Need Some Help w/ Argument

[Navigator]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Navigator:

1: For some of the things you list, we have evidence. Furthermore, based on what is known, one can make predictions and these things fit the predictions. If they do not, the theory gets changed.

2: Such does not exist for a deity.

3: However, I have some conclusions based on the existence . . . or non-existence of a deity . . . which I could re-post, but then most here would start hurling large rocks and bottles.

4: The other danger of belief in something like ID or quality country-western music without evidence is that it promotes magical thinking which can carryon into other endevors.

--J.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1: Ya I know but this is on the word of Science and mathematics, and I accept in 'good faith' the Science but not the sceptisim...

2: obviously - It is like believing what science has discovered so far as to the nature of our universe even through the microscopic/macroscopic eys glass....all is information, and its deepens upon the nature of the awareness recieivng that information, as to how that information is 'seen' even if it is not seen, as with quantum, and alternate universes.

The bulk of what is this universe, Hubble remains blind to, just the same as religion and God.

3: Yes - this is because of the reletive adolences of our specie general - hurl and abuse not very scientific. I dont think real science argues the pointless.

It remains open-ended - whether to hedge bets or whatever.
Shucks! We are 'young' cpmpared to this ancient unfolding universe.

4: Well if 'god' does that for you, best not go there. Same for Science.'
Truely, this specie survival and prosperity and continuation in this ancient affair is most likely more answerable than "Is there God" and besides, will no doubt be answered long before any conclusive evidence of 'God' will be Scientifically proven.

 

[Navigator]

Greetings Benguin

Nope, I'm not very good with subtle sarcasm, don't see the point. Better to just state your view in a clear and unambiguous fashion, as far as I can see. My bad.

Well subtle is just that tad more ingenious and lighthearted...so I lean to that, as far as the release of sarcasm goes.


All of these things can be proved with access to the right equipment and research ... sadly, most of us don't have access and end up falling to trust, which is where I think your point rests. The pink unicorn argument is more one against idle speculation than properly constructed theory. In this case (start of the thread), we have perfectly demonstrable mundane explanations for the phenomona concerned.

2: I do not discount the probability that Science will come up with the right tools, but this is future speculation based again on my 'faith in the intent of Science'.
It may be even accidental discovery? Who can tell?

I love quantum physics, but it gives me a headache, those pink unicorns leave their hoofprints on my forehead.

3: I love the explainations of quantum and the exclaimations of Hubble telescopic imagry.
It is "Magic"

Not thought about that too much, I'm not sure it matters to me. It's interesting, but I concern myself more with this solar system.

That big thing made up altogether from that small thing. I think it is the excitement that this love generates within me, which removes the 'headache' and well...enjoy the show!
I guess thinking about the big pic expands my awareness in the power of imagination coupled with reality.
For example, I becha there are no two Galaxies exactly alike, even though we have not seen them all.
Thus, just because I don't 'see' them, doe not signify that I am not correct that they exist and that they are unique.
So then, the same applies to any Intelligent Creator.
And I don't think Science denies the posibility...

We can agree on that absolutely. I fully respect and support your right to hold differing views ... the only place we might clash is where it then comes to definitions of secularism.

I don't believe that the Universe is secular, so this might be enough to keep us from clashing.



Well science will have to accept it on a scientific basis. It won't be dangerous should it ever do so. I don't disagree with you per se, believing in an intelligent designer would not be dangerous ... believing in something false and forcing that on others I think is (I'm not accusing you of that BTW!). I actually the think the more people can debate and talk about these things rationally and learn from each other (without expecting 'victory' or 'conversion') the safer we'll all be.

Already we are on great ground - Unity without the need for one-upmanship point scoring retoric..etc... doesn;t signify that there is not grounds for dicussion if indeed intelligence and good social intention are a shared principle of application.



Yes, well I think there is no necessity to establish a reason for the universe. It exists. [/QUOTE]


Ya...it exists, and everything in it exists as well.
This is where 'reason' seems to apply - there is a tendancy wherever awareness lurks, to find a reason for 'why' it 'is'.

Truthfully - the question could be "I exist and that is unreasonable"

Or:

I exist, and seem free to choose whether there is a reason for this.

Or....maybe more to the point, 'we' exist and in a rather awesome and mysterious Universe, which is even a teeny bit firghtening.
Nevertheless, 'we' exist and that can be the magic thing right there...just that fact alone....now what can I do to nurture this fact that it doesn't fade and die and become as silent as the rest of the universe appears.

Strange quark this 'awareness' stuff....

Maybe the joke will be discovered that Science is really the act of God discovering itself after hiding forever behind a viel of quantum nothingness?

Well we could go on and on into the imagry of this house of mirrors....

Cheers!









4:

 

[Art Vandelay]

But I don;t think that believing that an Intelligent Designer created this universe is dangerous for society, or indeed dangerous for Science to accept.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

What's dangerous is not the belief specifically, but accepeting things into science without a solid basis in general.

 

[Navigator]

Talk about damning with faint praise.

What's dangerous is not the belief specifically, but accepeting things into science without a solid basis in general.

The most revered scientist seems to be Albert Einstien..(shcuks I just KNOW I spelt it wrong.)



Anyhoo - I have oft seen quotes attributed to AE, and indeed these seem to reflect that he had his own beliefs about 'god' and was decidedly okay about the concept.

I might go looking and maybe there will be a barrage of posts saying that these quotes and beliefs about AE's belief systems are all BS...

...well we will see....

But it could be argued that BECAUSE AE had some structures of belief in Intelligent Designer, is directly related to the fact that HE was able to give US a little equation to kick us along on our collective journey...

Stranger things have happened....

I guess I better start looking for all those quotes...

 

[Doctor X]

People read too much into the intent behind Al's quotes then Al intended.

--J.D.

 

[Navigator]

People read too much into the intent behind Al's quotes then Al intended.

--J.D.

This statement is a good example of 'reading too much' into another persons proclamations and beliefs stated.

The real truth here Dr X is that you are not qualified to make such an assertion, because you are not AE the personaility.

So best have the respect for the person and perhaps, to give substance to your proclamation regarding AE, you might think about adding some examples....

Not examples which may travel the path of...
AE stated 'this'...but what he meant was 'this'

No no...not those kinda examples, because these would encraoch upon the person of AE, and besides, he is not here with us to say otherwise...so - what are you saying anyhoo?

That AE can make an acceptable scientific equation but when it comes to his personal beliefs, these can be argued as...?

What do you think AE intended by even mentioning G_D?

But it could be argued that BECAUSE AE had some structures of belief in Intelligent Designer, is directly related to the fact that HE was able to give US a little equation to kick us along on our collective journey...

boy! THAT was some statement!

 

[Doctor X]

The real truth here Dr X is that you are not qualified to make such an assertion, . . .

Ipse dixit and incorrect since I have read what he wrote which, as you see below, is quite clear.

Yet you believed you were. . . .

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

I believe in Spinoza?s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

. . . following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?"

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Sources

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

 

[Navigator]

Ipse dixit and incorrect since I have read what he wrote which, as you see below, is quite clear.

Yet you believed you were. . . .



Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

This is GREAT!

Thanks Dr. X...I will now study these and get back to you regarding the nature of my original statement regarding Alberts belief systems....etc....

I believed I were......what?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The most revered scientist seems to be Albert Einstien..(shcuks I just KNOW I spelt it wrong.)

A scientist believing in God is quite different fro accepting God as part of science. If Einstein liked strawberries, would that make liking strawberries part of science?

 

[Radrook]

Hey All. . .
I think everyone here, if presented with incontrvertible evidence, would believe in Gd. But if that evidence is NOT presented, that doesn't necessarily mean that GD doesn't exist, right?

Lack of evidence is not evidence that evidence will always be lacking.

Actually, I find the inductive evidence indicating that life comes only from life convincing enough.

The apostle Paul said that creation itself was evidence enough so that we really have no excuse for not believing in a creator.


Romans 1:20
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.

 

[Doctor X]

Actually, I find the inductive evidence indicating that life comes only from life convincing enough.

What about a virus?

--J.D.