"True science" must include God?

quote:

---

The answer is it is not supernatural necessarily, from a scientific perspective. It may be merely something that entails a process we have not observed yet, or involved principles that we have not understood yet.

---

Correct, but then you go on to say:

quote:

---

In other words, even if it is something that "God did", there is no reason to dismiss it as out of the realm of science since it may be we can discover how God did it, and perhaps even duplicate it. The mechanism for creation may, in other words, be embedded within the creation.

---

But who is to say that "God" did anything?How do you tell the difference between something god did and something nature did that we may or may not ever understand?

quote:

---

The aspects most ascribe to God, consciousness and Intelligence, or an Intelligent Force, etc,....and what one would logically assume would be involved if one were to begin to uncover the creative mechanism's God uses, well, we are seeing that discovered in quantum physics in my opinion.

---

Most of the aspects people have ascribed to God over the millenia have been pretty anthropomorphic. A father or mother figure and sometimes animalistic or a force of nature, but generally a lot like us in many aspects.Why on earth would you assume that the aspects "most ascribe to god" are correct?It seems to me that you are approaching this with an enormous monotheistic bias that a great many people in the world do not share.What if the Hindus are correct and there are thousands of gods, or what if the Buddhists are correct and there is no human-like conscious god, only a univeral life force that is shared by us all?

Shraf, the spiritual perspective on reality that I have discussed here and elsewhere is congruent with Buddhism, Hinduism and many other spiritual traditions. I don't have a lot of time to waste the rest of the week so let's cut to the chase.What do you not get about the fact that if something is real, it is real whether called natural, spiritual, or whatever. If you want to quibble over terms rather than understand processes, I am not interested.This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 11:23 PM

But who is to say that "God" did anything?How do you tell the difference between something god did and something nature did that we may or may not ever understand?

How do you tell anything Shraf. First things first, we need to come to an understanding that if something is real, it is part of reality regardless of what label one calls it.Then, we can discuss ideas about God and spirituality.I would submit that what spiritual traditions teach about reality, in terms on the view of the fundamental nature of reality, has been known for thousands of years. If one were to view some of these basic concepts as predictions of a hypothesis, and as it turns out, science (quantum physics) begins to assert these same principles, then that is good evidence that science is beginning to delve into the spiritual arena.That's the next thing we would need to come to an understanding of.The third aspect then would be to consider the attributes of God, of the Divine Force, etc,...and see if we see an interaction in the creation with these same attributes. That would be strong evidence for the mechanism of how a theorized God or Divine Force acts upon creation.If we go further and duplicate the process, then we could safely say perhaps that we have discovered the process of direct engineering of reality, whether special creation or Intelligent Design.There are other ways to infer design. The idea of excluding design a priori is not rational. We should go where the evidence leads.It appears to me that some of you guys are oppossed to both positive and negative evidence for ID, period. You argue that just because we do not see how something happened is not evidence for design despite the obvious pattern of intelligence revealed, and then if shown a mechanism for intelligent design actually working on physical reality, you argue that it cannot be evidence either.

quote:

---

How do you tell anything Shraf.

---

Hypothesis => predictions => testing of predictions = positive evidence or falsification of hypothesis.repeat.If you get a lot of positive evidence for a particular hypothesis that has been tested vigorously from many angles, then it becomes confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural?What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?

I couldn't agree more.And the evidence leads many to the conclusion that the ID movement is a pretty unsubtle attempt to get around the establishment clause of the US Constitution following the failure to get Young Earth Creationism taught as science in schools.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Yawn. Nope.

Hi randman (my italics)I think much of this argument resides on whether or not we do see an obvious pattern of intelligence revealed. I've never seen anything which convinced me. To be fair, the whole ID movement has been around in one form or another since Darwin and every example they put forward (e.g. the evolution of an eye) was eventually found to also have a natural explanation. That isn't of course to say that an intelligent designer isn't working behind the scenes but that there's no compelling need to have to resort to that explanation.After time and after repeated failures, ID has to come up with something fairly concrete to even begin to interest people. And yes, to me it does look like creationism-lite. So why should it be given any status in science at all until it does do something of note?PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 06-01-2005 02:47 AM

quote:

---

How do you tell anything Shraf.

---

Hypothesis => predictions => testing of predictions = positive evidence or falsification of hypothesis.repeat.If you get a lot of positive evidence for a particular hypothesis that has been tested vigorously from many angles, then it becomes confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural?What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?

