God vs Science

[Confused]

While debating "Natures Destiny" a few issues have been troubling me.

For a recap on Natures Destiny:
The author validates the existence of a supreme being who by means of Fine Tuning, created a universe specifically for life (human life obviously being the ultimate target) and allowed the process of evolution to occur.

Otseng has brought up many issues that as distasteful as it is to admit, I have to say, they are valid issues. It took me several days of re-reading the posts and the book to gain insight into his viewpoints. Now yes, one can disprove much of the bible with science. Anything that delves into the supernatural is usually negated by science because it violates known universal laws. But what about things that have evolved with religion that can't be negated by science?

Questions for debate:

1) Is there currently anything in the scientific realm that would discredit the notion of God? Is it possible that God did indeed create the universe and by means of fine tuning, set evolution into progress? I don't just refer to the Christian God. I would simply refer to any concept of God. Whether it was Christian, Pagan, Wiccan, Judaism, Hindu, Islamic, etc....

2) Is it possible, by using logic and science to determine the existence of God? I know that by logic alone, it is possible to discredit God by reviewing what is currently known about God and saying "well, He isn't doing this, He isn't protecting them, He isn't blah blah blah blah. But that alone doesn't discredit all forms of God. It also doesn't discredit the notion of a supreme creator.

3) Is there any valuable use for a God? This is where my foundation comes from. Currently, I fail to see any reason for a God to exist. Am I blind? Is my own biases forcing me to only see the scientific data and logically discrediting the need for God?

[Furrowed Brow]

1) Is there currently anything in the scientific realm that would discredit the notion of God? Is it possible that God did indeed create the universe and by means of fine tuning, set evolution into progress? I don't just refer to the Christian God. I would simply refer to any concept of God. Whether it was Christian, Pagan, Wiccan, Judaism, Hindu, Islamic, etc....

The problem comes when Christian, Pagan, Wiccan etc try to say something factual about the world. I’m pretty sure science is clear on the fact that no one has been raised from the dead after 3 days, or walked on water etc.

The newly opened Creation museum claims man shared the earth with dinsasours. So this can be discredited. When religion starts to put itself forward as a science then it discredits itself. Of course those who find it all very convincing are a worry. Presently I see the dividing line between science and creation science splitting western society. Though to be honest only a few are really bothered to get themselves informed. So what counts as obviously a discredit to me, is going to seem of merit to someone with creationist leanings.

Then there are the more nebulous claims such as miracles and the efficacy or prayer. The first requiring a myopic interpretative framework that finds meaning in the improbable, and is not open for scientific testing, the second is open for scientific testing and the result don’t look good so far.

The next problem are the explanatory metaphysical concepts that get in invoked viz., trinity, the immaterial and so forth. Though not a matter of science these notions are just plain incoherent, and explain nothing.

Rather than use the word science or even rational thinking, I prefer the word RIGOUR. Can Rigorous thinking discredit religion? Not in its entirety. However it provides a level of scrutiny and question asking that does not sit well with faith.

[Confused]

1) Is there currently anything in the scientific realm that would discredit the notion of God? Is it possible that God did indeed create the universe and by means of fine tuning, set evolution into progress? I don't just refer to the Christian God. I would simply refer to any concept of God. Whether it was Christian, Pagan, Wiccan, Judaism, Hindu, Islamic, etc....

The problem comes when Christian, Pagan, Wiccan etc try to say something factual about the world. I’m pretty sure science is clear on the fact that no one has been raised from the dead after 3 days, or walked on water etc.

The newly opened Creation museum claims man shared the earth with dinsasours. So this can be discredited. When religion starts to put itself forward as a science then it discredits itself. Of course those who find it all very convincing are a worry. Presently I see the dividing line between science and creation science splitting western society. Though to be honest only a few are really bothered to get themselves informed. So what counts as obviously a discredit to me, is going to seem of merit to someone with creationist leanings.

Then there are the more nebulous claims such as miracles and the efficacy or prayer. The first requiring a myopic interpretative framework that finds meaning in the improbable, and is not open for scientific testing, the second is open for scientific testing and the result don’t look good so far.

The next problem are the explanatory metaphysical concepts that get in invoked viz., trinity, the immaterial and so forth. Though not a matter of science these notions are just plain incoherent, and explain nothing.

Rather than use the word science or even rational thinking, I prefer the word RIGOUR. Can Rigorous thinking discredit religion? Not in its entirety. However it provides a level of scrutiny and question asking that does not sit well with faith.

Great answer to the first question. Care to tackle 2 and 3?

I think science can discredit the notion of any God we have knowledge of, such as the Christian God, the Jewish God, etc..... But I don't know that it can discredit the validity of a God in the generic sense.

[Furrowed Brow]

2) Is it possible, by using logic and science to determine the existence of God? I know that by logic alone, it is possible to discredit God by reviewing what is currently known about God and saying "well, He isn't doing this, He isn't protecting them, He isn't blah blah blah blah. But that alone doesn't discredit all forms of God. It also doesn't discredit the notion of a supreme creator.

If religion in whatever form tries to say something factual then it is open to logic and science. But a generic non specific “there is God” don’t say too much. I doubt this is even a factual claim. More an assertion of personal conviction. I think half the problem is when those with a religious mind confuse personal conviction for a factual statement. This point is tricky, so I’ll try to elucidate.

If I say “no one has ever walked on water” I am trying to say something about physical processes and events. So I’d class this as a factual claim. And if a Christian says “hold on there buddy Jesus walked on water” then he contradicts me. Both statements cannot be true. They are different pictures of what could have happened.

But if I say “there is no supreme creator”. I doubt I have said anything sensible, and certainly nothing factual. I’m not actually saying anything factual about the world. Now if the same Christian says “of course there is a supreme creator” does he contradict me in the same way he did over the issue of walking on water? Are we even speaking the same language? What event is different? What fact is different for one assertion to be true and the other false?

I’d even say there is the same problem over something like “intelligent design” of “blind evolution”. I wonder (and to be honest I more than suspect) that the language of the debate is misunderstood. That the Iders have mistaken what is non factual language for factual language, and are trying to say stuff that is deeply confused as a result. If one reviews the Nature’s Destiny debate what facts of the matter did we really disagree over?

[Undertow]

While debating "Natures Destiny" a few issues have been troubling me.

For a recap on Natures Destiny:
The author validates the existence of a supreme being who by means of Fine Tuning, created a universe specifically for life (human life obviously being the ultimate target) and allowed the process of evolution to occur.

Otseng has brought up many issues that as distasteful as it is to admit, I have to say, they are valid issues. It took me several days of re-reading the posts and the book to gain insight into his viewpoints. Now yes, one can disprove much of the bible with science. Anything that delves into the supernatural is usually negated by science because it violates known universal laws. But what about things that have evolved with religion that can't be negated by science?

Questions for debate:

1) Is there currently anything in the scientific realm that would discredit the notion of God? Is it possible that God did indeed create the universe and by means of fine tuning, set evolution into progress? I don't just refer to the Christian God. I would simply refer to any concept of God. Whether it was Christian, Pagan, Wiccan, Judaism, Hindu, Islamic, etc....

2) Is it possible, by using logic and science to determine the existence of God? I know that by logic alone, it is possible to discredit God by reviewing what is currently known about God and saying "well, He isn't doing this, He isn't protecting them, He isn't blah blah blah blah. But that alone doesn't discredit all forms of God. It also doesn't discredit the notion of a supreme creator.

3) Is there any valuable use for a God? This is where my foundation comes from. Currently, I fail to see any reason for a God to exist. Am I blind? Is my own biases forcing me to only see the scientific data and logically discrediting the need for God?

1) There is nothing in science that I know of that would discredit the notion of an obligatory creator. But it could be a chocolate teddy bear or a flying spaghetti monster for all we know.

2) Not sure. Of course, we can discredit any number of gods for the reason you mentioned yet proving an obligatory creator? Possibly. All I know of that we have at the moment are arguments for and against. No proofs either way.

3) That's up to the individual.

I must say if we assume god, then scientific progress is halted. Remember the days of Roman and Greek gods or even Norse mythology? No need to study lightning, it's clearly the product of the god of thunder - Thor. Assuming no god, on the other hand, leaves everything up for question. There's more wonder and scope for inquiry because there are no reasons to just sit back and be content with one's own belief as an explanation to everything.

On another issue, these days, god seems to be used only as a tool to divide us. Religion gives us an exclusive unity rather then a unifying one. So you could argue that god is used as an artifice for agression and hate rather than unity. I'm personally of the opinion that a world without religion would be a better one.

