katherine the great Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 on which side of the issue? I was making a general observation. Also do not want to derail.I was thinking about evolution. The thread is about the compatibility of religion and evolution so I don't think its being derailed (?)
katherine the great Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Are you saying that science will never find conclusive evidence for God? How do you know that? Science should be open minded, not close minded. Science is open minded, but only deals with natural phenomena. Unless God decides to become part of the "natural" world and not the the creator of it, science cannot deal with Him. I don't know about physics, but I know about evolutionary theories. The natural man is "carnal, sensual and devilish." That is the man we deal with in science--not the spiritual, godlike one inside of us. Scientific theories that try to test things like true altruism (purely spiritual phenomena) all fail because anthropological theories have the assumption that we will always act according to our own benefit (and those of our close relatives.) The natural man, yes. The spiritual man, no. 2
LinuxGal Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 There are many reasonable possibilities, why can't God be one? There are many unproven models made by scientists, should we dismiss them? Natural selection and descent with variation alone suffice to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Occam's Razor insists that one does not make a theory more complicated than necessary. Making God part of the process makes it more complicated. It's like saying, "I had a headache, so I took aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache went away."
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Science is open minded, but only deals with natural phenomena. Unless God decides to become part of the "natural" world and not the the creator of it, science cannot deal with Him. I believe in the God of nature, not the God of magic. God is a super intelligent alien, it is possible for science to some-day discover how he did it. God is a God of science, a God of numbers, a God of nature. If SETI scientists discover an alien signal, would that mean that they cannot investigate how the aliens did it? Natural selection and descent with variation alone suffice to explain the diversity of life on Earth. I did not present an idea that contradicts Evolution, mutations, and natural selection. Making God part of the process makes it more complicated. It's like saying, "I had a headache, so I took aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache went away." Many secular scientists are open to the possibility that an alien created our known universe. You cannot really apply the Oscams razor to the universe, I will explain why, For example: What explains why the sky is blue? Scattering in the atmosphere. What explains the scattering? Quantum electro-dynamics (QED). What explains QED? String theory. What explains string theory? ... you will get an infinite regress.Infinite regress = No Occam's razor, infinities are not allowed in Occam's razor. Look what Sean Carroll (atheist cosmologist) wrote,http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/25/turtles-much-of-the-way-down/#.ULeJJuOe8Ts If you believe everything had a absolute beginning, there are bigger problems with that idea, no Occam's razor. Edited November 29, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
LinuxGal Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 You cannot really apply the Oscams razor to the universe, I will explain why, For example: What explains why the sky is blue? Scattering in the atmosphere. What explains the scattering? Quantum electro-dynamics (QED). What explains QED? String theory. What explains string theory? ... you will get an infinite regress. Why do you say we will get an infinite regress? First of all, string theory doesn't explain QED (or anything else) because string theory hasn't made any testable predictions yet. So the inquiry stops with QED when asking questions about the interaction of particles and light. At this point, Occam's Razor says don't add string theory, because it's a needless complication. If, however, string theory settles down and becomes a mature theory with falsifiable claims, and it is a more fundamental theory than QED, then Occam the barber will step aside and we will add it to the chain.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Why do you say we will get an infinite regress? Because if we don't, we will get bigger problems, no Occam's razor. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0 If we do, infinities are not allowed in Occam's razor. You cannot apply the Occam's razor to the entire universe. First of all, string theory doesn't explain QED (or anything else) because string theory hasn't made any testable predictions yet. An astrophysicist told me that, do you know more than him? Yes, String theory has not been proven, but it is plausible. Some predictions of String theory have already been confirmed, but no time to explain now, I have to go. At this point, Occam's Razor says don't add string theory, because it's a needless complication. but then you stop science, science is about explaining stuff. Edited November 29, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
LinuxGal Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 An astrophysicist told me that, do you know more than him? Yes, String theory has not been proven, but it is plausible. Lots of things are plausible. The idea that normal matter decays into dark matter is plausible, but until its testable, that idea cannot explain why only 4% of the mass in the universe is in the form of normal matter, any more than a "Heisenberg bypass" explains how the transporters on the Enterprise get around the uncertainty principle. Think of an explanation as a testimony. Plausible but untested "explanations" are speculation, and are overrulled.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Lots of things are plausible. Possible, Yes. Plausible, not really. . The idea that normal matter decays into dark matter is plausible, but until its testable I understand what you are saying, I agree with that, but you don't seem to understand what I am saying. I am talking about good explanations, not the right answers. You cannot dismiss good explanations, scientific research must continue.
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Natural selection and descent with variation alone suffice to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Occam's Razor insists that one does not make a theory more complicated than necessary. Making God part of the process makes it more complicated. It's like saying, "I had a headache, so I took aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache went away." Occam's razor is limited in its applicability.SEE http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/papers/dmkd99.pdf
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Occam's razor is limited in its applicability.SEE http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/papers/dmkd99.pdf The document supports my point. ..., it is easier to accept the general theory of relativity than it is to accept a correction factor of c/r3 to the gravitational law to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, since the general theory explains more with fewer assumptions than does a “patched” Newtonian theory. We have a materialist theory that sufficiently explains the diversity of life on Earth. To insert a deity into the process is to add a redundancy. It would be even worse than the case of patching Newtonian theory, since the patched Newtonian model makes the same predictions as the Einsteinian model, while introducing a conscious being capable of overriding natural selection might very well result in the success of a species that is not optimized for its current environment.
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) The document supports my point. ..., it is easier to accept the general theory of relativity than it is to accept a correction factor of c/r3 to the gravitational law to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, since the general theory explains more with fewer assumptions than does a “patched” Newtonian theory. We have a materialist theory that sufficiently explains the diversity of life on Earth. To insert a deity into the process is to add a redundancy. It would be even worse than the case of patching Newtonian theory, since the patched Newtonian model makes the same predictions as the Einsteinian model, while introducing a conscious being capable of overriding natural selection might very well result in the success of a species that is not optimized for its current environment. I didn't say it was of no applicability only that it was of limited applicability. Simplification while useful is not the goal of nature, reproduction is. Edited November 30, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Stone holm Posted December 1, 2014 Author Posted December 1, 2014 Science is open minded, but only deals with natural phenomena. Unless God decides to become part of the "natural" world and not the the creator of it, science cannot deal with Him. I don't know about physics, but I know about evolutionary theories. The natural man is "carnal, sensual and devilish." That is the man we deal with in science--not the spiritual, godlike one inside of us. Scientific theories that try to test things like true altruism (purely spiritual phenomena) all fail because anthropological theories have the assumption that we will always act according to our own benefit (and those of our close relatives.) The natural man, yes. The spiritual man, no.Not necessarily, some evolutionists have laid out theories as to why altruism can be an evolutionary strategy.
katherine the great Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Not necessarily, some evolutionists have laid out theories as to why altruism can be an evolutionary strategy.Oh yes, I know all about them. Reciprocal altruism, costly signaling, mutualism, kin selection... The problem is, none of those things are true altruism because there is always an underlying motive to benefit the "giver." 1
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Occam's razor is limited in its applicability.SEE http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/papers/dmkd99.pdf Occam's razor is more then limited. It is useless except as a shorthand for dealing with things we don't entirely understand yet. Following it often leads to the wrong conclusion. 1
Stone holm Posted December 2, 2014 Author Posted December 2, 2014 True, but absolute pure altruism tends to not exist even in religion. One may say it does, but once you get past the platitudes then it sort of vanishes.
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Natural selection and descent with variation alone suffice to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Occam's Razor insists that one does not make a theory more complicated than necessary. That is a science stopper, what about the laws of nature that make Evolution possible? What about the interface between quantum mechanics and biology? Science needs to keep looking for answers. To insert a deity into the process is to add a redundancy. There is no such thing as a final explanation in science, the more answers scientists find, the more questions they get. Science is open minded, it needs to be open to all reasonable possibilities. Where the physical evidence leads, and how God states specifically contradict the idea that life evolved. ID arguments cannot possibly contradict Theistic Evolution. Bytheway, look at the evidence, See 8:48 Edited December 3, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
katherine the great Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 True, but absolute pure altruism tends to not exist even in religion. One may say it does, but once you get past the platitudes then it sort of vanishes.I was about to agree but then I think about people who run into burning houses to save someone else's child or jump into a river to help someone they don't know who is in trouble. I do agree that altruism cannot exist in a broad sense on a day to day basis because that person would be wiped out of the gene pool very quickly, but incidents of true altruism do happen in some people of extremely high moral character, or people who are exceptionally empathetic, etc. 2
Stone holm Posted December 14, 2014 Author Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) Science is open minded, but only deals with natural phenomena. Unless God decides to become part of the "natural" world and not the the creator of it, science cannot deal with Him. I don't know about physics, but I know about evolutionary theories. The natural man is "carnal, sensual and devilish." That is the man we deal with in science--not the spiritual, godlike one inside of us. Scientific theories that try to test things like true altruism (purely spiritual phenomena) all fail because anthropological theories have the assumption that we will always act according to our own benefit (and those of our close relatives.) The natural man, yes. The spiritual man, no.But we as Mormons, I am assuming you are such, believe that God is part of nature. He organized things that already existed, and did not create matter. In addition, Mormonism is more tribal oriented than any other Christian religion with our genealogy, sealings and Patriarchal blessings. I have never felt very comfortable with the natural man gobbledygook . Edited December 14, 2014 by Stone holm
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) The internet is posting that Pope Francis just basically supported evolution and the big bang theory Pope Francis is Pro-Science, he also said that man is primarily responsible for climate change. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-says-climate-change-is-mostly-mans-fault We should talk about Pope Francis more, not about Dehlin or Kelly, they are not important and we should not help them become more famous. Edited February 11, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Stone holm Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Pope Francis is Pro-Science, he also said that man is primarily responsible for climate change. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-says-climate-change-is-mostly-mans-fault We should talk about Pope Francis more, not about Dehlin or Kelly, they are not important and we should not help them become more famous.I agree.
danielwoods Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Pope Francis is Pro-Science, he also said that man is primarily responsible for climate change. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-says-climate-change-is-mostly-mans-fault We should talk about Pope Francis more, not about Dehlin or Kelly, they are not important and we should not help them become more famous. Even the Pope can be wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Grudunza Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Even the Pope can be wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.htmlOr not: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Even the Pope can be wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html Of course he can. He is mortal just like the rest of us. The question is on the subject of Global Warming do his ideas agree with established science or not. If yes then there is no problem for established science. If no then he has some explaining to do.Scientific organizations that support the Global Warming theorySEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Scientific organizations that support the Global Warming theorySEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Climate Change deniers and Young Earth Creationists do not like scientific consensus, peer-reviewed evidence, and scientific scrutiny. Climate Change deniers and creationists love internet blogs, amateurs, conspiracy theories, and "evidence" that is out of context. Edited February 11, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker 1
danielwoods Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Climate Change deniers and Young Earth Creationists do not like scientific consensus, peer-reviewed evidence, and scientific scrutiny. Climate Change deniers and creationists love internet blogs, conspiracy theories, and "evidence" that is out of context. This is factually incorrect.
Recommended Posts