Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

***You can demonstrate how a creator wasn't necessary, but that proves nothing about his existence or lack thereof.

Once again, you conveniently miss the point. No one is claiming he proved a negative, or that proving a negative is even possible.

Had Hawking had strong faith in a supreme being, he would have avoided such lines of inquiry altogether.

No, you're missing the point that scientists should be able to come to the same conclusions about how the universe works without asking whether or not an entity that is beyond the physical laws of science was necessary to set the process in motion - to do so implies a bit of bias and is not very objective.

Furthermore, if science has not observed or even attempted to defined such an entity, they could not then recognize whether or not such an entity was involved. For example, let's say that the Spirit of God was dark matter - an invisible, omnipresent force - science would have no way of recognizing that - it would simply overlook the fact. The same goes for the beginning of the universe.

You know, it's interesting that many times in this thread you've stated that it's not even reasonable to to consider the possibility of God, but now you're saying that by doing so, it makes you a better scientist.

It's a very inconsistent narrative to say the least.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[normiss 622]

mehhh...I'm sure you know I disagree with that bud.

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

No, you're missing the point that scientists should be able to come to the same conclusions about how the universe works without asking whether or not an entity that is beyond the physical laws of science was necessary to set the process in motion - to do so implies a bit of bias and is not very objective.

Don't look now, but you've just explained why having faith would handicap someone as a scientist.

It is wholly objective to seek to understand how the universe began. Seeking to expand human knowledge is not biased, except towards the truth.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

It is wholly objective to seek to understand how the universe began. Seeking to expand human knowledge is not biased, except towards the truth.

...and if you want your truth subjected to the conjecture of Hawking, then I suppose that's your prerogative - just know however that that's not science.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

...and if you want your truth subjected to the conjecture of Hawking, then I suppose that's your prerogative - just know however that that's not science.

So cosmologists working on cosmology is not science? Got it.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

***...and if you want your truth subjected to the conjecture of Hawking, then I suppose that's your prerogative - just know however that that's not science.

So cosmologists working on cosmology is not science?

No, imposing ones view with incomplete information and passing that off as "science," is by definition mere conjecture.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

No, imposing ones view with incomplete information and passing that off as "science," is by definition mere conjecture.

Science is all about reaching justifiable, logical conclusions with incomplete information. Science allows us to disprove falsifiable hypotheses, not prove them. So, if having complete information is your bar, the all science is conjecture. Yet, here we are, with television, smart phones, Mars rovers, GPS, etc.

If we had complete information, there would be no unanswered questions. And your god of the gaps would be long dead instead of just dying a slow and painful death.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,121]

jcd11235

***Both science and faith have their place and can coexist harmoniously.

Provided it's not within the same person.

ETA: I wonder what the state of cosmology would be if Prof. Hawking subscribed to such supernatural nonsense.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Bullshit.

Being a scientist is a job, like being a mechanic, or a cook, or a nurse.

I know many cooks who have no interest to come home and cook. I know many car mechanics who dread being asked to work on a car in their time off. They would just like to enjoy their life outside of work.

Incredibly, scientists can also go home and not be a scientist in everything they do or believe in.

To insinuate that every Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian etc. scientist is either horrible at their job or horrible in their faith is ridiculous. It is a pretty high horse you are on.

[jcd11235 0]

SkyDekker

Being a scientist is a job, like being a mechanic, or a cook, or a nurse.

More than any of those jobs, being a scientist is a mindset. One doesn't turn it off when they go home at 5:00.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DanG 1]

Quote

More than any of those jobs, being a scientist is a mindset for me. One doesn't turn it off when they go home at 5:00.

Maybe, just maybe, everyone in the world doesn't have the same world outlook as you?

Tell me, can a scientist wear his lucky shirt to the game without resigning in disgrace Monday morning? Can a scientist keep a lucky charm on their keychain without being laughed out of the coffee room?

People do things all the time that are superstitious. It doesn't mean that they can't have objective views about the natural world, too.

BTW, I'm an atheist, but I still throw salt over my shoulder when I tip over the shaker. Do I need to quit my engineering career and join a monastery?

- Dan G

[jakee 1,254]

No, but you might want to be more careful at the dinner table

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

jcd11235

***Being a scientist is a job, like being a mechanic, or a cook, or a nurse.

More than any of those jobs, being a scientist is a mindset. One doesn't turn it off when they go home at 5:00.

So you believe that being a scientist is a mindset more so than any other profession and you use that belief as fact for your hypothesis that good scientists cannot have good faith.

I am no specialist in irony. but....

[maadmax 0]

Quote

More than any of those jobs, being a scientist is a mindset. One doesn't turn it off when they go home at 5:00.

I agree. The scientific method is the mindset of the scientist. It is useful in all areas of life. It has been invaluable in unlocking "how' the universe is constructed. It falls flat in explaining "why" and for what purpose. The area of spiritual discernment requires an introspection that can only be accomplished by unifying spiritual & physical realities though faith. And if one is not to get lost in the process, faith and guidance by God is a must.

...

[turtlespeed 212]

maadmax

Quote

More than any of those jobs, being a scientist is a mindset. One doesn't turn it off when they go home at 5:00.

I agree. The scientific method is the mindset of the scientist. It is useful in all areas of life. It has been invaluable in unlocking "how' the universe is constructed. It falls flat in explaining "why" and for what purpose. The area of spiritual discernment requires an introspection that can only be accomplished by unifying spiritual & physical realities though faith. And if one is not to get lost in the process, faith and guidance by God is a must.

...

So we should be able to employ the scientific method to discern the existence of at least one heavenly entity.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

It falls flat in explaining "why" and for what purpose.

That's because the scientific method is used for finding out about things that objectively exist. There is no objective reason why the universe exists, there is no objective purpose for humanity.

If you need to know why and for what purpose we are here then you've just got to make something up. And yeah, that's what spiritual discernment' is for.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[maadmax 0]

Quote

So we should be able to employ the scientific method to discern the existence of at least one heavenly entity.

I am doubtful God will ever be found in a test tube. But we can find God within ourselves by the testing of our faith (2 Corinthians 13:5-6).

...

[Guest]

jcd11235

***In science there simply is no room for compromise.

Exactly.

Religion is about embracing faith. Science is about rejecting faith and applying logic and reason.

On cannot be a good religious person and a good scientist.

NOT SO.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[RonD1120 58]

markharju

******In science there simply is no room for compromise.

Exactly.

Religion is about embracing faith. Science is about rejecting faith and applying logic and reason.

On cannot be a good religious person and a good scientist.

NOT SO.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD

mh
.

Dr Kent Hovind has been teaching young earth theory for several years as well.

http://creationtoday.org/about/dr-kent-hovind/

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Guest]

RonD1120

*********In science there simply is no room for compromise.

Exactly.

Religion is about embracing faith. Science is about rejecting faith and applying logic and reason.

On cannot be a good religious person and a good scientist.

NOT SO.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD

mh
.

Dr Kent Hovind has been teaching young earth theory for several years as well.

http://creationtoday.org/about/dr-kent-hovind/

Ron,

You know I like you and respect your views, but your guy has a PhD in theology, not science. Mary Schweitzer is a Scientist (note the capital "S"), and has taken a lot of flak from creationists because of her scientific findings, to say nothing of those who have attacked her scientific creds because of her religious views.

Different as night and day.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[RonD1120 58]

markharju

************In science there simply is no room for compromise.

Exactly.

Religion is about embracing faith. Science is about rejecting faith and applying logic and reason.

On cannot be a good religious person and a good scientist.

NOT SO.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD

mh
.

Dr Kent Hovind has been teaching young earth theory for several years as well.

http://creationtoday.org/about/dr-kent-hovind/

Ron,

You know I like you and respect your views, but your guy has a PhD in theology, not science. Mary Schweitzer is a Scientist (note the capital "S"), and has taken a lot of flak from creationists because of her scientific findings, to say nothing of those who have attacked her scientific creds because of her religious views.

Different as night and day.

mh
.

Quite true and I understand your point.

I am an eclectic counselor and tend to look at various avenues for knowledge and what works. For example, if a shade tree mechanic explains to me why my fuel injectors are clogging and what I need to do to correct the problem, I don't care if he has an ASE certification or not.

I was just offering support. I figured kallend would be the first to attack.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Guest]

RonD1120

***************In science there simply is no room for compromise.

Exactly.

Religion is about embracing faith. Science is about rejecting faith and applying logic and reason.

On cannot be a good religious person and a good scientist.

NOT SO.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD

mh
.

Dr Kent Hovind has been teaching young earth theory for several years as well.

http://creationtoday.org/about/dr-kent-hovind/

Ron,

You know I like you and respect your views, but your guy has a PhD in theology, not science. Mary Schweitzer is a Scientist (note the capital "S"), and has taken a lot of flak from creationists because of her scientific findings, to say nothing of those who have attacked her scientific creds because of her religious views.

Different as night and day.

mh
.

Quite true and I understand your point.

I am an eclectic counselor and tend to look at various avenues for knowledge and what works. For example, if a shade tree mechanic explains to me why my fuel injectors are clogging and what I need to do to correct the problem, I don't care if he has an ASE certification or not.

I was just offering support. I figured kallend would be the first to attack.

Your fuel injectors remark is telling, because it points out an important aspect of the discussion: logic and reason. Injectors are clogged because of contaminants, not because of evil spirits. This can be determined through the scientific method, not by inspecting the entrails of birds. Just sayin'...

Kallend's a scientist. If he doesn't respect a fellow scientist, it should be about that's person's science (or lack thereof), not about the person. Scientific rigor and peer review means that one's findings must be able to be replicated, and able to withstand the most merciless criticism and scrutiny (Cold Fusion, anyone? Hah) in order to be accepted.

So yeah, to the born-again atheist there is no difference between JC and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I acknowledge that. But there are people of science (and medicine) who have a spiritual angle but do not let it interfere with their jobs. And it shouldn't.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 2,395]

>NOT SO.
>Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD

Agreed. There are hundreds of such examples.