Is It Ever Appropriate to Say “God Did It” in Response to a Scientific Challenge?

[Mountainmike]

For those of us that are or have been scientists as opposed to those that boast of being one, your post adds to the suspicions you are a phoney.

In the thread you changed the goalposts from a greenhouse effect, to walled gardens and microclimates eventually to the pure pseudoscience idea the effects of a windmill are permanent leading to the claim I don’t understand conservation of energy.
Evidently you are so confused you can’t even get the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy to apply to the correct example!!

I can so easily call your bluff of boasting of knowing far more about fluid mechanics than I do, by requesting you to use it to demonstrate how windmill effects are permanent.
Those of us who did fluid mechanics as opposed to those who boasted about doing it, would understand the effects can never be permanent and the conservation of energy is preserved.

My critique of your nonsense and your pseudoscience were separately evaluated by an independent source.

Further evaluation of windmills contributing to the Greenhouse effect as being pseudoscience.

Here is the reference thread. https://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-is-extracting-wind-power-causing-some-climate-change-problems.8273855/ Before going any further into the topic let’s introduce another ‘poster’ into the thread GPT-4o. I have privately tested GPT-4o on various...

www.christianforums.com

There was a time when this forum was for good natured discussion of science.

Now it seems to be a forum for those who think they know some science ( seemingly in your case a basic undergrad course) who don’t even know energy comservation . To shout others down , but you use all the big words in all the wrong places

Then You attack those who have been there and done it - take fluid mechanics I actually designEd a specialist vortex shedding flow meter, actually analysing the fluid dynamics and heat transfer for control of a massive exotherm reaction , which if got wrong could have blown up a town! actually designing a structure that needed ultra high precision in gale force wind and ice storms (think serurrier trusses) but much harder load problem on warships.

way way, beyond your undergrad course,

My observation of the potential ( as yet unknown, potentially profound ) wide range climate Implication of slowing of wind was spot on. I know there’s an issue because of EXPERIENCE
It’s a pity you are not clever enough to understand.

Go back to school. Study energy conservation. Then view windmills in that light. If you take energy out, something downstream has changed. Speed. Pressure. Volume flow. Or as they say in yorkshire. Owt is for nowt..

Over and out. Go use the big words to Impress those who dont know what they mean so you wont get caught out.

 

[Joseph101]

I think that modern science, far from opposing faith, confirms many religious beliefs. Science reveals truths that support the idea of a Creator. True science and faith come from the same divine source, so there is an ammonia between science and faith. Modern science, like metaphysics, can lead to a deeper understanding of God, confirming religious truths without contradicting them.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think that modern science, far from opposing faith, confirms many religious beliefs. Science reveals truths that support the idea of a Creator. True science and faith come from the same divine source, so there is an ammonia between science and faith. Modern science, like metaphysics, can lead to a deeper understanding of God, confirming religious truths without contradicting them.

Indeed there is plenty of evidence of the overlap . Try eucharistic miracles. The problem is the false view that science creates other than a model of the universeThe model is not the universe itself. Science confines itself to the observable and repeatable- and only then on the presumption it always repeats..
The falasy then it is to pretend those models ARE the underlying universe. Wise philosophers have always disagreed. The phenomena (what is observed) are not the same as the noumena (the underlying reality giving rise to the phenomenon). Not least our observations are just a projection from a higher dimension universe limited by our senses. A bat or blind cavefish would have an entirely different perception of the universe.. The universe of the model is neither objective nor deterministic despite starting with both as assumptions to derive the model. Ask wigners friend!

 

[sjastro]

There was a time when this forum was for good natured discussion of science.

Now it seems to be a forum for those who think they know some science ( seemingly in your case a basic undergrad course) who don’t even know energy comservation . To shout others down , but you use all the big words in all the wrong places

Then You attack those who have been there and done it - take fluid mechanics I actually designEd a specialist vortex shedding flow meter, actually analysing the fluid dynamics and heat transfer for control of a massive exotherm reaction , which if got wrong could have blown up a town! actually designing a structure that needed ultra high precision in gale force wind and ice storms (think serurrier trusses) but much harder load problem on warships.

way way, beyond your undergrad course,

My observation of the potential ( as yet unknown, potentially profound ) wide range climate Implication of slowing of wind was spot on. I know there’s an issue because of EXPERIENCE
It’s a pity you are not clever enough to understand.

Go back to school. Study energy conservation. Then view windmills in that light. If you take energy out, something downstream has changed. Speed. Pressure. Volume flow. Or as they say in yorkshire. Owt is for nowt..

Over and out. Go use the big words to Impress those who dont know what they mean so you wont get caught out.

I have to admit I’m very impressed with your response; I could not have come up with a better example of the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy.
Since you don’t seem to understand the nature of the fallacy let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms.

It’s like the flat earther who ignores the case for a spherical earth and fails to explain and provide evidence why the earth is flat.
Now substitute the term the earth is flat with the statement downstream effects from windmills are permanent otherwise the conservation of energy is violated with your response which is nothing more than a piece of self-aggrandizing drivel with the usual smattering of personal attacks and one can see the similarities.
Like the flat earther you ignored the ten reasons I gave why you are expounding pseudoscience and dishonesty while denying the very temperature and wind velocity evidence which contradicts your nonsense.

I gave you the opportunity here of putting your money where your mouth is by refuting mainstream science with the use of fluid mechanics; alas everything went to script as like in your thread, you came up with a typical non response.
Mainstream science has nothing to worry about as does the conservation of energy, the bottom line is your bluff has well been well and truly called.

 

[carloagal]

Indeed there is plenty of evidence of the overlap . Try eucharistic miracles. The problem is the false view that science creates other than a model of the universeThe model is not the universe itself. Science confines itself to the observable and repeatable- and only then on the presumption it always repeats..
The falasy then it is to pretend those models ARE the underlying universe. Wise philosophers have always disagreed. The phenomena (what is observed) are not the same as the noumena (the underlying reality giving rise to the phenomenon). Not least our observations are just a projection from a higher dimension universe limited by our senses. A bat or blind cavefish would have an entirely different perception of the universe.. The universe of the model is neither objective nor deterministic despite starting with both as assumptions to derive the model. Ask wigners friend!

Many scientists think that eucharistic miracles couldn't be demonstrated, for example Sokolka in Poland in 2008 they could always think that someone could have manipulated the host put in top of it the muscle heart human tissue.

 

[Mountainmike]

Many scientists think that eucharistic miracles couldn't be demonstrated, for example Sokolka in Poland in 2008 they could always think that someone could have manipulated the host put in top of it the muscle heart human tissue.

I’d love to see who the “ many scientists “ were.
. The pathologists and those that actually studied them dont.
the science is consistent between phenomena, and inexplicable and is certainly not possible to fake by the means you suggest.

If you really want to see pseudoscience , and wishful thinking, read the critics of eucharistic miracles, most of whom have not even looked at the evidence ! Alas to mis quote Tom sawwyer social media ensures a lie can spread round the world befire the truth can get its boots on.
Nor are they red bread mould another atheist meme falsely Applied to sokolka
its true the polish rationalist society attacked sokolka , claiming There must be a body -but nobody was missing! I suspect your many scientist myth is based on that.

There are many aspects that are not falsifiable Across the so called miracles
why are white cells such as leucocytes visible after years in vitro. These are alive! How?
why is there no dna identity despite copious nuclear dna - but there is maternal dna of Middle East haplogroup.
in some such as tixtla the tissue was so intimately intermingled with bread at the edge nobody could Fake it.
at Beunos aires the change to cardiac tissue was progressive over weeks not instant
In lanciano recognisable heart tissue has survived a Millenium . How?

My advice is stop reading social media like wiki and study the science instead!

 

[carloagal]

Mi piacerebbe vedere chi erano questi "molti scienziati".
I patologi e coloro che li hanno effettivamente studiati non lo sanno.
la scienza è coerente tra i fenomeni e l'inspiegabile e non è certamente possibile falsificarli con i mezzi che suggerisci.

Se vuoi davvero vedere pseudoscienza e velleità, leggi i critici dei miracoli eucaristici, la maggior parte dei quali non ha nemmeno esaminato le prove! Ahimè, per citare male Tom Sawyer, i social media assicurano che una bugia possa diffondersi in tutto il mondo prima che la verità possa mettersi gli stivali.
Né sono muffa del pane rosso un altro meme ateo falsamente applicato a sokolka
è vero che la società razionalista polacca ha attaccato Sokolka, sostenendo che ci deve essere un corpo, ma non mancava nessuno! Sospetto che il tuo mito di molti scienziati si basi su questo.

Ci sono molti aspetti che non sono falsificabili nei cosiddetti miracoli
perché i globuli bianchi come i leucociti sono visibili dopo anni in vitro. Questi sono vivi! Come?
perché non esiste un'identità del DNA nonostante l'abbondante DNA nucleare, ma esiste il DNA materno dell'aplogruppo mediorientale.
in alcuni, come il tixtla, il tessuto era così intimamente mescolato al pane sul bordo che nessuno poteva fingere.
a Beunos aires il cambiamento del tessuto cardiaco è stato progressivo nel corso delle settimane e non immediato
A Lanciano il tessuto cardiaco riconoscibile è sopravvissuto a un millennio. Come?

Il mio consiglio è di smettere di leggere i social media come Wiki e di studiare invece la scienza!

I believe in the Eucharistic Miracles, but for example my father that is an agnostic scientist when I told him about eucharistic miracle of Sokolka told me who guarante me that the heart muscle tissue appeared in the host and someone didn't put in top of it take it from a dead corp?

 

[FireDragon76]

If saying that God did something involves a "God of the gaps" argument, then some "God of the gaps" arguments have true conclusions.* Secular orthodoxy imposes upon us the dogma that "God of the gaps" is always a bad argument, or in other words: that "God did it" is never an acceptable response. This secular dogma needs to simply be rejected, for it is based on the premise that God either does not exist or does not do anything. More precisely, it is based on the naturalistic premise that miracles never occur (and therefore God does not or cannot perform miracles).

Your apologetics source basically says, "God did some things, but only those things that Scripture attests to." This is also unacceptable, for it results in the conclusion that God does not do anything miraculous after the final page of Scripture was written. On this view God has not done anything miraculous for at least the past 1800 years.

The answer is that God does miraculous things, and most of these things are not attested to by Scripture. When is it appropriate to conclude that God did something miraculous? Roughly speaking, when 1) there is no plausible natural explanation, and 2) there is a positive reason to believe that God would be acting.

* Note that the primary sense of a "God of the gaps" argument is an argument from ignorance for God's existence, not a mere attribution of a mysterious event to God's causality.

It's not just secular morality.... "God of the Gaps" is a bad argument for potentially theological reasons, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out. It moves God to the periphery of human life. God becomes some additional, and superfluous, fact about the world.