Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Spotlight!

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.

You did read his post, yes?

What I got was a statement, a correct one at that,

What you got doesn't seem to be what he offered. And no, it was and is not a correct one at that.

there is no positive evidence for the existence of a god. That is true.

Your statement is correct.

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.

Huh????

My "comeback" has everything to do with the post that I was addressing. I even bolded it.

Now go, in peace, and sin no more!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_SteelHead]

Ceeboo,
What is the difference in the claims:
"God created the universe"
and
"There is a teapot in orbit around Venus 100 miles up"

To the way I should conduct my life?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey SH!

Ceeboo,
What is the difference in the claims:
"God created the universe"
and
"There is a teapot in orbit around Venus 100 miles up"

There is exactly no difference between the two claims. They are both equally not provable (as it stands today) and they are both mere beliefs.

To the way I should conduct my life?

That's a very personal thing.
If we are talking about the teapot, I don't think it has any impact on how you should conduct your life.
If we are talking about a Creator, then I would suggest that it ought to at least bring a moment of pause and/or reflection concerning how we conduct our lives.

Good to see you!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_SteelHead]

Ceeboo,
If they are both equally un-evidenced, why should one be given more value to how I conduct my life than the other? Why should one cause me to pause, and the other not?

[_spotlight]

What you got doesn't seem to be what he offered. And no, it was and is not a correct one at that.

Well let's take a look.

What science actually says is that there is no evidence whatsoever that any deity (and especially the Mormon Elohim of flesh and bone) was, or indeed could possibly have been, involved in the creation, or continuing function, of the universe.

His statement says there is no positive evidence.

And if it is not a "correct one at that" then please direct me to this positive evidence.

My "comeback" has everything to do with the post that I was addressing. I even bolded it.

Let me simplify DrW's sentence:

There is no positive evidence that a god could possibly have been involved in the creation of the universe.

The subject of the sentence is about positive evidence. The sentence is not equivalent to the following sentence:

A god could not possibly have been involved in the creation of the universe.

[_DrW]

My dear friend, DrW, 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."

Really!?

My Dear Friend Ceeboo,

Gravity and dark energy make it impossible that there could have been a Creator as you describe, especially one that in any way remains involved with the evolution and function of the universe.

We know now that the vast amount of space between local galactic clusters is expanding so rapidly that any source of information originating from our local cluster would never (could never) reach any of the more distant local clusters.

While the local speed of light remains as it always was (3.0 x 10^10 cm/sec.), the distance between the galactic cluster islands of matter in the universe is now so vast, and space is expanding so rapidly (71 km/sec/megaparsec), that many galaxies are now receding at a velocity that is approaching, or even greater than, the speed of light (and useful information cannot travel faster than the speed of light).

Therefore, information / spirit / or any kind if intended influence or control originating in our local galactic cluster, or in countless galaxies, could never reach most of the other galaxies in the universe.

If information cannot physically reach a given point in space, then no control over that point in space can be exercised.

Having taken care of a the idea of a personal God and theism in general - what about Deism? What about a God who created the universe and then lost interest and left it to evolve naturally (just as we observe it today) - the God of our American forefathers?

Again, science says no. Such a God would have to be imagined to exist outside of space and time. But existence outside of space and time is exactly that - an imagination. As I have explained before on this board, things that may exist outside of this universe (exclusive of the space and time associated with this universe) can have no influence whatsoever in this universe.

I understand that religionists don't want to hear it, but that's what the science says.

Of course, the guys who sat down in the First Council of Nicaea in 325 to make up Christianity had no way to know this, so they went ahead and decided on a God that was uncreated, but was yet the creator of everything, seen and unseen, in heaven and on earth. This (purely nonsensical) God came solely from their collective imagination, and their interpretation of what earlier folks, also ignorant of reality, had themselves imagined and written down. And what the world got was (yet another) imaginary deity.

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.

Please see explanation above.

Now, if an individual scientist would like to offer his/her personal opinion/belief on such a topic, I have no problem with that at all. Speak away.

Just own them - like most of us do - for what they are - personal beliefs/opinion.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Again, please see explanation above.

If you want references backing up what I have said above, I can supply as many references as you can possibly read. And on this board, I am quite confident that folks like Spotlight, Gunnar, SteelHead, Chap, Maksutov, and any number of other scientifically literate members would respond to your comments above with this, or similar, lines of evidence showing that science simply rejects the supernatural.

This is not on personal grounds or as a matter of opinion. It is simply what the data and the best models for describing the universe (again to a high degree of precision) tell us.

Finally, I trust that you will not respond with the claim that absence of evidence (for a supernatural friend) is not evidence of absence.

As I hope you recall, we handled that aphorism here back in May of 2015, and showed that it is simply wrong as well.

[_spotlight]

And then we have the consilience of evidence from neuroscience pointing to the fact that the brain is the total cause of mind. So no afterlife makes a god a moot point.

[_Franktalk]

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.

Since science limits itself to the natural world outside of the human mind it must by definition be limited to a study of those things of nature and not of God. Now some believe that God is found in nature. These people dance around naked in the forest and seek Gaia. I wonder if scientist do this? But for me God is defined as an intellect. We could discuss the details but this is not important for this post. Now for many they think that a physical mind is needed for an intellect to exist. I am not one of these people. So the real barrier to science is its reliance on the physical world. That is silly because they have violated this principle many times. I guess as long as it does not allow a god in the tent it is fine. Now the rules of science flow back and forth but the agenda of keeping god out is alive and working just like it did while Darwin and Hutton were finalizing their attack on religion. So your statement does not match the reality of the history of science. And from where I sit nothing will change going into the future.

[_Franktalk]

And then we have the consilience of evidence from neuroscience pointing to the fact that the brain is the total cause of mind. So no afterlife makes a god a moot point.

Really? Then by all means predict the thoughts in a human mind. If it is true as you say that we know enough to make that claim then by all means predict human thought. I would guess that the claims are again an overreach of science and have little to do with reality. Similar to global warming. And the claims made about Polar Bear populations over the last 20 years. Or dinosaurs with feathers.

[_Maksutov]

And then we have the consilience of evidence from neuroscience pointing to the fact that the brain is the total cause of mind. So no afterlife makes a god a moot point.

Frank still hasn't offered us anything applicable in our shared world that could only come from his inner journeys. So really, what we're all doing here is talking about Frank's feelings.



I think this pretty much covers it. I'm trying to see how this invalidates physics and evolution.