RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 4:05:32 PM)

quote:

In the modern sense of the word no such scientist existed in this time period. People believed that the natural world stopped at the firmament which was a hard dome over the Earth where the planets, Sun, and stars were embedded. That was the edge of the universe. Now you come telling us that we can't see beyond our universe. I can't help but think that you believe ignorance (that is, all of our ignorance) is permanent. I don't see why scientific investigation is limited to our universe and the last 13.7 billion years of history.


So then it cannot be rightly said that, “scientific investigation stopped at the edge of our atmosphere.”

quote:

If a deity comes down and produces a universe within the lab I would fully accept it.


Well, if we produce a ‘universe’ in the lab, it would certainly make us deities of a sort.

quote:

God of the Bible has retreated as the creator of planets and stars as much as Thor has retreated as the creator of lightning.


Why would this be? I have children, but this fact doesn’t render God not the creator of life and humanity.

quote:

Mantras do not an argument make.


It’s not a mantra, it is a fact.



Method -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 4:24:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So then it cannot be rightly said that, “scientific investigation stopped at the edge of our atmosphere.”


You are right. I am wrong in that sense. What I was getting to is that people's belief about where things ended was clearly wrong.

quote:

Why would this be? I have children, but this fact doesn’t render God not the creator of life and humanity.


I can find people right in this forum who believe God personally formed the stars and planets without the mindless forces of gravity and other physical forces.

quote:

It’s not a mantra, it is a fact.


Ignorance is a fact. However, I don't see why it should be permanent.

God has long lived in mysteries, but when we solve these mysteries we do not find a deity. We find mindless forces. This has happened over and over. God was once thought to have produced the planets and stars by fiat, not natural forces. In fact, many found Newton's laws as threatening because they thought God's hand was involved in the movement of the planets. They balked at the idea that there very lives depended on a lifeless, uncaring force called gravity. As Stephen Weinberg stated, "For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."



essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 4:30:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Well, if we can't go by what has been written down, then it's safe to assume that George Washington never existed. None of us have ever met George Washington; we only know about him through written documentation. There has been much more written about Jesus Christ and the doctrines taught by Him than there ever was about George Washington. So why is it easier to believe that he existed, but God didn't? Is it because the stories sound too incredible to be true?


We can read that Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac, but this is not true. It is myth.

Written documents are not worthless; neither are they necessarily flawless. We need to critically examine written documents and any other evidence we can bring to bear on a particular subject. Some statements will be largely accepted, others dismissed as false, while others may forever remain unverified.



Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 4:36:29 PM)

quote:

I can find people right in this forum who believe God personally formed the stars and planets without the mindless forces of gravity and other physical forces.
You can people who believe about anything – that in itself proves nothing.


But the fact that certain things continue to arise has nothing to do with their origin.

quote:

Ignorance is a fact. However, I don't see why it should be permanent.


Not ignorance, acknowledgement of reality.

quote:

God has long lived in mysteries, but when we solve these mysteries we do not find a deity. We find mindless forces. This has happened over and over. God was once thought to have produced the planets and stars by fiat, not natural forces. In fact, many found Newton's laws as threatening because they thought God's hand was involved in the movement of the planets. They balked at the idea that there very lives depended on a lifeless, uncaring force called gravity. As Stephen Weinberg stated, "For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."


Gods may indeed have ‘lived in mysteries’ but the God of the Bible is the God of history and interaction with living human beings, not a mysterious force. And while science has given us many good things and is a useful tool, however limited, it continues to lack the ability to answer fundamental questions about the nature of reality – at least as much as it limits itself to mindless forces.



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 5:36:20 PM)

quote:

Gods may indeed have ‘lived in mysteries’ but the God of the Bible is the God of history and interaction with living human beings, not a mysterious force. And while science has given us many good things and is a useful tool, however limited, it continues to lack the ability to answer fundamental questions about the nature of reality – at least as much as it limits itself to mindless forces.


There's some interesting stuff here.

I wonder if you are interested in somewhat of a new or a refined idea of what science is or ought to be? Like, I guess it could be redefined as one partially inspired by and for the glory of God? I like that idea, but it WOULD take a redefinition. Science is certainly limited to mindlessness! That's a great way to put it (yeah, I shortened your statement too, cuz I like to mess with words). Redefinitions are a bit controversial tho, eh, as can be seen by the heat in mere semantic arguments on these forums right? I find it very disturbing and troubling when scientists believe they have overcome personal or philosophical questions by doing science -- other than what they gain from the shear experience or drive to pursue their calling! That is, when they try to suggest they have PROSCRIPTIVE ideas about life, the Universe and everything, rather than DESCRIPTIVE. Very simple! Evolution certainly smacks of proscription, but I think its not the idea's fault itself but the language attached to it and its representatives -- to say nothing of whether or not it is true, which I can't say and science can only say tentatively, as a pragmatic or productive mode of moving forward with inquiry. Really it's not very profound. I can't think what is meant by the term really besides natural selection (with the finer study of sexual selection there as well) and genetic drift.

Also, wanted to comment on the idea of God being the God of history. I don't know, unless you are saying you could look at the history of the world as a a series of biographies detailing humanity's saga of sin, with the implication obvious to the Christian that God has been there every step of the way offering a way out of our narrative. I don't think he guides history tho, if that's what you mean.



drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 6:30:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

quote:

Gods may indeed have ‘lived in mysteries’ but the God of the Bible is the God of history and interaction with living human beings, not a mysterious force. And while science has given us many good things and is a useful tool, however limited, it continues to lack the ability to answer fundamental questions about the nature of reality – at least as much as it limits itself to mindless forces.


There's some interesting stuff here.

I wonder if you are interested in somewhat of a new or a refined idea of what science is or ought to be? Like, I guess it could be redefined as one partially inspired by and for the glory of God? I like that idea, but it WOULD take a redefinition. Science is certainly limited to mindlessness!


Is poe's law at work here... hmm.

What the agenda of the ID movement really is (at least its largest US advocacy group), as evidenced by the wedge document, is to fundamentally shift science away from it's primary purpose of understanding nature, and to refocus its efforts on affirming the existence of a god (designer!). Or like you said, 'science' as worship to reaffirm the glory of god. What this agenda would do should it ever succeed, is lobotomize science by removing one of its most important aspects; the ability to question things honestly and objectively. What you suggest would be nothing short of disastrous.

Edit: Furthermore, I think most theistic sciences would already claim what they do is 'inspired by and for the glory of God'. The only people who claim it doesnt (besides atheists) are literalists who willfully make it impossible for honest science, and their beliefs to co-exist.



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/13/2008 7:29:51 PM)

quote:

So I suppose the next thing to consider is if it is even possible to argue God's existence from a scientific perspective?
quote:

Yeah, I don't think science qua science can say anything about God.
Let me share a fascinating concept (at least for me) which may change your minds, PL and hhhi. This article argues for the existence of the Triune God based partly on His design and creation of the triune universe (time, space, and matter). Although it's not a rigorous "proof" for the Creator God of the Bible, I find it exceedingly compelling from a scientifically observational perspective.

The Tri-Universe by Henry Morris, Ph.D.



WormHeart -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/14/2008 10:16:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

True, but we are still hampered by the fact that neither of us speak the original languages. There are lots of nuances we miss or don’t get, because we rely on other peoples translations.
Translating words changes them.


Perhaps, but this has nothing to do with the fact that by your own acknowledgement, you regard the words metaphorically rather than literally.


Of course – which is the way they are meant to be read.
Do you think the Christians of old expected Christ to arrive with a physical sword in his mouth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:

Then I might have misunderstood your point.
I assume you don’t read the Bible as literal in every sense, so what are you trying to say?


I am saying you are simply ascribing to these mythologies your modern understanding, whatever the understanding of the writers.


Yes, we all do that, perhaps with the exceptions of creationists like Uncle Monkey.
What I don’t get is the implied idea, that it makes the mythology less valid, since both our religions do the same thing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:

Well, that is the way to verify or reject interpretations of holy texts, no?
If you interpret the text one way, but reality (by our best understanding) say another thing, then the interpretations must be in error.


Well, no, the writers could simply be wrong.


Yes, but since we have special revelation, we know that they were not.

WormHeart



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/16/2008 9:12:47 AM)

drj11,

Yeah, I thought it was apt to point out that calling ID science would involve a commandeering of the word. I think philosophically much less scientifically proving God is impossible (and inadvisable to attempt from a Christian standpoint).

However, in the interest of resolution, I think it would be productive to honestly frame one's goals as redefining science rather than to get ID admitted to science as is.

I definitely agree with your statement:
quote:

Edit: Furthermore, I think most theistic sciences would already claim what they do is 'inspired by and for the glory of God'. The only people who claim it doesnt (besides atheists) are literalists who willfully make it impossible for honest science, and their beliefs to co-exist.


Science itself -- that done by atheists as well as theistic scientists -- could be considered to God's glory as well, whether or not it is perceived to be so inspired, of course.

I guess what I am saying is, in general, is there anything we OUGHT to consider science to be that is not part of the canon today? I think a foundational overhaul of science involving making "falsifiability" optional to an hypothesis would indeed be great loss. But is it the contention of anyone that science ought to be redefined? I am interested in those kinds of arguments. I believe a common ground could be found within this, whether or not it actually turns out that the concept science is in need of tweaking. It just seems like a better, more honest, context from which to frame debate.



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/16/2008 9:24:16 AM)

drmark,

Thanks for the reading suggestions. I may look into it. As an aside, I wonder if thoughts about the trinity approach "numerology" when they try to extend themselves beyond the one apparent in the Bible. But that's just an example of the skepticism or even xenophobia with which I approach new ideas!

Also, I thought of one piece of "evidence" for an intelligent designer, which, being untestable and perfectly indifferent to science, would not constitute "proof" of a creator, but another piece of wonder for a theist or Christian to consider.

(Hmm, might proponents of ID try rebranding it as "natural philosophy" rather than science? I thin that would be very appropriate -- just another thought related to this thread, but not exactly to what I was in the middle of saying.)

Anyway, that piece of evidence is the coincidence of the apparent sizes of the moon and the sun being roughly the same, and even, as they change through different orbital cycles, switching roles as to which is greater, I believe. There is no scientific explanation for this, and there doesn't seem to be any sense in framing this as a scientific question.

However, if ID would be the search for evidence of an intelligence -- this seems to be an example of natural phenomena that favors an observer, which in my opinion would constitute evidence (circumstantial I suppose) for a Creator-consciousness who is also aware of and not indifferent to us.

Don't anyone get upset that I am being unscientific though, because I'm not pretending to be!



SamSpick -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/25/2008 5:05:06 PM)

quote:

One molecule of anything is more than enough evidence to prove the existence of God, because if something "is" rather than "is not" then somehow, somewhere, something MUST exist that has the power of being.

In other words there must be something that is not subject to causality? Or to put it another way, something which was not caused to exist? Yet something which can "cause" causality?



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/30/2008 11:33:28 AM)

yeah, I think what SamSpick is trying to suggest is that it is silly to try and prove the existence of God philosophically.

Please, anyone who is interesting in doing this, perhaps you ought to read all the throrough prior attempts. I dunno -- start with Descartes. If he can't do it, what new ideas lead you to suppose that you can? Howev,er sure, I am willing to listen.

For instance:
Try and imagine a universe before consciousness -- before the exigency of the question "Why am I here?" (rather than "not here"). This is an ironic paradox. Perhaps we should be considering the subjective evidence for God rather than the philosophical.

Anyways, God isn't a philosopher-king in the sky, He is a very interesting and somewhat enigmatic person! What kind of philosopher demans absolute faith anyway? Some kind of tyrant! Philosophers ought not make any demands on a person's subjective beliefs, except to question them. They will be the greatest philosopher to the extent that they really don't care what anyone believes, e.g.: Socrates. That is, if you would like to philosophically investigate the question of God, prepare for a never-ending cycle of skepticism! Philosophy ought to be no more than skepticism or an interest in people's ignorance.

A philosophical investigation into God ought to end with the conclusion that God is way too jealous of our beliefs and our souls to let us approach Him on our own -- if we are not willing to come to Him out of helplessness and humility, I don't think He will have anything to do with us. To put it another way, to the extent that we think we have come upon a rational, objective description and proof of God, the greater His zeal will be for pointing out that we have failed Him as a SUBJECT!



Leo71 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/30/2008 1:02:31 PM)

Heh. Yeah, I agree these conversations are maddening at best, and an utter waste of one's time at worst. Some folks might actually find pleasure in beating their heads against a brick wall indefinitely, only to discover they haven't made so much as a dent in said brick wall -- as opposed to substantial damage to said heads!

I for one hate talking to atheists/agnostics about any kind of "proof" of God's existence. I always end up informing them that one day God will prove Himself to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Then, of course, we will have no more need for these philosophies of ours.



SamSpick -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (7/7/2008 4:00:52 PM)

quote:

yeah, I think what SamSpick is trying to suggest is that it is silly to try and prove the existence of God philosophically.


I wouldn't say it's silly, afterall it's quite natural for a sentient being to try and rationalise it's own beliefs. I personally wouldn't wish to belittle any attempt by anybody. However, the apparent impossibility of the task raises the question: How did the God idea arise amongst us in the first place? If we can't deduce God logically?



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (7/7/2008 4:07:22 PM)

Suppose God is impossible to deduce...

But is it so hard to extrapolate from worldly social structure to say, "Hmm, maybe there's a big dude in the sky on top of ALL y'all!"

What about the concept of infinity? Is it so hard to come up with? It's nothing but the other side of the coin of zero. And zero is simply the other side of the coin of "one" or quantifiability. That's what I say anyway.



SamSpick -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (7/7/2008 4:47:40 PM)

quote:

But is it so hard to extrapolate from worldly social structure to say, "Hmm, maybe there's a big dude in the sky on top of ALL y'all!"

It's far easier to imagine and suppose than to deduce logically, I'd say.

quote:

What about the concept of infinity? Is it so hard to come up with? It's nothing but the other side of the coin of zero. And zero is simply the other side of the coin of "one" or quantifiability.

I'm unclear as to what this imaginary three-sided coin has to do with the existence or otherwise of a sentient creator.



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (7/7/2008 4:56:41 PM)

quote:

quote:

What about the concept of infinity? Is it so hard to come up with? It's nothing but the other side of the coin of zero. And zero is simply the other side of the coin of "one" or quantifiability.
I'm unclear as to what this imaginary three-sided coin has to do with the existence or otherwise of a sentient creator.


I was just responding with what I felt was a weak thing to say, that if human's cannot logically deduce God that it would be difficult to get the idea for for a god. Yeah, three-sided coins aside, it seems to me that it doesn't take deduction to come up with things. But I am very intersted, as you seem to be, in how folks came up with such ideas -- or, no, rather, in what it would be like to NOT know of thigs like 1, zero, infinity and come to think of them. They don't seem terribly hard to come up with though to me.



SamSpick -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (7/7/2008 5:12:35 PM)

quote:

I was just responding with what I felt was a weak thing to say, that if human's cannot logically deduce God that it would be difficult to get the idea for for a god.

I was actually alluding to the idea that maybe God provided an alternative way for man to know God since the reasoning of man alone appears inadequate to bridge the perceptive gap....?

quote:

know of thigs like 1, zero, infinity and come to think of them.

But one and zero are observable empirical facts. Infinity is deduced from the simple idea that we can always add one to any number. The deduction of a sentient creator on the other hand is more elusive.



hellohellohi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (7/7/2008 10:24:30 PM)

quote:

I was actually alluding to the idea that maybe God provided an alternative way for man to know God since the reasoning of man alone appears inadequate to bridge the perceptive gap....?


oh -- that's a good thought.

About one and zero -- i dunno about that, but it's not important right now. I would think more along the lines that you suggest above for one, zero, and infinity as well. I agree infinity could be thought of as he extrapolation of addition. It could also be the extrapolation from division of "one" or unity -- considering the number obtained when dividing unity into smaller and smaller subsets. So, really, I think infinity is synonymous with unity as far as deep concepts go. "One," really, i would equate with the arising of possessiveness, of the development of "mine." Zero could come also through spontaneous insight, I believe. Or, it could be an ironic commentary on the concept "mine" -- a joke to make fun of possessive people. None of this important though, just talking.

later



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI