Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

[MormonFreeThinker]

Which God would that be? 

 

The God that they find evidence for. 

 

They may someday find that God  

 

We should be open to that possibility, and scientists should simply follow the evidence. 

 

 

thus eliminate all need for faith,

 

Not necessarily, most fellow LDS think that life is the conclusive evidence, they think that Evolution and natural selection are impossible. In the eyes of many fellow LDS, they think that secular explanations are completely silly, but they still have faith. 

 

 

I don't know as the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it. With everything out there that can kill us I don't believe it is fine tuned for us. 

 

My version of the fine tuning argument doesn't say that the universe is a garden of Eden. 

You can say the same thing about the Earth, the Earth is fine tuned for life as we know it, but most of the Earth is hostile towards intelligent life. The argument is just saying is that our universe allows life as we know it, but like I said, the argument may be right or wrong, it hasn't been confirmed, but it is reasonable.  

 

"don't believe it is fine tuned for us."

We believe that there is life in other planets. Our Milky Way alone may have billions of intelligent civilizations. 

http://www.space.com/19659-alien-earth-exoplanets-red-dwarfs.html

 

It is true that much of our known universe is lethal, but Fine-tuning argument doesn't claim that our known universe has the maximum amount of life per unit volume. Compared to other universes, in most universes (models), life is not possible anywhere, not even radically different.  

Edited August 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

Because science can not posit any God, a scientific literate one or not. Because the facts have a well-known liberal bias.

Well...that is certainly your opinion. Science doesnt truly make that claim. Its just your own biased refusal to accept what science "can really do".

[thesometimesaint]

The God that they find evidence for. 

 

 

We should be open to that possibility, and scientists should simply follow the evidence. 

 

 

 

Not necessarily, most fellow LDS think that life is the conclusive evidence, they think that Evolution and natural selection are impossible. In the eyes of many fellow LDS, they think that secular explanations are completely silly, but they still have faith. 

 

 

 

My version of the fine tuning argument doesn't say that the universe is a garden of Eden. 

You can say the same thing about the Earth, the Earth is fine tuned for life as we know it, but most of the Earth is hostile towards intelligent life. The argument is just saying is that our universe allows life as we know it, but like I said, the argument may be right or wrong, it hasn't been confirmed, but it is reasonable.  

 

In most universes (models), no life is possible, not even radically different.  

 

"don't believe it is fine tuned for us."

We believe that there is life in other planets. Our Milky Way alone may have billions of intelligent civilizations. 

http://www.space.com/19659-alien-earth-exoplanets-red-dwarfs.html

 

That isn't how science works. We make a hypothesis first (essentially make a claim in the form of a question) Then look for evidence of that claim. The problem of positing any God is that any claim is non falsifiable. Any results are consistent with the claim regardless of the merits of the claim.

 

About 40% of all US scientists are open to the claim. Despite Richard Dawkins very few that I know of claim that science proves or disproves any God(s). For myself I firmly believe Article of Faith # 11.

 

All due deference to most of my fellow LDS but they are simply wrong about evolution, and in science more generally. You probably would agree with me that we've both heard some really off the wall claims about what science says when sitting in Gospel "Rumor" Doctrine classes.

 

I'm not talking about a Garden of Eden either. IE; A relatively close supernova explosion would vaporize this planet along with all life on it. Thankfully our sun isn't anywhere near big enough to do that. Unthankfully our sun in about another 5 billion years will expand consuming Mercury, Venus, and our Earth in the process, unless God steps in.

 

I don't know of any universe models that exclude life. The very fact that we are alive makes such models problematic at best. 

 

I believe in life on other planets, probably even in intelligent life being here. But am still waiting for evidence beyond statistical probability for such.

[thesometimesaint]

Well...that is certainly your opinion. Science doesnt truly make that claim. Its just your own biased refusal to accept what science "can really do".

 

We've been over this before.

 

Science can not posit any God. God by definition is supernatural. Science by definition uses only the natural world/universe.

[Rob Osborn]

We've been over this before.

 

Science can not posit any God. God by definition is supernatural. Science by definition uses only the natural world/universe.

Again, that is just your interpretation and, you are entitled to it. Science by "true" definition can posit anything including God. You have this untested opinion that God is supernatural- some kind of magical being. You are entiltled though to believe such nonsense. My God, and the God of LDS beliefs is a natural God who uses natural processes and means working within laws of science to bring about his creations.

[MormonFreeThinker]

That isn't how science works. We make a hypothesis first (essentially make a claim in the form of a question) Then look for evidence of that claim. The problem of positing any God is that any claim is non falsifiable. Any results are consistent with the claim regardless of the merits of the claim.

 

How do you know? even atheist Sean Carroll said that God doesn't have to be out of science if evidence is found. Like I said, maybe someday scientists may find conclusive evidence that is testable and falsifiable.

 

Predictions are not required to make a scientific discovery. For example, scientists predicted that the expansion of our known universe was slowing down, but they observed the contrary. 

 

 

All due deference to most of my fellow LDS but they are simply wrong about evolution, and in science more generally. You probably would agree with me that we've both heard some really off the wall claims about what science says when sitting in Gospel "Rumor" Doctrine classes.

 

I agree, but my point is that they have faith. They see the Mountains, Earth, and life as irrefutable evidence that there is a Creator, many think that natural explanations are impossible, but they still have faith. 

 

If scientists someday find conclusive scientific evidence for God, that won't get rid of faith. 

 

 

I'm not talking about a Garden of Eden either. IE; A relatively close supernova explosion would vaporize this planet along with all life on it. Thankfully our sun isn't anywhere near big enough to do that. Unthankfully our sun in about another 5 billion years will expand consuming Mercury, Venus, and our Earth in the process, unless God steps in

 

I agree, but my version of the fine tuning argument simply says that our universe allows life as we know it, Fine-tuning argument doesn't claim that our known universe has the maximum amount of life per unit volume.  

 

See 

 

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/christmas-tripe-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-3/

 

and 

 

Edited August 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tacenda]

LOL!

Careful.....

[thesometimesaint]

Again, that is just your interpretation and, you are entitled to it. Science by "true" definition can posit anything including God. You have this untested opinion that God is supernatural- some kind of magical being. You are entiltled though to believe such nonsense. My God, and the God of LDS beliefs is a natural God who uses natural processes and means working within laws of science to bring about his creations.

 

I use the dictionary. I highly recommend it to you.

Edited August 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

How do you know? even atheist Sean Carroll said that God doesn't have to be out of science if evidence is found. Like I said, maybe someday scientists may find conclusive evidence that is testable and falsifiable.

 

Predictions are not required to make a scientific discovery. For example, scientists predicted that the expansion of our known universe was slowing down, but they observed the contrary. 

 

 

 

I agree, but my point is that they have faith. They see the Mountains, Earth, and life as irrefutable evidence that there is a Creator, many think that natural explanations are impossible, but they still have faith. 

 

If scientists someday find conclusive scientific evidence for God, that won't get rid of faith. 

 

 

 

I agree, but my version of the fine tuning argument simply says that our universe allows life as we know it, Fine-tuning argument doesn't claim that our known universe has the maximum amount of life per unit volume.  

 

See 

 

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/christmas-tripe-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-3/

 

and 

 

 

Sure I, and around 40% of all US scientists, are open to the possibility that someday we will find evidence for God(s). But that's a BIG maybe. Even the Atheist Richard Dawkins is open to the idea of there being a such advance civilization that we would consider them Gods.

 

According to Scripture; Faith is the evidence of things not seen. OTOH Science is the evidence of things seen.

 

You are proving my point. Not every hypothesis works out. In fact the vast majority never see the light of day. Some glow bright for a while then get modified or sputter out as more evidence is collected. IE; Newton was not wrong with his theory of universal gravitation, Einstein was not wrong when he modified Newton, and now Quantum Mechanics is modifying Einstein. Who knows what, if anything, will modify QM. But if the past is any indication of future it probably will.

 

I believe in God. I just can't posit him into science. Again; According to Scripture; Faith is the evidence of things not seen. OTOH Science is the evidence of things seen. Science nether supports nor rejects God. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their, and our, choice.

 

If it didn't allow for it we'd be between a rock and a pretty hard place.   How prevalent it is is another question. My personal speculation is that it is very prevalent, but the distances between us and them are such that any meaningful communication between us is virtually problematic.

At least until we develop Warp speeds greater than 13,500,000,000.

 

Sure other intelligent life forms vastly different than us are possible, maybe even likely. But so far we don't have any evidence for them. Such is an argument from ignorance.

Edited August 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MormonFreeThinker]

I believe in God. I just can't posit him into science. Again; According to Scripture; Faith is the evidence of things not seen. OTOH Science is the evidence of things seen. Science nether supports nor rejects God. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their, and our, choice

 

I agree, at the moment science does not support or reject God, and so far scientists have not found conclusive empirical evidence for his existence, but in my opinion science should be open to all possibilities.. 

 

Many fellow LDS have not seen God, they have faith, but they think that the Earth, life, and even mountains is irrefutable proof that God exist, and they think that natural explanations are silly.  I know they are mistaken, but that is their worldview.   

 

 

Sure other intelligent life forms vastly different than us are possible, maybe even likely. But so far we don't have any evidence for them. Such is an argument from ignorance.

 

I agree, there is no scientific evidence for alien life, so far.  

Edited August 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

I agree, at the moment science does not support or reject God, and so far scientists have not found conclusive empirical evidence for his existence, but in my opinion science should be open to all possibilities.. 

 

Many fellow LDS have not seen God, they have faith, but they think that the Earth, life, and even mountains is irrefutable proof that God exist, and they think that natural explanations are silly.  I know they are mistaken, but that is their worldview.   

 

I agree, there is no scientific evidence for alien life, so far.  

 

Looks like we both have heard more than one post hoc rationalization for God in private Gospel "Rumor" Doctrine Classes. I don't really expect a science dissertation there. They used to make me cringe, but now not so much. It isn't because the arguments are any better. Now-a-days I'd just rather take what is true and discard the rest. Public discussions like this MB are a different proposition entirely.

[Rob Osborn]

Careful study and pondering coupled with the visions and dealings of God and man has led mankind to reject a purely naturalistic cause for our existence. Only when men begins to discard God - reject Him and his holy prophets, do they formulate a naturalistic means for our existence and relegate us as nothing but mere animals whose existence is only an anomaly with no purpose and no means of salvation.

Evolution is the god of atheism and it holds no place for God but considers Him the arch enemy.

Its a battle, choose your side- with God or against him.

[wenglund]

Careful study and pondering coupled with the visions and dealings of God and man has led mankind to reject a purely naturalistic cause for our existence. Only when men begins to discard God - reject Him and his holy prophets, do they formulate a naturalistic means for our existence and relegate us as nothing but mere animals whose existence is only an anomaly with no purpose and no means of salvation.

Evolution is the god of atheism and it holds no place for God but considers Him the arch enemy.

Its a battle, choose your side- with God or against him.

 

The issue of evolution can certainly be viewed in that fundamentalist way, but it isn't necessary to do so even for members in good faith. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable for members to view evolution as an essential precept of the gospel, though we tend to use the term "progression" instead.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Careful study and pondering coupled with the visions and dealings of God and man has led mankind to reject a purely naturalistic cause for our existence. Only when men begins to discard God - reject Him and his holy prophets, do they formulate a naturalistic means for our existence and relegate us as nothing but mere animals whose existence is only an anomaly with no purpose and no means of salvation.

Evolution is the god of atheism and it holds no place for God but considers Him the arch enemy.

Its a battle, choose your side- with God or against him.

 

I believe in God. Science is based solely on materialism(matter & energy). Science neither accepts nor rejects God.

 

Science is by definition Agnostic. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their and your choice.

 

False dichotomy. I fully believe in God, and believe he used Evolution in his Creation of us and our world/universe.

[Rob Osborn]

I believe in God. Science is based solely on materialism(matter & energy). Science neither accepts nor rejects God.

 

Science is by definition Agnostic. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their and your choice.

