Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Kynaros wrote:In addition these theories are automatically better than "god did it" because they use mathematics and real physical evidence as their basis instead of ancient dogma and superstition.
Better in what sense, though? I tend to think that the best theory is the true one - and something can potentially be both true and unnameable to scientific investigation.
"God did it" as a plain statement obviously has less merit scientifically speaking because, by itself, it isn't something that can be investigated scientifically.
The fact that you can apply mathematics and whatnot to brane theory doesn't make it more potentially true than "god did it", it just pushes it further into the realm where the tools of science could go about testing it.
touchingcloth wrote:Better in what sense, though? I tend to think that the best theory is the true one - and something can potentially be both true and unnameable to scientific investigation.
"God did it" as a plain statement obviously has less merit scientifically speaking because, by itself, it isn't something that can be investigated scientifically.
The fact that you can apply mathematics and whatnot to brane theory doesn't make it more potentially true than "god did it", it just pushes it further into the realm where the tools of science could go about testing it.
True. But mathematics model physically consistent structures, so if you want to get closer to the truth, you would use math, though there are definitely no guarantees. In that sense, brane theory would be better. And that's the only sense that matters as far as I'm concerned. Nobody knows whether god exists or not; the best we can do is hope to uncover as much of the objective truth as we can. So while it's great that we can say "nobody can disprove God," that notion alone doesn't really get us anywhere or tell us anything.
touchingcloth wrote:Better in what sense, though? I tend to think that the best theory is the true one - and something can potentially be both true and unnameable to scientific investigation.
"God did it" as a plain statement obviously has less merit scientifically speaking because, by itself, it isn't something that can be investigated scientifically.
The fact that you can apply mathematics and whatnot to brane theory doesn't make it more potentially true than "god did it", it just pushes it further into the realm where the tools of science could go about testing it.
True. But mathematics model physically consistent structures, so if you want to get closer to the truth, you would use math, though there are definitely no guarantees. In that sense, brane theory would be better.
No - imagine a universe that does have a god, but the nature of that god is such that it's not in any way amenable to scientific investigation (i.e. non deterministic, resides completely out of the universe, can somehow shift and warp the laws of and otherwise interfere in our universe without us being able to detect it). In that situation brane theory would be better in scientific terms as you'd have potential ways to falsify it, but the god theory would be the true one. "Better" in that situation is pretty much a value judgement depending on whether you want a scientific answer, or a true answer...
touchingcloth wrote:No - imagine a universe that does have a god, but the nature of that god is such that it's not in any way amenable to scientific investigation (i.e. non deterministic, resides completely out of the universe, can somehow shift and warp the laws of and otherwise interfere in our universe without us being able to detect it). In that situation brane theory would be better in scientific terms as you'd have potential ways to falsify it, but the god theory would be the true one. "Better" in that situation is pretty much a value judgement depending on whether you want a scientific answer, or a true answer...
Couple things:
1) Saying "imagine a universe that does have a god" is pointless. We have to try to deduce what is actually true in the real world, where there is doubt and skepticism about everything. Yeah, the true theory is the better one, but we don't live in a world where we have the bonus of knowing everything.
2) Both branes and God are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist, and if they do, the only differences between them would be that one is testable, can extend human knowledge about actual observable reality, and can potentially make life better for millions of people, while the other one can not. If any one of those ideas could claim to be better then, it would be branes, since you would still have no clue whether your hypothesis that "god did it" is actually true or not.
For one, why are you using a christian site for this - What possible aim are you hoping to achieve. If it is to take every athiestic arguement written here and disprove it then I look forward to that. If it is just a place to advertise atheism then I think you will find the moderators might have a word to say about that. Are you then going to look at the counter arguements to all the items you have suggested from the thiest point of view -- or you just assume that every concept of Theism is easily refuted. Have you even looked for example to the evidence against the swoon theory, wrong tomb theory etc for the resurection - I mean these are the most stupid and desperate alternatives athiests have come up with regards to the resurection. Read any Lee Strobel book, or William Craig - or Frank Morrison's who moved the stone.
Silvertusk.
I thought this site was SCIENCE for God. It is about learning and understand. It's ignorant Christians like you who make everyone else look stupid.
The same goes for Atheists, the ones who just say "There is no god!" You can prove these scientific theories, but there is no way to disprove god.
Am I an Atheist? Not really.
Am I a Christian? I'd be lying if I said I were.
The truth is I don't consider myself to belong to any isms, ists or anities. Questions to the mysteries of life I can only say I do not know. Yet through insight I set out to cure my ignorance.