Originally posted by RJHindsIt is obvious that little tiny actors are inside my TV.
Apparently, the existence of God is so obvious that your only
recourse, to deny it, is to resort to the illogical humor of the
flying spaghetti monster again. How miserable you must be.
Poor Twighthead. Everyone, have pitty on him.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo whom or what do you or Science ascribe the gravitational forces which are keeping the solar system in dynamic equilibrium? How does Gravity work by the way?
Essentially, if God has a defined effect on the universe, then that effect is subject to scientific scrutiny. If he has no visible effect on the universe then who cares if he exists or not?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoScience does not ascribe the gravitational forces to anyone, or anything. There are theories/hypothesis about how it works (such as the General Theory of Relativity), but ultimately there must be some brute facts and whether we can ever know what they are is doubtful.
To whom or what do you or Science ascribe the gravitational forces which are keeping the solar system in dynamic equilibrium? How does Gravity work by the way?
But if God is responsible for Gravity, then by studying gravity, we are learning something about God. ie you cannot claim that God is responsible for Gravity but that we cannot study God through science.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease explain the last para of your above post. Thanks.
Science does not ascribe the gravitational forces to anyone, or anything. There are theories/hypothesis about how it works (such as the General Theory of Relativity), but ultimately there must be some brute facts and whether we can ever know what they are is doubtful.
But if God is responsible for Gravity, then by studying gravity, we are learning some ...[text shortened]... u cannot claim that God is responsible for Gravity but that we cannot study God through science.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoTheists often suggest that God is somehow beyond science. I am saying that if God is responsible for gravity, then by studying gravity through science we are studying God and one of his effects on the universe.
Please explain the last para of your above post. Thanks.
Further, I claim that we cannot know more about God than what can be determined from the observed effects he might have. To make any conclusions about the nature of God other than those obtained by scientific means (by studying his effects on the universe) would be unreliable.
Originally posted by dj2beckerBy definition, no supernatural phenomenon can be scientifically observed, understood, predicted, or controlled (the 4 steps behind the application of scientific method). Any observed phenomenon will be considered to be an aspect of the natural world, when doing science. Science is methodologically committed to naturalism, although many scientists are not metaphysically committed to it.
Assuming a supernatural God exists as the Bible claims. Would we be able to use 'Science' to verify His existence?
Science and religion are compatible as long as each side stays out of the other's sandbox.
Originally posted by twhiteheadExcellent ! For the first para,I offer my heartiest thanks ! If you even so much as speculate that by studying gravity through science,we will be studying God and one of his effects on the universe,you have come closer to the traditional theistic view that Universe is a creation of God and everything that happens in the universe has a primal cause i.e.God.
Theists often suggest that God is somehow beyond science. I am saying that if God is responsible for gravity, then by studying gravity through science we are studying God and one of his effects on the universe.
Further, I claim that we cannot know more about God than what can be determined from the observed effects he might have. To make any conclusions ...[text shortened]... hose obtained by scientific means (by studying his effects on the universe) would be unreliable.
Forget Gravity,just look at the birds and flowers. Anyone who looks at the beautiful plumage of birds with extraordinary colour schemes in every species with fantastic patterns on the wings and around the eyes and so on, can only marvel at the Creator who created all these creatures. Not every little pattern and colour scheme and the lining around the eyes etc. can be justified by evolutionary necessity.
But I maintain that God is all his/her/its effects plus something beyond human understanding.
And there are many ways of coming closer to God than simply by studying his/her/its effects on universe.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...Anyone who looks at the beautiful plumage of birds with extraordinary colour schemes in every species with fantastic patterns on the wings and around the eyes and so on, can only marvel at the Creator who created all these creatures ...”
Excellent ! For the first para,I offer my heartiest thanks ! If you even so much as speculate that by studying gravity through science,we will be studying God and one of his effects on the universe,you have come closer to the traditional theistic view that Universe is a creation of God and everything that happens in the universe has a primal cause i.e.God ...[text shortened]... e are many ways of coming closer to God than simply by studying his/her/its effects on universe.
scientific method tells us that they evolved.
“...Not every little pattern and colour scheme and the lining around the eyes etc. can be justified by evolutionary necessity. ...”
how do you know this?
And haven't you heard of “genetic drift”? Genetic drift can cause some of the inheritable characteristics (including those for colours and appearance), esp in small populations, to deviate from the optimum.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonGeneral principles to fit facts can anytime be enunciated by a play of words and I am sure everything in the living universe can all be explained by Darwinism and its later day genetic drifts! But I, for one, have my reservations about a mechanistic explanation of everything.
“...Anyone who looks at the beautiful plumage of birds with extraordinary colour schemes in every species with fantastic patterns on the wings and around the eyes and so on, can only marvel at the Creator who created all these creatures ...”
scientific method tells us that they evolved.
“...Not every little pattern and colour scheme and the lin ...[text shortened]... uding those for colours and appearance), esp in small populations, to deviate from the optimum.
But your comrade-in- arms,"twithead " seems to be caught up in a genetic drift!
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...General principles to fit facts can anytime be enunciated by a play of words ...”
General principles to fit facts can anytime be enunciated by a play of words and I am sure everything in the living universe can all be explained by Darwinism and its later day genetic drifts! But I, for one, have my reservations about a mechanistic explanation of everything.
But your comrade-in- arms,"twithead " seems to be caught up in a genetic drift!
that “a play of words” is, in this case, “the expression of valid reason”.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI clearly am not 'anyone'. I marvel at the beauty of mathematics, and physics and biology, but it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that there is a creator or that said creator needs marveling at. In fact, I find it somewhat impossible that anything could 'create' mathematics or logic. I think they are brute facts.
Anyone who looks at the beautiful plumage of birds with extraordinary colour schemes in every species with fantastic patterns on the wings and around the eyes and so on, can only marvel at the Creator who created all these creatures.
Not every little pattern and colour scheme and the lining around the eyes etc. can be justified by evolutionary necessity.
What does that have to do with it? I thought we were marveling at complexity and patterns. You seemed to be suggesting that any such pattern whether the Mandelbro set (created by a simple mathematics formula), or patterns made by waves on a beach (created by basic physics), or a flower (created by biology and evolution), are all signs of a creator. Now you seem to be straying from that and suggesting there are two sets of patterns? Or am I misunderstanding here?
But I maintain that God is all his/her/its effects plus something beyond human understanding.
And there are many ways of coming closer to God than simply by studying his/her/its effects on universe.
So you say, but I say that none of those ways are reliable.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou ARE misunderstanding me. I am saying that the complexity of patterns and various colour schemes of bird plumage are Not explainable from evolutionary necessity.
I clearly am not 'anyone'. I marvel at the beauty of mathematics, and physics and biology, but it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that there is a creator or that said creator needs marveling at. In fact, I find it somewhat impossible that anything could 'create' mathematics or logic. I think they are brute facts.
[b]Not every little pattern and colou ...[text shortened]... r/its effects on universe.
So you say, but I say that none of those ways are reliable.[/b]
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI am saying that the complexity of patterns and various colour schemes of bird plumage are Not explainable from evolutionary necessity.
You ARE misunderstanding me. I am saying that the complexity of patterns and various colour schemes of bird plumage are Not explainable from evolutionary necessity.
How so?