The Science of God

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Science of God

Unread postby phyllotaxis » Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:52 pm

An avowed atheist, MIT scholar, mathematician, chemist, attorney becomes a true believer by using the very tools that most commonly serve as a shield to such beliefs: science itself.

http://www.examiner.com/article/douglas ... rough-math

Excerpt:

One would expect science and Christianity to be like oil and water: strictly refusing to cohere. But Ell was surprised to find the opposite. After much reading on the topic between plane terminals and in crowded compartments, Ell found that Christianity drew the sciences together for him in seven distinct ways:

1.) Evidence for the beginning of the universe

2.) The apparent “fine tuning” of the universe

3.) The specified complexity of life, and the lack of any reasonable explanation for its origin

4.) The futuristic “technological” nature of life

5.) Evidence against Neo-Darwinian evolution

6.) The unique and special nature of Earth

7.) The universal language of Mathematics

Ell’s training in law had educated him in how to construct cogent and considerate arguments, and the more he considered it, the more science pointed toward God’s existence and the truth of Christianity. Finally, Ell accepted that Christianity must be true, and joined the community of the church he attended in earnest.

More than just joining them, however, Ell was excited to share how the existence of God – and truth of the Christian worldview – had brought together the sciences for him. Ell began speaking at his church and others about his developing argument for the truth of Christianity, based in science. As his message caught on, Ell sat down to truly work on his argument. The conclusions he came to were astounding.
User avatar
phyllotaxis
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby Pi sees » Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:54 pm

1.) Evidence for the beginning of the universe


Begging the question

2.) The apparent “fine tuning” of the universe


Puddle thinking

3.) The specified complexity of life, and the lack of any reasonable explanation for its origin


Argument from ignorance

4.) The futuristic “technological” nature of life[


Faulty analogy

5.) Evidence against Neo-Darwinian evolution


False dilemma

6.) The unique and special nature of Earth


Fallacy of exclusion

7.) The universal language of Mathematics


Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Pi sees
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby Pi sees » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:23 pm

Pi sees wrote:
1.) Evidence for the beginning of the universe


Begging the question


Also, special pleading
Pi sees
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:38 am

God is.

It can not be 'the science of god'. Whatever is meant by that...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby phyllotaxis » Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:20 pm

Pi-- it's always interesting to me when people make a meticulously put-together list of refutations, while making no actual positional statement regarding the topic of the refutation. Your entire post states that you believe the fallacies you list *answer* the assertions of the article's author-- but you do not actually do so.

Of course all of your referenced logical arguments exist unto themselves a priori, and can be relevant in a variety of contexts--but they are mutually exclusive to the existence of God (they do not apply, as you appear to believe, in refuting the fact of a higher intelligence being behind creation, but only towards your interpretation of the beliefs that some employ to assert the existence of God--which certainly can be flawed logic) but it's very important to make clear: you make no valid argument as to the existence of God one way or the other as far as your post goes--you simply list general types of logical mistakes that can be made philosophically in *any* argument/position (including atheism itself), and imply that these are "answers" to the assertions of the author when they are nothing of the kind.

This is a common way to dismiss a topic without actually talking about that topic.

The exact same elements you list, intending to make your point that God does *not* exist are applicable to the atheistic assertions themselves--
Begging questions: According to common beliefs, everything in the Universe and all history began in a "Big Bang". But before that, there was nothing. And then there was. With no catalyst, no before, no explanation. It's ignored.
Puddle thinking: Equally applicable to atheistic views--a fly banging against a window till death trying to escape a car doesn't understand it can not pass through glass, because it does not comprehend glass. It sees light, but can not pass. It does not know why. Atheism says that there is no inpenetrable higher intelligence (glass) aside our own, and therfore that there is no power capable of transcending consciousness in action beyond the measured physical. That we can/will answer every question if we just we "science" it hard. That there is no glass we can not penetrate. That is defining boundaries from the get-go, and the definition of puddle-thought (thanks for the D Adams reference--huge fan)
Argument from Ignorance: This exact statement can be made for atheistic belief.
Faulty Analogy: Because you can not see or envision the role/method of higher-plane Creation when looking at a microbe, you simply claim it is impossible writ large and not real under any and all other circumstances.
False Dilemma:Contrary of what your listing of this implies, the act of science building a conclusion against all other possibilities is exactly what pure science does. The author/topic of the article I linked to absolutely considered (and strongly believed in) atheistic interpretations for years--and continues studies with these arguments to compare. The selection of theism is not mutually exclusive to other possibilities, it is an educated belief in light of them--one can believe in something and seek answers while fully acknowledging that all the answers can not be had, and that contradictions must be accounted for. Regarding evolution in particular, there is voluminous evidence (even on this website) that no such thing (transmutation of species into different things) has ever occurred as generically believed by fragmentally-educated activists.
Fallacy of Exclusion: Think about this: just last week a study claimed that Earth is a one in 700 Quintillion occurrence. As in 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. If you don't consider that unique/special, your definition is not the same as a dictionary. Of course that number (by popular mainstream science--not "fringe" quacks) could be grossly wrong, and I one day look forward to meeting any local friendly space aliens that have been hiding in the shrubbery of outer space. Point is, the mechanics of how we came to be exclude nothing from consideration, but *include* the purpose of why. Theism as I understand it is a belief in a higher power, but that has nothing to do with the marketing of Jesus and God in white robes and judgmental beards.
Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: How you believe this applies to the universality of mathematical expression escapes me.

I hope this makes sense--and let me be clear: I know you will not be persuaded of anything I wrote above--in fact, you'll perhaps be annoyed that I don't accept your pasted links as a refutation of Creation. But others will hopefully see that you did not make any relevant statement at all about God, proving or disproving, only that you listed all the dismissive kinds of logical argument points next to a scientist's assertions without applying them to both theistic and atheistic points.


D_Archer--- The Science of God is just Science. If you believe that God is, then all of science is an exploration of God's creation, and the never-ending effort towards appreciation/understanding of the majesty of creation and our place in it. There has never been a natural division between God and Science-- only a "modern" one...the scientific method simply allows us to discover the facts that are the fabric of Creation, and increase our understanding of it all...

Kindest regards to you both,
User avatar
phyllotaxis
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:50 pm

All of the above posts appear to be predicated on the western Abrahamic notion of god. And to a lesser extent that it is an either there is such an entity or there is not, i.e. there is no other possibility allowed for.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby Pi sees » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:36 pm

phyllotaxis wrote:Pi-- it's always interesting to me when people make a meticulously put-together list of refutations, while making no actual positional statement regarding the topic of the refutation. Your entire post states that you believe the fallacies you list *answer* the assertions of the article's author-- but you do not actually do so.


What my posts states is that those assertions are examples of the fallacies I mentioned. None of those assertions are either new or impressive.

Of course all of your referenced logical arguments exist unto themselves a priori, and can be relevant in a variety of contexts--but they are mutually exclusive to the existence of God (they do not apply, as you appear to believe, in refuting the fact of a higher intelligence being behind creation, but only towards your interpretation of the beliefs that some employ to assert the existence of God--which certainly can be flawed logic)


Whether they are "mutually exclusive" to the existence of God or the "fact" of a Higher Intelligence is beside the point. The point is that the fallacious nature of the assertions render them invalid and therefore useless as arguments for the existence of God.

but it's very important to make clear: you make no valid argument as to the existence of God one way or the other as far as your post goes--you simply list general types of logical mistakes that can be made philosophically in *any* argument/position (including atheism itself), and imply that these are "answers" to the assertions of the author when they are nothing of the kind.


As anyone with decent reading comprehension can see, it was not my goal to make an argument with respect to the existence of God. My goal was to highlight that the assertions used to argue for the existence of God are based on faulty reasoning. As such, those assertions cannot be used to make any sort of logically sound case about the nature of reality.

This is a common way to dismiss a topic without actually talking about that topic.


If the assumptions of one side of a debate are demonstrably fallacious from the get-go, then it is pointless and irrational to have that debate.

The exact same elements you list, intending to make your point that God does *not* exist are applicable to the atheistic assertions themselves--


And here comes the Straw Man parade...

Begging questions: According to common beliefs, everything in the Universe and all history began in a "Big Bang". But before that, there was nothing. And then there was. With no catalyst, no before, no explanation. It's ignored.


Atheism =! belief in the Big Bang. There is *nothing* about atheism as a philosophical stance which necessitates belief in the Big Bang. Indeed there are atheists such as myself who reject the Big Bang precisely for the reason you describe (and also because it is a piece of Judeo-Christian theology which was surreptitiously smuggled into modern physics by a Catholic priest-astronomer).

