Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED

irwanwr

I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.

However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

assumption? i still remember when i was still in university that they told me to do research and write something to present it and later become thesis. thesis itself means

@unknownuser said:

the·sis (thss)
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)

A proposition that is maintained by argument.

A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.

The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.

even any science start from a scratch of assumption, proposition, without proof. are you sure you know what you are talking about here?

irwanwr

@hieru said:

then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

everything in your world must be "materialistic" and "mechanical"?
well, bad news. your god so called science with any laws of physics etc, admit that it is not perfect. putting it mild.

@unknownuser said:

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.

The three areas of limitation are

Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.

Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.

Science does not mean "everything" to justify about "anything".

Hieru

@srx

@unknownuser said:

The same with God. Its manifestation is all around you, including the electricity.

Not in a tangible way that can be objectively measured. It comes down to the quality of the evidence.

Hieru

If you want to study anything objectively then there are common approaches to reasonig and deductive logic regardless of the subject, whether it's electricity, history or paranormal claims.

I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.

However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate according to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

irwanwr

science is not the perfect tool or "plugin" to use when it comes to justify whether there is god or not. or even "did God create the universe".

i say that science failed for that matter.
it doesn't work as it's expected to be. with all of instruments or any given resources there are. as predictable comprehensively understood mechanism. cause and effect procedures. and there was obviously no "poof" and a conclusion as a result.

science failed. it's just a pile of craps with good packaging design.

if you're blind, does not mean that what you cannot see does not exist.

Hieru

@unknownuser said:

On the contrary wouldn't we presume that this God had created those laws and therefore MUST exist outside of them?

You can't work according to any unfounded presumptions. We have to draw conclusions based on what the evidence tells us.

@unknownuser said:

What if that mechanism isn't comprehensible from a naturalistic standpoint though?

Until there is evidence that any phenomenon operates outside the naturalistic model of the universe, it's safe to presume (for the time being) that such a mechanism is highly implausible. Also, it's worth considering that any non-naturalistic phenomenon wouldn't be observable since our means of observation are limited by materialistic mechanisms. Consequently any supposed observation of a non-naturalistic phenomenon cannot be any such thing.

@unknownuser said:

What if it were simply an all powerful entity acting within the bounds of our natural world. It's at least conceivable isn't it? And yet you've ruled it out as a point of worldview

I haven't ruled it out. I merely see no evidence to support such an hypothesis and whilst admittedly conceivable as a possibility, the lack of supporting evidence suggests that it's highly unlikely.

I am however open to considering any compelling evidence that may come along in the future.

irwanwr

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

if you're blind, does not mean that what you cannot see does not exist.

You are right as you can touch, smell, hear and taste if it exists.

didn't you read "the limitations of science" i posted above?
ok, let me correct that for you.

if you cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste it. it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

for an example. let's put it this way.
i cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste whatever that is the real you. does it mean that you do not exist?

your "limitations" does not mean that anything beyond "them" does not exist.

jeff hammond

@irwanwr said:

although this is "pointless from the beginning".

yeah, i'm pretty sure most of the people here enter this thread with that in mind.. it's a decent group of people around here and there's a history of these types of thread in which people disagree, sometimes very much so, but have no qualms about entering another thread to share ideas on a drawing technique or make jokes w/ each other etc.. i mean, i still like/respect Boo, brodie, srx, ely, etc regardless of us not seeing eye->eye on issues such as this.. [not really sure if i like that cornel dude though ].. oh, and i like you too.. you seem hyped on sketchup and curious/excited enough about it in the same way that brought most of the active members to scf.. so that's cool..
[not sure if others feel the same way but i imagine most here do.. and won't be holding grudges based on religious beliefs when it comes to future sketchup related discussions]

@irwanwr said:

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

supernatural is a word created by man.. it basically means the same thing as god and a point that i've been trying to make earlier is that when man can't explain something then we have the tendency to assign a god to it..
i really don't think anything could be considered supernatural because if it happens then it's natural.. the fact that it might be unnatural to us just says we don't know everything about the universe.. maybe a better word would be super-normal or super-idk (beyond what we often see or know about)..

so while science may not be able to explain the supernatural (see above), it certainly can explain what's really going on therefore demoting the 'phenomena' from supernatural status to normal or neato! status..

and i think we've seen exactly that scenario over&over again throughout our history..

jeff hammond

@irwanwr said:

science failed. it's just a pile of craps with good packaging design.

i don't quite get the science vs. god thing anyway.. i guess the simple act of assigning the word 'science' to it (then further give it a definition) lessens the true meaning or packages it into something we can point a finger at or pit it in a thisVSthat scenario but it's not something to be worshiped in the way theists do their gods.. science just is.. it's just there

if you were dropped off on a deserted island as an infant and somehow managed to survive, you'd still experience/conduct science on a daily basis.. (if i do this, then that happens etc.. discovering fire and how you can use it to your advantage.. etc..)
but in that same scenario, i guarantee you wouldn't be talking about god as you are now..

you'd probably have your own version of god though (well, more likely than not, you'd have a whole bunch of gods..).. and i highly (highly!) doubt it would be the same version you are speaking of today.

irwanwr

@unknownuser said:

supernatural is a word created by man.. it basically means the same thing as god and a point that i've been trying to make earlier is that when man can't explain something then we have the tendency to assign a god to it..

well, those words are copy pasted from a website. there are other sites with more or less similar explanation. but that one looks a bit simpler with numbered list. it may be the conventional term or word to describe the matter.

actually when i saw this topic on the forum, i say to myself, "not another one".
it's like trying to explain to some people about the suitable tools for certain purposes.
like; philosophy, science, art, etc. (personally, i only consider those three as main tools, or say "plugins").

i have a book here back from long time ago, when i was still at high school before i went to univ. entitled "Science in Perspective" if translated. a good not too thick book actually. sort of compilation of some other writings. unfortunately this books is in my language. it talks about "science" itself. we need it since we have to prepare ourselves leaving school to go to univ. so, that's the reason i don't really like the topic. risky. as if something put before us and people in crowd bringing whatever tools they have. each of some may even doesn't really understand their own tools. am a bit lazy to interpret it and quote it.

i guess it's just a topic in a forum. wont makes me deal with any kind of graduation either

irwanwr

@unknownuser said:

you'd probably have your own version of god though (well, more likely than not, you'd have a whole bunch of gods..).. and i highly (highly!) doubt it would be the same version you are speaking of today.

i did actually have the same doubts. those were times when i still stick around with Karl Marx and his fellow bunch. we have also some "thinkers" here. some are total famous atheist, like one of them have his book "Madilog" so famous. it stands for materialism, dialectic and logic. i lost the book though. can't find it anymore here in this room. someone probably borrowed it and forgot (i hope) to return it.
those times are over for me now. personally.

irwanwr

Jeff, if you were talking about many gods in context with those translation. it doesn't.
any "us" words in the scripture (if that was what you mean) belong to god and his closest servant. i heard some people in the west call them archangels or something. even the new pagans do.

Alan Fraser

"Did God create the universe?"
How about drawing a line under this for Christmas? The answer is that you are at perfect liberty to believe He did...but there is no evidence to support that position; it is an article of faith.

I have no problem with faith. I've lived my life surrounded by it...and I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. People are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want if they think it helps them get through this existence and makes them a better person.
Personally, I don't need that motivation and regard it as an illusion...sometimes helpful...sometimes not. But that's just my opinion and is entirely subjective. I'm still going to enjoy Christmas though...sing carols, go to midnight mass, wish all my friends a joyous holiday.
Hypocrisy? probably...you're at perfectly liberty to think that also...but that's your opinion and it's just as subjective as mine. It's theatre and social interaction and cohesion. Organised religion has never been anything else...well, apart from a handy means of social control and a nice little moneyspinner (see TV Evangelism)

Factors such as 'love' are not evidence for the existence of God...and certainly not a precise Abrahamic one. My dog loves me...in a totally unreserved way; and by any definition of the word. Does that make him christian and bound for glory? Evidence is that which is normally understood as such...the kind of thing that would satisfy a forensic lab.

