Evidence for God from Science

You know what the proponents of ID say?

I do and disagree with their conclusions. Meanwhile I have been debating via email with Dembski, Behe and Calvert.

They are all very interesting and civil people, and very generous with their time.

theorems are the result of inductive science, reaching general conclusions based on specific observations

up to a point (see the opening post). Science also uses pure logic, and is sufficient here to dismiss the case for a designer.

you have to have scientifically investigated every possibility for a designer in the entire universe

Fortunately not. That's why we have scientific theorems.

... Science can't prove anything. ... Science, by definition, cannot analyze God

Good, then presumably you do not believe in ID - whose proponents seek to establish scientific proof for intelligent design and thereby an intelligent designer.

you are going to have to explain much better how you arrive at the conclusion that there is no designer if the designer is "natural" perhaps you can help then ... ... if you offer up some examples of who a "natural" candidate for intelligent designer might be, let's see if any o...

Do provide evidence ... This is what is called an assumption Just to be clear here: are you suggesting that there is some point in time and space in the universe where: a) 1 + 2 does not equal 3 b) Mathematical logic does not hold c) The speed of light is not constant Let me know about a) as I woul...

unless the intelligent designer was always present, in which case it was not created

At what point did I say that the intelligent designer was created?

Who says that if you can detect something, it is therefore part of the natural world? (It depends on what you mean of detect of course). It indeed depends on what I mean by detect. What I actually wrote was: is supernatural then by definition it cannot be detected through scientific experiment This...

Interestingly you offer absolutely nothing to refute the simple systemic argument above as to the impossibility of an “Intelligent Designer” that can be studied in the science classroom. I believe in God, but not a scientifically provable God. Proof precludes the need for faith. Faith is necessary ...

ways that can be studied, measured and quantified Sorry but you can't study, measure or quantify the supernatural - it's a contradiction in terms (just look up the definition). The supernatural is just there - you don't get to understand it with science. That's what supernatural actually means! I a...

The supernatural may have an impact on the natural world Granted, but this does not mean that the supernatural can be studied in the science classroom. Actually its a contradiction in terms. I believe deeply in God, but not one that can be studied in the science classroom. Not a God that can be pre...

Surely you can do better than that ...

It is argued that Intelligent Design can be proved scientifically. Let us examine the scientific process, and then apply it to the concept of an intelligent designer. The Scientific process consists of: Prediction - using universal truths of logic/mathematics Testing - using universal truths of ari...