Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[lunakilo]

Ummm...huh??

Huh which part?

 

[johnhanks]

Ummm...huh??

OK, pretty much the expected response.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That was my point <sigh!>

As I said:

The way you use the word purpose it automatically equals design.
If something has a specified task, it has a purpose, if it has a purpose some mind must have given it a purpose/specified task, therefore it must be designed.
So obviously I cannot name something I know to have a specified task and was not designed.

You actually described it better than I did when you said "if it has a purpose some mind must have given it a purpose/specified task..." I like that ...hit the nail right on the head.

The flaw in your argument is how do you know if something has a purpose or not?
You say the heart has a purpose, therefor it was designed.
I say the heart doesn't have a purpose ( As I said earlier some things can solve tasks they were not designed to solve), therefore no design needed.

So you think it is a coincidence that your body needs blood throughout it, and it just happen to have an organ that accomplishes this very goal...you think that that doesnt suggest purpose?? Think about it, it is absolutely necessary that we have this organ, and we have it. You dont see purpose in that?? If you dont think the heart has a purpose, I am sure there is a person out there that would love for you to give him/her your heart for a heart transplant.

If it is not true that all things which have a purpose are designed then can you please name something which HAS A PURPOSE but was NOT DESIGNED?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As I said in the previous post we are now discussing evolution versus creationism and there are plenty of threasd around about that.

I think this thread is far enough off track as it is.
If you want to discuss it further start a new thread (and link to it so I can find it). I will be happy to discuss it with you there why I think evolution makes sence.

Nah, never mind, because as you said, there are many threads about it, and I am on them as well.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Something puzzles me though...

You are very fond of the standard cosmological model and you like to quote physisists like Roger Penrose.
You use science and scientific results again and again to support your claim that some super natural being created the universe.

Not necessarily using science to support my claim of a supernatural deity per se, but using science to support the fact that the universe began to exist, and in my opinion, after you determine what it actually mean for the universe to "begin to exist", then a supernatural Deity is inevitable. To my knowledge, all three monotheistic religions that I am aware of have always believed that the universe began to exist, and there were philosophical arguments being made for a finite universe dating all the way back to Thomas Aquinas. But for the most part, it was something that theists always had faith in, but no hard core evidence that was able to convince skeptics. Now, it just so happens, that science has confirmed what the theists have always maintained, that the universe began to exist. In fact, that is what the first ten words of the bible states in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".......keyword......"beginning".

So you are ok with the universe being 13.<something> billion years old.
You are ok with the fact that you don't know how Roger Penrose calculated that big number you like so much, it enough for you that he is an expert in his field.

I do know how he got the number, I am just not in a position to say "let me go to the laboratory to see if Mr. Penrose has the right facts". But as I said, no one is arguing whether or not the universe is fined tuned, that is a scientific fact. The only question is how and why, and the theists is stating that this kind of precision is best explained by I.D as opposed to nature having a string of good luck.

But when it comes to the standard model of how life on Earth came to be as it is you evne though a lot of smart people who are experts in their fields say it is true.
This standard model includes evolution as the way life has changed over time.
But even though this is the standard model which has come about via the scientific method which you seem to like you reject it.

I dont think that the standard model includes evolution, but even if it does, if I believe that God is was the cause of the universe, then I will believe that God was the cause of the evolutionary process. I just cant believe that things can get this orderly from a mindless and blind process. To me, this defies logic and reasoning.

You seem to believe that for example the human heart was created with the purpose of pumping blod around the human body so that humans don't die.
If it is true that humans were designed, then that must mean that humans were created pretty much as they are now by a creator at some point in the past (I am not sure when you believe this happened), and since the creator is the best designer ever, humans will probably stay true to this design in the future and not change.

I dont think that humans will ever change, no.

So:
1) Both standard models repersent the best explanations science has to offer, so why do you accept one standard model and reject another?

I dont believe in evolution whatsoever, so if there is a cosmological model that has evolution within it, I reject it, because I dont believe there is evidence for evolution. I accept the standard model because it has the most empirical evidence supporting it, so I am going where the science takes me.

2) The universe is not static. It has changed a lot over time. Don't you find it odd that the universe changes, but humans are static?

As a Christian, no, and as a Christian, I believe that every thing that happens within the universe and within the biological state (in terms of humans changing) is part of Gods plan. He is in control. There is nothing within the universe that God doesn't control. So nope, I dont find it odd at all. I hope this answered your question.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

OK, pretty much the expected response.

Its just what I expected too, John...for you to comment on this instead of the meat and potatos of the discussion.

 

[johnhanks]

Its just what I expected too, John...for you to comment on this instead of the meat and potatos of the discussion.

Whereas this:

Ummm...huh??

is pure mean and potatoes, is it?

I think I'd served up a fairly full course here:

You conveniently omit the rider that having made the calculation and presented us with the puzzle of how such an absurdly improbable event could have come about, Penrose then presents us with an answer in terms of constraints on the value of the space-time curvature tensor at initial singularities. I quote:
(The Emperor's New Mind, p.446.) As I remarked before, Penrose's use of the term Creator is whimsical - he is a self-declared atheist.

What we see here is a sadly common phenomenon: a creationist who thinks he has found a scientific finding that supports his position and proceeds to trumpet it, either ignorant of or mendaciously ignoring further findings that negate that conclusion.

Mixing my metaphors horribly, the ball was in your court, I think.

 

[lunakilo]

Not necessarily using science to support my claim of a supernatural deity per se, but using science to support the fact that the universe began to exist, and in my opinion, after you determine what it actually mean for the universe to "begin to exist", then a supernatural Deity is inevitable. To my knowledge, all three monotheistic religions that I am aware of have always believed that the universe began to exist, and there were philosophical arguments being made for a finite universe dating all the way back to Thomas Aquinas. But for the most part, it was something that theists always had faith in, but no hard core evidence that was able to convince skeptics. Now, it just so happens, that science has confirmed what the theists have always maintained, that the universe began to exist. In fact, that is what the first ten words of the bible states in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".......keyword......"beginning".



I do know how he got the number, I am just not in a position to say "let me go to the laboratory to see if Mr. Penrose has the right facts". But as I said, no one is arguing whether or not the universe is fined tuned, that is a scientific fact. The only question is how and why, and the theists is stating that this kind of precision is best explained by I.D as opposed to nature having a string of good luck.



I dont think that the standard model includes evolution, but even if it does, if I believe that God is was the cause of the universe, then I will believe that God was the cause of the evolutionary process. I just cant believe that things can get this orderly from a mindless and blind process. To me, this defies logic and reasoning.



I dont think that humans will ever change, no.



I dont believe in evolution whatsoever, so if there is a cosmological model that has evolution within it, I reject it, because I dont believe there is evidence for evolution. I accept the standard model because it has the most empirical evidence supporting it, so I am going where the science takes me.

It sounds more to me like you have your beliefs, and if science seem to agree with you then you are happy to use is as ammunition.
But when science contradicts your beliefs you simply reject it.

As a Christian, no, and as a Christian, I believe that every thing that happens within the universe and within the biological state (in terms of humans changing) is part of Gods plan. He is in control. There is nothing within the universe that God doesn't control. So nope, I dont find it odd at all. I hope this answered your question.

Possibly. Thank you

 

[lunakilo]

You actually described it better than I did when you said "if it has a purpose some mind must have given it a purpose/specified task..." I like that ...hit the nail right on the head.

I don't quite understand how you can feel that was face palm material...

But I can understand that we agree that if something has a purpose some mind must have given it a purpose/specified task.

Now earlier you said that (quoting Call_of_the_Wild):

...my argument is, if something is complex with a purpose, then it is designed.

But having a purpose is on its own enough to to imply design, so why the complex part?

So you think it is a coincidence that your body needs blood throughout it, and it just happen to have an organ that accomplishes this very goal...you think that that doesnt suggest purpose??

No I don't think it suggests purpose. I think it suggests evolution.

Think about it, it is absolutely necessary that we have this organ, and we have it. You dont see purpose in that?? If you dont think the heart has a purpose, I am sure there is a person out there that would love for you to give him/her your heart for a heart transplant.

The heart has a function, not a purpose.

The problem here is that you see purpose where there (in my opinion) is none.

Another example:
Without the sun there would be no life on this rock we call earth. Without it we would die. Does that mean that
1) the sun has a purpose?
2) the sun is simply a prequisite for life to exist?

If you see the sun as having a purpose then you have already decided that some intelligense is behind placing the sun where it is.
If you see the sun as a star like many others which happens to have a rock circling it where life can exist, then the sun does not have a purpose, just a function.

Same with the heart. We need it to survive. If the heart had not evolved animals would not exist.

We need something to pump oxygen and nutriants to our cells.
And it is not a coincidence that we have a heart, it evloved with the body of our ansestors.
Hearts come in many shapes and sizes on earth today.
Insects for example have hearts too, but they don't use them to transport oxygen, so their hearts are much simpler. They breathe directly from their body surface. This means they can't grow very big.
Humans did not spring into existence as they are now, they changed over time. They had ansestors which were not quite human, and those ancestors had ancestors that were even less human and so on back through time.
I don't understand why you find it so strange that something like a heart could have started out as a simple mucsle and then changed to become more and more complex with each generation.

But then again, I have never understood people who don't see how simple evolution is

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It sounds more to me like you have your beliefs, and if science seem to agree with you then you are happy to use is as ammunition.
But when science contradicts your beliefs you simply reject it.

But that's the thing, science cant disprove or contradict my beliefs. My belief is that there is an almighty Creator, and that he created the universe and every thing in it. Science cannot possibly disprove this, because the supernatural hypothesis is beyond the realms of science. All science can do is tell us what happens within the universe based on nature and its natural laws. Since you cant use science to explain the domain of science, and since the evidence points to a finite universe, a Creator becomes inevitable. There is no getting past this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't quite understand how you can feel that was face palm material...

What you quoted in regards to the above quote was not the face palming material.

Now earlier you said that (quoting Call_of_the_Wild):

But having a purpose is on its own enough to to imply design, so why the complex part?

I guess the word "complex" can be subjective in a certain sense. I would say "purpose" would be the specified function of the part(s)...and "complex" would be the specified configuration of the parts to give it that function. That's how I would put it.

No I don't think it suggests purpose. I think it suggests evolution.

Ok, so since you maintain that the heart doesn't have a purpose....explain to me what I call the "reproduction problem". How does the male reproductive system just happen to be compatible with the female reproductive system?? Since you believe in evolution, explain how the process is best explained by evolution. If the male evolved his reproductive system first, and it would take the female millions of years (on the evolutionary view) to become compatible with the males (or vice versa), how was there any reproduction at all?? I dont see how the answer is best explained by evolution, because on this view, every thing takes so long. So if it took that long, there couldn't have been any reproducing whatsoever. That is why on the biblical theistic view it is more plausible, that the Creator created one gender first, and the other gender a short time later. It is more reasonable to think that this process occurred at the same time, or around the same time. There is no basis for postulating this millions of years gap in between as the evolutionist would have us believe. So since you believe in evolution, could you explain this. And this is not just to be explained only for humans, but all other living organisms that reproduce with the opposite sex (land animals, aquatic animals, even insects).

The heart has a function, not a purpose.

So you are saying that the heart is not "there" for the purpose of pumping blood in your body?? Is that your stance?? If that is the price of naturalism I will leave you to it.

The problem here is that you see purpose where there (in my opinion) is none.

Another example:
Without the sun there would be no life on this rock we call earth. Without it we would die. Does that mean that
1) the sun has a purpose?
2) the sun is simply a prequisite for life to exist?

I believe that the sun was placed there by the Creator, and yes, we do benefit from the sun, and I find it more than just a coincidence that the sun is just the right distance from the earth to not burn this place up. If it was closer, we would burn to death, and if it was further, we would freeze to death. I dont think you can get that type of beneficial precision from random things just floating around the solar system.

If you see the sun as having a purpose then you have already decided that some intelligense is behind placing the sun where it is.
If you see the sun as a star like many others which happens to have a rock circling it where life can exist, then the sun does not have a purpose, just a function.

Not only "where life can exist", but things within the earth actually benefit from it. Plant life depends on the sun. If the sun wasn't there, there wouldn't be life on earth. The fact of the matter is, the sun is just one part in this whole life permitting process. Of all the planets that we know of, only one is life permitting, and that is earth.

Same with the heart. We need it to survive. If the heart had not evolved animals would not exist.

Ok

We need something to pump oxygen and nutriants to our cells.
And it is not a coincidence that we have a heart, it evloved with the body of our ansestors.

See this is where you just left science and went to religion, and it happened so fast that you didn't even catch it. There is no evidence of this "evolving", that is your religion. This evolutionary process, you say it not only gave us a heart, but it configured itself in a way that it is placed in to our bodies and became compatible with blood that is used to transport it throughout your body. So I ask again, what came first, the blood, or the heart? The veins, or the blood? If you have a heart with no blood, the heart would be useless. If you have blood with no veins, there would be no passageway at which the blood can be transported. If you have veins with no blood, the veins would be useless. So you are telling me that we have "evolved" this specified complexity. I cant even begin to understand how you can keep maintaining that evolution is the answer, yet evolution doesn't have a mind, but we have these specified things taking place within our body. Evolution gave us a brain to think, yet nature doesn't have a brain. So we get our minds and thinking capacity from something that doesn't have a mind or thinking capacity. We get our memory from something that doesn't have a mind or memory. I mean seriously, you think this is more logical than theism??