1. There is no need to discuss the supernatural at all. That's a bogus question which contains in inherent contradiction. The claim is made that if God did something in the natural world, that is supernatural and off-limits to science, but claiming that something that occurred in the natural world is by definition supernatural is nonsensical, illogical, and internally inconsistent. As such, the line of reasoning and arguments to dismiss something by labelling it supernatural is not valid and should be dismissed a priori, and those that make such arguments are committing to a fallacy completely at odds with science. If something happens, whether God or some other agent did it, it is by definition part of reality, and hence "natural" in this context.2. The question is misworded. The argument is not that God could not be involved in creating something, or that God could be behind natural processes, as much as the issue is distinquishing between how things occur, and more pointedly, are there more direct means that God may directly influence and design a natural thing. Specifically, if you posit attributes presented as belonging to God or the divine, specifically Intelligence and Consciousness, and discover how these 2 concepts inter-relate with matter, as we have discovered in quantum physics, then that is strong evidence for some sort of mechanism where Intelligence and Consciousness can play a determinative role to a degree on the physical world. That, imo, has been verified. The preponderence of evidence suggests that is the case in ID.Now, you may ask, well, how do we know "it" is God. What if "it" is something else? We cannot prove what "it" is. Fine, but we can discuss the mechanism and the attributes of this potential for direct engineering, and as far as what "it" is, that's another issue. We know "it" exists and plays a role. It may be that science is indeed limited at this stage for ultimately defining and quantizing God.But so what?We can nevertheless prehaps study the mechanism this "divine force" uses since the mechanism is part of the creation.Thus far, we study the mechanism of proposed natural selection affecting a first life form, and evolving into all of the life without really know what that form is, what caused that form, or even, imo, a valid scientific, empirical explanation for how this first life form could emerge, on it's own, without any assistance from an Intelligent Agent from chemistry to biology.But do you discount the entire study of evolution because one part of the story really cannot be falsified?3. You cannot prove that God is not ultimately involved, but you can test for the different mechanisms involved. For example, you claim that natural selection and mutation, etc,... are the mechanisms involved in speciation, but there is no way to exclude God from that process. He could be intimately involved there, but arguably it would be an indirect involvement through these processes.But I would argue quantum physics has presented us with definite evidence of an ID mechanism, namely the direct connection and involvement with consciousness, intelligence, and all matter. There is hard evidence for this, as anyone can verify by just reading the interpretations of wave/particality duality, and eminent physicists involved with such work.So here, we see a mechanism for more direct engineering. We can test for attributes that are involved between matter and a theorized God, namely force (will), intelligence, and consciousness.Alternate tests go back to discounting these things, and there are alternate theories such as the waves moving backwards in time, although I tend to think both consciousness and the transverse wave concepts can be true.So there are tests to verify or disprove the details of the mechanism, in quantum physics. Determining the details of the process involved then enables one to logically assess what it is, and if it shows direct connections between matter and consciousness, as it does, and things harmonious to the claims nearly all spiritual traditions have made about spirituality and Divine Force, God, or whatever one wants to call It, then the logical thing to do is at admit science has begun to test for what was called spiritual principles, the spiritual realm, etc,....and that is exactly what has happened, imo.

Please use the quote box to give us an idea what part of the other message you are refering to. I'm curious to what part of quantum mechanics you are referring to that is the definite evidence for an ID mechanism. I have a background in physics and I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about. Please clarify.

He is talking about spooky action at a distance.
He is talking about the randomness of a deterministic reality.
He is talking about the ultimate observer actualizing the universe.
The premise that within the fabric of reality is woven the threads of free will.
The premise that there is something rather than nothing because something wanted it to be so.
He says God, you say nature.
You say toe-may-toe and he says toe-maw-toe.

The thing is I suspect he is referring to a specific area of quantum mechanics that deals with observation and behavior of subatomic particles. If so, either a new branch of physics have been invented without me knowing or he has a weird misconception of quantum mechanics.

Gaw, you need to read the posts. Quantum mechanics is about subatomic particles, but lately (past 20 years) QM effects have been observed in larger objects, such as atoms, molecules, buckyballs, and since wave-like properties are exhibited even in objects like planets, there is considerable research to what degree QM principles affect macroscopic objects as a whole.Some of the areas in quantum physics that refer to are:1. "Entanglement" suggesting a deeper structure within the universe since it is action at a distance which exhibits either superluminal communication or non-separability or non-locality, however you wish to describe it.2. Consciousness-based interpretation, espoused early on and appears to me to be the dominant intepretatio among quantum physicists, for QM effect, called sometimes the collapsing of the wave function or the move from superpositional into one path or position.3. The observation of what matter seems to be, namely first and foremost an energy pattern or even just a probability energy pattern, and that at times it does not exist in physical form at all.4. Quantum tunneling and other behaviour that appear to defy classical physics on what is possible and impossible.There's more, but there is scarcely a QM effect or principle that does not support the views I am espousing.This message has been edited by randman, 06-02-2005 09:44 PM

quote:

---

The claim is made that if God did something in the natural world, that is supernatural and off-limits to science,

---

Nope.The claim is made that if god did something in the natural world, it would be natural, and therefore would fall under science.

quote:

---

but claiming that something that occurred in the natural world is by definition supernatural is nonsensical, illogical, and internally inconsistent.

---

Right.

quote:

---

As such, the line of reasoning and arguments to dismiss something by labelling it supernatural is not valid and should be dismissed a priori, and those that make such arguments are committing to a fallacy completely at odds with science. If something happens, whether God or some other agent did it, it is by definition part of reality, and hence "natural" in this context.

---

In the context of science, "real" and "abiding by natural law" are not sysnonymous.But if "godidit" and "naturedidit" are indestinguishable to observation, why do you think Godidit?How do you rule out "Godidit" as a cause? Or, how do you rule out "naturedidit" as a cause?How is "Godidit" falsifiable?

quote:

---

2. The question is misworded. The argument is not that God could not be involved in creating something, or that God could be behind natural processes, as much as the issue is distinquishing between how things occur, and more pointedly, are there more direct means that God may directly influence and design a natural thing. Specifically, if you posit attributes presented as belonging to God or the divine, specifically Intelligence and Consciousness, and discover how these 2 concepts inter-relate with matter, as we have discovered in quantum physics, then that is strong evidence for some sort of mechanism where Intelligence and Consciousness can play a determinative role to a degree on the physical world. That, imo, has been verified. The preponderence of evidence suggests that is the case in ID.

---

No, the question is not misworded.You have answered some other question, but that's not the one I put forth.What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena?In other words, how could "godidit" be falsified?

quote:

---

Now, you may ask, well, how do we know "it" is God. What if "it" is something else? We cannot prove what "it" is. Fine, but we can discuss the mechanism and the attributes of this potential for direct engineering, and as far as what "it" is, that's another issue. We know "it" exists and plays a role. It may be that science is indeed limited at this stage for ultimately defining and quantizing God.

---

What are the potential falsifications of your "it" theory?

quote:

---

We can nevertheless prehaps study the mechanism this "divine force" uses since the mechanism is part of the creation.

---

What evidence would falsify this "divine force" as a mechanism of creation?

quote:

---

Thus far, we study the mechanism of proposed natural selection affecting a first life form, and evolving into all of the life without really know what that form is, what caused that form, or even, imo, a valid scientific, empirical explanation for how this first life form could emerge, on it's own, without any assistance from an Intelligent Agent from chemistry to biology.

---

We have no mechnanisms for how an intelligent creator could have created life, either, but at least we have a few physical clues regarding life on Earth at the earliest stages, such as the strong liklihood that carbon was part of first life.

quote:

---

But do you discount the entire study of evolution because one part of the story really cannot be falsified?

---

It can all be falsified. All scientific theories are held tentatively, ready to be inproved in light of new evidence.What would falsify your proposal?

quote:

---

3. You cannot prove that God is not ultimately involved, but you can test for the different mechanisms involved. For example, you claim that natural selection and mutation, etc,... are the mechanisms involved in speciation, but there is no way to exclude God from that process. He could be intimately involved there, but arguably it would be an indirect involvement through these processes.

---

It's fine to believe this, but that personal belief is irrelevant to scientific investigation.

quote:

---

But I would argue quantum physics has presented us with definite evidence of an ID mechanism, namely the direct connection and involvement with consciousness, intelligence, and all matter. There is hard evidence for this, as anyone can verify by just reading the interpretations of wave/particality duality, and eminent physicists involved with such work.

---

But what are your predictions of what we should see in physics, or nature at large, if God did or does X?Predictions and falsifications and evidence.That's what science is.If you don't have any of those, you aren't doing science.