diversity and tolerance

[Fist and Faith]

That's because we can't do anything BUT speculate on a creator. Even its very existence is speculation. There's no evidence at all for one. And the best reasoning there is is what you're saying: It's no less impossible than the universe. Which is perfectly true, but it's not a reason to assume it's actually the case. And the fact that such a being is supposed to be beyond the reach of all methods (past, present, future) of studying it, of even detecting it, means we can't teach anything about it in a science class. That's not what science is. Philosophy class, religion class, yeah, but not science.

The universe, otoh, is a fact, by every definition of the word "fact". There's no speculation of any sort about whether or not it exists. We can talk about billions of aspects of it, because we can perceive them in many ways, and study them.

Seriously, what would you have them teach in a science class? What specific things would want in the cirriculum? (sp? heh)

[SoulBiter]

Either is equally possible (or impossible) but only one is accepted in todays classrooms as 'science'.

Either may be equally "possible" in terms of proof, but only one has tested and repeatable evidence to support its claims.

--A

Actually neither has repeatable evidence to support its claims.... we teach that the universe is a natural occurance but we dont know that it just 'is'. That is theory.

The universe, otoh, is a fact, by every definition of the word "fact". There's no speculation of any sort about whether or not it exists. We can talk about billions of aspects of it, because we can perceive them in many ways, and study them.

Seriously, what would you have them teach in a science class? What specific things would want in the cirriculum? (sp? heh)

Since, as I pointed out above to Avatar, both views of the universe are theories why cant both be taught as valid theories? We have taught many things over the years as fact and continue to do so based on very slim or no evidence and we teach those things as fact. Sometimes years later we find out that we were wrong about our 'facts' based on new evidence. We include many 'theories' in textbooks no matter how far fetched those theories are. Yet creationism is avoided altogether even if it is presented in a very non-secular way.

[Avatar]

Because there is nothing to suggest that one of the is a valid theory?

(And you seem to be lumping all science in with one or two issues where science itself says that it does not yet understand something. The admission of fallibility itself makes that +1 for science in my opinion.)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

The universe, otoh, is a fact, by every definition of the word "fact". There's no speculation of any sort about whether or not it exists. We can talk about billions of aspects of it, because we can perceive them in many ways, and study them.

Seriously, what would you have them teach in a science class? What specific things would want in the cirriculum? (sp? heh)

Since, as I pointed out above to Avatar, both views of the universe are theories why cant both be taught as valid theories? We have taught many things over the years as fact and continue to do so based on very slim or no evidence and we teach those things as fact. Sometimes years later we find out that we were wrong about our 'facts' based on new evidence. We include many 'theories' in textbooks no matter how far fetched those theories are. Yet creationism is avoided altogether even if it is presented in a very non-secular way.

I'm not aware of science classes teaching that it came about without a cause, or even without a creator. Yes, there's extremely good evidence that it all started in a Big Bang. Denying that goes against various facts. Sure, could be that we will discover something or other that puts it all in a different light, and the BB will be invalidated. But we don't stipulate such things before every lesson we ever teach, eh? We don't say, "We may well discover something about electricity that changes our entire understanding of how our computers work. But, from what we think we know about electricity from what appear to be demonstratable, reproducible facts, here's how we think computers work." So why say that about the BB?

The point is, it's not taught that the BB had no cause. Could be there's a God, and God is without cause. Could be God created the BB. Could be God did it in such a way that would make evolution possible. Could even be that God did it in such a way that evolution would HAVE to happen in the exact ways it did. (And could be God set it all up, right from the BB, so that the various comet/asteroid impacts that wiped out 90+% of life at various times would do so at those exact times, and kill the exact life forms they did.)

But it could be there's no God, and all this happened without cause.

Either way, all we can talk about in science is what we can study with scientific processes. If anyone is teaching that there's no God in science class, it might be a good idea to fire him/her. Teach the facts that lead to the theories of evolution and BB, and don't make unsupportable claims about whether or not God started it.

[Vraith]

Either is equally possible (or impossible) but only one is accepted in todays classrooms as 'science'.

Their are 2 key differences, to my mind. One several have mentioned: To propose a creator is to propose a being that is even more complex/unlikely.

The other is that, over the centuries, we actually are discovering more facts/evidence/fundamentals about the universe, but we are not managing the same for a diety/dieties.
Science is not/does not change to "keep up with the times/culture"...WE change to keep up with what it finds. [in a general way...there is resistance and manipulation and such...but most of it is from the non-science sector of society].
None of that happens with religion...we have discovered no new facts/evidence, theologians do not seem to find new facts/theories that explain God, we do not have to adapt culture to these discoveries: the churches have to adapt to us.

[SoulBiter]

Its a catch22.

Currently
There is no science that proves the existance of God.
There is no science that can disprove God.

Even if God came to earth and did a bunch of miracles and the whole world saw it..... within a few hundred years (or sooner) those miracles would be considered tales concocted by someone to promote the existance of God.

So unless God takes a hand in all things so that people can say "yep there goes God again", before long people start disbelieving. If God was to take a hand in all things, you get a society without free will.

In the science of the time (currently) anything that has a pattern that is recognizable but highly improbable is considered "design" except when we cant explain it, in which case its unexplained natural occurance. Which means that we have created a science which precludes the existance of a supreme being or supernatural force.

[Fist and Faith]

We haven't created such a science. It's just that science cannot address those things. What do you want? Should I invent a device that detects God? It would sure be great if we could!! Find this unimaginably complex being that is reaching down all the time; doing this and that; manipulating here and there; saving this person from death because of prayers; making some people go here/choose this path, and others this other path? It would be wonderful to study such a being!

But you say this being is outside of the scope of science; of our ability to perceive in any way but "in our hearts". And this being always will be. That's what supernatural means. Right?

In fact, if science did discover such a being, you'd likely say, "No. You can't find God like that. You found something else."

So what do you want science to do???

[SoulBiter]

We haven't created such a science. It's just that science cannot address those things. What do you want? Should I invent a device that detects God? It would sure be great if we could!! Find this unimaginably complex being that is reaching down all the time; doing this and that; manipulating here and there; saving this person from death because of prayers; making some people go here/choose this path, and others this other path? It would be wonderful to study such a being!

But you say this being is outside of the scope of science; of our ability to perceive in any way but "in our hearts". And this being always will be. That's what supernatural means. Right?

In fact, if science did discover such a being, you'd likely say, "No. You can't find God like that. You found something else."

So what do you want science to do???

I hate it when I use a term that isnt what I mean to say and get beat up over it. 'Created a science' is not what I meant to say....but I will say that the science that we currently use to explain cause and effect in our universe precludes any supernatural..... even if we see an effect without a cause..... the way we use science always precludes the supernatural and looks for other causes. If the cause is not found, science continues to disbelieve a supernatural cause and just leave he item open to theory... but only if that theory doesnt include supernatural things.

If 10K people saw the red sea part.... people of science would still look away from God and look for a natural occurance to explain it. So God gets discounted regardless.

Edit to add

But you say this being is outside of the scope of science; of our ability to perceive in any way but "in our hearts". And this being always will be. That's what supernatural means. Right?

Im saying that its outside of our scope of science today and as long as science wont consider the supernatural as an explanation then we will NEVER be able to perceive the supernatural with science.

[aliantha]

If 10K people saw the red sea part.... people of science would still look away from God and look for a natural occurance to explain it. So God gets discounted regardless.

You're right, of course. And even if God showed up on Earth and started performing miracles right and left, a lot of people would suspect they were magic tricks and start looking for the hidden wires and trapdoors.

Poor Deity can't win.

[Fist and Faith]

I hate it when I use a term that isnt what I mean to say and get beat up over it. 'Created a science' is not what I meant to say....but I will say that the science that we currently use to explain cause and effect in our universe precludes any supernatural..... even if we see an effect without a cause..... the way we use science always precludes the supernatural and looks for other causes. If the cause is not found, science continues to disbelieve a supernatural cause and just leave he item open to theory... but only if that theory doesnt include supernatural things.

It's not that science disbelieves in supernatural causes. It's not that science precludes them. It's that science can't look for them. They exist outside of science. Outside of the observable, testable, verifiable world. How can we find physical evidence for that which is not physical? How can we test for that which is not testable? How can we prove that which is not provable? God, I'm told, is not physical, able to be tested, or able to be proven. And all because that is God's will.

Again, what do you want science to do?? Tell the world! Seriously. What? It could be you have an idea, an approach, that is just a little different from any other that's ever been tried.

Science isn't trying to ignore the supernatural. It's trying to find it. And it's trying to find everything else that can be found. But it can only use all the properties of the universe to do so. What else do you want it to use? And if the supernatural is other than the properties of the universe, you shouldn't be blaming science for not finding it. And when we do find something previously unknown, it's only because we found another property of the universe. It's not a supernatural thing. It's a new radiation, or substance, or process, or whatever.

If 10K people saw the red sea part.... people of science would still look away from God and look for a natural occurance to explain it. So God gets discounted regardless.

Well, if we just say, "God did it.", we're done. No new ideas, no new theories, no new methods of examining the universe. The end of lots of good stuff, imo. But science is looking for God at the same time. But if God is found, who among those on your side of the fence will believe it??

Im saying that its outside of our scope of science today and as long as science wont consider the supernatural as an explanation then we will NEVER be able to perceive the supernatural with science.

