[CP5670]

Actually, Christianity is at its core incompatible with science of any sort because the first and most fundamental assumption of science is already the exact opposite of Christianity, and the same goes for judging science given one of the major Christian axioms. Science assumes that all of reality operates on precise laws and rules, but god is not supposed to have any rules by which to act and has an entirely "free" will, which is why he is called god. Christianity (or at least the version of it being discussed here) assumes that there exists a god whose capabilities are absolute and who can defy any "laws" at a random will, which means that no such laws exist. If you have the god also bound by science laws, then it would be consistent, but then he would not be the god in the same sense spoken of here. So putting the two theories together creates a direct and blatant contradiction, which is why I said earlier that you can accept one or the other but not both.

No, they aren't. Microevolution is defined as combining genes from different parents in different combinations to produce variety in offspring. With selective combination, some varieties become more distinct from others over time. This is why we have so many breeds of dogs, but they are all the same species.

I know very little biology so you could be right here, but I think these differences in the parents' genes, however minute, are originally established in more or less the same way: the mutations are used by both processes of evolution. Once the different varieties have reached some certain level of diversity from the original and can still reproduce, they are called a new species.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, Christianity is at its core incompatible with science of any sort because the first and most fundamental assumption of science is already the exact opposite of Christianity, and the same goes for judging science given one of the major Christian axioms. Science assumes that all of reality operates on precise laws and rules, but god is not supposed to have any rules by which to act and has an entirely "free" will, which is why he is called god. Christianity (or at least the version of it being discussed here) assumes that there exists a god whose capabilities are absolute and who can defy any "laws" at a random will, which means that no such laws exist. If you have the god also bound by science laws, then it would be consistent, but then he would not be the god in the same sense spoken of here. So putting the two theories together creates a direct and blatant contradiction, which is why I said earlier that you can accept one or the other but not both.

I wondered if you might come back in here if I were to post again.

Anyway, bollocks to the above.

1) Scientific investigation seeks to determine the patterns of behaviour of nature.  The laws it finds are descriptions thereof.  If there is a being outside of nature who is able to reach into nature and mess about a little enevy once in a while, that does not negate the descriptions of the usual patterns of behaviour.  The assumption that the laws must be inviolable only makes sense if we have already excluded the possibility that a supernatural being exists who could do so.  "The laws of nature are inviolable, therefore God couldn't do anything miraculous," is begging the question in a most blatant way, and inviolability of scientific law is not a necessary assumption to begin with.  In fact, the laws themselves are always understood to mean "Given this situation, and barring any outside interference, such and such will happen."   Nothing in that specifies whether the interference in question comes from another natural source or a supernatural one.

2) As I pointed out in the old religion thread, there is nothing to say that miracles have to be violations of the laws of nature per se, anyway.  If we have a billiard table with balls on it, we can use the laws to predict how the balls will move when hit by the cue.  But what if someone outside of the system suddenly drops another ball onto the table?  The results will be different than otherwise expected.  Likewise, if a supernatural being outside the system of nature has the power to create out of nothing, he could add (or subtract) stuff from nature in such a way as to change the results without breaking the laws at all.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
Well if Christians (in general) are indifferent to science, that's cool. But you must realize most christians are against evolution for some odd reason or another, so I argue and say "you're talking bull****" to these people.

Well, fair enough.  I think so too, to be honest.  I'd say evolutionary theory is fairly credible (though I do have a few questions about it on the purely scientific level that I want to look into sometime, and am not going to fully grant it credence until they are answered).

[CP5670]

I wondered if you might come back in here if I were to post again.

I happen to have a little extra free time tonight.

1) Scientific investigation seeks to determine the patterns of behaviour of nature.  The laws it finds are descriptions thereof.  If there is a being outside of nature who is able to reach into nature and mess about a little enevy once in a while, that does not negate the descriptions of the usual patterns of behaviour. The assumption that the laws must be inviolable only makes sense if we have already excluded the possibility that a supernatural being exists who could do so.  "The laws of nature are inviolable, therefore God couldn't do anything miraculous," is begging the question in a most blatant way, and inviolability of scientific law is not a necessary assumption to begin with.  In fact, the laws themselves are always understood to mean "Given this situation, and barring any outside interference, such and such will happen."   Nothing in that specifies whether the interference in question comes from another natural source or a supernatural one.

Yes it does. As I said before, the reason it is called a law is that there can be absolutely no exceptions to it, no matter what; this is the defining characteristic of a law in the scientific sense. Science says that such laws exist and that events in the universe are not completely random. We are not interested in how often the god violates the laws, but simply whether or not he does it; the very fact that he does it means that the "law" is not a law at all. Also, if he can do it "once in a while," he can just as easily do it all the time if he feels like it, so even that cannot hold. (and if he cannot do it all the time, then he is still bound by laws, which you have said he is not) The true laws of nature are indeed are absolutely inviolable, or they would not be laws, and such laws exist in the science system.

2) As I pointed out in the old religion thread, there is nothing to say that miracles have to be violations of the laws of nature per se, anyway.  If we have a billiard table with balls on it, we can use the laws to predict how the balls will move when hit by the cue.  But what if someone outside of the system suddenly drops another ball onto the table?  The results will be different than otherwise expected.  Likewise, if a supernatural being outside the system of nature has the power to create out of nothing, he could add (or subtract) stuff from nature in such a way as to change the results without breaking the laws at all.

We are not talking about these particular laws that we have right now, but rather laws in general. Science postulates that there exist some laws that describe everything (what these laws actually are and whether or not we can/have discovered them is entirely another issue; we only care about their existence here) but if the god's actions could be fully predicted by the laws, he would not be much of a god.You have said that the god cannot be bound by any laws, natural or supernatural, but then he falls out of science.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670
As I said before, the reason it is called a law is that there can be absolutely no exceptions to it, no matter what; this is the defining characteristic of a law in the scientific sense.

No, that would be a mathematical law, perhaps, given that they are logically necessary, but not a scientific one.  I again remind you that the assumption that nature's patterns of behaviour are inviolable depends upon the assumption that there is no supernatural reality.  There is no logical necessity that nature should be inviolable, so anyone who assumes that it is must base that assumption on the belief that there is no supernature.  But that is a religious belief, not a scientific one (see below).

We are not talking about these particular laws that we have right now, but rather laws in general. Science postulates that there exist some laws that describe everything (what these laws actually are and whether or not we can/have discovered them is entirely another issue; we only care about their existence here) but if the god's actions could be fully predicted by the laws, he would not be much of a god.You have said that the god cannot be bound by any laws, natural or supernatural, but then he falls out of science.

Science describes the patterns of nature's behaviour.  It says nothing about supernature at all, so what's your point?

Also, what does this have to do with what I posted under #2, anyway?

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

[CP5670]

No, that would be a mathematical law, perhaps, given that they are logically necessary, but not a scientific one. I again remind you that the assumption that nature's patterns of behaviour are inviolable depends upon the assumption that there is no supernatural reality.

A scientific law in the abstract sense I am talking about is basically a mathematical/logical law. Nature by definition must include everything in it, so if there is a "supernatural" world that exists in the same system as the natural one, it is merely a part of the natural one and might as well be called natural.

Science describes the patterns of nature's behaviour. It says nothing about supernature at all, so what's your point?

Such a supernature is a subset of nature as far as our discussion here goes; its existence is a necessary and sufficient condition for its being a part of nature also.

Also, what does this have to do with what I posted under #2, anyway?

eh? It seemed to me that you were giving the "known" natural laws as examples there, with all the stuff about natural systems, so I put in some stuff to contest that. Should have added in that these sub-systems are not necessary distinctions for nature as a whole, though.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Warlock
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

----------------------------------------------------------
 

I assume that was posted at CP and I?

Well, at least our conversation makes sense...

[CP5670]

hey, it's always fun to have a little fight around here...

[Goober5000]

It looks like you guys are primarily arguing over what exactly is nature and what laws apply to it.  Define your terms so that you can frame the debate properly.  You two seem to have different definitions of terms, and you can't argue well unless you agree on exactly what you're arguing.

Sesquipedalian's position seems to be that "nature" constitutes the space-time continuum - the universe as we know it.  The universe is a closed system and has a definite beginning in both time and space.  The "supernatural" realm is outside of the universe, is not a closed system, and can influence the "natural" realm without being bound by the "natural" realm's laws.  Here, God exists in the supernatural realm and is not subject to any outside constraints.

CP5670's position seems to be that "nature" constitutes absolutely everything, including what Sesquipedalian calls the "supernatural" realm.  In this case, even the supernatural realm is a closed system (since it is not a separate realm at all and is in fact part of the "natural" realm) and is subject to certain laws.  Here, "God" is part of "everything" and thus is subject to some kind of constraint.

With CP5670's definition of terms, no god can exist outside of nature, so it must be bound by some kind of constraint, which disqualifies it from being God in the Christian sense.

Agree on exactly which terms mean which definitions, and then you can perhaps make some headway.  It seems that you currently are engaged in circular arguments because of inconsistent definitions of terms.

Am I accurate in my observations? Am I making any sense?

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


A scientific law in the abstract sense I am talking about is basically a mathematical/logical law.

Scientific laws aren't abstract in that sense.  They deal with concrete reality.  Logical necessities are all well and good, but not the issue: gravity working as it does (or even existing at all) is not a logical necessity, nor are the laws of thermodynamics, nor the laws of relativity, nor anything else.  They are all contingent, may well have been otherwise, therefore carry no necessity, and therefore could possibly be violated.

Nature by definition must include everything in it, so if there is a "supernatural" world that exists in the same system as the natural one, it is merely a part of the natural one and might as well be called natural.

Ah, a difference of terms again.  Nature: the realm of matter and energy interacting in space and time.  Supernature: a realm of existence not comprised of matter and energy interacting in space and time.  Science deals with matter and energy interacting in space and time, it does not deal with forms of existence outside of matter and energy interacting in space and time

eh? It seemed to me that you were giving the "known" natural laws as examples there, with all the stuff about natural systems, so I put in some stuff to contest that. Should have added in that these sub-systems are not necessary distinctions for nature as a whole, though.

Nope, I was saying that if a being exists in the supernatural realm (see above for definitions), and able to create from nothing the contents of the natural realm, he could engage in creations of things (or removals of them, for that matter) in the natural realm without affecting in any way the usual patterns of behaviour of things already existing in the natural realm.  It doesn't matter what the actual patterns are, so far as this goes.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Goober5000


Am I accurate in my observations? Am I making any sense?

Very accurate.  I'd just come to the same realisation as you can see. Thanks for the imput.

[CP5670]

Goober: sounds good to me.

Scientific laws aren't abstract in that sense.  They deal with concrete reality.  Logical necessities are all well and good, but not the issue: gravity working as it does (or even existing at all) is not a logical necessity, nor are the laws of thermodynamics, nor the laws of relativity, nor anything else.  They are all contingent, may well have been otherwise, therefore carry no necessity, and therefore could possibly be violated.

The theory of science still holds fine though; the general idea of the scientific law (rather than specific laws) is abstract. Also, the fact that the universe is a tight system with everything connected to everything else possibly implies that none of those laws are contingent and the universe would be inconsistent if they were otherwise, since it could mean that reason that the laws are so is to have things consistent. (we just might not have discovered the inconsistency yet) This bit I will not argue on just yet since I am still in the process of discovery myself here.

Ah, a difference of terms again.  Nature: the realm of matter and energy interacting in space and time.  Supernature: a realm of existence not comprised of matter and energy interacting in space and time.  Science deals with matter and energy interacting in space and time, it does not deal with forms of existence outside of matter and energy interacting in space and time.

There is nothing in science that says that it will only deal with matter and energy interacting in space and time. On the contrary, the modern physics of today is attempting to deal with everything, all of the absolute reality and objective existence, in an attempt to find a theory explaining truly everything.

If you don't like the word "nature," just substitute "everything" for it in my posts.

Nope, I was saying that if a being exists in the supernatural realm (see above for definitions), and able to create from nothing the contents of the natural realm, he could engage in creations of things (or removals of them, for that matter) in the natural realm without affecting in any way the usual patterns of behaviour of things already existing in the natural realm.  It doesn't matter what the actual patterns are, so far as this goes.

Exactly, which is why I said that I should have put in an extra statement there.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I assume that was posted at CP and I?

Well, at least our conversation makes sense...

No just the general feeling this thread gives me at times    lol

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670
The theory of science still holds fine though; the general idea of the scientific law (rather than specific laws) is abstract. Also, the fact that the universe is a tight system with everything connected to everything else possibly implies that none of those laws are contingent and the universe would be inconsistent if they were otherwise, since it could mean that reason that the laws are so is to have things consistent. (we just might not have discovered the inconsistency yet) This bit I will not argue on just yet since I am still in the process of discovery myself here.

Contingently necessary scientific laws, eh?  I say your wise to leave it at that.  No one has ever suceeded in making an argument for necessary scientific laws, at least not that I know of.  And lacking one, miracles do remain a logical possibility.

There is nothing in science that says that it will only deal with matter and energy interacting in space and time. On the contrary, the modern physics of today is attempting to deal with everything, all of the absolute reality and objective existence, in an attempt to find a theory explaining truly everything.

How then do you propose to have science deal with the supernatural?  I'd be interested to see that.  In the meantime, that is all that science deals with.  Those who say science is trying to deal with everything are either 1) no bothering to make explicit that they mean everything in the natural realm, or 2) are assuming that there is no supernatural andthus the natural is all there is, which is not a scientific assumption, but a religious one.

Making descriptions of how natural objects usually behave (that is, without any outside interference) is great, but the set of natural objects is one thing, and the set of everything is another.  There is no reason to assume the laws (i.e. patterns of behaviour) that govern natural objects apply to that which is not natural.

Exactly, which is why I said that I should have put in an extra statement there.

Ah.  But that accomplishes little.  As said, a creation from nothing does not need to change the patterns of behaviour of natural (in my sense) objects, it just adds another element into the mix.  The patterns of behaviour of natural objects (in my sense) do not tell us anything about the supernatural (not scientifically, anyway), since the supernatural is a whole other thing.

Anyway, I'll be back maybe tomorrow, or if not than another day soon.

[Kamikaze]

I think I understand the general gist of your arguments... but a question: "is it reasonable to assume there is a supernatural when we can't even perceive it?"

Isn't is much more reasonable to use what we can perceive as our basis for study and developement rather than what we have no way of knowing, sensing, being? (if a christian god really exists we cannot know, sense or be this properly -though that assumes there is a god in the first place to have a non-detectable supernatural ) Or am I missing somehting here?

Of course assuming there absolutely isn't a supernatural isn't reasonable either, but I don't think a 'supernatural' should be taken into account for science. (though we can't 'see' electrons we know they exist by using various tools. However can we ever detect a god? detect the supernatural? No, because they are supernatural. -seems to me almost as a way of execusing non-detectability of god)

/me still thinks agnostism is the only reasonable belief

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
I think I understand the general gist of your arguments... but a question: "is it reasonable to assume there is a supernatural when we can't even perceive it?"

Isn't is much more reasonable to use what we can perceive as our basis for study and developement rather than what we have no way of knowing, sensing, being? (if a christian god really exists we cannot know, sense or be this properly -though that assumes there is a god in the first place to have a non-detectable supernatural ) Or am I missing somehting here?

Of course assuming there absolutely isn't a supernatural isn't reasonable either, but I don't think a 'supernatural' should be taken into account for science. (though we can't 'see' electrons we know they exist by using various tools. However can we ever detect a god? detect the supernatural? No, because they are supernatural. -seems to me almost as a way of execusing non-detectability of god)

/me still thinks agnostism is the only reasonable belief

I think agnosticism is reasonable, too.  I certainly have muchmore respect for it that atheism, logically speaking.  I'd even say I'm an agnostic in the absolute sense, though one who's seen too much not think Christianity has a pretty strong case.  I've thrown in with it because it made less sense not too, rather than because I am utterly certain about it.  The demand for utter certainty is not a reasonable one for human beings to make about anything at all.

But I wouldn't say we have no experience of the supernatural.  

First, there is the possibility of spiritual experiences (I'd say the reality of them, given my experience).  Little can be proven from these, however, so the discussion of them might not be very fruitful save within a group who already have a basic religious agreement.

Second, and much more importantly, there are the instances where the supernatural "invades" the natural.  Miracles are one such type of instance, though not the only.  I usually pull out the story of my little brother's having his ruptured spleen spontaneously healed in front of a bunch of doctors and medical technicians while he lay on the table in front of them as an example of this, since it happened in front of knowledgable, non-Christian witnesses who can offer no explanation whatsoever.  But that's not the only miracle I've seen, and it's not the only sort of supernatural intervention in the natural that happens.  Many Christians will tell you that God still actively does things through his people like prophecy and such, and I'm one of them.

If we confine our sphere of knowledge to merely the natural, I find that we cannot account for everything that happens.  What I've encountered, and many many others too, is that just looking at the natural does not explain enough.

Anyway, I really am off now.  G'night.

[HotSnoJ]

The Bible tells you nothing about how the creation was accomplished.

Oh yes it does.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.  (Genesis 1:3-25)

Science deals with the realm that we can see, observe, and test to find out if it is true. Since it cannot see, observe, and test the supernatural then it [science] can't say if it exists or not.

Can you see my thoughts? Can you observe my thoughts? Can you test to see if it is there (I know of MRI's but that doesn't let you see my thoughts)? The answer is a resounding NO! So by CP's views it [thoughts] can't possibly exist.

We know life had to start somehow. We have tested to see if spontanous generation could have happend. But so far it has been seen, obsevered, and tested that it can't. And just because something could have happend doesn't mean it did.

[Bobboau]

"Oh yes it does"
oh, no it doesn't, none of those bolded statments say how god did any of those things, it only says that god made them happen some how.

"Can you see my thoughts?"
I'm not sure about your's
but, were working on it.

"We know life had to start somehow"
evolution , I'm sure you've heard my molecular evolution theory, where you only need a simple self replecateing molicule (wich have been found to form from non replicative matter) for life to start

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Bobboau
"Oh yes it does"
oh, no it doesn't, none of those bolded statments say how god did any of those things, it only says that god made them happen some how.

He said, "Let there be (fill in here)" And it happend. There is my answer.

"Can you see my thoughts?"
I'm not sure about your's
but, were working on it.

"We know life had to start somehow"
evolution , I'm sure you've heard my molecular evolution theory, where you only need a simple self replecateing molicule (wich have been found to form from non replicative matter) for life to start [/B]

If it's so simple then how come it has been done yet in a lab?