O.K two things to say:
first off to Dr. Guitar:
[QUOTE]By the way… have you ever had scrapple? Ya think God meant for that to happen?[QUOTE]
If there is a just a righteous God, she most certainly would have meant for scrapple to be developed. I love the stuff, and dad (being from extremely rural Pennsylvania) fostered this love. Mom on the other hand, being from good honest great plains stock wouldn’t let the stuff in the house. We had to eat it on the sly. Everything from the pig but the squeel, m’boy…
and TomS, a good book to get you started on the history and basics of quantum theory is “In Search of Schroedinger’s Cat”. Check it out:
http://www.amazon.com/gp…=283155
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
|
The result will always be 100% predictable if one (a scientist) can completely calculate all of the physical variables of the environment and action which ‘create’ the coin flip. And Kenny, your proof for that is? Or are you describing a universe that operates the way you want it to, rather than the one we actually live in? |
By calculating the formula for the physical properties involved in the ‘coin flip’. Everything comes down to physics and chemistry when it comes to measuring and predicting physical events.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If a god created the universe, and the development of it thereafter is controlled by random factors, then we cannot claim that a god created us, the human race. |
I don’t know about others Ali, but I don’t see a problem. Ya see, I believe that God is all knowing and in my belief system, God understands the “randomness” of matter and energy and already knows it’s outcome before it has happened. You see, as I said before even if it seems random (and can be proven using human science that it is random) does not mean that it is random to God. To assume that man will ever understand ALL the intricacies of God’s work is just plain boastful and ego-centric.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Unless of course, he continually guides and controls the evolutionary process, not only the biological one, but the evolution of the whole universe too. And if that is true, what happened to “free will”? |
You see Ali, “free will” only applies to man’s ability to make his own choices. The term “free will” was meant to describe that man had control over how he responds to any given circumstance or incident. I have never seen it used (or claimed in the bible) to describe biological, universal, scientific, molecular or any other force either matter, energy or plasma. So “free will” has nothing to do with how the universe is unfolding, it has everything to do with personal choices.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| And if there is a controller, why isn’t there evidence of that? |
As has been clearly pointed out many times, it is a matter of faith. And of course the choice of “free will” to decide if you do or don’t believe. I have spoken to God many, many times (not out loud nor like G. W. Bush speaks to God), and I know God exists. Oh, I will admit that it could be that I am having random electrical discharges in the brain that lead me to think I am speaking to God. Or it could be that I am so niave that I want to believe in a higher power. But I have had too many brushes with God in my life to ignore the truth of it. So as free will allows me to, I have chosen to believe in God.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| There are a multitude of things that suggest that what the human race, the world, the universe is at present, is not an indication of any “Intelligence” whatsoever. But, if there is a controller, and overriding that for humanity is something called “free will”, how does that work exactly? It’s not allowable in scientific terms, because it must be a “supernatural force”, and therefore not part of science. |
I disagree on the lack of intelligence in the design of the world, mankind and the universe. It seems to me that the world was doing pretty well without man. Man seems to be the overriding force for “bad choices” on this planet earth. But again, man has the ability to chose his direction “free will”. When left alone, the world is a pretty amazing place and the universe; well there is enough there to continue learning for the next 10,000 years or so.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| So no, ID (any of theories of it) are not compatible with science, no matter which route you follow in the reasoning. |
I think the above explains why I don’t feel the same way.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| But, tell me; does “free will” only apply to humans? If so, then the cancer-causing virus that enters a child’s body must be due to the controller, yeah? And I should worship him! |
God is not in the everyday occurances of mankind. God is the positive force. God is in the love and the energy that you feel when you take your next breath. So does God allow us to die? I for one have long ago stopped second guessing God. Remember that what I describe to you are my beliefs. And my beliefs do not see ID as anti-science. ID may never be provable by itself (of course until you meet God), but the theories and proofs that accompany the description of natural phenomena (science) are just ways to describe God’s work.
And although some religions describe God as a “vengeful God”, I have never felt that. God does not want you to be unhappy. Man want’s you to be unhappy so you will buy their products that they claim will make you happy. And many religions want you to believe that their religion is the only right one so that they gain control over you. You see, God is not the bad guy, man and his “free will” are. The trick in life is to make your own choices as to who you are going to follow and how to see through the BS.
Lastly, this is a discussion meant to happen over a couple of large pints in a comfortable pub somewhere. I love this kind of discussion cause no one is right or wrong… we are all just looking at different dimples on the same golfball.
I’m kind of feeling like a black and tan of Guinness and Harp.
Yum…
Mike
| Quote (kenny_b @ Dec. 04 2005,20:55) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
By calculating the formula for the physical properties involved in the ‘coin flip’. Everything comes down to physics and chemistry when it comes to measuring and predicting physical events. |
Kenny, with all due respect; might I suggest that you’d be better off knowing what you’re talking about, before you talk about it. And indeed, you may well know what you’re talking about, but so far, you haven’t demonstrated it.
Mike, your post deserves some careful thought before responding, but I’m much too tired to attempt that now, so forgive me, but I gotta get some sleep.
Ali
PS.
Kenny, so far all your statements have been void of supporting evidence, or even lacking a clearly developed line of argument.
Therefore, if it’s your claim that ID and science are harmonious; then it’s apparent that you have in fact demonstrated the opposite.
Amyway, nite nite all. 
| Quote (Ali_G @ Dec. 05 2005,04:34) |
| If so, then the cancer-causing virus that enters a child's body must be due to the controller, yeah? And I should worship him! 
|
Ali, this is the crux of the whole "believe or not" argument. This one statement is what makes me a religious sceptic, even though I was raised a Christian. I have asked this question, or one similar, many times in my life to Christian friends of mine and I have never received any answer apart from, "it's his way" or "we don't understand the mysteries of God". Anyone can tell me that it's a matter of faith, but to have faith in a deity that allows so many bad things to happen to the undeserving in this world is not possible for me.
I'll stick good old mother earth and my own free will to do the right things in life.
Take care guys,
Ian
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I love this kind of discussion cause no one is right or wrong… |
Mike, if one person holds belief A and another holds not-A, then at least one of the two must be wrong.
Bruffie, you’ve offered a version of what’s known as “the probelm of evil.” It comes in a whole lot of forms (focusing on ethical evil, apparently undeserved suffering, or human ignorance, e.g.), but in its strongest (logical) form doesn’t work to show that God doesn’t exist. Take it as a claim that God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence are inconsistent with the world we see (because it is morally flawed, because there is apparently undeserved suffering, because creation seems to contain imperfections in our ability to understand God, and so on). If these were truly inconsistent, then we’d ahve to say either that there is no evil or that God doesn’t exist. But all that the theist needs to be committed to is that the best of all possible worlds, which God would actualize, could contain some amount of evil, suffering, ignorance, or what have you. If that is logically possible, then the logical problem of evil fails. And it is logically possible that the best of all possible worlds might necessarily contain some amount of evil.
On the other hand, the amount of evil in the actual world does seem to demand some positive explanation. It is possible that this is the best of all possible worlds, but it strikes me as highly unlikely. People have offered explanations for the amount of evil (mostly in the “free will defense”), but it seems to me that God could have prevented yet another leak from occuring in my house’s plumbing this weekend, saving me a certain amount of suffering, and the world would be no worse off for it.
So the presence of evil does not prove that God does not exist, but it seems to me that it strongly suggests it.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| And although some religions describe God as a “vengeful God”, I have never felt that. God does not want you to be unhappy. Man want’s you to be unhappy so you will buy their products that they claim will make you happy. And many religions want you to believe that their religion is the only right one so that they gain control over you. You see, God is not the bad guy, man and his “free will” are. The trick in life is to make your own choices as to who you are going to follow and how to see through the BS. |
I’ll pass on the beer, but if I can get a Pepsi, I’d join that conversation. Doc and I would have some common ground to discuss I think…
D
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Mike, if one person holds belief A and another holds not-A, then at least one of the two must be wrong. |
If I say that you are a smart man and Ali thinks you are pretty, we may both be correct. We are just looking at different aspects of the same thing. Even of Ali thinks you are not that smart and I think you are not that pretty. Since you may be smart and ugly compared to me and pretty and dumb compared to Ali. Of course, these are all just relative concepts, and not scientific facts. My point being that things that are unknown and will always be unknown (does God exist… or the origin of the universe…etc.) are at best gray areas of discussion and just vocal emotional fodder.
But I do think you are smart…
Mike
Glad to hear I’m not dumb and pretty.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If a god created the universe, and the development of it thereafter is controlled by random factors, then we cannot claim that a god created us, the human race. |
Yes & no. It is probably not random but we don’t fully understand how it works yet. The answer may lie in string theory or chaos - who knows, but we don’t understand it yet.
However, if God created the primeval ooze from which all life evolved, then did God know humans were going to come out of it? Interesting question - one I surely don’t have the answer to.
Tom - I think you’re smart & ugly.
Doc, all that you said in your post about god and the universe may well be true. Personally, I just don’t know.
However, I still contend that my point that ID and science are incompatible is true.
That’s not to say that religion and science are incompatible. The post that started this shows that as far as George Coyne and many others are concerned, they are compatible. But even he believes that ID is a load of dingo’s kidneys.
Let’s consider a statement: “There exists an invisible, undetectable being, 60 foot tall and covered in tentacles who stands in the middle of Piccadilly circus”.
Now, that statement may or may not be true. If the being is invisible and undetectable then there is no way of proving or disproving it.
Therefore, it lies outside the bounds of scientific enquiry.
Now, your statements about god are equally untestable, not by scientific methodology anyway.
As you yourself say Mike, it’s about faith, not science.
However, ID does claim to lie within the purview of science, so analysis of it must lie within the bounds of science.
A scientist may have faith, but within the bounds of science, there is no place for it.
So, to be compatible with science, every statement of ID must be testable. Many of them aren’t. Those few that are fail the tests. ID is not only not scientific, but it’s incompatible with it.
So, if there is a god who is the Designer, then the scientific method must be wrong, or at least, inadequate.
And that too is a possibility. Physicists themselves have questioned whether our scientific methodology is sufficient to investigate some things.
But, as science stands now, it is incompatible with ID.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| However, I still contend that my point that ID and science are incompatible is true. |
Yes - this is correct. ID is interjecting a supernatural “creator” & that violates science, because it creates a premise that you can’t disprove.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| “Scientific creationism” is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism’s leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! “By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish’s italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism? |
- Stephen J. Gould
I wonder what will be discovered about the origins of the universe IF they finish building THIS thing? 
A neat conspiracy theory floating around has that religious zealots in the US shut the project down. They were afraid science was getting too close to stuff “we” were not supposed to know… neat conspiracy theory anywho…
D
Those things are so damm expensive TG.
I seem to recall reading several years ago that over 90% of funding in science goes to particle physicists and their bloody accelerators. (That’s in the UK and Europe anyway. I 'spect in the US, as much if not more is spent on spaceflight).
What I can’t get the same effect with a couple of “D” cells and some old coat hangers?
D
Ahh… a much better explanation Ali. Of course ID cannot be proven so in your mind it is incompatible to science. In my post I stated the same thing except from a different angle, <!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| ID may never be provable by itself (of course until you meet God), but the theories and proofs that accompany the description of natural phenomena (science) are just ways to describe God’s work. |
You see, I agree that ID cannot be proven. But I do not agree that it is incompatible with science since ID (or God) created everything. And since God created everything, then science is a human way to describe God’s invention. But for this concept to ring true, you must first believe that God created everything. Whether he/she did it with the big bang and evolution does not matter. Those are just names for concepts developed by humans to describe what they believed happened in history. They may very well be correct, but as I have stated, to a believer you are just putting names on God’s work. And in that way science is just trying to describe how God did it. And in turn, science is describing how the intelligent design happened.
But if you assume there is no God, then ID and science are completely incompatible. Because then you assume that ID never happened and science is describing only natural phenomena that has no relationship to God’s work.
So I see your point. Even though I believe in God, I never thought that ID should be taught in the science classroom because it makes the “God is ID” assumption and brings faith and belief into play. And even though I believe God is the creator of all, I don’t think ID should be taught in Drivers Ed or Health class either. ID is a religion/faith based argument meant for religion/ethics class.
Just because I believe God is everywhere doesn’t mean everyone believes that nor is it for me to judge that they should. Again…free will. So God should be left out of science class and taught where it will do the most good; in the hearts and minds of those willing and wanting.
Now where is that beer…
Mike
Wait, wait wait…
“Proven” can mean so many things, let’s not use that term without qualificaiton. E.g., one can rationally “prove” some truths in logic (e.g., that arguments with the form modus ponens are always valid), and many people over the centuries have held that mystical experiences “prove” (that is, give rise to warranted) belief. But these are not “proofs” in the same sense as “prove” in empirical science. One cannot prove ID empirically - it is not in any of its forms something that offers empirically testable hypotheses. But it might be the case that it can be “proven” as a matter of logic. Then again, it might be that it can be “proven” as a matter of faith, through a mystical experience.
I now understand what you meant when you said that ID and modern empirical science are incompatible - ID proponents claim that it is part of science, but since that could only be true if it were in fact something that offered empirically testable claims, and it doesn’t it is not science, and in that sense is incompatible with it. OK. But the ID proponents are simply wrong. If we treat ID as either a faith based or rationalist belief (where “rationalism” stands for the way of knowing one finds in logic, mathematics, and the like), then it is not necessarily in conflict with modern empirical science. Specific forms of ID, which make claims that contradict mainstream science, are in conflict with science, but not all forms of ID do this (although the young Earth creationists who are also ID theorists, for example, are in conflict).
I think it is important to give ID the best reading one can, and not take the more ridiculous forms of it as representative. I don’t know if you followed the recent trial over here in Pennsylvania, but it has been instructive - those folks are the more ridiculous IDers, associated with a “think tank” ( I used the term very sarcastically) near me in Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose goal is a Christian theocracy. They are mostly nuts. But there are more philosophically respectable forms of ID.
In the end, I think ID fails, for reasons given by Hume a couple of (hundreds of) years before Dawkins or Gould. But the point we were considering here was whether ID and science are compatible, and while I understand your argument, it seems to me that you’ve defined ID too narrowly.
Huh? You tawkin’ ta me? (speaking in my best Bob DiNero imitation)
If you are, I was speaking about ID in terms as I understand them. I don’t think I am a nut case (although if the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree, then I might be). I am refering to ID as “Intelligent design” and that the ID was a higher power’s creation. I am not speaking of “Adam and Eve” or the world being just 5000 years old. I personally think that is silly given common scientific evidence to the contrary. No, think ID refers to a creator that started it all (possibly using a “big bang”). I do not think that my concept of ID is against common scientific evidence already found. I fact, as I have stated before, I think science is a good tool to find out how God created everything.
I agree that there are those that would use their idea of ID to further a theocratic agenda; I am not one of those people. That is a power trip and I am not into that at all.
Oh, shoot, I did not put names in proper places. I was taking off from your comment about Id not being provable, agreeing with you, but then addressing Ali stargin with the second paragraph.
Nope, sorry, you are no nut case. The folks at Thomas More Law Center are, however. Here:
http://www.thomasmore.org/
They are one of the moving forces behind the Penn. case.
Ultimately, what I was trying to say was that ID that claims to be empirical science but isn’t runs into the problem Ali identified, but most proponents of ID hold views closer to yours, Mike, and AFAICT there is no logical problem involved in that case. So, no, I was defending the same position you were.
Gotta stop trying to do this in 45 secs before class in the morning.