Posted on 10/01/2012 11:16:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious—the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe—can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. …
Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says. …
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I see you don't know the answer. Scientists maneuver through the world just as we do, but being more formal about it with definitions and powerful instruments to improve the senses.
How does science “define” anything?
The same as Miriam-Webster, but with more precision.
How does the uncertainty principle (itself uncertain)...
That statement is another reason why you are in no position to judge science.
Science is supposed to be a record of observations, in its purest sense; if the energy interactions are what is observed, then inserting “virtual particles” to fudge the numbers is specious.
Virtual particles are used in quantum mechanics to come up with the most precise calculations and predictions in science.
God does not need us, either. Yet here we are.
Now that's actually very funny!!! Most people of course realize the very opposite.
Feel free to explain why one is, and the other is not.
Keep reaching, by all means. Science and scientists cannot define. That is not what science is. All scientists do is observe, record and propose models from and of pre-existing conditions. When scientists call physical and chemical laws by the word law, are you now saying that those scientists wrote that law? which is impossible since the very law(s) in question predated the scientist(s) that describe it/them.
I see you don't know the answer. Scientists maneuver through the world just as we do, but being more formal about it with definitions and powerful instruments to improve the senses
Thanks for the ignorant statement. Your random throwing of jargon into the mix seems to indicate that you do not have a scientific background. As one of my analytical chemistry teachers once told me, “All measurements are wrong” and that accuracy and precision are measured against standards that can vary wildly. You do know that in the USA, it is up to the federal government (the legislative branch) to define standards (per Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution)? That’s why we have agencies such as the NIST. How trustworthy is the government? (Yes, please answer that.)
How does science “define” anything?
The same as M(err)iam-Webster, but with more precision
Truncating my statement and following up with a blanket ad hominem merely digs a deeper hole for you, not me. And please do not complain about my not answering existential questions when you cannot answer that more concrete one.
How does the uncertainty principle (itself uncertain)...define anything either?
That statement is another reason why you are in no position to judge science
This statement says absolutely nothing.
Virtual particles are used in quantum mechanics to come up with the most precise calculations and predictions in science
No; the onus is on you to explain why one should be merely because the other is. Hence the appeal to probability fallacy.
If I accept that, then I'm letting you beg the question of whether "the other is", without providing any evidence to support it. Why would I want to do that?
Are you denying that humans exist? You already said “here we are” (unless you do not think of yourself as human). That does not mean that a theory (whose “evidence” is shoddy enough) that has been historically used to attack religion (not merely dogma) is real and in existence, i.e. a natural law rather than theory. (Not to mention this being a theory that itself rose out of pagan religion rather than science.)
Scientists do have to define what they mean when the use a word to represent something. For instance they have to define whether a particle is pointlike or spread out in order to determine its properties and to do accurate calculations.
I am however, challenging your assertion that God did not create life with the ability to evolve, based on nothing more than the declaration that "God doesn't need evolution."
The first fallacy is the assumption that you're qualified to decdied what God does or doesn't need, and the second is the tacit assertion that He would not have done anything he absolutlely did not need to do.
You aren’t making clear which “god” you are speaking of. If your god claims to use evolution, he is most likely not the One I ascribe to.
You have to link your jargon to the real world, or else it may be wholly abstract. And as for calculations, throwing in fudge factors for missing data can blow up in a scientist’s face, figuratively speaking.
Scientists do have to define what they mean when the use a word to represent something. For instance they have to define whether a particle is pointlike or spread out in order to determine its properties and to do accurate calculations
You didn't seem to think it necessary to make it clear which "god" you were speaking of when you declared that He didn't need evolution.
Do you hold religion to the same standard as you do science?
An all-powerful supreme being does not need evolution. The possibility exists that such a being could use it as a tool upon a whim, but being omnipotent does eliminate the need, strictly speaking.
Then on what basis do you submit that He did not? Appeal to probability?
Please define “He” first. The particular One I happen to believe in related an account of instantaneous creation. And furthermore, there is no evidence that “He” went the other route; nothing in the fossil record, nothing in any record of genetic mutations, nothing in terms of adaptations either (extremes of environment tend to kill without granting chances of adaptation).
If you makes you feel any better "He" is the immortal, timeless and eternal creator of all things. We, on the other hand have existed for but a very short time. Having done without us for an unimaginable time before we were created, there is less evidence that He "needs" us than there is they He used evolution in our creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.