Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[AKIron]

That's a bit cynical. 

Some people are just interested in learning how stuff works.  I'll never make a dime off of an oil slick rainbow, but understanding why it's there is kind of cool.   

By profit I mean to gain something of value, it needn't be financial gain. To gain knowledge from study could be profitable.

[moot]

I don't see how that's not a loaded question... What does the fruits of my rational labors in a natural framework have to do with what I'll do or think or be once in a supernatural framework, which couldn't have been predicted in anyway beforehand?
Do you see the futility of any fancy of the mind, about what's beyond the natural (no derailing puns pls) world?  It could be anything and everything.  There's no sense in arguing any of it.  So I'm not going to waste my time here in this natural world debating what would take infinity to figure out even one iota about it.

We did this same argument before.  The only way to sample even the most infinitely small quantity of something supernatural/infinite, is to study it for infinity, if we are gaining knowledge at anything less than an infinite pace.  So we'll never learn anything about the infinite, untill we've reached an infinite rate of learning, and such a pace would equate to being infinite ourselves.

[Leslie]

There are a lot of unexplained things out there.  God may not be part of the scientific method.  All that means is science has no explanation for God.  Science is limited in this respect to physical explanations of what goes on in our world.  If God created all things in the Universe, and science does not accept God, it stands to reason science stays within its boundaries of practicality specifically and limited to physical things.  It goes so far and then philosophy fills in.  Philosophy includes the idea of God.  Philosophy is part of science.

Science is of great value to mankind, but is limited by logic.  Logic is not absolute truth in all instances.  I have read logic has flaws and is not dependable in proving something true.  Logic is limited in what it can do.

Most great scientists are great because they believe in God.  Of course this is my opinion, so don't ask for links.  It's my opinion.  I'm not a scientist, but I do believe it takes an open minded and curious person to be a scientist.  I'm an artist by trade.  My brother was a scientist with NASA for about 40 years.  He was Chief of Propulsion at MSFC for about five years and was offered a professorship at California Institute of Technology which he turned down to remain with his family.  He died at the age of 63 back in 2001.  I wish he was here now and am curious what he would say about all this discussion of science.  If he was alive now he would probably respond about science if I asked him.  He was a scientist.

He mentioned to me that rockets are not sure things and that it's a miracle when they work as designed.  From that I gathered everyone involved prayed a manned rocket would work as expected.  They prayed to God.  Even with all the work and double checking and triple checking, they still prayed it would work.

If these scientists that actually make things work have the ability to believe in God, is there no room for God in science?  I realize God is not part of calculus or physics or mathematics.  Everything works by formulas and God is not in there anywhere.  It is an exact science.  The miracle occurs when it's put to the test of reality and is not just theory or conjecture.

In the matter of evolution it may be evolution is how God did things.  Certainly with something as tenuous as explaining the origins of life by scientific means, one guess is as good as another which makes for a very theoretical science at best and one which cannot be etched in stone.  And this is the fundamental principle as it should be presented.  We do not know so let's move on to what we do know.



Les

[moot]

Are you sure it's not the other way around, that science is part of philosophy?

Because God isn't a process, science can't include God.  And if it can't be detected, science is no use to it, and conversely, there's no scientific use to such an "impenetrable" thing.  What do you do with something supernatural?  You don't "do" anything, because you don't understand it and can't predict anything it does.. and in fact that's the other way around too, it does you.  Gathering data on it (supposing it can be detected) will by principle be limited to 'stamp collecting'.
You can't detect and scientificaly study the supernatural any more than a camera can see inside itself.

Science doesn't 'reject' or 'accept' God, it is simply not concerned with it.  The only real domain of faith is personal, it's in people's minds.  That's my opinion, I don't have any proof for that, just a sense of it from a vague pattern in everything I've lived.  Religion forced onto others is tyranny.  It's tyranny because there is no possible empirical proof to back up any sort of religious assertion.   Which is nicely illustrated by all the "religious" wars in history: Both sides in today's christian-muslim conflict "believe" they are right. 
Meanwhile, the cold hard fact of bullets+skull, based on "assumptions" that material engineering of the weapon and projectile's alloys, chemistry of the charge, ballistic physics of the trajectory, and biology of the combatants all work to something like 99.999% of the scientificaly predicted results.. So much for science as a means of accurate learning right?
If you can't force religion on others, you certainly can't force it on science.

I think I'm gonna quit this thread too, because for now at least, I think the argument that faith is any sort of substitute for empirical method of science is insanity, litteraly.  Some of you guys see a meaningful understanding of things that's progressing and tending towards perfection (regardless if it never reaches it, that's not the point), and your suggestion for improving it is to throw a wrench of irrationality, faith, religion, into this mechanic.
You see an exponential curve in information technologies, and chalk it up to dumb luck, if not flat out "erroneous assumptions".

Insane. Regardless of how romantic it might seem, seen from inside.
I mean, what's next, the mystical science of rocketry?  You think rockets are unpredictable now, wait till random irregularities in their theoretical studies start hatching practical flukes the way cosmic rays disrupt the signals of deep space instruments... The noise/signal ratio of that New Mystical Rocketry science is gonna go through the roof.
You guys argue and argue like logic and reason was worth something, but then flip right around and say that one application of that same logic and reason is faulty because it happens to conflict with some myth, when that myth is interpreted in just one of the almost infinite number of ways it could be interpreted.

<S>

[SirLoin]

Something came from nothing just like science says it would.

The "something came outta nothing" argument.. sheesh.


I think we could all agree that we have "something" right now..And we know that 3 billion years from now,"nothingness" is coming(the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with ours)..In fact,"nothingness" is the next big thing for our solar system.We know it's coming.

Some design huh?

What about all the imploded stars and failed solar systems?What about our planet being so wonderfully constructed that it can only support life some of the time on only some of it's surface?What about the 99% failure rate(extinction) for species on this planet?(what you see living now on this planet is the remaining 1%)...When is your god gonna take responsibility for that?

In fact,recent diggings in Africa show that we as a species were only down to a few thousand examples..And we could have easily joined the 99% club of extinction had the decision to move on(because of climactic reasons) not been made.

btw..if you send $100 and a DNA sample to National Geographic magazine,they will map your DNA and tell you from what region of Africa you desended from.

[moot]

3 billion years from now,"nothingness" is coming(the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with ours)..In fact,"nothingness" is the next big thing for our solar system.We know it's coming.

Some design huh?

What about all the imploded stars and failed solar systems?What about our planet being so wonderfully constructed that it can only support life some of the time on only some of it's surface?What about the 99% failure rate(extinction) for species on this planet?(what you see living now on this planet is the remaining 1%)...When is your god gonna take responsibility for that?

Anthropomorphisms.

[Donzo]

The "something came outta nothing" argument.. sheesh.


I think we could all agree that we have "something" right now..And we know that 3 billion years from now,"nothingness" is coming(the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with ours)..In fact,"nothingness" is the next big thing for our solar system.We know it's coming.

Some design huh?

Tell me, when the Andromeda Galaxy collides with ours and creates this "nothingness", will EVERYTHING be gone...the entire universe? 

You seem to be implying just that.

[Donzo]

What was created first, the sea slug or the bombadier beetle? 

I have no idea, Skyrock....do you?

[Mini D]

I'm sorry, but did someone just dismiss the origins of the universe by saying "it's all going to end anyways"? There's more science for you! Now... how do you explain the big bang theory and it's relevance to science? This is strictly theory based with no scientific data to back it up, yet it's believed. How can you not call that faith? The basic premise that we cannot comprehend the beginning of the universe seems to be something many are not willing to concede. They find a faith and a religion that explains it as well as is needed and stick with it insisting anyone thinking otherwise is insane. The very notion that something just went pop and there was a universe is as much of a stretch as believing some being outside of our realm of understanding initiated that pop.

At least christians are willing to concede the faith-based aspect of their belief. Those arguing for evolution seem to think they're belief is much more secure because scientists agree with it.

[Mini D]

Science doesn't say the universe came from nothing, anymore than it says there's nothing beyond black holes' singularity.  Science is a process.

I didn't say science said something came from nothing. That was sarcasm because nothing we've discovered, using science has even remotely hinted at the possibility. There are little things called "laws" that say it's impossible. Yet the fundamental question "where did it all come from" is explained by first throwing scientific evidence out the window and just making something up by christians and evolutionists.

[storch]

At least christians are willing to concede the faith-based aspect of their belief. Those arguing for evolution seem to think they're belief is much more secure because scientists agree with it.

that is my point as well and have stated on all of these threads .  it takes equal faith to believe in the creator as it takes to believe what what cosmologists have offered up in the last one hundred or so years.

[Mini D]

I almost get the feeling that scientists are so hell bent on proving that intelligence wasn't required for life to exisist that they're working to create life themselves so that they can turn and say "see... no intelligent being is needed to create life."

[storch]

I almost get the feeling that scientists are so hell bent on proving that intelligence wasn't required for life to exisist that they're working to create life themselves so that they can turn and say "see... no intelligent being is needed to create life."

look at the four winged fruit flies thing that is exactly what theodosius dobzhansky did in 1937. call me stupid but there is clear evidence of intelligent design for you.

<edit>  I almost forgot geneticist ed lewis of CIT was awarded the 1995 nobel prize for his research on the four winged fruit fly and it's developement.  the scientific community love citing these examples but neglect to mention that the process took three separate mutations all of which were carried out under controlled conditions and that the second set of wings do not function.  the appendages called halteres which work as counterbalances to the flies functional wings were better than the second set of wings.  what we have in the four winged fruit fly is actually evolution in reverse!!!

I love the scireligious crowd, they manipulate creation, produce something non functional and then laud themselves for their brilliance.

I'm chuckling right now as type this BTW.

[cpxxx]

Science is not about disproving the existence of God. Quite simply science cannot disprove the existence of God. It can disprove certains tracts of the Bible. Which apparently is the big problem for many people who have an over reliance on the Bible. So they attack evolution as bad science, oblivious to the irony that their version of events relies entirely on a single story in a single book written thousands of years ago.

There is absolutely no evidence for God, nor indeed is their evidence to the contrary. If you believe in any God, you cannot prove it's existence. But no one, no science can prove the entity you believe in does not exist.

Scientists are not out to get God A scientist's job is to investigate how the world works. No more, no less.

[storch]

Science is not about disproving the existence of God. Quite simply science cannot disprove the existence of God. It can disprove certains tracts of the Bible. Which apparently is the big problem for many people who have an over reliance on the Bible. So they attack evolution as bad science, oblivious to the irony that their version of events relies entirely on a single story in a single book written thousands of years ago.

There is absolutely no evidence for God, nor indeed is their evidence to the contrary. If you believe in any God, you cannot prove it's existence. But no one, no science can prove the entity you believe in does not exist.

Scientists are not out to get God A scientist's job is to investigate how the world works. No more, no less.

that's nice in print but not actually true.  what you have in all hellbound people is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand (I know they don't really but it serves to make my point here) ultimately it is an attempt at self agrandisement, it's pride and nothing less.