Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#402
#402
While I am not convinced that there is a creator for various reasons and observations, I don't think I can say there is conclusive evidence that there isn't a creator. I'm not sure what conclusive evidence of such a thing one way or the other would even look like, given the untestable nature of such an abstract concept as "God."
 
#404
#404
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
what evidence, and how does it rule it out?
Click to expand...

Aside from the whole "something from nothing" question science has done a fairly good job of explaining how we got to where we are now. Sure there are holes, but a decent picture has been painted.

And btw, the creator argument suffers from the same shortcomings as the alternative with respect to "something from nothing". The creator had to come from something and to say the creator is eternal by definition is no more valid then if I were to say the universe is eternal by definition.
 
#405
#405
You guys should check out philosopher St Thomas Aquinas theories about God. There are quite a few. One of them I believe is titled, "Theory of the Unmoved Mover."
 
#408
#408
govols182 said:
Exactly...something had to start the movement of everything. Things don't just start moving by themselves.
Click to expand...

This is assuming a linear time line like we are used to. We know that time is relative. I'm not so sure that there necessarily HAS to be a "beginning" and "end" as we know them.
 
#410
#410
rjd970 said:
From my limited knowledge on all the relevant data, the evidence against a creator outweighs the evidence for. if you want to talk philosophy and limits of science that is another issue, but I don't count that as evidence for a creator. At best, it is an explanation of a possibility, of which that thinking can be used to justfily the possibility of an infinite number of explanations.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Click to expand...

It is my contention that that line has to be drawn right down the middle, science at this point simply cannot explain how we or the universe for that matter came into being. Since science is limited (as of today, right now) it cannot touch upon the existence (pro or con) of God.

The evidence against is no greater than the evidence for at this point, one day perhaps that will change, then the line can be redrawn.
 
#411
#411
rjd970 said:
I guess we should include in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well. Philosophically, it makes just as much sense as God, or any other creator.
Click to expand...

Why would we care to argue semantics such as what form he would take at this point?
 
#412
#412
govols182 said:
You guys should check out philosopher St Thomas Aquinas theories about God. There are quite a few. One of them I believe is titled, "Theory of the Unmoved Mover."
Click to expand...

The same guy that endorsed the torture and murder of heretics? Hardly a voice of objectivity.
 
#413
#413
KB5252 said:
It is my contention that that line has to be drawn right down the middle, science at this point simply cannot explain how we or the universe for that matter came into being. Since science is limited (as of today, right now) it cannot touch upon the existence (pro or con) of God.

The evidence against is no greater than the evidence for at this point, one day perhaps that will change, then the line can be redrawn.
Click to expand...

I disagree wholeheratedly. Needless to say, the rest of your post doesn't mean much to me.
 
#415
#415
rjd970 said:
I disagree wholeheratedly. Needless to say, the rest of your post doesn't mean much to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am missing something but what evidence does science produce against any deity or religion?
 
#418
#418
KB5252 said:
Maybe I am missing something but what evidence does science produce against any deity or religion?
Click to expand...

Well, since it is non-falsifiable, and supernatural by definition, it deosn't fit into the realm of science, convienently. I thought that was well established at this point in the discussion?

Evidence, reasons, whatever you want to call it...but at a philosophical level it makes more sense that a creator doesn't exist, for reasons I have outlined inumerable times on this site. Chief of which is the problems I see with the philosphical reasons cited by some for its existence.

This doesn't preclude a creator existence by any means, but I find it highly unlikely. You see the line as 50/50. I see it more as 95/5....with the 5 there just to keep an open mind.
 
#419
#419
why does time have to be linear? is it not all relative? If that is the case, then the argument can be made for an infinate being
 
#420
#420
rjd970 said:
Well, since it is non-falsifiable, and supernatural by definition, it deosn't fit into the realm of science, convienently. I thought that was well established at this point in the discussion?

Evidence, reasons, whatever you want to call it...but at a philosophical level it makes more sense that a creator doesn't exist, for reasons I have outlined inumerable times on this site. Chief of which is the problems I see with the philosphical reasons cited by some for its existence.

This doesn't preclude a creator existence by any means, but I find it highly unlikely. You see the line as 50/50. I see it more as 95/5....with the 5 there just to keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

of course you do because of your predisposition against religion, or the concept of some creator
 
#421
#421
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
why does time have to be linear? is it not all relative? If that is the case, then the argument can be made for an infinate being
Click to expand...

...or an infinite universe. Since I can see and study the universe I am hedging my bet that way.
 
#423
#423
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
of course you do because of your predisposition against religion, or the concept of some creator
Click to expand...

No. Come up with some solid evidence, or philosophical arguments not grounded in "the other method can't explain this" and I am all ears.
 
#424
#424
so the fact that the universe is infinate also opens the door for an infinate being, since the universe is a constant, you can argue that there is a being that has always been been
 
#425
#425
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
so the fact that the universe is infinate also opens the door for an infinate being, since the universe is a constant, you can argue that there is a being that has always been been
Click to expand...

Like I said, I can study and observe the universe. The infinite being is purely speculative.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top