Truth, and truth creation.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

What do you think about science?

Science is generally a guide to truth.
7
100%
Science is generally a departure from truth.
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Truth, and truth creation.

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Truth, and truth creation.

Post #11

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #10]
Give an example of any scientific observation that supports this belief. That is, the actual existence of a Creator God. I don't know of even one such observation that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. You are correct that theologians believe that a Creator God exists, but to my knowledge a belief (faith) is as far as it goes.
You have do not have evidence that there is not a creator of God. You say there is no evidence of God. But you do not mention what type of evidence would prove that there is God. What would an Omnipresent life form look like? Would an Omnipresent life form even reflect or interact with electromagnetic waves? How could a test be made to test for a being that was present not only at every place in the universe but at every time in the universe?

You seem to have a philosophical belief that the universe created itself. But the real question of this string is when do philosophical ideas become a religion. You seem to be unwavering in your faith that science will one day come up with the answer for the origin of life and the universe. Even to the point of denying all of our known science today. It is impossible for nothing to create anything, so that means that there has to be something that is eternal. And yet you have unwavering faith that science will be able to defy the laws of nature and create something out of nothing.

You have a belief in the central core ideas of the philosophical ideas of natrualism.

Naturalism: The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/naturalism

All science can do is tell us what is going on right now in the world. We can observe that the world still exists in 2020 and we can examine the processes that are occurring right now. That is all science can do. Then you use your religious belief of naturalism to interpret the observations made in the science realm and I use theology to interpret the observations made in the science realm. Why would I believe that your religion would be superior to mine? When naturalism breaks all kinds of laws that we know exist today.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Truth, and truth creation.

Post #12

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #12]
You have do not have evidence that there is not a creator of God. You say there is no evidence of God. But you do not mention what type of evidence would prove that there is God. What would an Omnipresent life form look like? Would an Omnipresent life form even reflect or interact with electromagnetic waves? How could a test be made to test for a being that was present not only at every place in the universe but at every time in the universe?
I could say the same things about any imaginary being invented by humans. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist, so why believe that they do? If one appeared somewhere that would be proof of their existence, and if any one of the thousands of gods that humans have invented made itself known in some concrete way then that god would clearly exist. But short of that there is no reason to believe that these beings are real. Presumably you believe the description in Genesis that that particular god created man "in his image." If that were true, then this particular god would be a tetrapod and resemble a human, correct? If not, then what does "in his image" mean?

Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

I read this as suggesting that the god of Genesis resembles a human being, but you apparently do not believe that?
You seem to have a philosophical belief that the universe created itself.
I've never made such a statement here. I don't have any particular beliefs about how the universe came to be and don't spend any time thinking about it. I'm familiar with the Big Bang and that it has some support from observations and physics, but if that isn't the correct explanation who cares? That subject has zero impact on me or anything I've ever done or ever will do, so it is irrelevant to me entirely apart from a passing interest in science in general. You keep suggesting that the issue is somehow important to everyday life in 2020 for some reason, or that it plays into how people view the world or life. Must be some religious angle that I just don't understand. It happened, by some mechanism, and we are here.
Naturalism: The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Correct ... I'd be a naturalist under that definition. The supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, and until that changes I will continue to be convinced that it does not exist (and gods are supernatural entities).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Truth, and truth creation.

Post #13

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #13]
I could say the same things about any imaginary being invented by humans. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist, so why believe that they do? If one appeared somewhere that would be proof of their existence, and if any one of the thousands of gods that humans have invented made itself known in some concrete way then that god would clearly exist. But short of that there is no reason to believe that these beings are real. Presumably, you believe the description in Genesis that that particular god created man "in his image." If that were true, then this particular god would be a tetrapod and resemble a human, correct? If not, then what does "in his image" mean?

Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

I read this as suggesting that the god of Genesis resembles a human being, but you apparently do not believe that?
Man's physical body could not possibly be what made in the image of God means because the body of man is just like every other animal that is on this planet physically. If the physical body of man is what is being spoken of then all animals would be made in the image of God and that is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that only man is made in the image of God. A man was made of the same stuff that every other animal was made of. God made a man out of the dust of the ground. What makes man different than the rest of the animal kingdom is that God breathed into man and he became a living soul or a living spirit like God. This is why Christians believe that man is different than the rest of the animal kingdom. We are living souls or spirits that God made and will exist forever as God has always existed.

So, man, is a spirit like God is a spirit. So I ask you again what test are you using to say there is no God. What are you observing that says that there is no God. A corpuscle body that will reflect electromagnetic waves? How is this even possible when both electromagnetic waves and a corpuscle body need space to exist? Do you have a test that you are using to observe that there is no God?

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Truth, and truth creation.

Post #14

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:43 pm Man's physical body could not possibly be what made in the image of God means because the body of man is just like every other animal that is on this planet physically.
When the Bible says something that doesn't make sense, just invent an alternative scenario to try and fix the problem. It's a bit like forcing square pegs into round holes using a hammer. God made man out of dust. God made man in his image. The physical image of man is the image of God. Early humans probably viewed themselves as special and apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and decided that they were made like their imagined God.

Why did this deity have to use dust to make man when he created the entire universe from nothing? Seeing dead bodies disappear into dust probably fueled that impression. The idea of spirits and the spirit world could have arisen from people interpreting the dreams they had that included seeing people who had died. Elaboration and exaggeration over time leave us with the stories that some people view as true events from the distant past.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Truth, and truth creation.

Post #15

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #14]
So I ask you again what test are you using to say there is no God. What are you observing that says that there is no God. A corpuscle body that will reflect electromagnetic waves? How is this even possible when both electromagnetic waves and a corpuscle body need space to exist? Do you have a test that you are using to observe that there is no God?
I'm not using any test or observation to arrive at my belief that gods are not real entities. There is simply no evidence for them of any kind, and that is why I am an atheist. I do not claim that gods don't exist, simply that I don't believe that they exist due to the lack of any convincing evidence. That is what atheism is ... the lack of belief in gods, not a denial of gods. Show me some convincing evidence that the god you believe in exists, or any of the other thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia, and I'll change my mind. But short of that, I'll continue to believe that these beings are imaginary, existing only in the minds of their believers.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

blackstart
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:23 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Truth, and truth creation.

Post #16

Post by blackstart »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:43 pm [Replying to DrNoGods in post #13
So I ask you again what test are you using to say there is no God. What are you observing that says that there is no God. A corpuscle body that will reflect electromagnetic waves? How is this even possible when both electromagnetic waves and a corpuscle body need space to exist? Do you have a test that you are using to observe that there is no God?
I see no evidence for the existence of God. The only methodology I can employ as evidence which is objective, or more accurately, intersubjective, is scientific evidence. That does not mean that God does not exist, and that there isn't an alternative methodology, it simply means that I am not aware of any, remembering that faith and belief are not methods, except in the restricted sense of being true for you. The burden of proof is therefore upon those who state that God exists. In the absence of any methodology, and taking into account the lack of evidence from the natural world, I have no belief in any god(S).

Post Reply