SD on 7/12/2007 at 14:17
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
How can science assess this question? If a creator is outside the universe, we don't yet have good tools with which to assess it, unless it leaves a big HAY GUYS I DID THIS sign.
This is a God who, we're led to believe, intervenes in our lives on a daily basis; a God who decides, in His infinite wisdom, whether people live or die, whether their prayers are answered or not and who has, on at least one occasion, impregnated another man's wife. He might very well live outside the universe, but to affect things within the universe, he has to venture inside now and again in some form or other.
And in order to do the things he's supposed to do, he would have to temporarily suspend the physical laws that govern the universe. Assuming that such a thing is even possible without the whole bloody thing caving in on us, we have no evidence whatsoever that the physical laws of the universe are anything other than constants. To all intents and purposes, this is a God who
cannot exist.
Vivian on 7/12/2007 at 14:43
Whoa there, mister methodological naturalism. Supernatural beings can do whatever the fuck they want with the laws of physics.
Because they don't exist!
... or do they?
paloalto90 on 7/12/2007 at 14:55
Quote Posted by SD
This is a God who, we're led to believe, intervenes in our lives on a daily basis; a God who decides, in His infinite wisdom, whether people live or die, whether their prayers are answered or not and who has, on at least one occasion, impregnated another man's wife. He might very well live outside the universe, but to affect things within the universe, he has to venture inside now and again in some form or other.
And in order to do the things he's supposed to do, he would have to temporarily suspend the physical laws that govern the universe. Assuming that such a thing is even possible without the whole bloody thing caving in on us, we have no evidence whatsoever that the physical laws of the universe are anything other than constants. To all intents and purposes, this is a God who
cannot exist.
So he would have to suspend his own laws to make an appearance?Or perhaps we don't have all the data about how the laws of physics in all dimensions operate.
Vivian on 7/12/2007 at 15:05
OK - do you mean dimensions as in some wooky alternate plane of reality? Because when people talk about extra dimensions they really mean extra dimensions. Like another kind of width. Not a pink place where Goza hangs around spitting fire with her dog. Sorry if you didn't mean that.
Gingerbread Man on 7/12/2007 at 15:06
Science isn't interested in essentialism in the least what's wrong with you guys
Vivian on 7/12/2007 at 15:09
So Plato wasn't a scientist?
Thirith on 7/12/2007 at 15:09
It seems to me that the fundamental conflict here isn't between religion and science but between an ideology that believes everything can be explained satisfactorily by science (even if we're not there yet and may never get there) and an ideology that believes there are things in existence that will forever remain outside the domain of science. Do I understand that correctly?
Chimpy Chompy on 7/12/2007 at 16:19
Quote Posted by SD
And in order to do the things he's supposed to do, he would have to temporarily suspend the physical laws that govern the universe. Assuming that such a thing is even possible without the whole bloody thing caving in on us, we have no evidence whatsoever that the physical laws of the universe are anything other than constants. To all intents and purposes, this is a God who
cannot exist.
Why not? Maybe he can do whatever he wants. Maybe he fiddled with something beyond our understanding last tuesday.
Basically I think a secular case can be made more effectively: maybe a god is screwing around with the universe, but we just can't tell anything about that. We don't know what, if anything he's doing, we can't detect any evidence, we can't begin to determine anthing about his nature.
And thus no-one who doesn't have HAY I'M GOD beamed into their head has any reason to really dwell on the concept. I'd be inclined to mark a Creator down as a philisophical possibility and leave it there unless we get more information. I find that works better than you trying to say he *can't* exist, or Dawkins' attempt to assert a low probablity of existence.
jay pettitt on 7/12/2007 at 18:23
Quote Posted by Thirith
It seems to me that the fundamental conflict here isn't between religion and science but between an ideology that believes everything can be explained satisfactorily by science (even if we're not there yet and may never get there) and an ideology that believes there are things in existence that will forever remain outside the domain of science. Do I understand that correctly?
Possibly. Certainly you're right in saying that the conflict isn't between science and religion, this is atheism vs religion; ultimately the conflict is between an ideology that is founded in the real world and one that is entirely made up - the charge (eventually) is that these religion things aren't supernatural at all, the science bit is just part of the deconstruction. I wouldn't dream of going so far as to say that nothing can go unexplained by science and reference to the natural world; (there's a big old universe out there) religion, however, isn't one of them.
Spaztick on 7/12/2007 at 18:40
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Possibly. Certainly you're right in saying that the conflict isn't between science and religion, this is atheism vs religion; ultimately the conflict is between an ideology that is founded in the real world and one that is entirely made up - the charge (eventually) is that these religion things aren't supernatural at all, the science bit is just part of the deconstruction. I wouldn't dream of going so far as to say that nothing can go unexplained by science and reference to the natural world; (there's a big old universe out there) religion, however, isn't one of them.
I think another big fault is that people try to use science as their religion when science is nothing more than a tool used to try and understand the external universe, meaning things outside the observer. If you listen to a hardcore atheist using science as his means of disproof for everything (which is another way of saying science is my proof and backing of faith) he'll pretty much repeat what a blind zealot repeats. Richard Dawkings does this. It's the same crap with different terminology.
You might say, "Sure Spaztick but at least the science nuts try to back it up with empirical evidence." That's true, and I can respect people that try to offer an external source of proof, but what if likewise there is proof of an omnipotent deity but it can't yet be measured in a test tube or we've yet to invent an instrument that can be calibrated to talk to God without the use of one's self? Suppose that there are people out there who speak or interact with this God on a daily basis. They can offer proof that they are, yet the limitations placed on Western thinking in the Age of Reason has us default to using tools to measure something. How do you go about measuring such a thing? This "atheism vs theism" really is an impasse for the time being, as catbarf said, not because circumstantial evidence is in disagreement but because the methods of measuring the evidence in the two fields is irreconcilable.
