U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-19-2011, 07:48 PM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,648,672 times
Reputation: 3293

Advertisements

Quote:
When we have a gap in knowledge, we all know it is a logical fallacy to theorize that the gap must ultimately be explainable by a God. However, it is equally a logical fallacy to theorize that all gaps must ultimately be explainable by naturalistic or material explanations. The first fallacy is the "God of the gaps," the second is the "science of the gaps" fallacy, (at least that's what I call it.)
Not at all. Why? Because all of the previous gaps in our knowledge that have been filled have been filled/explained with scientific discovery about the NATURAL WORLD and confirming natural laws. Sometimes, turning the tables on your opponent works. Other times, it just looks very silly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:18 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,572,373 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Not at all. Why? Because all of the previous gaps in our knowledge that have been filled have been filled/explained with scientific discovery about the NATURAL WORLD and confirming natural laws. Sometimes, turning the tables on your opponent works. Other times, it just looks very silly.
Previous gaps in our knowledge have been filled in with scientific discoveries... except when it hasn't.

Never -not.one.time.- has a scientific discovery even called into question one of the underlying tenants of Deism.

The scientific method is biased to ONLY find naturalistic explanations. Thus you shouldn't act awed by the fact that, to the extent it has found answers, they've always been naturalistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:19 PM
 
37,545 posts, read 25,255,858 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Not at all. Why? Because all of the previous gaps in our knowledge that have been filled have been filled/explained with scientific discovery about the NATURAL WORLD and confirming natural laws. Sometimes, turning the tables on your opponent works. Other times, it just looks very silly.
Why? . . . because all of the gaps that have been closed have been closed in the less than 5% of our material reality amenable to science. To preclude ANYTHING about the 95+% non-material reality is ludicrous and presumptuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:21 PM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,648,672 times
Reputation: 3293
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
Was that supposed to make some kind of sense? I can't make heads or tails of how that could possibly be a response to what I said above. My point was that the SM cannot test whether the universe had a naturalistic or purposeful cause. Since your response doesn't address this point in any way, shape or form, I'm not sure why you posted it.
That is because you assume that the origin of the universe had a purpose. And I'm still waiting for you to explain for the rest of us what that purpose could possibly be.


Quote:
No, the CMBR says nothing about the origin of the universe, just that it's expanding and has been around a long time.
Fact: The Big Bang predicted the CMBR. If it had made such a prediction, and that prediction had been found to be wrong, it would have falsified the Big Bang. Instead, it strengthened it. The CMBR would not exist had there been no Big Bang.

Quote:
It doesn't even take the first step towards telling us what caused it to exist in the first place. Unless you can explain why we would have CMBR if the universe was created naturally, but not if it was purposefully created
There is your causality argument again (and your unexplained 'purposeful' universe). Do you even understand what the CMBR is?

Quote:
So are you saying it came to exist suddenly? But don't you feel that this is in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
All the laws of physics, and time and space itself are a result of the Big Bang. How can something that created the laws of physics in the first place be in violation of them?

Quote:
As far the issue of God creating the universe, there is no violation of the laws of physics, any more than there is for the competing naturalistic theories.
When you can generate the equations that makes it possible for your god to intervene in the natural order of the universe with his "miracles", you will have my undivided attention.

Competing scientific theories are often found to be in violation of the laws of physics, and are then either modified or discarded. I gave you one such discarded hypothesis (EE). "God did it" was discarded by science long ago because it is a religious tautology that doesn't explain anything.

Quote:
Because everyone on this board that I've seen favors one or the other. If you don't believe it was naturalistically created or purposefully created, then feel free to bring up the possibility that you do believe, and I'll gladly consider it.
Wow, another either/or argument. I've got some very bad news for you. Only the relgious-minded believe that somehow there are two (and only two) competing scientific theories for the origin of the universe. The bad news is that one of them (creationism) isn't a scientific theory.

The vast majority of the scientific community understands and accepts Evolution, The Big Bang, and many other hard-won scientific theories. They accept these theories not because of some religious necessesity to believe that they are true. They believe it because it gives them results and advances human knowledge of the world in which we live.

Quote:
Which it does. I've seen no data that's a problem for deism but not naturalism, and deism does explain why life exists and thrives in the universe, while naturalism doesn't, but ultimately attributes it to "just because".
Then you aren't looking at the data. What data exists that demonstrates unambiguously that anecdotal evidence (which is all that religion has) is anything but subjective first person experience that no one is under any obligation to accept, or else outright lies? Where is your control group? What method did you use to minimize bias in your research?

Quote:
Explaining the results better than an opposing theory works, also.
Well dude, in the weeks since we've started this discussion, you've presented not one finding that better explains the data. How long must we wait for it?

Quote:
Yes, and I agree that everything in the universe is finite. But, logically, whatever force caused to exist (be it God or something else) is not.
And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?

