Did Nothing Create Everything?

[exchemist]

That is about where I thought we were. So If someone tells me that Abiogenesis has been proven or is absolute, they are lying to me because there really is no evidence for it, or especially for how it happened.

No. Read post 134. Abiogenesis is unarguable. There was no life and now there is. So it arose. Abiogenesis just means the arising of life. The term does not prejudge how, in any way at all.

You would be right to say anyone claiming we have a theory of it must be misinformed.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

No. Read post 134. Abiogenesis is unarguable. There was no life and now there is. So it arose. Abiogenesis just means the arising of life. The term does not prejudge how, in any way at all.

You would be right to say anyone claiming we have a theory of it must be misinformed.

Ok, Cool! Thanks So Much!

 

[exchemist]

Ok, Cool! Thanks So Much!

So far so good.

Now, in science, we assume, I say assume, that life arose by a natural process. We do this because that is what science does: it employs methodological naturalism.

That does NOT mean we are all atheists, please note. It is simply the method of understanding the physical world that led to the emergence of modern science after the Renaissance. For centuries and even today a great many scientists have been religious believers. But what they never do is resort to inserting God into their theories whenever they come across an intractable problem.

That is one of the things that makes ID not science.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

So far so good.

Now, in science, we assume, I say assume, that life arose by a natural process. We do this because that is what science does: it employs methodological naturalism.

That does NOT mean we are all atheists, please note. It is simply the method of understanding the physical world that led to the emergence of modern science after the Renaissance. For centuries and even today a great many scientists have been religious believers. But what they never do is resort to inserting God into their theories whenever they come across an intractable problem.

That is one of the things that makes ID not science.

So it would appear to me that Science assumes that God never acts in history, because of its method of investigation. Which is what I have always thought it did.

If God is real and He does act in history, isn’t Science going to be blind to that hypothesis?

And if children buy into the philosophy of Naturalism at an early age, like they are programmed to do in the U.S., isn’t that potentially blinding them to a large part of reality?

All of this is based on the premise that God does act in history, which is something else that we would need evidence for.

Seems like, if there is evidence for God, Science would be totally blind to it, by design.

Perhaps that is why I keep getting... there is no evidence for God, because science does not allow any evidence for God to exist, so whatever evidence you think you have, can’t be evidence for God, because science does not allow any evidence for God to exist... to infinity and beyond!

Does not seem like great logic to me, anyway.

What Say You?

 

[Jeeves]

So it would appear to me that Science assumes

Then it appears to you inaccurately.
Science does not assume. Science is incapable of actions and thoughts. Science is a method for investigating reality.
Only people can assume anything, and i very much doubt you are a judge of which other person assumes what.

Seems like, if there is evidence for God, Science would be totally blind to it, by design.

Science cannot be either blind or sighted. It is a methodology employed by people.
If you mean that science is not a useful method for investigating unreality, you are correct.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Then it appears to you inaccurately.
Science does not assume. Science is incapable of actions and thoughts. Science is a method for investigating reality.
Only people can assume anything, and i very much doubt you are a judge of which other person assumes what.



Science cannot be either blind or sighted. It is a methodology employed by people.
If you mean that science is not a useful method for investigating unreality, you are correct.

I agree, I can’t judge anyone!

So you’re telling me that the God hypothesis is fine in Science?

 

[Seattle]

Any hypothesis is fine. Then comes the evidence, reproducible aspect as well as the ability to falsify. All that is missing with the God hypothesis.

 

[exchemist]

So it would appear to me that Science assumes that God never acts in history, because of its method of investigation. Which is what I have always thought it did.

If God is real and He does act in history, isn’t Science going to be blind to that hypothesis?

And if children buy into the philosophy of Naturalism at an early age, like they are programmed to do in the U.S., isn’t that potentially blinding them to a large part of reality?

All of this is based on the premise that God does act in history, which is something else that we would need evidence for.

Seems like, if there is evidence for God, Science would be totally blind to it, by design.

Perhaps that is why I keep getting... there is no evidence for God, because science does not allow any evidence for God to exist, so whatever evidence you think you have, can’t be evidence for God, because science does not allow any evidence for God to exist... to infinity and beyond!

Does not seem like great logic to me, anyway.

What Say You?

I think that is partly right.

One issue is what it means to say God acts in history. The religiously inclined scientist will probably think He does so by means of the laws of nature. So for example it is a fairly standard Catholic position (I think) to say that life was created by God through the operation of those laws, rather than by supernatural tinkering to override nature, as if it were a badly made car or something.

Einstein seems to have inclined towards the views of Spinoza, a fellow Jew, who considered that nature or its laws ARE God. I think that is an interesting idea, in fact. I was very struck, when learning statistical thermodynamics at university, how the laws of nature, operating on purely random behaviour of atoms and molecules, produce ordered behaviour at the macro level. So order is brought out of chaos by the rules that govern matter and radiation.

However if by God acting in history you mean the biblical miracles, then you are right that science has no place for them within its thought. But so what? There are plenty of aspects of human experience that science has little or nothing to say about.

And lastly, although I do not live in the USA, I would be very much surprised if the schools teach physicalism. Surely subjects such as literature and the arts should give children the idea that there may be more to human experience than the mere study of nature, and thereby at least leave the issue open. Though I realise there is no religious knowledge study in the USA. I think that is a pity. In the UK there is scope to discuss the sort of issues you and I have been debating and I think that is a good thing.

 

[exchemist]

I agree, I can’t judge anyone!

So you’re telling me that the God hypothesis is fine in Science?

Not exactly. The God hypothesis is not a scientific one, so science ignores it and is silent about it. This is because it is not a testable and potentially falsifiable hypothesis cf. Popper.

Science can only say, about unscientific ideas, that they are unscientific. They may still have value to humanity, but they are not helpful in the scientific understanding of nature.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I think that is partly right.

One issue is what it means to say God acts in history. The religiously inclined scientist will probably think He does so by means of the laws of nature. So for example it is a fairly standard Catholic position (I think) to say that life was created by God through the operation of those laws, rather than by supernatural tinkering to override nature, as if it were a badly made car or something.

Einstein seems to have inclined towards the views of Spinoza, a fellow Jew, who considered that nature or its laws ARE God. I think that is an interesting idea, in fact. I was very struck, when learning statistical thermodynamics at university, how the laws of nature, operating on purely random behaviour of atoms and molecules, produce ordered behaviour at the macro level. So order is brought out of chaos by the rules that govern matter and radiation.

However if by God acting in history you mean the biblical miracles, then you are right that science has no place for them within its thought. But so what? There are plenty of aspects of human experience that science has little or nothing to say about.

And lastly, although I do not live in the USA, I would be very much surprised if the schools teach physicalism. Surely subjects such as literature and the arts should give children the idea that there may be more to human experience than the mere study of nature, and thereby at least leave the issue open. Though I realise there is no religious knowledge study in the USA. I think that is a pity. In the UK there is scope to discuss the sort of issues you and I have been debating and I think that is a good thing.

Thank you so much for the conversation!

So basically, if I know of a real mountain that exists on the Earth right now that anyone can go to and see and study for themselves, and that scientists can study and critique in any way they wish to, which is apparently directly tied to events described in the Bible, where God appeared to mankind and left evidence on the ground from His presence, is that a possible source of evidence for God or is something about that not scientific evidence?

It still seems like, because of the limitations of its assumptions, that the Science community would have to be self-blinded to this.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you so much for the conversation!

So basically, if I know of a real mountain that exists on the Earth right now that anyone can go to and see and study for themselves, and that scientists can study and critique in any way they wish to, which is apparently directly tied to events described in the Bible, where God appeared to mankind and left evidence on the ground from His presence, is that a possible source of evidence for God or is something about that not scientific evidence?

It still seems like, because of the limitations of its assumptions, that the Science community would have to be self blinded to it.

Hmm, your scenario is problematic, though. What would make an observation made at this mountain attributable to evidence of G0d? Who would decide it was evidence of God and on what criteria?

You see, I don’t think you can come up with objective criteria for determining this. It would just be a matter of personal opinion, wouldn’t it?

 

[Seattle]

I think that is partly right.

One issue is what it means to say God acts in history. The religiously inclined scientist will probably think He does so by means of the laws of nature. So for example it is a fairly standard Catholic position (I think) to say that life was created by God through the operation of those laws, rather than by supernatural tinkering to override nature, as if it were a badly made car or something.

Einstein seems to have inclined towards the views of Spinoza, a fellow Jew, who considered that nature or its laws ARE God. I think that is an interesting idea, in fact. I was very struck, when learning statistical thermodynamics at university, how the laws of nature, operating on purely random behaviour of atoms and molecules, produce ordered behaviour at the macro level. So order is brought out of chaos by the rules that govern matter and radiation.

However if by God acting in history you mean the biblical miracles, then you are right that science has no place for them within its thought. But so what? There are plenty of aspects of human experience that science has little or nothing to say about.

And lastly, although I do not live in the USA, I would be very much surprised if the schools teach physicalism. Surely subjects such as literature and the arts should give children the idea that there may be more to human experience than the mere study of nature, and thereby at least leave the issue open. Though I realise there is no religious knowledge study in the USA. I think that is a pity. In the UK there is scope to discuss the sort of issues you and I have been debating and I think that is a good thing.

 

[wegs]

The Bible isn’t a science text book, Seti. It’s a religious text to share stories from ancient civilizations as to their experiences and perspectives of God. The fact that there are tangible geographical places that serve as the backdrop to those stories, doesn’t offer a conclusive argument as to the existence of God.

 

[Seattle]

There is plenty of religious study in the U.S. There are many lower cost private Catholic schools (high schools). In college a liberal arts major likely will have a coarse in comparative religions or perhaps even in some public high schools.

 

[exchemist]

There is plenty of religious study in the U.S. There are many lower cost private Catholic schools (high schools). In college a liberal arts major likely will have a coarse in comparative religions or perhaps even in some public high schools.

OK that makes sense. So indeed there is no indoctrination with physicalism, as suggested by SetiAlpha6.

 

[davewhite04]

I was thinking about...

The belief that there was once absolutely nothing. And that nothing happened to that nothing for an eternity until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating time, everything, and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself into highly organized molecular elements (again, for no reason whatsoever), and then into extremely complex self-replicating molecular bio-machines which then turned into dinosaurs. And all of the trillions of processes needed to pull all of this off had to defy entropy on a scale never before seen in empirical science.

If someone actually believes this, I would like to see them offer some empirical proof for it.

Is that a crazy thing to ask for?

I believe our universe is a frog that is ready to leave the pond. Obviously not all universes survive as there are predators in the pond(fish). This world that the frog(our universe) is impossible to conceptualise.

So is your question.

My opinion? Nothing came from two separate entities to create something, our universe and life.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Hmm, your scenario is problematic, though. What would make an observation made at this mountain attributable to evidence of G0d? Who would decide it was evidence of God and on what criteria?

You see, I don’t think you can come up with objective criteria for determining this. It would just be a matter of personal opinion, wouldn’t it?

There are at least three different locations, I know of, where the presence of God may have directly altered the physical surface of the Earth in the vicinity of the mountain.

All three are described in more or less detail, depending on the event, in the Bible.

One in particular, the Split Rock, has a chance to either blow people’s minds apart, or just be classified as a natural phenomenon, depending on how the analysis scientifically plays out.

I don’t want anyone to take my word for anything!

Saudi Arabia has just opened their country up to tourism, so people can visit the sites.

And there have already been a few scientists studying these locations for a few years now, but the sites need much more study.

So there are a few rebel scientists already investigating the site. The site is massive!

Perhaps they could tell me where the Rebel Base is?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I know I sound crazy!!!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

OK that makes sense. So indeed there is no indoctrination with physicalism, as suggested by SetiAlpha6.

I think there is some, a lot of people can’t afford to send their children to private schools, as you might guess.

I deliberately sent my 3 children to public schools because I wanted them to be exposed to everything in our society, because they would eventually have to make their own decisions about it all anyway.

I don’t want children force fed any particular religion in public schools either.

 

[Seattle]

I went to public school. Comparative religion is studying the various religions and not implying that they are real. It's just a fact that there are various religions and they each have certain core beliefs.

You can study communism without espousing communism. It's called comparative politics.