The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

I am certainly not insisting that supernatural causes are allowed to be tested within conventional science ... my point is the polar opposite ... that conventional science bans the scientific evaluation of supernatural causes of physical phenomena.

... and as far as I can see nobody is disagreeing with me on that.

I don't accept that science bans the evaluation of supernatural causes; I'd argue that science has no mechanism for the evaluation of supernatural causes.

If that's not the case, please explain how science can evaluate the hypothesis that God created life.

Or don't: but don't continue to pretend that you could, but that you choose not to.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I am certainly not insisting that supernatural causes are allowed to be tested within conventional science ... my point is the polar opposite ... that conventional science bans the scientific evaluation of supernatural causes of physical phenomena.

... and as far as I can see nobody is disagreeing with me on that.

We may disagree on the reasons for the ban ... but we are all in agreement that a ban exists, I think.

Science does not ban evaluation of supernatural causes so please stop using that word, They just don't look into it in the same way they don't evaluate the existence of dragons, Unicorns and leprechauns.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't accept that science bans the evaluation of supernatural causes; I'd argue that science has no mechanism for the evaluation of supernatural causes.

No it is banned.
If it was merely that no mechanism had been identified, then conventional science would allow research into the development of such mechanisms ... just like it does with the development of novel tests for other phenomena.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's not the case, please explain how science can evaluate the hypothesis that God created life.

Or don't: but don't continue to pretend that you could, but that you choose not to.

Where there is a will there is a way ... and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found ways to scientifically evaluate whether an inordinate intelligence created life.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Science does not ban evaluation of supernatural causes so please stop using that word, They just don't look into it in the same way they don't evaluate the existence of dragons, Unicorns and leprechauns.

This comparison of the Creator God of the Universe with Unicorns and leprechauns is quite ridiculous.

Nobody believes that Unicorns and leprechauns exist ... but billions of people believe that the Creator God of the Universe exists ... and thousands of eminent conventionally qualified scientists claim to have scientific proof that the Creator God of the Universe exists.

This puts the case for at least allowing the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for the acts of Creation by God in a fundamentally different league ... and the repeated linking of God with myths and legends that nobody believes in, is a patently obvious ploy to shore up support for the continuance of the ban on the scientific evaluation of the evidence for God.

The meme goes something like this:-
"The evidence for the existence of a Unicorn is just as plausible as evidence for the existence of God ... and therefore it is reasonable for science to continue to ban research into the evidence for Unicorns and God"

The weakness in this meme is the supposition that the (zero) evidence for existence of a Unicorn is as plausible as the (demonstrable) evidence for existence of God.

Leroy42

But why don't you believe in them.

As you seem so eager to point out (although you insist there is a ban for which you can provide no evidence) science cannot prove the supernatural so how have you limited the supernatural to just one thing, God.

There is the same evidence for unicorns and fairies, ie none.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

I am certainly not insisting that supernatural causes are allowed to be tested within conventional science ... my point is the polar opposite ... that conventional science bans the scientific evaluation of supernatural causes of physical phenomena.

... and as far as I can see nobody is disagreeing with me on that.

We may disagree on the reasons for the ban ... but we are all in agreement that a ban exists, I think.

A ban implies policy or code of conduct. Instead, the scientific method cannot be applied to supernatural claims for methodological reasons.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

This comparison of the Creator God of the Universe with Unicorns and leprechauns is quite ridiculous.

Nobody believes that Unicorns and leprechauns exist ... but billions of people believe that the Creator God of the Universe exists ... and thousands of eminent conventionally qualified scientists claim to have scientific proof that the Creator God of the Universe exists.

This puts the case for at least allowing the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for the acts of Creation by God in a fundamentally different league ... and the repeated linking of God with myths and legends that nobody believes in, is a patently obvious ploy by atheists and their fellow travellers to shore up support for the continuance of the ban on the scientific evaluation of the evidence for God.

The meme goes something like this:-
"The evidence for the existence of a Unicorn is just as plausible as evidence for the existence of God ... and therefore it is reasonable for science to continue to ban research into the evidence for Unicorns and God"

The weakness in this meme is the supposition that the (zero) evidence for existence of a Unicorn is as plausible as the (demonstrable) evidence for existence of God.

Unicorns

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/news/amp37608/unicorns-are-real-fossils/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/29/siberian-unicorn-extinct-humans-fossil-kazakhstan

Leperechauns

http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/one-third-of-irish-people-believe-in-leprechauns-do-you-118981264-237768641

And I notice you left out dragons! Why's that??

J C

Morbert wrote: »

A ban implies policy or code of conduct. Instead, the scientific method cannot be applied to supernatural claims for methodological reasons.

A ban does indeed imply a policy and a code of conduct ... and this is the result of flouting the ban which happened innocently, in both these cases :-
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/07/hand-of-god-scientific-plos-one-anatomy-paper-citing-a-creator-retracted-after-furore

... if it was merely that science hadn't yet developed a mechanism for scientifically evaluating evidence for the existence of God ... then there would be a much more measured and reasoned reaction to these issues ... and there would be active encouragement for attempts to develop such mechanisms, just like there is for developing solutions to other perplexing questions in science.
... the current ban is actively restraining and suppressing any attempt to develop such mechanisms within conventional science on the spurious grounds that it is impossible.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Unicorns

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/news/amp37608/unicorns-are-real-fossils/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/29/siberian-unicorn-extinct-humans-fossil-kazakhstan

... quite clearly, the often repeated comparisons between the search for evidence for God with the search for evidence for Unicorns is in relation to the mythical horse variety of Unicorn ... and not a unicorn Rhino, where there is ample evidence for its existence.

... unless you're now saying that there is evidence for the existence of God on a par with the evidence for the unicorn rhino.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/unicorns-are-real-kind-of

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

... quite clearly, the often repeated comparisons between the search for evidence for God with the search for evidence for Unicorns is in relation to the mythical horse variety of Unicorn ... and not a unicorn Rhino, where there is ample evidence for its existence.

... unless you're now saying that there is evidence for the existence of God on a par with the evidence for the unicorn rhino.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/unicorns-are-real-kind-of

What if God was a unicorn? If you could prove the existence of one then you would prove the existence of the other.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

A ban does indeed imply a policy and a code of conduct ... and this is the result of flouting the ban which happened innocently, in both these cases :-
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/07/hand-of-god-scientific-plos-one-anatomy-paper-citing-a-creator-retracted-after-furore

... if it was merely that science hadn't yet developed a mechanism for scientifically evaluating evidence for the existence of God ... then there would be a much more measured and reasoned reaction to these issues ... and there would be active encouragement for attempts to develop such mechanisms, just like there is for developing solutions to other perplexing questions in science.
... the current ban is actively restraining and suppressing any attempt to develop such mechanisms within conventional science on the spurious grounds that it is impossible.

Meyer's paper was withdrawn for prudent and appropriate reasons pertaining to the scientific method.
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/the-meyer-2004.html

The second link is just an example of a paper being pulled for inappropriate language, not because they conducted a scientific investigation of a supernatural claim.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Where there is a will there is a way ...

...and yet, you avoided the question yet again. At this point, it's hard to see that as anything but a tacit admission that you know that you can't support your argument.

...and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found ways to scientifically evaluate whether an inordinate intelligence created life.

No, they haven't. I could invent a pseudoscience called "Unicorn Science" and claim that Unicorn Scientists had found ways to scientifically evaluate whether unicorns exist.

Does "Creation Science" allow for the possibility that the Bible is wrong in any way?

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What if God was a unicorn? If you could prove the existence of one then you would prove the existence of the other.

Once again ... yet another run of the Unicorn/God meme ... with the clear objective of desparaging and belittling the scientific legitimacy of the pursuit of scientific evidence for the existence of God.

The meme goes something like this:-
"The evidence for the existence of a Unicorn is just as plausible as evidence for the existence of God ... and therefore it is reasonable for science to continue to ban research into the evidence for Unicorns and God"

The logical weakness (and the emotional strength) in this meme is the supposition that the (zero) evidence for existence of a Unicorn is as plausible as the (demonstrable) evidence for existence of God.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and yet, you avoided the question yet again. At this point, it's hard to see that as anything but a tacit admission that you know that you can't support your argument. No, they haven't. I could invent a pseudoscience called "Unicorn Science" and claim that Unicorn Scientists had found ways to scientifically evaluate whether unicorns exist.

Does "Creation Science" allow for the possibility that the Bible is wrong in any way?

... the Unicorn/God meme ... that just continues to give and give ... but it has now been copped on to ... and shown up for what it is!!!

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Once again ... yet another run of the Unicorn/God meme ... with the clear objective of desparaging and belittling the scientific legitimacy of the pursuit of scientific evidence for the existence of God.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, unless you re-define "science", at which point I reserve the right to re-define "science" in a way that allows me to prove the existence of unicorns.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Meyer's paper was withdrawn for prudent and appropriate reasons pertaining to the scientific method.
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/the-meyer-2004.html

The second link is just an example of a paper being pulled for inappropriate language, not because they conducted a scientific investigation of a supernatural claim.

Your contention of 'prudence and appropriateness' might be believable ... were it not for the highly emotional (and neither prudential nor appropriate) reactions to the publications of Dr Meyer's paper.

The Irish Times description of it was "scientific intolerance on full display" ... not much evidence of 'prudence or appropriateness' in that description of what happened!!!
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

... the Unicorn/God meme ... that just continues to give and give ... but it has now been copped on to ... and shown up for what it is!!!

Well, why not? The "science" that you claim shows evidence for God has as its fundamental axiom that everything written in a bronze-age book is true. Do I get to base a version of science on the Bhagavad Gita?

You dismiss God/unicorn comparisons on the basis that you believe God exists, but that's just begging the question. How can you speak authoritatively about science when your starting position is a logical fallacy?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, unless you re-define "science", at which point I reserve the right to re-define "science" in a way that allows me to prove the existence of unicorns.

... the Unicorn/God Meme ... continues to give and give ... even when it has crashed and burned !!!:)

Professor Moriarty

Haven't seen evidence that unicorns exist. Haven't seen any evidence that gods exist. Would be great to see some tangible evidence of either's existence.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, why not? The "science" that you claim shows evidence for God has as its fundamental axiom that everything written in a bronze-age book is true. Do I get to base a version of science on the Bhagavad Gita?

Using Unicorns, although ultimately useless when logic was brought to bear on it ... was much better than trying to establish a new meme based on the Bhagavad Gita.:)

oscarBravo wrote: »

You dismiss God/unicorn comparisons on the basis that you believe God exists, but that's just begging the question. How can you speak authoritatively about science when your starting position is a logical fallacy?

... I'm not begging any question ... I'm stating clearly that scientific evidence for the existence of God exists ... that's not begging anything.:)

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Haven't seen evidence that unicorns exist. Haven't seen any evidence that gods exist. Would be great to see some tangible evidence of either's existence.

The Unicorn/God meme is a fatally wounded meme that refuses to die.

... but it's now starting to give and give ... for Creation Science ... and not it's conventional sponsors.:)

Irish Times Quote:-
"Given that the unfortunate Prof Sternberg's career is now in tatters, it appears that William Reville's contention that fundamentalism can arise in science as easily as elsewhere is absolutely accurate. Of course, a page full of agitated letters in The Irish Times might have given us a clue that William Reville was right, anyway."

... and the evident agitation of hundreds of posters on this thread (and its predecessor) against me over the last 12 years also provides further evidence that fundamentalism can arise in science as easily as elsewhere.:)
... but none of this stops me loving and praying for you all.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

The Unicorn/God meme is a fatally wounded meme that refuses to die.

... but it's now starting to give and give ... for Creation Science ... and not it's conventional sponsor.:)

Can you explain what you mean by 'creation science'?

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by 'creation science'?

The use of conventional scientific methodology by conventional scientists to study the evidence for the actions of God in the physical world.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

The use of conventional scientific methodology by conventional scientists to study the evidence for the actions of God in the physical world.

How are they getting on?

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How are they getting on?

Very well actually.
They have succeded in proving most of the major hypotheses that they have tested ... and created new scientific ways of proving intelligent action ... which could be very useful, for example, to our conventional scientific colleagues working to identify whether intelligent life exists outside our solar system.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

Very well actually.
They have succeded in proving most of the major hypotheses that they have tested ... and created new scientific ways of proving intelligent action ... which could be very useful, for example, to our conventional scientific colleagues working to identify whether intelligent life exists outside our solar system.

So they're unconventional scientists? Which conventions do they ignore?

Which major hypotheses have they proved?

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for all the rest being philosophical assertions, yes, they are. But "God is the author of creation" is also a philosophical assertion, surely? It's clearly a theological assertion, and theology is generally seen as the branch of philosophy which addresses questions about God.

I dunno... I think it depends on what exactly 'creation' is, but if we take creation as being the universe, which is a physical thing, then we're in the realm of empirical observation, aren't we? The assertion that the physical thing has an author (or cause, which would seem more appropriate) should be verifiable by evidence of that cause, just as the cause of any other physical thing should be verifiable.

J C wrote: »

You are correct Absolam ... that if God is the author of Creation, you would indeed expect physical evidence of such an act of Creation ... and, unlike the other philosophical examples listed by Peregrinus (man is born free, good consists in the greatest happiness of the greatest number, women have the right to choose) which cannot be tested by science ... the physical evidence of Creation should be there for all to see and to scientifically evaluate ... if conventional science were of a mind to do so ...

Well, whether or not anyone has a mind to evaluate the cause of the universe, the evidence should be there either way, shouldn't it? And scientists do seem to spend a great deal of effort investigating the cause of the universe, but have yet to find anything that indicates the cause is God.

J C wrote: »

... but as has already been agreed conventional science bans the scientific evaluation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena ... and so by a very convenient self-serving atheistic/antitheistic rule, at the heart of conventional science means that will need never to be bothered by God.

I don't think it has been agreed... I think it has been claimed, and no evidence has yet been presented for it.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

I dunno... I think it depends on what exactly 'creation' is, but if we take creation as being the universe, which is a physical thing, then we're in the realm of empirical observation, aren't we? The assertion that the physical thing has an author (or cause, which would seem more appropriate) should be verifiable by evidence of that cause, just as the cause of any other physical thing should be verifiable.

No, I don’t think so.

You’re falling into the trap (and so is JC, I think) of treating creation itself as something that happens within creation. (Or "within the observable universe" if you prefer a non-theological term.)

I can reasonably ask where the coffee-cup in front of me came from, and the scientific method can be applied to establish answers to that question. But the answers will always point to other empirically observable things - clay, kilns, designers, ceramic artists, whatever - of which we could then ask the same “where did it come from?” question again. And so on, through a chain of objects/entities that exist or existed in space and time.

But the scientific method fails us when we ask “Where does existence come from? Why does anything at all exist, as opposed to nothing existing (which is on the face of it a perfectly cromulent alternative state of affairs)?” One of the foundational axioms of the scientific method is that the universe does exist (i.e. it is not illusory) and as we all know an investigative method which takes the existence of the universe as a given can’t investigate the existence of the universe - that would be circular, and therefore invalid. So “why does anything at all exist?” is not a scientific question, not capable of scientific investigation, not susceptible of a scientific answer.

So when we say “God is the author of creation” we are not saying “God is like an extremely powerful craftsman, except that he doesn’t require kilns or clay or anything else by way of tools or raw materials or energy sources, and he is not confine to producing coffee cups but can produce anything at all”. Our statement is more like “God is the condition, without which existence would not be”. And that doesn’t look like a claim capable of being investigated by the scientific method.

if you want to look in the natural world for a meaningful analogyfor creation, it's not a craftsperson making a cup; more an author writing a book. Consider the Harry Potter universe: we know, from our perspective outside the, um, Potterverse, that it's an emanation of the imagination of J. K. Rowling. But neither Rowling nor her imagination are part of the Potterverse. A character within it can empirically observe neither Rowling nor any evidence that she is the author. Within the Potterverse, Harry can look at a cup and ask himself "where did this cup come from?". And he can use the scientific method and pursue an answer through kilns and clay and so forth in the Potterverse, but however far he pursues that process he's never going to arrive at "J. K. Rowling" as an answer.

There could even be elements in the Potterverse that we, from outside the Potterverse, could point to as evidence that Rowling created it - for example, if it included characters or events plainly drawn from Rowling’s own experience in this universe, the one we share with her - but that evidence would not be discernible to characters in the Potterverse, because they cannot empirically observe characters or events in this universe, and therefore cannot see the parallels.

And yet it remains true that, even though its denizens cannot observe the fact, the Potterverse is wholly and completely dependent on J.K. Rowling. If there were no J.K. Rowling, there would be no Potterverse. J. K. Rowling is the condition without which the Potterverse would not be. Just don't look to the application of the scientific method within the Potterverse to demonstrate that.

I wouldn’t want to push this analogy too far - I am not saying the Christian view is that we are all characters in a story told by God. But I think authorship as an analogy for creation is a good deal closer to the mark than manufacture, and thinking of it in those terms illustrates the futility of looking within creation for empirical evidence of creation.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Your contention of 'prudence and appropriateness' might be believable ... were it not for the highly emotional (and neither prudential nor appropriate) reactions to the publications of Dr Meyer's paper.

The Irish Times description of it was "scientific intolerance on full display" ... not much evidence of 'prudence or appropriateness' in that description of what happened!!!
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scientific-intolerance-on-full-display-in-us-1.488035

It's hardly surprising that a Christian lobbyist, i.e. Breda O'Brien of the Iona Institute, would take the line of "scientific intolerance" regarding creationism not being accepted without evidence.

Leroy42

JC, you have posted a number of times that god/unicorn is a fatally wounded meme.

Can you explain how you have decided that one supernatural being can exist but then place such a limit on the supernatural that the other doesn't.

How has nonconventional science proved the non existence of any other type of supernatural force?