Watchmaker Theory

[Ouroboros]

I would say since Einstein most scientists have been agnostic or atheist. It is possible for one to "partition" their thinking, in the same way that we partition a hard drive, and do serious science in one sector and believe theistically in another. The problem is there will be conflicts at the boundaries.

It depends on what groups of fields of science you included in "science". I think I saw a study once that there were more atheists representation in physics and math (I think), but more theists in other fields. In the total aspect, I posted some stats above, 51-52% believe in a higher power of some kind in 2009. It might have changed one way or the other since, but we can't say either group is by far the ruling one.

 

[Jake1001]

It depends on what groups of fields of science you included in "science". I think I saw a study once that there were more atheists representation in physics and math (I think), but more theists in other fields. In the total aspect, I posted some stats above, 51-52% believe in a higher power of some kind in 2009. It might have changed one way or the other since, but we can't say either group is by far the ruling one.

One thing we know from history is that the correct view will not come from a vote....ask Galileo ! I would say keep your eye on what the smartest scientists write and say, and make up your own mind.

When it comes to understanding how the universe was created, I will take Stephen Hawkings views over the Pope .

 

[metis]

Yes, there has been a rise in interest in Buddhism or the reason that you state. I do not see Hinduism growing in quite the same way. Can you give some examples of the appeal of Hinduism ?

Attempts to define "Hinduism" is unbelievably problematic since there are and have been so many different schools along with the encouragement of personalization. If I were to say "Hinduism teaches that...", almost no matter what one adds will be countered by some school and by individuals. For example, there have been non-theistic schools that do not posit any creator-god, although most do.

One set of related phrases that you might see, and you'll sometimes even see my post it, are "I am That" or "We are That", with the "That" being a reference to Brahman (the name of God in the Hindi language). So, what you'll else sometimes read can be something like "Whatever is, Is". The points with these approaches is the realization that all we perceive are essentially aspects and manifestations of Brahman and that the main hope for most Hindus is to tap into their "inner-God" that helps one recognize and appreciate the reality and allows them to eventually connect with Brahman through recognizing what we are, what makes us what we are (karma), and what's the best way for us to respond (dharma). It's really more of a pantheistic approach than with the Abrahamics, and it is very logical if one buys into the main foundation.

But, especially at the village level, there's typically the worship of one manifestation of Brahman, and it often goes family by family. Also, there are some Hindus, especially at the level, who are polytheistic.

I hope I answered your question, but I gotta go because company is coming soon.

Shalom and take care, my friend.

 

[metis]

It depends on what groups of fields of science you included in "science". I think I saw a study once that there were more atheists representation in physics and math (I think), but more theists in other fields. In the total aspect, I posted some stats above, 51-52% believe in a higher power of some kind in 2009. It might have changed one way or the other since, but we can't say either group is by far the ruling one.

Cosmologists have the highest percent of atheists and agnostics (overwhelmingly the latter), followed by physicists, and biology has one of the fewest even though it's close to 50/50.

 

[metis]

Found some stats: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
View attachment 12022
Theists, would be 33% + 18% = 51%. So there are more of them (or were in 2009 at least).

Thank you for this.

 

[Shad]

I never said I was discussing anything " spiritual" whatever that means to you.

Spirit was just an example, it can be replaced by anything like supernatural, other dimensions etc.

Unknowable equally applies to any possible explanation. So then if I was to say that a Divine being was responsible for the "first cause" of the universe, that explanation is just as valid as any other.

Valid is useless without soundness.

A Divine being can be a Force operating and creating outside the universe as well as an unknown force operating outside the Universe. If unknown, is not known, then unknown could be any possibility, especially when there are no physical laws, no observation, no measurement to apply to the Unknown.

You just undermined your above first cause claim.

 

[Ouroboros]

One thing we know from history is that the correct view will not come from a vote....ask Galileo ! I would say keep your eye on what the smartest scientists write and say, and make up your own mind.

When it comes to understanding how the universe was created, I will take Stephen Hawkings views over the Pope .

... Uh... I think you conflated the question "Where did the universe come from?" with the question "How many scientists are believers?"

I was only giving you statistics on the polls of the beliefs of the scientists. It's after all something you can measure, and it has nothing to do with if the universe was created or not. Besides, a poll isn't really a vote. It's data collection of what people believe and think. A vote is to make a decision where you have a quorum and such. Not the same thing by far.

 

[Ouroboros]

Cosmologists have the highest percent of atheists and agnostics (overwhelmingly the latter), followed by physicists, and biology has one of the fewest even though it's close to 50/50.

Right. But it's interesting that the statistics still show a very small gap still. Also, the theistic views are mostly held by women. Men tend to be more atheists from that statistics.

 

[shmogie]

Spirit was just an example, it can be replaced by anything like supernatural, other dimensions etc.



Valid is useless without soundness.


You just undermined your above first cause claim.

No, I didn't, There was a first cause. The issue is why was there a first cause, and how did it occur. The dominant scientific view is that it caused itself, the theological view is that of intelligent design. I find both views absurd. My primary point is that when choosing between absurdities, both must be carefully considered, possible evidence must be thoroughly evaluated and after studying both possibilities, one must choose which to believe, or reject both for another view.
to reject one or the other ad hoc "because that cannot possibly be true" without careful evaluation, is not "seeking the truth", it is only seeking a paritcular truth

 

[shmogie]

They might "see" as much evidence but that is do to delusion as there is no such evidence.

