- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe classic example is virtual particles popping into and out of existence everywhere all around us.
"Science currently indicates that uncaused events can occur." - googlefudge
Examples?
Another 'uncaused event' might be an atom or particle undergoing nuclear decay.
Such events happen [or appear to happen] randomly.
There is a probability that a given type of particle will decay in a given time period [this is where 'half life'
comes from] but when a particle does actually decay is random with no detectable cause.
The point is, that while it might be possible that thee events are actually caused, they don't look like
it, and are [based on our current evidence and theoretical understanding] more likely to be uncaused than
they are to be caused.
Given that, you cannot honestly state that all events have a cause, or that it's not possible for something to
come from nothing. Because we just don't know that, and have good reason to suspect the opposite is true.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonship
[b] Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is the search for causes.
Uniformity and human experience compels scientists to make an inference ...[text shortened]... not have a cause for it, what is it ? I mean what is it that began to exist without a cause ?[/b]
Science is the search for causes.
No, science is the quest to understand our reality, whatever that is.
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe classic example is virtual particles popping into and out of existence everywhere all around us.
Should scientists not seek to understand what is the cause of this ? Or should they throw their hands up and assume that no cause for this exists ?
Another 'uncaused event' might be an atom or particle undergoing nuclear decay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should scientists assume that this happens without a cause or seek an explanation ?
Such events happen [or appear to happen] randomly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important word here is "appear". No ?
There is a probability that a given type of particle will decay in a given time period [this is where 'half life'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds to me like something is running down or running out.
Why isn't that to be considered a cause for this decay ?
The whole universe (barring the intervention of our God and Savior) will grow cold, expand into ashes in the blackness of space some distant time in the future. Everything will eventually decay.
Is it a great mystery then that tiny particles decay?
comes from] but when a particle does actually decay is random with no detectable cause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important word here is "detectable."
The point is, that while it might be possible that thee events are actually caused, they don't look like
it,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So scientists continue beyond your and my generation to search for the causes ? Some causes have not been found yet.
Maybe some will never be found ... maybe.
and are [based on our current evidence and theoretical understanding] more likely to be uncaused than
they are to be caused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All this flawed reasoning just to maintain Atheism ? Its not worth it.
Causes must go back and back to something eternal and uncaused. That's what I believe.
An infinite regress of causes does not make sense.
A final uncaused and eternal transcendent Cause makes more sense.
Given that, you cannot honestly state that all events have a cause,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he say all events or everything that begins to exist ?
That's a genuine question.
or that it's not possible for something to
come from nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think you are doing the Science interprize any favors by insisting that we should expect a rabbit to come out of a hat uncaused (so to speak) ?
Why doesn't a giraffe appear on my front lawn from nothing?
Why doesn't a Mercedes Bends pop up in my parking place?
Why can't a dove suddenly appear and fly out of my pocket uncaused ?
Do you think your proclamation of uncaused events is friendly to the scientific method ? I don't think you're doing Science favors by maintaining this magic.
Because we just don't know that, and have good reason to suspect the opposite is true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why doesn't an elephant just pop into existence in your living room ?
As for virtual particles, give them some more time. We are already told that a so-called Quantum vacuum is not really nothing, but is seething with some kind of energy.
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes and no. I think sophisticated morality and spirituality require intelligence but it is not necessarily the case that they will always result in an entity with high intelligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the important case of the existence of human beings, a higher authority, higher power, and higher intelligence with a plan is more believable to me than not.
And if Someone tells us that that is the case, examining that life, His wisdom and some acts of that Person helps me to ascertain the credibility of the Speaker. I mean anyone can SAY anything. What about their life?
By the way, let's say we do create humanoid machines with self awareness. How would you handle the event that they totally DENY the existence of us as their human creators ?
That is manchines that are smart enough to look at themselves and totally deny that they were designed by human beings - kind of "Ahumanists" or "A-Homo Sapienists" perhaps. They lack a belief in mankind.
Say you were one of their designers. How would you address their denial of your creative ability and authority over them ?
I am rather curious about this.
