Science and Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2012, 12:04 PM
RE: Science and Theism
(10-12-2012 11:59 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 11:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  EC's take credit for it working exactly as it would as if no god existed and use that as evidence that god must exist?
The finely tuned argument.


Which is a silly, post hoc argument. It has the cart before the horse.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-12-2012, 12:08 PM
RE: Science and Theism
It's not an argument, it is an assertion that things are the way they are because they were made that way, despite the fact that there is nothing to compare it to.

If you have a "not finely tuned" universe to compare our "finely tuned universe" to, then at least n = 2.

Statistically that is nothing but with n = 1, you have no argument.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
10-12-2012, 01:13 PM
RE: Science and Theism
Someone remind me who E.C. is, again?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 01:16 PM
RE: Science and Theism
Hey, Dwarf.

I think that we can say, without argument, that there are natural laws. Science is the lens through which we observe, understand and catalogue these laws. Occam`s razor tells us that we need no explanation beyond, `Those forces exist`. No deity is needed it would seem. But not needed is not a synonym for doesn`t exist.

But, as has been pointed out, God could have made the rules. Or he could be like the workers of the great machine in Metropolis, constantly flipping switches and turning knobs to maintain the balance of these forces. Maybe God IS those forces, who knows.

In terms of moving a mountain by prayer, one has to assume that if God made the rules, then he`s not bound by them. He could decide to arbitrarily violate the rules. That`s not rewriting them, it`s just ignoring them. They truck right along as normal.

So science has pointed out one thing incontrovertibly; there are natural laws. But that doesn`t speak against the existence of God. It speaks for the existence of natural laws.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 01:39 PM
RE: Science and Theism
(10-12-2012 01:13 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Someone remind me who E.C. is, again?
It's a form of Theistic Evolution, which is a reconciliation of science with Christianity.

Evolutionary Creationism

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 03:08 PM
RE: Science and Theism
(10-12-2012 10:53 AM)pianodwarf Wrote:  Something occurred to me recently (although I doubt I'm the first one to think of it): doesn't the fact that science works tend to speak against the existence of a deity? Or at least certain types of deities or deistic behavior?

Coming up with formulas such as F=ma requires that the universe behave in a consistent and non-miraculous manner; i.e., not one in which one could simply pray for a mountain to move and it would move, without any apparent force acting on it. The fact that scientific inquiry works so well and so consistently, to me, suggests at the very least that if any type of deity does exist, it must be a non-intercessory one. (For my own part, I've always believed that a deity that does nothing is functionally equivalent to a deity that doesn't exist at all, although that's probably a separate discussion.) Thoughts?
I don't think science by itself is sufficient to argue against the existence of a god. When I was a Christian, I would have answered your point by saying that science works when God isn't intervening (or at least not intervening in a way that contradicts science), but God can contradict the laws of science anytime he so chooses. In that thought process, it's perfectly plausible that God does intervene at times, but only occasionally and not constantly. Science, by itself, isn't enough to argue that kind of thinking.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2012, 12:12 PM
RE: Science and Theism
The fact that science works is really unrelated to the idea that an imaginary god may or may not exist. I could see making a case for several hundred competing gods who would be constantly changing the world to their own liking would be nearly impossible given the consistency of our physical laws in our day to day lives.

The universe would be a chaotic mess if the laws of physics were constantly being bent and broken through the efforts of 1000 gods or more.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2012, 02:12 PM
RE: Science and Theism
Hey, Rahn.

Strictly speaking, if God did exist, he wouldn't be imaginary now would he Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 08:25 AM
RE: Science and Theism
(10-12-2012 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 11:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  EC's take credit for it working exactly as it would as if no god existed and use that as evidence that god must exist?


By George, he's got it! Yes
It's actually "By Jove I think he's got it."

Jove, aka Jupiter.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 08:39 AM
RE: Science and Theism
(13-12-2012 08:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  By George, he's got it! Yes
It's actually "By Jove I think he's got it."

Jove, aka Jupiter.
George is perfectly acceptable to an Englishman. As in Saint George. The one wot nailed a dragon. Perverted fucker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: