Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
As a Physicist he should know better claiming it has been determined that our physical existence has been demonstrated to have a beginning. There are different models of the cosmology that have demonstrated that our physical existence has "beginnings," but it has not been conclusively demonstrated that our physical existence has a 'definite definable "beginning.
I do have strong objections to Strauss's line of reason in that he is using a religious agenda with anecdotal claims and inferences to reach his conclusions. The following quote is highly problematic, and essentially accuses science of being based on atheist assumption which is patently false.
The foundation of scientific methods is 'Methodological Naturalism,' assuming science cannot test and falsify theological questions, and remains neutral to whether any one of the many versions of God(s) exists or not. Some scientists assume Metaphysical Naturalism, and are atheists. This is a metaphysical personal view, and not based on scientific assumptions.
Do you disagree with Strauss' description of the Big Bang and the age of the universe? Do you deny the Big Bang?!?
I see nowhere in the article that Strauss implies that science is based on "atheistic assumptions". Can you please quote and explain where you see this?
I think Strauss' approach is quite responsible. He stresses that science cannot "prove" God's existence, but can offer "evidence" for God. I agree completely, and use the same arguments that Strauss uses.
[BTW, it's not quite correct to describe Strauss' talk as endorsing "intelligent design". His talk centers on "fine tuning" arguments, which are not quite the same thing. Strauss is a volunteer apologist with Reasons to Believe, and his fine tuning arguments are very similar to those of Hugh Ross and other old-earth creationists.]Last edited by Kbertsche; 10-23-2014, 08:13 PM."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostIn other news, Shuny still can't spell...
Endorse, not 'endorce'...Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-23-2014, 08:41 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe anal attentive grammarian rears his ugly butt over a spelling error. I actually tried to correct it, but the poster of the thread cannot change the title. Back to the subject at hand."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostShuny, I don't understand what you are saying, and what you find so disagreeable in the article about Strauss. Can you please explain?
Do you disagree with Strauss' description of the Big Bang and the age of the universe? Do you deny the Big Bang?!?
I see nowhere in the article that Strauss implies that science is based on "atheistic assumptions". Can you please quote and explain where you see this?
I think Strauss' approach is quite responsible. He stresses that science cannot "prove" God's existence, but can offer "evidence" for God. I agree completely, and use the same arguments that Strauss uses.
Very unreasonable. He describes science as dominated by atheism longing for a Newtonian past.
"In historical times, he said, all scientists believed in God, and it was only more recently, within the last 200 years or so, that science based on the assumption there is no creator has dominated the field."
He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence, which is in reality unknown.
“If everything in the universe came into being, then the cause of the universe must be transcendent, not a part of this universe,” Strauss argued. “Science kind of stumbled onto something that the Bible declared long ago … that the universe had a beginning.”
[BTW, it's not quite correct to describe Strauss' talk as endorsing "intelligent design". His talk centers on "fine tuning" arguments, which are not quite the same thing. Strauss is a volunteer apologist with Reasons to Believe, and his fine tuning arguments are very similar to those of Hugh Ross and other old-earth creationists.]
he said observable and testable scientific evidence points to a “designer who cares about humanity.”
Read the article again.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View Post'His'?!?!?!Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThen you share the same problems with science as Strauss does.
Very unreasonable. He describes science as dominated by atheism longing for a Newtonian past.
"In historical times, he said, all scientists believed in God, and it was only more recently, within the last 200 years or so, that science based on the assumption there is no creator has dominated the field."
But I also agree with you; science proceeds by "methodological naturalism", and the way that one does science is essentially identical no matter what religious/philosophical perspective one starts with.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostHe made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence, which is in reality unknown.
“If everything in the universe came into being, then the cause of the universe must be transcendent, not a part of this universe,” Strauss argued. “Science kind of stumbled onto something that the Bible declared long ago … that the universe had a beginning.”
I don't understand your claim that "He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence". Can you explain exactly what you see as "false" or "simplistic" in his statements?
The Big Bang says that the universe has a finite (not infinite) age, which means that it came into being at a finite time in the past. Logic (a la William Lane Craig) requires the cause of the universe to lie outside of the universe, i.e. to be transcendent.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBTW the 'Fine tuning argument' is 'Intelligent Design' spelled differently. He referred directly to the support of a 'designer' and 'design.'
he said observable and testable scientific evidence points to a “designer who cares about humanity.”
Read the article again.
It is true that "Intelligent Design" uses "fine tuning" arguments, but this does not mean that the two are identical. ID is much more than "fine tuning" arguments; it also includes "irreducible complexity", opposition to biological evolution, an agenda to get ID into public schools, and numerous other factors.
It is true that Strauss uses the terms "design" and "designer", but this is a far cry from "endorsing ID". All theists believe in divine "design", even those (like Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists) who oppose the ID movement."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostOK, I understand your objection. But I believe Strauss is correct. Like Strauss, I am a physicist, and I see the same thing that Strauss does. Most physicists today are atheists, but 200 years ago most were theists.
But I also agree with you; science proceeds by "methodological naturalism", and the way that one does science is essentially identical no matter what religious/philosophical perspective one starts with.
I don't understand your claim that "He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence". Can you explain exactly what you see as "false" or "simplistic" in his statements?
The Big Bang says that the universe has a finite (not infinite) age, which means that it came into being at a finite time in the past. Logic (a la William Lane Craig) requires the cause of the universe to lie outside of the universe, i.e. to be transcendent.
I notice that you didn't answer my question: do you deny the Big Bang?!? I (like Strauss) see the evidence for it as overwhelming; it cannot be denied without denying reality.
I am not proposing here which model is correct, because in reality this remains unknown. Our physical existence including all possible universes maybe infinite and eternal or finite and temporal. Religious cosmogony claims of the necessity of beginnings cannot ethically use science to justify its religious agenda as Craig does.
As far as whether I support the 'Big Bang,' it is more a layman's term and does not in and of itself describe nor conclude whether our 'physical existence has a definite beginning or not. Virtually all the cosmologists and physicists do not conclude that their is an event in the past that is a beginning in any absolute sense. The present consensus is that the beginning of our universe began from something, a black hole, singularity or possibly a cyclic event.
Sorry, but this is not accurate.
It is true that "Intelligent Design" uses "fine tuning" arguments, but this does not mean that the two are identical. ID is much more than "fine tuning" arguments; it also includes "irreducible complexity", opposition to biological evolution, an agenda to get ID into public schools, and numerous other factors.
It is true that Strauss uses the terms "design" and "designer", but this is a far cry from "endorsing ID". All theists believe in divine "design", even those (like Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists) who oppose the ID movement.Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-24-2014, 08:55 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
I am not proposing here which model is correct, because in reality this remains unknown. Our physical existence including all possible universes maybe infinite and eternal or finite and temporal. Religious cosmogony claims of the necessity of beginnings cannot ethically use science to justify its religious agenda as Craig does.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat is known Shuny is that there is no actual evidence for anything expect this universe. The evidence points to a finite cosmos that began to exist.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Reread what he wrote - it's not an argument from ignorance - the argument is from the evidence.
It's not a good argument, because one point rests on the negative, but it isn't that fallacy, either."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostArguing from Ignorance is a fallacy. At present based on the current knowledge you cannot make the argument either way. Our physical existence may be Infinite and Eternal, or it may be finite and temporal. Justifying a religious agenda that our physical existence must be finite and temporal is unethical and a misuse of science when science at present cannot make that determination
No Shuny, it is not an argument form ignorance. There is no evidence that anything besides this universe exists. And this universe is finite. If you think something more than this universe exists, then it is on you to show it - until then all we have is a finite, temporal cosmos.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Shuny, it is not an argument form ignorance. There is no evidence that anything besides this universe exists. And this universe is finite. If you think something more than this universe exists, then it is on you to show it - until then all we have is a finite, temporal cosmos.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostReread what he wrote - it's not an argument from ignorance - the argument is from the evidence.
It's not a good argument, because one point rests on the negative, but it isn't that fallacy, either.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is an argument from Ignorance, because there is no evidence whatsoever to justify either position.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.Last edited by seer; 10-24-2014, 10:19 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Comment