CCC wrote:My religion says why God did it, and science tells me how.
The LDS religion states that we came from Adam and Eve which is not in accordance with current science's "how". Some theists can imagine that Adam and Eve are not literal. Mormons don't have that luxury.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Ceeboo wrote:My dear friend, DR W, suggests that "science actually says that there is no evidence whatsoever that any deity was, or indeed could possibly have been, involved in the creation, or continuing function, of the universe."
(Bold mine)
Really!?
Science says nothing of the kind - And they shouldn't. Science should be silent on this front - as science should not project personal beliefs and/or bias from a scientific position.
I did not get that from DrW's post. What I got was a statement, a correct one at that, that there is no positive evidence for the existence of a god. That is true.
Your come back that there is no scientific proof against the existence of a god is a different thing and really has nothing to do with the fact that there is no positive evidence for the existence of a god.
Using Russel's teapot as the example here - It is true that there is no positive evidence for the existence of the teapot. But it is also true that science has not disproved the existence of the teapot. Both are true statements. The second does not disprove the first, which is what you seem to be arguing.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
CCC, The dichotomy is only in your head. Theist can be evolutionists. So what? There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that "god did it", or that "god was the designer of the process". That people of religion believe in evolution and further the supporting work thereof does not make the evidence supported theory any less relevant. But to science, the unsupported assertions about god are irrelevant, and if they try to inject unsupported conclusions or hypothesis into their evolution work at the academic.scientific level, I would expect them to be called out for it.. See Spotlight's response to Ceeboo.
Last edited by Guest on Wed May 18, 2016 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
CCC wrote:My religion says why God did it, and science tells me how.
The LDS religion states that we came from Adam and Eve which is not in accordance with current science's "how". Some theists can imagine that Adam and Eve are not literal. Mormons don't have that luxury.
Some one had to be the first of what God calls his children. What man calls man is a different subject.
SteelHead wrote:CCC, The dichotomy is only in your head. Theist can be evolutionists. So what? There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that "god did it", or that "god was the designer of the process". That people of religion believe in evolution and further the supporting work thereof does not make the evidence supported theory any less relevant. But to science, the unsupported assertions about god are irrelevant, and if they try to inject unsupported conclusions or hypothesis into their evolution work at the academic.scientific level, I would expect them to be called out for it.. See Spotlight's response to Ceeboo.
SteelHead wrote:CCC, The dichotomy is only in your head. Theist can be evolutionists. So what? There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that "god did it", or that "god was the designer of the process". That people of religion believe in evolution and further the supporting work thereof does not make the evidence supported theory any less relevant. But to science, the unsupported assertions about god are irrelevant, and if they try to inject unsupported conclusions or hypothesis into their evolution work at the academic.scientific level, I would expect them to be called out for it.. See Spotlight's response to Ceeboo.
Science is science. It is not ruled over by any law that stipulates it has to remain agnostic. That would be putting the cart before the horse and then it would no longer be science.
The reason it is agnostic is because the possible imagined deities are endless in extent and nature and can always be imagined to exist beyond the reach of current science. For this reason and this reason alone we are forced to say science is agnostic. It is also agnostic with respect to Russel's teapot. Big deal. That is not much of an argument for deities or the teapot.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Yes science is agnostic (it should evaluate all claims utlizing the same methodologies without bias), scientist are not always. If and when scientists throw religious beliefs into the mix of science they should expect to be called on it.
There is however, no evidence that one can point to for the hypothesis that god did it, is the root cause of, or is in anyway involved in the universe. If there is physical, objective evidence of such, then science is a tool that can be employed to evaluate the evidence. Barring the production of said evidence, we are back to Russel's teapot. Anyone can make any kind of unverifiable, unfalsifiable claim. Such claims are pretty much empty and without worth, until evidence and a methodology are produced that can be objectively and repeatedly validated to verify the claim.
Last edited by Guest on Wed May 18, 2016 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
CCC wrote:Some one had to be the first of what God calls his children.
That is a statement of faith. I note that it is rather vague and lacking in detail. Could it be that when you attempt to nail down the details that it all falls apart? I have not seen any coherent explanation yet that ties a literal Adam and Eve together with the facts of science. But to my surprise you may be the first. Of course you will have to supply the details and show how they accord with all of the presently known facts into a coherent model without inconsistencies.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Science is science. It is not ruled over by any law that stipulates it has to remain agnostic. That would be putting the cart before the horse and then it would no longer be science.
The reason it is agnostic is because the possible imagined deities are endless in extent and nature and can always be imagined to exist beyond the reach of current science. For this reason and this reason alone we are forced to say science is agnostic. It is also agnostic with respect to Russel's teapot. Big deal. That is not much of an argument for deities or the teapot.
What science does is view religion through the lens of sociology, anthropology and other disciplines, and develop models that seek to show relationships between and commonality among religions. In many ways the content of beliefs and texts is arbitrary. The most robust systems function irrelevant of content, thereby allowing them to adapt without ideological conflicts and to "self-heal" after divisions and contradictions. Apologetics and selective memory can take care of many problems...if one is unskeptical.