Talk Origins?

Discussion in 'Christian Forum' started by TPM, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. wkw

    wkw Refuge Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Location:
    Canada
    "There is no way to address the unobservable stricty via examining the observable. "

    Let's "see":
    how about gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, space physics, particle physics etc.

    all were addressing the unobservable via examining the observable
     
  2. silvermallard

    silvermallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Location:
    Hawaii
    You know, I choose my words very carefully most of the time. Don't overlook the use of the word "strictly." Besides, gravity is quite observable. Just drop something. Particle physics is similar, but much too technical for this forum.

    I guess the "big picture" here is that, once upon a time not so long ago, particle physics was considered mythology...alchemy...supernatural. Same for quantum physics until the early 1980s (mainstream). Our ability to observe has improved enough that we can now observe the detailed EFFECTS of these "unseen" things enough to know they are realities and some of the rudimentary basics of how they work. Thus, they have shifted into the realm of observable phenomenon...although on the periphery of such.

    The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13, said that we now see a vague reflection in a mirror, but eventually we will see and know with great clarity and detail. Scientists agree...we KNOW our ability to "see" is quite lacking in detail and limited in scope, but getting a bit better all the time. Thus, the well-reasoned response is not to adamantly insist that what we do not "see" does not exist, but to remain mindful of the FACT that there is a LOT we cannot see. Narrow-minded dogmatists are not the sole property of religion and theology. Science is full of them too.
     
  3. Davy Hunt

    Davy Hunt Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Not so fast my friend....

    Imagine... scientists admitting that something that they have accepted as absolute truth for generations... might have been wrong all along!


    The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange Puzzle
    By Robert Roy Britt

    Imagine the weight of a nagging suspicion that what held your world together, a constant and consistent presence you had come to understand and rely on, wasn't what it seemed. That's how scientists feel when they ponder gravity these days.

    For more than three centuries, the basics of gravity were pretty well understood.

    Newton described the force as depending on an object's mass. Though it extends infinitely, gravity weakens with distance (specifically, by the inverse square of the distance). Einstein built on these givens in developing his theory of relativity.

    Then more than a decade ago a researcher noticed something funny about two Pioneer spacecraft that were streaming toward the edge of the solar system. They weren't where they should have been.

    ...

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html
     
  4. havenhunter

    havenhunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,471
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Location:
    N.B. Canada
    "There is NOTHING in the scientific evidence for evolution to suggest that:

    1. Divine creation is NOT POSSIBLE.
    2. Evolution is an acceptable explanation for how it all started."

    I agree with that, however it does create a very real problem for certain notions of how creation occured. Say over a six day period some ten thousand years ago. Not to mention this global flood and a boat holding two of every land animal in exhistance. All of these beliefs are more than likely based on misunderstanding.

    "But, in the bigger context, "evolution" includes the cardinal tenets that there is no supernatural causative factor in the origins of the universe and that evolution is the one-word answer for how everything happened. And that is what we object to. These two points are simply wrong. And these two points are the underpinnings of the evolution side of the evolution vs creation debate. The best science (or math) in the world built upon faulty assumptions is still bad science (or math) that leads to faulty conclusions."

    This is obviously your view, you can't speak for evolutionists. I've searched and searched through the cardinal tennants of evolution and have found nothing about "supernatural causative factors" Evolution is science or methodological naturalism. All facits of science use this method other wise we would all just think that a little demon lives inside your thermos keeping the hot things hot and the cold things cold. Evolution assumes nothing and deals with what is testable. Again, there is nothing to suggest god can't act naturally and the only thing that precludes is your very human view of scripture.
     
  5. havenhunter

    havenhunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,471
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Location:
    N.B. Canada
    "if we can't observe it in nature we can assume it does not exist" is really narrow-minded and downright dumb. That is a classic logic flaw. The existence of one thing, does not prove the lack of existence of anything else. It only proves that what is IS. It does not prove than anything else IS NOT. Of course, that's a mathematical (symbolic logic) and philosophical (rationalism) concept. And you've chosen to ignore those."

    Since I am not a philosopher i'll post what John Wilkins says on the subject

    A useful way to approach this is to ask what a non-naturalistic explanation would look like. Explanations are equations, of a kind. You explain X by saying it is a Y (and a Z, etc). If a non-natural explanation is to work, it has to put something that is neither empty nor circular on the other side of the equation. What counts as a non-natural explanans? 'Something is non-natural if it isn't natural' is entirely empty until we know how to distinguish between the two.
    The usual way to define non-natural is that it is not explicable in terms of natural laws; that is, it breaks the causal chain. If we abandon the methodological assumption of naturalism - that everything is open to empirical investigation - we can say that anything not presently explained by scientific laws is non-natural, but that's not what is meant. We can distinguish between our present ignorance and something that's in-principle not scientifically explicable, surely. We want something that is completely outside the course of physical events [some proponents of the term 'supernatural' use it to mean 'uncaused' - what that actually means is really unclear].
     
  6. silvermallard

    silvermallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Location:
    Hawaii
    That argument would ONLY make sense to someone who is an adamant naturalist...that is to say one who absolutely precludes any possibility of supernatural reality.
     

Share This Page