profile | register | search
|Forums | |||Post Reply||Send Topic To a Friend|
|izzy2k||Posted - 13 August 2002 22:37
as far as belief in g-d,there are many respected scientist who believe in g-d, while there are many respected scientists who believe that the world came about in some way that didnt involve a "higher power". since i cant even begin to understand some of the issues at hand, i.e., the nekudas hamachlokes (such as the rate of the expansion of the universe and many other issues that are way beyond the scope of my scientific knowlege and understanding) how can i possibly be mevarer the machlokes? it seams to me that this point is fundamental to emuna. moderator please respond because this is really bothering me. thanks
|MODERATOR||Posted - 14 August 2002 20:22
The issue is black and white simple.
The scientists who belieev in G-d do so because it is clear form nature that there is a Creator.
The scientists who do not, do so because even though it is clear that there was a creator, that conclusion has "undesirable philosophical implications" (thats a quote from an atheist scientist I saw quoted in Time magazine a while ago). Meaning, they will have to be religious, and they have no interest.
Scientists are no beeter able to resist temptation or to think past vested interests than lawyers or businessmen. The evidence is there ,in front of their eyes. It is up to their strength of character - not their scientific abilities - to accept it or not. Unfortunatly, their degrees are NOT in strength of character. In that area, they are the same baalei taavah as anyoen else.
They still have no answers at all against the proofs to G-d from nature. they just have no interest in bringing those proofs to their logical philosophical conclusion.
|live4613||Posted - 15 August 2002 2:56
For anyone who wants an awesome book that totally disproves all the atheistic scientists, starting w/ the pocketwatch theory, read The Obvious Proof by Gershon Robinson and s/o else who I can't remember. It's great
|rena||Posted - 15 August 2002 10:46
anothergood book is Permission to Recieve by Rav Keleman. It explains 4 different proofs.
|rena||Posted - 15 August 2002 10:46
sorry, i meant Permission to Believe-- Permission to Recieve is another one of his books :)
|MODERATOR||Posted - 06 September 2002 0:52
Because the scientists who do not believe have not yet found anything to answer the proofs of those who do.
The point is not the scientists the point is the proofs.
|Moshe00||Posted - 04 November 2002 22:49
Moderator, how should we respond to this argument from scientists?
""Because the existance of G-d is not a 'falsifiable' theory, meaning that there is no possible experiment or observation which would provide conclusive evidence that He does not exist [c"v], the whole issue of the existance of G-d falls outside the province of science""
The whole argument doesn't make any sense, does it?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 04 November 2002 23:06
The question confuses two diff definitions of "scientific": (a) solid, logical, rational, and (b) acceptable by the official self-imposed rules of the scientists.
Scientists have created self-imposed "rules" regarding what proofs they will accept and what they wont. This was done in order to ensure that scientists dont cheat. But it does not mean that those proofs are less correct.
Example: If somethgin cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, that is not accpetable as scientifically "proven". But of course, if 100,000,000 witness a miracle, their tentimony is logical proof, even if the scientists cannot officially let it go on reconrd, since miracle cannto be "reproduced."
So in other words, the scientists decided on their own that they will not accept anythgin supernatural or miraculous into their list of proven items (miracles by definition are not things you can reproduce in a lab) but not because the proof is any less reliable.
In a court of law, you cannot "scientifically" prove someone guilty, sicne witnesses are not considered scientific proof, and you cannto reproduce the scene in a lab, but still, logically, it is considered "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."
So the response to the scientists is that not all logcial proofs will be considered officially proven by "science", but that is due to the self-imposed rules of the scientists, not because of any problem with the proof.
|huh?!?||Posted - 23 January 2003 0:36
another amazing book on proving that G-d made the universe it beyond a reasonable doubt. it proves G-d through nature.
|TheBster||Posted - 30 April 2003 0:51
Since it seems that everyone is recommending books, how about one that deals with this question exactly? How to reconcile scientific fact with the fact that their is a Higher Authority?
"Challenge" by Rav Aryeh Carmell and Rav Prof. Cyrile Domb.
|Avishai18||Posted - 04 May 2007 0:52
OK - I understand the pocketwatch proof. I understand the argument which includes the complexity of the human body (esp. the beautiful one that you wrote, Mod, which I saw a while ago but for some reason I can't find again), and how that must imply some sort of intelligent design and a creator.
Here's what I don't get:
<The scientists who belieev (sic) in G-d do so because it is clear form nature that there is a Creator>
This argument is called empirical theism, which means trying to justify belief through evidence from observation. Philosopher David Hume spends the bulk of his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" attacking this argument. I've heard one of his counters, and it makes a good point: the argument that the world is too complex and must have a creator does NOT prove that the G-d we think of actually exists. It proves some sort of inteligent design, but does NOT prove any of the following:
The last point, especially, hit me hard.
How can you prove these things about G-d from merely assuming that there must have been a creator? Without using the Torah or Kabbalah as a source, I really don't think you can, which is why I'm not an empirical theist. I still believe in Hashem, but I don't think there's sufficiant proof out there to prove the G-d that we believe in exists.
|Avishai18||Posted - 04 May 2007 5:00
Found the post - http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=2405&forum_id=2&topic_title=c%27mon%2C+u+REALLY+believe%3F%21&forum_title=Us%2C+Evil%2C+and+Proofs+to+the+Torah&M=0&S=1
It's worth checking out for a brilliant phrasing of the teleological argument (and props, btw, for using a CD player instead of a boring pocketwatch), even though it doesn't answer my question.
|taon||Posted - 04 May 2007 12:53
First of all, look at the proofs to the Torah.
<(1) G-d is perfect and omniscient>
it follows logically. the world is almost perfect, and only an omniscent G-d could watch all of us. see also the first cause proof.
<(2) G-d is all good, loving, caring, cherishes each and every one of us, and is still watching over us even after B'riat Haolam.>
<(3) G-d should be worshipped.>
<(4) There is only ONE creator, and not two or more working together.>
|Avishai18||Posted - 06 May 2007 1:31
Hey, Taon. Thanks for responding. And sorry for the long post in advance ;)
I've seen the first cause, or Cosmological, argument before. It's similar to the pocketwatch proof in the sense that it proves that there must have been SOME first cause to this universe, but it doesn't prove any of the characteristics that we believe G-d to have. The fact that some sort of supernatural being created us does NOT necessarily mean that this being had to be Hashem. This argument just as much could serve the purpose of proving that Zeus or Vishnu exists! And again, I believe in Hashem, but I staunchly believe that He can't be proven rationally, so I'm sorry if I sound like an apikores, even though I really don't think I am.
In response to your post,
(1) G-d is perfect and omniscient
<it follows logically. the world is almost perfect> - but wouldn't that serve as proof that something that's NOT perfect created us? If the world isn't perfect, then why can we assume this force which steps out of the bounds of space and time is perfect? Just because this force is beyond our comprehension doesn't make it flawless.
<only an omniscent G-d could watch all of us> - that's assuming He's watching over us at all (see below). Not to mention the fact that even it could be proven rationally that He does watch over us, it still doesn't prove that He's omniscient and can actually watch all of us at the same time. Just because He cares doesn't mean that He's perfect.
(2) G-d is all good, loving, caring, etc.
<what else would He be doing? creating one planet, full of life, then just letting it rot?> - I've seen the discussion about extraterrestrial life posted in other forums, but I just want to voice my opinion that I don't think it's right if one of the things you base your belief in Hashem about is that we're the only life forms in the universe. Because then your belief hinges on science, and if one day we do discover alien life you'd either be forced to reshape your entire belief system or ignore the evidence completely.
<If that was (sic) true, it would be gone already, and there'd be lots of weird stuff going on in the universe> - No, actually a Deist would disagree with you. According to Deism, G-d set the world in motion (i.e. the first cause, the "knocking over the first domino", so to speak), but then let it be. So according to a Deist, the world still exists, the universe still functions as normal, and things work in their proper order, but G-d does NOT watch over us and interfere with current worldly affairs. So the Earth could exist and G-d could still be hands-off.
(3) G-d should be worshipped
<as opposed to ignored for everything He did?
(4) There is only ONE creator
<see first cause. more than one wouldn't work> - No, the argument just says there must have been some first cause that transcended time and space. It doesn't rule out the possibility that there could have been a FEW beings that transcended time and space and altogether formed the first cause of the universe, and created life. Or even that there was one being that came first but then decided to create other gods to help with creation.
Remember, also, that the first person to formulate the Cosmological argument was Plato, who, aside from being GREEK (a people whose religion was polytheistic), used the Cosmological argument to prove the existance of a Demiurge, a being that's far from having Hashem's qualities. Plato's Demiurge lacked the ability to create objects out of nothing. How can you claim that the Cosmological argument proves Hashem, but not Plato's Demiurge?
Thanks a lot. And again, sorry for the long post :)
|green||Posted - 06 May 2007 1:31
for 2 and 3, you're making assumptions based on what you think would be "reasonable"- but they're not necessarily logically compelling.
|taon||Posted - 07 May 2007 0:58
sorry, i think i neglected to explain. I was just showing how you can prove everything else from the first step. the pocketwatch/cosmological/omnilogical proof is simply to show there is a creator. you can reach for another proof for there being a creator who takes care of us, there is only one G-d, etc. it doesn't have to all rely on this. but you can follow logic to reach the conclusions mentioned. aliens or no, I think everuy inch and every second of the universe show that Hashem cares about us. and the first caus proof does include Hashem being Omni-everything. it includes the need for everyhting to have been created from nothing. also there can't be two gods, becuase G-d has to be perfect and whole, and that would make Him less. see Chovos Halevavos, if you can find a decent translation for the beginning parts (they are hard to understand, with archaic scientific terms and all). you dont have to prove it all from this. this just proves there is a creator. then, move on.
also, why apologize for long posts? and why do you think you sound like an apikores for asking? i liked your post. nothing wrong with a lot of questions, the problem is, i don't know enough to answer!
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums | Post Reply