Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[Brian2]

Nor does it affect the possibility of any other supernatural 'explanation'. Why is God more likely than engineering faeries or construction elves?

Engineering faeries or construction elves need a creator and life giver too.
When we talk about a God we talk about a creator and life giver.
But you didn't answer my question I think.
You said that you know just as strongly that no God existed and I said it must be a belief and asked how you knew that?

 

[exchemist]

I believe in a God who can do the magic stuff---the stuff we personally can't begin to fathom. I believe God could have worked from atoms and made the physical mechanisms of life that way, the bodies. IMO the Bible does not cancel out that possibility, and from how I view it, science is telling us things that the Bible has told us ages ago and that is part of the evidence for the God of the Bible. The ideas in the God of the Gaps argument may have evaporated with scientific knowledge of the physical mechanisms and how all that works but none of that science has eliminated the need for a God and there is certainly a long way to go for science to say it has done that, and that is also according to some famous scientific thinkers of these days.
Where we end up is evidence that could lead anywhere and some people see it as enough to believe that it will lead to a place where we can say there is no need for a God. Actually some scientists already say that, even though we are nowhere near that point.
It's seems like the extent of science these days, and for some time now, has been used as justification for not believing in a God even though as we know, science cannot say one way or the other. Well I suppose science could say that the myths in the Bible about creation have been busted and so the Bible God is busted but I just don't see it that way and I see, as I said, that science is showing us that the Bible is correct.
But of course that is not the only part of the Bible which science is showing to be correct. It is just the Magic stuff in the Bible which is what many people object to and many seem to want to spend a lot of time and energy to show that the magic stuff, such as prophecies etc is just not true.
Personally I can't help but wonder, why the attacks on the Bible all the time.

When scientists offer an opinion on the existence of God, which they are entitled to do just as anyone else is, they are not doing science. They are indulging in metaphysics.

We do of course have plenty of evidence from science that some of the stories in the Old Testament cannot be taken literally (e.g. creation and the flood in Genesis) and that others are unlikely since there is no historical evidence for them (e.g. the Egyptian captivity in Exodus). However, even as far back as 200AD, fathers of the church like Origen did not take these stories all literally. So there is nothing "new" about the idea that these stories are not literally true. We did not have to wait for science to tell us that. It has been the view of the church for centuries. They have been treated as allegorical and contemplated for the messages they convey about God, Man and creation.

What is "new" is some particularly naive strands of Christian fundamentalism, prevalent in the USA, that decided to ignore all the teaching and scholarship of the past and simply start from the silly axiom that every word MUST be literally true. That, I think, is what has led many atheists to oppose the bible so vehemently - and by extension Christianity more generally - because it presents Christianity as a religion for fools. I find this a depressing state of affairs.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is method of science. Thus, there can not be much reason in science.

Atheism is not a "method." Science is all reason. It's religion that's emotion.
"thus..." This doesn't follow.

Wouldn't atheist like to be scientific?

The two are not necessarily connected. If an atheist wants to be scientific, he'll be scientific. The same applies to a non-atheist.
If an atheist wants to be a raving lunatic, he can be that, too.

Google it.

Done. A trick, to impress the believers.

 

[Valjean]

I believe in a God who can do the magic stuff---the stuff we personally can't begin to fathom. I believe God could have worked from atoms and made the physical mechanisms of life that way, the bodies. IMO the Bible does not cancel out that possibility, and from how I view it, science is telling us things that the Bible has told us ages ago and that is part of the evidence for the God of the Bible.

The problem is, a god who, from time to time, reaches down to magically tweak the laws of physics, to effect creation and miracles, would result in an unpredictable, capricious universe.

Calculating a trajectory to Mars, a chemical reaction, the effect of a medication or the direction a car would take if you rotated the steering wheel clockwise would all be a roll of the dice. I could plant a fig tree and get apples. I couldn't be sure I wouldn't sink through the sidewalk or float off into space at any given moment.
But this is not our experience of the world. The laws and constants are fixed. They explain the origin of the solar system, and what happens when I click on "post reply" at the end of this thread.
The universe is not capricious. There is no evidence of magic. Things work in the way science predicts, not religion.

What has the Bible told us that science later discovered? Why did the scientific and industrial revolutions not occur till we stopped looking for answers in scripture?

It's seems like the extent of science these days, and for some time now, has been used as justification for not believing in a God even though as we know, science cannot say one way or the other.

But not by science.
If the religious found heliocentrism or the germ theory more compelling than church teachings, that's neither a fault nor intent of science.

I see, as I said, that science is showing us that the Bible is correct.

And this assertion is what has us flummoxed. Correct in what way?

But of course that is not the only part of the Bible which science is showing to be correct. It is just the Magic stuff in the Bible which is what many people object to and many seem to want to spend a lot of time and energy to show that the magic stuff, such as prophecies etc is just not true.

I'm not following. Are you saying it's the miracles that science supports? How did you come to this decision?

The prophecies are the magic stuff science supports? This strikes me as a huge, apophenic stretch.

Personally I can't help but wonder, why the attacks on the Bible all the time.

Because those attacking science keep citing it. The 'attacks' are just rebuttals.

 

[leroy]

Calculating a trajectory to Mars, a chemical reaction, the effect of a medication or the direction a car would take if you rotated the steering wheel clockwise would all be a roll of the dice. I could plant a fig tree and get apples. I couldn't be sure I wouldn't sink through the sidewalk or float off into space at any given moment.
.

Why is that a prediction of the “no-God” scenario?...... why couldn’t the universe be chaotic or random under naturalism? ……… would an unpredictable trajectory of Mars would falsify (or be a problem for naturalism?)

Stuff in the quantum world is unpredictable…….. should that be interpreted as evidence for God?................honestly I don’t understand your argument……….. it seems to me that whether if Mars has a predictable trajectory or not is irrelevant and theologically neutral, but perhaps you have a deeper argument in mind that I failed to understand

 

[Valjean]

Even finding out the physical mechanisms behind how things work does not eliminate God. Actually it could be said that the wonders of creation are even proving more wondrous. But of course the God of the Gaps idea has gone to a large extent.

This is not a god-of-the-gaps situation.
An unknown mechanism for amazing or complex things has long been used as evidence for God by religious people. It's an argument from ignorance or from personal incredulity. But when science discovers a natural, undirected mechanism for the phenomenon, the religious at first dig in their heels and denounce it. If in a position of power they might burn the revelator at the stake. Eventually, though, they accept the new reality and find a new amazing, unexplained phenomenon, at the new frontier of science, to evidence their god.

To say that there is only natural processes that created thing does show a belief. Is this belief born of science? If so then how is that, except to say that we have learned a lot and so that shows there is no God? Is science just a justification for not believing in a God do you think or has science actually shown that?

I think you're approaching this backwards. Natural processes is the default. It's the supernatural claims that bear the burden of proof. Nature is evidenced and testable, magical effect and invisible entities are not. They are unnecessary -- and extraordinary -- claims.

Certainly there have been many doctrines or should I say ideas in religious circles that have been shown not to be sacrosanct as scientific knowledge expands.
Science seems to have aspects of it which can be seen as doctrines of science, but what I am talking about is just what science is. It looks at the natural world and finds natural ways to explain it. This seems to have led some people to take on themselves the doctrine that there are no supernatural explanations that are correct because science cannot show them to be true or not.

Quite so. And as soon as evidence, or even need, of these supernatural "explanations" are found, they'll be considered.

Is there overwhelming evidence against religion?

There is no need for it. There's no evidence for religion.

There have been religious beliefs about the earth etc which have been shown to be wrong and religion has adjusted it's understanding of the Bible to accommodate the new finding, even if it has been with reluctance at times. Actually the understandings people have had about parts of the Bible have come from the scientific knowledge of the day.

People adjusted their religion to fit the beliefs. They were not a product of science.

Science has been a guide to helping us see what some parts of the Bible actually mean. To say that science has disproved the Bible is wrong even though science may have disproved interpretations of some passages.

Not a guide, more a thorn in the side. Religion adjusted kicking and screaming.

So science has been both a source of darkness as to the Bible's true meaning, and a source of light. The 2 go hand in hand really, and should if both are true

Science says nothing about the Bible's meaning. It reveals facts. How these impact religious doctrine is determined more by the religious than by the scientists.

 

[Valjean]

How can it be shown that the form of a flower was not intentional?

Easy. The same way any other natural phenomenon is not intentional. Natural selection.
Your error is argumentum ad ignorantiam, more specifically, an argument from personal incredulity.

You really need to brush up on your basic biology. Natural selection can produce amazing things: photosynthesis, coagulation cascades, Krebs cycle -- these are much more complex and amazing than the mere appearance of a flower, but, like the flower, they are completely explainable by natural, unintentional steps.

How is it known that the natural mechanisms have not been guided, even in the initial design of matter and energy, which led to our physical universe?

It's not "known," but it' also not necessary. Natural, observable mechanisms can explain all of this. Invoking a magical deus ex machina is entirely unnecessary. Why would you do it if not to bolster a comfortable and familiar folklore?

How are these things known? Pure science tells us that it cannot tell us these things but many people want to use science and say that it has told us these thing.

The reason the scientific facts are known is clear. The research is published in technical journals and textbooks. It's readily available. Facts are clearly identified as facts, and hypotheses as hypotheses.

One thing that science seems to have proven to many people is that there is no God, and it cannot actually prove that.

These people are misinformed, probably through religious propaganda. If a heliocentric solar system disproves God to you, it's your own problem.

Is this a God of the Gaps thing or are you going back to the beginnings, the creation?

God-of-the-gaps is a reaction to evolution. It doesn't apply in larger spheres like cosmology.

Surely science in many ways is showing us how God did things.

Science shows us that the things attributed to God can be explained without God.

Of course because science does not accept the writings of scriptures, science may have been mistaken at points along the way

This presupposes the validity of the scriptures -- without evidence.

... but it is amazing how close science has come to what the scriptures tell us imo.

Examples?

This could be a case in point where science will keep hitting it's head against a wall forever because it does not accept the scriptures.

Again, you're treating the scriptures as axiomatic. You're accepting them without evidence. Science derives its conclusions from facts, observations and testing., not from scriptures.

Science may be able to say that it has worked out possible chemical and physical mechanisms but imo life is more than chemical and physical, it is dead matter becoming conscious.

OK. That's your opinion. But it's not fact based. It's emotional.

Certainly seems more than chemical and physical to me.

And this is an emotional belief that you're comfortable with. It's not fact based.

I could be wrong, maybe life came from the earth as parts of the Bible seem to suggest, but still consciousness is more than chemical and physical except in a science that cannot seem to accept that.

You've retreated from the physical argument to the question of consciousness? Are you saying that consciousness is a special category, that it can't be explained by the same mechanisms as physical features?
On what are you basing this? Isn't this just another example of religion retreating to the boundaries of science?

I don't know how many times. I guess as often as people have thought that particular mysteries would never be explained. People are in religions and religion takes on the scientific paradigm of the era it is in. A mystery solved is a mystery solved to all people, theists and atheists.

Religion does not accept the scientific paradigm of its age. It rejects it. It fights against it. It's always a step behind.
A mystery solved only becomes a mystery solved for the religious with a great deal of time.

 

[Valjean]

From the dawn of man we have had mysteries and have put them into the too hard basket and even attributed them to a God. Finding answers to how things work has never made God unnecessary and still does not make God unnecessary.

How not? When you find a reasonable, familiar, observable, testable, predictive explanation for a phenomenon previously attributed to magic, how does this not make the magical attribution unnecessary?

Do you think science knows how the universe came to be and how life came to be?

Not yet, they're still under investigation.

Personally I see hypotheses only. Those hypotheses are there because we want to push the boundaries of knowledge and because of the doctrine of science that it all happened naturally, and that seems to mean, without a God interfering.
Some people accept scientific hypotheses about creation and life as necessities because they do not believe in a God, but science has not shown that.

True. Some people prefer fantasy to fact, while others follow the facts and accept the conclusions regardless of whether they're personally comfortable with them.

 

[Valjean]

Engineering faeries or construction elves need a creator and life giver too.
When we talk about a God we talk about a creator and life giver.

And who created God? It's an endless regression.

You said that you know just as strongly that no God existed and I said it must be a belief and asked how you knew that?

I don't say that I know that no god exists. I say that there is no evidence for one, that more reasonable, natural explanations exist, and that a god is unnecessary when a more reasonable, observable, familiar, testable explanation exists.

 

[Brian2]

That’s more like FAITH or conviction that belief is right or true, than intuition.

I would call such faith in belief, like this flower example of yours, more like superstition. You are associating nature like the flower to some supernatural entities, like God or Creator.

Such associations required indoctrination into superstition, so I really wouldn’t call that “intuitively” or “intuition”

Having intuition required no knowledge at all (not from science, not from religion) to derive a conclusion, based on gut feeling. Intuition is more like arriving at conclusion without any preconceptions, and you Brian2 would already have preconceptions about god and about your Bible.

Since you are already believer in the Bible, so are more inclined and bias to assume that the creator is responsible for flowers, so like I said, that’s not really “intuitively”.

Yes I know I am biased and cannot extract the bias from my answers or perceptions.

But like Valjean said, intuition is overrated in any case. And you to remember, that humans being human, any conclusion derived from intuition, are not infallible or inerrant. People can still make mistakes using intuition.

People also make mistakes trying to use just reason and science of course.
I have heard some people say that reason is overrated and others that science is overrated.
I would say that science is overrated by many as the sole means of seeking the truth.

 

[Brian2]

No, that’s a matter of your personal opinion.
If it was true then you would actually be able to see God doing what you believe he is doing.
The fact is supernatural occurrences of invisible being and magical powers don’t exist except in stories and delusions.

Could be but it is not what should be called a fact. It is an opinion.

From what we have been able to see, research, test and understand about the natural world, we have done so without the needs of such primitive superstition.

People have been able to find out things about the natural world for thousands of years. So? At the moment and with the hubris of some, many are saying we know so much that God is not necessary or if God did it we certainly would know.

It is a matter of understanding WHAT we are looking and HOW they work. And in natural science they tried to formulate explanations to these models, and then to test the models. That’s how modern sciences work:

1. Explain
2. then Test

“God did it” isn’t explanation. It is merely a belief. And you cannot observe, measure and test God.

"God did not do it" explanation is fine for scientific research but it is merely a belief because you cannot observe, measure or test God.
God has not been proven nor disproved and the more evidence I see the more science is showing that the Bible is correct imo. The "no God" hypothesis has not been proven nor disproved, it is a belief based on lack of scientific evidence for some even though science cannot observe, measure or test God.

God - like every other popular supernatural entities, eg angels, demons, jinns, spirits, ghosts, fairies, vampires, unicorns, dragons, Minotaurs, Sphinx, leviathan, and so on - is unnecessary complication when trying to understand nature.

In the scientific method Gods etc can complicate things-----sounds true to me.
Science is a discipline however and is not real life. Many scientists believe in a God however.

 

[Brian2]

Feel free to verify them. To date you have spoken about it but have refused to provide evidence.

All I am saying is that physically dead or near dead people in operating theatres have been able to report things that were happening in the next room etc. and those things they reported have been verified. I don't need to verify anything. If you don't want to believe the reports of doctors that is your business. If you want to say these things happened because of something happening in the patients' brains that is fine by me. We all have our own biases and interpret facts according to those biases.

 

[Brian2]

No, that's not the watchmaker argument. The argument itself is an argument from analogy. If think that, looking for DNA as being part the search for life in the universe is the same thing as the watchmaker argument, then you do not understand what that argument means.

How did you come to that conclusion? Can you explain why you think looking for DNA is comparable to the watchmaker argument.

I can understand looking for DNA when looking for life in the universe. I think what made my brain run to the watchmaker argument is because the researcher on the show said that only life could build DNA.
That I guess is fair enough in science and in that type of show to say that but it seems to me that if anything is actually going to build DNA, a complex code language and system that governs so much in life forms, it would be an intelligent being.

 

[Brian2]

How are you defining "life?" What must be added to these self replicating bits to render them life?

It's not my field to define life but when I say life I am probably usually thinking of consciousness.

Ordinary, familiar, observable, reproducible chemistry is magic? Are you arguing from ignorance and incredulity?

I'm probably arguing from incredulity concerning all that chemistry actually in the end producing a living being all by itself.
No doubt you are arguing from incredulity when you call the creator option Magic.
I don't know how God did it and guided chemistry could have been a big part of it. (making the conditions right for the chemistry to proceed in the right direction etc) You don't know what happened and the only option you have is blind chemistry. (time and chance) No intelligence needed there for such a fantastic end product.

All of them don't believe in magic poofing, I can't comment on their view's of a creator or his role.
Abiogenesis is a reasonable hypothesis, and I know of no reasonable alternatives. Magic poofing is not reasonable.

In science abiogenesis is fine and in atheism it is probably a necessity. People do ignore the evidence for magic given in Biblical history however.

Consciousness lies on a spectrum, as well. Some creatures have more, some less. You'd be surprised at what an unconscious nervous system can accomplish.

That sounds like magic to me, that dead matter became aware.

An agent explains nothing. Agency is just an attribution.
Material is all we can see. Spirit or animating forces are, thus far, undetected.

NDEs do give evidence for spirit however, even spirit with consciousness.

True, religion doesn't have to explain anything, so why does it so consistently criticize science for doing what you say is its proper job? Why does it so readily jump in with alternative "explanations" when explanation isn't its job?

Probably because it sees science as overstepping it's bounds (or people using science to attack religion) and I for one want to just say that science has not shown what the attackers of religion tell us it has shown. And yes I know that religionist in the past have attacked science on the basis of religious ideas.

Yet we can see that process happening both in nature and the lab, though we have not yet observed the complete process.

Chemistry happens of course but it is a belief that life came from chemistry.

You find abiogenisis incredible, either from ignorance of because it threatens ingrained religious beliefs. I understand that. But there is no reasonable alternative. It's either chemistry or magic, and magic has never been observed, only attributed when an actual explanation seems impossible.

I could say that same about you and replace "abiogenesis" with "creation" and "chemistry" with "creator" and magic with "the magic of making dead matter come to life".
But science is science and the search goes on, and on.

There is NO historical evidence for a god. God is a simplistic convenience adduced when no alternative can be imagined. It's become ingrained in the culture. We invent rationales for it.

There is evidence in the scriptures. Things prophesied that actually happened. Miracles reported by people to have happened.

 

[ChristineM]

All I am saying is that physically dead or near dead people in operating theatres have been able to report things that were happening in the next room etc. and those things they reported have been verified. I don't need to verify anything. If you don't want to believe the reports of doctors that is your business. If you want to say these things happened because of something happening in the patients' brains that is fine by me. We all have our own biases and interpret facts according to those biases.

i would like to see a verified account, i never believe anything on word of mouth by someone i do not know. Especially something that is shown to be the product of electrical activity in the brain.

But if you don't want to show any evidence then that's fine with me

 

[gnostic]

Could be but it is not what should be called a fact. It is an opinion.

No, Brian2. You got it backward.

There are no evidence for magic, miracle or anything supernatural. The reality in our world, that magic and supernatural don't exist other than in fiction, myth and fairytale, HENCE they only exist in people imagination.

It is that imagination...or delusion...that are opinions.

If you want magic, miracle and supernatural to exist, then provide

Have you actually witness a real snake that can talk in our (human) languages, like in Genesis 3? Or talking donkey like in Numbers?

The episodes with talking animals in the bible are nothing more than fables or myths. Hence, those people who believe in such events, are matter of personal opinions (or personal beliefs), not facts.

Facts required evidence, which doesn't exist in Genesis and Numbers storytellings.

 

[gnostic]

People also make mistakes trying to use just reason and science of course.
I have heard some people say that reason is overrated and others that science is overrated.
I would say that science is overrated by many as the sole means of seeking the truth.

I don't deny people in science make mistakes, Brian2.

No one claimed that science is infallible or inerrant.

But with science, there are ways to correct mistakes, by obtaining empirical and verifiable evidence.

All current scientific theories ARE PROVISIONAL.

What that mean, they are all subjective to change, BUT ONLY IF THE ALTERNATIVE MODELS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!!!

The theory of evolution explain the observed fact that life changes over time, through one of the mechanics (eg of evolutionary mechanics - Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift, etc). The theory is factual, until someone can provide better alternative that explain diversification of life, but that alternative must have support of evidence.

Evidence are the only currency to fact, not proofs (mathematical equations are proofs, not evidence), and certainly not personal belief or personal likes or dislikes.

 

[Valjean]

Why is that a prediction of the “no-God” scenario?...... why couldn’t the universe be chaotic or random under naturalism? ……… would an unpredictable trajectory of Mars would falsify (or be a problem for naturalism?)

Stuff in the quantum world is unpredictable…….. should that be interpreted as evidence for God?................honestly I don’t understand your argument……….. it seems to me that whether if Mars has a predictable trajectory or not is irrelevant and theologically neutral, but perhaps you have a deeper argument in mind that I failed to understand

My point is, a God controlled universe is chaotic and unpredictable. At any point God might decide to tweak something, to meddle with the otherwise regular and predictable laws of nature.
Fortunately, nothing like this is observed, at least on the macro scale in which we operate.

 

[Valjean]

Yes I know I am biased and cannot extract the bias from my answers or perceptions.

Why not? You seem like an intelligent, literate person. Can't you discern which fact is based on religious faith and which on science, and choose the one appropriate to the question at hand?

People also make mistakes trying to use just reason and science of course.
I have heard some people say that reason is overrated and others that science is overrated.
I would say that science is overrated by many as the sole means of seeking the truth.

Each is appropriate to it's proper magisterium. The problem arises when the church tries to assert facts not within its purview; facts properly explored by science.

 

[leroy]

My point is, a God controlled universe is chaotic and unpredictable. At any point God might decide to tweak something, to meddle with the otherwise regular and predictable laws of nature.
Fortunately, nothing like this is observed, at least on the macro scale in which we operate.

Well human behavior is unpredictable and chaotic…… is this evidence for God?......is this evidence that we were created by God?

It seems to me that you are saying that if Mars would have had a chaotic and unpredictable orbit, you would interpret that as evidence for God (or evidence against naturalism)…. If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I would ask you… what about all the things of the universe that are unpredictable like human behaivor? Do they represent evidence for God?

If this is not an accurate representation of your view, please provide more detail. …….

Its hard to me to understand your conclusion……. How do you go from “mars has a predictable orbt” to “therefore God doesn’t exists”? there are obviously some missing steps in your argument, so which steps are those?

Fortunately, nothing like this is observed, at least on the macro scale in which we operate.

Obviously that statement is wrong, many things in the macro scale are unpredictable