But again, whether god has a use or value in this world is up to the individual.

[Hugh]

Please lend me your eyes as I hop-in ...
God was created by dominant male during the hunter-gatherers times when instinct of governance was concepted in order to provide projected authority for rules laid down at those priod and to sustained such power even during the waning of physical strength.(In the beginning was words and the words became flesh and the words was with god) Such methapor was substantiated by the authority of the dominance, the rules of cult-dogmas and sustainable authority coupled with physical strength , cult-anathema and antidotes to scare-off non-believers as well as the members.
.
In short ... a mechanics of sustainable authority must be created that will ultimately sustain the hold and peaceful transition of power.
.
Rules in form of crude dogmas fitted with cult-anathema that hanged overhead to members. Satan/devils and the likes were created too as strong antidotes to non-believers in order to move the social feelings and sustained the hold on membership.
.
Now ... some religious fanatics superimposed god on their interest and will to dominate humanity... the way hunter-gatherers had started this crude dogma.

[Cathar1950]

I am sure there were rules in these hunter-gathers as any primate has a social order long before the concept of gods an goddesses were conceived or invented and some of it goes back to ancestor worship for the stories and tales.
It seem goddess worship flourish first before men (probably discovered by a woman) realized that has something to do with the woman getting pregnate sometime about 6000 years ago when Phallic symbols start popping up but not replacing goddess worship just dominating it. Even in the days of Abramham and the fall of Sumer you can still see traces of goddess worship and a matriartical culture written 1000 years later and still flourishing in Judea and Israel 700's to 400's BCE. There is a long history of god and a short one for YHWH alone is the only god.
Anyway your post does show changes and evolution of the ideas of gods.
It still goes on.
Tell someone 2000 years ago you have a personal relationship with Jesus is words they understood and they would think you mad as they were not privy to modern day pop psychology.

[Hugh]

The first known scenario of how god was concepted by the hunter-gatherers was .... when the dominant male intrigued on-how lightning struck was so powerful and that started fire. God vision was born and a projected authority was concieved (by holy spirit ??? later civilized interpretation) to provide feasible mechanism for a sustainable authority when physical strength waned by ages. That was the basis on how social feeling were manipulated into submission to certain cult-dogma. Rules progresses .... back-up by cult-anathema as physical strength implemented regulations.
.
The first recorded god-historical background was 4000 years way back before Abram (Abraham) of the Kingdom of Haran and Ur (now somewhere in Mosul, Iraq) Somewhere between the nothern parts of now Syria and Iraq, was the Kingdom of Mari where most likely the Legend of Enuma Elish derived. Thus poem-legend was being recited in temples and orally transferred to generations and most likely revised by Abraham ( or later generation using Abraham as the projected source) into an Adam and Eve scenario. The likelihood of Adam/Eve legend to Abraham/Sarah scenario.
a. Both justified incest (Sarah as half-sister of Abraham) ...
b. Both were sent-off from home to survived at their own toil (away from the garden of Eden)

[Cathar1950]

The first known scenario of how god was concepted by the hunter-gatherers was .... when the dominant male intrigued on-how lightning struck was so powerful and that started fire. God vision was born and a projected authority was concieved (by holy spirit ??? later civilized interpretation) to provide feasible mechanism for a sustainable authority when physical strength waned by ages. That was the basis on how social feeling were manipulated into submission to certain cult-dogma. Rules progresses .... back-up by cult-anathema as physical strength implemented regulations.
.
The first recorded god-historical background was 4000 years way back before Abram (Abraham) of the Kingdom of Haran and Ur (now somewhere in Mosul, Iraq) Somewhere between the nothern parts of now Syria and Iraq, was the Kingdom of Mari where most likely the Legend of Enuma Elish derived. Thus poem-legend was being recited in temples and orally transferred to generations and most likely revised by Abraham ( or later generation using Abraham as the projected source) into an Adam and Eve scenario. The likelihood of Adam/Eve legend to Abraham/Sarah scenario.
a. Both justified incest (Sarah as half-sister of Abraham) ...
b. Both were sent-off from home to survived at their own toil (away from the garden of Eden)

I read that the volcano was YHWH at it could be taken as either a vulva or a phallic.
But the goddess was first the promagrant.
I can imagine all kinds of things where imagined.
They have found a 32,500 year old carving of Orion club, belt and all with the gestastion marked out on it.