

We exercise our faith in the Creator God and they exercise their faith in a physical world with godlike powers.

While we can make our arguments, it all comes down to faith on both sides. The difference is that the Christian or other breed of creationist admits as much. I believe the Christian faith to be completely rational, not surprisingly, but that is a different matter.

The naturalist and the Christian both have the capacity to use evidence, say the creationist with irreducible complexity and the naturalist with the panda's thumb. Both groups still have to take on faith where it all began.

by TerryRC Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:22 am

Darth Omar Intelligent design is using science to try and finally settle the age old question of whether the design that everyone concedes is present in biology is real or just apparent; that is, whether or not things like bacterial flagella are the products of an intelligence agency or whether they just look like they are.

Me How? How does one do that?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that.

That evolution of life occurs is a fact. The mechanisms as to how it happens are largely understood and can be tested.

One can not test the supernatural [god(s)].

Occam's Razor says: why look for supernatural explanations when we have perfectly natural ones at hand?

by darth omar Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:51 pm

TerryRC wrote:Darth Omar Intelligent design is using science to try and finally settle the age old question of whether the design that everyone concedes is present in biology is real or just apparent; that is, whether or not things like bacterial flagella are the products of an intelligence agency or whether they just look like they are.

Me How? How does one do that?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that.

That evolution of life occurs is a fact. The mechanisms as to how it happens are largely understood and can be tested.

One can not test the supernatural [god(s)].

Occam's Razor says: why look for supernatural explanations when we have perfectly natural ones at hand?

We have perfect answers for the origin of life? We have perfect answers for why the physical constants of the universe are apparently fined-tuned for intelligent life?

I get the distinct impression we have different ideas about what constitutes perfect answers.

As I recall I answered that question by saying, to the effect, 'do it the same way SETI searches for signs of intelligence in the universe'.

Is SETI practicing psuedo science?

by darth omar Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:12 pm

SheikBen wrote:And such people are every bit as "religious" as we are, dear saint.

We exercise our faith in the Creator God and they exercise their faith in a physical world with godlike powers.

While we can make our arguments, it all comes down to faith on both sides. The difference is that the Christian or other breed of creationist admits as much. I believe the Christian faith to be completely rational, not surprisingly, but that is a different matter.

The naturalist and the Christian both have the capacity to use evidence, say the creationist with irreducible complexity and the naturalist with the panda's thumb. Both groups still have to take on faith where it all began.

The beginning is ultimately a matter of faith for all involved, brother. The two big beginnings being the origin of the cosmos and then the origin of life.

Many are under the mis-impression that the Big Bang theory means science has solved the former problem. But the B-B is an effect that currently lacks a cause. It is thus currently quite rational to posit a personal Creator as that cause, given the scientific evidence as we no concieve it.

In terms of the origin of life, there are only competing hypotheses that are all miles away from being elevated to anything resembling 'theory' status. The main problem is in trying to get inanimate chemicals to behave animately. I think they may have had some modest success with replicators but self-replication is only part of the problem: the problem is getting biological information from non-information.

The axiom that 'only life begets life' is as sure as gravity. No one has ever seen non-life give birth to life; and indeed, the notion is absurd on its face.

In a certain sense, origin of life science is anti-science insofar as it amounts to trying to disprove something that is as sure as gravity. It is more properly defined as an expression of philosophical materialism, imo.

by darth omar Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:13 pm

darth omar wrote:
SheikBen wrote:And such people are every bit as "religious" as we are, dear saint.

We exercise our faith in the Creator God and they exercise their faith in a physical world with godlike powers.

While we can make our arguments, it all comes down to faith on both sides. The difference is that the Christian or other breed of creationist admits as much. I believe the Christian faith to be completely rational, not surprisingly, but that is a different matter.

The naturalist and the Christian both have the capacity to use evidence, say the creationist with irreducible complexity and the naturalist with the panda's thumb. Both groups still have to take on faith where it all began.

