MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

Quote:

Science answers 'why' questions just fine. Why do you feel you need to rely on the supernatural any time science doesn't have an answer? There are counteless points in history where people didn't know something and explained it with the supernatural, when we now have natural explanations.

How does science answer why there is a universe(s), time, matter, etc.?
Who said I need to rely on the supernatural any time science doesn't have an answer? Why don't they have an answer?

Quote:

This is nothing new. Scientists for the most part have always accepted that science and religion can/shoud co-exist. The only people who seem to think they can't co-exist are religious people.

And non-religious as well. For the record - I am a religious person who believes they do coexist!

Quote:

They're not becoming more open minded, they've always been open minded. Where are you getting all this stuff?

OK - we're in the semantic-circle here. When scientists open their mind to the possibility of religion, God, creation et al their area of possibility becomes much larger, grander, more complex, etc. Example/analogy: Many older individuals refuse to learn how to use a computer. Unlike a typewriter or pen & paper, they do not understand how it all works -therefore it intimidates them into non-use. So consider the knowledge they will not learn because of a belief (or lack thereof). It's the same with scientists who refuse to believe that religion may exist.

Quote:

What are you talking about?

See above.

Quote:

What did I say that implied that proof is essential to existence?

"Ok then, I'll be more specific... to a scientist who claimed that god exists, I would say, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, prove it to the same level that other scientific facts have been proven". This is the level of proof which is implied when a scientist claims something exists. It shouldn't need to be said. "

0 Replies

In this thread Rosborne reigns.

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

baddog1 wrote:

For the record - I am a religious person who believes they do coexist!

For the record - I am a non-religious person who believes they do coexist.

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What did I say that implied that proof is essential to existence?

rosborne979 wrote:
"Ok then, I'll be more specific... to a scientist who claimed that god exists, I would say, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, prove it to the same level that other scientific facts have been proven". This is the level of proof which is implied when a scientist claims something exists. It shouldn't need to be said. "

If a scientist claims god exists, I say, 'prove it'. But if he can't prove it, that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, it only means he can't prove it. And his original claim is no more than opinion.

You are making a logical error to assume it means any more than that.

Proof is not essential to existance, but proof is essential for making an exraordinary claim that is in any way more substantial than whimsey.

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

Quote:

For the record - I am a non-religious person who believes they do coexist.

I did not convey otherwise.

Quote:

If a scientist claims god exists, I say, 'prove it'. But if he can't prove it, that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, it only means he can't prove it. And his original claim is no more than opinion.

Now that makes more sense. I agree.

Quote:

You are making a logical error to assume it means any more than that.

Uh - I am not making this logical error - because I didn't assume or imply that it means any more than that!

Quote:

Proof is not essential to existance, but proof is essential for making an exraordinary claim that is in any way more substantial than whimsey.

You're certainly entitled to use any subjectivity that you desire. As I consider the origin of life to be created - for anyone to think otherwise is - well - whimsical! :wink:

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Methodological Naturalism is just the part of the scientific process which keeps subjective assumptions from slipping in and corrupting the result.

Except that you want an unprovable assumption (naturalism) to serve as a basis for science when it isn't needed and will corrupt the result.

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

baddog1 wrote:

You're certainly entitled to use any subjectivity that you desire. As I consider the origin of life to be created - for anyone to think otherwise is - well - whimsical! :wink:

When you started this thought problem, you said that a 'scientist' claimed that god exists. Therefor, I would expect some scientific proof.

If you had said a rabbi claimed that god exists, I wouldn't have asked for proof without first asking the rabbi what he considers valid evidence.

I choose to measure 'proof' with science, you may choose to measure it some other way.

So, based on your statement above, I am left with two questions for you:

1. What do you mean exactly when you say 'the origin of life to be created'? Do you mean created like in *poof*, or created like in some sequence of natural reactions?

2. And, depending on your answer, what do you consider valid evidence which supports that creation?

0 Replies

There are scientists who believe in god, and some of them are the leading minds in their respective fields. Their concept of god is something that doesn't conflict with their science, and I can only imagine the vast understanding of life such a potent mix of spiritual and scientific approaches might yield.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Except that you want an unprovable assumption (naturalism) to serve as a basis for science when it isn't needed and will corrupt the result.

It IS needed. Without it all we get are theories based on poofism. "my my, look at that complicated flagellum, we don't know how that might have evolved, so God must have *poofed* it."

If you don't like the way science works, don't complain to me. I didn't invent it, I'm just explaining the rules.

Science is naturalistic. And that's exactly why it's been so profoundly successful. Get over it.

0 Replies

Science does not have a monopoly on "knowledge." Aside from the problematics of what constitutes knowledge, humankind has been learning things about how the world works by means of trial and error eons before the emergence of the "scientific method." Science is the most efficient way of acquiring propositions worthy of the phrase, useful knowledge. But philosophy and the social "sciences" have also--despite their falling short of experimental standards--done us much good.
Science does rest on a metaphysic, as implicit as it may be, of naturalism. It does not oppose religious supernaturalism; it simply finds it irrelevant and generally useless to the task of expanding knowledge of the material world. Scientists can apply "the method" in their professional work and, by means of existential compartmentalization, "believe" in religious propositions and values when away from the laboratory. This constitutes no problem for them because there is no contradiction between their STATED religious worldview and the UNSTATED naturalistic worldview of science. For them Science is not a metaphysical worldview; it is a methological strategy. I do not think philosophers could get away with such a compartmentalization.

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
You're certainly entitled to use any subjectivity that you desire. As I consider the origin of life to be created - for anyone to think otherwise is - well - whimsical! :wink:

Quote:
When you started this thought problem, you said that a 'scientist' claimed that god exists. Therefor, I would expect some scientific proof.

If you had said a rabbi claimed that god exists, I wouldn't have asked for proof without first asking the rabbi what he considers valid evidence.

I choose to measure 'proof' with science, you may choose to measure it some other way.

OK - I more clearly understand your position. It was not my intention to infer that the scientists had/have scientific proof - in fact that thought never entered my mind. So we can move on...

Quote:
So, based on your statement above, I am left with two questions for you:

1. What do you mean exactly when you say 'the origin of life to be created'? Do you mean created like in *poof*, or created like in some sequence of natural reactions?

Evolutionists need scientific proof - that is their (your) foundation. Although a physicist - I do not need proof of all things. In fact, the lack of proof challenges me and has been instrumental in my professional life. As to your question: I have no idea how the first life-form came to be, so I have no pre-conceived thoughts about it. I do believe it was created and life, as we know it, evolved from there. (Hence my belief in "traditional" evolution!)

Quote:
2. And, depending on your answer, what do you consider valid evidence which supports that creation?

The only evidence that I have is the fact that we are here and it all had to start somewhere. Other than that - I have no evidence, nor do I need it!

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

There are scientists who believe in god, and some of them are the leading minds in their respective fields. Their concept of god is something that doesn't conflict with their science, and I can only imagine the vast understanding of life such a potent mix of spiritual and scientific approaches might yield.

BINGO!

Thanks Cyracuz for so eloquently stating that which I was struggling with to put into words! :wink:

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

baddog1 wrote:

Evolutionists need scientific proof - that is their (your) foundation. Although a physicist - I do not need proof of all things. In fact, the lack of proof challenges me and has been instrumental in my professional life. As to your question: I have no idea how the first life-form came to be, so I have no pre-conceived thoughts about it. I do believe it was created and life, as we know it, evolved from there. (Hence my belief in "traditional" evolution!)

I don't know how it originally happened either, but I don't use the term 'created' because that seems to imply intent, even though we have no evidence of intent, other than our own inability to fill in the 'gap' of knowledge.

When you say "[you] do believe it was 'created'", what exactly do you mean by 'created'? You say you have no pre-conceived thoughts, yet you choose to say it was created, instead of saying it happened. Are you SURE you don't have any pre-conceived thoughts on the cause?

baddog1 wrote:

The only evidence that I have is the fact that we are here and it all had to start somewhere. Other than that - I have no evidence, nor do I need it!

Well, I guess we're gonna have to understand what you mean by 'evidence' now, because just saying something is here and it had to start somewhere doesn't eliminate the possibility that it happened naturally.

You say that you have no evidence, nor do you need it. I suspect that's the most accurate thing you've said so far. It appears to be exactly your stance on things. How would you feel if your doctor said that after diagnosing you with terminal cancer?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

There are scientists who believe in god, and some of them are the leading minds in their respective fields. Their concept of god is something that doesn't conflict with their science, and I can only imagine the vast understanding of life such a potent mix of spiritual and scientific approaches might yield.

You don't have to imagine it. It's what we get all the time.

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

Quote:

I don't know how it originally happened either, but I don't use the term 'created' because that seems to imply intent, even though we have no evidence of intent, other than our own inability to fill in the 'gap' of knowledge.

W/o the ability to fill in the "gap of knowledge", there are countless theories (intent included) and all have value.

Quote:

When you say "[you] do believe it was 'created'", what exactly do you mean by 'created'? You say you have no pre-conceived thoughts, yet you choose to say it was created, instead of saying it happened. Are you SURE you don't have any pre-conceived thoughts on the cause?

Created by God. Of course I am SURE I have no pre-conceived notions about the origin of life.

Quote:

Well, I guess we're gonna have to understand what you mean by 'evidence' now, because just saying something is here and it had to start somewhere doesn't eliminate the possibility that it happened naturally.

What I mean by 'evidence' is the traditional definition. And as I stated previously that nearly all theories should be included. BTW: I am curious as to your definition of "naturally" and how it fits with the origin of life.

Quote:

You say that you have no evidence, nor do you need it. I suspect that's the most accurate thing you've said so far. It appears to be exactly your stance on things. How would you feel if your doctor said that after diagnosing you with terminal cancer?

Now you turn the condescending attitude back on. What a shame - but so be it. As to your question: If my doctor diagnosed me with terminal cancer but had no evidence - we would have a good laugh, because my doctor is a very dear friend and also understands the concept of his oath.

Once again: "How does science answer why there is a universe(s), time, matter, etc.?" Any reason why you chose not to answer this question from a previous post?

0 Replies

baddog

Happy to be of some assistance.

ros

I am not sure I follow... Who are 'we'?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

ros

I am not sure I follow... Who are 'we'?

'We' are everyone; the mass of humanity that benefits from science itself.

0 Replies

Re: MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

baddog1 wrote:

W/o the ability to fill in the "gap of knowledge", there are countless theories (intent included) and all have value.

There are countless theories, but I'm not sure they all have value. I suppose it depends on what you consider valuable. If what you consider valuable is just a dramatic story to entertain, then lots of theories might be valuable.

baddog1 wrote:

Created by God. Of course I am SURE I have no pre-conceived notions about the origin of life.

Created how? And what do you mean when you say, "God"?

baddog1 wrote:

What I mean by 'evidence' is the traditional definition. And as I stated previously that nearly all theories should be included. BTW: I am curious as to your definition of "naturally" and how it fits with the origin of life.

When I say 'naturally', I mean that no supernatural event or intervention was necessary to start the process of life (at that point in time. I don't include whatever may have caused the Big Bang, because I have no information outside of this Universe).

baddog1 wrote:

Now you turn the condescending attitude back on. What a shame - but so be it.

It was just a statement of fact. Why do you interpret it as condescending. When someone points out something which makes logical sense, do you think they are being condescending?

baddog1 wrote:

As to your question: If my doctor diagnosed me with terminal cancer but had no evidence - we would have a good laugh, because my doctor is a very dear friend and also understands the concept of his oath.

That's very nice, but it neatly sidesteps the point of the example in context with your previous comment. Your answers aren't really addressing the points.

baddog1 wrote:

Once again: "How does science answer why there is a universe(s), time, matter, etc.?" Any reason why you chose not to answer this question from a previous post?

I chose not to answer because it seemed pedantic. Science can not answer every question because we don't know everything. But science can answer many 'why' questions; why does the fossil record look the way it does? Why is the earth a sphere? Why is the sky blue? Why are heavy elements only produced in supernovae? Why do ants tend aphids? There are endless why's, as most children know, and science can answer many, but not all. Just because you found one which science can't answer, doesn't mean science can't answer any.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Except that you want an unprovable assumption (naturalism) to serve as a basis for science when it isn't needed and will corrupt the result.

It IS needed. Without it all we get are theories based on poofism. "my my, look at that complicated flagellum, we don't know how that might have evolved, so God must have *poofed* it."

If you don't like the way science works, don't complain to me. I didn't invent it, I'm just explaining the rules.

Science is naturalistic. And that's exactly why it's been so profoundly successful. Get over it.

This is where you part company with the great scientists who built the foundations of modern science that we have inherited.

Many of them believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

They saw no need to assume that all things have natural causes.

They considered the scientific method to be a useful, but limited, tool for exploration of the observable universe.

0 Replies

All things that the artist man creates in the meta-physical realm are simple abstracts composed of things from the physical realm.

Take for instance the unicorn.

We can deduct that, the unicorn is not real. It is a mythological creature which without ever seeing, we can quickly contruct in our own minds.

horse + horn = unicorn

Both horses and horns exists, and the combination thereof is excuseable in our minds because we witness several species with horns etc.

The same applies with Gods.

In greek mythology, the greek gods just coincidentially held a heirchy structure that was congruent with a simple coperate structure? I think not?

We worship our livelyhood. Magic, gods, etc are just our creations.

0 Replies

Of course ros.

I missed it because it was so simple, and I thought I was being so complex... Confused

0 Replies

MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know