Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[VinceBlaze]

But to make a final decision in this, non-scientific matters like the opinion of the politicians (which we hope reflects the opinions of the people in a democracy). Many of these opinions are not and cannot be based on science, but are a result of a certain worldview.

Some people have suggested to me that non-scientific worldviews are dangerous to the mind.

 

[VinceBlaze]

An historian, for example, performs research, but I don't know that you could call an historian a scientist. Now, history has lots of merit and is a very useful field, but I don't think it necessariliy conforms to the scientific method.

How is this any different then from religion? Both the historian and the religionist are non-scientific. How can I really trust either of them?

 

[VinceBlaze]

What are rocks? What is the atmosphere?

Huh?

Please define how science and ploitics are similar so that we may rationally discuss?

Actually, I'm trying to ascertain the differentiations. It is being suggested to me that there are whole fields of knowledge which utterly lack science.

Thankyou.

You're welcome.

 

[VinceBlaze]

which canon?

The Old Testament Canon. There is an Old Testament Canon and a New Testament Canon.

which council?

The council of ancient Jewish authority. Hence, ancient Jewish government.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Err, quite!! So giving "interpersonal relationships" as an example of where science doesn't always work was a little pointless of you...

No. Rather you missed the point. Or I was not making the same point that you may have been searching for yourself.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Old Testament Canon. There is an Old Testament Canon and a New Testament Canon.

The council of ancient Jewish authority. Hence, ancient Jewish government.

i think you have missed the point.
there is not a single canon for either the OT or the NT.

there are at least 2 different canons for the OT, in English is general use in the visible church, that from the LXX and that from the Masoretic text, thus yielding the fundamental difference between the RC/Orthodox and Protestant OT canons.

There are several NT canons, the problem here is not as divisive as the OT because the different canons are represented by rather numerical small, non-Western churches.

to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Other_canons
see the Ethiopian for example,

or a Protestant version of the story at:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

or Roman Catholic POV:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

or even an Islamic writer looking at the issue:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/

the point?
it is a single canon and a single story only if you are part of a specific interpretive community and ignore everyone else.

 

[Chalnoth]

Which professions are we referring to? Certainly not all professions.

I thought all professions were defined by the work that one performs within that profession.

What is dark energy, and is it empirically perceived? Sounds slightly metaphysical.

Dark energy is purely empirical. We haven't yet measured it well enough to say what it is, though. Unfortunately, due to its properties, there is a possibility that we will never find out the precise nature of dark energy (its effects are just incredibly weak). The paper I was involved in was focused on developing a data analysis technique to distinguish between two distinct classes of dark energy models.

How is this any different then from religion? Both the historian and the religionist are non-scientific. How can I really trust either of them?

I don't see any research being pursued by adherents to religion to further their religion. Though I suppose I could have missed some.

 

[Tomk80]

If all scientists are researchers, yet not all researchers are scientists, then what sets apart scientists from the greater body of researchers?

Following the scientific method to uncover new empirical knowledge.

As opposed to, for example, a researcher in comic books who will try to find out what actual plot lines have been followed and where the differences are. That is nice, but not generating new empirical knowledge. A detective is a researcher, but not a scientist. He does not try to add to the body of knowledge, but applies it to his field.

I guess that I view not only the research, but also the implementation of methods as science.

For example, I am a corporate manager highly skilled in work ergonomics. I've trained hundreds of employee laborers in the corporate realm, many of whom became super-performers through the implementation of ergonomic principles. I can walk onto virtually any work crew and increase it's overall productivity levels by 10%, and have commonly done so when running other people's crews for them. I consider work ergonomics to be a science, and anyone who works ergonomically to be a scientist. This is perhaps not the strictest definition of science, but it is nonetheless one that I generally hold.

Generally, the important question to ask in this would be whether the research adds to the body of empirical knowledge. Scientists try to do this, people who apply it do not try to do this. Of course, this is giving a more black and white view then is actually present in the real world.

 

[razzelflabben]

And how does finding chaos suddenly equate to finding God?

Finding order in chaos could be evidence of God, don't look at it backwards in an attempt to evidence your point of view.

 

[razzelflabben]

Chaos theory does not mean what you think it means.

don't jump to conclusions to quickly.

 

[razzelflabben]

Or God never existed in the first place, which is infinitely more likely.

This part of the discussion will come later. Right now, we are only talking about the what if God does exist. As a scientific minded individual, you must deal with the what if's in life and that includes but is not limited to God existing.

You can't be evil if you don't even exist. Only your believers can be evil in that case. Everything you see as evidence of his being I see as indicating the contrary.

Again, at the moment we are only dealing with the what if He does exist. The what if nots come later as my post clearly indicates. But on the what if side of your arguement, the point is, the evidence is the same evidence, the conclusion is based on the premises and thus the logical outcome of the same evidnce can be different.So when you ask for evidence of God's existance, it is the same evidence you use to say God doesn't exist. See the problem with logic, is that the outcome is not always consistant.

But more than that, since there never was any positive evidence of such a thing, since people often admit they believe in gods for no other reason than their emotional need (which I don't understand because I don't share it) and since there are hundreds of conflicting denominations just within Christianity -to say nothing of all the other religions, and while everyone claims theirs is the "absolute truth" (a logical impossibility) and none among them ever had any way to verify if their beliefs were any more accurate than anyone else's -and since no one can even show that their religious beliefs weren't simply made up out of nothing, then I have no reason to believe in gods and plenty of good reasons not to.

Wow so many issues and so little time. I am guessing that the heart of your problem here is that religious beliefs are not based on empirical evidence but on spiritual evidence. The problem however, is that as demonstrated above, yours, that is that there is no god, is based on the very same lack of empirical evidence. We can look at the empirical evidence and question it, and study it and come to a logical conclusion but in the end, it still comes down to what you believe, whether that be what you have been taught, indoctrinated to believe, or rebellious or some other all together, one's religious belief no matter what it is, comes from the heart or soul/spirit if you will and not some science book or experiment. Some, as I personally have done, look at empirical evidence and draw a conclusion based on a logical progression of evaluation. I am guessing you have done the same though I am not sure as I see no logical progession of your ideas being put forth. The point is, one belief is equal to another scientifically speaking, so in order to find truth in religious matters, we cannot attack it scientifically. There are those who are uncomfortable with this, but it is how our spiritual side functions. Don't be too quick to dismiss what the empirical evidence suggests on both accounts, the existance and the none existance of god.

So you agree then that if God exists then nature makes no sense anymore.

I think you are looking at my post backward. If God exists, then the chaos in this world isn't chaos at all, just order that we don't understand.
edit: If God does exist, then the chaos in this world is another means of seeking and finding God. It puts meaning to the answers we come up with and understanding to a being that is beyond our understanding. Thus chaos is not chaos at all but has meaning and oppertunity (through scientific exporation) to not only understand our world but God Himself.

 

[Tomk80]

Finding order in chaos could be evidence of God, don't look at it backwards in an attempt to evidence your point of view.

I'm not, I'm just trying to decipher your reasoning, which seems a bit confused.

I am not suggesting there are NO absolutes in that there is nothing we can rely on, but rather that there is always a chance? of that absolute not being absolute at all. This is true in both situations, but one allows for chaos the other, disorder in the midst of order which is exactly what you seem to be looking for as a scientist. Therefore what you are looking for is God without ever accepting the fact that God exists.

The bolded part seems very confused to me at least. As a scientists, I'm not looking for God. I'm just looking for an accurate description of the world.

 

[razzelflabben]

This study was done about 90 years ago, so a red flag should immediately go up right there. Here's the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Attempted_demonstrations_of_the_soul_as_distinct_from_the_mind

The researcher's methodology was flawed, the results were inconsistent, and though he promised to do follow up work, the follow up never came. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the work was anything but utterly false.

Now where did I suggest that the evidence was conclusive, well done, or anything else along that line, in fact, if you had asked, I could have cut your time down in your reply. The point is not that the evidence is conclusive, only that the evidence exists. It seems that you want to argue the evidence instead of the point I am making that evidence does exist. As is always the case, our logical conclusion of the evidence depends on the premis we use when we review the evidence. To claim there is no evidence is a false statement as I have demonstrated to you. To aregue about whether or not the premis is correct is a totally different discussion. So if you are ready to admit that evidence does exist, we can move on to the premis, but it seems you still don't accept that the evidence exists. One step at a time, a progression of truths. Does the evidence exist?

It'd be nice if you would try, because so far you're 0 for 1.

I have shown you much evidence to point to support my claim. What you are questioning is the premis and conclusion of which I have not yet discussed and so I don't totally understand what you are trying to get at here. I have shown you how the empirical evidence and be used to draw the logical conclusion of a God, when you understand what evidence is being used we can get into the knitty gritty of the premises and conclusions, but first you must understand that the evidence does exist and what evidence exists or our discussion of premis and conclusion will go round and round without meaning.