The beginning is ultimately a matter of faith for all involved, brother. The two big beginnings being the origin of the cosmos and then the origin of life.

Many are under the mis-impression that the Big Bang theory means science has solved the former problem. But the B-B is an effect that currently lacks a cause. It is thus currently quite rational to posit a personal Creator as that cause, given the scientific evidence as we now concieve it.

In terms of the origin of life, there are only competing hypotheses that are all miles away from being elevated to anything resembling 'theory' status. The main problem is in trying to get inanimate chemicals to behave animately. I think they may have had some modest success with replicators but self-replication is only part of the problem: the problem is getting biological information from non-information.

The axiom that 'only life begets life' is as sure as gravity. No one has ever seen non-life give birth to life; and indeed, the notion is absurd on its face.

In a certain sense, origin of life science is anti-science insofar as it amounts to trying to disprove something that is as sure as gravity. It is more properly defined as an expression of philosophical materialism, imo.

by SamCogar Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:33 pm

darth omar wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
Brian, found any good Administrator jobs lately?

Hmm..no, Sammy. Was I supposed to be looking for one?

When people like you with Bible in hand .......... start getting too close to old folks with "money in the bank", ..... I'm damn sure you are looking to get something to purchase them their non-refundable "tickets to heaven".

A monkey is the Pope's uncle. - Page 3 49761

.

by darth omar Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:37 am

SamCogar wrote:
darth omar wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
Brian, found any good Administrator jobs lately?

Hmm..no, Sammy. Was I supposed to be looking for one?

When people like you with Bible in hand .......... start getting too close to old folks with "money in the bank", ..... I'm damn sure you are looking to get something to purchase them their non-refundable "tickets to heaven".

.

Okies. Whatever you say, Sammy.

Must be Miller time over there in Braxton co.

Basketball

by **SheikBen** Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:39 pm

I'm sure there are charlatans who fleece, but I can tell you that my church does no such thing, and I'm certain that Darth's does not either. Sam, you might be a little less cynical if you came down to St Alban's or Culloden and saw some Christians in action.

I know there are pastors who act irresponsibly on many levels. I also know that the extent of Christian malfeasance has been exaggerated.

by SamCogar Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:38 pm

SheikBen wrote:
I know there are pastors who act irresponsibly on many levels. I also know that the extent of Christian malfeasance has been exaggerated.

HA, so name me a politician in WV that doesn't claim to be Christian.

.

by TerryRC Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:43 am

We have perfect answers for the origin of life? We have perfect answers for why the physical constants of the universe are apparently fined-tuned for intelligent life?

What makes you think the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life? The universe is a largely harsh and unfriendly place.

You never answered my question about how ID can be science when it seeks to measure the influence of the supernatural.

If it is looking for the hand of god, it may not be religion but it sure as hell isn't science.

by **SheikBen** Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:11 am

TerryRC,

I will repeat, then, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If inference to an intelligent creator is bad science (or not science at all), then so too is inference to the lack of an intelligent creator.

I don't see how inferring a Creator is not science, but if it is, then so too is the inference to a lack of Creator. True science, by your standards, would have to be completely neutral on the question.

by **SheikBen** Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:12 am

Which, by the way, is fine.

by darth omar Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:19 pm

TerryRC wrote:We have perfect answers for the origin of life? We have perfect answers for why the physical constants of the universe are apparently fined-tuned for intelligent life?

What makes you think the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life? The universe is a largely harsh and unfriendly place.

You never answered my question about how ID can be science when it seeks to measure the influence of the supernatural.

If it is looking for the hand of god, it may not be religion but it sure as hell isn't science.

I don't think the universe is fined-tuned for intelligent life; I know it is. Or at least that is what the science indicates. You're a science guy, right? Your point about the universe being largely harsh and unfriendly is not something I deny. On the other hand, the point is irrelevant insofar as that has nothing to do with the physical constants being 'just-so'.