That is the only thing that does vaguely annoy me...when dyed-in-the-wool theists attempt to draw some kind of spurious equivalence between the proof for God and the proof for some scientific theory or another. There is no such equivalence and it's a totally bogus and dishonest practice to maintain that there is. Faith is faith; it's not subject to scientific probity; get over it. But that does not mean that science is a 'faith' or 'belief' or 'religion'.

Scientific theory entails:-
a) An understood process (maybe not always fully inderstood, as yet, but at least in a general sense.
b) A process which is predictable.
c) A process which is repeatable.
There is not one aspect of God that meets even one of these criteria; that's why belief is called Faith. He moves in mysterious ways...the very antithesis of scientific process.

There's nothing remotely 'subjective' about scientific theory. If there was, the electrons rushing through the CPU of the machine I'm typing this on could just as easily deliver me a burger and fries as the contents of this forum page. The quantum mechanics that precisely determine the function of that CPU are exactly the same quantum mechanics that point beyond any doubt to the fact of the Big Bang and the processes that followed in its wake.

Bill Wilson

@alan fraser said:

"Did God create the universe?"
How about drawing a line under this for Christmas? The answer is that you are at perfect liberty to believe He did...but there is no evidence to support that position; it is an article of faith.

I have no problem with faith. I've lived my life surrounded by it...and I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. People are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want if they think it helps them get through this existence and makes them a better person.
Personally, I don't need that motivation and regard it as an illusion...sometimes helpful...sometimes not.
Thank you Alan, it is not often that I find a post that I agree with 100%, but yours hits it on the button.

I'm not very good at writing (typing) but I think a thank you to you for putting my thoughts into print is well worth the effort

Cheers and a very happy Xmas to all, Santa arrives here first but he should have a very good tan, the weather has been MINT. Agnostics are allowed to believe in Santa, after all we've got to believe in something.

Alan Fraser

You're very welcome, Bill. I'm glad there's at least one person that agrees with me.
Actually, this particular agnostic went one better than believing in Santa...he's just finished his stint being Santa on the local Rotary Chritmas float. The look of joy and wonder on the faces of the little kids; and the smiles on the faces of their mums and dads is what Christmas is all about...being nice to others and sparing a thought (and some cash or effort) for those less fortunate.

The people I really feel sorry for are those that are so materially deadened that they can spend a small fortune on illuminating their house, apparently leaving them so broke can't even spare a single penny for a charitable cause; or so worn out that they can't even drag their fat arse of the sofa as far as the front door. There might be some unknown mitigating circumstances of course, but if not, those are the true spiritually dead...whether they call themselves religious, agnostic or atheist. But that's a whole other topic.

michaliszissiou

@solo
Pete, santa an atheist?
The story of santa is interesting.
It's St Nicholas but became more complicated in the north countries
Became complicated in mediterranean countries too.
More complicated in US, in 30s even more as cocacola used this kind figure.
Now, from the fun sculptris forum challenge "holly cow, santa was an alien" I present you my vision - entry. Have fun, not a nightmare.
Merry christmas earth people...

boofredlay

Merry Christmas all.

mitcorb

Is this an allusion to pastafarian? with meatballs?

Alan Fraser

Ah! His Noodly Appendageness. Merry Christmas to you and all others on the forum, Eric.
That reminds me of this blast from the past (I was in the States at the time)

(Note to self: Don't forget the Xmas Alka Seltzer.)
[flash=640,390:3fttrukp]http://www.youtube.com/v/48TewJlc6BA?version=3[/flash:3fttrukp]

mitcorb

After you've overloaded, where do you find room for an additional 4-8 oz. of liquid of any sort? With fizz, even.