Can Science Know the Mind of God

[FallofDarkness55]

science simply is the mind of god ever since the big bang.

[MrShaziman]

Can Science know the mind of God? Maybe. If Science one day knows the Mind of God, would it admit it? Admitting knowing the Mind of God is admitting God exists and would that ever happen? I don't think so. Should a Higher Mind reveal Itself to one of the establishment's minions, he would run 200 mph and scream "no no no, it can't be, it can't be, I'm dying, I'm dying", yes, I bet this would be the reaction. My point? Science is beholden to its' PAYMASTERS. Science only tells what's allowed.

[animesuckass]

wtf is this argument of morality? Morality is not an argument for any existence of spirituality. Morality is the individual set of mind that he chooses.

[carloscarlos13]

Silly arguments from both sides. If 'supernatural' exists it's not proveable or positively detectable from a standpoint limited to naturalistic evidence and deduction. Period. To recognize mind we must be mind. To recognize spirit we must be spirit.

[shieldsff]

mwildish (1 year ago) - there is no such thing as 'appeal to authority fallacy"- Simply citing a souce who possesses reasonable expertise and reputation is perfectly acceptable.

[omocorp]

Guy was saying some interesting things till he started in with that creationist bs.

[omocorp]

That's funny, I thought the goal of science was the same as that of every other human persuit--to make lots of money.

[fluxqubit]

who exactly runs this channel? Have you noticed the tone of the video briefing to the right of the video???

"With truth, understanding, and reason in the balance.....makes a persuasive case for......against the naive idea that.......His lecture is thought-provoking....."

All this praise for a lecture by a creationist? Something fishy about it!

[mousomer]

He is utterly ignorant of modern biology, he has absolutely no understanding of the philosophy of science. But the worst is the blatant lie equating evolutionists with Stalinists. No biologist is trying to forbid religious study. It is the religious right which tries to forbid science teaching.

The "controversy within biology" he speaks about is bullshit. There's lots and lots of controversy about the details of evolution. There is no "non evolutionary" biology.

[g12er]

Well said mousomer.

[danjoeblue]

mousomer-

David Raup is one of the greatest palaeontologists in the world. He said in a 2000 interview,

"Phil Johnson's work is very good scholarship and, of course, this has been widely denied. He cannot be faulted; he did his homework and he understands 99 percent of evolutionary biology."

Why do you disagree with Raup? How did you come to your conclusion? Do you own any of Johnson's books? Have you read any of them? If not then you should not pontificate with such ignorance.

[atypicalguy]

Let's see how many fallacies I can refute in one comment space.

1. You don't need gods to explain the origin of life. In fact, there were experiments done in the 50s that showed how organic chemicals can spontaneously assemble in conditions similar to the early earth.

2. Philosophical idealism is not necessary to inform an objective morality. The very notion is self-contradicting and is easily shown false when one looks at social animals in nature.

[danjoeblue]

atypicalguy-QUOTE"There were experiments done in the 50s that showed how organic chemicals can spontaneously assemble in conditions similar to the early earth."

You are referring to the Miller/Urey experiment of '53 that produced amino acids. This is far from a living cell. Moreover the experiment used methane, ammonia, hydrogen & water. The view that the early earth contained mostly these is now obsolete. Scientists now believe it was very little hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen & water.

[turxxx]

That has to be the worst combover in history.

[mwildish]

Why do people think that the supernatural is somehow a valid explanation. There is no evidence that anything outside our physical universe exists. If we discover something new, (i.e god) then that becomes part of our understanding of the physical universe. For example: if god directed evolution then god affected the material world. Anything that affects the material world is by definition part of the material world. Anything part of the physical world can be explained- eventually - by science.

[danjoeblue]

mwildish-

Why do people believe that the supernatural is somehow not a valid explanation for the Universe. After all, in light of the anthropic principle what is our alternative? The Multiverse? I think that's absurd. The anthropic principle arguments are virtually incontrovertible lines of evidence for a super-intellect that created and fine-tuned the Universe.

[mwildish]

You cannot make an argument from ignorance and claim anything. The current universe cannot be said to be tuned. It is what it is and we find ourselves in it. Ideas like the multiverse are interesting but ultimately just baseless. The current state of the universe does not increase or decrease the argument for god. You cannot claim to know that the universe was supposed to be like this, therefore you cannot claim it must have a creator. Not knowing how the universe got here does not support god.

[danjoeblue]

You seem either blissfully ignorant of the anthropic principle or are not thinking through it's implications rationally and logically.

The reason I mentioned the multiverse was because people like Dawkins and others have used it to deflect the force of the anthropic principle.

I will post a few point on the anthropic principle later. I have to go now-- the holiday and all.

Peace-

[danjoeblue]

It's not an argument from silence. It's an argument based upon the values of the fundamental constants of nature. The electromagnetic interaction, gravitation, the weak force the strong force & the ratio between the mass of a proton & the mass of an electron. If one assigns different values to these constants or forces one discovers that the proportion universes capable of supporting intelligent life is shockingly small. Slight variation in some of these values would render life impossible...

[danjoeblue]

For example, according to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, changes in either the gravitational constant or the weak force of one part in a 10 to the 100 (a google) would have prevented a life permitting Universe.

There are many other factors similar to this that had to be in line for life to exist. You can either say these are by chance, necessity, or design. I think design is the most rational and logical explanation.

[mwildish]

What evidence do you have that the universe can exist in any other state other than the one its in? You can talk all you want about this or that constant. Why are these constants the way they are. You cannot use the lack of a coherant theory of the universe to prove god. Hence, an argument from ignorance. This MAY be the way the universe is because it is the ONLY way it can be. We just don't know. The only irrational conclusion is god, something other than an extension of what we see and know.

[danjoeblue]

Basically you are saying that the constants are the way they are of necessity. This would require us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility. This seems extraordinarily implausible. What evidence do you have for this?

One cannot argue with the appearance of fine-tuning and design. Since it appears this way perhaps it is this way.

As far as not being able to "see" as you put it, we also cannot see quarks but most of us still believe they exist for other reasons.

[mwildish]

I am not saying that the constants are of neccessity. I am saying that no one knows. You say that it is inplausible ? Why? What do you base that on? I can answer that...nothing at all. You have no idea how the universe works at that level, no one does. We cannot even talk about plausible vs. inplausible without a coherent theory on what all these physical constants actually are. The only thing we can say is it is more rational to assume a naturalistic solution than a supernatural one.

[danjoeblue]

I say it's implausible because if it's by necessity then it would be impossible to have a Universe that could not sustain life. On the face of it this seems very anthropocentric for a naturalistic explanation.

Only universes that could sustain life are possible if its of necessity. This seems implausible.

[danjoeblue]

QUOTE:"The only thing we can say is it is more rational to assume a naturalistic solution than a supernatural one."

Why? I think I can answer that. Because it's a philosophical presupposition that you choose to believe.

It's either chance, necessity or design. You are saying that you don't know which one but then rule out design a priori. Okay, if you want to do that.

Since you ruled out design somehow, which of the other two alternatives do you think are more likely-- chance or necessity?

[mwildish]

Naturalism is not philosophy, it real. I already know that i can understand things through science. There is no good reason to assume that i cannot answer other questions. Supernatural has no supporting evidence.

I do not rule out design. I just think it unlikely as compared to some natural solution which so far has explained everything we do know. As for which is more likely (Chance or necessity), there is no evidence to say. I am perfectly happy to wait for science to extend our knowledge.

[ReasonofPadua]

This is true as far as you are speaking of METHODOLOGICAL Naturalism. But METAPHYSICAL naturalism makes the presumption that the supernatural does not exist as a starting point. The the burden of proof is on the one who is making a supernatural claim. But here is the leap of faith and problem for MN: why is there no SN? Because there is no evidence. But what kind of evidence could there be? If there is no natural (material) evidence, there is no proof. If there is such evidence, then no SN.

[ReasonofPadua]

MN cannot be falsifiable. The presumption excludes this possibility. But the presumption of MN itself is not a result of the Nationalism's methods of inquiry (scientific method).

[danjoeblue]

It's no the lack of a coherent theory that I use to prove God. It's the clear and obvious appearance of design that one must be willfully blind to in order to deny. The precision of this design is far greater than anything man has ever produced. Why is the hypothesis of a designer so implausible (if not impossible) in your view in the face of such precisely tuned constants and laws?

[mwildish]

Is it precise? What are you comparing it to? An imaginary perhaps impossible alternative? You do not get to make stuff up and then label it the only clear option.

A designer is not impossible, I just see no evidence. An stop saying 'precisely tuned' as though it was a fact, you do not know that it is. You assume our existance is the goal of the universe and work back. That is a philosophical position you cannot prove unless you can CLEARLY define the designer( not the god is love crap).

[danjoeblue]

QUOTE:"You do not get to make stuff up and then label it the only clear option."

I am not making things up. P.C.W. Davies said, "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact."

[mwildish]

1) Quoting PCW Davies is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Davies opinion is not automatically true.

2) Davis was himself making a logical fallacy: Appeal to personal incredulity. In other words just because Davies thinks it is astonishing does not make it a more true statement in any way. It's like saying I cannot understand the theory of relitivity, its too complicated so it cannot be true. Davies is stating an opinion that is not arrived at by scientific consensus and evidence.

[mwildish]

About 16 minutes in:

He assumes that having no purpose for our existence is somehow a rebutal for the science. Hard to belief a professor can not understand the most obvious falicy of this argument.

[maurieer]

After reading Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hawkins and a few others and now

Phillip Johnson, his lecture is certainly food for thought.

[manjunest]

In frist The god was created by people... then people were created by god...

[semiliteratedgod]

kinda boring bullshit