Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:In that context, I understand the response of the larger camp of ID that has been mentioned although I think those who promote it by this means are sacrificing principle for a utilitarian approach and I think too much is sacrificed.

Bart, can you expound of this? I'm not sure if I understand. Thank you....

I think creationists who use ID as a strategy to enter the school systems despite the fact that they don't personally agree with the old earth nature of ID (in other words, YECers) lose more than they gain by that strategy.

Obviously, I'm OEC. I'm not completely convinced ID is as viable a purely scienctific approach as it claim to be, but I think it is consistent internally to where I could support it without compromise.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think creationists who use ID as a strategy to enter the school systems despite the fact that they don't personally agree with the old earth nature of ID (in other words, YECers) lose more than they gain by that strategy.

Obviously, I'm OEC. I'm not completely convinced ID is as viable a purely scienctific approach as it claim to be, but I think it is consistent internally to where I could support it without compromise.

Ok I think I got... So if the ID movement would shed it's YEC skin it could be more pliable? I think this goes back to who is hijacking science again... Not to finger point.

I don't mean to put you on the spot Bart. I respect your views...

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think creationists who use ID as a strategy to enter the school systems despite the fact that they don't personally agree with the old earth nature of ID (in other words, YECers) lose more than they gain by that strategy.

Obviously, I'm OEC. I'm not completely convinced ID is as viable a purely scienctific approach as it claim to be, but I think it is consistent internally to where I could support it without compromise.

Ok I think I got... So if the ID movement would shed it's YEC skin it could be more pliable? I think this goes back to who is hijacking science again... Not to finger point.

I don't mean to put you on the spot Bart. I respect your views...

Put me on the spot all you want.

I'm still working things out. I respect others beliefs including YEC. I still have to be honest with myself and others as to how I see things though and I can change my mind if there's good reason to do so.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Put me on the spot all you want.

I'm still working things out. I respect others beliefs including YEC. I still have to be honest with myself and others as to how I see things though and I can change my mind if there's good reason to do so.

Hmmm, but thou art OEC?

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Put me on the spot all you want.

I'm still working things out. I respect others beliefs including YEC. I still have to be honest with myself and others as to how I see things though and I can change my mind if there's good reason to do so.

Hmmm, but thou art OEC?

I am OEC. I would identify myself in the smaller group of ID that Kurieou describes, and not the broader group that includes YEC and appears more politically oriented than me.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I am OEC. I would identify myself in the smaller group of ID that Kurieou describes, and not the broader group that includes YEC and appears more politically oriented than me.

Ok, thanks for the clarification... And from what I understand from the Discovery Institute is not to attack it politically but let it naturally flow into the workstream. Correct?

To sum it up, we stand behind ID, but our method of getting it into the public stream should be scrutinized.

I think we can all agree here that neither ID nor DE are completely "scientifically" factual but are really philosophical in nature. Perhaps that is the way it should be left unless one breaks the science barrier. I just don't see how either could....

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I am OEC. I would identify myself in the smaller group of ID that Kurieou describes, and not the broader group that includes YEC and appears more politically oriented than me.

Ok, thanks for the clarification... And from what I understand from the Discovery Institute is not to attack it politically but let it naturally flow into the workstream. Correct?

To sum it up, we stand behind ID, but our method of getting it into the public stream should be scrutinized.

I think we can all agree here that neither ID nor DE are completely "scientifically" factual but are really philosophical in nature. Perhaps that is the way it should be left unless one breaks the science barrier. I just don't see how either could....

I think that the point of ID and the DI group IS to break the science barrier. By muddling it, in my perspective with the YEC creationist political movement it is compromised in my opinion.

Of course, you can prove anything using logic. Unfortunately, everything ultimately relies on some underlying axiom or postulate. So, if you say the following axioms are true:

1. A universe can only be created by God.
2. All universes have a beginning and thus a creation.

Then, the proof is trivial.

It is readily observable that we live in a universe.
By postulate 2, all universes have a beginning.
By postulate 1 we can conclude that our universe was created by God.
Therefore, God must exist, or else our universe would never have been created.

It's those fundamental unprovable axioms that will ensure that the debate between whether or not God exists will never be resolved. Of course, once we die we'll all know for sure.

chomputer wrote:Of course, you can prove anything using logic. Unfortunately, everything ultimately relies on some underlying axiom or postulate. So, if you say the following axioms are true:

1. A universe can only be created by God.
2. All universes have a beginning and thus a creation.

Then, the proof is trivial.

It is readily observable that we live in a universe.
By postulate 2, all universes have a beginning.
By postulate 1 we can conclude that our universe was created by God.
Therefore, God must exist, or else our universe would never have been created.

It's those fundamental unprovable axioms that will ensure that the debate between whether or not God exists will never be resolved. Of course, once we die we'll all know for sure.

Hi chomputer,

This why I made the distinction earlier (back at page 1 or 2 of this thread) that logic on it's own can suggest pretty much anything it wants, but it is reason that needs to be added to the equation in order to prove something in our reality. So with logic and reason together (abstract reality and actual concrete reality) we can concluded many many things to be true or false, beyond a reasonable doubt. With logic on it's own suggestions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pink Elephants are up for grabs too. Once we add reason, actual reality, we can knock of all the false suggestions that might seem logical at first but in reality don't hold much water at all.

I still hold to the conclusion that no you cannot 'prove' God exists only using logic; or anything else for that matter. Wonderful possibilities, probabilities and sound theories are conjured up in purely logical thoughts. It is how these ideas fair in our reality that makes them true or not. This is where the rubber meets the road as they say.

Thankfully the existence of an intelligent agent beyond our reality of space and time is the most possible, most probable and most sound theory ever examined. Moreso than any other idea out there, by a long shot. Any other world view actually requires more 'faith' to believe, a lot more faith.

I don't see why you're so quick to rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Strictly speaking, it's no less logical than Christianity or Scientology or Islam.

My reasoning has led me to believe that everyone has their own set of truths that they hold self-evident. Those are the personal axioms of life and upon which each person's belief system is built upon. Non-Theists hold the truth that there is no god to be self-evident, and their world view is built on that. Christians hold that Jesus is their savior, and base their world view around that. Scientologists believe that Tom Cruise is not nuts and that Scientology is not just out to steal their money as their truth, and built their lives around that.

We all have our own postulates to live by, some people can just cope better when confronted with someone whose truths differ from their own.

chomputer wrote:I don't see why you're so quick to rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Strictly speaking, it's no less logical than Christianity or Scientology or Islam.

Strictly speaking it is very different.

Logic has two elements to it.

One is the internal consistency of the constructs which is technically known as validity.

The other is the truth of the premises upon which the constructs rest.

So, if you start from the position that there is no God then any entity you wish to put in his place will serve the purpose of mockery which is really all that is, right?

However, there is more to it than just the internal construct. There is the truth of the premise itself. If God exists, there are degrees of liklihood that must be examined and it would be foolish to imagine that all theories given are equally valid.

Where there is absolute truth, you have to examine all theories on their own merits and the evidence of their truthfulness or reality and then move from there discarding the frivilous and determining what religious beliefs are in fact true and stand up to the tests of logic.

If you're going to be logical, you have to embrace both elements, and not simply play games with one or the other.

since im new to this i'll be brief!
can you prove you're existance with logic?
no you can't (Richard dawkins, notoriously known for his anti-religious dogmas, quite rightly suggests the improbability of the human eye for example)
yet we are stil here
improbaility assumed from complexity (we are highly complex beings)should not be linked to actual existance- we're complex therefore improbable, yet existant,so just because God would be even moreso complex (by creating already complex beings such as us), and appears improbable, does not mean he does not exist