Puddle thinking: Equally applicable to atheistic views--a fly banging against a window till death trying to escape a car doesn't understand it can not pass through glass, because it does not comprehend glass. It sees light, but can not pass. It does not know why. Atheism says that there is no inpenetrable higher intelligence (glass) aside our own, and therfore that there is no power capable of transcending consciousness in action beyond the measured physical. That we can/will answer every question if we just we "science" it hard. That there is no glass we can not penetrate. That is defining boundaries from the get-go, and the definition of puddle-thought (thanks for the D Adams reference--huge fan)


That is not what atheism says. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/s; it is a refusal to endorse the god/s hypothesis on the grounds of insufficient evidence, not the advancement or embrace of a hypothesis which definitively says "there are no gods". There is nothing about the atheist position which relies on puddle thinking.


Argument from Ignorance: This exact statement can be made for atheistic belief.


Wrong. "Atheistic belief" is an oxymoron.

Faulty Analogy: Because you can not see or envision the role/method of higher-plane Creation when looking at a microbe, you simply claim it is impossible writ large and not real under any and all other circumstances.


That's not the faulty analogy I'm referring to. Furthermore, I have not claimed that what you describe above is impossible, all I am saying is that no-one (believer or not) has put forth a compelling case for it. The burden of proof lies with the believer, because it is the believer who is making a definitive assertion about the nature of reality here.

False Dilemma:Contrary of what your listing of this implies, the act of science building a conclusion against all other possibilities is exactly what pure science does. The author/topic of the article I linked to absolutely considered (and strongly believed in) atheistic interpretations for years--and continues studies with these arguments to compare. The selection of theism is not mutually exclusive to other possibilities, it is an educated belief in light of them--one can believe in something and seek answers while fully acknowledging that all the answers can not be had, and that contradictions must be accounted for. Regarding evolution in particular, there is voluminous evidence (even on this website) that no such thing (transmutation of species into different things) has ever occurred as generically believed by fragmentally-educated activists.


This assertion specifically makes mention of "Neo-Darwinist Evolution", and the clear insinuation is that evidence against this Neo-Darwinist paradigm is automatically evidence for an alternative God-based paradigm. This is not how science or logic work. Science builds a provisional conclusion based on the available evidence, but this evidence and the conclusion derived from it are always subject to change; no possibility is ever completely ruled out.

Fallacy of Exclusion: Think about this: just last week a study claimed that Earth is a one in 700 Quintillion occurrence. As in 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. If you don't consider that unique/special, your definition is not the same as a dictionary. Of course that number (by popular mainstream science--not "fringe" quacks) could be grossly wrong, and I one day look forward to meeting any local friendly space aliens that have been hiding in the shrubbery of outer space. Point is, the mechanics of how we came to be exclude nothing from consideration, but *include* the purpose of why. Theism as I understand it is a belief in a higher power, but that has nothing to do with the marketing of Jesus and God in white robes and judgmental beards.


Thank you for proving my point here. Given that inconceivable immensity and age of the universe, how can we claim that a one-in-700 quintillion occurrence is remarkable? Perhaps it would be remarkable if the probability was zero, but the fact that it is non-zero indicates that we should actually expect it to happen at some point. There is no evidence that "purpose" has anything to do with it.

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: How you believe this applies to the universality of mathematical expression escapes me.


Are we talking about the same "mathematical expression" which includes negative and unreal numbers? The same mathematical expression that has lead to Einsteinian Relativity, mainstream Quantum Quackery and all the other Texas Sharpshooting ridiculousness in mainstream "physics" over the last 100 years?

I hope this makes sense--and let me be clear: I know you will not be persuaded of anything I wrote above--in fact, you'll perhaps be annoyed that I don't accept your pasted links as a refutation of Creation. But others will hopefully see that you did not make any relevant statement at all about God, proving or disproving, only that you listed all the dismissive kinds of logical argument points next to a scientist's assertions without applying them to both theistic and atheistic points.


You're right - I wasn't persuaded. Nor will any other thinking person be.
Pi sees
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby phyllotaxis » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:31 pm

Pi-- it's OK.
Keep your head held high, and believe that you have made a point-- best wishes
User avatar
phyllotaxis
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: The Science of God

Unread postby nick c » Sat Mar 05, 2016 3:30 pm

This thread looks very much like a religious/theological debate. We generally discourage such discussions on the TB forums, as per the Forum Rules and Guidelines:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4
The discussion of political and religious matters is to be discouraged, except when clearly relevant to the discussion in progress.

This thread is locked, at least for now.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut


Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest