Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[The Cadet]

I hope I'm not coming across as taking pot shots. I have respect for the scientific method. I don't think there is a better method - at least not one of which I'm aware. But it seems to be a limiting method. Perhaps I don't fully understand it.

The degree to which the scientific method is limited is the degree to which things exist that cannot in any meaningful way be examined with the scientific method. There are some problems with this, though. For starters, in order to establish their existence, we first need to find a reliable methodology for detecting them in the first place. We don't have this. I don't know that we could have this, as fundamentally, we're asking for a methodology outside of empiricism, and essentially everything about our understanding of reality is based around empiricism in some way or another.

Secondly, many of the classic ways something can be "beyond science" simply imply that there is absolutely no observable difference between the object existing and not existing. For example, if I propose an unfalsifiable idea, that means there is no experimental result that could possibly prove the idea wrong, meaning that I cannot distinguish a universe in which my hypothesis is true from a universe in which my hypothesis is false - thus rendering the hypothesis utterly useless. Another classic way is to imply that it somehow exists outside of our observable reality... But again, what does that even mean?

 

[The Cadet]

Yes of course. The supernatural is an example. But it might be better to say religion can address some questions science cannot. In the same way, philosophy addresses questions outside of science. I'd write more but this iPad is no fun for typing.

All right, that makes sense.

 

[Chriliman]

No more profound than "What magical leprechaun?".

You'd have a good point if people were actually claiming that magical leprechauns exist and that they've created the universe.

 

[PapaZoom]

Once I am home and have access to my computer (with a keyboard) I will try to answer questions more thoroughly. Also, there are some posts to which I have not yet responded. They are on my radar. I'm currently in AZ visiting my brother who has been fighting cancer. He has finished his first bout with chemotherapy and radiation. He is weak but improving. Fortunately my sister lives here and is able to help him regularly. I fly home tomorrow.

 

[Chriliman]

Are you saying that looking closely at creation with reference to the creator would make us less confused?

Yes, this would make sense to me. If I'm looking closely at complex web code and trying to figure out how it works, it would help if I referenced the person who developed the complex website.

How, exactly, does a belief in God help us understand quantum physics? I mean, it certainly didn't help us understand it while we were still figuring it out, so it's kind of a silly question, but does it even help us understand it after the fact? I don't think so.

I'm not familiar enough with quantum physics to answer this question.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hope I'm not coming across as taking pot shots. I have respect for the scientific method. I don't think there is a better method - at least not one of which I'm aware. But it seems to be a limiting method. Perhaps I don't fully understand it.

If you are seeking the truth, then your method of seeking the truth will necessarily be limiting because you are limiting yourself to the truth. A limitless method would accept anything as being true, even stuff made up on the spot and things that are untrue.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, this would make sense to me. If I'm looking closely at complex web code and trying to figure out how it works, it would help if I referenced the person who developed the complex website.

But you aren't looking at complex web code. You are looking at quantum mechanics. How does referencing your religious beliefs help us understand quantum mechanics?

I'm not familiar enough with quantum physics to answer this question.

Then why did you claim that referencing your religious beliefs would help answer the question? You aren't being logical.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes, this would make sense to me. If I'm looking closely at complex web code and trying to figure out how it works, it would help if I referenced the person who developed the complex website.

Maybe if you got them to show you how it worked. But a documentary on their lives probably won't help you very much.

I'm not familiar enough with quantum physics to answer this question.

Here, let me answer it for you: not at all. It doesn't help one bit.

 

[Chriliman]

Once I am home and have access to my computer (with a keyboard) I will try to answer questions more thoroughly. Also, there are some posts to which I have not yet responded. They are on my radar. I'm currently in AZ visiting my brother who has been fighting cancer. He has finished his first bout with chemotherapy and radiation. He is weak but improving. Fortunately my sister lives here and is able to help him regularly. I fly home tomorrow.

Hope and pray that all is well with your brother and that he is at peace in this trial!

 

[Loudmouth]

Scriptures teach us what Gods logic is. Its humbleness of mind, love, compassion, mercy, faith, hope.

Yet another bare assertion.

 

[Belk]

Once I am home and have access to my computer (with a keyboard) I will try to answer questions more thoroughly. Also, there are some posts to which I have not yet responded. They are on my radar. I'm currently in AZ visiting my brother who has been fighting cancer. He has finished his first bout with chemotherapy and radiation. He is weak but improving. Fortunately my sister lives here and is able to help him regularly. I fly home tomorrow.

Best of luck to your brother PapaZoom. Sorry to hear about his situation.

 

[Extraneous]

Yet another bare assertion.

Its clearly recorded in scripture.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its clearly recorded in scripture.

Recorded by humans, not by deities. It is the words of man.

 

[Extraneous]

Recorded by humans, not by deities. It is the words of man.

In your opinion, not mine. You are rather contentious, its really of no value to waste words with you, it only ends with incessant debate. I can find that anywhere.

 

[Chriliman]

Maybe if you got them to show you how it worked. But a documentary on their lives probably won't help you very much.

Okay, lets say someone told me they know who created the website, but that I'd have to search for him myself in order to find him because all they know is that he created the website because they saw him do it. So the only evidence I have to begin my search is the created website and this other person's claim that they know the person. I have no physical evidence of the person themselves, yet I have no trouble believing they exist, why is that?

Christians are saying that the universe and everything in it is evidence of the Creator(similar to the complex website being evidence of a creator) and they are saying that they know the Creator because of what He has done in their personal lives(similar to personally seeing the website being created), they've experienced the restoration and healing that God provides on a personal level. Yet you have no physical evidence of this Creator Himself, but neither did the person in the example above and yet they have no trouble believing he exists. What's the difference?

I think the difference is our inability or unwillingness to comprehend the superiority of a being who is capable of creating us. We want to believe that we are not created, but that we are the highest possible creators, even though we see super complex creations all around us that we could never dream of being able to create ourselves.

 

[bhsmte]

Profound question indeed!

Indeed.

Let us know what you can demonstrate, in regards to the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

In your opinion, not mine.

That is the fact. All Christian theologians agree that men wrote the Bible.

It is only your unsupported, faith based belief that a deity was involved in any way with the writing of the Bible.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say falsification means something must be proven false, I said falsification means something can possibly be proven false.

Logically, the truth about reality would be impossible to prove false, therefore, one should not employ the scientific method to determine the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

You are still misstating the concept of falsification.

 

[Davian]

You use the same fallacy, thats what im saying. You cant prove God through science.

Does this "God" have any effect on our world?

 

[PapaZoom]

If you are seeking the truth, then your method of seeking the truth will necessarily be limiting because you are limiting yourself to the truth. A limitless method would accept anything as being true, even stuff made up on the spot and things that are untrue.

Not limitless but open to considering reasonable ideas. But then what seems reasonable to one may be silly to another.