Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

@kellyjay said
This thread is about what the name says. On this topic I'll gladly engage with you.
You think science shouldn't be used to seek truth that if the end result is something
out side of the material world? If so is it only because you believe all truth is found
in the material world and therefore science is blind to all else?

What I think about science and about religiosity and seeking the truth and the natural world and the supposed supernatural world is all to be found in my posts on this thread and the other. Engage as you see fit. Wriggling is not 'engaging' in my book. Why do you need to worry about "science" if you have "faith"? If you don't believe "all truth is found in the material world", why are worried about what science says?

@kellyjay said
So you acknowledge freely science is blind when it comes to God? God could be
right there in front of you doing things only God could do, and you'd remain just
as blind as ever?

Another poster here has already admitted that God is invisible. Science cannot see what is not there to be seen. That's not "blindness," that's just common sense.

@kellyjay said
You think probability matters in complicated systems arising from undirected natural processes, that at some point the odds say no? I don’t really think it matters how old the universe and world are. Endless time will not overcome finite resources in limited space, if everything is not there that is required additional years will not add to the possibility of success!

It matters very much how old the world and the universe are. If they are both only 6000 years old, then some sort of miracle would be needed to explain how life got started.

However, given billions of years to shuffle and reshuffle the 98 naturally occurring elements, the probability of conditions favourable to life is vastly increased. Given billions of shuffles and only 52 cards, a dealt-hand with a royal flush is highly probable, too.

Given your posts to other threads, I presume you struggle to get over the hurdle of deep time.

@moonbus said
It matters very much how old the world and the universe are. If they are both only 6000 years old, then some sort of miracle would be needed to explain how life got started.

However, given billions of years to shuffle and reshuffle the 98 naturally occurring elements, the probability of conditions favourable to life is vastly increased. Given billions of shuffles and only ...[text shortened]... o.

Given your posts to other threads, I presume you struggle to get over the hurdle of deep time.

Personally I think a miracle is required no matter how old the earth and universe
are. There is no getting around the everything from nothing question. After that it
can be debated how it all was formed, if it took millions of years than a very
long list of additional miracles are required to take place. Everything just got put
together to form all the things we see, then through another list of miracles life
springs up and is maintained. Personally I don't see why God would want or need
to do the things required over a long period of time if He could do all at once why
wouldn't He?

I think people use deep time as they accuse me of using God for the gaps. With
time all things can happen, but I disagree with that. You can have a combination
lock and given enough time you will be able to open it, but if what we need to
take a place on its face cannot happen than time will not change that. If it can be
done, then look at what would then be required, you need just the right material
without that no matter how much time you have nothing will happen. The
material might be all there, but if it isn't in the proper environment, time will not
matter, and the list goes on and on miracle after miracle is required.

@wolfgang59 said
You were asked ONE question and your response
instead of an answer
is FIVE questions!

This is typical of you. Why are you always so evasive?
A simple "I do not know" would be preferable and more honest.

Oh Please, you look at a small piece of an exchange and spout off as if that is all there is to it. You treat everything you give an opinion on that way, I don’t think so, you don’t strike me as that swallow of a person.

@moonbus said
Another poster here has already admitted that God is invisible. Science cannot see what is not there to be seen. That's not "blindness," that's just common sense.

When police investigate an event after the fact when they show up and no one is there they look at what is to figure out who, what, where, why questions. This is no different we see what is, and with what we find we try to come up with answers. Some of the great dangers we face is running past the evidence making bad assumptions, or refusing to accept what is right in front if us.

@kellyjay said
Personally I think a miracle is required no matter how old the earth and universe
are. There is no getting around the everything from nothing question. After that it
can be debated how it all was formed, if it took millions of years than a very
long list of additional miracles are required to take place. Everything just got put
together to form all the things we see, the ...[text shortened]... r environment, time will not
matter, and the list goes on and on miracle after miracle is required.

If you accept the principle that shuffling and dealing a deck of 52 cards billions of times yields a higher probability of being dealt a royal flush, than shuffling the same cards only 600 or 6,000 times, then the same principle must apply to shuffling 98 naturally occurring elements until one particular combination results. Billions of years of shuffling yields a much higher probability of hitting upon a fortuitous string of molecules until some combination is hit upon which is capable of reproducing itself, than shuffling them only 6,000 years.

Moreover, it is not necessary that molecules capable of reproducing themselves were hit upon from rocks (or something as obviously lifeless as rocks). This is the error most Creationists make when criticizing abiogenesis — or life from not-life. It may have occurred in several stages, involving things which were neither life nor not-life. There are, in fact, in-between stages, things which are not quite life but also not exactly not-life either; they exhibit some characteristics of life but all. For example, viruses. Given in-between stages and billions of re-shufflings, no miracle would be required.

This is why it is so important to send probes to Mars and Enceladus (one of Saturn's moons) to search for environments thought to be favorable for supporting life, and signs of life or extinct life. For, if life (or evidence of extinct life) is ever found off the Earth, it will lend credence to the claim that no miracle was required for life to get going on Earth. Of course, some die-hard Creationists will no doubt claim that God made that life on Mars/Enceladus, too; but this does fit into the Biblical narrative, which claims that the universe was made for Adam, not for microbes on Mars or Enceladus.