The supernatural, by definition, cannot be perceived by science. As soon as a new, bizarre technique is invented/discovered, and something new is found, it is no longer part of the supernatural. Fact is, it never was. We just couldn't see it before.

And when we find God? What will you say?

[Vraith]

And when we find God? What will you say?

I will say: why the hell didn't you just show us?
All the claims that "if we knew for sure that he/she/it existed would destroy free will are sophistry, invented by humans, btw.

[Fist and Faith]

And when we find God? What will you say?

I will say: why the hell didn't you just show us?
All the claims that "if we knew for sure that he/she/it existed would destroy free will are sophistry, invented by humans, btw.

Well, what I meant was, the believers will say we have not found God. Under no circumstances will they think it is possible to find God with science.

But yes, I've said it often. Satan was among the highest-ranking angels, wasn't he? He knew, with absolute certainty, that God existed, and what God was. But Satan was still able to choose. I don't see any reason why I can't know that God exists. Implant the knowledge in me, like the Changelings did to the Vorta in DS9. Doesn't mean I will go along with things. There are various versions of Christianity I certainly won't go along with. And if the creator isn't any form of the Christian one, I may or may not go along with whatever it is.

[rusmeister]

Q is sci-fi. I have great problem believing they really exist.


The reason it's more logical to believe the universe is the uncaused thing is that the universe exists. Having no reason to believe there is a creator makes it highly illogical to assume said creator is the uncaused thing.

It strikes me that you might see Q as fantasy, not sci-fi, then. Sci-fi proposes things that could be real, if our science (which really means "knowledge") enabled us to discover it. It is not at all unreasonable that we could encounter such beings whose existence we are unaware of. Therefore it remains a valid possibility, unless we hold some kind of dogma that excludes it even as a possibility.

We've been over the cause thing before. I say it is at least equally (in fact, far more) improbable that the universe caused itself, or that it has always existed without cause, because an extra-universarial cause could exist, and would not violate the natural laws we do understand, but the other options DO violate the laws we do understand. A reason to believe in a Creator or however you want to call the extra-universarial cause springs from that.

Thus, it is not "needless multiplicity" as Av suggests, but a logical response to the impossibility of the latter two.

[Fist and Faith]

I've never said God or Q don't exist. There's no reason to assume we are the most advanced things in the universe. Considering the size of it, there could be any number of beings way beyond us.

I'm saying there's no reason to assume they do exist. And, "Well, we don't understand how such a thing could be, therefore God must have done it" is far from convincing.

And, of course, it merely pushes the question back a step. How could a being like God, infinitely more complex than the universe, be uncaused? God does operate under the laws of cause & effect if he causes universes to come into being. No, it is far from "far more probable."

And anyway, it has nothing to do with science. We can't even assume you're right, then go about a scientific search for God. You will tell us such is impossible. It's certainly nothing that can be taught in science classes. Let's just have science classes teach whatever observable, verifiable, reproducible facts it can.

[SoulBiter]

We limit science when we preclude what is considered impossible. The most radical ideas that were seen by the science of the time to be idiocy, and some impossible, ended up being some of the greatest discoveries and advancements.

You continue to say science doesnt preclude or disbelieve but that isnt a true statement. Science disbelieves many things and science believes many things without significant proof. Some leaps of faith are incorporated into science based on decreasing probability.

Even Dawkins who would agree with you (and Vraith) that even if the possibility is Googles to 1... in a near infinite universe it could still happen. The Earth just appears to have won the universe lottery.

Does this mean that people with that same belief actually believe that a complex item such as a computer or a lawnmower will appear before your eyes if you wait sufficient eons?

Well, what I meant was, the believers will say we have not found God. Under no circumstances will they think it is possible to find God with science.

I dont agree. I think that many believers are ready to find God with science. Otherwise there would not be such a following of intellegent design theories developing that are looking at and for patterns of design.. footprints if you will. However I would agree that there are believers that would resist finding God with science as vehemently as Scientists resist looking for God or even footprints of intellegent 'design'.

Im not looking to every gap in science and wanting just say "well God made that happen" even if its true that it was designed that way. Science can continue to figure out the complexities the universe while still being open to the idea that it could be designed that way.

[rusmeister]

I've never said God or Q don't exist. There's no reason to assume we are the most advanced things in the universe. Considering the size of it, there could be any number of beings way beyond us.

I'm saying there's no reason to assume they do exist. And, "Well, we don't understand how such a thing could be, therefore God must have done it" is far from convincing.

And, of course, it merely pushes the question back a step. How could a being like God, infinitely more complex than the universe, be uncaused?

There is a reason. The reason is that everything we DO observe in this natural universe requires a cause. Therefore, whatever the First cause was had to be super-natural.
It does push the question back. We openly admit that this is mystery, and unknowable. The naturalist cannot admit any such mystery, yet he accepts one anyway.

God does operate under the laws of cause & effect if he causes universes to come into being. No, it is far from "far more probable."

I would say rather that God, not (necessarily) being Himself limited by cause and effect, uses it as the only way in which matter and energy can interact so as to produce Creation. Perhaps there are many ways to produce simple chaos, just as there are many paths of falsehood.

And anyway, it has nothing to do with science. We can't even assume you're right, then go about a scientific search for God. You will tell us such is impossible. It's certainly nothing that can be taught in science classes. Let's just have science classes teach whatever observable, verifiable, reproducible facts it can.

I have no objection to this in theory. The objection in practice is that a worldview invariably stands behind the teaching. Our deepest desire, the first and most profound questions are the ones asking for the explanation of what we see and verify, and how we should relate these facts to our worldview.

[Fist and Faith]

I've never said God or Q don't exist. There's no reason to assume we are the most advanced things in the universe. Considering the size of it, there could be any number of beings way beyond us.

I'm saying there's no reason to assume they do exist. And, "Well, we don't understand how such a thing could be, therefore God must have done it" is far from convincing.

And, of course, it merely pushes the question back a step. How could a being like God, infinitely more complex than the universe, be uncaused?

There is a reason. The reason is that everything we DO observe in this natural universe requires a cause. Therefore, whatever the First cause was had to be super-natural.
It does push the question back. We openly admit that this is mystery, and unknowable. The naturalist cannot admit any such mystery, yet he accepts one anyway.

Not having observed the way any universe come into being, we cannot claim any knowledge on how universes can or cannot come into being. We have no way of knowing if a system of cause & effect need, itself, be caused. It is also possible that a space filled with energy/matter existed without cause (as you claim God did); that that energy did not have any rules of C&E; that it came to take on rules of C&E; and developed from there. It is just a possible explanation. There's no evidence behind it. Just a scenario that could, conceivably, be the answer. IOW, it is exactly like your theory of God. Which one is fact? *shrug* Beats me. Maybe neither. Maybe we'll find out one day.

God does operate under the laws of cause & effect if he causes universes to come into being. No, it is far from "far more probable."

I would say rather that God, not (necessarily) being Himself limited by cause and effect, uses it as the only way in which matter and energy can interact so as to produce Creation. Perhaps there are many ways to produce simple chaos, just as there are many paths of falsehood.

Sure, could be. Decent theory. Not supportable in any way, of course. But, then, none are.

And anyway, it has nothing to do with science. We can't even assume you're right, then go about a scientific search for God. You will tell us such is impossible. It's certainly nothing that can be taught in science classes. Let's just have science classes teach whatever observable, verifiable, reproducible facts it can.

I have no objection to this in theory. The objection in practice is that a worldview invariably stands behind the teaching. Our deepest desire, the first and most profound questions are the ones asking for the explanation of what we see and verify, and how we should relate these facts to our worldview.

The objection in practice is you teaching that God is fact; that he did such-and-such in this specific way; that such-and-such is what will happen in the future... All without actually meeting the definition of "fact".

[Fist and Faith]

Science can continue to figure out the complexities the universe while still being open to the idea that it could be designed that way.

Exactly!!!

Evolution is the word for the way life has changed, and continues to change, on earth.

1) Maybe evolution is bring guided, right down to every tiny mutation, so that the life we have now, and the life that will be in the future, is exactly as intended.

2) Maybe the system that allows it to take place (the laws of physics/chemistry/etc) was designed so that evolution could - even would - take place.

3) Maybe there is no driving force behind any aspect of it. Maybe it is a google of random accidents taking place over billions of years, some working out, some not.


No matter which scenario is actually true, we can only study what we can study.

If 3) is right, we can only study the mechanisms/laws of physics/chemistry that allow mutations.

If 2) is right, if God started the Big Bang with such precision that things would be the way they are (whether the initial setup allowed evolution, insisted on evolution, or insisted on the specific paths that evolution has taken), we can only study the mechanisms/laws of physics/chemistry that allow mutations.

If 1) is right, it may be possible to discover and observe the method God uses to make each mutation (which could no longer be viewed as mutations) take place. If the physical universe is being manipulated, it must be being manipulated by means that can manipulate physical things. Obvious, right? So let's find it! An unknown energy bombards DNA at certain times? I reeeeeeaaaaaally tiny tool pops out of nowhere for a picosecond, and pushes things into particular arrangements? Whatever. If it can move physical things, it can be detected. Eventually.

[aliantha]

Off-topic: Is google (noun) the new quantitative term?

[Vraith]

Off-topic: Is google (noun) the new quantitative term?

Yes, it's the little black dress/power tie of the numeric world