|
|
#81
09-29-2005, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem. [/ QUOTE ] Ver very well put. Thanks, Jeff 
|
|
#82
09-29-2005, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem. [/ QUOTE ] Ver very well put. Thanks, Jeff [/ QUOTE ] Not really. His post doesn't really say much of anything other than that you shouldn't eliminate God as a possibility given evidence. There is no evidence, so his post rings rather hollow. In science, you are much better served realizing you may lack information and not making anything more than weak postulations rather than filling in the blank with an ambiguous and superfluous answer like God.
|
|
#83
09-29-2005, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
In science, you are much better served realizing you may lack information and not making anything more than weak postulations rather than filling in the blank with an ambiguous and superfluous answer like God. [/ QUOTE ] More specificaly [ QUOTE ] ambiguous and superfluous answer like God. [/ QUOTE ] This is the worldview I think he' speaking of.
|
|
#84
09-29-2005, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In science, you are much better served realizing you may lack information and not making anything more than weak postulations rather than filling in the blank with an ambiguous and superfluous answer like God. [/ QUOTE ] More specificaly [ QUOTE ] ambiguous and superfluous answer like God. [/ QUOTE ] This is the worldview I think he' speaking of. [/ QUOTE ] God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters -- it's only an impediment to further understanding.
|
|
#85
09-29-2005, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters [/ QUOTE ] If science is the search for truth, and you rule out a cause before it has a chance to speak simply because you think it's "superfoulus" what's that? We shouldn't prejudge just because we don't like it. We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. When we recognize the effects of inteligence in so many other areas of reasoning.
|
|
#86
09-29-2005, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You can't resolve txag007's dilemma. His whole argument rests on the premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true. As most of us agree we don't know, its easy to find any number of argumenets that reduce to this lack of knowledge and txag007's dilemma is that he can't recognise that all his arguments about the nature of the universe, at best, reduce to this lack of knowledge which itself is no reason to believe in god. [/ QUOTE ] You guys think I'm trying to prove something to you, and I'm not. I know there are things we still don't know about the universe. There are some things that we may never know. [/ QUOTE ]Excellent so we all agree, the argument demonstrates nothing to those who were already aware they didn't know and may never know. [ QUOTE ] I'm just offering up reasonable evidence that the universe in which we live was created by some type of a God. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't offer any such evidence (with this argument) the argument just demonstrates that there are things we don't know and may never know. [ QUOTE ] The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem. [/ QUOTE ] I haven't eliminated anything from the possibilities, don't presume too much about my worldview from the fact that I'm aware that I don't know and may never know. I have learnt one thing. I didn't realise that you were aware that you don't know and may never know. Can we avoid a lot of silly discussion if we all agree about this? chez
|
|
#87
09-30-2005, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters [/ QUOTE ] If science is the search for truth, and you rule out a cause before it has a chance to speak simply because you think it's "superfoulus" what's that? We shouldn't prejudge just because we don't like it. We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. When we recognize the effects of inteligence in so many other areas of reasoning. [/ QUOTE ] Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question. Like the first cause argument, intelligent design rests on the same faulty premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true. This time its worse because it attempts to step into the domain of science and there is an alternative scientific explanation. So now you have to make even more desperate use of the faulty premise and claim that because science can't (yet) explain exactly how life evolved, it can't be true. chez
|
|
#88
09-30-2005, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question. [/ QUOTE ] So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be. Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it? This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.
|
|
#89
09-30-2005, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question. [/ QUOTE ] So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be. Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it? [/ QUOTE ] No, science can give weight against some religous beliefs. In context, 'god' may be used to to refer to these beliefs. [ QUOTE ] This is the kind of worldview I am talking about. [/ QUOTE ] What, the one where you mix up concepts, draw a conclusion that isn't held by the people you are discussing things with and then claim they are wrong to hold this conclusion? chez
|
|
#90
09-30-2005, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. [/ QUOTE ] What can an ID scientist do differently than a non-ID scientist? What is the scientific benefit?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
