Is God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces?

[nutronjon]

Moderation note: These posts originally appeared in the User Feedback thread 15512. They were moved to the Theology forum, because they began addressing questions concerning the idea of God, rather than complaints and complements about hypography and/or its administration.

 

I can appreciate the necessity to carefully word everything, because this is a science forum. However, I am a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces, without saying this a point of view or a possibility every time, and it is not wrong to say, God doesn't exist- as a matter of fact?

 

 

I thought Preaching/Proselytizing meant something more that saying we can think of God as the stuff of universe and organizing forces?

 

I am also curious about the coincidence of getting two penalties soon after someone was told to stop insulting me. I think pointing out that some scientist are agreeable to accepting the existence of God, should have prevented the second penalty given because I didn't meet a requirement of proving some scientist are thinking along the same lines as I am. I have not been aware the rule that says if you can not prove what you are saying you can be penalized, and there does seem to be a double standard, that men of science have pointed out. It is not proven a God does not exist, and yet mods don't seem to demanding prove from these God doesn't exist folks. I don't think they are penalized for possibly offending someone when they state God exist as a matter of fact?

[InfiniteNow]

When one asserts that "purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns" it is not logically equivalent to saying that "unicorns and leprechauns don't exist."

 

 

One statement assumes a priori the existence of the entity, and then further posits some result of that existence.

 

The other statement says that there is zero evidence or reason to accept the existence of said entity, and therefore it can be logically assumed not part of reality until empiricism shows otherwise.

 

Inherent in the second is the willingness to change one's mind. That same willingness does not apply to a mind which has already decided these things exist despite the absence of evidence, need, or explanatory power.

[Overdog]

What INow said is right nutron.

 

It is NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

It IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.

 

It is as simple as that.

 

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

 

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

 

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.

 

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.

[REASON]

While both of you guys are absolutely correct, her argument to this could be that by equating god with nature, god is therefore obsrervable, testable, and falsifiable in that studying nature is studying god.

 

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion. This has been explained in countless ways by numerous people.

 

Another reason why it is not acceptable to just simply allow the notion that nature is god to be cast about in this site is that it could have the effect of misrepresenting the authentic scientific position in the matter to the general public.

 

From the perspective of science, nature is not god, and will continue not to be god no matter how much someone wants it to be recognized by the scientific community as such.

 

What I find really frustrating is that this simple concept has to be reiterated ad infinitum.

[InfiniteNow]

What I find really frustrating is that this simple concept has to be reiterated ad infinitum.

 

Yes, but I am still a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe. :phones:

[REASON]

Yes, but I am still a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe. :shade:

 

:phones: :naughty: :xx: :umno: :hammer: :rant:

[CraigD]

It is NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

It IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.

I’d take this a bit further.

 

If something is unobservable, then by definition, it can’t be observed by any experiment. Thus, the existence of something truly unobserveable – not merely difficult to observe, such as, say, a quark – is unfalsifiable, and any reference to it unscientific.

Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.

I disagree. One can, taking the description of God from any of various religious texts, fairly easily design God-detecting experiments. For example, Exodus 7 details an account of a public test of the existence of several competing gods, and their relative strength, in which, in order to convince an unbelieving Egyptian leader of the reality of the Jewish God, Egyptian magician and the legendary Jewish leader Aaron throw down wooden staffs which are then miraculously transformed into snakes. One can design an experiment directly from these accounts – say, have a devout believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible throw down a staff in the presence of a non-believer (with the modern improvement of a video recorder in hand), the null experimental result being defined as the staff not turning into a snake.

 

The hypothesis that the God described in a particular Bible verse exists is not unfalsifiable. Rather it has been shown false.

 

Alternately, one can define the pantheistic version of God as “that in nature the consideration of which sometimes fills some scientifically knowledgeable person with awe”. One can define measurable characteristics (eg: pupil dilation, blink rate, heart and breath rate, etc.) as indicative of a state of awe, and conduct an experiment in which a scientifically knowledgeable person exhibits these characteristics when considering some aspect of nature. This experiment can “prove the existence of God”, according to this particular definition of God.

 

A problem, the one underlying confusion and disagreement such as that I perceive between nutronjon and infinitenow, is due, I think, to the conflation of strongly different definitions concepts (which have associated definitions) of God. I’m confident that many people, and most hypographers, are easily able to avoid conflating the staffs-to-serpents concept of God with the pantheistic awe-in-the-face-of-nature one. More people, I think, have difficulty avoiding conflation of the pantheistic concept of God with the concept of a God that causes less Biblical miracles, such as telepathy and prognostication.