I noticed you re-phrased your question. I'll answer the re-phrased version after you explain why SETI is searching for signs of intelligence and yet there is no caterwallering about 'the end of science as we know it' and a return to the Dark Ages.

by TerryRC Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:45 am

darth omar: I don't think the universe is fined-tuned for intelligent life; I know it is. Or at least that is what the science indicates. You're a science guy, right? Your point about the universe being largely harsh and unfriendly is not something I deny. On the other hand, the point is irrelevant insofar as that has nothing to do with the physical constants being 'just-so'.

No, the science indicates that the universe is harsh and quantum physicists think the physical constants that we can measure are the result of random chance during the first 10 to the power of minus eight seconds or so of the big bang. You are familiar with that part of the science?

Of course, you are talking about cosmology and NOT evolution.

Your question about SETI is irrelevant. Slick, though.

They are looking for extraterrestrial NATURAL life, not the hand of god. Unless you are saying that god was a non-divine alien...

Sheik: I will repeat, then, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If inference to an intelligent creator is bad science (or not science at all), then so too is inference to the lack of an intelligent creator.

I don't see how inferring a Creator is not science, but if it is, then so too is the inference to a lack of Creator. True science, by your standards, would have to be completely neutral on the question.

This is a logical fallacy. The reverse of a statement need not be true.

Also, how can science infer the LACK of a creator when it DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE SUBJECT!

I don't think you are intentionally trying to be dishonest, but you are not correct.

by **SheikBen** Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:13 am

"Also, how can science infer the LACK of a creator when it DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE SUBJECT!"

So, then, scientists should make clear, when making
pronouncements about origins, that they are not acting scientifically, but rather guessing and believing.

"I don't think you are intentionally trying to be dishonest"

Uh, whatever, Terry. If you didn't care to accuse of me of some sort of malfeasance here in my thinking (which is telling) then you would not have made the above statement. It may seem impossible to you that someone honest disagrees with you.

Here is my argument for clarity's sake.

1-It is a reasonable inference from what we witness that God exists.
2-IF AND ONLY IF such an inference is relegated to the realm of the non-scientific, then the opposite inference (the absence of a god) needs to be relegated there as well. If that is a logical fallacy you are going to have to show me how.

Scientists claiming superior wisdom like Dawkins make pronouncements on intelligent design (condemning it rather than just admitting that it is "out of the realm of science."

If anything, proving a negative (there is "no" god) would be much more difficult than proving that there is one. Either way, if God is an "off limits" topic for the scientist, you'll have to show me how averring that there is no god is "within limits."

by ziggy Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:31 am

SheikBen wrote:Here is my argument for clarity's sake.

1-It is a reasonable inference from what we witness that God exists.

And if so, maybe God is the physical constants that we can measure, as TRC suggests, came about as the result of random chance during the first 10 to the power of minus eight seconds or so of the big bang.

And so we're back to God being as natural as the world around us- without any need for the trappings of a supernatural creator.

by TerryRC Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:42 am

Uh, whatever, Terry. If you didn't care to accuse of me of some sort of malfeasance here in my thinking (which is telling) then you would not have made the above statement. It may seem impossible to you that someone honest disagrees with you.

It is dishonest to say that scientists are trying to disprove the role of god when they don't eve address it.

What I was implying that the devout probably see it that way.

1-It is a reasonable inference from what we witness that God exists.

How? Name one thing that can't be written up to a natural cause(s).

2-IF AND ONLY IF such an inference is relegated to the realm of the non-scientific, then the opposite inference (the absence of a god) needs to be relegated there as well. If that is a logical fallacy you are going to have to show me how.

Ask and you shall receive:

The fallacy of illicit conversion.

by TerryRC Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:47 am

I do see a mistake in my previous post:

What I meant to say is that the devout probably DON'T see it that way.

by Sponsored content