Evidence for God from Science

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As to the evolution of science and thought. If you really consider this it all requires language. There is a tribe of people who have no real concept of large numbers because it is not in their language.

Not sure I believe this to be true, I don't doubt that this tribe exists, I am just not sure that Science requires any language at all. Wouldn't science and the physical laws exists independant of our decriptions of them? Wouldn't the dinosaurs of evolution fame have fallen to the ground when they died independant of Newton or any other mans description of gravity? Don't the people of this tribe have the ability to advance their thought and comprehend large numbers? Are their stories somewhere of members of these kinds of peoples getting "educated". I do however believe that the dumb animals are not capable of higher reason and logical thoughts on the order of man, and they don't have language so I guess what you say is true to an extent

I am not saying that science does not exist outside of language, I was just pointing out that it took the development of language for people to be able to process thoughts necessary for the development of science.

gone

Jbuza wrote:Still wonder what the position of evolutionism is on this question. Does Evolution hold that whatever events caused the begining as being subject to the same natural laws that we observe today, or does evolution hold that natural laws are fluid and have evolved along with the natural world?

I think I know what your saying, If you are asking if the physical constnts were as they were today, as they were during the big bang then things get a little complicated. According to the mathmatics the forces behaved differently at the high temperatures theorized in the early universe.

Hi Jbuza.

Jbuza wrote:I agree to a certian extent. Natural laws are defined and interpreted by people and culture, but they exist outside of our interpretation and definition, I beleive. I agree that Nweton's definition may be lacking and perhaps others have done a different and perhaps even a better job of arriving at scientific explanation of natural events with reguards to mechanics, but that is the interpretation that has changed, not the reality of the laws themselves.

And I agree with you to a certain extent. What's more I'd imagine more scientists agree with your position than mine. Indeed, my own "working perception" of science in my everyday life is that of human beings discovering universal truths.

But in the heady heights of a philosophical discussion, when I scratch the surface of science, I am not so certain. Sure reality exists and I agree it kicks back and seems to be pretty stubborn - I'm not for a moment suggesting "mind over matter" or any other such crankery.

Imagine science as a game of twenty questions in which an interroagtor homes in on the "truth". Presumably different interrogators would all discover the same "truth" (or fail to find it if unskilled at the game). Now imagine the same game but with a twist - this time there is no truth and the answer-givers agree, unbeknownst to the interrogator, to answer in an arbitary, though coherent, manner. Persumably different interrogators playing this tricky version would "discover" different "truths" to one another. Perhaps the interrogators might then get together, share questions, and construct formal, rigourous strategies for asking questions in such a manner that they are able to create consistent "truths" no matter who plays the game.

I know all analogies have limits but I might ask: Is science more akin to a "straight" or a "tricky" game of twenty questions? Personally I am undecided but have increasingly been leaning towards the latter more recently.

gone

Jbuza wrote:Still wonder what the position of evolutionism is on this question. Does Evolution hold that whatever events caused the begining as being subject to the same natural laws that we observe today, or does evolution hold that natural laws are fluid and have evolved along with the natural world?

Well this is not a simple question. I suppose a basic law (or assumption) is that in order for something to be in existence today it had to have formed successfully from a predecessor. Lets call this the law of propagation.

Other than that the interactions between organisms and between organism and environment are constantly evolving as well.

One thing, which seems to be constant (in terms of eukaryotic organisms), is the framework of DNA and how it translates into proteins.

Other than that environment and implicit and explicit pressures have been variable throughout time. Lets say for instance a virus, which is normally benign, resides in an organism. If this virus suddenly becomes virulent while maintaining transmission rates (contagiousness) it could mean the end to a species or even a class of organisms, say mammals. This changes the dynamics of the remaining life forms remaining greatly. However it is more likely due to the variability from individual to individual that some may posses an immunity (are not susceptible), to the disease-causing agent (viral product or cellular interference). Also it is more likely for a virus to be more virulent if it originates from a different host. But now I am rambling.

Jbuza wrote:However, There are physical laws, and true science. These are independant of our descriptions and are in my opinion constant and absolute.

Guess what - I largely agree once more. LOL.

But if there are constant absolutes to be discovered I would consider them to be in the realm of mathematics and logic, not physics or other science. If an advanced alien society were discovered I would almost expect them to know, for example, PI; but I would be pretty surprised if their science more than vaguely resembled ours.

(That said I believe in HG Wells War of the Worlds the aliens were supposed to be more advanced than us and yet hadn't discovered the wheel - hence the walking machines.)

Blob wrote:

Jbuza wrote:However, There are physical laws, and true science. These are independant of our descriptions and are in my opinion constant and absolute.

Guess what - I largely agree once more. LOL.

But if there are constant absolutes to be discovered I would consider them to be in the realm of mathematics and logic, not physics or other science. If an advanced alien society were discovered I would almost expect them to know, for example, PI; but I would be pretty surprised if their science more than vaguely resembled ours.

(That said I believe in HG Wells War of the Worlds the aliens were supposed to be more advanced than us and yet hadn't discovered the wheel - hence the walking machines.)

Don't worry dear Blob, as long as the laws of physics holds, any ship attempting to get anywhere need the speed of light to invade earth will be destroyed by collisions with dust particles.

Thanks KMart, I'll sleep easy now.

Wait... what if the aliens have constructed a science in which they can travel through hyperspace... oh no... can someone lend me some tinfoil to make a helmet...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: any ship attempting to get anywhere need the speed of light to invade earth will be destroyed by collisions with dust particles.

I guess you never read Arthur Clarke's "Songs of a Distant Earth"