[InfiniteNow]

All the more reason to avoid use of such an ambiguously defined three letter word, and just stick with the one that works and doesn't carry such baggage. It's just nature. :phones:

[CraigD]

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion.

I can offer only personal opinion, and hints at experimental design to verify it, but I’ll try for an explanation of this.

 

Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

 

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

 

However, I think this “limbic system management”, while it may, and in some well known cases, such as Albert Einsten, involve use of the term God, doesn’t require it. I believe people including staunch atheists for whom the term “God” rarely if ever comes to mind, or vehement ones who powerfully despises the term, are as capable of the technique as such people as those intimately comfortable with the idea Spinoza’s God.

[Overdog]

One can, taking the description of God from any of various religious texts, fairly easily design God-detecting experiments. For example, Exodus 7 details an account of a public test of the existence of several competing gods, and their relative strength, in which, in order to convince an unbelieving Egyptian leader of the reality of the Jewish God, Egyptian magician and the legendary Jewish leader Aaron throw down wooden staffs which are then miraculously transformed into snakes. One can design an experiment directly from these accounts – say, have a devout believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible throw down a staff in the presence of a non-believer (with the modern improvement of a video recorder in hand), the null experimental result being defined as the staff not turning into a snake.

 

The hypothesis that the God described in a particular Bible verse exists is not unfalsifiable. Rather it has been shown false.

 

Alternately, one can define the pantheistic version of God as “that in nature the consideration of which sometimes fills some scientifically knowledgeable person with awe”. One can define measurable characteristics (eg: pupil dilation, blink rate, heart and breath rate, etc.) as indicative of a state of awe, and conduct an experiment in which a scientifically knowledgeable person exhibits these characteristics when considering some aspect of nature. This experiment can “prove the existence of God”, according to this particular definition of God.

 

Of course you are right, when God is defined with specific particulars that allow experiments to be conducted.

 

But the simple statement "God exists" provides nothing specific to test.

[C1ay]

I can appreciate the necessity to carefully word everything, because this is a science forum. However, I am a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces, without saying this a point of view or a possibility every time, and it is not wrong to say, God doesn't exist- as a matter of fact?

 

What exactly is the point in calling nature anything but nature? There in no ambiguity in this. The definition of nature is universally agreed on. "God" on the other hand is defined differently all over the world with few agreeing on a definition. Is it your point to needlessly introduce confusion into discussions of nature just for the fun of introducing confusion? Why use such a poor term to talk about nature when we already have a well defined term for that purpose?

[freeztar]

Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

 

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

 

That's quite a claim Craig! Do you know of any experimental evidence that points to such a claim?

 

In any case, what you are saying is quite different from what nutron has been saying, which led to this thread's creation.

[Thunderbird]

That's quite a claim Craig! Do you know of any experimental evidence that points to such a claim?

 

In any case, what you are saying is quite different from what nutron has been saying, which led to this thread's creation.

 

Wouldn't this limbic response be universal among good scientist as well as artist or teachers ? A chemical feed back system of energy needed for extended study, The anticipation, and then the excitement that comes with learning, the possibility of discovery.

This is the same limbic system that drove and evolved within our ancestral hunter gathers, to follow the trail of a game animal , study its habits the anticipation of dispatching his quarry to take back to feed his family.

[InfiniteNow]

You guys should split the limbic discussion into its own thread and leave a link with redirect here (same applies to our permalink discussion we had earlier). This thread is about nutronjon's desire to whine about why she's being challenged when she states that god is the stuff of the universe, and to try to figure out why these challenges are occurring.

 

 

:)

[nutronjon]

Of course you are right, when God is defined with specific particulars that allow experiments to be conducted.

 

But the simple statement "God exists" provides nothing specific to test.

 

Protestants believed that by studying nature they would learn of God. The following comes from the site for the book Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, The Environmental History. I am not emotionally attached to the subject, but post this information to bring up the past importance of science to Protestants, and to say I think it is a good idea to remind Protestants of their relationship with science.

 

Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, The | Environmental History | Find Articles at BNET

Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, The

Environmental History, Apr 1999 by Stoll, Mark

Harrison traces a number of implications of Protestant hermeneutics. Investigating nature as religious duty, Protestants used new instruments like the microscope and telescope to spy out fresh evidence of God's existence. Abandoning traditional allegorical understandings of the renewal of Eden, Protestants sought to reverse the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the Curse of Genesis 3, and the Flood; they attempted to replant Eden and relearn Adam's natural language lost at Babel. Harrison asserts that the ideology of the conquest of nature that White decried first arose with the Protestant project of restoring Eden by reviving mankind's lost dominion, which God had given to Adam and Noah.

 

Two problems weaken Harrison's argument in an otherwise strong case. His frequent French exemplars of various points (Pluche, Charron, Voltaire, Descartes, Reamur, and others) raise the question of how uniquely Protestant literalism was. If Protestant interest in the "historical" Eden led them to plant gardens, why did major botanical gardens appear all over Europe? Secondly, while Harrison has certainly shown how these issues affected English writers, a lack of Continental Protestant sources undermines his contention that these were broadly Protestant and not just English concerns. Finally, familiarity with Clarence Glacken's Traces on the Rhodian Shore (1967) might have influenced his understanding of classical origins, and led him to date the "two books" metaphor not to the twelfth century, but to John Chrysostom at the turn of the fourth. Harrison has written a very interesting addition to the literature about Protestants and science, one that expands our understanding of the history of science and of ideas about nature.

[nutronjon]

What exactly is the point in calling nature anything but nature? There in no ambiguity in this. The definition of nature is universally agreed on. "God" on the other hand is defined differently all over the world with few agreeing on a definition. Is it your point to needlessly introduce confusion into discussions of nature just for the fun of introducing confusion? Why use such a poor term to talk about nature when we already have a well defined term for that purpose?

 

So far the "Evidence for God from Science

God And Science.org" site seems to give the best argument for putting science and religion back together again. Now I have a serious problem with this site, because I am not Christian, however, I like the argument about our present problem and a need to correct it.

 

I would perfer a new religion such as Stuart Kauffman recommends of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe. I am strongly in favor of working on the fully natural God concept because it is the best way to end superstition and in general, poor human judgment, in my opinion, and the only way to put an end to religiously inflamed wars, that I can think of.

 

Another reason am I saying what I say, is the political aspect. I think we need a better understanding of the history of democracy, and therefore, the reasoning behind the most important principles, and our laws. The opposite to "reason is the controlling force of the universe", is that there is a supernatural being who does things by whim and makes everything happen. I am working with the Athenian concept of reason, logos, cause and effect, that started the sciences and brought an end to superstition, and I am really confused by the insistence on arguing against what I am saying.

 

Science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy and the difference is important to me. For me that doesn't mean denying the existence of God, but using science to understand nature and imply something about God (which brings in the human element of knowledge). The reason for earthquakes is sliding plates, the reason things fly is, air flow, and so on, the reason to declare adulthood begins at age 25 is based on brain science, and what goes with this is, an end to prosecuting children as adults, which is a Christian good and evil mentality that we should resist. As Cicero said better reasoning will lead to better laws, and because they are based on good reasoning, there will be universal agreement.

 

I couldn't decide what to copy and paste from the lengthy site, but science without moral principles is bad news. And the forefathers of the US who very strongly disagreed on religious issues, shared the opinion that religious moral training is essential to a strong and good nation. God becomes the human element of knowledge that is devoid in science. It is like Zeus feared, men have learn all technologies and now revival the Gods, and without the Gods, they are not wise and could destroy all of the creation that is important to humans.

 

 

 

 

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?

 

General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?

by Rich Deem

Introduction

Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

 

Rich Deem

 

This is the first part of a 2 part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview.

 

Do skeptics have beliefs?

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

 

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

 

I wish I could word things as well as Craig, and hope the links I provided support what he has said.

 

What makes humans different from all the other animals, is not all the things we do, build bridges and sky scrapers, and tunnel under the earth, engage in gas warfare (skunks and stink bugs) etc., but that we can think about what think. We are as the gods because we can learn and we can reason, and we can create. Before you throw stones, this language is the language of civilization, not the language of science. Like we can't speak quantum physics without speaking of all the atomic particles, that may of may not exist, we don't speak of being civilized humans very well, without the language of the gods. These gods are astract concepts, not literal, supernatural beings, with supernatural powers. God, is a concept and that we can define however we want. I think it is better to use science to define the concept of god than mythoglogy without science, but also hold mythology has a very important place in human organizations. Mythology is what transitions youth to adulthood, and gives a culture a cohersive, moral foundation, that is vital to humanity. Science alone can not meet all our human needs.