 

False dichotomy. I fully believe in God, and believe he used Evolution in his Creation of us and our world/universe.

There is no way to fit Darwinian evolution in with God and the creation.

Your science must remain atheistic.

[thesometimesaint]

There is no way to fit Darwinian evolution in with God and the creation.

Your science must remain atheistic.

 

Yet the vast majority seem to do it quite well. So maybe it is just your opinion that is irreconcilable with reality.

 

Science by definition is Agnostic. It works whether we believe in one or more Gods or no God at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[Rob Osborn]

Yet the vast majority seem to do it quite well. So maybe it is just your opinion that is irreconcilable with reality.

 

Science by definition is Agnostic. It works whether we believe in one or more Gods or no God at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Neil DeGrass Tyson again eh? He is an atheist.

[thesometimesaint]

Neil DeGrass Tyson again eh? He is an atheist.

 

So what? The truth is still true regardless of where we find it. Are you so bigoted that if an Atheist says 2+2=4 and a Theist says 2+2=5 you'll side with the Theist?

BTW Charles Darwin was a Anglican, Henry Eyring was LDS, and Kenneth Miller is a Catholic.

[Rob Osborn]

So what? The truth is still true regardless of where we find it. Are you so bigoted that if an Atheist says 2+2=4 and a Theist says 2+2=5 you'll side with the Theist?

BTW Charles Darwin was a Anglican, Henry Eyring was LDS, and Kenneth Miller is a Catholic.

So then, why do you quote Nil DeGrasse Tyson, a known critic of religion and Intelligent Design, when you could quote a General Authority?

[Robert F. Smith]

God is the ultimate scientist. He is the author of the creation, the founder of our existence. So, why must we dismiss him in favor of the secular left?

I don't know.  I'm more worried about the machinations of the totalitarian right.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sure other intelligent life forms vastly different than us are possible, maybe even likely. But so far we don't have any evidence for them. Such is an argument from ignorance.

...................................................................................................   

 

I agree, there is no scientific evidence for alien life, so far.  

Depends on what you two guys consider as "evidence."  Most astrophysicists agree that alien life exists on other habitable planets, of which there are billions in our universe.  They would be very surprised if that were not the case.  Do you understand why and how they infer such a conclusion?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[MormonFreeThinker]

Depends on what you two guys consider as "evidence."  Most astrophysicists agree that alien life exists on other habitable planets, of which there are billions in our universe.  They would be very surprised if that were not the case.  Do you understand why and how they infer such a conclusion?

 

I do believe alien life exist, and in many planets. Some scientists speculate that aliens created the universe, and that we can create our universes in the far future. see 39:00 - 40:15 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dNm6K1h9F8

[thesometimesaint]

So then, why do you quote Nil DeGrasse Tyson, a known critic of religion and Intelligent Design, when you could quote a General Authority?

 

Because those wonderful GA's have no recognized expertise on the subject I've also quoted Kenneth Miller (a Catholic); Charles Darwin(a Anglican); Henry Eyring( a LDS). A Gallop poll of some 40% of all US scientists that says they are Theists.. But you don't listen to what I am telling you is what I believe. You just go off on your own telling others what they believe. 

[Rob Osborn]

Because those wonderful GA's have no recognized expertise on the subject I've also quoted Kenneth Miller (a Catholic); Charles Darwin(a Anglican); Henry Eyring( a LDS). A Gallop poll of some 40% of all US scientists that says they are Theists.. But you don't listen to what I am telling you is what I believe. You just go off on your own telling others what they believe.

Well, I will say at least you are firm in your position. Science is showing us that life is the product of an intelligent designer. Not sure why there are those on your side who wish not to see that.

[thesometimesaint]

Depends on what you two guys consider as "evidence."  Most astrophysicists agree that alien life exists on other habitable planets, of which there are billions in our universe.  They would be very surprised if that were not the case.  Do you understand why and how they infer such a conclusion?

 

I've already said that life is highly probable on planets outside our own. Probably intelligent life greater than our own. Unfortunately a belief, no matter how worthy, is not evidence of fact.