GCT
Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 10 2006,01 ) | | No need to repeat the last post - I have completely lost track of the thread of the conversation and if you think I have twisted your words you need to show how. Not that I expect you to do that level of research at this point, - but I did not know to what you were referring. |
If you are not twisting my words, why do you ascribe to me arguments that I explicitly didn't make and in fact said the opposite of?
| Quote | | Alright, I'm guilty. I found it a bit frustrating that when I say the universe with God is quite different than without, that you took it to mean that the laws of gravity or something would be different. |
And yet you still can't tell us how it would or would not be different...more on that later.
| Quote | | There is no separation of philosophy from real life. What a bizarre thought. But of course, one can realize that one's philosophical opinions are more or less provisional. Which they are. |
How is that bizarre? You can philosophize all you want about any number of god-like beings, but it doesn't make them real.
| Quote | | You give up too easily. There might be a temendous amount we don't know, but we can surely surmise that if there is no God there is also no soul, no reincarnation or afterlife, no conscious intention behind the universe, that matter is the primary reality and things like intelligence are emergent properties of matter. Whereas if there is a God then something which has the property of self-existence and something like a universal mind would be the causal to matter, and that therefore all things are really one thing at their origin, and that something other than dead matter is the source of our existence. |
That's all very nice, but you still have no clue which situation we are currently living under, nor which one would truly be better if the situation were reversed. Further, how could we even tell if it were reversed? If I currently have a soul, it's completely undetectable. If god created the universe or not, we can't tell. So, how can you "know" that the universe is vastly different with or without god?
| Quote | | No, you need to explain to me why you think a person or people altering a shoreline would be detectable as design. |
Because it IS design. That's the point. If Dembski can't discern that it is design, then what good is his design filter?
| Quote | | Like Mayr's book? I am trying to read it, but it is very simplistic and makes bold statements with little detail. It is going over stuff that I have already read refutations of. But maybe it will get better. My main reason for reading it is to better understand why you guys think the evidence is so good. |
I think you need a simplistic book (no offense) because your understanding of evolution is frankly not that great. Don't forget that the "refutations" you have already read are a load of hooey that are based on religious arguments.
| Quote | | Remember, many of the mountains of evidence are data which are not in dispute, but the interpretation of that evidence, and certain extrapolations from that evidence are what is in dispute. |
Ah, the old "I just interpret the empirical data to infer design" canard. The problem with that, however, is that in order to "infer" design, you must first assume a designer...oops, it just becomes a circular argument.
| Quote | | Neither should science presuppose no God, and despite what Puck and some others have said, this is quite often out there in the public domain. Judge Jones said that there is a centuries old agreement against the supposition of God, and that ID invokes and 'permits' the supernatural. How can the supernatural not be permitted, and why must we call God supernatural? An a priori assumption of God does not prevent a person from doing perfectly good science, even in the arena in which it might matter, so long as they are willing to be proved wrong. |
And, unfortunately for you, not assuming 'god' is not the same as assuming 'not god.' Science must be completely agnostic on the issue, and evolution is, ID is NOT.
Also, I'll note that an a priori assumption doesn't preclude someone from doing good science, but it can't interfere with the science. Oh wait, I've already said this. Why must I repeat myself again and again just to have you repeat it back to me as if it's your argument?
| Quote | | I mean that a universe with a God is a different ballgame than one without. Whichever one we are in, it is the only possibility. If there is a God, it means that God caused existence and that matter could not have caused itself. If there is no God and matter is eternal, then God is an imaginary idea. I am not sure what you mean by couldn't God have made a different reality. I think that you mean couldn't he have made a different universe. I suppose he could but that is really a matter of detail - this type of story or that type of story. God IS the universe, whatever sort s/he morphs Itself into. |
So what? Oh, there is a flaw in your argument. If there is a god, that does not preclude the ability for matter to have "caused" itself. God may be nothing more than an observer. Of course, you still can't prove that the universe would be different with or without god.
| Quote | | Given the elements that exist, they are all finely tuned and cannot be more finely tuned to produce life as we know it. |
Where is your evidence?
| Quote | | Textbooks have stated, and the Weisel 38 have stated, that evolution theory proposes an unplanned and unguided process, and many or most evolutionists expect or hope that life itself was capable of self-assembly. |
And you still don't understand what "random" means. Uplanned and unguided AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN DISCERN (note the emphasis, because you really need to get this through your head!<!--emo& Science can not tell about plans or intentions or gods, so as far as the limited practice of science can tell, we don't see a plan or guide. That doesn't mean that science is saying that there is no god. Also, note that no science talks about the planning and guiding from god, so we are back to you saying that all science is atheistic. We don't really have to go over that again, do we?
| Quote | You asked this: This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through
science?
And I answered this: I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.
And then you replied: So, you didn't answer my question, but you felt compelled to go on some tangent? Nice. Is that an attempt at obfuscation, or what?
***********
Why not rephrase the question? You spend a lot of time accusing me of not answering or twisting words and I spend a lot of time wondering where we got lost. Perhaps if you included more than the final sentence in an exchange. If I don't answer right, clarify. |
Fine, I will rephrase, although it was a very straightforward question. If you refuse or evade this question, I will have no choice but to accuse you of such.
How will you scientifically test for god?
Is that clear enough for you?
| Quote | | I have no idea where your question came from - I do hold out the hope that science will prove something about consciousness such that it will make materialism untenable. Or perhaps some other types of proofs will occur. As it stands now, no one can prove God to another. The best one person can do is to help another one to expand their thoughts so that he can discover it for himself. |
Then go figure out how to do that and run some experiments. The fact that NO ONE has ever done that is pretty telling in this regard. But, one of the reasons I asked is because IDists think that they can empirically prove god. How will you do that?
| Quote | | As for who will be the discoverers of the limits of change through mutation, it doesn't matter. If IDists are in the minority, then it will likely not be them. |
It's not because they are in the minority. It's because they don't actually do any scientific experiments!
| Quote | | Perhaps not, but at least the possibility is there, whereas if there is no God, the possibility is most likely not there. |
So what? Really, I don't care if we have souls or not for the purposes of this discussion. How can you scientifically test for that or show that we have souls? You can't.
| Quote | | I think it is very likely that it is indeed impossible due to the nature of God and life that there is no such thing as a living being without spirit, in which case God couldn't create such a universe. |
Anytime someone says "God couldn't" my stock answer is that you don't understand what omnipotence is (assuming you think god is omnipotent.)
| Quote | | The real number is not computable, so I picked a small number to illustrate. |
Ten trillion is a small number to you?
Either way, you are right that the real number is not computable. I'm glad you agree with me on that. What you are incorrect about is whether that number must necessarily be above 1. There is no logical imperative for a god-full universe to be better than a god-less universe.
| Quote | | Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. So there! |
Tell that to the Christian posters here who support evolution, see what they say.
| Quote | | Of course I realize you are one of them - why do you think I implied you were not? |
Because you felt the need to specifically restate my position as your own in some effort to win a debate point against me, thereby implying that it was NOT my position.
| Quote | | I guess I sort of wonder what to say to this. Certainly evolution papers and books talk pretty often about acquiring better and better adaptations. Like where Dawkins says that 5% of an eye is better than 6% of an eye. Is it better to have an IQ of 130 than 70? Sure, chimps have some better traits than we have, but the overall package is that we are an improvement.... |
Only if one assumes that humans are some end result.
|
