Evidence for God from Science

Also, Jac, regarding your post to Thadyeus, there are phenomena in QM that are truly non-deterministic and for want of a better word uncaused. Such phenomena all have necessary conditions to appear to be sure, but for some it can be demonstrated that there are no sufficient conditions that lead to t...

(Phone post, so brief and quoteless unfortunately) Jac, Whether you want to take them as metaphysical or empirical claims, P1 and P1' share the problem that they rely on certain unwarranted assumptions about reality. For the terms "begin", "cause" and "actual infinity" ...

1. That which comes into existence must have a cause. That is not an empirical claim. It is a metaphysical one. You can show in a lab out of ten million events, all ten million had causes, and that does not demonstrate (1) to be true. That's the nature of science and what it can and cannot prove. B...

And yet, there are many powerful logical arguments for God's existence. Some very strong ones that we always mention in discussions here like Danieltwotwenty, ruanbouma and Byblos scrape upon. These seem easy to ignore though, because unlike direct physical experience they take some thinking to fol...

Unless one invokes something like Philosophical Naturalism (which we're trying to avoid to make MN philosophically neutral), then one cannot from the beginning know whether an explanation is indeed natural or unnatural. And if what one declares as "supernatural" were to be observed and te...

However, like Christians might believe that non-Christians are spiritually blinded and need to be born again -- not of the water but the spirit -- Atheists have proposed their own ideas. For example, Freud and Kant who in a quite matter of fact way state we have a delusion or believe in an illusion...

Now we saw with my CSI question, that this second neutral definition seems at the end of the day not good enough for you and Morny. Rather you guys desired to push out MN to borrow assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism so that it could encapsulate "intelligence we are familiar with" and...

Sure thing! I'm not a trained physicist by the way - I have a fair lay understanding of the concepts, but not the mathematics.

Then science is saying there is no Adam. In that case, the whole question is a moot point. There were no modern humans before Adam because there was no Adam. This is what I told Rick. The question is NOT a science question, but a biblical question. It presumes the historicity of the Genesis narrati...

As far as the Bible is concerned, Adam was the first human and the father of all humans. Science cannot say anything to contradict that Science could say that the concept of a first human is meaningless, that although every living person can trace their ancestry back through one or more lineages to...

Another clue (about the same villain): For twenty five years this chap made a living out of old dead wood, with his business going up in smoke twice during that time. He was famously portrayed on screen (though his nation of birth was changed) by an actor otherwise best known for his turn as a lovea...

Ok now that I have had more time to think about it, I have some questions. The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the theory necessitates a human (or at least conscious) observer cause a wave function to collapse (that is, for a quantum of matter to start behaving definitive...

The video has made a common misinterpretation of what "observation" means in a quantum mechanical sense, and transposed this misinterpretation onto an argument using the word in a philosophical, idealism vs. realism sense. The mistake they have made regarding quantum mechanics is that the ...

In the paper referenced in the article referenced in the video, the authors hypothesise that the trail of dust trail is caused by the asteroid's rotation. The theory runs that the asteroid is of the kind of loosely bound rubble and dust (as opposed to solid rock and/or ice), and has been experiencin...

Perci, read the RationalWiki definition , and then re-tell me if MN really is neutral. Unless one adds in "it is based upon assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism" it is tautologous. That is, adds nothing since Science obviously only works with the world we experience to understand how i...