L
lelinator
Guest
Ahh, one of my favorites…I’ve watched it many times.
If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
The bottom line is, physical reality changes. The quantum field is not something that is absolutely distinct from it. If physical reality is all that exists then it follows necessarily that things either come out absolutely nothing by themselves, or they come out of the fabric and activity of the quantum field; in other-words they are made out of the quantum field. The first is impossible. and therefore the latter must be true out of necessity. Anything else leads to a contradiction.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
And yet you’ve learned nothing.
Last edited:
L
lelinator
Guest
You coulda put a smiley face after that!!!
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
You’re creating a false dichotomy here. We believe that God created everything, possibly using natural processes. There is nothing in the one that excludes the other. If I create a program to procedurally-generate a dungeon map, I am still the author of that map. The program is just my tool of choice. The tool an artist uses doesn’t make them any less the artist.
Everything in science, mathematics, and philosophy indicates that the universe requires a cause for its existence. The mere fact of existence demands a cause.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I am not sure our " Catholic" religion God would emerge from such a discovery. Science cannot confirm the God of CATHOLOCISM by definition because God does not opperate within provable laws of physics. Our God is responsible for the existence of physics, metaphysics by definition.
B
Barnesy
Guest
Im talking about the difference between natural and super natural because we dont say a dog is made super naturally. Some people want to say that the universe wasnt caused naturally but if profseor penrose is right then the cause of the universe was the universe itslef. That doesnt mean that god doesnt exist it just means that we have found a natural cause. Just because we know how dogs are made and they are not made super naturally doesnt mean that God doesnt exist does it.Barnesy:
You’re creating a false dichotomy here. We believe that God created everything, possibly using natural processes. There is nothing in the one that excludes the other. If I create a program to procedurally-generate a dungeon map, I am still the author of that map. The program is just my tool of choice. The tool an artist uses doesn’t make them any less the artist.
Everything in science, mathematics, and philosophy indicates that the universe requires a cause for its existence. The mere fact of existence demands a cause.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Neither do we.
There is a difference between saying that the universe has no physically defined beginning, and saying that physical reality exists without a cause.
Last edited:
B
Barnesy
Guest
Theres a difference in saying that the universe was caused naturaly and that it was caused super naturally. Lots of people want to say that it was super natural. That god caused it to happen and said let there be light and thats all it took. Is god the cause of dogs being here?? You can say yes and i wont argue with you. But if you say that god caused that dog and it wasnt natural then its wrong. If you say that god is the cause of the universe being here then i wont argue with you. But if you say god caused the the universe to be here and it wasnt natural then i will say that you might not be right and you need to admit that. Im not asking you to admit that god might not exist. You need to admit that the cause of the universe might be natural.Barnesy:
Neither do we.
There is a difference between saying that the universe has no physically defined beginning, and saying that physical reality exists without a cause.
You can bring up all the arguments about 5 ways etc and what aquinas said etc and why you think you can prove that god exists but it doesnt change what i said above at all. You can be right about the 5 ways etc but if you say that the cause of the universe was super natural then you might be wrong. I dont think thats hard to follow.
I
IWantGod
Guest
There is nothing to admit because you are creating a straw-man in the first place. All that can be inferred logically from Penroses hypothesis is that the bigbang had a natural cause in so much as it is not an absolute beginning, and Penrose believes that there is possibly evidence of this. But you prefer to deal in fallacies by trying to say that his theory proves that “physical reality” in it’s entirity needs no cause at all for existence; that it is a self-existing reality, and God needs a new Job. That is not Penroses argument and it is not science. It’s a metaphysical argument that you are extrapolating from his hypothesis.
And i don’t really care whether you acknowledge this or not. It’s just the truth.
Physical reality requires a cause for it’s existence regardless of whether or not his theory is correct. In fact it is a principle limitation of the scientific method that it cannot prove or disprove the existential primacy of physical things, regardless of what they are or how they are described. There cannot even be a hypothesis in principle. The scientific method cannot in principle be used as a means to validate metaphysical naturalism or infer it’s necessity; and neither can science prove or disprove that God is a prime or sovereign cause.
I would have been happy to agree with you that God may have not caused the big bang directly, until you started saying that God cannot be an uncaused cause if Penrose is correct. I can only assume that you don’t understand what an uncaused cause is. God is not the direct cause of how a dog came to be a dog in terms of how it has been constructed, but God is the uncaused cause of the dogs existence nontheless.
Last edited:
B
Barnesy
Guest
Im quite happy to agree with that and if we agree that the big bang may have had a natural cause and we agree it created everything we know exists then everything we know exists may have had a natural cause if profseor penrose is correct.Barnesy:
All that can be inferred logically from Penroses hypothesis is that the bigbang had a natural cause in so much as it is not an absolute beginning, and Penrose believes that there is possibly evidence of this.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
It constructed everything naturally that we know to exist. If Penrose is correct, there is a tranformative process between the previous aeon and the aeon that follows. Not a beginning of existence.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
So long as you understand what it means to be a natural cause.
F
fhansen
Guest
It would simply provide a stronger or more accepted “motive of credibility” for belief in a creator than we’d have otherwise. And, while it still doesn’t prove the existence of a God worthy of our obedience and love, of a God who is love, it nonetheless might help ease one over the slippery slope towards that direction. 
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
It would actually be a weaker evidence of design in my opinion, since scientific theories can later be proven wrong. The Scientific method has it’s place but it doesn’t provide the strongest kind of evidence. Which i bet that Atheists would be all too willing to point out if the tables were turned.
Last edited:
B
Barnesy
Guest
Existence is everything in the universe. I dont know anything outside the universe except god. If profseor penrose is right then we have agreed that everything in the universe had a natural cause.Barnesy:
It constructed everything naturally that we know to exist. If Penrose is correct, there is a tranformative process between the previous aeon and the aeon that follows. Not a beginning of existence.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Assertion, and not scientific. Try again.
No, let me help you. The universe is everything that physically exists.
B
Barnesy
Guest
A natural cause is one that we can explain by science and that doesnt need a super natural cause.Barnesy:
So long as you understand what it means to be a natural cause.
B
Barnesy
Guest
Everything that exists is everything in the universe and thats as scientific as you can be. And everything that exists doesnt have to be physical like maths or if i hope i win the lottery that hope is in the universe but it isnt physical.Barnesy:
Assertion, and not scientific. Try again.
No, let me help you. The universe is everything that physically exists.
I
IWantGod
Guest
No, a natural cause is one that moves, acts, transforms, and interacts according to the principles of it’s own nature. That it act’s according to it’s own nature removes the need of a supernatural-influencer to explain it’s activity. However, it does not follow that natural causes exist because of their nature. Being a natural cause is not the same thing as being a natural act of existence.
Just thought i’d make that clear to you. I wouldn’t want you to mislead anybody.
Last edited:
- Status