As for "getting around the everything from nothing" question, if you are referring to how the universe got going (not how life got going): it is a peculiarity of Judeo-Christianity to be fixated on origins. Pagan Greek religion postulated an eternal Chaos or Mother Night, from which the Earth, the Cosmos, and gods were born, hatched, precipitated, etc.; Chaos or Mother Night needed no explanation. In Buddhism, the beginning of the universe is "undefined" — like division by zero; in other words, for Buddhism, it does not matter whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning. Man's purpose on Earth is not understood in terms of origins, as it is in Judeo-Christianity. It is a peculiarity of Judeo-Christianity that man's purpose on Earth is to return to a primordial innocence which was perfect in origin but lost in antiquity through a moral fall from grace. In paganism, Buddhism, and Islam, there is no fall from an original state of perfection, there is only ignorance.

@moonbus said
If you accept the principle that shuffling and dealing a deck of 52 cards billions of times yields a higher probability of being dealt a royal flush, than shuffling the same cards only 600 or 6,000 times, then the same principle must apply to shuffling 98 naturally occurring elements until one particular combination results. Billions of years of shuffling yields a much higher ...[text shortened]... Buddhism, and Islam, there is no fall from an original state of perfection, there is only ignorance.

Sorry, typing errors:

Of course, some die-hard Creationists will no doubt claim that God made that life on Mars/Enceladus, too; but this does NOT fit into the Biblical narrative,…

@moonbus

Of course, some die-hard Creationists will no doubt claim that God made that life on Mars/Enceladus, too; but this does NOT fit into the Biblical narrative,…

Where in the Bible is it definitely contradicted ?
Where in the Bible's narrative am I told that it could not be the case that God created life on another planet?

@moonbus said
If you accept the principle that shuffling and dealing a deck of 52 cards billions of times yields a higher probability of being dealt a royal flush, than shuffling the same cards only 600 or 6,000 times, then the same principle must apply to shuffling 98 naturally occurring elements until one particular combination results. Billions of years of shuffling yields a much higher ...[text shortened]... Buddhism, and Islam, there is no fall from an original state of perfection, there is only ignorance.

You are making several assumptions with respect to odds. Billions or trillions of attempts means that every single attempt had an opportunity for success. If you are suggesting billions of years automatically means that each attempt during that time period could have succeeded I would say no. What if you needed a royal flush in hearts but you are missing the queen of hearts! Would more time help you without the queen?

You also selected a goal that is possible through shuffling not unlike finding the proper set of numbers to open a combination lock! This presupposes it can happen through random natural processes govern by the laws within the universe. If it isn’t possible would time requardless of duration matter?

Then we would also have to acknowledge even having all the cards required, but if the environment is totally inhospitable would having the cards line up matter?

Before we even get to the previous issues how did the first miracle occur, which is where did everything come from?

@moonbus said
It matters very much how old the world and the universe are. If they are both only 6000 years old, then some sort of miracle would be needed to explain how life got started.

However, given billions of years to shuffle and reshuffle the 98 naturally occurring elements, the probability of conditions favourable to life is vastly increased. Given billions of shuffles and only ...[text shortened]... o.

Given your posts to other threads, I presume you struggle to get over the hurdle of deep time.

I am a young earth creationist I believe God by His desire and design created our universe a holds it together be the power of His Word. So the whole universe and everything in it are all part of the creation miracle.

I don’t believe in deep time is required yet acknowledge I can be wrong about that. Deep time requires more things to overcome in my opinion.

@moonbus

. Billions of years of shuffling yields a much higher probability of hitting upon a fortuitous string of molecules until some combination is hit upon which is capable of reproducing itself, than shuffling them only 6,000 years.

Reconsider.

Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

YouTube

@sonship said
@moonbus

. Billions of years of shuffling yields a much higher probability of hitting upon a fortuitous string of molecules until some combination is hit upon which is capable of reproducing itself, than shuffling them only 6,000 years.

Reconsider.

Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

Incredible odds and that is if everything is all there and the only thing being done is arranging things. The other thing I see as problematic are specific ingredients and space time. Limitless time may give as much time as needed, that doesn’t alter what is required and what is available. If anything that is required gets turned into something else game over. The belief that unguided natural processes started and maintained life, in my opinion requires more faith than I have!

The only way an attempt could be made would be a limited window of opportunity when all ingredients are in the same place at the same time. Billions of years would be meaningless only the small windows of opportunity when a chance could occur before things changed.

@moonbus said
Sorry, typing errors:

Of course, some die-hard Creationists will no doubt claim that God made that life on Mars/Enceladus, too; but this does NOT fit into the Biblical narrative,…

I was thinking about the fossil record and Darwin’s tree of life that shows all life spring up from a single life. Since it has not been proven evolution can create anything new, only modify what is there in small degrees. That makes it look like all of these life forms appear suddenly completely formed.

Don’t you think that makes each of them look like a little miracles in time when something new arrives? Another possibility would be they really were here at the same time and we screwed up the time?

@KellyJay

Incredible odds and that is if everything is all there and the only thing being done is arranging things. The other thing I see as problematic are specific ingredients and space time.

The point was very well made in the video. Its not long.
The scenario he used for a hypothetical was very, very lenient and accommodating.

Towards the end the speaker makes exactly the point that all of this would have had to occur within the proper membrane, all ingredients being ready at the same time in that particular place.

Beyond unlikely.