I consider "Chance" to be a very creative force. In fact some of the most creative solutions have occurred because random acts of chance have altered the facts, tilted the field, open an opportunity, exposed an opponents weakness, inspired explanation, empowered emotional expression and on and on and on. But hey, that just me and my romantic side coming out.
1) No I don't. Scientists are attempting to derive the laws that govern the physical structure of the universe. Scientists by profession are not attempting to define and understand the laws of God.There are scientist who believe in the existence of God and model their lives and conduct accordingly to the best of their ability and those that don't. That belief doesn't in any way effect how they go about doing their JOBS. Any more than it does any other profession. 2) As I stated above it is incorrect to assume the scientific method is by default 'divorced' from considerations of faith. A scientist's faith if they have one defines their belief system not heir careers. Your plumber is plumber regardless of whether he a religiously devout or not he attends your local reformed Baptist Church. 3) Wrong comparison. While some scientist's have speculated about what came before what is referred to as the Big Bang (and anyone can speculate about that) none have offered a fully developed theory. Science as whole accepts the fact that, for now at least what happened prior the creation of the observable universe is unknowable. 4) My comment wasn't directed at Einstein's famous comment which reflected his view of mankind's knowledge of the Universe at that time. Instead it was a general reflection on the 'job' of science. Einstein understood that there are some questions science might never be able to answer. Nothing I have stated contradicts that point, in fact I agree with it. 5) Every scientist working in every field that interacts with the study of quantum mechanics (QM). Statistics (the study of probability) is intrinsic to the study of QM. Which is a point BTW I have made on multiple occasions and a point you consistently seem unable to grasp. If the position and momentum of a particle cannot both be determined at the same time as QM insists then the only way you can resolve the equations involved is by using probability. And if you won't take my word for it then for pity's sake ask the nearest physicist you can reach. P.S. You were the one who specifically identified two separate frames of reference, that of God's and that of physicists. FYI 'frames of reference' were central to Einstein's view of the relativity. IMO he would have have been perfectly happy with God having an entirely different (and overarching) frame of reference to that of mankind's.
The problem being, obviously, that in a universe governed by the Creator, the value of such a distinction is a complete mystery. You get that, right? Not in the least, when the assumption is employed as a hypothetical premise from which the stated conclusion follows ineluctably, however determined you are to ignore it. OK, so you don't understand what faith is. No surprise there. Then one would naturally expect something resembling an explanation of what's wrong with it... ...but alas, no such luck. All you've managed to do is confirm the validity of the comparison. Why I should find this denial interesting I haven't the foggiest idea. Clearly the challenge eluded your comprehension entirely. I'm plenty aware of the dependence of QM on the laws of probability. What you are obviously unaware of is that it doesn't contradict anything I said; and how could you be otherwise, when you've somehow managed to misunderstand pretty much everything I've said?
If there is a god, there is no reason to believe we would know what that means to physics. We would still need to do exactly what we are doing today in order to learn how this universe works. There would still be absolutely no way to cause scinece to be able to address the supernatural.
The distinction is insignificant from Gods perspective, not from the scientists. (Oh and you of course.) Scientists can only study what they physically observe. Theologians face no such limits. You can at best argue that science's understanding of the universe is and always will be incomplete. Plenty of scientists would probably agree. Ke? More insults combined with sheer arrogance. Who the hell are you to judge mine or anyone else's faith? Putting on the mantle of God now are we? Again ke? Yet again, you smart me dumb. It must get tiring telling everyone who disagrees with you how stupid they are. I'm sorry but it would help if you if you didn't talk in circles so often without getting to the point. You get that right?
That would mean the scientist's perspective is stultified, obviously. And what else could there possibly be to science besides "study", right? That's not an intelligent question, in case you didn't know. Clearly you're oblivious to the fact that faith has an additional definition other than that which you employ here. Einstein understood that and so do I, so I don't know what the hell your problem is. See above. It certainly would, just as it would if I were to take as a personal insult every claim that I didn't understand something. Happily, I have sense enough not to fall into either trap. That makes one of us. I can hardly stop doing what I wasn't doing in the first place. Makes more sense to ask what the hell good it is for me to get to the point when all you have in response is "Ke?", or something equally intelligent.
When it comes to topics outside the remit of science perhaps. But then has been my point from the beginning, science is not equipped to deal with questions outside the remit of science. Errr... how about the application of science to practical real world problems in fields like medicine, agriculture, industrial production, power generation. The list goes on. That why there is a whole field called Applied Science. The computer you type on being one example of the fruits of applied science. It seemed an appropriate response at the time to your comment as in 'when the assumption is employed as a hypothetical premise from which the stated conclusion follows ineluctably, however determined you are to ignore it.' Multi part part forum responses become hard to follow as is without someone using unnecessarily verbose language. In face to face conversations? sure no problem, on a digital forum? I believe its called pleonasm and its unnecessary. [QUOTE="yguy, post: 1071207491, member: 36186]Clearly you're oblivious to the fact that faith has an additional definition other than that which you employ here. Einstein understood that and so do I, so I don't know what the hell your problem is.[/QUOTE] I am aware various definitions of the word 'faith, understand its meaning and have experience of it at a personal level. And if you believe I or another poster doesn't understand a concept you are trying to get across then, as a courtesy how about simply trying to explain it more clearly? [QUOTE="yguy, post: 1071207491, member: 36186]See above..[/QUOTE] Also see above. [QUOTE="yguy, post: 1071207491, member: 36186]It certainly would, just as it would if I were to take as a personal insult every claim that I didn't understand something. Happily, I have sense enough not to fall into either trap That makes one of us..[/QUOTE] Have you considered taking with people rather than talking down to them. [QUOTE="yguy, post: 1071207491, member: 36186]Makes more sense to ask what the hell good it is for me to get to the point when all you have in response is "Ke?", or something equally intelligent.[/QUOTE] Again see above. Simple concise sentences please. Without the added overtones of moral and intellectual superiority.
When it comes to topics inside the purview of science, definitely. So you think you're talking to an idiot. Thanks for making that plain. How about reflection on the possibility that "dissection" of the universe leads away from understanding the overarching structure of a universe governed by a Creator? Since when is that a synonym for "idiotic"? Had you understood what you were reading, you might be in a position to make that call. Things being what they are... Then you'd have done better not to overreact on the assumption that I was using one that implied any insult to "your faith". I wasn't doing that. I was merely noting that you present as someone who doesn't understand what faith is, especially as it relates to science. lol That's what you're getting, to the extent you make it possible. Any harmonic distortion introduced by equipment on your end isn't my problem.
Applied science is engineering. It does not use scientific method. It does not have description of how our universe works as an objective.
2) You were the one who stated that sciences view of the universe was stultified. I simply proposed limits on the the degree to which that statement was correct. Why do you think that implies I thought you were an idiot? Especially as I have been at pains to at least try and maintain a civil tone to the discussion. In any event if I thought you were an idiot I have enough integrity to tell you directly, not beat around the bushes. 3) I have reflected on that possibility and I disagree.Why should the study of science as opposed to any other human endeavor automatically lead to, as you put it 'understanding the overarching structure of a universe governed by a Creator'? If you are an atheist no human activity be it the arts, mathematics, engineering, or economics etc will ever lead you to the Creator. If you are a theist on the other hand then there is no logical reason why studying science will, be default lead you away from God. Least ways you have not presented a shred evidence to show this is automatically the case. Unless of course it is your position that ALL scientists, even those who profess to a religious faith are fooling themselves and their pursuit of their chosen profession is by default dammed? P.S. I am not claiming this is your position, just trying to follow your line of argument. 4)&5) The fact I stated you used unnecessarily complex and verbose language would seem to imply exactly that - I didn't understand what you were trying to say and so therefore I was in a position to say what I did (circular or what)? Again clear simple precise language please.. 6) Again you did state that I didn't understand what faith was. And yes science and religion use the term faith differently. 8 ) Well starting to anyway, so progress is being made. Happy times. 9) You can always ask other posters if they think my criticisms were completely unfair/unfounded. Failing that I am at least attempting to keep the tone of the debate neutral as possible and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
Problem is the scientific and engineering communities, not to mention the World's tertiary institutions as whole tend to disagree. Applied scientists study areas of scientific endeavor that might if they are successful lead to developments in engineering. Engineers can only apply what has been tested and verified first by those scientists. Its also the reason there are what are generally regarded as 3 broad fields in Physics - theoretical, research /experimental and applied.
I don't see any meaningful disagreement on this. We in the US (and elsewehere?) use the word "science" quite liberally - including stuff that even just sounds sciency! Applied sciece is the pursuit of a solution to a specific problem. It's not the pursuit of how something within our universe works. And, the solution being sought tends to be one that has commercial value. This is engineering. That's not a bad thing - I'm an engineer. Why would an engineer want to be called a scientist? I use "science" to indicate use of scientific method. This is how we get independently tested and reviewed theory on how processes in our natural universe work. Applied science doesn't do this. Theoretical physics doesn't do this. Theoretical physics is an idea mill which is certainly important/necessary to have, but does not produce more than ideas that would then need to be tested by scientific method. We get multiverse, string theory, numerous QM related ideas concerning cosmology, etc. But, those ideas become accepted theory only through scientific method. And, most of those ideas are in theoretical physics BECAUSE they can't be tested.
I'm not about to expend the effort necessary to figure out what the hell you're talking about by scrolling up and down; so if you and I are to have any further conversation, here's what's gonna happen: All your replies to yours truly will employ the quote function per rule 15. If you respond point by point, your responses will be formatted as mine are. If you don't know how, see here. If you don't want to know how, happy trails. He isn't a thing at all; so in a sense it could be said He is the non-thing from which every thing came.
I would still argue that you need the theorists to come up with models that can be tested. That theory then gets tested by research physicists (via the scientific method). Applying the 'tested' theory to real world problems still requires scientists. Using the A Bomb as an example, Einstein still had to originate the theory behind it, then research physicists had to test his theory and come up with observations (like gravitational lensing) that corroborated it. Applied scientists then had to formulate a way to demostrate the outcomes of those observations and then guide engineers in the building of the first atomic pile. I would argue that applied scientists and engineers work in tandem. You can't build something like the example I mentioned until a scientist comes up with a model for how it might work. None of which BTW is intended to denigate or minimise the important role engineers play in the application of scientific discoveries. The first pile would still be just an 'idea' if engineers handn't analysed scientists theoretical modellling of atomic fission and come up with a way of building a test platform.
I'm certainly not suggesting that we don't need any of thesse disciplines. We need them all. The division comes with what the objectives and methods are. Applied scientists are creating solutions that are likely to be of commercial value. That's engineering. One could call the entire engineering school in a university a school of applied science. Theoretical physics is one source of ideas that scientists (using scientific method) could explore. They use math models and physics we know today. Typically speaking, there isn't a way of performing real world tests to verify their ideas. String theory (for example) can't be tested today, because we don't have the technology to do that. There are cases such as in big pharma where the lines get muddy, but that's not really the point in this thread. The point is that science has produced a theory of evolution, which means that there has been serious work in verification of the theory using specific methodologies.
I paid attention to your contradiction. It was said that you can't get something from nothing, but then you say everything came from a non thing you call God.
1. What is "nothing"?? Who are you suggesting thinks this universe came from this "nothing" you talk about? 2. Chance doesn't have to be "creative" in order to allow evolution. This has been described to you multiple times. I would suggest not saying this over and over again as it just identifies you as someone who hasn't bothered to learn what they are talking about.
of a statement authored by someone else. Congratulations, I guess. by someone other than yours truly... ...so what the hell's the problem?
Apologies I was merely trying to shorten the response time given no in my experience you still end up having to scroll backwards and forwards when dealing with multiple posts anyway. Here are you original responses as included in post 108 and my replies restated. You; So you think you're talking to an idiot. Thanks for making that plain. My response; You were the one who stated that sciences view of the universe was stultified. I simply proposed limits on the the degree to which that statement was correct. Why do you think that implies I thought you were an idiot? Especially as I have been at pains to at least try and maintain a civil tone to the discussion. In any event if I thought you were an idiot I would simply tell you directly, not beat around the bush. You: How about reflection on the possibility that "dissection" of the universe leads away from understanding the overarching structure of a universe governed by a Creator? My responce; I have reflected on that possibility and I disagree.Why should the study of science as opposed to any other human endeavor automatically lead to, as you put it 'understanding the overarching structure of a universe governed by a Creator'? If you are an atheist no human activity be it the arts, mathematics, engineering, or economics etc will ever lead you to the Creator. If you are a theist on the other hand then there is no logical reason why studying science will, be default lead you away from God. Least ways you have not presented any evidence to show this is automatically the case. Unless of course it's your position that ALL scientists, even those who profess to a religious faith are fooling themselves and their pursuit of their chosen profession is by default dammed? P.S. I am not claiming this is your position, just trying to follow your line of argument. You; Had you understood what you were reading, you might be in a position to make that call. Things being what they are... My response; The fact I stated you used unnecessarily complex and verbose language would seem to imply exactly that - I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Hence my earlier comment. Again clear simple precise language if possible please. You: Then you'd have done better not to overreact on the assumption that I was using one that implied any insult to "your faith". And again ; I wasn't doing that. I was merely noting that you present as someone who doesn't understand what faith is, especially as it relates to science. My Response: Again you did state that I didn't understand what faith was. And yes science and religion use the term faith differently. You; That's what you're getting, to the extent you make it possible. My response: Well starting to anyway, so progress is being made. Happy times. And lastly. You; Any harmonic distortion introduced by equipment on your end isn't my problem. My response; You can always ask other posters if they think my criticisms were completely unfair/unfounded. Failing that I am at least attempting to keep the tone of the debate neutral as possible and would appreciate the same courtesy in return. Hopefully well get back to fewer multi-part quotes in responses from now on. For my part I am mainly interested in your response to the 'dissection of the universe' reply above.
A cause and effect sequence cannot, by definition, begin with an uncaused-effect; it can begin with an uncaused-cause. I am left to believe that material, spatial and temporal being is an effect of an immaterial, spiritual and eternal affect. I cannot argue for or against the existence of any particular God on merely logical grounds. Various beliefs in various Gods all involve the entire person not just their intellects. Beliefs in Gods all have intellectual components to them; however, they also involve the emotional and volitional aspects of the individuals who hold them. Faith is not merely intellectual. Faith involves the entire person, their intellects, emotions and wills. To the extent that one intellectually understands a thing, emotionally trusts that thing and willingly identifies with that thing, that one has faith in that thing. Faith is a sophisticated hermeneutic that we all employ in surprisingly mundane ways all of the time. It's really the way we actually operate day in and day out. The truth is that we don't take the time to completely think through most of the many things that we do every day. We do most of what we do on faith. We cross bridges on faith. We employ cell phones on faith. The truth is that we understand far less than we think we do, and we act far more in faith than we realize. What I can argue is that matter is contingent in its being. If contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. My search for God is my search for necessary being and all that implies. To date, the God of the bible seems to me to uniquely fulfill the implications of a necessary being. I can't find a church, even among those with whom I agree about salvation from the penalty for sin via grace through faith in Jesus Christ because I don't believe in free will. Another word for necessary is sovereign. Necessary being (God if you will) is at least as sovereign over his novel creation as an author is over his. The fact that we make choices or that we cannot know what all of those choices are going to be does not prove to me that we choose from undetermined possibilities. Every character in every novel I've ever read has made that assumption.
Almost everyone who devoted their lives to the science of their time wasted their lives on mumbo jumbo. In fact, so few are those whose work has so far withstood tests to disprove it, that we can know their names. And even many of their ideas were not accepted by the scientists of their time. Every time is able to see the folly of the times before them, but no time is able to see the folly in their midst.
