Evidence for God from Science

You keep making this broad claims like "you can't seperate the design from the designer" Once you postulate "design" then you automatically postulate a "designer" or "designers" (even if you choose not to specify or speculate who they might be). It's not so m...

the current rules of science (aka naturalism) are bad Kmart : Logic, and in particular analytical logic, are an integral part of science. I'm talking logic = math here. If you think logic or math are bad then fine, but you'll excuse us for not wanting to use your approach in the science world. Fine...

Ok, I'm back, and what a great collection of posts to demonstrate my point. August, please allow me to answer the general thrust of your questions with some examples from the last 24 hours. I agree with you that God is not "proveable" by science … The disagreement I have with you is purely...

You have yet to give in to my request. Ok Kmart, but I courteously ask you to plug into the theme of this thread -August, Canuckster, Jbuza and co are coming up with some terrific stuff 8) Meanwhile, you have correctly made the point that science can't prove anything, but how can that possibly be t...

I think that "science" is an extremely broad term ... each with it's own unique characteristics and methodologies This is exactly what natural science (Phys/Chem/Bio - not Archaeology etc)has been striving against, particularly since the beginning of the 20th century with the formalizatio...

Children should be given an over view of all the theories even the bad ones, quasi scientific ones, the whole gammit, and then trained how to use the processes. It should be about the correct use of logic and reason, not about indoctrination. I wholeheartedly agree, but I agree with Canuckter (grea...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:you answer my questions, and stop trying to make fun of me

Fair point Kmart. More respect all round. Please accept my apologies.

Jbuza wrote:Perhaps a higher beings design would be beyond anything we could ourselves design

Exactly. It would surpasss all understanding. Hence to try to study it (as ID does) would be folly.

Jbuza wrote:If something is designed it is designed.

Yes, if you want to call it that. But something "designed" by a transcendent being does not necessarily look "designed" to a non-transcendent one. And vice versa.

An excellent post Jbuza. This gets much closer to the heart of the matter, and perhaps is akin to how Dembski puts it: the immediate intelligence responsible for these patterns in nature could be some derived or surrogate intelligence that is not identical with God The way you put it seems to infer ...

Cobra wrote:You DO believe in God, but not intelligent design? That seems contradictory right there. So is God mentally retarded then or what?

No Cobra!! God does not think like men - wherever did you come up with that idea?

Cobra wrote:Just because God can't be measured doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Nor should He be measured. What type of God would He be if you could put Him in your test tube? Not a good one.

That's exactly my point Cobra!!

I believe in God. I reject ID (which is proposed as a scientific theory)

[quote="CobraJust because God can't be measured doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Nor should He be measured. What type of God would He be if you could put Him in your test tube? Not a good one.[/quote] That's exactly my point Cobra!! I do believe in God. I reject ID (which is proposed as a sc...

B.W. Science/Math/Logic all require any corollary of a theorem to be true, so let's keep to the original theme of this thread ... Assume ID is correct, so it can be scientifically proven that: - intelligent design is inherent within the whole universe (as opposed to a closed system) - there is an in...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:... Science can't prove anything. ...

KMart stumbled on the truth.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:...What is proof? Let's start with that.

KMart hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened

You're no William Dembski are you.