Originally posted by sonshipI would say that science is about understanding how the universe works, which at its heart is a search for patterns (also known as rules or laws). Causation is a big part of it, but only a part. When we look at something we would like to know if it has a cause or if it doesn't have a cause. Both answers and satisfactory answers.
So you say it is not a true statement that Science is a search for causes ?
More often though, science is less about what causes something and a lot more about what rules are followed when it causes something. So for example we might know that an energetic electron may emit a photon. We don't so much look for a cause for that emission but rather look at the rules that are followed ie how likely is it to emit a photon, what energies are allowed, is there a preferred direction etc.
As for causation itself, others have talked about complete causation of events, but there is a more subtle effect where an event may include both a cause and an element of randomness. For example in the example of an electron emitting a photon, the exact timing and direction of the emission is as far as we know random ie nothing as far as we know causes an electron to emit a photon in a particular direction. Given that the emission of photons happens practically all the time on any surface, randomness appears to be highly prevalent in the universe. Of course it is impossible to rule out a cause, but in the absence of evidence for one it would be premature and totally unscientific to claim that everything is caused.
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 9)
The classic example is virtual particles popping into and out of existence everywhere all around us.
Another 'uncaused event' might be an atom or particle undergoing nuclear decay.
Such events happen [or appear to happen] randomly.
There is a probability that a given type of particle will decay in a given time period [this is where 'half life'
comes ...[text shortened]... from nothing. Because we just don't know that, and have good reason to suspect the opposite is true.
"Everything which begins to exist must have a cause. You [your body and soul] had a beginning [the day you were born] as did your parents [the day they were born]. Your site membership had a beginning [the date you chose to join]; as did this online spirituality forum; as did Red Hot Pawn itself. Its proprietor, Russ, had a beginning [the day he was born]. His parents and grandparents and earliest ancestral line all had beginnings [the day each of them was born]. The geographic location of the births of all human beings is somewhere on the face of planet earth which itself had a beginning. The universe which encompasses planet earth had a beginning. If the beginning of the universe was some kind of X-Factor or Big Bang, then that also had a beginning before time began. Before time began, the angelic creation had a beginning. God? If so, what caused God to exist? I believe Sovereign God in three Coequal and Coeternal Persons [God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit] always existed and that there never was a point in eternity past when They did not exist. Who or what do you personally belive is the initial or first cause of all subsequent beginnings?"
____________________________
Originally posted by googlefudge
"The classic example is virtual particles popping into and out of existence everywhere all around us.
Another 'uncaused event' might be an atom or particle undergoing nuclear decay.
Such events happen [or appear to happen] randomly.
There is a probability that a given type of particle will decay in a given time period [this is where 'half life'
comes from] but when a particle does actually decay is random with no detectable cause.
The point is, that while it might be possible that thee events are actually caused, they don't look like
it, and are [based on our current evidence and theoretical understanding] more likely to be uncaused than
they are to be caused.
Given that, you cannot honestly state that all events have a cause, or that it's not possible for something to
come from nothing. Because we just don't know that, and have good reason to suspect the opposite is true."
________________________________
googlefudge, the sole focus is on the fact that: "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." rather than "random" subsequent events such as "half life" and "decay". Also your statement that "it's not possible for something to come from nothing" overlooks God's creation of the universe and human soul from nothing. In Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 [the word "bara", one of four Hebrew words for "create", is used];
He created by divine command [in the Latin: "creatio ex nihilo"]. The three other Hebrew words with different meanings are "asah" [Genesis 1:26a]; "yatsar" [Isaiah 45:18]; and "banah" [Genesis 2:22].
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true. Now you ask me to answer a question that relies on the premise I challenged and claimed is not true. Sorry, not going to happen. Reread my post till you understand it, then rephrase your question.
"I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true..."
__________________
On what authority do you base this statement or is it a scientific speculation or personal opinion?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt is scientific fact. (not speculation and not personal opinion.) If you don't believe me, feel free to go and check the scientific literature for yourself and confirm it.
On what authority do you base this statement or is it a scientific speculation or personal opinion?
Originally posted by Great King RatSoul:
Define "soul".
Or not, as I expect will be the case.
Flat fish, best served fried with butter.
However,
Soul:
Symbiosis of heart, lung and brain function creating chemical reactions in the synapsis of the brain which leads to personality traits in humans.
Break the symbiosis, the chemical reactions stop... Gone is the soul.
Originally posted by shavixmirIn other words, when you die you lose your soul? So the soul is not supernatural?
Soul:
Flat fish, best served fried with butter.
However,
Soul:
Symbiosis of heart, lung and brain function creating chemical reactions in the synapsis of the brain which leads to personality traits in humans.
Break the symbiosis, the chemical reactions stop... Gone is the soul.
9 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would say that science is about understanding how the universe works, which at its heart is a search for patterns (also known as rules or laws).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's good. Before I forget -
Did you yet provide us an example of something that begins to exist that has no cause for its doing so ?
Causation is a big part of it, but only a part. When we look at something we would like to know if it has a cause or if it doesn't have a cause. Both answers and satisfactory answers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there are natural causes and intelligent causes.
In doing science there is no reason to rule out intelligent causes up front BEFORE we examine evidence.
In fact Archaeology as a science cannot rule out intelligent causes. Forensic Criminology cannot rule out intelligent causes up front before considering evidence. Insurance Fraud Detection will not rule out intelligent causes. Even SETI will not rule out the possibility of intelligent causes in prospective evidence.
Some Atheists want the science of Biology to rule out the possibility of intelligent causes before considering the evidence. Some Atheists do so because they do not want their worldview to be contradicted by a possibility of an possible intelligent cause we call God.
Personally if they would admit in biology intelligent causes of some other kind of intelligence, ie, alien technology, I would at least respect that they are will to follow evidence.
If this is not directly related to your words, excuse that. It does move the discussion along.
There are natural causes and there are intelligent causes.
Honest searching for causes should not rule out up front intelligent causes.
More often though, science is less about what causes something and a lot more about what rules are followed when it causes something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Atheist want to arrange "rules" to only support their Atheistic worldview. Newton didn't. Galileo didn't. Kepler didn't. Why should Dawkins do so.
Scientist Richard Dawkins defines biology as the study of things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. He seems to rule out up front that just MAYBE the appearance is there because it HAS been designed for a purpose.
His Atheistic rule is that it can ONLY .... be an appearance. Scorn and mockery come from him towards scientists who suggest that the appearance is likely because the life form HAS been designed for a purpose.
Give up trying to define "rules" that jury rig the science enterprise to rule out all but Atheistic concepts of the world.
So for example we might know that an energetic electron may emit a photon. We don't so much look for a cause for that emission but rather look at the rules that are followed ie how likely is it to emit a photon, what energies are allowed, is there a preferred direction etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true for some scientists. And other scientists are interested in examining that matter in order to determine CAUSES in that arena.
That some scientists devote time to one aspect of a phenomenon and other scientists devote time to another aspect is not disputed.
As for causation itself, others have talked about complete causation of events, but there is a more subtle effect where an event may include both a cause and an element of randomness. For example in the example of an electron emitting a photon, the exact timing and direction of the emission is as far as we know random ie nothing as far as we know causes an electron to emit a photon in a particular direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important phrase here is "as far we know". You can believe that some scientists want to probe further to discover the cause in these matters.
To say "Well scientists don't ALWAYS just care about the cause" is not disputed. For examples you offer where they are occupied with other things, these do not mean none are probing further to detect causes.
Given that the emission of photons happens practically all the time on any surface, randomness appears to be highly prevalent in the universe. Of course it is impossible to rule out a cause, but in the absence of evidence for one it would be premature and totally unscientific to claim that everything is caused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I think is going on with you and some others is that the excuse to refuse to speculate is way of not wanting to follow some evidence as to where it might lead.
You know that intelligent causation in some field like Biology or Cosmology may lead in a direction that threatens your cherished Atheistic worldview. Why this should be a threat, I am not sure. But that an Atheistic worldview is made uncomfortable by the evidence of intelligent causation is met with the excuse that "It is too soon to speculate" or "we should not speculate here."
We cannot say that evidence pointing to intelligent causation must be suppressed because that may violate the separation of church and state.
Let's take the example of a cause for the universe to come into existence. Astronomer Robert Jastrow (confessed agnostic) wrote of some skeptics of a BEGUN universe:
"There is a kind of religion .... Every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. .... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as 'refusing to speculate' - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the universe is a firecracker."
If we apply your sentence above to the problem of the origin of the universe -
Of course it is impossible to rule out a cause, but in the absence of evidence for one it would be premature and totally unscientific to claim that everything is caused.
I think we have a symptom of resisting following the evidence to where is might lead - an intelligent First Cause for nature and the universe.
I find good cause to believe that if Someone of unlimited intelligence brought about the material universe, being created in His image and according to His likeness (Gen. 1:26,27) explains why there is an immaterial component to our being - a soul and spirit.
Originally posted by sonshipIt has been done many times before as you are well aware. Just go back a few posts and I am sure you will see someone give an example. (with the qualification 'no known cause'.)
That's good. Before I forget -
Did you yet provide us an example of something that begins to exist that has no cause for its doing so ?
And there are natural causes and intelligent causes.
Science does not distinguish between them. That is a religious distinction.
In doing science there is no reason to rule out intelligent causes up front BEFORE we examine evidence.
See above. Science doesn't 'rule them out' it merely doesn't make a distinction. It looks for all and any or no cause.
Some Atheists want the science of biology to rule out the possibility of intelligent causes before considering the evidence.
Well when you meet those atheists please take it up with them. Telling me about them is a waste of time. And no, I don't think they are reading this thread.
There are natural causes and there are intelligent causes.
Honest searching for causes should not rule out up front intelligent causes.
See above.
Some Atheist want to arrange "rules" to only support their Atheistic worldview. Newton didn't. Galileo didn't. Kepler didn't. Why should Dawkins do so.
What makes you think he does?
Scientist Richard Dawkins defines biology as the study of things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. He seems to rule out up front that just MAYBE the appearance is there because it HAS been designed for a purpose.
No, you are just too ready to read between the lines what isn't there.
Scorn and mockery come from him towards scientists who suggest that the appearance is likely because the life form HAS been designed for a purpose.
Not true. Scorn and mockery come from him towards people (I wouldn't call them scientists) who demand that the appearance is because of an intelligent design and do not look at the actual evidence.
Give up trying to define "rules" that jury rig the science enterprise to rule out all but Atheistic concepts of the world.
Tell us how many of Newtons Laws (yes you said Newton did look for inteligent causes) involve intelligent causation. In fact, tell us any scientific law that involves intelligence. Now tell us that you don't accept any findings of science whatsoever.
That is true for some scientists. And other scientists are interested in examining that matter in order to determine CAUSES in that arena.
Good for them. When they find a cause let me know. In fact let the Nobel prize committee know. Until then, it remains the case that no such cause is known to science and anyone who states 'everything is known to have a cause' is either ignorant or a liar or both.
You can believe that some scientists want to probe further to discover the cause in these matters.
I did not claim otherwise.
For examples you offer where they are occupied with other things, these do not mean none are probing further to detect causes.
Do you have a point to make or are you going to just keep repeating something we both agree on as if you think it makes a point?
What I think is going on with you and some others is that the excuse to refuse to speculate is way of not wanting to follow some evidence as to where it might lead.
You think wrong. I have not refused to speculate nor have I failed to follow evidence. I do however object to blatant falsehoods such as the claim that it is known that everything has a cause.
Why this should be a threat, I am not sure.
Yet you still made it up. You think something threatens me but don't know why despite me not showing any signs of being threatened. Your imagination is running away with you, try and get a grip.
But that an Atheistic worldview is made uncomfortable by the evidence of intelligent causation is met with the excuse that "It is too soon to speculate" or "we should not speculate here."
Again, feel free to address those people who say that, but if you are implying that you are quoting me, you are wrong.
We cannot say that evidence pointing to intelligent causation must be suppressed because that may violate the separation of church and state.
Hilarious. Now its getting political? Are you going to blame the communists too? Throw in Obama and abortion and you will have turned into whodey.
I think we have a symptom of resisting following the evidence to where is might lead - an intelligent First Cause for nature and the universe.
Once again, you think wrong. Please reread what I said and you quoted and see if it really says what you thought it says. It doesn't say what you imply it says.
You simply cannot honestly fail to admit that what I said was entirely and conclusively true. It is an indisputable fact. Live with it.
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt has been done many times before as you are well aware. Just go back a few posts and I am sure you will see someone give an example. (with the qualification 'no known cause'.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hesitant to claim those examples as your own ?
Yes, I think sonhouse talked about as of yet undetected causes for virtual particles.
Is that your example you wish to use and which you are responsible ?
me:
And there are natural causes and intelligent causes.
tw: Science does not distinguish between them. That is a religious distinction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archeologist assume that the existence of the Rosetta Stone is due to intelligent causes. Archeology is a science. I don't think only the religious ones would tell us the writing in three languages on that stone are due to intelligent causes rather than natural ones.
They make a distinction.
A good scientist who is really in search of the truth could admit that it looks like intelligent causes rather than un-intelligent ones is responsible for the thousands of factory like operations occurring every second in a living human cell.
Though it may make his world view uncomfortable to admit it, for truth's sake I think she should.
me:
In doing science there is no reason to rule out intelligent causes up front BEFORE we examine evidence.
twL See above. Science doesn't 'rule them out' it merely doesn't make a distinction. It looks for all and any or no cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See above. Archeologists are scientist who often have to make a distinction between natural and intelligent causes.
The SETI scientists have to decide to determine natural causes as distinguished from intelligent ones.
me: Some Atheists want the science of biology to rule out the possibility of intelligent causes before considering the evidence.
tw: Well when you meet those atheists please take it up with them. Telling me about them is a waste of time. And no, I don't think they are reading this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a pretty clever way of distancing yourself from renown atheist Richard Dawkins. Noted.
However, I think you are pretty much in the same attitude.
That is biological systems only appear to have been intelligently designed but rather are products of non-intelligent Evolution.
Or would you like to adjust your view to include some intelligent design in the process of Evolution ?
me:
There are natural causes and there are intelligent causes.
Honest searching for causes should not rule out up front intelligent causes.
tw: See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some branches of science certainly do make distinctions between natural causes and intelligent ones. You don't think the SETI scientists don't have to consider if a signal is due to a purely natural source or an intelligent source? You think they do not make a distinction ?
Hint: Search for Extraterrestrial [/b]Intelligence[/b]. And you say these scientists are not interested in discriminating between natural and intelligent clauses ?
me:
Some Atheist want to arrange "rules" to only support their Atheistic worldview. Newton didn't. Galileo didn't. Kepler didn't. Why should Dawkins do so.
tw: What makes you think he does?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first section of his book "The God Delusion" in which he gives his definition of Biology - where he says that Biology is the study of things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
That's what makes me think he wants to establish the rules for doing Biology. The scientist must accept up front, before examining evidence - "Remember, there is ONLY an appearance of this having been designed intelligently for a purpose."
me: Scientist Richard Dawkins defines biology as the study of things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. He seems to rule out up front that just MAYBE the appearance is there because it HAS been designed for a purpose.
[b]tw: No, you are just too ready to read between the lines what isn't there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading between the lines huh? Let me see --- "The God DELUSION" . Don't let me read between the lines now.
It is not between the lines I am commenting on. It is the lines themselves. In fact it is the purpose of his best selling cash cow book - The God Delusion.
Maybe he should refrain from trying to be a philosopher pushing his world view of New Atheism and just stick to doing Biology. Why don't YOU tell him. You're both Atheists.
me:
Scorn and mockery come from him towards scientists who suggest that the appearance is likely because the life form HAS been designed for a purpose.
tw: Not true. Scorn and mockery come from him towards people (I wouldn't call them scientists) who demand that the appearance is because of an intelligent design and do not look at the actual evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He hits some of them too. However his scatter shot gun is designed to hit ANYONE in the 21rst Century who is not an Atheist. He doesn't care if they are trained as scientists or not.
You spoke above about wasting time? I don't think I will waste my time proving to you the scorched earth attitude of Richard Dawkins with examples of things he's said for which he has a huge popular following.
me: Give up trying to define "rules" that jury rig the science enterprise to rule out all but Atheistic concepts of the world.
tw: Tell us how many of Newtons Laws (yes you said Newton did look for inteligent causes) involve intelligent causation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newton's writings on the Universal Law of Gravitation were based on the underlying philosophical belief that Laws are given by a Legislator. And it seems his writing about his treatise was intended by him to prove that.
Unlike Dawkins he didn't try to teach that the laws he uncovered put in question God's existence or made it hereafter evil and superstitious to believe in a intelligent Creator and Legislator.
At the end of the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) initiated a revolution in science. At the end of the twentieth century, scholars began a revolution in the understanding of Newton. As Newton’s long-concealed private papers on theology become increasingly accessible, students of Newton’s thought are coming to see Newton as more than a scientist.
The author of the Principia mathematica was a true Renaissance man who spent decades delving in the secrets of alchemy and even longer studying the Bible, theology and church history. Leaving behind at least two and a half million words on theology, Newton was one of the greatest lay theologians of his age. A study of Newton’s theology and prophetic views illuminates the life of this great thinker and helps us understand his science.
Copied from
Isaac Newton
Theology, Prophecy, Science and Religion
http://isaac-newton.org/
In his own words :
" When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work wth considering men for the beleife of a Deity & nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose’.
" ‘This [edited] most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent
and powerful being. "
The same article offers insights into a kind of evolving public attitude since the Enlightenment which does not do justice to Newton's thinking.
The Enlightenment legacies of Newton’s image are deeply
entrenched not only in the public consciousness, but even in the specialist historioriagraphy. Until recently, when historians discussed Newton’s theology at all, it was often treated as
superfluous appendage, disconnected from his philosophy of nature. Newton was characterized primarily or only as a ‘scientist’–a word and role anachronistically imposed on him
that is at once both limiting and misleading. It is limiting because
natural philosophers of Newton’s age and before were engaged in a study that included not only the study of the natural world, but that also embraced the study of God, His attributes and final causes. It is misleading because the popular notion of a scientist today is a secular one.9 The long survival of this uni-dimensional view of Newton is in part a byproduct of the success of the‘Newton industry’ of the latter half of the twentieth century. Although its output was of the highest academic quality, ‘Newtonian
scholarship’ was defined almost entirely as that pertaining to Newton’s work in mathematics, optics and physics.
10 There were exceptions. Frank Manuel’s attitude to Newton’s theology was much more sympathetic, and his 1973 Fremantle Lectures remain one of the most effective summaries of the great man’s faith.1
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadme: What I think is going on with you and some others is that the excuse to refuse to speculate is way of not wanting to follow some evidence as to where it might lead.
tw: You think wrong. I have not refused to speculate nor have I failed to follow evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Then you consider the possibility that evidence exists for an intelligently designed, ( let us say for relevance's sake ) - human brain ?
Yes?
No?
Maybe so?
I do however object to blatant falsehoods such as the claim that it is known that everything has a cause.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
First let me say that this is a philosophical statement.
If you call this a blantant falsehood you should be able to prove it be false.
I would not say that because we are not sure of the CAUSE of a common cold yet, therefore it is a blatant falsehood for a thinker to say "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
I don't think that is a strong enough counter argument. Granted, there are some things which begin to exist, the cause of which we little understand or have yet discovered.
Do you think that uniformity of human experience leads us to believe that just about everything we see that begins to exist has a cause for it ? Do you think there is enough consistency of this that we can erect Science upon it as a discipline ?
Francis Bacon, the so called "father of modern science" said "true knowledge is knowledge by causes". You know science is just another word for knowledge. He meant true science is by uncovering of causes. When we do science we are trying to discover what caused a particular effect.
And I think a law of causality - the effects have causes - under - girds the scientific enterprise and forms its foundation. That foundation - the law of causality you now charge with being "blatantly false."
We can't DO science if we don't believe a law of causality says effects have causes.
me:
Why this should be a threat, I am not sure.
tw: Yet you still made it up. You think something threatens me but don't know why despite me not showing any signs of being threatened. Your imagination is running away with you, try and get a grip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come now. You display an intense interest in Science. But you do not restrict your sharing of your knowledge to the Science Forum.
You come to the Spirituality Forum to act, I gather, as a kind of watchdog. You appear to want to make sure any using of science discovery to suggest the existence of GOD is effectively countered.
What are you trying to protect ?
Why do you care?
Why don't we see you exclusively on the Science Forum happily expounding your knowledge about science?
This frequent polemic contributions on the Spirituality Forum declaring natural causes in rebuttal to some theists who think about God, appears defensive.
"I am NOT threatened." Or "My Atheist world view is not threatened" is itself a defensive move, I think.
This is machismo. This is "Bring it on folks. My Atheism is really strong. So strong it is that nothing written here threatens it."
me: But that an Atheistic worldview is made uncomfortable by the evidence of intelligent causation is met with the excuse that "It is too soon to speculate" or "we should not speculate here."
tw: Again, feel free to address those people who say that, but if you are implying that you are quoting me, you are wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not quoting you per se.
Everybody knows you are the Forum Atheist. Or you are one of many. When a theist posts, you wait for a few posts usually. After you get the lay of the land - here you come with your reasons, your anti - Theistic reasons. It is like clockwork. I time you.
Let some Christian start a new thread on anything. After a while you introduce your contrarian atheistic views steeped in naturalism. Not that you don't have every right to do so.
Just don't insult our intelligence that you are not on the prowl to DEFEND your Atheism. Boasting to me that you are not threatened only means to me another form of defense - "My atheism is impregnable and CANNOT be threatened."
Anyway, you have that right here.
And some of have the right to point out the fortress has some cracks.
me: We cannot say that evidence pointing to intelligent causation must be suppressed because that may violate the separation of church and state.
jw: Hilarious.
---------------------------------------------------------------
After you finish rolling around on the floor giggling, calm down from the hilarity. Realize that some of the arguments here do amount to political concerns.
More than one poster has argued that the public education has to be for all intents and purposes anti-theistic. Creationism - not science. ID - not science. Teaching both sides - also a violation of someone's right to be "free from religion."
Even teaching in school the problems of Darwinism is met by some here with suspicion. So intense is the disdain that someone's children may be influenced to think like Isaac Newton or Galileo concerning a Creator, is met with fear.
If I suggested that the well rounded educated young person would be served by the problems of Darwinism being honestly exposed in public school, how would you react ?
If you shrug, then you prove me wrong about you,
If you counter with arguments about ID is not science, ID has no predictive benefit (which is false), or that ID is not falsifiable (though plenty of effort is mustered to do so), then I would be suspicious.
If you are not threatened then you would say that you don't care that the glaring problems of Darwinism be taught to students along with its claims.
If you don't shrug but jump into a defensive stance that Darwin is all proven fact which cannot be questioned, I'll think the "hilarity" of my statement above is more serious.
Now its getting political?
---------------------------------------
Not political its getting. My little parody was a statement about the desire of some Atheists to live in a society free from anyone taking evidence for intelligent design as worth learning.
Are you going to blame the communists too?
----------------------------------------------------------
No. Capitalists are bad enough.
Throw in Obama and abortion and you will have turned into whodey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me:
I think we have a symptom of resisting following the evidence to where is might lead - an intelligent First Cause for nature and the universe.
tw: Once again, you think wrong. Please reread what I said and you quoted and see if it really says what you thought it says. It doesn't say what you imply it says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You simply cannot honestly fail to admit that what I said was entirely and conclusively true. It is an indisputable fact. Live with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I follow you now, you are saying it is blatantly false that everything that begins to exist has a cause. If I follow you here, you are saying it is an indisputable fact that somethings begin to exist WITH NOT CAUSE.
Is this what you are saying I should live with ?
That is that some things begin to exist with no cause to them doing so whatsoever ?
Ironically, I think that if that is what you are insisting that you are doing damage to the whole enterprise of doing Science. I think that in an attempt to champion Science, especially as a weapon against the Christian faith, you are actually doing it damage.
Hilarious would not be the appropriate word. Ironic would be.