Is God mute?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
it can interpreted a few ways... I think nitro was using it in the first manner (see below).
I would suggest Nitro was letting stu, (and some of the other pseudo rationalists here like you) know you all need to be keep in mind that our current scientific knowledge has big gaps and it is therefore ridiculous to act like your view is superior to his.
so there are the interpretations I see:
1. It shows their are massive and important gaps in some of our most important science topics...
a. the gap where non life turns into life... if you were to review the science on this subject you would realize that scientists have not even developed a complete plausible pathway from non life to life... given the time frame and the luck that it would take... its hard to speculate non life evolved into life by random chance.
b. the creation of a universe this finely tuned for life... how did it happen... we have no real scientific explanation... either the multiverse conjecture or the hope that someday we will find an answer are sciences best answers... they are essentially faith in science based.
or
2. it might possibly be a scientist or logical person reviewing a creationist's suggested pathways on the above subjects too. Saying its a miracle is not very satisfying for non believers and some inquisitive believers.
3.
so my take is that it shows that anyone who really thinks they know what happened or argues that science knows... needs to reexamine their knowledge and realize they have little to no knowledge and a lot of faith (on some of the biggest questions) ... whether they are atheists or believers.
I would suggest Nitro was letting stu, (and some of the other pseudo rationalists here like you) know you all need to be keep in mind that our current scientific knowledge has big gaps and it is therefore ridiculous to act like your view is superior to his.
so there are the interpretations I see:
1. It shows their are massive and important gaps in some of our most important science topics...
a. the gap where non life turns into life... if you were to review the science on this subject you would realize that scientists have not even developed a complete plausible pathway from non life to life... given the time frame and the luck that it would take... its hard to speculate non life evolved into life by random chance.
b. the creation of a universe this finely tuned for life... how did it happen... we have no real scientific explanation... either the multiverse conjecture or the hope that someday we will find an answer are sciences best answers... they are essentially faith in science based.
or
2. it might possibly be a scientist or logical person reviewing a creationist's suggested pathways on the above subjects too. Saying its a miracle is not very satisfying for non believers and some inquisitive believers.
3.
so my take is that it shows that anyone who really thinks they know what happened or argues that science knows... needs to reexamine their knowledge and realize they have little to no knowledge and a lot of faith (on some of the biggest questions) ... whether they are atheists or believers.
A subtle dig against those who foolishly or naively assume the supernatural can be slotted into areas where science is incomplete, instead of just the simple... don't exactly know - (yet).
Professor:
"you should be more explicit" .....'cause miracle is no kind of a scientific explanation at all.
Once again stu takes the weaker side and acts righteous....
context...
1. jimmy worte:
"has nitro just realized he's not always rational just occasionally conveniently ??"
2. then nitro presented this cartoon ...
lets look at the euqations on the board...
(Those guys look far more like scientists in classroom with a blackboard reviewing "step 2" in equations than preachers... if the artist wanted it to have a religious theme he would have posted some religious icons around. )
context...
1. jimmy worte:
"has nitro just realized he's not always rational just occasionally conveniently ??"
2. then nitro presented this cartoon ...
lets look at the euqations on the board...
(Those guys look far more like scientists in classroom with a blackboard reviewing "step 2" in equations than preachers... if the artist wanted it to have a religious theme he would have posted some religious icons around. )
Great points indeed!
I think even Einstein knew the limitations of science! And he still mentioned about God! And wanted to find out more about Him - the Creator, through science approaches!
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[92] Galileo,[93] Kepler,[94] Newton[95] and Boyle.[96]
Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science who adhered to Christian beliefs include Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[97][98]
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[99]
Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% in Chemistry between 1901 and 2000,[100] 65.3% in Physics,[100] 62% in Medicine,[100] 54% in Economics.[100]
UQ
I think even Einstein knew the limitations of science! And he still mentioned about God! And wanted to find out more about Him - the Creator, through science approaches!
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,[92] Galileo,[93] Kepler,[94] Newton[95] and Boyle.[96]
Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science who adhered to Christian beliefs include Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[97][98]
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[99]
Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% in Chemistry between 1901 and 2000,[100] 65.3% in Physics,[100] 62% in Medicine,[100] 54% in Economics.[100]
UQ
When something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, but has some feathers missing, it's not faith you need to say it's most likely a duck.
But you do need a particular brand of blind irrational faith to ignore all else to say because some feathers are missing, it's not a duck, but is or could be something called God.
Gods dwell where gaps in scientific knowledge are. There be Dragons.
When they influenced Western science, they were doing science. When they were doing Christian, they weren't doing science.
But you do need a particular brand of blind irrational faith to ignore all else to say because some feathers are missing, it's not a duck, but is or could be something called God.
Gods dwell where gaps in scientific knowledge are. There be Dragons.
When they influenced Western science, they were doing science. When they were doing Christian, they weren't doing science.
Contemporary thinkers would have a Long-Term view for an issue with a Process/Systems thinking and a Fuzzy Logic approach.
Just like God's view, I think/guess.
God is inclusive, and views all individuals, whether believers or nonbelievers of any faiths, are equal individually.
God can see all individuals collaboratively help carry out His work, such as maintaining the universe in a sustainable shape (rather than destroying it - when using their free will wrongly).
Just 2 cents!
Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1.
UQ
https://www.google.com/search?q=fuz...ChMIp8_chvSyyAIVZtumCh3SqAtr&biw=1138&bih=549
Just like God's view, I think/guess.
God is inclusive, and views all individuals, whether believers or nonbelievers of any faiths, are equal individually.
God can see all individuals collaboratively help carry out His work, such as maintaining the universe in a sustainable shape (rather than destroying it - when using their free will wrongly).
Just 2 cents!
Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1.
UQ
https://www.google.com/search?q=fuz...ChMIp8_chvSyyAIVZtumCh3SqAtr&biw=1138&bih=549
Last edited:
Sure, I know fuzzy logic. It's that tickly feeling you get when common sense leaves your body.
You're describing totally imaginary capabilities for a totally imaginary concept called God, so fuzzy logic must apply to Pixies riding Unicorns too..... You just need take the long view!
One was given birth by her/his parents. But who were the very first parents including a Father (the first male) and a Mother (the first female) giving birth of the second male and the second female on earth?
Mankind cannot find out all the answers for all the questions through science! Maybe you can! Perhaps through an imaginary way! But I couldn't!
However, we all believe in some constructs - imaginary realities:
Q A construct in the philosophy of science is an ideal object, where the existence of the thing may be said to depend upon a subject's mind. This, as opposed to a real object, where existence does not seem to depend on the existence of a mind.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy)
Other examples of constructs
In Biology
Genes, evolution, illness, taxonomy, immunity
In Physics/Astrophysics
Black holes, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, String Theory, molecular physics or atoms, gravity, center of mass
In Psychology
Intelligence or knowledge, emotions, personality, moods
Theories and Hypotheses
UQ
" An object's center of mass is certainly a real thing, but it is a construct (not another object) "
Why do we need constructs? Or maths? Can maths or science prove the question below - (Male and Female) egg or the (Male and Female) chicken?
Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
The chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
UQ
Mankind cannot find out all the answers for all the questions through science! Maybe you can! Perhaps through an imaginary way! But I couldn't!
However, we all believe in some constructs - imaginary realities:
Q A construct in the philosophy of science is an ideal object, where the existence of the thing may be said to depend upon a subject's mind. This, as opposed to a real object, where existence does not seem to depend on the existence of a mind.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy)
Other examples of constructs
In Biology
Genes, evolution, illness, taxonomy, immunity
In Physics/Astrophysics
Black holes, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, String Theory, molecular physics or atoms, gravity, center of mass
In Psychology
Intelligence or knowledge, emotions, personality, moods
Theories and Hypotheses
UQ
" An object's center of mass is certainly a real thing, but it is a construct (not another object) "
Why do we need constructs? Or maths? Can maths or science prove the question below - (Male and Female) egg or the (Male and Female) chicken?
Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
The chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
UQ
Last edited: