If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

[IWantGod]

Everything that exists is everything in the universe and thats as scientific

That is a metaphysical idea. That is not science.

Methodological-naturalism is not the same thing as metaphysical naturalism.

 

[fhansen]

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.

How would it be weaker? It would only bolster the Church’s teaching that we can arrive at the knowledge of a creator-god by reason alone. And the OP’s did say speak of proving ID, not only theorizing about it.

 

[IWantGod]

if i hope i win the lottery that hope is in the universe but it isnt physical.

Then it is not identical in nature to the universe. Of course you can say there are beings with physical natures that hope in the universe. But it doesn’t follow that the universe is everything that “exists”, because when we speak of the universe scientifically we are talking about physical reality.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Everything that exists is everything in the universe and thats as scientific

That is a metaphysical idea. That is not science.

What exists outside the universe??

 

[IWantGod]

And the OP’s did say speak of proving ID, not only theorizing about it.

Well, proof in a scientific “sense”.

Perhaps proof is not the word. Proof in the sense that there is enough scientific evidence for it to be a legitimate theory and not just a hypothesis (assuming for the sake of argument that there can in principle be an intelligent design hypothesis).

 

[IWantGod]

Outside and inside only has meaning for the universe in a literal sense. If physical reality is not the only reality, then it would be a different order of reality where spatial definitions have no meaning. But since it’s not physical you cannot say that everything that exists is the universe. Scientifically speaking the universe is everything that is physical.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

if i hope i win the lottery that hope is in the universe but it isnt physical.

Then it is not identical in nature to the universe. Of course you can say there are beings with physical natures that hope in the universe. But it doesn’t follow that the universe is everything that “exists”, because when we speak of the universe scientifically we are talking about physical reality.

Why are you putting quotes on exist?? If someone has a hope then does that hope exist somewhere else than the universe?? Where does it exist?? I think you want to play with words and start mixing up science with some thing else. We are talking about science and we are talking about what might have caused the universe and we know that it might have been natural and not supernatural. Things like maths and hope exist in the universe and are part of existence and all we know of existence is the universe so they are part of the universe. To say they are not is talking about the super natural which you are trying to bring in all the time because you want god to be in the conversation all the time.

 

[Barnesy]

Outside and inside only has meaning for the universe in a literal sense. If physical reality is not the only reality, then it would be a different order of reality where spatial definitions have no meaning. But since it’s not physical you cannot saying that everything that exists is the universe. Scientifically speaking the universe is everything that is physical.

You are playing with words and i am not interested in playing with words. I have other things to do.

 

[IWantGod]

else than the universe??

It is not the universe if it is not physical.

 

[IWantGod]

You are playing with words and i am not interested in playing with words. I have other things to do.

No i’m not. You are playing with words to give the impression of something that is not. I’m just making sure there is no possibility of you leading somebody into thinking that everything that exists is the universe, and that this idea is scientific; because it is not.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, but I’ll assume he’s meaning proof in the sense that most would be hard-pressed to deny it.

 

[IWantGod]

Ok, but I’ll assume he’s meaning proof in the sense that most would be hard-pressed to deny it.

I’ll give you that.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

You are playing with words and i am not interested in playing with words. I have other things to do.

No i’m not. You are playing with words to give the impression of something that is not. I’m just making sure there is no possibility of you leading somebody into thinking that everything that exists is the universe, and that this idea is scientific; because it is not.

I wasnt going to reply but you changed what you have been saying and i need to show that you have in case no body noticed. You have been saying that everything that exists is not IN the universe. Now your saying that everything that exists is NOT the universe. There is such a big difference and i think your smart enough to know theres a big difference. If i have a thought then that is in the universe but it is not the universe. You are playing with words again.

 

[IWantGod]

I wasnt going to reply but you changed what you have been saying and i need to show that you have in case no body noticed. You have been saying that everything that exists is not IN the universe. Now your saying that everything that exists is NOT the universe. There is such a big difference and i think your smart enough to know theres a big difference. If i have a thought then that is in the universe but it is not the universe. You are playing with words again.

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.

If we are talking in the context of science, then everything in the “universe” means everything that is physical. And to say “in” implies that something has a physical extension. Even if you want to say that this is not what you mean, your original argument still does not follow. Because you can’t say that everything that exists is the universe (is physical), you therefore cannot say that everything ultimately has a natural cause (is made of physical things and their activity). Beyond saying that there is some measure of an interdependence between certain things you cannot say that physics is ultimately the reason why they exist as a possibility or that the universe is what they are. Science is a measure of physical things, and like you say some things are not physical.

 

[mythbuster1]

The OP is nonsensical, for science is not in the business of proving things. Rather, science is in the business of refuting hypotheses and developing theories from the ones that withstand testing. Einstein proved Newton wrong, but no amount of evidence can ever prove Einstein right. Indeed, we have strong reason to believe Einstein’s model breaks down as particles approach the Plank scale, at which point quantum effects of gravity become significant.

 

[Techno2000]

Barnesy:

everything we know exists may have had a natural cause if profseor penrose is correct.

So long as you understand what it means to be a natural cause.

Yeah, and if you mention anything about the Supernatural to an Atheist they will say you are moving the Goalpost, but one cannot understand any of this stuff without believing in the Supernatural .

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I wasnt going to reply but you changed what you have been saying and i need to show that you have in case no body noticed. You have been saying that everything that exists is not IN the universe. Now your saying that everything that exists is NOT the universe. There is such a big difference and i think your smart enough to know theres a big difference. If i have a thought then that is in the universe but it is not the universe. You are playing with words again.

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.

Because you can’t say that everything that exists is the universe (is physical), you therefore cannot say that everything ultimately has a natural cause (is made of physical things and their activity).

So when this universe started it was nothing except physical stuff. There was no life and there was no body hoping to win the lottery and everything was natural. There was just atoms and chemicals and radiation and everything we can measure so it was all natural. And then say if life started then im here and i hope to win the lottery and you say but no then thats super natural. A hope isnt physical so it must be super natural. Or maybe life is super natural and then it evolves which is natural again. And then some one has a hope and were back to super natural again. It seems like you want to pick whats super natural so theres room for god. And then if penrose is right it all ends and starts again and god has to do everything again as well. Or maybe this is the special universe that god thought hed make us and hes only going to do it once. All the other universes are natural but he wanted to make this one super natural.

 

[IWantGod]

It seems like you want to pick whats super natural so theres room for god.

No, it just follows necessarily that if something is not physical then it is non-physical. It is not something that can be quantified or defined in physical terms. If you ignore that fact then maybe it’s because you have some sort of prejudice against anything that would imply that there is more going on than physical reality.

Let me know when they can put hope in a test tube, maybe hope is just a new type of energy, whatever that means .

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

It seems like you want to pick whats super natural so theres room for god.

No, it just follows necessarily that if something is not physical then it is non-physical. It is not something that can be quantified or defined in physical terms. If you ignore that fact then maybe it’s because you have some sort of prejudice against anything that would imply that there is more going on than physical reality.

Let me know when they can put hope in a test tube, whatever that means .

We know hope is not physical. But what your trying to say is that hope is not part of the physical universe so it cant be natural. If you want to say that hope is super natural then ok.

 

[IWantGod]

hope is not part of the physical universe so it cant be natural.

Hope is not made of physical things, it’s not a physical object, so what sense does it make to say that physics is the ultimate cause of it’s possibility and existence, that such is ultimately the manifestation of blind physical forces.You are assuming the primacy of physical reality and you are trying to subject things to it that are not identical to it.