Hearts come in many shapes and sizes on earth today.
Insects for example have hearts too, but they don't use them to transport oxygen, so their hearts are much simpler. They breathe directly from their body surface. This means they can't grow very big.
Humans did not spring into existence as they are now, they changed over time. They had ansestors which were not quite human, and those ancestors had ancestors that were even less human and so on back through time.
I don't understand why you find it so strange that something like a heart could have started out as a simple mucsle and then changed to become more and more complex with each generation.

So, what were we using before we had a heart?? What is the simple muscle??? What changed in order for this simple muscle to become less simple and more complex?? And once again, you mention "time" again. Yeah, it took place a longggg time ago. So long ago that it didnt happen.

But then again, I have never understood people who don't see how simple evolution is

I dont see what is so simple about a mindless, blind process being the cause of complex life, with hearts, eyes, ears, tongues, teeth, and brains. Think about it, we have a brain to think, and you believe that we got this from something that can think?? So, how did we get it??? Describe to me the process of how evolution can provide humans with a thinking capacity??? Please.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I believe that the sun was placed there by the Creator, and yes, we do benefit from the sun, and I find it more than just a coincidence that the sun is just the right distance from the earth to not burn this place up. If it was closer, we would burn to death, and if it was further, we would freeze to death. I dont think you can get that type of beneficial precision from random things just floating around the solar system.

By far and away, one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of a creator.

MANY solar systems have planets that are within the Habitable Zone, which is an area that stretches millions of miles from any given star, depending on the size of the star, obviously. This is all based on how solar systems form.

As well, there are life forms living at the bottom of the ocean near Hydrothermal vents in which the temperature of the water allows life to flourish but gets no sunlight whatsoever. In fact, the temperature of the water away from the vents is so cold, those very same lifeforms would perish.

Seriously dude. Try a little harder. Your reasoning is failing dramatically.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

By far and away, one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of a creator.

Based on the ridiculous things that I have seen on here in favor of atheism/naturalism, I would say the feeling is mutual.

MANY solar systems have planets that are within the Habitable Zone, which is an area that stretches millions of miles from any given star, depending on the size of the star, obviously. This is all based on how solar systems form.

Planets that are within the "Habitable Zone" is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is, like I said, planet Earth is the only planet that we know of that is life permitting, that is the only point I was making. Not only that, but the conditions had to be just right (10:10:123), for human life to be permitable at all, which is why planet Earth is the only planet that we know of capable of supporting human life. That was my only point, so whatever point you was trying to make is quite irrelevant.

As well, there are life forms living at the bottom of the ocean near Hydrothermal vents in which the temperature of the water allows life to flourish but gets no sunlight whatsoever. In fact, the temperature of the water away from the vents is so cold, those very same lifeforms would perish.

If the sun was closer, even the so called "life forms living at the bottom of the ocean" would not exist, because the water in which they live would have evaporated or burned out altogether by the heat of the sun. If the sun was further, the earth would be to cold for any living organism.

Seriously dude. Try a little harder. Your reasoning is failing dramatically.

Im not the one on here making arguments in favor of living things coming from nonliving material. So if you want to attack failed reasoning, how about focusing on some of these people that believe that stuff.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Im not the one on here making arguments in favor of living things coming from nonliving material.

That argument isn't something to somehow be ashamed of, as it's accurate

 

[johnhanks]

Ok, so since you maintain that the heart doesn't have a purpose....explain to me what I call the "reproduction problem". How does the male reproductive system just happen to be compatible with the female reproductive system?? Since you believe in evolution, explain how the process is best explained by evolution. If the male evolved his reproductive system first, and it would take the female millions of years (on the evolutionary view) to become compatible with the males (or vice versa), how was there any reproduction at all??...

This has been explained to you exhaustively several times in other threads, but you have so far shown not the first sign of understanding it. At risk of wasting precious time and forum space, I will have one more try.

1. The very earliest sexually reproducing organisms showed no male/female differentiation - the cells that fused in fertilisation were morphologically and functionally identical (isogamy, still seen in many contemporary protoctists).
2. Advantages accruing from division of labour led to differentiation between individuals producing small, motile gametes and those producing large, non-motile ones (first anisogamy, later heterogamy).
3. There therefore never was a stage when one sex's system had evolved and the other hadn't, as you fantasise above.

There are many intelligent twelve-year-olds who could have explained that to you. Any chance you'll get it this time?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Im not the one on here making arguments in favor of living things coming from nonliving material. So if you want to attack failed reasoning, how about focusing on some of these people that believe that stuff.

