GOD v science

How can we tell, that, all that we know to exists, isnt random?
We have only see a pathetic fraction of what there is to see, in an even more pathetic fraction of the time to see it.

I guess thats just my opinion though...

As well, any credible answers can be argued and are often shown to be inaccurate (some people call this, improving the trend or model). (but accuracy can always be argued since there are interworkings that noone can really explain (yet) with wide spread acceptance, so accuracy is another topic entirely).

But just because you can't "prove" something, doesnt imply that the alternative you (or someone else) chooses (which also has no evidence or "proof" is the "ultimate" "answer". (we all have our own opinions for that).

Well that's the way I see it (oh yes a bleeding heart liberal is talking - thx Mr Wiz I like that term):

If there's a god, he/she's a chap/lass who chose to leave not many marks of its doings, other than 'people inspired by them' and random books all over the place. We all know that we have no privilege to believing the christian god is the right one. Nor do we have the evidence that any other is the right one. So the logical question is, is there a right one, or is there one altogehter? ??


Often I think a god was only put there to explain the unexplainable. Throughout history this happened, people believed in flat earth, in deadly disease cast upon humankind due to a punishing god, people believing in that everything unexplainable must be an act of a god.

The problem is, the unexplainable has shrunk. A LOT. So where's god left? In bullshitty 'grasp-for-straws' attempts of discrediting evolution (while they happily use any other aspect of science as long as it suits them), and in the fear that non-believers are supposed to experience once they sit on their deathbed and reflect upon their lives, noticing that there is a grand plan after all.

Who knows. I will one day sit on my own deathbed, or die very suddenly, not even know why/that I am dying, and think 'i hope there is an afterwards, after all i don't want my whole being extinguished like that. At the moment, all I can do is to hope. It'd make ageing and dying easier, undoubtedly. Noone ever knows however, all we have is some who claim death is easier because they tell themselves it's not over afterwards.

The evidence is still zero.


What strikes me is that a god takes things 'on faith'. He expects us to act as he wishes (and have a look how many atrocities that caused); in fact you have free will but if you choose against the will of god (however you may perceive it) you will rot in hell. While I may be living a perfectly decent life, not putting anyone down harshly, not killing anyone, with a few white lies here and there, and I'd still rot in hell for not believing something with no evidence. Sucks huh?

So who's at fault? So many things are genetic. Who's to say that my genetic setup isnt responsible for me not believing as I should? I found some perfectly intelligent people who are believers of a god, and to my opinion they often ignore the issues that turn me into a nonbeliever (which is the lack of evidence, and the wish to appease yourself to make future suffering and death easier).
So - isn't it my genes that turn me into a critical questioning being, while with others they just selectively choose to snuff out things that contradict? Why is that my fault that I choose, by genetics, to question???

Earlier in whimsy we had this discussion about race and all that, with blacks being more aggressive due to their higher testosterone levels. Fair enough. Who's to say I (and many others) dont have the brain chemistry to simply believe? Particularly since it is well acceptable that another behavioral trait such as aggression, tranquility, and so on is genetic? So who's to blame? Seriously?

How can anyone attack 'godless humans' if their inability to perceive the works of a god is about equal to that of a being incabable of conscience and morality due to upbringing and various hormones and genes?

I'd really like a god-believer to answer me that. Please not some BS statements. I am trying to make a serious point there.



Anyway. On the note of chaos and order - it's all BS. What you guys forget is that order may look magnificent on the surface, but lets not forget htat the OVERALL entropy decreases within that system. Complexity is not an oxymoron to the 2nd thermodynamic law. It only is if one considers it in an isolated state. That's the central fallacy of all those creationists etc (of which there are thankfully only a few)
To repeat, the overall entropy actually DECREASES even on a place such as earth, as energy is still broken down and lost at the cost of making organisms such as ourselves.
It of course seems miraculous because we see earth to be independent from everything, without taking the sun into account pouring energy into our not-so-closed system all the time.

[yah ] that's the end of my rant [ ]



PS: Where is the other thread on this? I will happily merge once someone points out with what thread I should merge it.



[Edited on 16-9-2005 by chemoleo]

Chemoleo- I'll try to answer some of your questions... on the condition that you guys don't get all overexited and pull out the illogic flame throwers. I also like the fact that you appear to be honestly considering things, rather than exibiting the modern reflex "Christian = dolt/neanderthal, etc" that happens without even considering things.

However, I something important that needs to get done right now, so I'll ask you to "hold that thought" until tomorrow.

But here's something to think about until then; science can often be wrong. One (actually, I don't, in many ways) tends to think of our age as the "advanced, progressive, correct" age. Remember that in the 1800's, 1400's, 1200's, so on... people probably thought they were living in the "advanced, progressive, correct" age. I'ts not as though they could look into the future and see how outdated they were. We moderns tend to think of ourselves and our science as "la creme de la creme" when in all probability at least some of our current theories will be laughable within a few hundred years. Look at the history of science- people are fallible, and they make mistakes. I'm sure we can all think of examples of mistaken but at the time plausible theories, like the spontaneous generation of flies from meat.

Of course, we are learning more each century, but is immensely arrogant to assume that our science is perfect.

Until next time,
Cyrus

P.S. Chemoleo- I think I can tackle your more theological questions, but I'm not sure that I know enough to answer all of your "scientific" questions.

P.P.S Quill- GOD v science is sort of a spun/biased/slanted way of looking at things. But everyone has biases. Oh well.

Why always God vs. science? I as a believer can perfectly believe in God and do serious science.

The original question about order or chaos is not a real question for me, to which God must be related. The universe as we know it, obeys some natural laws. The laws in themselves are very beautiful, elegant and perfectly ordered, but the resulting behaviour can be really chaotic.

An example:

You all know the Newtonian mechanical laws and they are simple and very elegant. Yet, even a simple three-body system (e.g. a sun with two heavy planets orbiting around it) has chaotic behavior. Given even the slightest uncertainty in position and velocity of any of the objects in the three-body system, one cannot predict the position and velocities of the bodies at the long run (if you want more about this, do an internet search on "Rossler oscillator", a simple three-dimensional state-system, yet showing really intricate chaotic behavior).

So, having a God, who created an ordered universe, I still can accept chaos.

Also regarding deeper questions of the origin and fate of the universe, believing in God does not need you to deny all scientific findings. I also believe that the universe is old (billions of years at least), simply because given the laws of nature and what we see, we cannot conclude otherwise.

However, how life came into existence simply is an open question for me. I believe God created everything, but how it is done simply remains unsolved and I have to accept that (at least for the time being). So, I leave open the question how things are created. It might have been a process of millions or billions of years (observations point in that direction), but things might turnout otherwise with future observations or insights. The bible should not be read as a science-book and so, the argument that the world was made in just 6 days, approximately 6000 years ago does not hold to me. What the bible really is is a book where you can learn to know God and who he is. The bible does state that the world is created by God, and it is described in a wording and cultural setting, which also could be understood by people 3000 years ago. That's why the bible does not contain stories about the expanding universe, inflation theories, cosmological constants and the like .

What really upsets me is people accusing me and other believers of being religious and so, being non-scientific. The next thing those same people do is postulate their own theories (e.g. evolution) as a scientific fact, but these also just are theories. I personally believe that these theories have their value because they partly explain what we observe in our physical world, but still, they remain theories and the unexplained parts need more research and maybe they remain unexplained for ever. My anger with many people is that they also fill in the unexplained parts and that they present their theory as a solid framework comparable to solid frameworks like mechanics or the fact that water boils at 100 C. So, evolution of life may be a correct description of how things happened in the far past, but please keep in mind that it indeed just is a might have been and not a has been. The same holds for some ID-theories, they also are just might be theories. As long as people are humble enough to recognize this fact about the uncertainty of their own theories, then the discussions would be a lot more pleasant and we would have warmer hearts and cooler heads and we would have more progress towards really solving the issues.


What remains for me is wonder. Wondering how elegant and simple the laws of nature are and on the other hand what immensely rich and beautiful phenomena can be caused by such simple laws (and we on this forum all are playing with that with our chems and other devices).

Who can make such a beautiful universe? Only one. GOD!

Quote:

Originally posted by woelen What really upsets me is people accusing me and other believers of being religious and so, being non-scientific. The next thing those same people do is postulate their own theories (e.g. evolution) as a scientific fact, but these also just are theories. I personally believe that these theories have their value because they partly explain what we observe in our physical world, but still, they remain theories and the unexplained parts need more research and maybe they remain unexplained for ever. My anger with many people is that they also fill in the unexplained parts and that they present their theory as a solid framework comparable to solid frameworks like mechanics or the fact that water boils at 100 C. So, evolution of life may be a correct description of how things happened in the far past, but please keep in mind that it indeed just is a might have been and not a has been. The same holds for some ID-theories, they also are just might be theories. As long as people are humble enough to recognize this fact about the uncertainty of their own theories, then the discussions would be a lot more pleasant and we would have warmer hearts and cooler heads and we would have more progress towards really solving the issues.

Er... ok, lets have a quick lesson on two things. If there is any argument to be made, we need to use the same definitions of words. Unless you want to treat the Dictionary like the bible, and selectively decide to ignore certain parts of a definition.

A Theory, is not a personal opinion. People misuse the term Theory like... all the time. Its often used in a cliche fashion to make their opinions sound like they are well thought out.
"I have a theory on why my hair is screwed up in the mornings..." is not a theory at all. its a personal idea/speculation. You might even argue its a "hypothesis" if you have some evidence, but I would also say hypothesis is also used incorrectly fairly often.

In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

You have to understand that a theory, is really a self consistent framework that describes the HOW in the What, based on outstanding evidence and the best known understanding of that evidence. (yes, theories are often based on theories) (Also, Theories can never be based on scientific Laws, however they can attempt to describe them) A theory also takes a GREAT deal of time to establish. It doesn't happen in a day or a week. It takes years and years.

A theory should probably follow the following (stolen from wiki, and I think for the most part, all of these rules apply... until proven wrong, where which the data will be modified and made stronger

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

5. is the best known explanation and has been accepted throughout the scientific community.

Now for evolution. There is another common/popular confusion with evolution. There is a difference between... what evolution is, (which is more like an observation and not a theory at all) and what the Theories of Evolution are.

Darwin's theory of evolution for example, attempts to explain how evolution works. They are not the same!
The Theories of evolution, attempt to describe how evolution, which is more like a scientific law, (by means of evaluation and observation) works.

So yes... Theories of Evolution are "JUST theories!" but a theory is a HUGE thing.

At least theories of evolution ARE theories, verses, everything else, that is currently, NOT. (especially faith)

This is a point which is often shouted by creationists and it is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard.
Why?
First, because no genuine scientist is going to tell you that science is perfect.
If it was, we wouldn't be doing research, we would be calculating when we are going to fall in love and when we're going to die by the means of formulas.
Hell, we wouldn't even die. We'd be immortal.

Secondly, because creationists assume their theory is perfect and actually demonstrate the blindness they're accusing the scientific community of.

Ah...

I agree with most of what IrC and woelen said.

And uber luminal, yep, evolution is just a theory, and of course it took a ton of work to get it established as the dominant theory in public education and universities today. The problem is that it's not taught as a "theory". It's taught as fact, as anyone who's read a typical modern biology book can attest. Now, I understand that for the writers of the book, this is the easiest option, but it does have an affect on the readers. I would propose that this is the cause (in part) of the typical "Christian = nutcase/whatever". Anyhow.

Oh, while I'm on the topic of schools and indoctrination.... Everyone is indoctrinated. If you think about it, indoctrination is just giving someone a doctrine; teaching them a way to live and behave. The question is- "Are you recieving the right doctrine?"

Ok, back to chemoleo's questions.

"If there's a god, he/she's a chap/lass who chose to leave not many marks of its doings, other than 'people inspired by them' and random books all over the place. "

God has left marks of his doings. The question is whether you acknowledge or ignore the marks. The two revelations of God are general revelation and special revelation. General revelation consists of things that everyone can see, for example the created world, which everyone can study.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
(Romans 1:20)
Everyone knows that God exists from general revelation, whether or not they admit it. For example, you can look at the stars and galaxies, and see God's love of beauty and his power. How many galaxies have you or I made today? You can look at the world around you, and see that God makes things that are good and pleasant, because he loves us. the Big Bang The picture of God we get from it is definitely hazy, but that's why there's special revelation.

Doh!!! I typed a huge response and the internet connection shut down as I was responding. Anyways, I'll finish this part about special revelation.
Special revelation is knowledge going directly from God to man. The best example for this is the Bible. I won't try to prove the Bible's right too much, because it's been fine without me for 4500 years or so. But I would like to say that most of the "contradictions/errors" in the Bible come about because we don't understand Hebrew and Greek language. That's natural, because languages changer over the course of thousands of years. For example, I've heard the criticism that the Bible's wrong scientifically because it says that grasshoppers "walk on four legs". Easy answer- the Hebrew language had a limited vocabulary, and that was how they said "crawl". Or here's an interesting one. "God doesn't know what pi is because the circumference of a brass bowl is only 3 times as large as the diameter, not 3.1415926.... times as large." Hebrews didn't have decimal points. 3 was about as close as they could get.

Chemoleo, I'll type some more later.

Cyrus

[Edited on 16-9-2005 by Cyrus]