Who is to determine what evidence is, or how to evaluate it ? You ? I think not. There are extremely well qualified cosmologists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians, medical doctors, etc., etc. who, within the framework of their particular discipline perceive significant evidence of intelligent design. Do you propose they are delusional, thousands upon thousands of them ?

 

[shmogie]

Uhm, some have. There is no proof for divine inspiration, so the only logical conclusion is that someone sat around and made it up for whatever reason. Political gain, power, wealth, control, etc. Pick your poison.

Example: the concept of eternal torment in a fiery Hell. Completely made up for the purpose of control.

Speculating without evidence certainly can be making stuff up. Example : The "brane theory" of the creation of the universe was proposed and refined by a small group of scientist going to a conference by train. I assume they were sitting, while thy made this up. The theory proposes that multi universes exist in the form of a membrane, when the edges of two universes collide and rub against one another, the result is a new universe being created in a " big bang ". They literally met on the train and decided to come up with an explanation for the BB during the ride.....................which, of course, begs the question..............................

 

[Shad]

No, I didn't, There was a first cause.

If physics does not apply to "before" the universe then causality does not apply either. You can not have it both ways.

The issue is why was there a first cause, and how did it occur.

No the issue is even identifying there was a first cause

The dominant scientific view is that it caused itself, the theological view is that of intelligent design.

No the scientific view is not self-caused or uncaused. If there were then people would support only one metaphysical explanation like string theory rather than the scattering of ideas from Hawkings time or multiverse. The theological views supports a uncaused cause as well, all it does is place it one step further back as an addition to what science has provided.

I find both views absurd.

Then why claim a first cause?

My primary point is that when choosing between absurdities, both must be carefully considered, possible evidence must be thoroughly evaluated and after studying both possibilities, one must choose which to believe, or reject both for another view.
to reject one or the other ad hoc "because that cannot possibly be true" without careful evaluation, is not "seeking the truth", it is only seeking a paritcular truth

I have no need to pick between only two options. I can dismiss both and firmly rest at "I have no idea. I refuse to speculate"

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Who is to determine what evidence is, or how to evaluate it ? You ? I think not. There are extremely well qualified cosmologists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians, medical doctors, etc., etc. who, within the framework of their particular discipline perceive significant evidence of intelligent design. Do you propose they are delusional, thousands upon thousands of them ?

No none of them have scientific evidence as judged by the scientific community.

Also there are not thousands of them.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Speculating without evidence certainly can be making stuff up. Example : The "brane theory" of the creation of the universe was proposed and refined by a small group of scientist going to a conference by train. I assume they were sitting, while thy made this up. The theory proposes that multi universes exist in the form of a membrane, when the edges of two universes collide and rub against one another, the result is a new universe being created in a " big bang ". They literally met on the train and decided to come up with an explanation for the BB during the ride.....................which, of course, begs the question..............................

This would be at most a hypothesis as any person whap had formal education in science would no.

 

[Neo Deist]

Speculating without evidence certainly can be making stuff up. Example : The "brane theory" of the creation of the universe was proposed and refined by a small group of scientist going to a conference by train. I assume they were sitting, while thy made this up. The theory proposes that multi universes exist in the form of a membrane, when the edges of two universes collide and rub against one another, the result is a new universe being created in a " big bang ". They literally met on the train and decided to come up with an explanation for the BB during the ride.....................which, of course, begs the question..............................

You do realize that everything in the Bible was made up by humans? They are the ones that actually sat down and wrote the scrolls that would be compiled into the various versions of holy books. Religion X likes to say that those written scrolls are the word of God, but they have no proof to validate their claim...only divine revelation, which is not proof in any shape or form. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is a combination of stories that were made up by humans long ago, in an effort to explain the world around them with their primitive mindset, or to use stories to teach a lesson.

 

[shmogie]

You do realize that everything in the Bible was made up by humans? They are the ones that actually sat down and wrote the scrolls that would be compiled into the various versions of holy books. Religion X likes to say that those written scrolls are the word of God, but they have no proof to validate their claim...only divine revelation, which is not proof in any shape or form. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is a combination of stories that were made up by humans long ago, in an effort to explain the world around them with their primitive mindset, or to use stories to teach a lesson.

What is your proof that everything in the Bible was made up by humans ? What would you accept as proof that what was written was the the word of God ?

 

[shmogie]

This would be at most a hypothesis as any person whap had formal education in science would no.

So ? What evidence exists to lead to the formulation of this hypothesis ?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So ? What evidence exists to lead to the formulation of this hypothesis ?

No.

In science a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you can test through study and experimentation.

In science a theory is is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[Neo Deist]

What is your proof that everything in the Bible was made up by humans ? What would you accept as proof that what was written was the the word of God ?

The fact that humans wrote it.

I don't recall God ever coming down from the cosmos, sitting at a desk, picking up a quill and ink and putting letter to parchment.

The only thing that you can claim is divine inspiration. That's it...and it can't be proven.

Wait a minute...I feel something...a tingling...yes, I have been divinely inspired! God just told me to tell you that the Bible is 100% man made and no religion has it right.

Prove that did not happen just now...

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What is your proof that everything in the Bible was made up by humans ? What would you accept as proof that what was written was the the word of God ?

Since humans are the only known people to write language and there are no other beings that have been proven that can do so logically we must assume it was by humans.

If you could provide evidence of a being that could write language and also show that the book had literary properties that only that being could produce then we could conclude that it was written by that being.