13 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI was asking you in your religion, is it recognized that God will stop us from ruining the planet? Is it thought that this god will not let us screw the place up?
I did not grow up in a church going family, Jesus' name was just the
first part of a cuss word when I was growing up. I did not become a
Christian because of a warm and fuzzy life I had, I became one while
I was doing a large number of things that could have ruined or ended
my life. It was life changing when I got saved, it happened almost 30
years ago ...[text shortened]... me or lump me in with a million people
you accuse of things you know nothing about.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by BadwaterThus, ID is not science.
We cannot know what it is that 'God', or whatever you're referring to as a creative source, has at its disposal. What tools or methods are being employed? What is not being used? How would we know?
We can't know, so as much as you might want to not engage in describing what we find, I don't see how that's logically feasible. I think you're setting up impossible constraints on the unknowable.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasTherefore, ID is not science.
In the first two postings your hypothesis is that god exists. Then it's no science. You cannot ever use scientific methods to prove god's existance. You cannot bring science into religion. Therefore this thread is about religion.
Bring this to Spiritual Forum, dear moderators! Please...
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat if Eladar is for once correct and no actual predictions can be made?
What if Eladar is for once correct and no actual predictions can be made?
That does not rule it out as a valid hypothesis.
It does however make it a rather over generalized hypothesis.
To my knowledge, string theory is yet to make any verifiable predictions.
I also see a possible problem in that what we know about God is based to a large extent on ...[text shortened]... tein would have done in a certain situation without referencing anything that Einstein ever did.
That does not rule it out as a valid hypothesis.
Yes it does!
To my knowledge, string theory is yet to make any verifiable predictions.
String theory is a model. It's not a hypothesis and it's not even a scientific theory despite it's name because it has not been experimentally verified.
If everything is made by God, then the ID position that we can tell the created from that which is not created is false, since everything is created.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarNo, he's saying that if there is no evidence for the existence of God, and there's no way to check if there's a God or not, then claiming that there is a God is not science.
[b]Through direct or indirect observation, like any other experiment. Again, if this god has a tangible effect on the world, then it is by definition...tangible
Tangilbe effect on the world? Would brining it into existance count as tangible? Of course you can't observe creation, either directly or indirectly.
What you are asking for is a miracle ...[text shortened]... t if God does not do a miracle for you, then God must not exist. Your point of view is flawed.[/b]
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungClose enough, but I want to go further. It is a necessary argument to be able to claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (for any God who is supposed to have a tangible influence on the universe).
No, he's saying that if there is no evidence for the existence of God, and there's no way to check if there's a God or not, then claiming that there is a God is not science.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's true. Using the same line of reasoning, claiming that God does not exist is not science.
No, he's saying that if there is no evidence for the existence of God, and there's no way to check if there's a God or not, then claiming that there is a God is not science.
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Do you still think that you're "doing some science here"?
No, we're actually going to do some science here. We're going to see if we can raise the status of the Creationist claim to a hypothesis, with some testable predictions. If we can't, then we can't consider Creationism to be a reasonable alternative to evolution because it will be unverifiable.
This thread is as any other evolution thread. Some anti-science, pro-creationists take over and repeat themselves, over and over, preaching their view, and continue preaching.
I told you so. Listen at me. Don't ever start evolution threads again and think it will stay in a state of good science. It won't. This thread proves it.
13 Oct 08
with some testable predictions.
That's where people make a faulty assumption. Just because something can be done one way, does it mean it must be done that way?
Science is supposed to be about making a hypothesis and testing it, then reproducing that event. It is about what we can do now, not about how things might have happened in the past.
By the way, I have absolutely no problem with "this is one explanation about how things could have happened". What I have a problem with is "this is what did happen". Making the leap of faith about something that you can't reproduce is just that, a leap of faith.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by PalynkaNecessary for what?
Close enough, but I want to go further. It is a necessary argument to be able to claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (for any God who is supposed to have a tangible influence on the universe).
Are you asserting that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (for any God who is supposed to have a tangible influence on the universe)"?
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarCorrect. I don't think anyone's trying to claim that biology proves the lack of God in childrens' science classes. IDers are trying to claim that there is proof of a "designer" in childrens' science classes however.
That's true. Using the same line of reasoning, claiming that God does not exist is not science.