Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Again science is incapable of showing what, if anything, is an "intelligent" designer. Intelligent Design is predicated on Irreducible Complexity. EVERY EXAMPLE of Irreducible Complexity thus far proposed has been shown to be false.

SEE

 

Again individual scientists are free to believe of not believe in any God or God(s). Some 40% of all US(American) scientists believe in God. Virtually every 5th Grader understands Set Theory in Mathematics. BUT we have a determined subset of Christians that reject it.

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

[Zakuska]

I suspect "matter," as used by JSJr, includes both matter/energy that we can observe, and other stuff that we cannot. Hence, the usage in scripture of "no such thing as immaterial matter."

Anti-matter?

William Hicks was postulating about that in the 1880s but it wasn't officially named anti-matter till the 1890s. I'm sure the college class rooms and scientific journals of Josephs time were a buzz with these theories. But Josephs statement there is more of an oxymoron. "Immaterial matter" but even then he got it right as antimatter particles (now known as positrons) were proven to exist. And we all know atoms are made up of smaller/finer particles. There's also the theories of the Aether going around at the time.

Now I'm going to have to research what was going on at the time for Joseph Smith to make such an observation.

Edit:

It seems Joseph Smith was a materialist and was commenting against such teachings as we're advocated by Rene Descartes in 1600s Europe.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Zakuska

[Nofear]

Not only can science not "observe" God it is incapable of "observing" anything not within the purview of a particular theory. For example, classical mechanics cannot see quantum spin. What a scientific theory can do is observe anomalies within the framework of its prescribed variables. That does not eliminate the possibility that God could become an observable variable... but it has to be testable. Hitherto, no testable theory of God has realized itself (that includes ID).

[Nofear]

Anti-matter?

William Hicks was postulating about that in the 1880s but it wasn't officially named anti-matter till the 1890s. I'm sure the college class rooms and scientific journals of Josephs time were a buzz with these theories. But Josephs statement there is more of an oxymoron. "Immaterial matter" but even then he got it right as antimatter particles (now known as positrons) were proven to exist. And we all know atoms are made up of smaller/finer particles. There's also the theories of the Aether going around at the time.

Now I'm going to have to research what was going on at the time for Joseph Smith to make such an observation.

 

Naw, spirit matter can't be anti-matter. Doesn't work. As for the history of the quotation, a local methodist preacher gave a sermon. Afterwards Joseph offered some suggestions. One was about Adam and Eve and some Hebrew. The other was the bit about "no such thing as immaterial matter" (citation). The preacher took the corrections very well and came away more impressed with Mormonism.

 

The records do not, however, say what Joseph Smith was correcting that led to his comment. This is my guess as to what the preacher was trying to say and Joseph's subsequent intellectual rebuff. I imagine/guess/think/opine that the preacher had gone on about how corruptible man was being of matter -- a temporal substance of finite duration. But that spirit was pure and infinite and eternal -- not being matter. Thus we ought to look to the heavenly and spiritual for eternity and not the stuff around us. Anyway, that's my imagination. Further imagining, Joseph's response was then quite the landmark consideration. Matter, spirit, they are not to be viewed as so very, very different. Our physical forms are not to be eschewed as being so inferior to our spirit forms, the one being material and the other not. No, our physical forms matters and our spirit form matters (hehe, puns). After all, they are both matter!

[cdowis]

Actually it works quite well.

SEE

 

Neil Degrasse Tyson

 

 

It is unfortunate that this was not transcribed.  So let's look at his description of the god of gaps -- if we do not understand something, then there must be a god.  He then goes on to show over the history of humanity that we have figured out many of the mysteries of nature,  That our ignorance of nature can be overcome by further scientific research.

 

But in his "Inexplicable Universe" series (see it on Netflix, the episode "Inexplicable Space"), he admits that we only know 4% of the laws of the universe  -- 96% is unknown to us, and that we may NEVER may have the resources, tool, and even intelligence to expand that knowledge.  He gives the idea of a horizon of our observation of events in the creation of the universe which we can detect and investigate, but there may be events which are outside of that horizon where we can never discover those laws of the universe.  While those laws are in effect in the universe, we will never be aware of them.

He gives the example of quantum physics, which is, "our BEST theory going".  

However when we do that calculation (of predicted vs observed), it does not match reality.  The answer you get is off by a factor of  10x120 th power.  Now, that is just embarrassing.  I'm sorry.  We put forth our best theory, to our biggest problem, and it gets us nowhere.

 

In fact, it is the biggest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science.

 

 

Now, my friend, tell us again "it works quite well".

 

In the youtube video he expresses "faith" that we will progress in our understanding of the laws of the universe, laughs at the god of gaps,  but admits that there are things that we may never be able to understand.

Edited August 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Rodeo]

Again science is incapable of showing what, if anything, is an "intelligent" designer. Intelligent Design is predicated on Irreducible Complexity. EVERY EXAMPLE of Irreducible Complexity thus far proposed has been shown to be false.

SEE

Again individual scientists are free to believe of not believe in any God or God(s). Some 40% of all US(American) scientists believe in God. Virtually every 5th Grader understands Set Theory in Mathematics. BUT we have a determined subset of Christians that reject it.

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

Must be some pretty ignorant scientists then. I cant help that they only conform t the atheist agenda. Science is capable of showing intelligent design. What you folks fail to see are the facts. Instead you chase some pipe dream that abiogenesis must be true regardlessof it breaking every law known to biologists. The fact is that if your abiogenesis flops then intelligent design is all that is left. In fact, the law of biogenesis is the law of intelligent design. You just fail to believe we could come from a God and that the actions we see in nature is the very God moving and acting. We are His signature, not natures signature. Edited August 9, 2014 by Rodeo

[Rob Osborn]

Again science is incapable of showing what, if anything, is an "intelligent" designer. Intelligent Design is predicated on Irreducible Complexity. EVERY EXAMPLE of Irreducible Complexity thus far proposed has been shown to be false.

SEE

 

Again individual scientists are free to believe of not believe in any God or God(s). Some 40% of all US(American) scientists believe in God. Virtually every 5th Grader understands Set Theory in Mathematics. BUT we have a determined subset of Christians that reject it.

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

Set theory is hocus pocus. But thats math not evolution. Intelligent design stands on evidence that complex information cannot rise on its own in nature. Who do you think God is? Did he not create us? Did he not plan and carry out his creation so that we can gain bodies in his image and become like him? Without God no life would exist here.

[cdowis]

Some ideas on science and religion, for those who are interested in my ideas.

 

1. God did not create. The correct word is "organize" and that word should lead us to correct conclusions.  But it is ok to talk about the creation, since everyone does, but if we want insight into the process, we need to think "organize"

 

2. God used natural laws in the creation process.  We can certainly accept evolution as one of those natural laws.

 

3. The unbelievers throw out DNA and the tree of life as a slam dunk argumehnt against creationism.  Basically they are saying there is no other explanation to evolution.

May I suggest an alternative -- chaos theory.  DNA and the tree of life follows the principle of chaos theory.

 

"Sputter.... what the heck are you talking about, cdowis?!"

 

A recent discovery was that you can look at a single tree in a forest, and the structure of the entire forest is replicated in that single tree.  I'm too old and stupid to figure out what that means, but I think this holds the clue to an explanation of the tree of life, and the apparent close genetic relationships among organisms.

We can look, for example, at the relationship between bovines and the whale which are genetically related, but evolutionists are unable to give a satisfactory explanation to that relationship thru evolution.

 

I think we can look at biology and organisms thru the lens of chaos theory and find some very interesting things.

 

4. Evolution is very nice and can explain alot of things.  But so did Newtonian physics.  There are some things which are well beyond its ability to explain some things, and it is not a one-size-fits-all solution to everything.  It's like a motor scooter that can take small loads around town, but don't ask it to haul a ten ton trailer across the country.

 

It just doesn't work.

 

5. It is a useful working hypothesis that death was present during the first five days of creation, and was suspended in the Garden of Eden.  It would resolve alot of issues.  It may not be accepted as doctrinal, but who knows -- that may change.

Edited August 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Zakuska]

It is unfortunate that this was not transcribed. So let's look at his description of the god of gaps -- if we do not understand something, then there must be a god. He then goes on to show over the history of humanity that we have figured out many of the mysteries of nature, That our ignorance of nature can be overcome by further scientific research.

Why does this sound like the scriptures and the method of turning faith into a sure knowledge?

Edited August 10, 2014 by Zakuska

[cdowis]

"Religion X"  has been discussed in several threads, including "The allegory of the coin" (which topic, unfortunately, is no longer available in this forum).  But it gets worse -- science is sound and reliable, but scientists are human beings and motivated by money, influence, careers, reputation, tenure.  

 

While peer review is supposed to be the gold standard, studies have shown that, over time, it does not protect against fallacious results.  Indeed, some may claim it becomes the method of ensuring compliance to consensus opinion.

Edited August 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

Not only can science not "observe" God it is incapable of "observing" anything not within the purview of a particular theory. For example, classical mechanics cannot see quantum spin. What a scientific theory can do is observe anomalies within the framework of its prescribed variables. That does not eliminate the possibility that God could become an observable variable... but it has to be testable. Hitherto, no testable theory of God has realized itself (that includes ID).

Are you familiar with the concept of paradigm shift?

[thesometimesaint]

Neil Degrasse Tyson

 

 

It is unfortunate that this was not transcribed.  So let's look at his description of the god of gaps -- if we do not understand something, then there must be a god.  He then goes on to show over the history of humanity that we have figured out many of the mysteries of nature,  That our ignorance of nature can be overcome by further scientific research.

 

But in his "Inexplicable Universe" series (see it on Netflix, the episode "Inexplicable Space"), he admits that we only know 4% of the laws of the universe  -- 96% is unknown to us, and that we may NEVER may have the resources, tool, and even intelligence to expand that knowledge.  He gives the idea of a horizon of our observation of events in the creation of the universe which we can detect and investigate, but there may be events which are outside of that horizon where we can never discover those laws of the universe.  While those laws are in effect in the universe, we will never be aware of them.

He gives the example of quantum physics, which is, "our BEST theory going".  

 

Now, my friend, tell us again "it works quite well".

 

In the youtube video he expresses "faith" that we will progress in our understanding of the laws of the universe, laughs at the god of gaps,  but admits that there are things that we may never be able to understand.

 

It is perfectly legitimate to say "I don't know what it is " on any given subject. It is a logical fallacy to say that "I don't know. what it is. So it must be God, space aliens, "X". That is what a God of the Gaps argument is.

 

I don't even care if someone uses that style of argument. But be prepared for when we do know what it is. IE: around 300 years ago one the greatest minds that have ever lived( Sir Issac Newton) couldn't figure out how the planets stayed in their regular ellipses. He used the God of the Gaps argument. Around 150 years later it was figured out by Pierre-Simon Laplace. He did not use the God of the Gaps argument.

 

True; We may never figure out what Dark Matter and Dark Energy is. But given the history of discovery about our planet/universe that wouldn't be something I would count on.

[thesometimesaint]

Set theory is hocus pocus. But thats math not evolution. Intelligent design stands on evidence that complex information cannot rise on its own in nature. Who do you think God is? Did he not create us? Did he not plan and carry out his creation so that we can gain bodies in his image and become like him? Without God no life would exist here.

 

Math doesn't have magic words like Hocus Pocus.  Answer me this. How many sets of 5 are in 25? Moreover I never said math was Evolution.

 

That is the sad old Watchmakers Analogy. Who do I think God is? I think he is a finished person. That he uses natural processes to achieve his objectives for his creations here on earth. He uses Evolution to Create us.

 

That is a Tautological Argument.

[Rob Osborn]

Math doesn't have magic words like Hocus Pocus.  Answer me this. How many sets of 5 are in 25? Moreover I never said math was Evolution.

 

That is the sad old Watchmakers Analogy. Who do I think God is? I think he is a finished person. That he uses natural processes to achieve his objectives for his creations here on earth. He uses Evolution to Create us.

 

That is a Tautological Argument.

How can one infinity be bigger than another infinity? Thats called hocus pocus math.

The watchmakers analogy actually works out to perfection when we look at the scientific evidence. Answer me this. How could have a written program like DNA ever come about on its own? Why is there no scientific evidence for this idea?

[thesometimesaint]

How can one infinity be bigger than another infinity? Thats called hocus pocus math.

The watchmakers analogy actually works out to perfection when we look at the scientific evidence. Answer me this. How could have a written program like DNA ever come about on its own? Why is there no scientific evidence for this idea?

 

That one is easy in math. There is an infinite number of decimals in an infinite number line.

 

The Watchmakers Analogy is a logical fallacy. It came about by Evolution.

SEE Synthesis of DNA in Lab.

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

[thesometimesaint]

Here is why the Watchmakers Analogy is a straw-man argument .

[cdowis]

How can one infinity be bigger than another infinity? Thats called hocus pocus math.

 

 

 

 

You have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms.  A person enters the hotel and rents a room.  Each current occupant moves up to the next apartment to make room for the new person.

[cdowis]

Here is why the Watchmakers Analogy is a straw-man argument .

 

 

Let me put it this way ==>> an analogy is merely a way to illustrate a  logical construct or argument.

 

Since you can "prove" anything with an analogy, using any analogy in an argument is a "straw-man".

Edited August 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Rob Osborn]

Here is why the Watchmakers Analogy is a straw-man argument .

Super weak. He invents an intelligent designed program to disprove intelligent design. What an oxymoron.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me put it this way ==>> an analogy is merely a way to illustrate a  logical construct or argument.

 

Since you can "prove" anything with an analogy, using any analogy in an argument is a "straw-man".

 

 

Yes and no. By analogy all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

[thesometimesaint]

Super weak. He invents an intelligent designed program to disprove intelligent design. What an oxymoron.

 

You are still using reductionist thinking. If "x" exist it is not indicative of whether "Y" caused it to exist. They are independent variables.

Edited August 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

You are still using reductionist thinking. If "x" exist it is not indicative of whether "Y" caused it to exist. They are independent variables.

Nonsense. Speak English.

[ERayR]

You are still using reductionist thinking. If "x" exist it is not indicative of whether "Y" caused it to exist. They are independent variables.

 

Only by definition of the reseachers.  What if they are not independent but are erroneously being treated as such?

[Rob Osborn]

That one is easy in math. There is an infinite number of decimals in an infinite number line.

 

The Watchmakers Analogy is a logical fallacy. It came about by Evolution.

SEE Synthesis of DNA in Lab.

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

They are only infinite as a way of speech to say they are unending or indefinite. Set theory is a sham because once you begin applying a "count" those points always remain finitely known. Set theory demands that a number actually "becomes" infinite. And that is impossible and thus- hocus pocus.

Synthesis of DNA eh? Sounds like intelligent designers copying an intelligent design. Hum...isn't that what God is doing?

[cdowis]

Yes and no. By analogy all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

 

I will let the internet instruct you.

 

 

For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too.

An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough.

Example

The example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but is arguably an example of a weak analogy. Are the similarities in the kind and degree of order exhibited by watches and the universe sufficient to support an inference to a similarity in their origins?

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/

 

IOW, the analogy is given as an example of the logical construct (argument from design).  Again, you can always find a weak analogy to prove almost anything.

 

I will give you the last word.

Edited August 11, 2014 by cdowis