5 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"...and the other theists have no problem accepting obvious science."
We've been looking at the universe (scientifically) for roughly 2 centuries and we now have a very detailed and accurate understanding of how it functions.Splendid! Then you can explain something that I have been wondering about.
You take two magnets. You point the south end of one towards the north end of the other and the magnets move towards each other.
If you put the two north ends together, or the two south ends together, they push apart.
On a low level why does this happen ? Now I know about the proximity of the magnetic fields. So don't tell me about the scope of the magnetic fields or the positive and negative electrons. I read about that.
I want to know, on a low level: Why do the two magnets move either to one another or away from one another?
Do you have a "very detailed and accurate" explanation for this ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonship??? You want me to explain how magnets work without talking aboutWe've been looking at the universe (scientifically) for roughly 2 centuries and we now have a very detailed and accurate understanding of how it functions.Splendid! Then you can explain something that I have been wondering about.
You take two magnets. You point the south end of one towards the north end of the other and the magnets ...[text shortened]... from one another.
Do you have a "very detailed and accurate" explanation for this ?[/b]
magnetic fields....
Also, what do you mean "on a low level"?
The answer is yes, physics (rather than me personally*) can explain how
and why magnets work.
What that has to do with anything I am not sure, but yes physics can
answer that question.
And you can understand it yourself if you apply yourself and learn the
relevant parts of maths and physics. The information is all freely available.
*I can explain (do understand) how magnets work but it's not '"my" explanation.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshiphere's the great richard feynman explaining why the question you have asked is so hard to answer.We've been looking at the universe (scientifically) for roughly 2 centuries and we now have a very detailed and accurate understanding of how it functions.Splendid! Then you can explain something that I have been wondering about.
You take two magnets. You point the south end of one towards the north end of the other and the magnets way from one another?
Do you have a "very detailed and accurate" explanation for this ?
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=27173
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipsorry, watched the link and half of part2 of the guys talk. i wasnt impressed. he didnt actually say anything that made god relevant. the first video was mainly just tricks of semantics rather then actually tackling the concepts. his 2nd video about thermodynamics was a little bit more interesting but not accurate and at best arguing for the god of gaps.
I always enjoy Richard Feynman. I've heard a few of his videos.
This was a good one.
And I'll trade you one.
[b]Has Science made faith in God obsolete? J P Moreland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5meMOCSKZzQ[/b]
Originally posted by stellspalfieYour knee jerk skeptical critique is anything but impressive.
sorry, watched the link and half of part2 of the guys talk. i wasnt impressed. he didnt actually say anything that made god relevant. the first video was mainly just tricks of semantics rather then actually tackling the concepts. his 2nd video about thermodynamics was a little bit more interesting but not accurate and at best arguing for the god of gaps.
"God of the gaps" is your own mythology. "God of the gaps" didn't stop Newton or Galileo from contributing greatly to science knowledge.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stellspalfieYeah, I listened to the whole thing and am planning to do a point by point take down this evening.
sorry, watched the link and half of part2 of the guys talk. i wasnt impressed. he didnt actually say anything that made god relevant. the first video was mainly just tricks of semantics rather then actually tackling the concepts. his 2nd video about thermodynamics was a little bit more interesting but not accurate and at best arguing for the god of gaps.
Some of what he said was a misunderstanding of the science, some was semantics, and some was just flat out wrong.
Nothing there to remotely challenge my position or change my mind.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship"God of the gaps" doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. That's not the point of it. The point of it is to demonstrate that God is relegated to the domain of Things We Don't Know. Since this domain will always exist, guys like Newton and Galilleo may shrink it without worry of destroying that form of theism in the process. 🙂
Your knee jerk skeptical critique is anything but impressive.
"God of the gaps" is your own mythology. "God of the gaps" didn't stop Newton or Galileo from contributing greatly to science knowledge.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipmy god of gaps comment is totally unrelated to christians ability to do science. im sure there have been and will be lots of good christian scientists. in fact the one bit of the video i liked was where he was telling you christians not to be turned away from science
Your knee jerk skeptical critique is anything but impressive.
"God of the gaps" is your own mythology. "God of the gaps" didn't stop Newton or Galileo from contributing greatly to science knowledge.
my god of gaps comment was actually aimed at his point about thermodynamics. he was arguing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports the idea of god, which it clearly doesnt. it in no way shape or form points to god. it leads to a point in science, pre-bigbang where we dont know, where our knowledge becomes speculation, a gap. a gap where your man decides god is.
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieIndicate where in the second video - (Minutes : Seconds) you have a problem with talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
my god of gaps comment is totally unrelated to christians ability to do science. im sure there have been and will be lots of good christian scientists. in fact the one bit of the video i liked was where he was telling you christians not to be turned away from science
my god of gaps comment was actually aimed at his point about thermodynamics. he was ...[text shortened]... dont know, where our knowledge becomes speculation, a gap. a gap where your man decides god is.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipi didnt say i had a problem with him talking about thermodynamics. i applaud him for talking about real science. id like more christians to talk about science. i disagree with the points he makes at about 3.30 in. he argues that the universe had to have something put the energy in. which is possibly true, but that doesnt mean that you can invent a god and say they did it. which is the god of gaps. if a physicist invented a construct that required no evidence or proof to answer the prelude to the big bang. he would be laughed of the stage.......so why is it okay to just say god?
Indicate where in the second video - (Minutes : Seconds) you have a problem with talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
edit: just watched part of part 3 and the guy goes of the deep end with his jodie foster, signals in space logic. he tries to argue that because we think a signal in space that contains information can only come from an intelligent source that all information must come from intelligence????? despite this being illogical its also the god of gaps again, he doesnt prove anything about god only that there is possible gaps in science.
if a physicist invented a construct that required no evidence or proof to answer the prelude to the big bang. he would be laughed of the stage.......so why is it okay to just say god?
The professional physicist would probably not dare to say the evidence proves God's existence. The professional physicist also would refrain from insisting there was proof for God's non-existence.
Both the lay person and the professional physicist (in their musings on truth) can also see that science has not made faith and belief in God obsolete. And that is the theme of the lecture. Science has not made belief in God obsolete.
If you complain that the lay person or the scientist for that matter cannot non-professionally believe that God is the final source of the cosmos being in existence, that is like saying -
" We know God could not have created the universe because that would violate the separation of church and state. "
In musing on the great truths of life and being there is nothing wrong with considering a possible explanation for why things exists rather than nothing, is an all powerful creating God.
Now one scientist who was founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Robert Jastrow, ( admitted agnostic ) said this:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
He does not mention God. But he does say what forces were at work in the creation of space, time and matter and the cosmos, we would have to call supernatural forces.
The complain that a God has been "invented" is just your expression of dislike for any other philosophy but atheism. Maybe people realize about God and not "invent" God.
You assume all gods must be invented.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipits fine for people to muse. but thats all it is. musings have cannot be taken as serious ideas or theories until they are backed up with solid evidence. there is simply zero evidence that a god created the universe. if there is zero evidence then god is obsolete. if he is not needed to explain the universe then he (in the scientific sense) is obsolete.if a physicist invented a construct that required no evidence or proof to answer the prelude to the big bang. he would be laughed of the stage.......so why is it okay to just say god?
The professional physicist would probably not dare to say the evidence proves God's existence. The professional physicist also would refrain from insisting le realize about God and not "invent" God.
You assume all gods must be invented.
"if you listen to the talk again and take out the word god and put in the words giant spaghetti monster it doesnt make any more or less sense. this tells you how relevant god is.
If you complain that the lay person or the scientist for that matter cannot non-professionally believe that God is the final source of the cosmos being in existence, that is like saying -
" We know God could not have created the universe because that would violate the separation of church and state. "
sorry, this doesnt make any sense to me.
"In musing on the great truths of life and being there is nothing wrong with considering a possible explanation for why things exists rather than nothing, is an all powerful creating God."
yes i agree, its good to muse. i have a good imagination and love sci-fi so have created all sorts of fantastical ideas for the universe. but i know they have zero evidence and are no more likely than the flying spaghetti monster. to make the leap and start saying my fantastical ideas could be true because science doesnt have an answer would be wrong, wouldnt you agree?
robert jastrows comment was stupid. why invoke the supernatural because we dont know. its no better than invoking the supernatural before we knew what thunder and lightning was. correct?
The complain that a God has been "invented" is just your expression of dislike for any other philosophy but atheism. Maybe people realize about God and not "invent" God.
this is all wrong. its not an expression of dislike. this implies my opinions are formed by my emotions. my claim that god is invented is based on the fact that their is zero evidence for a god. it is logical to claim god is invented and not an emotional response.
you say i assume all gods must be invented.
i have a question for you. what percentage of gods do you think have been invented?