Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?


  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Oh yes. It always seems comical too me for someone to criticize the "use" of logic, when they can't even account for it. Where does logic exist? How does it exist? It's a metaphysical elephant standing in the corner.

I tried to frame the original question in a way that would stimulate an intellectual conversation.
What went bang? Deals with matter.
Where did it go bang? Deals space.
When did it go bang? Deal with time.

We see how that worked out.

Space, time, matter. Einstein addressed all of these in his theory of relativity.
This begs the question, what are people talking about when they say, "nothing?" ) (Ex Nihilo) Hawking actually proposes (philosophically mind you) that the universe came from NOTHING. Hawking gave credence to Einstein's statement that, "the man of science is a poor philosopher."

Those who seem to be alluding to Hawking also quoted Einstein. I pointed out that it was a misquote and misapplication of Einstein, and Einstein actually said the opposite of what was asserted.

The Hawking reference seems to be referring to a theory that posits a continual expansion/contraction of the universe. It's interesting that the proponents of this theory are the first to admit that the theory is far, far, far from ready for prime time.

The commonly accepted theory, accepted due its successful predictions and account for the universe's uniformity, shows a sudden and immediate creation.

:hi:
 
"Science" as used "against" religion in this argument is actually a reference to "Scientific Materialism", which is a philosophical worldview that states that matter and energy are all that exist in the Universe, there is no such thing as the supernatural, and thus only natural causes may be considered in the process.

That is not was "science" says. The scientific process says that only theories which are testable and have clear predictive power (which makes them falsifiable) are worthy of consideration. It does not say that there "is no such thing as the supernatural". Since theologians have not come up with a way to test such a theory, make testable predictive assertions (thus making it falsifiable), such theories are not included in the scientific process. That is no the same as asserting there is no supernatural force or there is no possibility of a supernatural force. It just relegates such theories (as all other theories/assertions which are not testable or falsifiable) to the realm of process by elimination and exhausting all other testable, predictive, and falsifiable theories first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
That only moves the problem back further. What went "bang?" Where did it go "bang?" When did it go "bang?"
Einstein himself spent years trying to deny where this pointed, only later in life confessing that it pointed towards a transcendent, immaterial, intelligent force.

People ask all the time, if you believe in God, then why not Zues, or Mithra, etc.? But it's quite simple when you approach it from natural theology. None of those religions present a creator who possesses the attributes necessary. We can eliminate all but three religions by simple logic and reason.

This is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
That is not was "science" says. The scientific process says that only theories which are testable and have clear predictive power (which makes them falsifiable) are worthy of consideration. It does not say that there "is no such thing as the supernatural". Since theologians have not come up with a way to test such a theory, make testable predictive assertions (thus making it falsifiable), such theories are not included in the scientific process. That is no the same as asserting there is no supernatural force or there is no possibility of a supernatural force. It just relegates such theories (as all other theories/assertions which are not testable or falsifiable) to the realm of process by elimination and exhausting all other testable, predictive, and falsifiable theories first.

Actually science doesn't "say" anything. Scientist do. And those positing ID are allowed to use the same methods.
All supernatural means is, beyond nature. Nature is the physical world. If the universe (physical world) began then what ever began it is by definition, super natural. Science is the process or study of the NATURAL world.

Funny that to actually 'do' science, one has to rely on all kinds of assumptions that cannot not be measured scientificallly. Take logic for example. Can you account for it, scientifically speaking? But try doing science without it. Or account for uniformity, another presumption one must make to "do" science. Trust me, you can't.

FWIW, I think what Crush stated refers to how people often use (or misuse) the term, 'science.'
 
Last edited:
That is not was "science" says. The scientific process says that only theories which are testable and have clear predictive power (which makes them falsifiable) are worthy of consideration. It does not say that there "is no such thing as the supernatural". Since theologians have not come up with a way to test such a theory, make testable predictive assertions (thus making it falsifiable), such theories are not included in the scientific process. That is no the same as asserting there is no supernatural force or there is no possibility of a supernatural force. It just relegates such theories (as all other theories/assertions which are not testable or falsifiable) to the realm of process by elimination and exhausting all other testable, predictive, and falsifiable theories first.

Actually science doesn't "say" anything. Scientist do. And those positing ID are allowed to use the same methods.
All supernatural means is, beyond nature. Nature is the physical world. If the universe (physical world) began then what ever began it is by definition, super natural. Science is the process or study of the NATURAL world.

Funny that to actually 'do' science, one has to rely on all kinds of assumptions that cannot not be measured scientificallly. Take logic for example. Can you account for it, scientifically speaking? But try doing science without it. Or account for uniformity, another presumption one must make to "do" science. Trust me, you can't.

FWIW, I think what Crush stated refers to how people often use (or misuse) the term, 'science.'

PKT, you just made my point. You'll notice I put "science" in quotes-- for the very reason that Roustabout mentioned. "Science" itself doesn't "say" anything-- any more than the "evidence" that "Scientists" claim "says" this or that.

Science is a process. Predict, test, interpret results. Redefine and repeat as necessary. Philosophers say a lot of things "about" science-- just like you just did. But "science" doesn't say that. I've already quoted you a bunch of things that philosophers say "about" science, but it would apprear that it didn't make an impression. I'll post again:

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

Methodological naturalism - RationalWiki

From a respected scientist, stating the tenants of modern science in a respected paper:

Naturalism is

"a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events...[thus, there cannot] exist any entities or events which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation" (Danto, 1967, p. 448);

"the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature" (Audi, 1984, p. 372);

"the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities--those studied in the sciences--whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included, ...abstract entities... like possibilities...and mathematical objects...and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are commensurable, in some sense, with those in science" (Post, 1995, p. 517);

"the view that everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is belongs to the world of nature, and so can be studied by the methods appropriate for studying that world..." (Lacey, 1995, p. 604);

"the philosophical movement that "wishes to use the methods of science, evidence, and reason to understand nature and the place of human species within it"..."skeptical of the postulation of a transcendental realm beyond nature, or of the claim that nature can be understood without using the methods of reason and evidence"... and "the philosophical generalization of the methods and conclusions of the sciences" (Kurtz, 1990, p. 7, 12).

In my own definition, a synthesis of those above, naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain and are therefore somehow immanent in the structure of the universe; (3) nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws, and all can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical position opposed mainly by supernaturalism. It is not an ethical system, although a variety--pragmatic naturalism, a synthesis of pragmatism and naturalism--does develop ethical positions. Furthermore, naturalism is a subset of metaphysical realism.

You said:

The scientific process says that only theories which are testable and have clear predictive power (which makes them falsifiable) are worthy of consideration.

Have you tested that statement and proven it, thus making it worthy of my consideration? Or is it a self-defeating statement?
 
FWIW, I think what Crush stated refers to how people often use (or misuse) the term, 'science.'

That's why "science" was in quotes. PKT and I have had this discussion recently. He knew exactly what I meant, knew the quotes from the current philosophers of science that I have used to support the position, and still ended up making my point for me in trying to argue against it. lol
 
It's not absurd when the interpretation of the attributes necessary of a 'creator' is left up to the subjectivity of the one doing the interpreting.

Do you mean congruent with nature and logic as we know it? If that's what you mean by "subjective" then I'm not following.
 
It's not absurd when the interpretation of the attributes necessary of a 'creator' is left up to the subjectivity of the one doing the interpreting.
Not really certain what your reply is directed at. Are you agreeing that a creator has 'necessary' attributes? All interpretation will have subjectivity. Everyone has presuppositions. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I question whether you are dealing with the actual statement that I made, and the very well developed arguments behind it.

Are you saying we shouldn't trust scientists because they might infer their subjective presuppositions onto the evidence??
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
God sent down a bolt of lightning (sorta like in the old Frankenstein movies) and Adam and a snake came flying out of a swamp. Then God saw Adam was lonely and made him a gurlfrand out of an old Rendezvous leftover rib. Y'all know the rest.

Man, no wonder she was worthless.
 
Lol yeah. I used to work with a guy in the AF like that. He thought OJ and Michael Jackson were innocent, integration was done to limit the power of black businesses, aids was invented to limit the gay and black populations (if we really wanted to do that, an STD would be the dumbest option ever. If you want to eliminate a race, do it before they have a chance to bred).

I also think a lot of black Muslim groups like the panthers believe that whites were made in a lab.

I was made in a lab....
 
"Almost" all ammunition?

Are you implying that the holy hand grenade still exists? Great Scott!

In all seriousness, would you need the second half of that picture depicting an onager's stone being hurled at the walls of Jerusalem in the 1st Crusades? The discussion is about religion and science, not Christianity and science.

If I woulda've said all ammunition,, we'd be reading arguments about marbles, and plastic battleships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
My personal bias is well documented in these forums. for those of you who don't know, I'm a Conservative religious nut job. I believe God created all things billions of years ago and gave it a push. from there everything evolved after it's own kind. My question is for those who come from an opposing view point.
How did life spontaneously start form non living mater?

Bump.
Who's got answers?
 
Advertisement





Back
Top