Comments on: The Case for a Creator: Introduction http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of an unnecessary blog, or prohibiting the free posting therein. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:41:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: PotatoStew http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-3903 PotatoStew Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:04:22 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-3903 Hi Critical Believer - thanks for the reply. I agree with a lot of what you've said, however, I think that most scientists probably aren't trying to disprove a greater being. As you said, it's impossible, and I'm sure most scientists realize this. As for the idea that "If I can’t measure and observe it, it must not exist" - It's not so much that it doesn't exist, but that it can't be addressed by the tools of science, since those tools require measurement and observation. So, if scientists can't measure or observe something, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but it does mean that scientists (while "doing science") must behave as though it doesn't. Also, while I'm commenting on this post again, I must apologize to everyone for never actually following through with the review of this book. I didn't really have time to do it properly, and from doing a few Google searches, I found there were already quite a few reviews out there that did much the same thing as I was attempting. Hi Critical Believer - thanks for the reply. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, however, I think that most scientists probably aren’t trying to disprove a greater being. As you said, it’s impossible, and I’m sure most scientists realize this.

As for the idea that “If I can’t measure and observe it, it must not exist” - It’s not so much that it doesn’t exist, but that it can’t be addressed by the tools of science, since those tools require measurement and observation. So, if scientists can’t measure or observe something, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, but it does mean that scientists (while “doing science”) must behave as though it doesn’t.

Also, while I’m commenting on this post again, I must apologize to everyone for never actually following through with the review of this book. I didn’t really have time to do it properly, and from doing a few Google searches, I found there were already quite a few reviews out there that did much the same thing as I was attempting.

]]> By: Critical Believer http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-3889 Critical Believer Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:13:48 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-3889 I have read the book The Case for a Creator and, while I find much of it weak and philosophical, as opposed to scientific, it does bring up some interesting problems with purely naturalistic evolution theory. My biggest problem, however, with scientists is that many seem determined to disprove the existance of a greater Being, which is utterly stupid and a waste of time. It is impossible to scientifically disprove something that by definition is outside the material world. The arrogance of many scientists is astonishing; If I can't measure and observe it, it must not exist. That is idotic. Similarly, I find it absurd for so many people to try to PROVE that God exists. If God did create the world, He did a masterful job of making impossible for us to nail down a concrete proof of His existance. No burning bushes or loud booming voices from the sky lately. I goess that is what faith is for. Regardless, these are two seperate realms that can easily coexist without each side trying to destroy the other. I have read the book The Case for a Creator and, while I find much of it weak and philosophical, as opposed to scientific, it does bring up some interesting problems with purely naturalistic evolution theory. My biggest problem, however, with scientists is that many seem determined to disprove the existance of a greater Being, which is utterly stupid and a waste of time. It is impossible to scientifically disprove something that by definition is outside the material world. The arrogance of many scientists is astonishing; If I can’t measure and observe it, it must not exist. That is idotic. Similarly, I find it absurd for so many people to try to PROVE that God exists. If God did create the world, He did a masterful job of making impossible for us to nail down a concrete proof of His existance. No burning bushes or loud booming voices from the sky lately. I goess that is what faith is for. Regardless, these are two seperate realms that can easily coexist without each side trying to destroy the other.

]]> By: PotatoStew http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-324 PotatoStew Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:16:49 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-324 Hi Animecomic, thanks for the reply. The arguments for ID are mostly arguments from ignorance and incredulity - in other words, they're based on either gaps in our knowledge or an unwillingness to believe a given scientific explanation. So I'm not sure in what way scientific discoveries could point to ID. ID could certainly be seen as *compatible* with scientific discoveries, but only in the sense that ID can be made to fit absolutely *any* set of facts, since no matter what the evidence is, you can always say "that's just how God designed it". Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, requires in many cases that the facts look a certain way for it to be true, and so far the theory has stood up to the facts quite well. Hi Animecomic, thanks for the reply. The arguments for ID are mostly arguments from ignorance and incredulity - in other words, they’re based on either gaps in our knowledge or an unwillingness to believe a given scientific explanation. So I’m not sure in what way scientific discoveries could point to ID. ID could certainly be seen as *compatible* with scientific discoveries, but only in the sense that ID can be made to fit absolutely *any* set of facts, since no matter what the evidence is, you can always say “that’s just how God designed it”. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, requires in many cases that the facts look a certain way for it to be true, and so far the theory has stood up to the facts quite well.

]]> By: Animecomic http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-323 Animecomic Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:33:27 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-323 ID is not something investigated, it is just what all the modern scientific discoveries point to. Belief in ID in no way puts a stop to scientific discovery unless you are just plain lazy. It only gives people more reason to investigate and see how much more they can learn about things that an ID created. ID just says that things in physics are so fine tuned, so much information is stored in DNA, etc... that the only withstanding theory is ID. Other theories fall short, or are so comlicated they are excluded by Ockham's Razor. ID is not something investigated, it is just what all the modern scientific discoveries point to. Belief in ID in no way puts a stop to scientific discovery unless you are just plain lazy. It only gives people more reason to investigate and see how much more they can learn about things that an ID created. ID just says that things in physics are so fine tuned, so much information is stored in DNA, etc… that the only withstanding theory is ID. Other theories fall short, or are so comlicated they are excluded by Ockham’s Razor.

]]> By: Darkmoon http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-9 Darkmoon Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-9 This is a ridiculous argument. Basically ID says that for EVERYTHING that we can't explain, someone else made it happen. While that VERY possibly could be true, that's also a terrible shirking of responsibility.<BR/><BR/>For example, back in the day: volcano blows up. People die. Gods must be mad.<BR/><BR/>Current day: Oh, there's molten rock movement underneath the surface and there's tectonic plate movements.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that there isn't someone bigger and badder than us because that'd be ridiculous to think we're it. But it's just like saying that if we were bacteria and God was a human being.... if suddenly the God popped a Altoid, was he planning on killing us? Probably not.<BR/><BR/>People need to read Anne Rice's vampire series. Not only a good series, but puts some of the bigger pictures into perspectives. *laugh* This is a ridiculous argument. Basically ID says that for EVERYTHING that we can’t explain, someone else made it happen. While that VERY possibly could be true, that’s also a terrible shirking of responsibility.

For example, back in the day: volcano blows up. People die. Gods must be mad.

Current day: Oh, there’s molten rock movement underneath the surface and there’s tectonic plate movements.

I’m not saying that there isn’t someone bigger and badder than us because that’d be ridiculous to think we’re it. But it’s just like saying that if we were bacteria and God was a human being…. if suddenly the God popped a Altoid, was he planning on killing us? Probably not.

People need to read Anne Rice’s vampire series. Not only a good series, but puts some of the bigger pictures into perspectives. *laugh*

]]> By: PotatoStew http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-10 PotatoStew Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-10 <B>"This is a ridiculous argument. Basically ID says that for EVERYTHING that we can't explain, someone else made it happen. While that VERY possibly could be true, that's also a terrible shirking of responsibility."</B><BR/><BR/>Not only that, but it puts it entirely outside of the realm of science, which is what I was trying to explain to ECUMAN. Science examines the natural, the physical, the material -- that's all it's equipped to do. Being <B>supernatural</B>, God is not something science can investigate, so while God may indeed exist, science is not able to address him in any meaningful way. By definition, any "theory" involving God is not science. “This is a ridiculous argument. Basically ID says that for EVERYTHING that we can’t explain, someone else made it happen. While that VERY possibly could be true, that’s also a terrible shirking of responsibility.”

Not only that, but it puts it entirely outside of the realm of science, which is what I was trying to explain to ECUMAN. Science examines the natural, the physical, the material — that’s all it’s equipped to do. Being supernatural, God is not something science can investigate, so while God may indeed exist, science is not able to address him in any meaningful way. By definition, any “theory” involving God is not science.

]]> By: Darkmoon http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-11 Darkmoon Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://pleadthefirst.com/2005/09/22/the-case-for-a-creator-introduction/#comment-11 Unless God wasn't supernatural. When I was a kid, I always wondered... what if we were just germs on a giant space dog or something. Totally oblivious to us, but in all technicality, "it" created us. That would be possible actually then for science to prove. Unless God wasn’t supernatural. When I was a kid, I always wondered… what if we were just germs on a giant space dog or something. Totally oblivious to us, but in all technicality, “it” created us. That would be possible actually then for science to prove.

]]>