God should be kept out of scientific Questions

[buffalo]

It cannot prove its objective existence at all, full stop.

Again that depends on the context in which one says that it should not be separated from God. My argument is that God is not a genuine object of empirical science. We cannot legitimately know Gods existence through it. We can however give “philosophical” arguments for God based upon or informed by legitimate empirical knowledge; but that would not qualify it as a scientific theory or even a genuine scientific hypothesis.

So what? This requires a knowledge of God before the fact of empirical science. From the perspective of theology, science gives us knowledge about how God made the universe. From the perspective of methodical naturalism, the empirical method does not tells whether or not God exist; since that question is not an objective of empirical science. The question of God is an objective of philosophy and theology.

God does not subject Himself to laying down on our lab table for inspection.

However, we can see evidence of God around us. We can calculate odds of detecting His signature in nature. When one sees something that has the hallmarks of design we can then begin to try to calculate the odds of it being natural.

For example - when we see a rock - we see no complex specified information and would calculate the odds of design as being very low.

If we see that same rock with writing on it we strive to understand its meaning. As we unlock the meaning the CSI is then calculated and the odds of a natural phenomenon drop down. When the odds are greater than 10 to the 150th (I cannot remember the actual number) random chance is almost eliminated as an explanation.

When we measure the odds on more and more items and see high amounts of CSI then odds of design keep increasing.

 

[Prophesy]

It cannot prove its objective existence at all, full stop.

There have been a few attempts, I don’t think that they are sufficient, I’m simply going to let it be that it has been tried though the results are less than satisfactory for me.

So what? This requires a knowledge of God before the fact of empirical science. From the perspective of theology, science gives us knowledge about how God made the universe. From the perspective of methodical naturalism, the empirical method does not tells whether or not God exist; since that question is not an objective of empirical science. The question of God is an objective of philosophy and theology.

The problem is that we aren’t really debating the same thing. You’re primarily focusing on “Does God exist? Well that’s not a scientific question”, and that’s fair (though Aquinas uses the natural world as a starting point for his proofs). The question I am focusing on is “Should God be kept out of scientific questions?”.

-Prophecy

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Ah, but that is the first time you placed the “empirical” caveat on your discussion of science. I still disagree with your initial assertion that God should be kept out, but your argument has more weight under that strict definition.

Most people, in the modern world today, when asked about science, do not immediately think of or assume that I am talking about science as defined by St Thomas Aquinas. Given that fact, I took it for granted that you would know exactly what I was talking about; and thus I would not have to go in to definitions. But you are obviously not like most people.

The empirical method is not science in totum but is merely a piece, a section, of science…

Lol.

The empirical method is the means by which a legitimate hypothesis turns in to a valid theory. I would argue that the empirical method is a very huge and indispensable part of furthering scientific knowledge. Remove the empirical method and you destroy empirical science as it is understood today.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There have been a few attempts, I don’t think that they are sufficient, I’m simply going to let it be that it has been tried though the results are less than satisfactory for me.

. Let me get this straight. Somebody used the empirical method in order to prove the existence of an object they presumed to be measuring!!!

Are we talking about science or philosophy here?

The problem is that we aren’t really debating the same thing. You’re primarily focusing on “Does God exist? Well that’s not a scientific question”, and that’s fair (though Aquinas uses the natural world as a starting point for his proofs). The question I am focusing on is “Should God be kept out of scientific questions?”.

-Prophecy

It is the same question. The questions raised by the empirical sciences are contextually and necessarily different from philosophical questions about God.

For instance the question of whether or not God should be kept out of scientific questions, is not itself a scientific question. Its a philosophical question about Gods relationship to science.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Most people, in the modern world today, when asked about science, do not immediately think of or assume that I am talking about science as defined by St Thomas Aquinas. Given that fact, I took it for granted that you would know exactly what I was talking about; and thus I would not have to go in to definitions. But you are obviously not like most people.

I will take that as a compliment, since your meaning is unclear.

Lol.

The empirical method is the means by which a legitimate hypothesis turns in to a valid theory. I would argue that the empirical method is a very huge and indispensable part of furthering scientific knowledge. Remove the empirical method and you destroy empirical science as it is understood today.

Again, you are referring to one segment of what is broadly defined as “science”. Under your assertion, psychology is not science, theoretical mathematics is not science, much of cosmology is not science since it cannot be proven unless assumptions are made prior to entering data.

You may argue whatever you want. But the fact remains it is one part of the broad umbrella which is “science” and no amount of argument may change that.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

. Let me get this straight. Somebody used the empirical method in order to prove the existence of an object they presumed to be measuring!!!

Are we talking about science or philosophy here?

Now now, derisiveness will get you nowhere.

It is the same question. The questions raised by the empirical sciences are contextually and necessarily different from philosophical questions about God.

For instance the question of whether or not God should be kept out of scientific questions, is not itself a scientific question. Its a philosophical question about Gods relationship to science.

So what you are saying is, in essence, that we should study a watch with no account being given to its purpose? That we should take apart an engine and study it without attempting to understand for what it was designed?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God does not subject Himself to laying down on our lab table for inspection.

However, we can see evidence of God around us.

Thinking that you see evidence of Gods existence and calculating the odds of it being otherwise, does not qualify it as a scientific theory. I cannot empirically measure purpose. Purpose is not a physical object. The universe can be said to exist for a purpose in respect of logic, but that cannot be determined by the empirical method.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So what you are saying is, in essence, that we should study a watch with no account being given to its purpose? That we should take apart an engine and study it without attempting to understand for what it was designed?

It depends on the question we are applying to the watch. If we are asking how does the watch work, then assuming that there is a measurable mechanism, we can discover how it works through some sort of method, without recourse to a designer. However, the question of purpose, is a contextually different question, and it requires a different mode of investigation other than what the empirical sciences can provide.

 

[buffalo]

Thinking that you see evidence of Gods existence and calculating the odds of it being otherwise, does not qualify it as a scientific theory. I cannot empirically measure purpose. Purpose is not a physical object. The universe can be said to exist for a purpose in respect of logic, but that cannot be determined by the empirical method.

Oh really now.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

One note: ID the science makes no comment about who the designer is. That is left to philosophers.

 

[Moonstruck888]

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

I actually smote my keyboard in anger I was so outraged by this.

Since irreducible complexity has been found not to exist in biology ID has been shot down in flames. The predictions of the ID hypothesis have been demonstrated false by the fact that biology does not contain irreducible complexity.

And please do not even think about mentioning bacterial flagellum. That argument was soundly panned a long time ago.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

And since irreducible complexity has been found not to exist in biology ID has been shot down in flames. The predictions of the ID hypothesis have been demonstrated false by the fact that biology does not contain irreducible complexity.

Prove it. Sources?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Prove it. Sources?

google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=bacterial+flagellum+debunked&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=67d5d5d61e9a0270

Take your pick…

The argument was ludicrous in the first place. Biological scientists all over the world have been laughing at the flagellum farce. The flagellum was the only example ID wingnuts thought they had, and turned out to be utterly, stupidly wrong.

 

[buffalo]

google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=bacterial+flagellum+debunked&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=67d5d5d61e9a0270

Take your pick…

The argument was ludicrous in the first place. Biological scientists all over the world have been laughing at the flagellum farce. The flagellum was the only example ID wingnuts thought they had, and turned out to be utterly, stupidly wrong.

Pound away.

CSI my friend, CSI.

From the quote - One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.

Go back to the mousetrap. The argument is not whether the trip bar exists in other assemblies, the question is whether the mousetrap can perform its intended function without the trip bar.

Can it?

Yes or no?

 

[buffalo]

google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=bacterial+flagellum+debunked&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=67d5d5d61e9a0270

Take your pick…

The argument was ludicrous in the first place. Biological scientists all over the world have been laughing at the flagellum farce. The flagellum was the only example ID wingnuts thought they had, and turned out to be utterly, stupidly wrong.

Please address the ATP synthase motor. Spins at 6000 RPM. Every cell has one. Was there at the beginning. Its function is to create energy for the cell. Which came first?

We now know the chicken came first.

ATP synthase motor or the cell? Which came first?

 

[PJM]

=MindOverMatter2;6967561]I don’t believe that God is a scientific question, and neither do I believe that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a scientific Question either. Therefore I think that science and God should stay out of each others way.

You cannot prove Gods existence with science, and science cannot in principle determine whether its reasonable or not to believe in God.

The attempts to bring intelligent design in to the science classroom is really not good, and it makes us look desperate.

Anybody want to challenge my position?

Besides personal opinion on what basis?

God is the Origin of science; thy can’t be seperated.

 

[buffalo]

Moon - one other question I want you to answer.

What descended from what? The flagellum or the blood clotting system?

 

[buffalo]

Besides personal opinion on what basis?

God is the Origin of science; thy can’t be seperated.

That is the point I have been trying to make. Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

What would everyone think about this?

Science commands much taxpayer funding.

What if we would fund informed science and uninformed science and see what fruits they produce?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Please address the ATP synthase motor. Spins at 6000 RPM. Every cell has one. Was there at the beginning. Its function is to create energy for the cell. Which came first?

We now know the chicken came first.

ATP synthase motor or the cell? Which came first?

I fail to see what that has to do with whether or not the flagellum argument has been debunked?

The flagellum is reducible. End of story. Don’t try to wriggle out of it.

 

[buffalo]

I fail to see what that has to do with whether or not the flagellum argument has been debunked?

The flagellum is reducible. End of story. Don’t try to wriggle out of it.

You asked for another example. I provided it with questions you do not seem to want to respond to.

Can the bacterial motor work without EpsE?