Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
On a side note, I observe things such as the Crotalaria Cunninghamii. Flowers that look incredibly identical to hummingbirds. This marvelous plant isn't chance and probabilities but rather the product of an infinite mind; A creator. I am in utter and constant astonishment of his great works and creations.
![]()
![]()
MsMontgomery · 51-55, F
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@SW-User Ceciliana, allow me to do some observations, please, with my full respect.
- Your feeling and thought about is as good as the ones of everybody else.
The problem begins when and if you want to call it Science.
If so, your observation should be tested, as all the observations that Science makes about Nature, test done by also natural means.
If your inference can´t be weighted in that strict way, it may go on being good, but calling it Science would be a fraud.
- There is an idea with no conceptual nor material ground: That if something is not randomly disordered is designed.
No basis for such concept except from ancient speculative philosophy, Plato like.
What scientists cal "Laws" of Nature are not legal like "Laws", prescriptions, commandments: a priori pre existing "you shoud behave like this".
Are, instead, causal related, a way to say that randomness is restricted by materiality.
That had been carefull systematically observed and tested.
The beauty of Nature has attracted many scientists to Science.
And a lot of them are religious in various ways, as others that make Science as good as them are not.
But all of them, besides their believes and personal faiths or absense of it, agree together that the scope of Science is the natural Universe and it´s natural causes.
- Your feeling and thought about is as good as the ones of everybody else.
The problem begins when and if you want to call it Science.
If so, your observation should be tested, as all the observations that Science makes about Nature, test done by also natural means.
If your inference can´t be weighted in that strict way, it may go on being good, but calling it Science would be a fraud.
- There is an idea with no conceptual nor material ground: That if something is not randomly disordered is designed.
No basis for such concept except from ancient speculative philosophy, Plato like.
What scientists cal "Laws" of Nature are not legal like "Laws", prescriptions, commandments: a priori pre existing "you shoud behave like this".
Are, instead, causal related, a way to say that randomness is restricted by materiality.
That had been carefull systematically observed and tested.
The beauty of Nature has attracted many scientists to Science.
And a lot of them are religious in various ways, as others that make Science as good as them are not.
But all of them, besides their believes and personal faiths or absense of it, agree together that the scope of Science is the natural Universe and it´s natural causes.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@SW-User The "First Uncaused Cause" argument, from at least Aristóteles and through Aquinas, as a worry for Absolutes, is not something that helps scientists to answer what Science actually answers.
Not ALL.
But the partial provisory SOME, resulted much much better than millenia of speculative fruitless philosophy.
Not ALL.
But the partial provisory SOME, resulted much much better than millenia of speculative fruitless philosophy.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SW-User Death arrived alongside abiogenesis. It’s part of the package deal. Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, and all systems erode and break down. That’ll happen to this entire planet in around 4 billion years.
Nothing is exempt
Replication also arrived with abiogenesis (it’s an inherent part of the definition above). Sexual replication developed much later. For complex organisms it’s an efficient way to keep genes well mixed, especially for animals with huge numbers of genes, such as the marbled lungfish [i](Protopterus aethiopicus),[/i] which has 130 billion base pairs (compare that to humans, which have a mere 3.2 billion base pairs)
As always, sexual replication developed from simpler processes. Bacteria never encountered sufficient selection pressure to abandon the much simpler binary fission that they still use after billions of years. They rely on sheer weight of numbers (in just 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2,097,152 bacteria)
Life on this planet uses up an estimated 550 gigatons of carbon. For Americans I should explain that a gigaton is equal to a billion metric tons. A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms, or about 2,200 pounds.
Of that 550 Gt, plants use 450 Gt, and bacteria use 70 Gt, whereas humans use a minuscule 0.06 Gt.
Sexual replication is necessary for complex organisms, but staying simple and relying on binary fission has worked out well for bacteria.
Nothing is exempt
Replication also arrived with abiogenesis (it’s an inherent part of the definition above). Sexual replication developed much later. For complex organisms it’s an efficient way to keep genes well mixed, especially for animals with huge numbers of genes, such as the marbled lungfish [i](Protopterus aethiopicus),[/i] which has 130 billion base pairs (compare that to humans, which have a mere 3.2 billion base pairs)
As always, sexual replication developed from simpler processes. Bacteria never encountered sufficient selection pressure to abandon the much simpler binary fission that they still use after billions of years. They rely on sheer weight of numbers (in just 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2,097,152 bacteria)
Life on this planet uses up an estimated 550 gigatons of carbon. For Americans I should explain that a gigaton is equal to a billion metric tons. A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms, or about 2,200 pounds.
Of that 550 Gt, plants use 450 Gt, and bacteria use 70 Gt, whereas humans use a minuscule 0.06 Gt.
Sexual replication is necessary for complex organisms, but staying simple and relying on binary fission has worked out well for bacteria.
Sharon · F
@SW-User [quote]This marvelous plant isn't chance and probabilities but rather the product of an infinite mind; A creator.[/quote]
What is the origin of this creator? If this plant is too marvelous to have originated without a creator, how could a far more complex creator have done so? Surely that would need an even more complex creator, and so on [i]ad infinitum[/i].
Postulating a creator doesn't provide an answer, it just adds a layer of complexity. The usual non-answer that this creator is eternal, could just as well be applied to the supposed creation.
What is the origin of this creator? If this plant is too marvelous to have originated without a creator, how could a far more complex creator have done so? Surely that would need an even more complex creator, and so on [i]ad infinitum[/i].
Postulating a creator doesn't provide an answer, it just adds a layer of complexity. The usual non-answer that this creator is eternal, could just as well be applied to the supposed creation.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SW-User I should emphasise that I understand the astonishment and wonder that fills you when you look at [i]Crotalaria Cunninghamii[/i] ... but I also understand the pathways that brought it to what is,
My every day brings more understanding, and with that understanding my sense of wonder grows. I do not need to attribute that to the supernatural... I need more understanding, which in turn will grow my sense of wonder. In the face of that, how petty to say ‘it was all done by magic. Now stop asking questions’.
My wonder and appreciation are sharpened and enhanced by simultaneously being able to understand what has happened, and is happening, and to further understand that I am a part of it all, and that all of it is a part of me. There is no disconnection... I am genetically linked to [i]every[/i] organism that has ever existed, and to [i]every[/i] organism that exists today. Dog or tree or fly or whale or spider... the entirety is inter-connected in a beautiful ball of links and cross-links. I call it the enchanted web.
So, yes... I understand the astonishment and wonder that fills you
My every day brings more understanding, and with that understanding my sense of wonder grows. I do not need to attribute that to the supernatural... I need more understanding, which in turn will grow my sense of wonder. In the face of that, how petty to say ‘it was all done by magic. Now stop asking questions’.
My wonder and appreciation are sharpened and enhanced by simultaneously being able to understand what has happened, and is happening, and to further understand that I am a part of it all, and that all of it is a part of me. There is no disconnection... I am genetically linked to [i]every[/i] organism that has ever existed, and to [i]every[/i] organism that exists today. Dog or tree or fly or whale or spider... the entirety is inter-connected in a beautiful ball of links and cross-links. I call it the enchanted web.
So, yes... I understand the astonishment and wonder that fills you
CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@SW-User Dear lady 🤗
Last I checked, the best explanation of what grows in the wild is a style of thinking that, curiously, do not "grows in the wild" (not personal wittness, not common sense, not "do it yourself").
Personal believes may or not be wrong. That is not the debate.
But, if something can´t be meassured and tested by natural means, to call it Science is nothing but an abuse of language.
Last I checked, the best explanation of what grows in the wild is a style of thinking that, curiously, do not "grows in the wild" (not personal wittness, not common sense, not "do it yourself").
Personal believes may or not be wrong. That is not the debate.
But, if something can´t be meassured and tested by natural means, to call it Science is nothing but an abuse of language.
CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SW-User [quote]On a side note, I observe things such as the Crotalaria Cunninghamii. Flowers that look incredibly identical to hummingbirds. This marvelous plant isn't chance and probabilities but rather the product of an infinite mind; A creator. I am in utter and constant astonishment of his great works and creations. [/quote]
Wow! That is amazing. God is so good.
Wow! That is amazing. God is so good.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 How much good is Him that I go on and will go on believing it with no doubts even after reading you and hippy!
CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F
SW-User
@GodSpeed63 Yes he is. I very am glad you stand firm in the face of doubt. Thank you for being a good example to follow.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CookieLuvsBunny Your point being what?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M