I looked up “snide” looks like a synonym for derogatory. I reviewed my posts in this thread and see nothing derogatory in them.
Perhaps you have me confused with somone else?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
Perhaps you have me confused with somone else?
@Hockeycowboy
So how long ago was the flood?
(This time I would prefer a response to a personal attack please)
So how long ago was the flood?
(This time I would prefer a response to a personal attack please)
So what exactly happened when God said Let there be light? Talk me through it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The Big Bang:
There Was No Big Bang Singularity
That is a gap of knowledge and one of the limits of science.
So here is how it works in practice. We don't know, where the universe came from, so we can't answer, if it is natural or not. That is one limit of evidence in practice.
So if you ask me, what is before the universe and caused inflation, I answer, that I don't know and that you can't demand evidence from me, because there is not evidence possible using science. And if you answer in any sense, that it doesn't make sense to believe in a God, which did this, I point out, you have no evidence, that it is natural.
You can't using science to claim it makes more sense not to believe in such a God, because you can't use science to answer it. It is unknown. Rather if you believe that the cause of the universe is natural, it is a belief and nothing else.
And you can't use reason and logic, because that is in your brain and not based on evidence.
Science works in a limited sense and here are some other limits.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
That is rather important, that you know these limits, because if you don't, you can claim something in the name of science, which is not science, but rather scientism if you still persist, that you use science.
And is not wrong to have faith for that, which science can't answer, because science can't answer everything.
Indeed if you test the limit of evidence, and find that there is a limit to evidence and thus knowledge, then it can't be unscientific to have faith in a God, because you can't use science on that.
I am religious in some sense, but I am also a skeptic, and I "bite hard" if someone claims knowledge, when there is no knowledge.
So here is in practice the limit of knowledge in the broadest sense possible.
If you don't claim that you are the cause of everything, but rather that you are the effect of something else not you, then you can't know what that is independent of you, because you only know as you. That applies to any belief in a natural or supernatural universe as for its first cause including Last Thursday, Young Earth, The Matrix, a Boltzmann Brain or what not. Science can't do metaphysics in any positive for what the universe really is and it is not wrong to believe in something else than naturalism and its variants.
Indeed naturalism et all has a limit in practice as above because of limited neurological/subjective, cognitive and cultural relativism. Just as empiricism as the idea that everything can be answered with observation and scientific experiments.
You can't e.g. use science to tell if it is wrong to kill another human.
And you can't use science to show that religion is wrong. Nor can you use religion to show that science is wrong.
The joke is that some people don't understand the limits of both knowledge and faith and that is not particular to either science nor religion.
In practice I am a skeptic, because I get both the limits of knowledge and faith and I am religious because I can't be me without faith, because I can't use science all the time.
E.g. I have faith in humanity and I accept that is without evidence and rationality, but it works for me.
There Was No Big Bang Singularity
That is a gap of knowledge and one of the limits of science.
So here is how it works in practice. We don't know, where the universe came from, so we can't answer, if it is natural or not. That is one limit of evidence in practice.
So if you ask me, what is before the universe and caused inflation, I answer, that I don't know and that you can't demand evidence from me, because there is not evidence possible using science. And if you answer in any sense, that it doesn't make sense to believe in a God, which did this, I point out, you have no evidence, that it is natural.
You can't using science to claim it makes more sense not to believe in such a God, because you can't use science to answer it. It is unknown. Rather if you believe that the cause of the universe is natural, it is a belief and nothing else.
And you can't use reason and logic, because that is in your brain and not based on evidence.
Science works in a limited sense and here are some other limits.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
That is rather important, that you know these limits, because if you don't, you can claim something in the name of science, which is not science, but rather scientism if you still persist, that you use science.
- Science doesn't make moral judgments
- Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
- Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
- Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
And is not wrong to have faith for that, which science can't answer, because science can't answer everything.
Indeed if you test the limit of evidence, and find that there is a limit to evidence and thus knowledge, then it can't be unscientific to have faith in a God, because you can't use science on that.
I am religious in some sense, but I am also a skeptic, and I "bite hard" if someone claims knowledge, when there is no knowledge.
So here is in practice the limit of knowledge in the broadest sense possible.
If you don't claim that you are the cause of everything, but rather that you are the effect of something else not you, then you can't know what that is independent of you, because you only know as you. That applies to any belief in a natural or supernatural universe as for its first cause including Last Thursday, Young Earth, The Matrix, a Boltzmann Brain or what not. Science can't do metaphysics in any positive for what the universe really is and it is not wrong to believe in something else than naturalism and its variants.
Indeed naturalism et all has a limit in practice as above because of limited neurological/subjective, cognitive and cultural relativism. Just as empiricism as the idea that everything can be answered with observation and scientific experiments.
You can't e.g. use science to tell if it is wrong to kill another human.
And you can't use science to show that religion is wrong. Nor can you use religion to show that science is wrong.
The joke is that some people don't understand the limits of both knowledge and faith and that is not particular to either science nor religion.
In practice I am a skeptic, because I get both the limits of knowledge and faith and I am religious because I can't be me without faith, because I can't use science all the time.
E.g. I have faith in humanity and I accept that is without evidence and rationality, but it works for me.
These are actually different questions concerning the train of thought concerning randomness, nonetheless..
The Laws of Nature do not predict anything. They simply exist underlying the nature of our physical existence. The theories and hypothesis developed and falsified by scientists make and confirm predictions of the nature of our physical existence based on the fundamental assumptions of the Laws of NAture. It is the assumption of uniformity of the Laws of Nature that is fundamental to science. All theories, hypothesis, and the knowledge of science is based on this, and so far science has not been disappointed. The nature of our physical existence is indeed predictable, if it were not science and technology would not work.
Good thing this is your opinion, because this does not make sense. Of course there are many things we do not know, of course science does not know things absolutely, but scientists do not bother with the above 'argument from ignorance.' The just do science and keep exploring the boundaries of the unknown.
How does the fact that there are things science does not know have to do with the nature of randomness? Two different topics. The nature of our physical existence is indeed predictable and randomness defines what is unpredictable,
Last edited:
How does that question even make sense? The most fundamental laws *cannot* be caused for exactly this reason.
As far as we understand, the laws governing how polymerism and vesicle formation work. But we don't fully know.
Well, that goes two ways. One is the formation of life, which is determined primarily, again as far as we know, by the distribution of chemicals like water and ammonis and distance from the sun. After that, life adapts to the environment.
General laws usually don't predict specifics like that. However, they do provide the range of possibilities. Our solar system is one of many we know about.
This is being actively worked on. It gets into the nature of quantum gravity, which we don't fully understand partly because it isn't easy to test.
It isn't clear to me that this is even a meaningful question. Why do you think the laws 'formed'?
We know a little, but at least we know that much. And even knowing that little bit limits the possibilities.
Laws do not make predictions in and of themselves, scientists make predictions concerning the the Laws of Nature to develop the theories and hypothesis, and what we call the Laws of Thermodynamics and Physics, which scientists use if make predictions based on their predictability and usefulness.
This is more a why(?) question 'bold' that is beyond science.
Last edited:
It does not make sense.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is philosophy and not science. I know that because the word "reason" that you use is in your brain and you have no evidence that this "reason" give evidence for "cannot be caused for exactly this reason". It is unknown what caused the universe if anything or if it is eternal, because we can't observe that. We are inside the universe and we can't observed what is beyond the universe including what the laws of the universe are as caused or not.
There Was No Big Bang Singularity
Read it if you like and we can them debate it for the limit of science and knowledge.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
To ask if a question makes sense, can only be answered based on subjective assumptions of what makes sense.
You hold a philosophical assumption/belief about the Laws of Nature. There are other ways to do that and then the answer changes.
You have to learn to spot when you use philosophical assumptions or indeed beliefs to answer any variant of what the universe fundamentally is? As a skeptic the answer in regards to knowledge is that is unknowable. There are limits to knowledge and they pop up when we do philosophy, metaphysics and use our brains to make sense.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
That is not biblical faith. Biblical faith is not blind belief, but is as real as knowing an electron exists without ever seeing one -because it is evident due to other things.
(more importantly, it is a firm foundation for making correct decisions in seemingly-impossible situations)
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Open-mindedness to consider things and simple belief are part of its beginnings, but so are objective experiences.
All of those miraculous things many today would find laughable and consider impossible were done to initiate faith -a real background of evidences which give credence to things which have yet to be done -given to those God chose to give them at the time.
To say "none of it happens in reality" is understandable -but false. They -or similar -simply have not happened to you -yet. They happen all the time -as God chooses -to whom he chooses -but they will also increase and happen on a more grand scale in this time as that which is written comes to pass.
Unfortunately, people are concerned less with righteousness and more with powers -and there are many darkly-miraculous things happening all over the place even now which are rather impressive, but dangerously misleading. Groups involved are usually not be the type to openly share information, so many will not know exactly what is happening in that regard, either -until even that happens on a more grand scale.
Finding all of that ridiculous is understandable -and it's best to just focus on doing the right thing (especially the commandments as given) -but studying it decreases the freak-out factor when weird stuff does happen -and helps in making correct decisions because one is able to see and understand it correctly.
Last edited:
To ask questions does not necessarily conclude they make sense.
This is as confusing as the post of @We Never Know . My pots are specific, and go no further than the nature of science, and how it relates to our physical existence, I would be willing to discuss other philosophical/theological perspectives in another thread.
The only philosophical assumptions I am making involve the basic assumptions of the philosophy of science, and Methodological Naturalism, no more and no less.
The limits of science are clearly acknowledged up front, and science makes no assumptions of the 'unknowable(?)' The only assumptions science makes are those that are functional in Methodological Naturalism.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
I think the stories are just artifice, and they always have been. And artifice doesn't work if it does not successfully represent notions that people feel to be real and significant. What is interesting is how so many people can become oblivious of the difference between the two: the story, and the ideals that the story is intended to present to the hearer/reader. Because the story 'feels real and significant', the hearer/reader believes that it IS real and significant. And they ignore the fact of the story (artifice) all together. But even for these people, I think it's important that we remember that the essence is still the notion being presented, regardless of the ignorance of the 'audience' about the artifice.
Last edited:
I tried and failed to parse this sentence. Could you rephrase?
Not necessarily true. For example, if the cause left a signature in the universe, we may be able to detect that.
Why do you assume there is a 'beyond the universe'?
This can get into terminology. For example, the current multiverse theories are generally 'eternal universe' theories with our causal component in one small part of the larger universe.
And, once again, to even talk of a 'cause' means you have laws governing that cause. This means the fundamental laws, whatever they are, cannot be caused.
OK, I read it. So what? We expect any singularity to be smoothed out by quantum effects. That doesn't mean there wasn't a hot dense stage to the universe. In fact, we know there was.
PureX
Veteran Member
It did; it left us the universe, itself. And it left us THIS universe, as opposed to any other.
Because the universe is specific. It is this, and not that.
They are not philosophically sound, and they are not scientifically provable. They are just convenient speculations on the part of men and women (scientists) that are unable to address the question of existential origin. It's an imagined justification for dismissing a question they cannot address.
You are jumping to unwarranted conclusions, here: projecting what is into the mystery of what is beyond.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, I will combine the following:
The problem is that you can't know this. You can't observe what is beyond or not the fundamental laws, so you make a rule in your brain. The rule is in your brain - laws can't be caused. The problem is that there are no laws in the universe. That is an idea in brains. There is a universe, which we can follow back in time to a certain point and no longer. Knowledge stops there.
The laws apply to what we can observe and that leads to this:
Did you read the article? Our models based on observation stop before the singularity! Yes, the universe was hot and became inflated, but how long the pre-inflation state lasted and what if anything caused it, is unknown.
So back to the Laws. The Laws stop at the point of when inflation started and what is the cause of it (and the Laws) and how long that lasted is unknown.
So you don't know that the Laws are un-caused and I don't know if they are.
You are doing philosophy as back to Aristotle's idea of the first uncased cause of everything else. It is a cute idea, but it can't be answered because we can't observe it.
Here is what you do:
You have Laws, that is regularities in what you observe and apply models to. That works. You then say that the regularity in your observations are fundamental to the universe. They are not. They are where our ability to build a model stops, but that doesn't tell us if they are fundamental or not. They are only the limits of the model; i.e. knowledge.
Remember I am a skeptic and I have no problem with I don't know. And I have no problem what we can't explain everything according to science.
In other words, we can only look so far back and we can't in effect observe a singularity, because it can't be observed.
So any idea of multi-verses and what not are nothing that ideas in the brains of some people.
So let us say, we observe something new in regards to this universe, then it means that it is new to this universe.
Remember something not in this universe, can be observed. All you have is this universe.
The singularity is un-observable just like multi-verses and what not.
So in other words in regards to the singularity, you could ask: How is the existence of a singularity to be tested, if you can't observe a singularity?
In theoretical physics there is a limit. The moment you propose something which is un-observable, you might as well be doing philosophy or religion.
That includes this by you: "This means the fundamental laws, whatever they are, cannot be caused." That is an idea in your brain and it can't be tested through observation. You are not doing science.
That the Laws are basic is no more different that saying God is basic.
Remember there is limit to knowledge and that includes observation and being testable. You can't test God as the first un-caused cause just as you can't test some of the ideas in theoretical physics.
Now if you can catch your own thinking and not take it for granted, you can notice, what it is that you do:
If we reach the limit of our ability to test, then it means, that it is fundamental to the universe. But it doesn't mean that. It mean we have reached the limits of knowledge. Not the limit of the universe, but rather the limit of human understanding.
And that in practice means it is unknown whether the universe is natural or not.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's pretty much how I got swept into Christianity.
You made an excellent statement here.
Quote: "Because the story 'feels real and significant', the hearer/reader believes that it IS real and significant".
Spot on.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would love to see examples of the ''weird stuff'.
So to sum up Jehovah’s Witnesses claims.
-35,000 species allegedly went on the boat (from your link)
-The flood occurred 4350 years ago
(From Flood of Noah’s Day — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)
Fact: There are 6.5 million species of land creature today (How Many Species on Earth?)
This raises obvious questions;
How did we get from 35,000 species to 6.5million since the alleged flood without evolution occurring?
If you are saying we went from 35,000 to 6.5million in 4,350 years, why couldn’t we go from 1 or a small number to 1billion plus in the 4+billion years evolution had to play with?