This topic contains 53 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
BTW Richard I want to say that I have really enjoyed dialoguing with you. It is refreshing to explore our beliefs, and even challenge and be challenged, in a positive and healthy way. I enjoy the ability to disagree and yet hold respect for each other. (I may be assuming too much here, but I can say I have much respect for you and your approach to life.) And likely we will not be able to proceed much further…yet I have enjoyed our discussion very much.
How come only guys addressed this post? Hmmm interesting to notice. I like what you’re saying Richard and I tend to agree. It’s very freeing to let go of my tightly held beliefs. It was scary at first but as time has unfolded it’s more and more freeing.
I like your list. Most of that for me has come with letting go of fundamentalism and moving into the emergent/progressive section of Christianity. And though some of the list still applies, the obligation and fear have dissipated For instance, I do have to think about what god thinks of me, but as I found I’m a much harsher critic than he is in a lot of ways. (For instance, he won’t smite me for not reading my Bible every day.) I don’t have to “sell” my faith like a pyramid scheme. I can just live my life and I don’t have to worry about “having the talk” about hell with every person I care about in my life (because my views on hell and how you should appropriate talk to friends about faith have changed dramatically). I can tell you, it’s an F’ing relief!
@Starfielder – How come only guys addressed this post? Hmmm interesting to notice.
You’re right…this is interesting. But now that you and Deanna have arrived the thread is much more balanced.
I like what you said about letting go of tightly held beliefs being very freeing. I couldn’t agree more.
@Gary And as for pre-suppositions…I tend to believe everyone has them. The facts of the universe we do know are open to theorizing the how. It is logical to me that order is more likely by design than by chance.
Everyone proceeds from pre-suppositions. The basic tenet of reason is based on if/then. That is if A is true then B. A is the presupposition.
Your presupposition is that complexity indicates a designer. Or in the case of fractals, because there are laws that govern order there must be a god behind it. For these to move to a theory and into the realm of reason you have to have a way to test if it is true or not.
When you claim that you have a theory and it’s more logical you have entered into the vocabulary of science. These words have precise definitions. So when you say you have a theory and it’s logical this requires one to have a way to test that theory. A theory in science is a roadmap to determine if it is true or not through experimentation. If you have no way of testing then it becomes a guess and is removed from the realm of logic.
So if you aren’t trying to prove there is a god you are in the realm of feeling and irrationality. I’m not making any judgements about doing things based on feelings as being good or bad. They just aren’t based on reason.
Definitions are important because they help in communication. Too often definitions get shifted and people end up talking to each other sideways.
If I were to believe in god it would be because I liked living in a world where some benevolent god oversaw everything. The thing that I observed in the various gods people believe in is that this god suspiciously looks like an idealized version of a human being. This god has desires, goals, ego, and all these other human characteristics. Instead of us being created in gods image, god is created in our image.
The reason I feel better about having no god is that I don’t have to confront the hypocrisy of a god who allows suffering on the scale we have seen on this planet. And because I’m agnostic, I don’t have to prove there is no god either. I have simply recognized my limitations.
@Richard Your presupposition is that complexity indicates a designer. Or in the case of fractals, because there are laws that govern order there must be a god behind it. For these to move to a theory and into the realm of reason you have to have a way to test if it is true or not.
When you claim that you have a theory and it’s more logical you have entered into the vocabulary of science. These words have precise definitions. So when you say you have a theory and it’s logical this requires one to have a way to test that theory. A theory in science is a roadmap to determine if it is true or not through experimentation. If you have no way of testing then it becomes a guess and is removed from the realm of logic.I am forced to challenge your assumption that a theory must have a means of testing for it to be valid within the realm of logic and science. Science has many theories that when presented were untestable and only much later able to be confirmed or denied. This in no way precluded them from being very valid theories. The most notable of these perhaps is the theorized existence of the Higgs Boson particle. The theory was put forth in 1964 and only within the last year (nearly 50 years later) have we been able to successfully test the validity of the theory. Interestingly enough, scientists theorized its existence because they could detect the influence of it though they had no means to test whether it really existed for more than 40 years. You and I both see order in the universe and come to different conclusions as to the reason for its existence. But to leave science strictly to the world of the atheists is not something I am prepared to do. I believe there is much scientific evidence lending itself to the plausibility of the theory of existence of a creator.
For a defense of the existence of God as scientific “theory” I submit the following article for consideration. Richard Deem is a molecular biologist engaged in research on Crohn’s disease. Though I do not support all of his theological views, I very much appreciate his presentation of the “scientific” case for a creator.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.htmlDefinitions are important because they help in communication. Too often definitions get shifted and people end up talking to each other sideways.
You are correct…definitions are important. Theories start with testable facts as you suggest and you are right in stating that this is a requirement of a scientifically viable theory. But it is not correct to promote that the conclusion of a theory has to be one of the testable facts for it to be valid. (I.E. – Test for God’s existence) If that were the case we would not need a theory in the first place. Scientific theories postulating the existence of God are based upon very testable and observable phenomenon just as was the Higgs Boson theory. You may disagree with the conclusions, and ultimately you may eventually be proven right. Many scientific theories have fallen to that fate. But to attempt to remove such theories from the arena of science altogether just seems very self serving. One does not need to take my word for it. A quick google search will turn up a very respectable host of scientists who believe science itself points to the existence of God. The following list is quite enlightening…especially those who are recent and/or still alive and active in the field of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science@Gary I am forced to challenge your assumption that a theory must have a means of testing for it to be valid within the realm of logic and science. Science has many theories that when presented were untestable and only much later able to be confirmed or denied. This in no way precluded them from being very valid theories. The most notable of these perhaps is the theorized existence of the Higgs Boson particle.
The theory of the Higgs Bosom was based on mathematical proofs based on observable particle physics. These equations were the road map for designing a particle accelerator so that we could test if they existed or not. When they ran the test and observed predictable results based on their equations, this further verified the theory. There are a number of further test needed to further verify this particle because it is part of an attempt to develop a universal string theory.
There is no such mathematical road map for the existence of god, nor are there observable phenomenon.
@Richard…It seems as if you missed the heart of my point and we have arrived at an impasse. Which is of course fine as I was not attempting to change your view, rather to recognize the similarity of our views despite our differing ultimate conclusions. I do not concede that the discussion of God’s existence can only take place outside of the scientific arena, and have provided points to counter such an assumption. However, I still sense that at our core we are very similar in what we value in life and how we choose to interact with others.
Thanks for the great discussion.
@Gary But to attempt to remove such theories from the arena of science altogether just seems very self serving.
It’s not self serving at all. There are no theories in science regarding a god or creator. There are beliefs. It doesn’t matter if there are believers who happen to be scientists. Their conclusions are beliefs just like yours because there is no theory.
Here is the definition of a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
You are not debating with me. You are debating against an established definition of theory. I am accountable to this definition just as you are.
Now when you or anyone else develops a method to test for a god or creator allowing other scientists to repeatedly confirm the existence of god through observation and experiment you will have a theory, but short of that it still is a belief.
Thanks Richard.
No – I am still going to make one final attempt to communicate what I have been trying to say. The theory is not a test for God…it is a reasoned case for a creator based upon the evidence that science continues to present us. You want to state that we need a test for some specific knowledge of what the creator looks and acts like or we cannot call it science. I say this misses the point entirely. When we discover a created item, we can study IT, identify IT’s construction, design, perhaps even purpose, all within the realm of scientific study, without the slightest knowledge of who or what created IT. (The watchmaker analogy if you will) This in no way precludes us from coming to the very scientific conclusion that SOMEONE or SOME THING created it. We do not have to know who, or what, or how, or why to reach this conclusion based upon our scientific analysis. If you are unwilling to accept even that science has something to say on the subject then, as I said, we are at an impasse. I understand you if you say that everything we have learned about the universe can be explained rationally without any fine tuning. I disagree with it, but at least I understand it. The mathematical realities of removing a creator from the equations are so extremely implausible that theories such as the multiverse or parallel universe theory are put forth as a possible explanation. Of course this “theory” is also untestable.
At the core of my belief is not whether or not we can devise a test to prove the existence of God. It is watching the scientific advancement and believing that the more we learn scientifically, the more reasonable it is to conclude that our universe was fine tuned. Beyond that belief…science has nothing more to contribute, in my mind anyway, such as to the nature of God. For that we enter into the realm of theology and personal experience. I believe any who would claim that there is some kind of proof that this creator is the Christian Jehovah or any other, are mistaken, for such beliefs are within the realm of faith and/or personal experience alone.
To be honest, attempting to use science to prove or disprove God is pretty fruitless in my opinion, and its probably why neither has been fully achieved. Science in an observation of our physical universe and God by very definition exists outside of our plain of reality so logically you couldn’t even begin to establish an observation of such an entity. For a lot of people, that’s as far as it goes, they will not believe in something they cannot observe and test, but for others, there exists the belief that there exists something beyond what we can observe and test with our grounded technology. And that’s based more on emotion, difference in personal experience, difference in perception. Its why the debates on this topic never amount to anything, because at the end of the day, its down to simply how the individual perceives the universe around us, and what they personally take from that.
Whereas I would never claim that there is a scientific theory for God, I will state that there are universal observations that could point to the existence of an intelligence behind it, observations such as the Big Bang paradox (something existing from nothing, the premise that the universe had an origin logically dicerns that it has a cause), the anthropic principle, existence of mass unaccountable forces within the universe such as dark matter etc. To ignore such ideas in the creation debate would be a mistake I think. Though, personally I think more evidence for God can be found within the realm of history.
I agree in general Shift, we cannot prove or disprove God. But I think the reason is because we have no definition for God, or even to be able to say with certainty that He “exists outside of our plain of existence”. I am ok with this. The nature of God is not a question for science. But to claim that there is no place in science to question whether our universe was fine tuned or not is something I (and many active scientists) reject.
@Gary The theory is not a test for God…it is a reasoned case for a creator based upon the evidence that science continues to present us. You want to state that we need a test for some specific knowledge of what the creator looks and acts like or we cannot call it science.
If you are talking philosophy then you have a basis for dialog. If you are talking scientific theory then you have to meet that requirement. A reasoned case for a creator is not a scientific theory. It may rise to the level of hypothesis, but a hypothesis naturally leads to the development of a test to determine its validity.
@Gary But to claim that there is no place in science to question whether our universe was fine tuned or not is something I (and many active scientists) reject.
There would be a place in science for this claim if there was a way to test this claim. If you had a test for this you would be on world wide news. If you published this test and performed this test over and over with positive results you would completely change science. No one has proposed a test and until you have a way to test your claim, you are not in the realm of science. You are in the realm of philosophy and belief.
Scientists aren’t rejecting the notion, but they aren’t going call it science. Precision in definition and in method are the ideal in science. When you propose a hypothesis as a theory you are breaking a core value of science.
@Starfielder How come only guys addressed this post? Hmmm interesting to notice.
You may be in the best position to answer this one.
@Starfielder I like what you’re saying Richard and I tend to agree. It’s very freeing to let go of my tightly held beliefs. It was scary at first but as time has unfolded it’s more and more freeing.
It certainly is freeing. It feels good to set this stuff down. I love living life on the light side.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.