Quote:
Since time began to exist when the universe began to exist, whatever force caused it to exist would not be subject to time.
Hence, the cauality dilemma.

Quote:
What it's ultimate purpose is,
Here it comes, folks.

Quote:
I can't say.
Bingo. You can't say. And why is that? Why are you so sure that there is a purpose if you can't even state what that purpose is? Is it a hunch? Did you consult with Peter Falk, and he said that he didn't know either but that he had a hunch that there was one?

Quote:
But I believe that having life in it is likely part of that purpose, since the universe is set up so that life is inevitable and can thrive for billions of years. Whether that's the ultimate purpose or just one factor in the ultimate purpose, I'm not sure.
So your answer is the anthropic argument? In order for the universe to be finely tuned for life, one would expect to find that most of the universe
actually SUPPORTS LIFE. The problem is that when we look at the universe we find that the vast majority of it is empty space and hard radiation that is anything but conducive to life. Sorry, you are going to have to find another purpose, because there doesn't appear to be any reason to suppose that life is why the universe exists since so much of it is entirely hostile to it and unsupportive of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,692 posts, read 11,432,397 times
Reputation: 3684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Previous gaps in our knowledge have filled been filled in with scientific discoveries... except when it hasn't.

Never -not.one.time.- has a scientific discovery even called into a question of Deism.

The scientific method is biased to ONLY find naturalistic explanations. Thus you shouldn't act awed by the fact that, to the extent it has found answers, they've always been naturalistic.
But has there ever been found a non-naturalistc explanation to actually close one of these so-called gaps of science, in the same way as God of the Gaps explanations keep getting closed by scientific explanations. This Tit for tat analogy doesn't seem to hold true and so far has only been one way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:29 PM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,648,672 times
Reputation: 3293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Previous gaps in our knowledge have been filled in with scientific discoveries... except when it hasn't.
You guys seem to expect that science somehow finds all the answers all at once - poof! If that's the way it worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:
Never -not.one.time.- has a scientific discovery even called into question in of the underlying tenants of Deism.
Oh really? Deism is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator.

Great, so you've taken a small step away from superstition. That's a start. So what evidence from the natural world do you have that the universe is a creation and that it has a creator?

Quote:
The scientific method is biased to ONLY find naturalistic explanations. Thus you shouldn't act awed by the fact that, to the extent it has found answers, they've always been naturalistic.
No one in the scientific world will dispute that science relies on the fundamental laws of nature to explain explain nature. It may be a bias, but considering that the natural world is the only one we can measure and detect, it is a reasonable one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:30 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,572,373 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra View Post
But has there ever been found a non-naturalistc explanation to actually close one of these so-called gaps of science, in the same way as God of the Gaps explanations keep getting closed by scientific explanations. This Tit for tat analogy doesn't seem to hold true and so far has only been one way.
Name one gap science has closed on Deism.

Name one single way that anything ever discovered in science has refuted a single tenet of Deism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,692 posts, read 11,432,397 times
Reputation: 3684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Name one gap science has closed on Deism.

Name one single way that anything ever discovered in science has refuted a single tenet of Deism.
Filling the gaps is not a refutation of Deism, however, it is showing Deism not to be a necessity in its explanations. Deism is a philosophical ideology. So my question goes unanswered.

Quote:
But has there ever been found a non-naturalistc explanation to actually close one of these so-called gaps of science, in the same way as God of the Gaps explanations keep getting closed by scientific explanations?

Last edited by PanTerra; 10-19-2011 at 08:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:39 PM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,648,672 times
Reputation: 3293
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Why? . . . because all of the gaps that have been closed have been closed in the less than 5% of our material reality amenable to science. To preclude ANYTHING about the 95+% non-material reality is ludicrous and presumptuous.
It may be presumptuous, but it is not unreasonable. Using statistics, we can survey a sample of a population and get a good very feel for the demographics of that entire population. Using the same techniques we can do the same for our knowledge of the universe. It may be a relatively small databse compared to the entire universe, but it is increasingly becoming a very diverse database derived from all known aspects of nature. And Mystic, as scientists, we can only deal with what we know and can detect. Anything else is simply conjecture.

Finally, you presume that the 95% of the unknown is 'non-material' without explaining what you mean by 'non-material' nor provide any evidence that something 'non-material' exists or even can exist.

We may only have touched upon knowledge of 5% of the universe, but 5% is more than one point on a graph, and it certainly doesn't compose only one aspect/location on that graph.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 08:43 PM
 
3,579 posts, read 2,648,672 times
Reputation: 3293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Name one gap science has closed on Deism.
It isn't for science to close any gaps deists allegedly see in our knowledge. It is up to the deists themselves to find those gaps and close them using the natural processes they espouse as being relevant to the task. For instance, if the universe is a creation, as deists claim, what evidence is there that it is a creation? If there is a creator, what natural evidence can you bring to bear that unambiguously demonstrated the existence of a creator?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top