Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
42 Amazing Replies To The Most Telemetry Set Of Questions.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mohammad Isa Mirsiam on December 15, 2001 21:19:58 UTC

My Dear Richard,
There is no pun intended in what is written herein. If you and I do not see eye to eye some of the time it is most likely because You do not express if you are attempting to be serious or if you are attempting to be sarcastic in your replies to my postings. Would you please clarify your intent, toward me, my style of writing, style of questioning, in the future?

I have taken the time to itemize the most amazing reply to the most basic set of legitimate questions which I presented earlier at: http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/13494.shtml?&disp=0&disp=0
Then a rely was posted by Richard, at:
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/13499.shtml

Now here is Richard’s reply (edited and itemized for clarity). I think we might all agree that the reply itself is a good topic for discussion because we have 42 separate items (comments from Richard) to pick and chose from. (If we see some sarcasm in the tone of Richard’s reply we can overlook it because I think Richard gets the gist of my problem with that part of his reply. I shall and I think we all should try our best not to be sarcastic in our replies to each other. OK?


1)Natural science appeared first with the Greeks, then the Muslims and finally the Europeans.
2)They appeared because humans became intelligent and began to think own their own rather than believing in dogma.
3)There is both a cause and a purpose to why natural science was developed. But it was in spite of god, not because of god.
4)Did you ask the question incorrectly. That is the answer to the question you asked.

5)Obviously not.
6)Humans made natural science.
7)We are lucky that nature works logically, except when you get too deep into it, like with GR and QM.
8)How could a natural science make itself? That is a stupid question. It makes me think that you again asked the question incorrectly.
9)God did not make natural science.
10)Were you trying to ask if god created nature or mathematics?
11)Is English your first language?
12)Obviously yes.
13)Humans made natural science.
14)Humans did not make nature.
15)Humans are a product of nature.
16)But natural science is the human understanding of how nature works.
17)It's more accurate to say that humans discovered how nature works, at least at a superficial level, and that science is how humans describe how nature works.

18)With some early time exceptions regarding conditions around the big bang, science can observe via astronomy and derive via physics how the universe came to be.
19)Astronomers also observe how stars are formed and can simulate how they cluster.
20)They can observe that the universe expansion is accelerating.

21)Regarding the advent of life, and again with perhaps some exceptions around the first budding of life, earth science can observe via fossils, etc., the HISTORY of life-forms on the earth.
22)No theory, just observations and the ability to date fossils and earth strata via physics. Evolution is a theory.
23)Fossils are data, not theory.
24)The causes are theory.
25)God is also a theory.
26)Scripture, the data of god, is inconsistent with the history of life-forms and astronomical observation as well.

27)Scripture is made by humans.
28)Earth science data and light from distant stars, and the first light of the universe, were not made by humans.
29)Physics can derive the first light and the star light from principles that are verified by experiment.
30)The scripture made by humans is not only inconsistent with science, it is just plain incorrect.
31)The cause of that is that the science available to the writers of the scripture was incorrect.
32)They just did the best they could and lied that it came from god in order for the people to believe in it.

33)We do not need to lie anymore.
34)We can prove by experiment and observation how nature works, as long as we do not go too deeply.

35)That does not prove that god does not exist.
36)It does not prove that god does not meddle in the universe within the limits of natural principles.

37)Using these natural princples, humans can postulate (but not prove) how the universe came into existense, for example from other universes.
38)So science has theories of creation that are just as likely as the god creation stories (not even theory).
39)In these theories, the physics ones, there is no need for a first cause.
40)On that basis there is no need for a god.
41)There still may be a god.
42)It's all theory.

I hope that answers the questions I think you really wanted to ask.

Regards,
Richard

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins