Theistic Scientists

[Unity+]

The two are very different.

 

People object on both grounds, I have not tried to claim otherwise.

 

Well string theory makes some generic predictions and maybe when or if we find the right vacuum it makes specific predictions that are at least testable in principal.

 

The Abrahamic God that used to like to get involved has absolutly no evidence of existing. Here we do have some observations that we can make as we know, if he exists, he likes to mess with things. For example, we have no evidence of miracles or huge deviations from understood physics in our daily lives.

The problem is String Theory makes predictions, but the amount of "work arounds" needed to make these predictions just leaves String Theory as a loose-ended theory. It would be like declaring a theory correct because it somehow makes generic predictions when the mechanisms involved are completely false(not implying that String Theory has false mechanisms).

 

Another thing is I don't think we are debating whether there were miracles or not(which is to be left for another topic discussion). Also, the Bible isn't a set of scientific predictions. It is merely to be taken into a historical context and should be read in a historical context, whether or not some pieces may be left to scrutiny.

 

EDIT: Edition made for better understanding of the argument.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Unity+

[Moontanman]

Validity is irrelevant in this case. String Theory is mathematically sound. It does not contradict current theory, however it is not proven. It is left to the skepticism of some while full acceptance of others.

 

The same case can be made with religion.

 

EDIT: Let me further explain the meaning of validity within this explanation. Validity is irrelevant because in any case, with the example presented, a higher-being is logical and does not contradict scientific theory. Neither does the theory of vibrating strings.

 

The logic behind something implies that there is nothing against currently known logic, therefore it is logical until proven with scientific theory it is illogical.

And somehow we know what evidence to look for in the first place.

 

 

Ok what makes your religion any more valid than the Hindu religion? Math makes string theory look valid but the idea of god has no math to back it up.

[ajb]

Also, the Bible isn't a set of scientific predictions. It is merely a historical text and should be read as a historical text, whether or not some pieces may be left to scrutiny.

WOW, you see it as a historical text?

 

It should of course be viwed in a historical context, but it is not a contempary history book.

[Unity+]

 

 

Ok what makes your religion any more valid than the Hindu religion? Math makes string theory look valid but the idea of god has no math to back it up.

Something looking valid doesn't make it valid.

 

And, I will remind you that we are approaching a debate about Theistic scientists, no person's religion is to be targeted by this debate. Theism only is a belief in a higher-being.

WOW, you see it as a historical text?

 

It should of course be viwed in a historical context, but it is not a contempary history book.

I meant it is to be viewed in a historical context. Please excuse my wording.

[ajb]

It would be like declaring a theory correct because it somehow makes generic predictions when the mechanisms involved are completely false(not implying that String Theory has false mechanisms).

No, not declaring in correct, but declaring that it still has the possibility to be a useful construction for describing fundamental physics.

[Moontanman]

The problem is String Theory makes predictions, but the amount of "work arounds" needed to make these predictions just leaves String Theory as a loose-ended theory. It would be like declaring a theory correct because it somehow makes generic predictions when the mechanisms involved are completely false(not implying that String Theory has false mechanisms).

And the idea of god is supported by what? I would suggest the magnitude of the work around's required for god is far bigger than the work around's involved with string theory.

 

Another thing is I don't think we are debating whether there were miracles or not(which is to be left for another topic discussion). Also, the Bible isn't a set of scientific predictions. It is merely a historical text and should be read as a historical text, whether or not some pieces may be left to scrutiny.

Historically accurate is meaningless in this context, other religious texts are historically accurate to the same degree as the bible... Hindu for instance or Sikh...

[Unity+]

And the idea of god is supported by what? I would suggest the magnitude of the work around's required for god is far bigger than the work around's involved with string theory.

 

 

Historically accurate is meaningless in this context, other religious texts are historically accurate to the same degree as the bible... Hindu for instance or Sikh...

You completely missed the point of my argument. Of course there are other texts that are to be seen in the historical context. I stated that the Bible is not meant to make scientific predictions.

[Moontanman]

Something looking valid doesn't make it valid.

Pot... meet Kettle...

 

And, I will remind you that we are approaching a debate about Theistic scientists, no person's religion is to be targeted by this debate. Theism only is a belief in a higher-being.

Didn't you open the door on that one by asserting your god as The God?

 

I meant it is to be viewed in a historical context. Please excuse my wording.

Again meaningless in this context.

[Unity+]

No, not declaring in correct, but declaring that it still has the possibility to be a useful construction for describing fundamental physics.

Yes, the possibilities are proven through a mathematical approach. The same argument can be applied to many pieces of the text in religious texts, such as the Bible, possibly being accurate.

Didn't you open the door on that one by asserting your god as The God?

There is nothing in the title of this topic that asserts that this debate is about any specific religion.

 

 

Again meaningless in this context.

See my argument I provided above in the other post.

 

 

Pot... meet Kettle...

Instead of making references to things some(like me) may not know about, please provide a bit more detail.

 

EDIT: I do not see where the contradiction is with my argument.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Unity+

[Moontanman]

You completely missed the point of my argument. Of course there are other texts that are to be seen in the historical context. I stated that the Bible is not meant to make scientific predictions.

It's obviously not meant as an accurate representation of reality either...

[Unity+]

It's obviously not meant as an accurate representation of reality either...

