God vs. Science

Time.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2006 | DAVID VAN BIEMA

[betty boop]

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured.

Outstanding essay/post, aruanan! Thank you so much for posting it.

[betty boop]

But if you accept the premise that God, our Source, is only spiritual then we (as offspring of that Source) must also be only spiritual.

Hi Semper! Just a quick question: If we human creatures are only spiritual, then why did the Son of God, the Logos, bother to incarnate?

[UCANSEE2]

"What would happen to a scientist if he did a sloppy experiment, one that was not orderly or complex, and submitted it for peer review?"

He would be called an EXPERT on GLOBAL WARMING.

[UCANSEE2]

"Tell me, what about humans beings are ants capable of understanding?"

Well, the word in most ant colonies is that Human beings are very lazy and not very well organized. That they have a tendency to destroy their own societies, and overall, are quite stupid.

[metmom]

LOL!

[FreedomProtector]

The title of the article God vs. Science does not fit or match much of the actual content of the article. The title could also be Scientific Observations Support the Premise of Mind before Matter or Scientific Observations Support the Rational Premise of the Existence of God. The title of the article reveals more about the presuppositions of the authors and editors of Time magazine then is does about the content of the actual article.

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.

The Anthropic Principle builds a strong case for design in the universe, for mind before matter, not matter before mind. The following articles include other examples:

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle
Design Evidences in the Cosmos
Design and the Anthropic Principle
Evidence for Design of the Cosmos
Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible

[RunningWolf]

Great thoughts aruanan and all.

I am down with a flu-cold today.

[onedoug]

“If I knew God I’d be Him.”

Though as we live in one spiral galaxy out of billions, two thirds of the way out from its dense center between whirling arms which are relatively debris and dust free....

That we live in the habitable zone of a single G2V star, in a system with a large outer planet to sweep up a considerable amount of debris that might otherwise be drawn to the inner solar system and collide with Earth.

That we have a moon massive enough to stabilize our planetary axis, which perhaps also couples to gravitationally assist plate tectonics in recycling our oceanic crust and mantle yielding a balance of nitrogen/oxygen and carbon dioxide. That the laws of physics at both the macro- and micro levels should be so fine tuned - and unified! - to allow these processes to be carried out....

That we are alive!…it seems inconceivable that there isn’t God who – being God would set the values of good and evil, and cares that we should prefer that Good.

I'll take Pascal's Bet, thanks.

[RobRoy]

DAWKINS: "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Heh, heh, I gotta say it: Prove it. ;)

[onedoug]

Oh...and 1/1 CAV RVN '68-69.

Thanks for your service!

[RobRoy]

>>But the reasoning mind can reach to the ends of its conceptualizations, and dimly perceive the truth that lies beyond.<<

Not always. Apparently. ;)

[little jeremiah]

Hiyah, RW! I will read this and likely ping a list later.

[hosepipe]

[ Just a quick question[semper]: If we human creatures are only spiritual, then why did the Son of God, the Logos, bother to incarnate? ]

No doubt that humans have bodies.. Any (non blind)human can see that in a mirror.. or in observeing others.. How the spirit and the body interact is the thing Bibles are made of..

How the Spirit can incarnate and/or the flesh can become(house) spirit are things Heavens are made of.. and Hells too..

Amazing that humans can come up with so many hair brained schemes and scenarios.. and then make religions out of them..

The drama and intrique of it all is deep.. Maybe C.S. Lewis's writing of the "Screwtape Letters" was inspired to answer some of this.. Ya think?..

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I'm so sorry you can't see the truth. It's all around you but you have to want to see it and that requires knowing not being in control is a gift. An open mind is a good thing but not so open that your brains fall out.

Thanks, I understand that you mean well and appreciate it. But if some deliberate act of will did create the Universe, I think it'll eventually be discovered by the scientific study of cosmology. Not anytime soon, though, which will leave plenty of time for various religious beliefs to thrive. Until science does provide an answer, which won't be in my lifetime, I see no real reason to worry about God.

If God did want me to worry about him, I assume he/she/it would tell me about it directly and unambiguously, or at least leave undeniable scientific proof of his existence. The fact that God has failed to do indicates to me that either God doesn't exist at all or, if he does, that God isn't too worried about the whole matter either.

[RunningWolf]

No problem.

[metmom]

If God did want me to worry about him, I assume he/she/it would tell me about it directly and unambiguously, or at least leave undeniable scientific proof of his existence.

He did...

Psalms 9:1-2 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Romans 1:19-20 ...because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

So why is it that you won't believe until science *proves* it? What makes science so trustworthy that it's the only way you'll believe is if it tells you so? That's faith. You're putting you faith in a system designed and created by man as a method of gathering knowledge about the world around him. How do you know it's so reliable as to give you absolute truth?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

He did...

Psalms 9:1-2 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Romans 1:19-20 ...because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

I'm sorry, but these verses don't make an argument. The fact that the Universe exists does not prove that any personality or force of will created it. Since most religions agree that their God or Gods can communicate directly with humans without difficulty, I can only assume that either God doesn't exist or he's not interested in communicating with anyone these days.

So why is it that you won't believe until science *proves* it? What makes science so trustworthy that it's the only way you'll believe is if it tells you so? That's faith.

This is incorrect. The nice thing about science is that you don't need to take anyone's word for anything. Good science discourages taking anything on faith. Anyone willing to learn can perform the same experiments, do the same math, and see for themselves.

You don't need to take some holy man's word for anything.

You're putting you faith in a system designed and created by man as a method of gathering knowledge about the world around him. How do you know it's so reliable as to give you absolute truth?

You've misunderstood - science has nothing to do with faith. If it did, it'd just be another religion, no more and no less valid than Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam. Science allows anyone to do the work themselves, and see how conclusions about the world we live in are reached. If you can disprove a scientific finding, you've done science yourself and improved our understanding of the universe. Faith will never do that.

[Vinny]

"IDers are going to have to fine tune their mechanism of detecting intelligent design."

_______________________________________

I believe that God created the universe because of it's design and complexity and more importantly He said He did.

What I meant is that "the mechanism" that Dembski and Behe created has to be more finely developed (tuned) in order to prove to the gainsayers that Divine Intelligence is without doubt detectable using their model. ID is in it's infancy and holds a tremendous amount of potential to once and for all destroy or extremely diminish the evolutionist theory on the origin of life. That's why the evolutionists are so ferocious in their attacks on ID.

I think it was Dembski that said his model is similiar to the science of forensic science, which is able to trace data to an intelligent agent, like they do in crimninal forensic labs.

The Neo-Darwinists know that if ID can prove this they are done. BTW, Atheism as an "intellectual" belief-system would also be thrown on the ash-heap of history.

[Wormwood]

This is incorrect. The nice thing about science is that you don't need to take anyone's word for anything. Good science discourages taking anything on faith. Anyone willing to learn can perform the same experiments, do the same math, and see for themselves.

Excellent point.