Satan And Science

[Jeff K.]

Some that we presently aren't fully aware of?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Franktalk]

Some that we presently aren't fully aware of?

Where do natural processes exist? Obviously we have some here in this universe. Do we also have those same natural processes in heaven? If the list of natural processes for heaven is different than here can we call them natural? And what of the talk about the unseen in the Bible. Is this really talking about natural processes that we just haven't seen yet? And what of the natural man in which we are told to cast off. If everything is natural then we cease to exist?

[Jeff K.]

One has to ask if heaven and earth are inexorably seperate. If not, then yes the powers can be the same.

In primitive times lightening was considered supernatural and only later when we learned of its nature and its use did we come to understand much of what is lightening and its uses. So to me supernatural has no real meaning since its meaning shifts and changes with every revelation of knowledge.

As to the word natural. Generally it means occurring regularly in nature. Nature itself is a brutish thing in which we compete for survival and fight for every morsel, with other species and among ourselves. Like lightening that can be very destructive, we seek to cast off that chaotic destruction and use the good that electricty provides. So too with the natural man.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

"Where do natural processes exist? Obviously we have some here in this universe. Do we also have those same natural processes in heaven? If the list of natural processes for heaven is different than here can we call them natural? And what of the talk about the unseen in the Bible. Is this really talking about natural processes that we just haven't seen yet? And what of the natural man in which we are told to cast off. If everything is natural then we cease to exist?".

In the natural observable universe.

Unknown at this time.

From the scientific view of the universe if it isn't natural it is supernatural, thus beyond science.

The Bible is not a scientific document, whatever it other uses.

The Bible is talking about human tendencies to do evil, not our physical bodies.

I don't understand your last question.

[keith_brian]

keith_brian ,

You see religion as deterministic because the will of God can affect the physical world? That's a first for me to hear. You must realize that the will of God can act on one part of nature and not another so by definition different things happen to the same set of natural settings so it can't be deterministic. I see the will of God breaking the deterministic mold not making it.

You speak of evidence. But instead of evidence which is observation you need to consider why things are the way they are. In science we have many direct observations but many more indirect observations. Then on top of that we have theories as to why things happen the way they do. But as each part of a system is figured out we lose the why and just get the observation. So by evidence are you saying that you just believe what your senses tell you? But we have many tools that observe beyond what we can actually sense our self. Do you include these tools as part of your ability to sense the world? Can you say that your evidence is actually just information? Information obtained by direct and indirect means. So is it fair to say that you reject all information that is obtained by methods that don't include the senses or equipment that man has made to observe beyond our senses?

Let us take the sense of touch. We all say we can feel something with our nerves. But is that the whole picture? We have cells which react to a variety of different stimuli and send signals down nerves to our brain. There these electrical signals are wired in a way that we "sense" pain or pressure, etc. So what is really happening is we have a processor of signals which we think of as the sense of touch. Do you agree so far? Can we not follow that line of reasoning with all of our senses? I think we can. So we could view our senses as information and that information is input into our brain. This is what you consider evidence. Now is not pure thought in the brain the same as the signals from nerve cells and the like? At some point signals are signals the only difference is the source. Now we all have our own thoughts and we must have many signals not tied to the senses. Can we not include our own thoughts as evidence? After all most of the really great advancements in science came from thought experiments and not from the laboratory. So can we extend our acceptance of information to thoughts? Are some thoughts really new information and could be considered evidence? So now I ask the question; where do new thoughts come from that have not been thought of before? After all if our brain is wired then how can we have a new thought? How can we relate things that have never been related before? It is clear that learning is just memory and observation. But where does reaching past learning come from? Can we not say that the brain has an ability that the parts don't predict? And if that is true how many layers of thought processes are in the brain? How many are there but need to be exercised before we even realize they are there. Have you ever considered the possibility that these people that say they feel the spirit actually do feel the spirit? What if this level of thought is unlocked by just believing it is there.

Wow, the thread of a hundred question that are all over the map. I am not going to take the time to respond to all of them. If you want the answers, please do your own research.

I will say, however, that science stands on its own merits, which is why we're talking on a virtual forum on the internet on a computer while separated by hundreds or thousands of miles in the non-electronic world.

[Franktalk]

keith_brian,

So your answer is a non-answer. That is fine. At some level I almost always get the non-answer response. I even expect it now. I can tell you the reason I can sit down and type these questions off the top of my head is because I have spent the time to understand my place in the universe. I don't rely on others to defend my position. Just as I seek the personal relationship with my Savior Jesus Christ. I don't want or need someone between me and God. In a similar way I want to wrap my head around my world view to the point that I know why I sit here with my understanding. Many just tag along on someone else's worldview.

[Franktalk]

One has to ask if heaven and earth are inexorably seperate. If not, then yes the powers can be the same.

In primitive times lightening was considered supernatural and only later when we learned of its nature and its use did we come to understand much of what is lightening and its uses. So to me supernatural has no real meaning since its meaning shifts and changes with every revelation of knowledge.

As to the word natural. Generally it means occurring regularly in nature. Nature itself is a brutish thing in which we compete for survival and fight for every morsel, with other species and among ourselves. Like lightening that can be very destructive, we seek to cast off that chaotic destruction and use the good that electricty provides. So too with the natural man.

You seem to imply that the natural man divides into a good side and a bad side. But both sides are natural. Just who decides where that division is? It can't be man because if he divides himself then the division is arbitary based on each one's moral code. Is there an absolute moral code outside of man? And if one does exist then is it part of nature?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Franktalk

[Nathair/|\]

"Nature isn't only out there."--Philip Carr-Gomm, Chosen Chief of the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids

[citizen28]

keith_brian ,

You see religion as deterministic because the will of God can affect the physical world? That's a first for me to hear. You must realize that the will of God can act on one part of nature and not another so by definition different things happen to the same set of natural settings so it can't be deterministic. I see the will of God breaking the deterministic mold not making it.

You speak of evidence. But instead of evidence which is observation you need to consider why things are the way they are. In science we have many direct observations but many more indirect observations. Then on top of that we have theories as to why things happen the way they do. But as each part of a system is figured out we lose the why and just get the observation. So by evidence are you saying that you just believe what your senses tell you? But we have many tools that observe beyond what we can actually sense our self. Do you include these tools as part of your ability to sense the world? Can you say that your evidence is actually just information? Information obtained by direct and indirect means. So is it fair to say that you reject all information that is obtained by methods that don't include the senses or equipment that man has made to observe beyond our senses?

Let us take the sense of touch. We all say we can feel something with our nerves. But is that the whole picture? We have cells which react to a variety of different stimuli and send signals down nerves to our brain. There these electrical signals are wired in a way that we "sense" pain or pressure, etc. So what is really happening is we have a processor of signals which we think of as the sense of touch. Do you agree so far? Can we not follow that line of reasoning with all of our senses? I think we can. So we could view our senses as information and that information is input into our brain. This is what you consider evidence. Now is not pure thought in the brain the same as the signals from nerve cells and the like? At some point signals are signals the only difference is the source. Now we all have our own thoughts and we must have many signals not tied to the senses. Can we not include our own thoughts as evidence? After all most of the really great advancements in science came from thought experiments and not from the laboratory. So can we extend our acceptance of information to thoughts? Are some thoughts really new information and could be considered evidence? So now I ask the question; where do new thoughts come from that have not been thought of before? After all if our brain is wired then how can we have a new thought? How can we relate things that have never been related before? It is clear that learning is just memory and observation. But where does reaching past learning come from? Can we not say that the brain has an ability that the parts don't predict? And if that is true how many layers of thought processes are in the brain? How many are there but need to be exercised before we even realize they are there. Have you ever considered the possibility that these people that say they feel the spirit actually do feel the spirit? What if this level of thought is unlocked by just believing it is there.

The first axiom of science is that the universe operates according to natural laws. We can theorize regarding these laws and make predictions based on our theories. We test our predictions by probing the natural world and our theories are further validated when our predictions are confirmed. Evidence then, is gathered by probing the natural world. If something (such as God) cannot be measured and has never been reliably proven to interact with the natural world, it is irrelevant as far as science is concerned. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an experiment to test God's existence, although perhaps you could test specific claims about what he does (e.g. faith-healings and other related supernatural claims).

The human brain is the most complex system known to man, and it may be some time yet before we understand it the same way we do the behavior of a pendulum, a ball thrown up in the air, or even an electron in a two-slit experiment. When something is not yet well-understood, some are prone to ascribe supernatural explanations (which by their nature are untestable - feel free to offer any exceptions), which I suppose is fine as long as we don't shrug our shoulders, say it was the incomprehensible work of God, and consider the case closed. Science has shown again and again that processes which were once not understood and seemed to require supernatural explanations can actually be explained by the indifferent operation of natural laws.

I submit that absent other forms of evidence (i.e. that obtained by probing the natural world) the human brain is governed by natural laws, just as any other system. Hopefully, scientists will continue to push understanding of the mechanisms behind the brain's function, and use this understanding to help improve the human condition.

[Franktalk]

The first axiom of science is that the universe operates according to natural laws. We can theorize regarding these laws and make predictions based on our theories. We test our predictions by probing the natural world and our theories are further validated when our predictions are confirmed. Evidence then, is gathered by probing the natural world. If something (such as God) cannot be measured and has never been reliably proven to interact with the natural world, it is irrelevant as far as science is concerned. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an experiment to test God's existence, although perhaps you could test specific claims about what he does (e.g. faith-healings and other related supernatural claims).

The human brain is the most complex system known to man, and it may be some time yet before we understand it the same way we do the behavior of a pendulum, a ball thrown up in the air, or even an electron in a two-slit experiment. When something is not yet well-understood, some are prone to ascribe supernatural explanations (which by their nature are untestable - feel free to offer any exceptions), which I suppose is fine as long as we don't shrug our shoulders, say it was the incomprehensible work of God, and consider the case closed. Science has shown again and again that processes which were once not understood and seemed to require supernatural explanations can actually be explained by the indifferent operation of natural laws.

I submit that absent other forms of evidence (i.e. that obtained by probing the natural world) the human brain is governed by natural laws, just as any other system. Hopefully, scientists will continue to push understanding of the mechanisms behind the brain's function, and use this understanding to help improve the human condition.

All that you say is the way science says they operate. But science is made of men and men are all over the place. But that is another subject.

In science there are many anomalies to current thinking. Anomalies which show the current thinking to be false yet the current thinking is not set aside. There is a power to group think and a power to an agenda driven culture. This happens in religion, governments, and science. No one is immune from this all to human of a trait. But I am sure you don't wish my opinions on things and wish to be shown what I am talking about. Take for instance dark mass and dark energy that some say makes up 90% of the universe. It was not in the original big bang theory. So let us consider that the original theory only dealt with 10% of the universe. Yet I see no one scramble to toss the big bang theory. Did the big bang theory predict the dark mass and dark energy, NO. So how can it exist unchanged? It exist because all of the people who like the theory don't have anything to replace it yet they will not say it is flawed. And what about the work of Arp that shows stars being made by quasars? And if we exist in a balloon universe (warped space) so that all points appear as the center then why do we have spherical structures around us in the universe. The universe should be uniform. Why is it that most quasars are equal distant from the earth? Science is not set on solid ground but on a murky swamp. They have dug down and still can't answer why to any questions, the best they have is cause and effect using observation.

There is nothing wrong with science but it is a tool and nothing more. My mind is able to determine things that science can not test. So why would I look to it for answers?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Franktalk

[cinepro]

In science there are many anomalies to current thinking. Anomalies which show the current thinking to be false yet the current thinking is not set aside. There is a power to group think and a power to an agenda driven culture. This happens in religion, governments, and science. No one is immune from this all to human of a trait. But I am sure you don't wish my opinions on things and wish to be shown what I am talking about. Take for instance dark mass and dark energy that some say makes up 90% of the universe. It was not in the original big bang theory. So let us consider that the original theory only dealt with 10% of the universe. Yet I see no one scramble to toss the big bang theory. Did the big bang theory predict the dark mass and dark energy, NO. So how can it exist unchanged? It exist because all of the people who like the theory don't have anything to replace it yet they will not say it is flawed.

I would place your knowledge of the Big Bang Theory somewhere between my 7 year old daughter's and my 14 year old son's. I would place your ability to search for things on Wikipedia as below my 7 year old daughter's.

For example, here is what is said about "dark energy" and its relationship to the Big Bang Theory:

In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted theory to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[2]

So "dark energy" wouldn't cause the big bang theory to be "tossed" because it is part of the theory itself! Of course, there are competing explanations for the phenomena, so that would be the exception to the "groupthink".

I'm sure there are good examples to explain what you are thinking, but I don't think dark energy and dark matter are them.

[Jeff K.]

You seem to imply that the natural man divides into a good side and a bad side. But both sides are natural. Just who decides where that division is? It can't be man because if he divides himself then the division is arbitary based on each one's moral code. Is there an absolute moral code outside of man? And if one does exist then is it part of nature?

Obviously God decides. Just as he gave us our moral code.

[citizen28]

All that you say is the way science says they operate. But science is made of men and men are all over the place. But that is another subject.

In science there are many anomalies to current thinking. Anomalies which show the current thinking to be false yet the current thinking is not set aside. There is a power to group think and a power to an agenda driven culture. Science is not set on solid ground but on a murky swamp. They have dug down and still can't answer why to any questions, the best they have is cause and effect using observation.

There is nothing wrong with science but it is a tool and nothing more. My mind is able to determine things that science can not test. So why would I look to it for answers?

The scientific peer review process remains one of the most robust methods of sifting unfounded claims from valid ones. The issues on which scientists are all essentially in agreement are those which have been tested time and time again and shown to be valid.

The effects of the scientific method in bringing to fruit modern civilization and vast improvement of the human condition are clear. The decline of superstition has been only a small side effect. The current ability to exploit resources and meet basic human needs is unprecedented, and the result has been a decrease in tribalism and barbaric social behavior (take the Old Testament for example) that was necessary for survival in the not-so-distant past. Of course, the world isn't devoid of problems, but the average human standard of living today far surpasses that of our forebears. The scientific method is a huge part of that.

In questions of meaning and purpose, religion has provided shortcuts that are IMO often unsatisfying to the critical mind, but I have no problem with each individual taking ownership of their personal spiritual and moral world view. Fortunately, humans are generally wired to eschew anti-social behavior, so we can more-or-less rest easy knowing our neighbor shares the bulk of our morality whether or not they share our religious or political ideology.

[Franktalk]

I would place your knowledge of the Big Bang Theory somewhere between my 7 year old daughter's and my 14 year old son's. I would place your ability to search for things on Wikipedia as below my 7 year old daughter's.

I am sure you are hiding your time machine so we can't find it. In 1927 Lemaitre had the idea of redshift light and distance. In 1929 Hubble measured the redshift and found proportionality with distance and redshift according to the theory. Working the velocities backward leads to the singularity and big bang. (In 1929) In 1934 Fritz Zwicky proposed Dark mass. Now in its pure form did the expanding universe theory contain dark mass? Remember I said original big bang theory.

[Franktalk]

This post of Cinepro points out a common theme which runs through science. That science should be examined by the latest version of a theory and the history of the theory should not be considered. I have a great big problem with that. Because many theories are based on assumptions and over time the assumptions are ignored like they don't exist. And even when anomalies show up science is slow to react and tends to ignore the anomaly until someone finds a way to include the anomaly into the existing theory. Kuhn wrote about this if you are interested.

Where I go back and study the history of certain scientific sacred cows many do not. So when I studied the history of population genetics and the models I found out some very interesting things that are not apparent if you just look at the models by them self.

I did not want to get into a debate about the details of science. What I wanted to point out is the wide open area of opinion and theory and how it is very subjective and can be influenced by Satan. A few examples is all I want to show. If we take the big bang theory and look at it in our way back machine (using wiki) we find that Poe (Edgar Allen) wrote about the universe starting as a point and expanding out then collapsing again in a cycle. Obviously he did not make a mathematical model of the universe like Einstein and others. But the point is the idea itself has its own kind of energy and momentum. Men read about some new thing and bring that new info to parties so they can impress the pretty girls. What I am saying is that not all support for any idea is pure and bracketed by the pure definition of scientific study. Over time ideas obtain sacred cow status. And mixed in there may be some attitude by many that the latest theory is fact. Just like the version before it was fact, and the version before it was fact, etc, etc. All versions of a theory can not be fact. I don't see how people can't see this very simple FACT. So when someone tells me that some theory is fact I think of all of the time I have spent educating myself so I don't accept what they say. Others not so much.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Any theory is just the best explanation, so far, for a given phenomena. As such it is always tentative. If you really want to disprove any given theory science gives you the tools to do it. For instance Gravity is a fact. Exactly how it acts is a theory. So Gravity is not subject to change, but the explanations for it can, and do.

[Jeff K.]

It would be wrong to presume scientists and what they do with the tools they invent could not be influenced by Satan, I think that Satan would prioritize using those tools for his benefit. All knowledge is held by Heavenly Father and He inspires us with that knowledge. Satan will do everything to use those tools for his own ends. Consider how a hammer can build a house or kill a brother. Its creation is an inspiration for our goodness, its use depends on who we to influence us.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Any theory is just the best explanation, so far, for a given phenomena. As such it is always tentative. If you really want to disprove any given theory science gives you the tools to do it. For instance Gravity is a fact. Exactly how it acts is a theory. So Gravity is not subject to change, but the explanations for it can, and do.

Right now there are many theories of gravity. And they all compete for approval from the scientific collective. And with additional data some will rise and some will fall. None are fact. Gravity itself may have come into existence after the big bang cooled for some period. That according to theory. Has gravity always been the same, I doubt it.

None of this matters. What is really important are two theories and how they have come to effect mankind. One is the theory which says that the universe has always been here and God is not required. The other is the theory that life created itself by an accident and God was not required. Both of these are theories which are projections back in time where repeatable experiments are not possible and direct observation is not possible yet many say that these two theories are fact and they deny God. I reject both of them because of many reasons. These are the two which Satan really wants to make sure he causes the most people to fall from faith. And why does he want this, because he knows that when a certain number of believers is reached his time is over. He is really really motivated. Has Satan entered into these two theories? I think he has from the beginning. When Darwin was coming up with his theory he needed very long times so that his slow change theory would work. His friend Charles Lyell supplied that time in geology. Lyell was open about his hate for people of faith and he actively tried to take down the church. He actively promoted some leaders in the church who supported his naturalistic viewpoint. He hated the church but knew to destroy it he had to insert doubt into the members. Does this sound like something inspired by Satan?

The following letter is one of thousands from this time frame that shows the agenda of the naturalist to subvert the Word of God. The letter was written by Charles Lyell to George Poulett Scrope 14 June, 1830.

“I am sure you may get into Q.R. (Quarterly Review) what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the (church) party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [John] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by the mosaic systems.”

Lyell 1830

Pure science or agenda, to me it is pretty obvious.

[keith_brian]

keith_brian,

So your answer is a non-answer. That is fine. At some level I almost always get the non-answer response. I even expect it now. I can tell you the reason I can sit down and type these questions off the top of my head is because I have spent the time to understand my place in the universe. I don't rely on others to defend my position. Just as I seek the personal relationship with my Savior Jesus Christ. I don't want or need someone between me and God. In a similar way I want to wrap my head around my world view to the point that I know why I sit here with my understanding. Many just tag along on someone else's worldview.

It's a non-answer because I don't feel like spending five hours writing a response to all of the questions in your post. I have also spent the time to understand the universe, and I am comfortable with my place in it. But, since you asked, I will give you an example of an answer that I might have given to your questions

But we have many tools that observe beyond what we can actually sense our self. Do you include these tools as part of your ability to sense the world?

I think that anyone who understands science understands that we use a variety of instruments to extend our senses in the natural world. For example, telescopes, microscopes, scanning electron microscopes, infrared cameras, magnetic sensors, trace chemical detectors, and atomic force micrometers all qualify as sense extenders.

[keith_brian]

Franktalk:

Any theory is just the best explanation, so far, for a given phenomena. As such it is always tentative. If you really want to disprove any given theory science gives you the tools to do it. For instance Gravity is a fact. Exactly how it acts is a theory. So Gravity is not subject to change, but the explanations for it can, and do.

Interestingly enough, people non-scientists always quote gravity as a fact and evolution as a "theory". But, in terms of our relative understanding of the two, I would classify them as the fact of evolution and the theory of gravity.

We still have many unanswered questions about gravity, the most pressing of which at the moment is how to reconcile it with quantum mechanics. Also, some physicists think that changing the gravitational equations for large distances could explain dark energy, although the mathematics and physics behind it are still both in the very early stages (and probably will change a lot in the coming months and years). Most of the major questions in evolution, on the other hand, have already been answered.

To me, this just illustrates the humility of science and the arrogance of religion. Science, as you say, searches for truth, reason, and evidence. Religion, on the other hand, presupposes an omniscient god or god who know everything, thus stifling any methods of human advancement.

[Franktalk]

I think that anyone who understands science understands that we use a variety of instruments to extend our senses in the natural world. For example, telescopes, microscopes, scanning electron microscopes, infrared cameras, magnetic sensors, trace chemical detectors, and atomic force micrometers all qualify as sense extenders.

I asked if you use them to extend your senses. The correct answer would be "yes". And not make a list of tools. If indeed you are trying to show how smart you are then I declare that you are the smartest person in the universe. So maybe now we can have a normal discussion.

[cinepro]

I am sure you are hiding your time machine so we can't find it. In 1927 Lemaitre had the idea of redshift light and distance. In 1929 Hubble measured the redshift and found proportionality with distance and redshift according to the theory. Working the velocities backward leads to the singularity and big bang. (In 1929) In 1934 Fritz Zwicky proposed Dark mass. Now in its pure form did the expanding universe theory contain dark mass? Remember I said original big bang theory.

Why would we be judging science based on a version of a theory from 70+ years ago? That would be like saying medical science is a sham based on what doctors were doing in 1910, and the fact that modern doctors do things so differently is just further evidence.

The idea that the "original" idea is somehow better or more perfect is a religious one, not a scientific one. It's religion that publishes 100 year old theories as standards of truth, not science.

Edited May 22, 2011 by cinepro

[Franktalk]

........ Most of the major questions in evolution, on the other hand, have already been answered.

To me, this just illustrates the humility of science and the arrogance of religion. Science, as you say, searches for truth, reason, and evidence. Religion, on the other hand, presupposes an omniscient god or god who know everything, thus stifling any methods of human advancement.

Since you appear to be an expert on questions of evolution maybe you can help me. I did some calculations dealing with mutations and found that man needed more time to evolve than was available in the history of the universe. I will post my work if you are up to the task of finding my error. Are you game?

[Franktalk]

Why would we be judging science based on a version of a theory from 70+ years ago? That would be like saying medical science is a sham based on what doctors were doing in 1910, and the fact that modern doctors do things so differently is just further evidence.

The idea that the "original" idea is somehow better or more perfect is a religious one, not a scientific one. It's religion that publishes 100 year old theories as standards of truth, not science.

My point being that you can't read. My point being that science is a moving set of ideas. So if it never settles then it can not fully describe what you say it does. Are you ready to tell me that all theories of science are settled and will not change in the future?

I do not live in the past I study it. You just might try it some time.

A hundred years ago all of the scientist thought they had it all right. They were confident they were on the right track. The scientist today think they have it all right. They think that they are on the right track. Yet the theories which these two sets of scientist held to and hold to are very different. You yourself just talked down the theories of a hundred years ago. Since I will take the leap of faith that a hundred years from now science will advance as much or more than a hundred years ago then the things which science holds so dear will be in the dustbin of history. Being the far reaching person that I am I have decided to embrace the science of the future today. So I have little respect for today's theories.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Are your calculations working under the assumption that the rate of genetic mutation has not changed? Not to get all "creation science" here, but using different assumptions creates differing conclusions.

Cosmic radiation is the cause of the decay of cells and hence mutation and aging. Outer influences, such as the nature of the atmosphere can determine how much radiation reaches the earth, such as the ozone layer.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ray Callis Hatton III