science and God

Originally posted by pink floyd123
dose any one think or feel that sci will one day uncover the fact that there is a god and that the universe was created by him or will it find that there is no god what are your thoughts

It already has, but they're hiding the truth.

Romans 1:17-20 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Originally posted by josephw
It already has, but they're hiding the truth.

It's not a science matter. Science doesn't deal with religion. Religion and science never mix.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I find your whole post an appalling display of ignorance.

There is a huge mountain of evolution that is just irrefutable.
Why would all the scientists in the whole world just “make up” such evidence? -this is not how science works. Science is based on reason and evidence. When a reasonable scientist first makes a hypothesis, the first thing he do ...[text shortened]... you are referring to natrual selection then natrual selection is not an “accident” as you imply.

Yes, it is obvious that mutations of living organims are continuously taking place as we know to our cost when, for example, antibiotic resistant mutations of deadly disease bugs manifest themselves in our hospitals.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It's not a science matter. Science doesn't deal with religion. Religion and sience never mix.

Like I said, no rush... 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My rule of thumb, is that if it remains true--- regardless of the usual ravages: space, time, cultural--- it is transcendent. Pi's a good example.

Ah I see.

So you think, for example, that if our solar system outlived any sentient beings, there would still be eight planets orbiting the sun? (Now that Pluto has been downgraded.)

I take a different philosophical view, I think that in the case that there are no sentient beings then there would be no 'eight' let alone Pi.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ah I see.

So you think, for example, that if our solar system outlived any sentient beings, there would still be eight planets orbiting the sun? (Now that Pluto has been downgraded.)

I take a different philosophical view, I think that in the case that there are no sentient beings then there would be no 'eight' let alone Pi.

I haven't really been following the battle between yourself and Freaky but on this point I'm inclined to take his/her side.

The human construct of the natural and real number systems that contain the numbers 8 and pi respectively may well not have come to exist without sentient beings; but what the actual numbers represent (for which we have given the names "8" or "pi" ) has and will continue to exist so long as there are things that exist either in this universe or any other. Furthermore without such things existing in universes then the manifestation of these numbers merely waits for the next opportunity; that is to say, I argue that all numbers (even the plethora of wierd transcendental ones we haven't discovered yet) exist independently of whether sentient beings have a need to find or name them.

Originally posted by Agerg
I haven't really been following the battle between yourself and Freaky but on this point I'm inclined to take his/her side.

The human construct of the natural and real number systems that contain the numbers 8 and pi respectively may well not have come to exist without sentient beings; but what the actual numbers represent (for which we have given the name red yet) exist independently of whether sentient beings have a need to find or name them.

I think a lot of philosophers take that view. I suppose the interesting question is how you account for their existence if you have no recourse to god.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Yes, it is obvious that mutations of living organims are continuously taking place as we know to our cost when, for example, antibiotic resistant mutations of deadly disease bugs manifest themselves in our hospitals.

Yes; and this is also an example of evolution since those mutations spread to many hospitals because they where mindlessly selected for.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think a lot of philosophers take that view. I suppose the interesting question is how you account for their existence if you have no recourse to god.

Hmm; I didn't follow this point until I looked over the history of your argument with Freaky and notice that perhaps I'm using a different definition of transcendental number. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number)

Originally posted by Agerg
Hmm; I didn't follow this point until I looked over the history of your argument with Freaky and notice that perhaps I'm using a different definition of transcendental number. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number)

That's right, Freaky was talking about Pi as an example of a transcendent truth rather than identifying it as a transcendental number.

I still don't know how you would account for your ontological stance on number though.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
That's right, Freaky was talking about Pi as an example of a transcendent truth rather than identifying it as a transcendental number.

I still don't know how you would account for your ontological stance on number though.

I would prefer to answer this question (apologising if you have to cover old ground) by first asking the counter question: "In what way does the introduction of "God" (or any other creator of universes) have some bearing on the existence of numbers?"

Even though numbers like pi don't actually seem to find their obvious manifestation in the natural world (zoom in at close enough magnification on any natural 'circle' and at some point we should see it fails to fit the rigorous mathematical definition), and might be said to reside in the idealised mathematical realm; as a number with particular size, it still can represent (or well approximate) some quantity (or partition) of 'stuff'.

The natural numbers like 0, 1, 8, 100, 10957292750208572104,... just require that there be a way that these numbers have a referent. Focusing upon a single apple one has 0 oranges, 1 apple, 2 halves of an apple (the partitions exist even if we don't physically cut the apple), 3 thirds of an apple, etc...

Again, where do I need God? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
I would prefer to answer this question (apologising if you have to cover old ground) by first asking the counter question: "In what way does the introduction of "God" (or any other creator of universes) have some bearing on the existence of numbers?"

Even though numbers like pi don't actually seem to find their obvious manifestation in the natural world (z ...[text shortened]... sically cut the apple), 3 thirds of an apple, etc...

Again, where do I need God? 😕

I don't think you need god, you could just posit some kind of Platonic mathematical realm and say that's just how things are, we come along and discover these mathematical objects or truths or abstract universals or whatever you want to call them.

perhaps the believer in god would give an account in terms of logos which has a narrative shape which some people find appealing. I'm just wondering if you have an account of this mathematical realm? Do these mathematical truths exemplify the elusive synthetic a priori for you?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I don't think you need god, you could just posit some kind of Platonic mathematical realm and say that's just how things are, we come along and discover these mathematical objects or truths or abstract universals or whatever you want to call them.

perhaps the believer in god would give an account in terms of logos which has a narrative shape which som matical realm? Do these mathematical truths exemplify the elusive synthetic a priori for you?

I'm just wondering if you have an account of this mathematical realm? Do these mathematical truths exemplify the elusive synthetic a priori for you?

I would say they do; though straight lines, circles, etc... may not strictly exist in the natural universe, they do exist, I assert, as limiting cases of the objects that approximate them in the natural universe independently of whether we discover them or not. There need be no sentient creature to abserve that as far as physics allow, all 'points' on some part of an object lie equidistant from one other unique point; but this part of said object would still be an arc of some circle (or an approximation of it).

As a tangential point (returning closer to the point where I left the discussion) it seems as though Freaky and other theists would assert that logic is man made and doesn't necessarily apply to God or the supernatural. I would say this is false since though the language of logic as it is formulated in philiosophy or mathematics is indeed man made, that which it strives to capture is simply the way things are. 2 trees and the addition of 2 more trees can only result in 4 trees (or 11 trees if working in ternary arithmetic etc...) it can never be 5 trees. Similarly God cannot simultaneously be not God etc...
If the premises of an argument are true (given some axiom set) then correctly following the laws of logic (or perhaps constraining ones inferences to what must naturally be so) we can arive at a conclusion that must necessarily be true regardless of whether we possess the means to experience this conclusion. We can rule out other conclusions if they break the laws of logic (even inspite of special pleading).

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]I'm just wondering if you have an account of this mathematical realm? Do these mathematical truths exemplify the elusive synthetic a priori for you?

I would say they do; though straight lines, circles, etc... may not strictly exist in the natural universe, they do exist, I assert, as limiting cases of the objects that approximate them in the natural ...[text shortened]... le out other conclusions if they break the laws of logic (even inspite of special pleading).[/b]

Ok thanks, I think I get a sense of where you are coming from. I doubt that theists think that the laws of logic are man made, rather these timeless transcendent eternal truths represent logos as an aspect of god's nature, is probably more accurate an account of how they see it. Hence god is not subject to the laws of logic in the sense that we are, and that buys them the wiggle room necessary to deal with problems arising from apparent logical contradictions regarding omnipotence or the trinity.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I find your whole post an appalling display of ignorance.

There is a huge mountain of evolution that is just irrefutable.
Why would all the scientists in the whole world just “make up” such evidence? -this is not how science works. Science is based on reason and evidence. When a reasonable scientist first makes a hypothesis, the first thing he do ...[text shortened]... you are referring to natrual selection then natrual selection is not an “accident” as you imply.

Ever since I was a child, I have seen documentaries on TV showing a lightning bolt hitting the ground, and then life appears as a little one cell thingo, and now we have humans and million of species on the planet.

This is clearly a random accident, but what if it is, then how does the random accident perpetuate itself after that one incident, to give us the world we find ourselves in now......you see you would need a whole chain of continuing random accidents to keep the first random accident going.

When scientists look into the micro world it is inconcievably complex, with deliberate functioning, and it is so complex that it boggles the mind.

The micro world is clearly functioning with intelligent purpose, but the cheating scientists who are suppose to be unbiased, will not recognize that intelligence.

Richard Dawkins says its all happening by the mysterious unseen hand of (natural selection).. you see he wont recognize the intelligence factor, but calls it something else.

vishva