Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
Yahoo News/LiveScience.com ^ | Tue, Sep 18, 2012 | Natalie Wolchover

Posted on 10/01/2012 11:16:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last
To: chuckles
When you are dead, you cannot perceive God or Spiritual things.

Hmm. I think the Prodigal Son would disagree.

51 posted on 10/02/2012 4:27:07 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Since you cannot prove a negative, you cannot prove God does not exist.


52 posted on 10/02/2012 4:28:48 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

No competent scientist would assert a null hypothesis.


53 posted on 10/02/2012 4:29:53 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Hopey changey Low emission unicorns and a crap sandwich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

God will “rule out” scientists with a mere flick of an inconsequential mile-wide asteroid someday.


54 posted on 10/02/2012 4:46:46 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God.

When the very first sentence is this idiotic there is little hope for the ones thst follow...


55 posted on 10/02/2012 4:55:22 AM PDT by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I think Darwin proved Adaptation but not Evolution. After all you don’t see cross-species breeding that I’m aware of.


56 posted on 10/02/2012 4:57:12 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/


57 posted on 10/02/2012 5:00:21 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve

“god created evolution. problem solved”

You’d think.

Scientist I know are fine with this.
Creationist may crucify you for suggesting it.

Why couldn’t He? Peronally I believe all we have seen is adaptation and the evolvement of species as they acclimate to their environment.


58 posted on 10/02/2012 5:02:53 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“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.”

NEVER HAPPEN! As soon as it does all their funding will dry up and they will have to go out and work for a living.


59 posted on 10/02/2012 5:08:52 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Virtual particles do pop in and out of existence all the time.

We call them Pop Stars... :0)

60 posted on 10/02/2012 5:31:11 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm not voting for Obama, so therefore I must be helping Romney!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Science can only chip away at a primitive notion of a god of the gaps. For the one whose name is I AM, science merely shows the majesty of HIS creation! For the heavens proclaim the glory of God.


61 posted on 10/02/2012 5:41:54 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Those theoretical undetectable particles? Something has to be observable to be real to scientists, yes . . . ?

They are detectable as forces.

62 posted on 10/02/2012 10:05:30 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Yes, but attempting to guess the nature of those forces is a bit presumptive. Scientists are new to presumptuousness, unless they are real scientists.


63 posted on 10/02/2012 10:29:50 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Yes, but attempting to guess the nature of those forces is a bit presumptive. Scientists are not new to presumptuousness, unless they are real scientists. (correction)
64 posted on 10/02/2012 10:31:37 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

You claim that evolution has actually been observed?

Look up more info on the subject.


65 posted on 10/02/2012 10:36:37 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

I see your point, but I was referring to Creationism that promotes that the earth is only a few thousand years old. However, I think the distinction is probably intelligent design would allow for evolutionary processes. So yes, if there is a creator, then everything would be creationism.


66 posted on 10/02/2012 10:42:19 AM PDT by Codeflier (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Whenever someone tells me there is no God, I ask them why is this year 2012? No honest person cam deny that this year is based on a time relationship to the birth of Jesus Christ.

And that B.C. thing means before Christ. Must mean that even secular historians recognize that Jesus was a historical figure who has to be so special that all of recorded history used his birth as its reference point.

Even the secular historians of the time acknowledge the death and resurrection of Christ.


67 posted on 10/02/2012 10:50:53 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Yes, but attempting to guess the nature of those forces is a bit presumptive. Scientists are not new to presumptuousness, unless they are real scientists.

Is there anything wrong with that? Is there a better way? Aren't you being presumptive by assuming I'm a real person at the other end of your Internet connection?

68 posted on 10/02/2012 11:35:12 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier
I have tried that before here. Doesn’t work - too many creationists on FR that will never entertain the idea that God put a system in place for evolution.

As long as they don't burn me at the stake I'll be fine.

69 posted on 10/02/2012 12:00:35 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Now why are you presuming that I presumed such a thing . . . ?

For a bot, you sure did grow beyond your programming. (Sorry; presuming.)

There is always a better way. Assigning particle status to energy is jumping to conclusions and therefore unscientific.
70 posted on 10/02/2012 5:15:40 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier

Labeling people? That’s what libs do. (Never mind the fact that aught associated with evolution per se was being discussed here.)

For my part, anything that comes out of a human’s mouth on such subjects is what is suspect.


71 posted on 10/02/2012 5:18:00 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

We have humans that have adapted to just about every surface conditions on the planet, save the most extreme. Nobody’s changed into something that isn’t human as a consequence.


72 posted on 10/02/2012 5:20:38 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Who created the science?


73 posted on 10/02/2012 5:22:48 PM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Science is blind.


74 posted on 10/02/2012 5:28:44 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (If a man will not work, then neither shall he eat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
All,

Look at the turn of the 19th to 20th Century Physcists were saying ‘All had been discovered!’. There was really nothing to left to do but maybe calculate physical constants out to a few more decimal places.

Then BOOM!

The ultraviolet catastrophe, physics as was understood had severe problems and was collapsing in contradiction. Then came Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger, etc and Quantum Mechanics. There are still real problems with current physical theory. (Read Lee Smolin’s book ‘The Trouble With Physics’ & Peter Woit’s book ‘Not Even Wrong!’)

This Carroll guy would be well to remember the past, the Universe has a way of making such arrogant smugness look foolish.

75 posted on 10/02/2012 5:55:13 PM PDT by Reily (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Assigning particle status to energy is jumping to conclusions and therefore unscientific.

Even "real" particles are theorized and can't be observed directly. Is that jumping to conclusions too?

The same can be said about your senses and what you experience. Is that also jumping to conclusions?

And assigning particle status to energy isn't what scientists are doing. You're jumping to conclusions, making things up, or just plain ignorant. I'm not sure which one, but I'm pretty sure you're an unreliable source for judging science.

76 posted on 10/02/2012 6:13:36 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
PING

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.

77 posted on 10/02/2012 6:27:54 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Yes, atomic theory is still just theory. That which a scanning tunneling microscope observes may indeed not actually fit the theory.

BTW, if you could not trust your senses, you would not be able to maneuver in your environment. So don’t try claim that what we experience as real is wholly theoretical, nor jumping to conclusion.

If a virtual particle so-called is not (as I described) assigning (or ascribing) particle status to energy, then how come it is that you cannot tell me what it is?


78 posted on 10/02/2012 6:34:30 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
BTW, if you could not trust your senses, you would not be able to maneuver in your environment.

Where is the environment that you experience?

If a virtual particle so-called is not (as I described) assigning (or ascribing) particle status to energy, then how come it is that you cannot tell me what it is?

A virtual particle, just as a real one, is defined by science. The defining quality of a virtual particle is that its properties don't exceed the limits placed on it by the Uncertainty Principle.

79 posted on 10/02/2012 7:36:13 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Where is the environment that you experience?
Go ahead and crash your car into a telephone pole (especially in a city), and see if nothing observable results. You can pretend that nothing that just happened is real all you wish, but consequences will come whether you want them to or not.

A virtual particle, just as a real one, is defined by science. The defining quality of a virtual particle is that its properties don’t exceed the limits placed on it by the Uncertainty Principle
Circular explanations. How does science “define” anything? How does the uncertainty principle (itself uncertain) define anything either? 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.
80 posted on 10/02/2012 7:52:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Where is the environment that you experience?

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.

81 posted on 10/02/2012 8:03:54 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
God does not need evolution

God does not need us, either. Yet here we are.

82 posted on 10/02/2012 8:08:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Looks like an appeal to probability fallacy. Shades of cum hoc ergo propter hoc also.
83 posted on 10/02/2012 8:14:14 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God.”

Now that's actually very funny!!! Most people of course realize the very opposite.

84 posted on 10/02/2012 8:14:22 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Encourage all of your Democrat friends to get out and vote on November 7th, the stakes are high.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Looks like an appeal to probability fallacy.

Feel free to explain why one is, and the other is not.

85 posted on 10/02/2012 8:30:46 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

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
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.

How does science “define” anything?

The same as M(err)iam-Webster, but with more precision
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 the uncertainty principle (itself uncertain)...define anything either?

That statement is another reason why you are in no position to judge science
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.

Virtual particles are used in quantum mechanics to come up with the most precise calculations and predictions in science
This statement says absolutely nothing.

So, what’s your scientific background, again?
86 posted on 10/02/2012 8:32:14 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No; the onus is on you to explain why one should be merely because the other is. Hence the appeal to probability fallacy.


87 posted on 10/02/2012 8:34:46 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
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?

88 posted on 10/02/2012 8:42:19 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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.)


89 posted on 10/02/2012 8:49:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Keep reaching, by all means. Science and scientists cannot define. That is not what science is.

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.

90 posted on 10/03/2012 12:35:28 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Of course I'm not denying we exist.

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.

91 posted on 10/03/2012 5:13:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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.


92 posted on 10/03/2012 10:40:36 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

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 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.
93 posted on 10/03/2012 10:43:32 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
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 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.

94 posted on 10/03/2012 10:51:52 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Do you hold religion to the same standard as you do science?


95 posted on 10/03/2012 10:58:57 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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.


96 posted on 10/03/2012 10:59:52 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The possibility exists that such a being could use it as a tool upon a whim

Then on what basis do you submit that He did not? Appeal to probability?

97 posted on 10/03/2012 11:08:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Apples/oranges comparisons now? Scientists are not supposed to conflate their discipline with religion, yet with wild theories that they cannot prove, they demand unquestioning faith, which transforms their alleged science into a form of religion. Are these the standards that science has to be measured by? because all my science instructors were adamant that real science deals with the physical universe, else it abandons itself and becomes metaphysics masquerading as science.
98 posted on 10/03/2012 11:09:43 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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).


99 posted on 10/03/2012 11:14:07 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
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.

100 posted on 10/03/2012 11:24:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson