Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'

---

we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'

---

we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
... On their view, such evidence is impossible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
... On their view, such evidence is impossible.

---

I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

---

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Science is the realm that wants to know how the universe works. Religion is the realm that wants to know what created it in the first place. The two do _not_ overlap.

Basically, there is two DIFFERENT problem domains, with two DIFFERENT solution spaces.

Problems only occur when people don't realize this.

Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm a fairly content materialist, yet I believe in the existence of gods. The thing to understand is that gods, in general, aren't material entities, so there's no point in looking for evidence of them in direct material terms. Evidence for the existence of gods is all around us, its just not extoplasm or anything physical.

---

Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
In addition to this, of course, is Bertrand Russell's famous quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

---

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either.

---

Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Amen! Tell it, brother!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

---

Quote:

---

posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.

---

Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
they'd be busy looking for the natural (and not the supernatural) cause of the phenomenon.

---

You're presupposing that God isn't natural. Are you sure about that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

posted by SigmaNunki- Hell, even the Pope said evolution does _not_ interfere with creationism. And the Catholics aren't exactly not stubborn when it comes to these things. This is something that shouldn't be ignored.

---

i politely disagree with that, the two are in fact not at all compatible(from a christians standpoint). the various theories of evolution can exist within the scope of ID, but not Creationism. the most obvious contradiction is that Moses himself wrote that seven days was a significant period of time because God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh, thereby establishing our 'week'. God created man in his likeness, and gave us dominion over all the species of earth. it never says we came from primates. certainly we all share the same design(er), and material componants.. but we do not share a common ancestor. beyond that, evolution could not account for our fall from Eden, or our future redemption at the coming of the Lord.

the Catholic church is not a credible source to me, for many reasons.. but i recently read a book written in 1884 entintled "the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan", and it listed an entire page of doctrines completely invented by the Roman church(a few hundred ATLEAST). its an incredible history, which in the end is not favorable to Gods message. and i apologize, i am not criticizing catholics per se but the institution surrounding them

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Is the evidence you speak of evidence that a 'scientist' would accept? Keep in mind the 'their' is a reference to scientists'. If so, perhaps if you cited an instance of the sort of evidence you believe exists that scientists would recognize?

---

I think so. I don't want to be coy, so I'll say up front that I'm not coming at this from a typical religious point of view.

I've come to see religion much differently than I once did. I'm now convinced that gods are very real entities. They exist in the minds and wills of all of their followers.

---

Quote:

---

That probably sounds like cop-out and not at all like real 'belief', but think about it. What I'm getting at is much different than saying that god is imaginary. I'm saying that religious concepts like 'god' are entities in their own right. To the extent that believers maintain a cohesive understanding of their god, that god exists and effects its will upon the world through the actions of its followers. These gods have evolved efficient means of reproduction and react negatively to attempts to remove them from their hosts. They're very much living entities.

SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Hell, suppose that there is a God. Suppose further that it was God that healed Jones. The good scientific thinker doesn't even have that as a category in his thinking--how could he ever find "evidence" for God's existence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Dave,

You've missed my point spectacularly.

---

Not really. Merely pointing out the natural corollary to the line you quoted.

---

But you're reacting to a claim I never made.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:
No, just pointing out the alternative interpretation that you seem to have glossed over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

And since the standard of scientific evidence is limited to that which is empirically observable, I don't think that there can be that sort of evidence, because I take God not to be empirically observable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

The reason for this seems to be that good scientific thinkers presuppose that no matter what the phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural explanation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The First Amendment prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government, teaching a religion in public schools is the government promoting a religion.

---

until as recently as the 1960s, we still had bible study and prayer in schools.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Now that’s something I don’t understand, myself, as someone who is not an atheist. If God is said to be “all powerful, all knowing, eternal and infinite” the such a God could include the attributes of a “personal God” but such a God would also have to include infintely more than that.

---

The philosophical argument there tends to go that personality is defined by limitations and god is defined by lack of limitations and therefore god cannot have personal attributes. I can’t explain it very well since I don’t believe it and have never heard anyone explain it well myself, but Smith goes into it in Atheism: The Case… if you’re interested in it.

The scientific argument, however, is quite a bit stronger. The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [no] interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe and does not interact with this universe through miracles, answered prayers, writing holy books, etc. If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things, and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
You said yes, but I would say based on your description, 'no'.

---

Quote:

---

If we can weigh someone before and after the removal of the god, and nothing else is changed, would the hosts' weight change? If yes, then that is evidence that a scientist would likely accept...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I was 'with' you up to that part. I am not sure that a 'good scientific thinker' -always- does not have such a category, for instance the Catholic Church has investigators they send to examine miracles; and I am very confident these folks are good scientific thinkers; but they are prepared to classify as miracles those things which science cannot explain. Or have I missed a key point? (I will agree that if you have a firmly atheistic scientist investigating, he clearly would not have such a category; but not all scientists are atheist (I'll even speculate that most are not).

---

Well...I think you may be right. Actually, I'll say I think you are right. I suppose that I'm jaded from the parry and thrust of debate, where things are more divisive, and the positions look clearer. It's that damned real world stuff, I hate, where things aren't as neat as theory can make them! I guess the main thing, though is the methodological naturalism part. If one really buys completely into it, then there's no question science can't answer. Of course, being that I'm on the campus, I do know a few guys in the hard sciences who also believe that there's a god. I'd like to know how one could go about their science looking for natural explanations whilst also making room for god and miracles. (Seriously, if anyone on the boards is a religious believer and a scientist, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

---

Quote:

---

Also, I know I owe you an email, Lead. I'll try to pick that up so we can get back into our conversation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Think of god as sophisticated 'program' that has evolved to propagate it's existence through human minds.

As a point of reference, I came to this idea after reading several books on human consciousness. The theories that intrigued me the most were those that posit the human soul (or 'self', or whatever you refer to when you say 'I') to be be, essentially, a specific type of information laden pattern in a human brain. In other words, you an I are real in the same way that I'm claiming gods are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:

Quote:

---

Now that’s something I don’t understand, myself, as someone who is not an atheist. If God is said to be “all powerful, all knowing, eternal and infinite” the such a God could include the attributes of a “personal God” but such a God would also have to include infintely more than that.

---

The philosophical argument there tends to go that personality is defined by limitations and god is defined by lack of limitations and therefore god cannot have personal attributes. I can’t explain it very well since I don’t believe it and have never heard anyone explain it well myself, but Smith goes into it in Atheism: The Case… if you’re interested in it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The scientific argument, however, is quite a bit stronger. The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have [ no ] interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god, you are claiming that the god is not a part of this universe and does not interact with this universe through miracles, answered prayers, writing holy books, etc. If you have a personal god, it must be doing at least one of these things, and so is interacting with the universe, and so is scientifically testable.

---

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, it's difficult to make any progress with "God works in mysterious ways" counter-arguments, which is why science tends to leave this stuff alone in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
to say i interpret the bible "literally" is deceptive. there is no way you could interpret Revelations or the book of Daniel, or the book of Enoch literally. but the message throughout is clear that you cant just pick and choose what you want to believe, and what fits in comfortably to your current understanding... because it does have a consistent message, and certain things are very specific for a reason. also, people assume the evidence refutes young earth Creationism, and ive heard some pretty good arguments in its favor. so dont assume references like "a thousand years is like a day to the lord", and vice versa contradict a literal interpretation.. because that is quite a different context then "on the first day" God created...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I'd replace 'hatred' with 'anger' (though I suppose it probably does get to that at times).

There's at least two schools of Fundamentalist teaching directly threatened by evolution; both driven by a literal (or at least 'more literal' than most) interpretation of the Bible.

1: Creationism; which basically dictates that God created the world 'as is', and evolution does not fit well into that unless you start taking some steps down the road of accepting the story as allegory.

2: Young Earth; which basically states the world is only 10,000 years old. This ties into an interpretation of the genealogy presented in the bible, plus a tie into 'known history' where that genealogy leaves off. Assuming the 7 day creation story is literally true + that time span, it gives you about 10,000 years, give or take a couple thousand years. Obviously, a theory of evolution, or any of the generally accepted astronomically based age assessments of the visible universe, you are going to run into significant contradictions.

Any time a basic belief like this is 'threatened' you will get a strong reaction, you may get either anger or perhaps even hate. At the very least, a highly probable 'intense statement of disagreement'.

Note: I do not subscribe to either position above; and if I've misstated either, am quite open to correction.

---

Quote:

---

posted by Casual- Yes, but the Hebrew word yom (which is interpreted "day" in English translations) can mean (1) a 24-hour period; (2) the 12-hour period of daylight; or (3) a long but finite period of time (see Gen 2:4). Who's to say that definition (3) isn't the correct interpretation?

---

Quote:

---

You demand that we interpret Genesis 1 in a concrete-literal fashion, but it's not at all clear that that's the way we should interpret it. St Augustine, for example, thought God created the earth fully formed in one infinitely brief moment. Why demand your own young-earth interpretation as if that's the only possible interpretation?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally. in my mind i am completely open, i just like to present the 'other side', which doesnt always receive focus

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that such a position, even if accurate (again, I'd be saying this for my own faith position as well), is not one well suited for providing scientific evidence in the tradition of the scientific method.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
If you can come up with an approach you believe would produce scientific evidence, I'm all ears.

---

Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved. But is there any evidence, evidence of the kind you're demanding for gods, of their existence? It's seems you're fixating on gods as material entities and rejecting them altogether if their material existence can't be shown. If that's the case, I'd have to agree - we won't find ectoplasm or any other kind of 'godstuff' that we can study under a microscope. I don't, however, think that means the topic is out of bounds for scientific inquiry.

SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I think the funny thing here is, once we sort out our difference; it will not be as much a difference in belief about religion as it is a difference in our understanding of the bounds of scientific inquiry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
im not demanding, im asking people to consider all ID(or creationist)possibilites somewhat equally.

---