Evidence for God from Science

Nice post above. Fact is that this is just a bad illustration that really doesn't fit. In fact its actually a trap, if the Christian tries to answer it than he's making assumptions that don't fit in with the God of the Bible.

Here's a flawed, but a slightly better situation. Say a scientist has mindless AI in a supercomputer that have no freedom or consciousness (just like all AI in reality), they are simply material objects... nobody would care or call it morally wrong if you destroyed something like that, there's no reason to care about anything these AI do because they aren't beings. And yet the scientist has a formula that could create consciousness and free will in these creatures. He knows that in doing this, the AI will be able to choose to do anything they want, including deleting other AI, trying to bring viruses onto the supercomputer, heck even denying that somebody created the supercomputer that is their home... but if he does give the AI this gift they will also be given a chance to reach incredible heights and know their creator and think and love instead of being mindless robots. So the scientist gives them free will and consciousness, not only that but he lays down specific laws and reveals himself clearly to the first AI there, if they follow him they'll be fine. Not only that, but even the AI that are "faulty" only need to ASK the scientist to reprogram them and they'll be saved forever. Clearly, to blame the scientist here would be inappropriate... if you're forced to do what's right you might as well not even exist.

And honestly God's case is better than the scientist's case here, God is completely loving, omnipotent, omniscient... and yet the speck of dust think that they are qualified to judge the Almighty. As BW said, God *isn't* a scientist.

Someone else could do better than this, but just some thoughts. The people here are absolutely not afraid of asking hard questions, I'm confident that most have already asked them and come up with the right answers.

B. W. wrote:*

Again, why a Scientist?

Why use such an imperfect fallible specimen?

God is No Scientist...
-
-
-

AMEN brother! Our God is no scientist, he's far better.

I love answering the hard questions. However, they need to be logically possible.

domokunrox wrote:

B. W. wrote:*

Again, why a Scientist?

Why use such an imperfect fallible specimen?

God is No Scientist...

AMEN brother! Our God is no scientist, he's far better.

I love answering the hard questions. However, they need to be logically possible.

Yes God is no scientist, however, if we change a couple of Nouns in ultimate777's implausible thought experiment, it would make more sense to discuss...

So let me place those two Nouns and see what I mean...


An implausible thought experiment, short on details, but worthwhile:

Suppose I was a Lucifer who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the world if he or she wanted to? Like Adam and Eve had the freedom (though in their case they did not know it) to permanently exile the human race from Eden? I sincerely demanded no one ever do it, but I provided everybody the means to do so, and was horrified to discover someone did...

How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?

Is the only answer something on the order that God is God, and I am not? If so, I bet you cannot give much detail, can you?

Or perhaps you could but you won't.

(Like my late old Uncle Baal said there were no question marks in the Bible to "win" an argument, but that's another story
-
-
-

Or, cutting it a little shorter, if it ever gets to the point where every human has the power to destroy the human race and someone does so, is God morally responsible?

Are we afraid hard questions around here?
by ultimate777 on Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:13 am
An implausible thought experiment, short on details, but worthwhile:

Suppose I were a scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the world if he or she wanted to? . . . I sincerely demanded no one ever do it, but I provided everybody the means to do so and was horrified to discover someone did [end the world].

How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that? [Partially (auto)spell-checked, sorry]

If anyone should end the world there would be no one left, either to place blame or to receive blame.

However, should they bungle the job and only halfway mess up the world then the proper thing to do would be to blame the victims. You could declare all descendant victims to be born with “original culpability,” and therefore it would be their own fault.

Also, a scientist is one who has expert knowledge in one or more fields of science. [Perhaps it is simply that some may question God’s qualifications.]
.

Proinsias wrote:Or, cutting it a little shorter, if it ever gets to the point where every human has the power to destroy the human race and someone does so, is God morally responsible?

Pros, that is a better phrased question and brings clarity, thank you Next, I would also add this to the end of your rephrase: is God or Lucifer morally responsible?

Then note, if God does not create a new heavens and earth then would He?

However, according the unlimate777's aunt - you can't use the bible. Therefore, then what are we to use to discern truth – human intellect bent on destroying the world? Karl Marx’s writings, Hitchen’s, Dawkins writings? What can we use? Mortal fallible men? Also a true scientist never becomes an expert in his/respective field as that defeats the purpose of science altogether, there is always more – out there – unknown – yet to be discovered…examined – experimented with and tinkered with…

Anyways, forget aunts and uncles – the bible says God will deal with the world and reshape it anew and perfect…as was originally intended and God does so with just fairness to all so that no one can prove him fallible as such exercises as this attempt to do.
-
-
-

However, according the unlimate777's aunt - you can't use the bible. Therefore, then what are we to use to discern truth – human intellect bent on destroying the world? Karl Marx’s writings, Hitchen’s, Dawkins writings? What can we use? Mortal fallible men? Also a true scientist never becomes an expert in his/respective field as that defeats the purpose of science altogether, there is always more – out there – unknown – yet to be discovered…examined – experimented with and tinkered with…

Very well said B.W

by B. W. on Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:51 pm
However, according the unlimate777's aunt - you can't use the bible. Therefore, then what are we to use to discern truth – human intellect bent on destroying the world? Karl Marx’s writings, Hitchen’s, Dawkins writings? What can we use? Mortal fallible men? Also a true scientist never becomes an expert in his/respective field as that defeats the purpose of science altogether, there is always more – out there – unknown – yet to be discovered…examined – experimented with and tinkered with…


by neo-x on Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:06 pm
Very well said B.W.

Well said? Why?

Is it because he refers to writings that are the antithesis of religion to represent human intellect? Can you really support, further, his claim that any of his mentioned authors intend(ed) to destroy the world? Do you think he can?

Is it because he does not understand the difference between a know-it-all and an expert? An expert is one who possesses special skill or knowledge derived from experience. No expert is, or ever was, expected to know it all. In fact, experts constantly disagree. This is not to say you should dismiss all experts out of hand. Disagreement among experts is often how progress is made. And too, should you someday need say, something like brain surgery, you will most likely want to acquire the services of an expert.

Can you support his claim that a person trained or skilled in the scientific method (i.e., a true scientist) altogether defeats the purpose of science? Do you think he can?

He says, “…there is always more – out there – unknown – yet to be discovered…examined – experimented with and tinkered with…” Who does he think is going to do this? Mortal, fallible men? Could it be that the discerns of "mortal, fallible men" are acceptable, just as long as they do not challenge his beliefs?
.

Let me answer you Coldbood and others as well,

The first problem with ullimates777 exercise is that it camouflages presuppositional intent that one suggest God is the scientist, or is does it apply that human beings are, or some other being is the scientist. Who and what the scientist is not defined and there is no clarity of thought in this exercise regarding tough questions. Without clarity – such exercises are pointless and leading.

Therefore, I prefer Proinias re-phrasing of the exercise as it splendidly applies clarity and direction.

Proinsias wrote:Or, cutting it a little shorter, if it ever gets to the point where every human has the power to destroy the human race and someone does so, is God morally responsible?

Since the rules state you cannot use the bible, what one is to use is not clear either. I thought of using my wife’s cook books or my little grand niece’s books like Pokey Little Pony, or Clifford the Big Red Dog. Clifford would be the scientist, or maybe Rachel Ray… or Giada De Laurentiis… Giada looks better…

Point is, if people are serious about this, they’ll first need to define terms and the first Term is God.

How do we define God and what do we ascribe to his attributes? Ultimates777 premise already ascribes presupposed injustice about God, that is if God is really represented by the scientist. Also there are good scientist and bad scientist out there – which type is this scientist?

So is God a supreme being, or little self indulgent little god or god wanna be?

If Supreme Being – define what applies to being supreme.

If not define what that means and build off that.

Doing so does avoid an intellectually and logically dishonest exercise.
-
-
-

narnia4 wrote:Here's a flawed, but a slightly better situation. Say a scientist has mindless AI in a supercomputer that have no freedom or consciousness (just like all AI in reality), they are simply material objects... nobody would care or call it morally wrong if you destroyed something like that, there's no reason to care about anything these AI do because they aren't beings. And yet the scientist has a formula that could create consciousness and free will in these creatures. He knows that in doing this, the AI will be able to choose to do anything they want, including deleting other AI, trying to bring viruses onto the supercomputer, heck even denying that somebody created the supercomputer that is their home... but if he does give the AI this gift they will also be given a chance to reach incredible heights and know their creator and think and love instead of being mindless robots.

So the scientist gives them free will and consciousness, not only that but he lays down specific laws and reveals himself clearly to the first AI there, if they follow him they'll be fine. Not only that, but even the AI that are "faulty" only need to ASK the scientist to reprogram them and they'll be saved forever. Clearly, to blame the scientist here would be inappropriate... if you're forced to do what's right you might as well not even exist.

Nice post

Ha, I just read that, Danny. Thats brilliant! I gotta write it down!