Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 08 2009,20:04)|
|You don't know that God is "an imagined object" Bill, now do you? Science (which you rely on) cannot consider God, so it - by definition - cannot eliminate him. Claiming he is "imagined" is personal bias and completely unscientific. Frankly I'm surprised at you.|
Why would you expect that I am devoid of personal biases and beliefs, particularly in an area where there is, indeed, no possibility of a scientific conclusion?
|This is beside the point though. My main point in all this is that it is possible to come to the conclusion, very quickly sometimes, that certain circumstances would require God. You have illustrated my point when you say that if front-loading "would require an agent who is either omniscient or omnipotent", then it would require God.|
It is also possible to come to the conclusion, very quickly sometimes, that certain circumstances would require a triangle. I illustrate this point by observing that if circumstances require a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles, then they require a triangle. But this isn't an inference or deduction, nor does it follow from (or even require) experience with actual three sided figures. It follows from definitions.
|The other interesting thing here is that - by your own admission - you used the teachings of Christianity and other religions as a substitute for a causal history of God. You did this all on your own Bill - so you probably should not be so adamant that it can't be done!|
You sure can be silly. No "causal history of God" (or substitute) was required. Just the definitions of English words, perhaps some general notions common in our culture.
|What I'm most interested in though is the cutoff point. You'll agree that if a certain action requires omniscience or omnipotence, then it requires God. But what about something that does not require omniscience or omnipotence, but rather only extreme skill and knowledge? What about something such as say - the designing of a ribosome? We know, (and you have pointed out many times), that God can do anything. So we know that God could design a ribosome.|
Again, you're just moving verbal furniture around. It follows by definition that if we define an agent as omnipotent, we are asserting that it can "do anything," including design a ribosome. Which is tantamount to saying that if there were an omnipotent agent, it would be omnipotent. So what?
|But what else can? Could a being like man do it? Could natural forces? If you go through your same mental checklist and apply the process of elimination, what are you left with?|
Beats me. No tautologies, definitions or mental checklists will help us here. The only way to investigate that question is by scientific means, within the empirical framework of methodological naturalism. My hope and expectation is that a natural explantion will someday be attained. Whether that occurs in my lifetime remains to be seen.
|If you say "natural forces", you really have to make some attempt at an explanation as to how. Otherwise you're just guessing.|
Who, me? I can tell you right now there is zero probability that I will come up with that explanation. I do hope and expect that biology will. Perhaps not in my lifetime. But I'm not greedy; we're learning so much, so fast, and it is a very thrilling time to be an observer of science.
|Now I know that science can't consider anything but natural forces, (which is precisely why science says "I don't know" a lot when it comes to explaining how natural forces built things like ribosomes), but you can only say "I don't know" for so long.|
I can wait. There is no alternative.
|At some point you either have to come up with a workable natural explanation or conclude there isn't one. Whenever that point is reached, science will discover the reality of God.|
You've lapsed into the expectation that science can demonstrate God, and that the place it can look is at the OOL and/or the origination of complex structures. But as you correctly indicated at the outset of this post, God is beyond the reach of science. You're gonna have to decide if you really understand and accept that or not. This statement suggests you don't.
Again, I find it very strange that you embrace a position that hopes for the failure of science. But to each his own.
(Edits for piquancy)
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington