Has science gotten arrogant?

[MrRoboto]

Thanks to this website and others I have seen plenty of scientific evidence that proves God exists. I never realized just how much thought and work has been put into this proof until I started digging through alot of the information that is out there. One thing I have learned from doing this is just how limited science is and how little science actually knows. Now that I know this I have become aware of something that is "nagging" at me: The arrogance of atheist scientists. They make the claim there is no scientific evidence of God's existence therefore God doesn't exist. The reason I find this arrogant is they seem to be saying that science is the ultimate authority on anything and everything. How can this be so if science can't explain everything. Saying "we're working on it" is no excuse. I think science should stick to researching and studying our world and universe and not be concerned as much with the existence of God for now at least. I think these scientists have gotten "too big for their britches". That is my opinion at least.

What do you think? Is saying "no evidence = no God" an arrogant position to take?

[Jac3510]

Of course it's arrogant. But it's not the science that's arrogant. It's the atheist that's arrogant. As Dawkins admitted, Darwinian evolution (and, more generally, philosophical naturalism's interpretation of modern science) has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That means the atheism comes first, and they interpret science in light of their atheism.

So science itself isn't arrogant, something I'm sure you would agree with.

I'd point out, though, that more than being arrogant, those atheists are actually irrational. Look at the argument:

1. There is no scientific evidence for God's existence (granted for the sake of argument)
2. We cannot claim to know something is true without scientific evidence for its truth
3. Therefore, we cannot claim to know God exists

However cast, that's the gist of the modern atheist's argument in this regard. But that's patently absurd. Look at (2). How can that be proven scientifically? What scientific evidence can you provide in support of the notion "we cannot claim to know something is true without scientific evidence for its truth"? It's just self-refuting. If the argument is true, it refutes itself, because (2) is not the kind of statement that can be proven or disproven via science.

So it is evident that at least some things are known apart from scientific reasoning. Whether or not God is one of those things is an open question. I'm of the view that God's existence is not fundamentally scientific, but rather, it is fundamentally philosophical. If I'm right, that compounds the atheist's arrogance, for not only have the presumed atheism and "hijacked" science in that regard, but they go on to make claims in a field that is outside of their own self-professed field of expertise. I shouldn't trust what a scientists says on philosophical matters any more than I should trust what a historian says on mathematics or what a plumber says on hair styling.

[MrRoboto]

Thanks Jac3510 for your response. I agree. I think scientists like Dawkins are more motivated by their own personal emotions than rational thought. What makes a biologist more of an authority on God than an auto mechanic? To me it is the same as the auto mechanic claiming since he knows how a car works he is an expert on Henry Ford. I agree with you that science is not arrogant but the ones that have assumed authority outside their field are arrogant. I think their chatter that has increased recently has and will turn people off of science. That's too bad. I don't understand why Dawkins and the gang feel God's existence is a scientific question to begin with.

[Canuckster1127]

To put it into a short phrase that is a general rule in logic,

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In the case of militant atheists, in general, they presuppose materialism as the only reality and physical evidence as the only validating premise in which to base belief. So, when the atheist asks for evidence of something which is outside of that which they say can exist, they are asking for something which even if presented to them, they've already decided cannot exist and which they will not accept.

This is not necessarily true of all self-professed atheists. I have interacted with and personally know many atheists who are willing to examine evidence and who genuinely will discuss these issues, without the angst and snarkiness of some of their more militant cousins. We have similar instances within religion of a more reasonable middle that sadly becomes characterized by the more extreme fringes.

[MrRoboto]

Yeah, the snarkiness doesn't help them neither does the arrogance. I know a couple of atheists but that is it. The internet seems to be infested with the militant ones.

I really don't get the belief only in physical evidence. There is more to human existence and experience than just the physical aspects. I keep remembering how the Bible says our universe cannot contain God and think how can anyone expect physical evidence alone to prove God's existence. That seems irrational to me.

[bippy123]

The discovery of quantum mechanics has been a nightmare for methodological materialists (naturalists) because it demolishes the world view of materialism. The very well known physicist Richard Conn Henry mentions this in nature magazine but it isn't publicized much anywhere in most materialistically leaning websites or atheistic websites. Hmmm, I wonder why lol. This discovery alone has recently caused Conn Henry to abandon his atheistic world view.

Anyways here is what he states

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... -designer/

To begin, I point out this essay in the prestigious scientific journal Nature in 2005 by physicist Richard Conn Henry:

“The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’”
…
The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental.
…
According to Sir James Jeans: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
….
The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual.

Richard Conn Henry
The Mental Universe: Nature Volume 436

[pebbleanrock]

God said, a few times i think, that he would make wise men look like fools.

[BryanH]

If any Christian would like to prove that God exists, just apply the scientific concepts described in the movie "The Secret". If you are unfamiliar with the story I will make it short: quantum mechanics proves in theory the existence of a multiverse, but also that if we "think real hard and in a positive way" about something, that can manifest in our reality/universe. So just having faith in God and Jesus makes it real, in theory.

[Byblos]

If any Christian would like to prove that God exists, just apply the scientific concepts described in the movie "The Secret". If you are unfamiliar with the story I will make it short: quantum mechanics proves in theory the existence of a multiverse, but also that if we "think real hard and in a positive way" about something, that can manifest in our reality/universe. So just having faith in God and Jesus makes it real, in theory.

1. Since when does quantum mechanics prove the existence of a multiverse? Proof please.
2. Since when does the existence of a multiverse (itself as yet unproven) prove anything other than the existence of a first uncaused cause? Proof please.

You really ought to brush up on your basic philosophy, otherwise know as the bedrock of science and the basis for all rationality.

[BryanH]

1. Since when does quantum mechanics prove the existence of a multiverse? Proof please.

I said proves in theory. Let's say you're reading this forum. But in another universe, where your atomic particles just can't keep up, you're actually at home reading the bible. Quantum Mechanics proves the existence of multiverses starting with the concept super-position of a particle.

Since when does the existence of a multiverse (itself as yet unproven) prove anything other than the existence of a first uncaused cause? Proof please.

Let me put this way: we haven't yet traveled to another parallel universe so until I do that I can't answer you this question, but let's think in theory about this: when we travel to another parallel universe we might find out that the parallel universe is older or younger than ours.

[jlay]

Let me put this way: we haven't yet traveled to another parallel universe so until I do that I can't answer you this question, but let's think in theory about this: when we travel to another parallel universe we might find out that the parallel universe is older or younger than ours

Wow. A mulitverse of the gaps argument.
That is religion. The atheist thumbs his nose as the believer for 'no proof'. Yet they run to embrace, with faith, a mulitverse of which there is no proof. All a multiverse does is substitute a god without morality.

All I can say is,
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

In the multiverse threory, can not we not theorize a possible universe where God exists and the supernatural is normal? If so, where does that leave us? If you are going to embrace such, then you might as well embrace it with all its implications. Go ahead and bow your knee.

[Byblos]

1. Since when does quantum mechanics prove the existence of a multiverse? Proof please.

I said proves in theory. Let's say you're reading this forum. But in another universe, where your atomic particles just can't keep up, you're actually at home reading the bible. Quantum Mechanics proves the existence of multiverses starting with the concept super-position of a particle.

I know what the multiverse theory purports. I also know what quantum mechanics show (through the double slit experiment and such). What I am asking you is to prove the two are not only related, but also that one stands in causal relation to the other. That was your claim, now prove it.

Since when does the existence of a multiverse (itself as yet unproven) prove anything other than the existence of a first uncaused cause? Proof please.

Let me put this way: we haven't yet traveled to another parallel universe so until I do that I can't answer you this question, but let's think in theory about this: when we travel to another parallel universe we might find out that the parallel universe is older or younger than ours.

First what J said above.

Second, assume these infinite universes do exist (which, by the way, is absurdly irrational but I will grant you that for the sake of the argument). Also assume we are able to travel to them and some are indeed older than our universe. Your claim was that this somehow invalidates the existence of God. So I ask you again, please back up your claim. Why does the existence of a multiverse negate the necessity for a first uncaused cause. Please prove it.

It is evident that you're big on assertions. Now it is time to back them up with cold hard facts and a bit of rationality. I am all ears.

[BryanH]

Second, assume these infinite universes do exist (which, by the way, is absurdly irrational but I will grant you that for the sake of the argument). Also assume we are able to travel to them and some are indeed older than our universe. Your claim was that this somehow invalidates the existence of God. So I ask you again, please back up your claim. Why does the existence of a multiverse negate the necessity for a first uncaused cause. Please prove it.

I didnt say anything about multiverses invalidating the existence of God and I didnt say anything about a first uncaused cause. The issue is that you see God as the first uncaused cause.

Since you assumed something for the sake of the disccusion I will give you the same benefit and I will assume along with you: God is the first uncaused cause of all things.

If we have an infinite numbers of universes that means we have an infinite number of planet Earth and that means we have an infinite number of Jesuses who were sent by God to save an infinite number of sinners. Quite weird huh? I really hope those scientists don't prove in practice the theory of multiverses.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Again, this is an image depicting a God that has expectations from its follower and non-followers... That somehow limits some choices you can make in life, doesn't it?

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. [/quote]

since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

if you change seen with observed it might make some sense.... although I don't see the point of using clearly since it's quite clear that it ain't that clear in the first place

[Byblos]

Second, assume these infinite universes do exist (which, by the way, is absurdly irrational but I will grant you that for the sake of the argument). Also assume we are able to travel to them and some are indeed older than our universe. Your claim was that this somehow invalidates the existence of God. So I ask you again, please back up your claim. Why does the existence of a multiverse negate the necessity for a first uncaused cause. Please prove it.

I didnt say anything about multiverses invalidating the existence of God and I didnt say anything about a first uncaused cause. The issue is that you see God as the first uncaused cause.

No, you didn't directly say anything about mutiverses invalidating the existence of God but let's face it, you provided it as an alternative. But let's not get bogged down with semantics so on we go.

Since you assumed something for the sake of the disccusion I will give you the same benefit and I will assume along with you: God is the first uncaused cause of all things.

If we have an infinite numbers of universes that means we have an infinite number of planet Earth and that means we have an infinite number of Jesuses who were sent by God to save an infinite number of sinners. Quite weird huh? I really hope those scientists don't prove in practice the theory of multiverses.

So not only do you postulate an infinite number of universes, you also postulate that these universes must be parallel to ours without a hint of evidence. Okay, sure let's keep going with this absurdity a bit longer, so what? So what if God sent multiple Jesuses to save an infinite number of sinners? The fact is since God is the first uncaused cause (which you did not deny and which, by the way, proves that an infinite number of universes is irrational) then He can choose to save whomever and however many He wishes to save. Next you will tell me but what about contradictions like a person being saved in one universe and damned in another. Well since we're postulating absurdities then I submit to you that those are not the same person, they are two different souls.

[BryanH]

So not only do you postulate an infinite number of universes, you also postulate that these universes must be parallel to ours without a hint of evidence. Okay, sure let's keep going with this absurdity a bit longer, so what? So what if God sent multiple Jesuses to save an infinite number of sinners? The fact is since God is the first uncaused cause (which you did not deny and which, by the way, proves that an infinite number of universes is irrational) then He can choose to save whomever and however many He wishes to save. Next you will tell me but what about contradictions like a person being saved in one universe and damned in another. Well since we're postulating absurdities then I submit to you that those are not the same person, they are two different souls.

That is the beauty of parallel universes... You can practically imagine an alternative reality and that reality could actually exists in a parallel place...

No, you didn't directly say anything about mutiverses invalidating the existence of God but let's face it, you provided it as an alternative. But let's not get bogged down with semantics so on we go.

I was just trying to point out that many people are assuming that there is ONLY ONE uncaused cause. But let's play with this idea for a bit. If every universe has a first uncaused cause, then we could in theory say that every parallel universe has its own first uncaused cause. It's quite hard to imagine such a network of parallel uncaused causes and at the same time quite interesting. But anyways, I want to stress out "just imagine". At the moment science has not proven anything in practice.