• 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!

This thread is not about evolution.

Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Autodidact said:
crickets.jpg
Click to expand...

I told you.....!!!
 
M

Michael Hawley

New Member
Gunfingers said:
I too am curious as to how Heisenberg, who demonstrated that some causes have no effect, utterly destroying the concepts of causality and scientific determinism, is still somehow subject to cause-and-effect.
Click to expand...

Gunfingers, LuisDantas, Riverwolf,

The problem is we have a different definition of causality. Your definition of causality is “determinancy of future events”, i.e., every determinant cause is followed by a resulting effect (in Heisenberg's words). In this case, you are absolutely correct, but keep in mind he was focused only at the quantum level.
What I mean by causality is not in the singular nor determinant, as in a single cause can predict a single effect. My point is that effects we see in nature have natural causes - that's it. All three of you are stuck on determinancy, but this is actually irrelevent to my point. The reverse is now possible - effects in nature (fossils) can now predict possible causes. This is why CSI is even possible.
In view of this, it is physically impossible to "disprove" the supernatural with the scientific process. The scientific process is a natural tool to understand nature. Oh yes, one can disprove a supernatural claim, but to say there is no God because of science is rediculous. It basically is the argument between ontological naturalism vs. methodological naturalism. One is a belief in disbelief and the other is a natural tool.
I personally consider myself a type of theistic evolutionist who completely embraces the scientific process. It just doesn't work too well disproving anything but natural ideas.
Sincerely,
Mike
 
Gunfingers

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
So by "causality" you actually mean "Scientific Naturalism". That would explain why we were hung up on determinacy. You used a word that involved determinacy.

Now you are correct that science cannot disprove God. Scientific Naturalism says it can't even try, in fact. Fortunately no one here is trying to do that.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Michael Hawley said:
By causality, I mean cause and effect. For every effect there must be a cause.
Click to expand...

This sounds great until you follow it to its ultimate conclusion:
Who/what caused god?
​
Then you see creationists, at least every single creationist I know of who has brought the cause effect argument up, back peddling because god is the only 'exception' to their claim.
 
M

Michael Hawley

New Member
Mestemia said:
This sounds great until you follow it to its ultimate conclusion:
Who/what caused god?
​
Then you see creationists, at least every single creationist I know of who has brought the cause effect argument up, back peddling because god is the only 'exception' to their claim.
Click to expand...

We are actually on the same page here Mestemia. Before Einstein, cosmologists (along with atheists) believed in a static universe without a beginning (infinite). This creates a kind of paradox in a time continuum from past, present, to future. If the past is truly infinite, then it is physically impossible to get to the present. The fact that we are in the present mandates a beginning. If atheists can accept an infinite possibility with paradox, then what is so different than believers accepting the reality of a God having a "where did he come from?" paradox?

Then came Einstein, which explains that at infinite density time stops. In other words, there was no such thing as a tick in time before the first tick, since time did not exist. We can now see the "who created God" is actually overcome by this. "Who create" assumes an earlier event, which in infinite density, this did not occur.

Is that clear as mud!

Mike
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Michael Hawley said:
We are actually on the same page here Mestemia. Before Einstein, cosmologists (along with atheists) believed in a static universe without a beginning (infinite). This creates a kind of paradox in a time continuum from past, present, to future. If the past is truly infinite, then it is physically impossible to get to the present. The fact that we are in the present mandates a beginning. If atheists can accept an infinite possibility with paradox, then what is so different than believers accepting the reality of a God having a "where did he come from?" paradox?

Then came Einstein, which explains that at infinite density time stops. In other words, there was no such thing as a tick in time before the first tick, since time did not exist. We can now see the "who created God" is actually overcome by this. "Who create" assumes an earlier event, which in infinite density, this did not occur.

Is that clear as mud!

Mike
Click to expand...

And it doesn't even begin to make sense.

If time had a beginning, that would imply an absolute nothingness beforehand, and as far as I can tell, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, that becomes impossible.

Besides, how is it physically impossible to arrive at the present if the past is infinite?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Pretty far off the topic, there, friends. How about if we all just wait quietly here for some creationists to show up and lay out their position for us.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Autodidact said:
It's about "creation science." By this I don't mean the general idea that God created all things, which is religion, not science, but about the specifics of how "creationists" believe this happened. This thread is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your hypothesis. Here's all you need to do--this is basically how science works:

1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.
Click to expand...

Are you not trolling?

You set the stage to your advantage and then expect the discussion to go your way.

How about cause and effect.
Motion is real.
'Something' set all things into play.

Having done so...the Creator is not allowed to touch His creation?
not allowed to interact?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Thief is right. There is no such thing as creation science. Can we spare ourselves ever having to hear from some lying creationist that there is? After all, we gave its proponents a chance to set it forth right here in this thread, and none of them took the opportunity.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Mestemia said:
Yes, the ever popular cause and effect argument that fails as soon as the question "what caused god?" is asked.
Click to expand...

And this retort fails at it's speaking.

Motion without cause?...really?
(All things at rest remain at rest...until 'something' causes them to move).

The universe expanding from a common singularity....and no cause?

Spiritual life does not exist?....even though a 'spirit' might answer this post.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Thief said:
And this retort fails at it's speaking.

Motion without cause?...really?
(All things at rest remain at rest...until 'something' causes them to move).

The universe expanding from a common singularity....and no cause?

Spiritual life does not exist?....even though a 'spirit' might answer this post.
Click to expand...

Interesting how you completely dodged the point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top