Again, you are derailing from the actual debate. Whether you agree or disagree that it has accuracy or not does not declare anything about theistic scientists at all. Unless you are a historian, please keep on topic.

[Moontanman]

Yes, the possibilities are proven through a mathematical approach. The same argument can be applied to many pieces of the text in religious texts, such as the Bible, possibly being accurate.

I'd like to read a few of those, I am very familiar with the Bible, I know of no accurate description of reality in the bible that were not self evident of the time it was written. In fact it is dead wrong about many things it asserts about reality... Getting a few things right is reasonable, coincidences do happen but the major things it's wrong about are huge...

 

There is nothing in the title of this topic that asserts that this debate is about any specific religion.

And yet you keep defending your version of reality not some generic version...

[ajb]

Yes, the possibilities are proven through a mathematical approach. The same argument can be applied to many pieces of the text in religious texts, such as the Bible, possibly being accurate.

So what happens when you compare the bible with contempary texts from the time of Jesus? Do we get much independent varification?

[Unity+]

I'd like to read a few of those, I am very familiar with the Bible, I know of no accurate description of reality in the bible that were not self evident of the time it was written. In fact it is dead wrong about many things it asserts about reality... Getting a few things right is reasonable, coincidences do happen but the major things it's wrong about are huge...

If you want to debate the validity of the Bible, please leave it in another topic. Please and thank you.

 

 

 

And yet you keep defending your version of reality not some generic version...

I am merely defending theistic scientists.

[Moontanman]

Again, you are derailing from the actual debate. Whether you agree or disagree that it has accuracy or not does not declare anything about theistic scientists at all. Unless you are a historian, please keep on topic.

well then we are back to how can a person study the natural world and still believe in something that flies in the face of that natural world...?

[Unity+]

So what happens when you compare the bible with contempary texts from the time of Jesus? Do we get much independent varification?

Well, here are some sources relating to this topic:

 

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

 

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus

 

There are also historical documents from Rome relating to the existence of a historical Jesus and in relation to the crucifixion on the cross(whether the events preceding happened is left to scrutiny).

well then we are back to how can a person study the natural world and still believe in something that flies in the face of that natural world...?

Well if you are willing to continue that debate without derailing from the actual topic, then yes.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Unity+

[ajb]

Well, here are some sources relating to this topic:

The two links you gave are clearly unreliable.

 

Anyway, I don't see following this up here will help any.

[Unity+]

The two links you gave are clearly unreliable.

 

Anyway, I don't see following this up here will help any.

Here is one source that contains other sources:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Ok this thread is on theistic scientists - not on the validity of the bible. Please stick basically to the rough area of the topic at least!

 

There is a lot of discussion to be had on the historical evidence for Christ, On the validity of the bible as a source document, on Science within Religious texts - but they are for another thread.

 

Keep on topic. Cheers.

 

[Moontanman]

Here is one source that contains other sources:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

And this Jesus character is relevant to theistic scientists in what way?

[Unity+]

And this Jesus character is relevant to theistic scientists in what way?

It was a response to the question that ajb asked.

[WWLabRat]

Wikipedia.org, though I have used it before as a reference in other threads, is not a reliable source for research. It may be good for general reference when looking for broad definitions or a basic understanding of various topics, but it's not much more use than that. This is because wikipedia.org is able to be edited by anyone with login info. Are there other, more reliable sources you could cite for us?

 

Also, using individual religions and such ignores the potentially insightful views of other, less well known spiritual beliefs.

[Unity+]

Wikipedia.org, though I have used it before as a reference in other threads, is not a reliable source for research. It may be good for general reference when looking for broad definitions or a basic understanding of various topics, but it's not much more use than that. This is because wikipedia.org is able to be edited by anyone with login info. Are there other, more reliable sources you could cite for us?

An inacceptance of any source is not accepted within a debate(though there are limits). People here had done the same with sources that even had bias within them.

 

 

 

Also, using individual religions and such ignores the potentially insightful views of other, less well known spiritual beliefs.

If you believe you can, then do so. However, most of these argument had not done so and failed to do so.

[Moontanman]

An inacceptance of any source is not accepted within a debate(though there are limits). People here had done the same with sources that even had bias within them.

 

If you believe you can, then do so. However, most of these argument had not done so and failed to do so.

Unity+, are we using individual religions to debate this idea of theistic scientists or not? I am well aware of how people compartmentalize their beliefs away from reality and a superfluous understanding of a religion allows this compartmentalized belief. My voyage away from religion resulted from a critical investigation of what religion, specifically what I needed to believe to be true vs reality, reality won...

 

I don't see how anyone, much less a scientist, can ignore the disconnect between reality and religion.

 

Compartmentalization might allow a person to believe in rainbows as supernatural effects that have only occurred since Noah's flood as a sign of a promise by god to never murder every one on the earth again but the reality of rainbows calls into question the rationality of the guy who believes this if he knows the true reality of rainbows but prefers to believe goddidit...

[iNow]

An inacceptance of any source is not accepted within a debate

This is plainly untrue. Some sources are very clearly biased, unreliable, and flat out wrong. Those sources are to be rejected, especially when their claims cannot be corroborated. Any good scientist must recognize that, regardless of their theism or lack thereof.