Except that modern science has provided explanations for the existence and nature of our world. There is, quite simple, no need for any god to exist to explain one single thing about our universe. Though you're welcome to try pointing something out.

Ah, but that is a falacy, there is much about our universe that science understands but can't explain, and that is where God comes in, God puts explaination to what we understand, at least for many people in this world. Our understanding of the universe helps us to comprehend and understand God and vise versa. They are connected in ways that man can only hope to understand which is exactly why there are always more questions than answers.

 

[razzelflabben]

What I am saying is that if there is a God, chaos isn't chaos at all. What we deem disorderly, is really order. What we see as chaos is'nt chaos at all, it provides a different mindset, a different set of options to the world and our understanding of the world.

even from an orthodox Christian POV is this true?
is quantum indeterminism determinant for God?
are non linear dynamical systems nonchaotic to God?
or is this just another modern rephrasing of the free will v. foreordination of God discussion?

justify your answer.

I am somewhat unclear as to what you are really asking, so I will stab in the dark here. Our "religious" perspective will "color" our understanding of what we discover scientifically. Doesn't matter what our religious belief. For example, the people of "old" believed in many gods, therefore their understanding of furtility, sun, moon, etc. was very different, in fact, the Hebrew understanding of the world was much more in line with our current understanding than many of the other people groups of the time, simply because their religious beliefs colored their understanding. What your belief is, will color your understanding, and that can be as individual as you and I are or as general as a specific religion or denomination. Depends on many factors.

What I purposed to you in previous posts then is that if God exists and is the creator, then none of the things we find to be chaotic are chaotic at all, but specifically ordered. The "order" might or might not be random, but it is specific and intimately known. Try it this way, if I create soemthing, we make wood quilts, so I will use that as an example, a cedar chest can have over 1,000 individual hand cut pieces and because I created it, I can tell you things about the piece that you would never understand by looking at it. My "signiture" is on the piece to such a degree that I am intimate with the piece. If God exists and is the creator, the same is true. Our daughter has a cedar chest that we made, the top looks random, it looks very much like chaos, in fact I have had orders based on the very fact that it looks like chaos. But in reality, I can show you percisely where the patterns are, how it was put together, where the order is in the design, why? because I am the creator of the design and know it intimately. Now, if God is the creator, I can assume that He knows His creation intimately, just as I know mine, just as every creator of a piece knows his creation, it is a logical conclusion based on daily evidences. If then He does exist and He does know His creation intimately, then what we see as chaos isn't necessarily chaos at all. Thus, the more we learn, the more "order" we discover, the more our world, our evidence boosts of God and His being the creator. The more you explore my daughters cedar chest and see the patterns, the more you begin to understand what I know, that it isn't random at all, but instead very ordered.

As I reread this, I understand what I am saying but not sure if it is clear for you, let me know, I can try again.

 

[razzelflabben]

Dark energy is purely empirical. We haven't yet measured it well enough to say what it is, though. Unfortunately, due to its properties, there is a possibility that we will never find out the precise nature of dark energy (its effects are just incredibly weak). The paper I was involved in was focused on developing a data analysis technique to distinguish between two distinct classes of dark energy models.

I don't want to start another discussion, but I need to ask a question here, if someone would give me aquick but accurate answer, I would appreciate it.

The above sounds much like our "measure" for the existance of God, yet I have repeatedly been told that any "religious" study is not scientific because it can't be conclusively evidenced. But dark energy is because? What makes dark energy scientifc when we will not be able to have conclusive results, but testing for God is not scientific?

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not, I'm just trying to decipher your reasoning, which seems a bit confused.

Fair enough

[/size][/font]
The bolded part seems very confused to me at least. As a scientists, I'm not looking for God. I'm just looking for an accurate description of the world.

Right, but what if an accurate description of the world is found in God? If you refuse to accept the possiblity, you can not hope to find accurate descriptions of the world much less understand those descriptions that you do uncover. Point being that as a scientist, you cannot remove any possibilities until such time as you have conclusive reason to do so. If you can't even test for God's existance, you can't discount His existance and His potential existances influence on our understanding of the empirical world.

 

[Chalnoth]

Now where did I suggest that the evidence was conclusive, well done, or anything else along that line, in fact, if you had asked, I could have cut your time down in your reply. The point is not that the evidence is conclusive, only that the evidence exists.

No, it doesn't exist. It was a bad experiment, and should be completely discounted.

Ah, but that is a falacy, there is much about our universe that science understands but can't explain, and that is where God comes in, God puts explaination to what we understand, at least for many people in this world.

So, just because we don't yet have the experimental data to infer every little detail of our world, we must insert God? I'm sorry, but no, that makes no sense whatsoever. I, for one, will not make the leap to saying that God gives particles their mass just because we haven't yet created the Higgs boson in the laboratory.

 

[Chalnoth]

The above sounds much like our "measure" for the existance of God, yet I have repeatedly been told that any "religious" study is not scientific because it can't be conclusively evidenced. But dark energy is because? What makes dark energy scientifc when we will not be able to have conclusive results, but testing for God is not scientific?

Dark energy is scientific because it is empirical. Dark energy is a theoretical model used to explain why the expansion of the universe does not conform to the energy density of the universe as inferred by the matter that we can measure (both dark matter and normal matter). Another possibility is a modification of gravity on very large scales, and this possible modification is placed under the umbrella of dark energy for ease of communication.

Basically, looking at how the universe has expanded over the past 13.5 billion years, using a number of independent methods, says that there is a significant component of the universe that doesn't behave anything like normal matter, or our knowledge of gravity is wrong on very large scales. There are currently a number of different experiments that are involved in attempting to discover the exact nature of this dark energy, but for now, it's just a very hard thing to measure exactly. But, if we can nail it down, it may give us a tremendous amount of insight into the fundamental laws of physics, so it is, quite possibly, the most exciting area of study in cosmology today.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The above sounds much like our "measure" for the existance of God, yet I have repeatedly been told that any "religious" study is not scientific because it can't be conclusively evidenced. But dark energy is because? What makes dark energy scientifc when we will not be able to have conclusive results, but testing for God is not scientific?

Dark energy/matter is currently little more than a place-holder for a series of reliable observations that essentially demand a universe containing a decided minority of ordinary matter.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, it doesn't exist. It was a bad experiment, and should be completely discounted.

When I read this reply, I suspected you weren't really reading or at least understanding my posts, after reading the entire reply, I am sure of it. The evidence exists, the quality, premis, conclusion, etc. is what you are questioning. That is a different discussion all together, the question I am dealing with at the moment is what evidence exists, we can discuss the sugnificance of the evidence at length after we determine what evidence exists.

So, just because we don't yet have the experimental data to infer every little detail of our world, we must insert God? I'm sorry, but no, that makes no sense whatsoever. I, for one, will not make the leap to saying that God gives particles their mass just because we haven't yet created the Higgs boson in the laboratory.

I am not suggesting that at all, what I am suggesting is that we cannot remove the possibility of God simply because we have no more evidence for His existance than we have for his lack of existance. In short, it's an "even handed" approach to our understanding of the spiritual part of our world. Which in turn can help us in our understanding of the empirical world.

My view of origins, comes from an even handed approach to all subjects, as much as possible, I appraoch all topics with a premis of we don't know, I might be right or wrong in what I have been taught and believe. From there, I look at the evidence presented and evaluate it as emotion free and even handed as is possible, over the years I have become pretty good at it, though it is humanly impossible to totally acheive such. The end result is that I can look at the evidence and say, what if... what if God does exist, what if God doesn't exist..... what if.....what if evolution is truth, what if creation is truth....what if....... Point being I said to you what if but you refuse to accept any possible but what you believe. I am not talking here about what I believe, personally, that is a different matter, and why I believe what I do is still yet a different matter. What we are talking about is the what if's You have turned it into a debate about whether or not God does exist when the issue raised was what if God does, how would that affect our understanding. (The reverse was also put forth and ignored by and large)I honestly don't believe that in the confinds of forum, discussion, science, spirit, etc. we can know God, He is too big to be confined (that is a personal belief based on many evidences), so such a discussion is frankly worthless. To try and confine God is a stupid thing to even try so far as I can tell, but to discuss the what if's as it applies to science is worth while, because it opens more ideas, more possibles, more avenues for understanding and truth. You don't have to believe the what if's for them to open new worlds, you just have to be willing to accept that we may not know and we may not ever know, in this case, from a scientific standpoint. And from science, we simply don't know if God exists or not, even handed discussion, even handed debate, even handed idea, remove the bias and see what is possible, then decide what you will believe.