mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/26/85)
In article <993@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> The trouble with such a thing occurring is that the phenomena of the >> God's (or god's) appearance would have to be explained by science as >> something occurring within the universe. In other words: "powerful, >> previously unknown entity 'reveals' self to a group of men with >> accompanying marvelous works. Entity claims to be 'God' (whatever >> that means). Scientists now say 'There exists a powerful, previously >> unknown entity which is capable of marvelous works and which claims >> to be God (whatever that means).' We still don't know whether the >> powerful entity is part of nature or not. If it is part of nature, >> then it is not God. If it is not a part of nature, we still don't >> know whether it is God since a God could have made nature and some >> other things as well. >> The main premise in this argument is that God (if such an entity >> exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps >> that statement is redundant, perhaps not). >> I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more >> clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings >> outside of 'nature'. God is an entity which, in existence, must be >> outside of 'nature'. Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically >> unknowable." >Depends how you define "nature". If you use an arbitrary, anthropocentric >definition that limits its scope specifically so that 1) "nature" is defined >as that which is in the "universe" of humans and 2) there is a notion of >"outside" that "nature" that is a priori defined as the realm of a creator, >then you have assumed your conclusions about gods. It is improper to define nature as including God and then attribute the properties of what everyone agrees is nature to him. The accepted technique in science is to show that a god has the same properties as everything else that we call nature; then you can say that it is a part of nature, too. The comment about anthropocentricism completely misses the point. Nothing is more anthropocentric than science, since science claims that the universe may be effectively investigated through human observation and human analytical methods. Since we don't have input from aliens, there's no way to get around this; ANY method we use to investigate the universe is going to have the same problem. Rich's statement seems to imply that he thinks that science, and in particular mathematical modelling, is indefinitely expressive. I find this very doubtful, in light of Godel's work and that of many others whch restrict the power of mathematics. Historically, the advance of science has paused when the mathematics needed to advance it had not been developed; consider, for example, the dependency of Newtonian mechanics upon the calculus. The division between nature and supernature is therefore NOT arbitrary; the border is precisely at that point where are ability to model breaks down (even if we allow sufficient computers, etc.). Now it's obviously easy to demonstrate that something is natural, by modelling it; but it would seem to be very difficult that something was supernatural, and determining where the border lies exactly would seem to be undecidable. That, I think, is precisely the point; if God appeared in all his glory, and assuming the manifestations were amenable to scientific investigation (a very big if indeed), it does not follow that we could then decide that he was or was not a natural phenomenon. Besides, scientific method can only pass judgement upon hypotheses. You have to come up with the explanations first before it will tell you whether they are right or wrong. To talk about a hypothetical deity and how one might scientifically investigate it is infact properly science, and not a true assumption at all. Postulating the existence of something is not the same as assuming it exists. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour." C. Swift
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/30/85)
>>>I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more >>>clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings >>>outside of 'nature'. God is an entity which, in existence, must be >>>outside of 'nature'. Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically >>>unknowable." >>Depends how you define "nature". If you use an arbitrary, anthropocentric >>definition that limits its scope specifically so that 1) "nature" is defined >>as that which is in the "universe" of humans and 2) there is a notion of >>"outside" that "nature" that is a priori defined as the realm of a creator, >>then you have assumed your conclusions about gods. > It is improper to define nature as including God and then attribute the > properties of what everyone agrees is nature to him. The accepted technique > in science is to show that a god has the same properties as everything else > that we call nature; then you can say that it is a part of nature, too. It is improper in any endeavor to assume the existence of an entity with certain prescribed properties of your own (wishful) choosing and to then exclude that entity from a "universe" just because one feels like it. > The comment about anthropocentricism completely misses the point. Nothing > is more anthropocentric than science, since science claims that the universe > may be effectively investigated through human observation and human > analytical methods. Since we don't have input from aliens, there's no way > to get around this; ANY method we use to investigate the universe is going > to have the same problem. I would think that science would welcome and incorporate evidence presented from intelligent non-humans or aliens. The basis of science is NOT anthropocentic observations, as Charles would have us believe. To define the universe in the anthropocentric terms I describe above is neither scientific nor credible. > Rich's statement seems to imply that he thinks that science, and in > particular mathematical modelling, is indefinitely expressive. I find this > very doubtful, in light of Godel's work and that of many others whch > restrict the power of mathematics. And I find this very interesting, since 1) I said or implied no such thing, and 2) it would seem that you are saying that I implied this solely to discredit my argument. What I did say was that arbitrary demarcations of a universe into different strata based solely on the limits of our observations or on wishful thinking ideas is preposterous. Is it not? And is that not what you are doing when you proclaim "This is the universe of nature, and this (which we can't see and which have no proof of) is god, outside of nature."? > Historically, the advance of science has > paused when the mathematics needed to advance it had not been developed; > consider, for example, the dependency of Newtonian mechanics upon the > calculus. The division between nature and supernature is therefore NOT > arbitrary; the border is precisely at that point where our ability to model > breaks down (even if we allow sufficient computers, etc.). Like when our model said that mold was formed by spontaneous generation? When the limits of our observation led us to believe that? Were molds supernatural back in centuries past? > Besides, scientific method can only pass judgement upon hypotheses. You > have to come up with the explanations first before it will tell you whether > they are right or wrong. To talk about a hypothetical deity and how one > might scientifically investigate it is infact properly science, and not a > true assumption at all. Postulating the existence of something is not the > same as assuming it exists. Are you assuming the deity first and then forcefitting explanations? (Remember my essay on why things are perceived as "problems"?) Which comes first, the assuming or the postulating? -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr