Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
markdohle

God and science

957 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

StarMountainKid

I posted in another topic asking what are the odds of intelligent life evolving on the Earth. In other words, how finely tuned must all of the parameters be for Humans to have evolved. 

It seems to me these parameters have been random events in the history of our planet. 

If some God had ordained intelligent life to exist on the Earth, this God would have had to manipulate all these random events throughout Earth's history to culminate with Humans. 

Wouldn't it have been more efficient for this God just to produce Human life by some simpler creative method? Like just saying "poof", here they are? 

Why create these complex, improbable circumstances to end up with us? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I posted in another topic asking what are the odds of intelligent life evolving on the Earth. In other words, how finely tuned must all of the parameters be for Humans to have evolved. 

It seems to me these parameters have been random events in the history of our planet. 

If some God had ordained intelligent life to exist on the Earth, this God would have had to manipulate all these random events throughout Earth's history to culminate with Humans. 

Wouldn't it have been more efficient for this God just to produce Human life by some simpler creative method? Like just saying "poof", here they are? 

Why create these complex, improbable circumstances to end up with us? 

Maybe it's only complex to us? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
9 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Why create these complex, improbable circumstances to end up with us? 

Maybe we're not the only ones. Perhaps the whole universe is like a random number generator who's sole purpose is to see what pops up. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

I posted in another topic asking what are the odds of intelligent life evolving on the Earth. In other words, how finely tuned must all of the parameters be for Humans to have evolved. 

It seems to me these parameters have been random events in the history of our planet. 

If some God had ordained intelligent life to exist on the Earth, this God would have had to manipulate all these random events throughout Earth's history to culminate with Humans. 

Wouldn't it have been more efficient for this God just to produce Human life by some simpler creative method? Like just saying "poof", here they are? 

Why create these complex, improbable circumstances to end up with us? 

You can check out the theory of Biocentrism. Also read 'In the beginning there was information' for more on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

You can check out the theory of Biocentrism. Also read 'In the beginning there was information' for more on this.

Biocentrism? What does philosophy have to do with this?

Or is there a duality of meanings to the word? 

I really disagree with Gitt. Why do you agree with his conclusions? Bear in mind he is not a scientist, he is trying to give a scientific argument for creationism. Creationism by definition isn't testable thus can't be argued from a scientific stance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Biocentrism? What does philosophy have to do with this?

Or is there a duality of meanings to the word? 

I really disagree with Gitt. Why do you agree with his conclusions? Bear in mind he is not a scientist, he is trying to give a scientific argument for creationism. Creationism by definition isn't testable thus can't be argued from a scientific stance.

Biocentrism is a theory proposed by Dr. Robert Lanza.

Btw, who is Gitt? Please be clear.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Biocentrism is a theory proposed by Dr. Robert Lanza.

Btw, who is Gitt? Please be clear.

 

Oh, it's a theory I'll have to look it up. I thought you meant the philosophical argument that asserts all life is equal. 

What does this theory propose?

Werner Gitt wrote ' In the Beginning There Was Information' the book you just suggested someone read. He's a German creationist dude. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Oh, it's a theory I'll have to look it up. I thought you meant the philosophical argument that asserts all life is equal. 

What does this theory propose?

Werner Gitt wrote ' In the Beginning There Was Information' the book you just suggested someone read. He's a German creationist dude. 

Regarding Biocentrism, read the book(s) by Dr. Robert Lanza.

I don't care who writes books. Even if Gitts is a creationist, that does not discredit his ideas. And is it true that only scientists write right things? He gives examples one can easily relate to. If someone shows you how intelligently structured are butterfly's wings, so that light reflects through it to give it just the correct wavelength(depicting color), will you not take it seriously?

Judge a book not by an author's status, but through the contents in it.

What's the point of Science if none other than scientists' are deemed to be correct? Are no other ideas appreciated in Science? Science in this sense would become a religion with scientists as its priests.

However, true science is not a religion. It is always open to new ideas. It is a quest for knowledge. And it is absolutely not necessary that only scientists are right and others are wrong.

I love Science, but not scientism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

     it ! I hate this site, I clicked refresh , okay guaranteed to be posted in the right spot right under the Gitt author bit,

I post

bam

someone posts over me, <snip>

Laterzzzzzzzzz

Edited by MWoo7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

I think the question can be asked, is the physical construction of the universe the universe? 

Is there nothing else to it? Is it just a complex mechanism? A self-contained and self-evolving independent machine? A mechanism that serves no purpose other than to exist as itself? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Regarding Biocentrism, read the book(s) by Dr. Robert Lanza.

I don't care who writes books. Even if Gitts is a creationist, that does not discredit his ideas. And is it true that only scientists write right things? He gives examples one can easily relate to. If someone shows you how intelligently structured are butterfly's wings, so that light reflects through it to give it just the correct wavelength(depicting color), will you not take it seriously?

Judge a book not by an author's status, but through the contents in it.

What's the point of Science if none other than scientists' are deemed to be correct? Are no other ideas appreciated in Science? Science in this sense would become a religion with scientists as its priests.

However, true science is not a religion. It is always open to new ideas. It is a quest for knowledge. And it is absolutely not necessary that only scientists are right and others are wrong.

I love Science, but not scientism.

Yes it does discredit his ideas, because he's reached his conclusions prior to experimental data. That's unscientific.

What he is doing is says," I have faith God (or something created) everything I'm gonna set out to prove it". That's contradictory to how us as scientifically minded individuals should conduct ourselves. 

What gives you the impression I or anyone judge's books by their Author.

The book is unscientific, because, one, the Author has predetermined their conclusions prior to experimental data and, two, the author is making scientific arguments on untestable hypothesis. 

I obviously can't read the dudes books now, can you please give an overview of what these book's ( books? Why not peer-reviewed papers?) are about? If you don't want to it's ok 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
4 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Regarding Biocentrism, read the book(s) by Dr. Robert Lanza.

I don't care who writes books. Even if Gitts is a creationist, that does not discredit his ideas. And is it true that only scientists write right things? He gives examples one can easily relate to. If someone shows you how intelligently structured are butterfly's wings, so that light reflects through it to give it just the correct wavelength(depicting color), will you not take it seriously?

Judge a book not by an author's status, but through the contents in it.

What's the point of Science if none other than scientists' are deemed to be correct? Are no other ideas appreciated in Science? Science in this sense would become a religion with scientists as its priests.

However, true science is not a religion. It is always open to new ideas. It is a quest for knowledge. And it is absolutely not necessary that only scientists are right and others are wrong.

I love Science, but not scientism.

Even author Michael Talbot was discredited for his 'The Holographic Universe' just because he was not a scientist! 

I think we must stop regarding scientists as experts. Sure, they know a lot. But this is only restricted to their expertise, which gives a narrow view of reality. Instead, try learning something of which you are not an expert, and then try applying the principles of your expertise to it. In this way, you link the two and create far better understanding of reality.

For example, apply Science to Arts. Find out how dance relates to mathematics and physics. Can we depict musical harmony with mathematical rules? What's the relation between a beautiful painting and the golden ratio? What colours are most beautiful? What are the physical properties of such colours(e.g., frequency). How does beautiful curly hair relate to the curl operator? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yes it does discredit his ideas, because he's reached his conclusions prior to experimental data. That's unscientific.

What he is doing is says," I have faith God (or something created) everything I'm gonna set out to prove it". That's contradictory to how us as scientifically minded individuals should conduct ourselves. 

What gives you the impression I or anyone judge's books by their Author.

The book is unscientific, because, one, the Author has predetermined their conclusions prior to experimental data and, two, the author is making scientific arguments on untestable hypothesis. 

I obviously can't read the dudes books now, can you please give an overview of what these book's ( books? Why not peer-reviewed papers?) are about? If you don't want to it's ok 

Please explain what's scientific and unscientific.

To me, scientific is not something that scientists say.

In fact, experimental data and theory have a circular nature. One gives rise to other. Every theory begins with an idea. Of course, just that we don't have experiments to verify theory doesn't mean that the theory is false.

You mean that so far, no experiments have been done to prove the theory. That's not the same as the theory being false.

When I'm referring to some work, it is because it helps clear a lot of confusion regarding the matter. That is not to say that I have to prove it that it is right.

 

Edited by Avinash Suresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Looks like this thread has turned into a dumpster fire.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Please explain what's scientific and unscientific.

To me, scientific is not something that scientists say.

I'm a physicist I say unscientific all the time!

Scientific hypothesis or subjects of study or what ever your favorite term is must be falsifiable. Pursuing these areas of study concerning God, creationism, even holographic universe theory are not testable. Thus unscientific.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm a physicist I say unscientific all the time!

Scientific hypothesis or subjects of study or what ever your favorite term is must be falsifiable. Pursuing these areas of study concerning God, creationism, even holographic universe theory are not testable. Thus unscientific.

Are ALL scientific theories testable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
16 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Are ALL scientific theories testable?

Yes its what makes them scientific theories. 

A scientific hypothesis becomes a theory once it's tested, thus it must be testable and falsifiable because hypothesis is only a suggested explanation of a given problem and it is therefore, important to check its correctness by performing an experiment. 

Basically it works like this.

Hypothesis - deduction - prediction - observation - test of prediction - induction.

If you leave out the test part it's not scientific.

Deduction and induction are forms of reasoning.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yes its what makes them scientific theories. 

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable because hypothesis is only a suggested explanation of a given problem and it is therefore, important to check its correctness by performing an experiment. 

Basically it works like this.

Hypothesis - deduction - prediction - observation - test of prediction - induction.

If you leave out the test part it's not scientific.

Deduction and induction are forms of reasoning.

The problem is not that the creationist theories(hypothesis?) are unscientific. The problem is that we use materialistic means to test things out. This might not be a very good idea. 

That aside, I think you must not just look for an overview of the theory(hypothesis), but instead also take into consideration the examples of the hypothesis in real life.

There are plenty which must not be dismissed out of hand.

I think its more philosophical, and Science cannot test philosophical claims.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
13 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

The problem is not that the creationist theories(hypothesis?) are unscientific. The problem is that we use materialistic means to test things out. This might not be a very good idea. 

That aside, I think you must not just look for an overview of the theory(hypothesis), but instead also take into consideration the examples of the hypothesis in real life.

There are plenty which must not be dismissed out of hand.

I think its more philosophical, and Science cannot test philosophical claims.

 

They are hypotheses not theories, actually they are more belief based but anyhow.

Eh, how might you suggest we test these things out. 

And yes I agree it's purely philosophical.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

If the universe spontaneously regulates itself, as it seems to, where is God in this self-regulating system? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

They are hypotheses not theories, actually they are more belief based but anyhow.

Eh, how might you suggest we test these things out. 

And yes I agree it's purely philosophical.

Well, to test any hypothesis, the best thing to do is to find out how it explains reality.

Am I correct in saying that not all truths are scientific?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Well, to test any hypothesis, the best thing to do is to find out how it explains reality.

Am I correct in saying that not all truths are scientific?

 

 

 

Truths are just truths, whether they are scientific or not. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with that comment to be honest. Is it leading to something? Do you mean some truths aren't testable? 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Truths are just truths, whether they are scientific or not. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with that comment to be honest. Is it leading to something? Do you mean some truths aren't testable? 

 

Yes, you got it right. You cannot test some truths scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
17 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Yes, you got it right. You cannot test some truths scientifically.

Can you elaborate on what truths you can't test?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 hours ago, markdohle said:

I do not think that there is a war going on between science and religion.  There is one, perhaps, between black and white thinkers on both sides of the argument.

A lot of people say this but nobody can tell me what we do when we get to the pointy bit.

Was the universe created or was it natural. 

Nothing at all supports a created universe. At this point theism and science well and truly part ways. 

8 hours ago, markdohle said:

No, I do not think that one can prove that 'God' exists any more than one can prove otherwise.  It is not under the umbrella of scientific studies to do that. 

I honestly think that depends on the situation and claims made. We only really outright don't say 'God does not exist' because we can't physically inspect every point inside, and outside the universe. It's a courtesy, not a viable proposition. What science has done is negate the need for a creator to explain the universe. That a miniscule microscopic philosophy maintains old ideas is not really challenging that outcome. 

Its not an equal chance of God existing because we cant search the entire universe and beyond. The existance of God is still a 0.000000000000000001% chance at the best of odds. 

8 hours ago, markdohle said:

However, I do believe that science can be used to bolster both sides of the argument.  So, why did I post the video? Well, because the universe screams out intelligence, order, elegance, along with the many horrors, that are also present that are known by anyone who takes the time to notice. 

That's not what that video shows at all though. It's not science, it's an appeal to authority. If you would care to discuss the finer points of it that you feel apply we might get more of an idea as to what your seeing in it what appeals to you. I'm just not seeing science in it at all. I pointed out why already. Do you disagree with those objections? 

8 hours ago, markdohle said:

I have a feeling that both are needed, or inevitable, in a universe that is finite, ages, and dies.  Though who knows, in a few years they may find out differently. 

Why do you think that we might revise that theory? 

8 hours ago, markdohle said:

Anthony Flew, was the most highly respected proponent of atheism in the 20th century, by both believers as well as atheists.  When he studied the properties of DNA, it led him to see an underlying intelligence at work.  Others would not be moved to come to the same conclusion.  

It doesn't bother you that none if his studies led to his theist change at 81  in his twilight years based on god of the gaps arguments, which he said met the criteria of proof? 

It still doesn't stand as proof today. That a very old person had an irrational change of heart doesn't seem overly convincing to me. 

8 hours ago, markdohle said:

I do believe that organized religion will continue to become smaller, which may not be a bad thing. 

I tend to find religious orientated posters far more rational and amicable than those professing personal religion, but that just an observation based on these forums. 

8 hours ago, markdohle said:

Political power is the sure road to corruption I believe, as is shown in the crisis now in my church.  Many will leave.  I will not.   My faith, my beliefs are not predicated on the actions or failures of others.   I am glad that the church is being brought into the limelight, and sued, for what they allowed to happen, covered up, needs to be punished....loss of money is the best way. 

Peace
Mark

That sort of thing happens in every church though. We hear bad stuff about the Catholic Church, but as far as I know there isn't a religion on earth that hasnt fallen and covered up their own controversies. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.