AFAIK, the only time they thought there should be less effort was during the age of enlightenment when they thought almost everything was figured out. Any such similarity seems like an interjection that I don't encourage.
Good points. I know that those who are devoutly religious are underrepresented in science. But, I'm hoping it has more to do with how they choose to spend their time and effort. And, I doubt any scientist became one in order to disprove or otherwise detract from god, as every scientist knows that science is totally incapable of addressing the supernatural in any way.
Exactly! The problem that Science is facing are ongoing attempts to denigrate and disparage the existing knowledge base by those with a nefarious theist agenda. Fortunately Science is more than capable of withstanding the "slings and arrows" of outraged theists who feel that their "literal beliefs" are threatened by an expanding Scientific knowledge base.
If or when someone, anywhere provides an explanation that makes more sense and has more evidence than the Big Bang model then that will become the new standard. As of yet no one has and "Creation" by some invisible entity is beyond pointless argument from ignorance.
I agree. But, there is a time elemen to this. Today we see the US population unswayed by climatology. Differences are drawn on political lines, not on science. And, it's not just climate. There is a movement toward wholesale reduction in any concern about our environment. Will science win? Of course it will. But, people will suffer from these problems for needless decades because of the organized rejection of science. And, this boils over into a reduction in the idea that education is as important as it actually is. Religious and other differences get focused on the idea that our universities are hotbeds of, well, evil. Yet, our policy decisions require more, not less, real thought. And, our economy is no longer tied to high school educated manufacturing workers who in the past had good middle class jobs. Today, competition here and internationaly is moving toward information, high tech, clean energy, automation, etc. - ALL fields where employers are NOT looking for high school. And, even ignoring our economy (which is crazy) we notice a growing numbers of low income families and homelessnes - yet we make education FAR harder to achieve through this idea that education is a birthright of those born to the wealthy. Science absolutely will win. But, that doesn't mean that America will win.
Thanks for that. another aspect that you did not mention is the real possibility of extra dimensions of which we are mostly unaware.... just as we were unaware of quarks at one time. It may be that some phenomena the we find inexplicable and peculiar are artifacts of interactions with these further dimensions. it is completely reasonable that it is possible that our perception, our knowledge and our reality remains severely limited. If one starts with that perspective, it would not be surprising that there is a lot that we do not understand,... and may never understand. The existence of god is not the only possible explanation for recognizing that there is lots that we do not understand. ALTHOUGH, it also must be admitted that God is one possible (though inherently incomprehensible)explanation
Agreed. One issue that differentiates these is whether they may be addressed by scientific method. At present, string theory, other dimensions, god, etc. can't be addressed by scientific method. In fact, we don't have a unified model of physics. I would expect that at some time science will be able to address some of those questions. Until then they will remain in the hands of the philosophers and theoretical physicists. I totally agree that humans have a long way to go! Think how boring science would be if we had the answers!
Just to elaborate a bit on that comment... science provides our best guess about all this stuff based on evidence and experiment Within this context science does not (at least not at this moment) see a requirement for a creator. And in that context they do not see a creator as “required” but it is equally true that science does not claim that it has either evidence or proof that there is no god/creator. Science simply says that, at this time they do not see god as being required to explain our universe... and then they go about elucidating the natural processes that do seem to explain our universe let’s consider an example. There was a time where it seemed clear that lightning is a manifestation of god... what else could it be? Scientists did not claim there was no god... they simply went about the business of identifying natural (non theistic):causes For lightening. And, even today, no scientist has proved that god does not cause lightning.. scientists simply claim that they have identified natural causes for lightning that do not require a godly cause. likewise for current scientific research. No claim is made that god has has been proved to not exist. Only that his existence is not required to explain an increasing number of phenomena
Yes. Good points. However, I would add that the division is sharper than that. Scientific method will never be able to say anything about god. Ever. Scientific method is based on testing, and no theory or even hypothsis is allowed unless it can be tested. And, god can't be tested. Game over.
You are absolutely right that there has been a "war on education" in our nation and it began with the same theist science deniers who began be denigrating public schools and egregiously underfunding them. They then blamed the teachers for the lackluster results caused by the nefarious underfunding. The insane increase in the cost of tertiary education can be blamed on the asinine "peer pay equivalence" scam that was used to raise executive salaries to ridiculous levels that are out of all proportion to the actual value of the work being done by these grossly overpaid leeches. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/highest-paid-college-professors-america/ Granted this is not across the board but it explains a lot about the thinking that is behind the increases in the cost of college. Couple that with the dearth of jobs for HS grads and the demand on colleges means that they can raise their prices accordingly. All of this is causing direct HARM to We the People as salaries have been FLATLINED will these costs are increasing exponentially. We are being pushed into 3rd world status by the greed obsession in our nation. Science will survive and prevail since it is international in scope. That Americans will no longer be at the forefront of science is something that we will have to accept until we can change the direction of our nation.
While I am willing to expound on my own personal speculation regarding the Cyclical Universe concept it is probably a better idea if you take a look at some of these references where qualified Scientists have done the necessary research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology https://www.accessscience.com/content/cyclic-universe-theory/YB090037 https://physicsworld.com/a/cyclic-universe-could-explain-cosmological-constant/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model So to clarify I was not using Science to make the claim that there is no deity but rather just making the observation that none is necessary for the existence of an eternal universe that undergoes cyclical transformations.
Sorry, I don't believe this argument is valid. I have (probably wasted) a considerable amount of time arguing with what are generally regarded as 'Creationist' posters that science - especially physics cannot prove disprove or prove the existence of God. Instead I have argued that science can only seek to quantify laws governing the operation of the physical universe as it it perceived with human senses using the scientific method and the best technology available. Science for all it's power and insight faces a stumbling bloc when it seeks to address questions (like the existence of God) that fall outside those parameters. Such questions remain beyond sciences ken. As far as we currently know (and not withstanding the existence of the cosmic 'foam' as demonstrated by the Casimir Effect) energy and matter cannot be created from nothing and cannot be destroyed albeit the laws of thermodynamics allow for the distribution of heat in the Universe reach absolute zero. This does not mean however that the sudden, spontaneous creation of heat or matter from 'nothing' can be ruled out as a possibility, however unlikely. Were it to be observed however - back to the drawing board with theory we go. As such science can no more be used to disprove the existence of God than it can be used to prove that God exists. By the same token however theology can't 'disprove' scientific theories.
The ONLY way to challenge the First Law of Thermodynamics is with a repeatable experiment since it was proven by a repeatable experiment. Making a "claim" proves nothing.
Actually the Third Law of Thermodynamics says that absolute zero, the temperature at which all motion stops, is impossible to reach.
as far as i know there is no reason for this other than individual choice and aptitude Well science can investigate and test claims of manifestation demonstrating supernatural influence within the natural world. But, as you say, there is no way to rule out the existence of things currently outside the demonstrable realm of the natural world. And, i would say that is a fundamental conflict between theists and non theists; theists frequently claim their is an demonstrable influence of the supernatural in the natural world.... and non theists say they have not seen evidence
This is a weird one to me. In terms of science, physicists demonstrate that time is simply one of the dimensions of this universe. It's not even constant. And, if there were something outside of this universe, there seems to be no justification for suggesting it even has time as a dimension. It's hard not to interpret the bible as describing a god that sits outside our limits of time and space. To him, our universe would be an object that has various characeristics (including time) which don't affect him in any way. Thus, surely he could change anything going on, regardless of the reading of some earthly clock.
How so? Either God is all powerful or God isn’t. Which? If not, what are the limitations and how do we know?
so this 'singularity' was being compressed by gravity... that means it was larger at some point in time before the bang, so large in fact that it contained all the mass of every single object in our universe... so where did this massive singularity get its beginning...
If a "creator" creates something that it CANNOT destroy then it is not omnipotent because that is something that it cannot do. If a "creator" CANNOT create something that it cannot destroy then it is not omnipotent because that is something that it cannot do. Therefore omnipotence is a logical paradox. And if you really want to get into it an OMNISCIENT deity knew BEFOREHAND that Adam and Eve would eat the apple therefore that was ENTRAPMENT.
