TheSkepticChristian Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) No! Science does not disprove God! However, Dr. Greg Smith wrote, "A physical world that one cannot plausibly explain save by divine action would create an intellectually compulsive case for God’s existence.... But I think that LDS doctrine does not anticipate that this ought to happen, which is partly why I do not find it unexpected that humans exhibit evidence of common descent. " http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/ So it seems that Dr. Smith is suggesting God is not the only rational explanation, that no God is also rational. Does that mean Science makes God and the Creation accounts unnecessary? I know many will tell me that religion and science are different, science tells you how stuff works, religion teaches you how to live your life and purpose, but what about the Creation? Do we need God to explain the creation of the Earth? the Big Bang? to explain complex life? Edited February 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 47 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: So it seems that Dr. Smith is suggesting God is not the only rational explanation, that God is not required is also rational. Does that mean that Science makes the God and the Creation accounts unnecessary? That depends on whether those accounts are true or not. Science is searching for facts and purported facts that it can disprove. It has not so far disproved the Creation account to my satisfaction.
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Let's try this one Religion talks about what is inside you and science talks about what is outside you. Subjective vs objective. That probably won't work either, since it is only the 976th try. But whatever gets through, I will etch in stone. I feel like Edison and the light bulb. I have 976 different ways of saying it so you do not understand. One has to get through sometime. And no, God doesn't talk about science either. We get to make that up for ourselves Edited February 20, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Religion talks about what is inside you and science talks about what is outside you. beautiful theology, but can you please answer the question, is God necessary to explain the world?
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 God is in another dimension aND science can only prove things in this dimension.
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: beautiful theology, but can you please answer the question, is God necessary to explain the world? No. Why would he be? If he wanted to do that he would have done it thousands of years ago and we would be........ who knows what We get to figure it out for ourselves. We get to work for it, like the Adam story, by the sweat of our brows. If he gave it to us, we would just sit around all day by the food creator machine playing some kind of incredible virtual reality holographic who knows what. We teach kids to work- it is necessary for us- it is part of who we are. It would radically alter who we are if he gave us all the answers to the exam. Sorry I was a little grumpy 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: That depends on whether those accounts are true or not. Science is searching for facts and purported facts that it can disprove. It has not so far disproved the Creation account to my satisfaction. Lots depends on the assumptions we put onto the account. 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: beautiful theology, but can you please answer the question, is God necessary to explain the world? It is two different models of looking at our world/universe. I use the religious model to find the why God made the world/universe, and the science model to find the how he did it.
Kemara Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 No, we do not need God to explain the creation or complex life. Why would we?
Bobbieaware Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 5 hours ago, Kemara said: No, we do not need God to explain the creation or complex life. Why would we? Because the Book of Mormom teaches us that without God nothing would exist; that without God there would be nothing but absolute non-existence.
thesometimesaint Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Because the Book of Mormom teaches us that without God nothing would exist; that without God there would be nothing but absolute non-existence. A priori. An assumption from facts not in evidence. Plus if you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science it isn't science.
Kemara Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Because the Book of Mormom teaches us that without God nothing would exist; that without God there would be nothing but absolute non-existence. You still have not given a reason why science needs to include God in its explanation of the creation or complex life. 1
volgadon Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 There is an easier way to answer the question. Ask another question. What would evidence of God's involvement look like? 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 23 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: No! Science does not disprove God! However, Dr. Greg Smith wrote, "A physical world that one cannot plausibly explain save by divine action would create an intellectually compulsive case for God’s existence.... But I think that LDS doctrine does not anticipate that this ought to happen, which is partly why I do not find it unexpected that humans exhibit evidence of common descent. " http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/ So it seems that Dr. Smith is suggesting God is not the only rational explanation, that no God is also rational. Does that mean Science makes God and the Creation accounts unnecessary? I know many will tell me that religion and science are different, science tells you how stuff works, religion teaches you how to live your life and purpose, but what about the Creation? Do we need God to explain the creation of the Earth? the Big Bang? to explain complex life? Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe both supported the notion of design of the universe by sentient being(s), and also thought panspermia to be a viable theory for the spread of life. Whether one sees the sentient being(s) who designs the universe and spreads life as "God," is of course the ultimate question. It is very difficult to build a rational case for God simply on the likelihood that our universe had to have been designed by someone. Opinions on that differ too broadly. However, when we deal with the minutiae of some sorts of religious claims, we may have a basis for just such a claim. Particularly where certain claims simply are too preposterous to be true (as for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon), such that, if the contents of the BofM can be found true by the preponderance of scientific evidence, that alone ought to have us all sitting up to take notice. For, by extension, the existence of God would certainly be bolstered.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Why would he be? If he wanted to do that he would have done it thousands of years ago and we would be........ who knows what 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is very difficult to build a rational case for God simply on the likelihood that our universe had to have been designed by someone. Opinions on that differ too broadly. 19 hours ago, Kemara said: No, we do not need God to explain the creation or complex life. Why would we? VS Quote LDS.orgWe can look up at the sky at night and see a never-ending universe. There are millions of stars and planets, all in perfect order. They did not get there by chance. We can see the work of God in the heavens and on the earth. The beautiful plants, the variety of animals, the mountains, the rivers, the clouds that bring us rain and snow—all these testify to us that there is a God... God is the Almighty Ruler of the universe. He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: VS And what exactly is your point?
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Kemara said: And what exactly is your point? Nothing, but thanks for answering my question! or Perhaps that is why most Theists don't study a scientific field! Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 49 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Nothing, but thanks for answering my question! or Perhaps that is why most Theists don't study a scientific field! Or perhaps that is why atheists and agnostics are in the minority, according to the statistical data you provided on another thread.
mfbukowski Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: VS I guess I misunderstood the question, which was this: Quote beautiful theology, but can you please answer the question, is God necessary to explain the world? I thought you were saying "Do we need to have God give us answers to objective scientific questions?", I thought it a peculiar question because science does not even assume that God exists and yet has answered questions about the world, and I think God wants us to use our own minds to develop our own answers. But I don't understand the reply either. What was "VS" supposed to mean after giving three answers? You wanted one answer from everyone? I still am clueless what you were trying to say
Rivers Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Science doesn't disprove God. But it takes away evidence that would compel us to believe in God. I'm not compelled anyway. Belief in God is a subjective thing. There is more to theism than belief in a creator. It also entails belief in an ultimate purpose to life and the universe. God may not be necessary for creation, but God is necessary to provide meaning to everything beyond what we construct ourselves. 1
TrespassersW Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 On 2/20/2016 at 5:42 PM, TheSkepticChristian said: Do we need God to explain the creation of the Earth? the Big Bang? to explain complex life? Of course not. Absolutely anything can be explained by pure random coincidence... if one is willing to accept astronomical improbabilities in the explanation. Do we NEED a carpenter to explain the existence of a house? Not really, no. But that is often the more parsimonious explanation for the existence of houses. 1
Monster Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Science does not spend time on God, It tends to focus on things that can be proven. I would say science ignores god more the it attempts to disprove him. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: A priori. An assumption from facts not in evidence. Plus if you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science it isn't science. Unless you are positing that sentient beings had to have designed something, which contains within itself the evidence of their existence. For atheists, this does not preclude advanced alien intelligence, and may require it. Logical forensic evidence can certainly lead in that direction, and that is why Hoyle and Wickramasinghe drew the conclusions that they did. They were unable to explain how the universe and physical laws were "just so" in favoring biological existence -- the "Goldilocks" principle.
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 2 hours ago, TrespassersW said: Of course not. Absolutely anything can be explained by pure random coincidence... if one is willing to accept astronomical improbabilities in the explanation. Do we NEED a carpenter to explain the existence of a house? Not really, no. But that is often the more parsimonious explanation for the existence of houses. Where in science is there anything about pure random chance?
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Unless you are positing that sentient beings had to have designed something, which contains within itself the evidence of their existence. For atheists, this does not preclude advanced alien intelligence, and may require it. Logical forensic evidence can certainly lead in that direction, and that is why Hoyle and Wickramasinghe drew the conclusions that they did. They were unable to explain how the universe and physical laws were "just so" in favoring biological existence -- the "Goldilocks" principle. I'm not an atheist, and am fine with God doing it. I just use science to explain how he did it. Hoyle was wrong; ours is an expanding universe, not a steady state one. Wickramasinghe doesn't endorse so called Creation Science. From what is known right now life as we know it is only present on our planet. Hubris says we're wrong. We'll just have to wait and see.
TrespassersW Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Where in science is there anything about pure random chance? Um... All over the place? Many, many, many processes are described as essentially random. Chance plays a very large part in describing the behavior of subatomic particles. It plays an essential part in current descriptions of abiogenesis. Random mutation is an essential piece of evolution. Are you saying that science claims that NOTHING in the universe is random? Or have I misunderstood your point? Yes, I understand that selection heuristics also play a part in theories such as evolution and that evolution isn't itself purely random. It wasn't my intention to imply that it was. My point was, ANY fact can be explained purely by chance if we have a high enough threshold for improbability. If we impose limits on how much improbability we're allowed to accept, however, then we have to be more selective. As I understood it, TheSkepticChristian's point was that it is POSSIBLE to explain the universe without invoking God. I was just conceding that point, but that I don't think it matters because I don't believe that was ever seriously in dispute. The more interesting debate is, IMO, whether or not a universe without God is more parsimonious than one with Him.
Recommended Posts