God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: circuitsports
We are here, there is an unknown force of creation, it is God.

The only creator is the universe.

The universe has eternally existed, and has no beginning.

The universe is a life form.

All life stems from the universe.

I guess one could consider the universe God.

That would be pantheism, or spinoza's god.

According to the evidence we have the universe appears to have a beginning.

That is why Jesus says you also must have faith...

a reply to: Jobeycool

faith is proof of God for people who believe

people who don't believe don't know what faith is

a reply to: luthier

"What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life?"

First we still don't unequivocally understand the delicate and precise conditions necessary for life to occur and that's just on our own world never mind the rest of the universe. Consider through that the universe in a big place chances are it possibly happens quite often.

"How much variance can the constants have and still create the universe?"

That's the ticket through, that being the universal constant(G). Cant vary that really and expect the universe to turn out the same, at least that's my understanding of the matter.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

"What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life?"

First we still don't unequivocally understand the delicate and precise conditions necessary for life to occur and that's just on our own world never mind the rest of the universe. Consider through that the universe in a big place chances are it possibly happens quite often.

"How much variance can the constants have and still create the universe?"

That's the ticket through, that being the universal constant(G). Cant vary that really and expect the universe to turn out the same, at least that's my understanding of the matter.

What are the chances the proper enzymes would form to create cells and DNA by chance.

Some biochemist and astrophysicist have made pretty crazy claims.

The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."



Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Of course this is a limited outlook and there are billions of years. My point is what if we look at things with what we currently know. Is the claim of design insane? Or does it merely appear to be a design based on our perspective.

Or is there some logic to there is in fact something more than chance and random events. I don't know. Frankly I am simply not smart enough to know.

a reply to: luthier

According to the evidence we have the universe appears to have a beginning.

"appears" is the key word.

The idea of a beginning and an end is embedded in all of us.

The universe has no beginning, and will have no end. It goes through size cycles.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: luthier

According to the evidence we have the universe appears to have a beginning.

"appears" is the key word.

The idea of a beginning and an end is embedded in all of us.

The universe has no beginning, and will have no end. It goes through size cycles.

I certainly think that is possible but I don't think you can.prove it.

a reply to: luthier

I don't know where i stand regarding intelligent design, six of one half dozen of the other really.

Lets just say further study is required, just like with our current understanding of evolution.

The questions are just as important as any answers we may gleam.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FyreByrd

Stands to reason that if there are black holes/singularities in our universe, then there may also be some form of white holes that do the opposite of there cosmic cousins should multiverse theory hold and weight.

I'm not following too this too well. I guess I can see the appeal to symmetry in a 'white hole' so to speak but it would be in 'our' 'verse not in another 'cousin' verse. Scope is tricky but important.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Incandescent

Philosophy says "what if?".

Science provides repetitive results to support our philosophical arguments.

Science says, "what if" and takes a step further by finding ways to test.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

I don't know where i stand regarding intelligent design, six of one half dozen of the other really.

Lets just say further study is required, just like with our current understanding of evolution.

The questions are just as important as any answers we may gleam.

I agree. Which is why I take offense to people trashing philosophy and not understanding it's place in science. It is not necessary to hold a hiereactical view or choose one or the other. They work together.

Hoyle is a weird guy. Like an atheist for ID. He isn't the only one. A lot of evolutionists and biochemist have also been a we'd by the data and it's initial suggestions.

Of course these could have a perfectly non design reason but how much energy goes into assuming it can't be design as a bias is worth watching out for imo.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Incandescent

Philosophy says "what if?".

Science provides repetitive results to support our philosophical arguments.

Science says, "what if" and takes a step further by finding ways to test.

That is really not the whole view.

Philosophy has a set of training that allows questioning large questions without falacy. In general cosmologists often consult with philosophers over hypothesis.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Jobeycool

faith is proof of God for people who believe

people who don't believe don't know what faith is

That's just plain wrong. Plenty of people have faith who don't believe in an anthropomophic boss god(s).

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

"What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life?"

First we still don't unequivocally understand the delicate and precise conditions necessary for life to occur and that's just on our own world never mind the rest of the universe. Consider through that the universe in a big place chances are it possibly happens quite often.

"How much variance can the constants have and still create the universe?"

That's the ticket through, that being the universal constant(G). Cant vary that really and expect the universe to turn out the same, at least that's my understanding of the matter.

Actually life is robust - as in "life finds a way'. You are equating life with human life. I have no doubts that life exists in ways we can't begin to understand.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Science is a tool, its the results scientific study provides combined with our imagination that provides the "what if's".

Imagination being rather more synonymous with the philosophical component of our makeup rather than our scientific endeavour.

But that's just my opinion.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

I don't know where i stand regarding intelligent design, six of one half dozen of the other really.

Lets just say further study is required, just like with our current understanding of evolution.

The questions are just as important as any answers we may gleam.

You are right here. I would start with this basic question - does intelligent design require a self-aware intelligence or just a vast store of experience and wisdom. Does intelligent design imply a designer or can you imagine a 'field' of experience without form, personality or intent?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

"What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life?"

First we still don't unequivocally understand the delicate and precise conditions necessary for life to occur and that's just on our own world never mind the rest of the universe. Consider through that the universe in a big place chances are it possibly happens quite often.

"How much variance can the constants have and still create the universe?"

That's the ticket through, that being the universal constant(G). Cant vary that really and expect the universe to turn out the same, at least that's my understanding of the matter.

Actually life is robust - as in "life finds a way'. You are equating life with human life. I have no doubts that life exists in ways we can't begin to understand.

I am just talking about dna and making cells. Or the universe forming at all.

You could be right but to argue and assume I am wrong without proof or a logical argument seems pretty assumptive

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FyreByrd

Science is a tool, its the results scientific study provides combined with our imagination that provides the "what if's".

Imagination being rather more synonymous with the philosophical component of our makeup rather than our scientific endeavour.

But that's just my opinion.

And a fine opinion it is and think that you put it well - Science is a tool - that we can use in our search for knowledge and, hopefully, wisdom.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

I don't know where i stand regarding intelligent design, six of one half dozen of the other really.

Lets just say further study is required, just like with our current understanding of evolution.

The questions are just as important as any answers we may gleam.

You are right here. I would start with this basic question - does intelligent design require a self-aware intelligence or just a vast store of experience and wisdom. Does intelligent design imply a designer or can you imagine a 'field' of experience without form, personality or intent?

This is possible. It is primarily what Spinoza talks about as God. I think steiner called it the akashic records.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

I don't know where i stand regarding intelligent design, six of one half dozen of the other really.

Lets just say further study is required, just like with our current understanding of evolution.

The questions are just as important as any answers we may gleam.

Yes Steiner did as did the Hindus before him. Morphic Fields of Rupert Sheldrake to some extent.

You are right here. I would start with this basic question - does intelligent design require a self-aware intelligence or just a vast store of experience and wisdom. Does intelligent design imply a designer or can you imagine a 'field' of experience without form, personality or intent?

This is possible. It is primarily what Spinoza talks about as God. I think steiner called it the akashic records.

Yes Steiner did as did the Hindus before him. Morphic Fields of Rupert Sheldrake to some extent.