Well, that was a complete waste of time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This has been explained to you exhaustively several times in other threads, but you have so far shown not the first sign of understanding it. At risk of wasting precious time and forum space, I will have one more try.

It goes more further than just explaining something. The attempts to provide an explanation for this made absolutely no sense, as I will demonstrate below.

The very earliest sexually reproducing organisms showed no male/female differentiation - the cells that fused in fertilisation were morphologically and functionally identical (isogamy, still seen in many contemporary protoctists).

See what you just said?? First of all, you are mentioning "cells that fused"....so you just bypassed the whole abiogensis process and jumped to the formation of cells. Second, notice you said that organisms showed no male or female differentiation. Now lets see how you will explain how things went from no male or female.....to males and females.

Advantages accruing from division of labour led to differentiation between individuals producing small, motile gametes and those producing large, non-motile ones (first anisogamy, later heterogamy).

This chicken feed answer has nothing to do with what I asked. Explain to me how, does the male happen to have a penis and the woman a vagina, and they happen to be compatible with one another. Nothing you just said explains this...you talk about "advantages accruing from division of labour led to differentiaition between individuals producing smalle, motile gametes....." Ok.....but how does that answer the question....it doesn't

There therefore never was a stage when one sex's system had evolved and the other hadn't, as you fantasise above.
There are many intelligent twelve-year-olds who could have explained that to you. Any chance you'll get it this time?

The question remains unanswered. I read your response over and over again and I am still trying to figure out how you think this is an adequate answer for what I asked. Then you say in the last quote "there never was a stage when one sex's system had evolved and the other hadn't"....so you believe that this happened at the same time....which is absurd, on a blind, unguided process. Second, the brain controls the reproductive system, so what came first, the brain, or the reproductive system??? What came first, the penis, or the sperm? The question remains unanswered and why you think you are giving this "mighty" response to the question is beyond me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That argument isn't something to somehow be ashamed of, as it's accurate

Oh, so you can explain how living things came from nonliving material?? I thought you did, judging by the fact that you are telling me how accurate it is, I would think you would be able to explain it...so go ahead...explain away.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh, so you can explain how living things came from nonliving material?? I thought you did, judging by the fact that you are telling me how accurate it is, I would think you would be able to explain it...so go ahead...explain away.

What is "living?" It's all the same at the level of molecules.

 

[johnhanks]

See what you just said?? First of all, you are mentioning "cells that fused"....so you just bypassed the whole abiogensis process and jumped to the formation of cells.

Since your so-called "reproduction problem" starts with cells already in existence, this is hardly unreasonable. If you want to discuss abiogenesis and the emergence of the first cells, make that the topic of your query; as it was, you were prating about sexual reproduction.

Second, notice you said that organisms showed no male or female differentiation. Now lets see how you will explain how things went from no male or female.....to males and females.

To save time and space I just made passing reference to the emergence of anisogamy and heterogamy (some authorities regard theses as synonymous; I'm more old-fashioned). Evolution of anisogamy is outlined here; if you want a more rigorous treatment, try here.

This chicken feed answer has nothing to do with what I asked.

It has everything to do with what you asked, did you but realise it. It's interesting to see, however, that "chicken feed" has taken ovedr from "technical babble".

Explain to me how, does the male happen to have a penis and the woman a vagina, and they happen to be compatible with one another. Nothing you just said explains this...you talk about "advantages accruing from division of labour led to differentiaition between individuals producing smalle, motile gametes....." Ok.....but how does that answer the question....it doesn't

Again, I underestimated how much I'd have to spell out. I should know better by now.

For brevity's sake, we'll stick to vertebrates. The most primitive land vertebrates, amphibians, lack both penis and vagina: fertilisation is usually external, both sexes releasing gametes into the water, as do most fish. Adaptation to terrestrial life drove the development of internal fertilisation, the two sexes initially pressing their common excretory / reproductive openings against each other to transfer sperms, as newts still do: later development of a penetrative organ by eversion of the cloacal wall to deliver sperms inside the female was strongly favoured by selection, and has happened independently several times in vertebrate groups. The mammalian penis is one such development. Your silly fantasy about males developing a penis while females still lacked somewhere to put it is a symptom of ignorance, no more.

Second, the brain controls the reproductive system, so what came first, the brain, or the reproductive system??? What came first, the penis, or the sperm?

Wince. The fact that you can even entertain that last question is another indication of the gulf we have to cross here. Plenty of organisms without a penis produce sperms. Mosses? Sea urchins? Jellyfish?

The question remains unanswered and why you think you are giving this "mighty" response to the question is beyond me.

So, it's becoming clear, is the whole topic.