Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Gman wrote:Yes... You mean from start to finish in a naturally controlled environment. No intervention at all...

Even so, science often cannot demonstrate anything more than that something is plausible or at best possible, in many of these scenarios. Given that, there's no amount of information that is going to rule out the supernatural.

Yes, that may be true... But given the view of metaphysical naturalism, it does not treat these ideas as a working science assumption but insists on them as a fact. And God doesn't appear to be part of that fact... Anyway, there is a point where one's philosophical beliefs will interfere with the "scientific" processes it seems.

Agreed. Methodological naturalism as a philosophy restricts observation and reality to that which can be seen and then demands evidence of the supernatural in the realm of the natural. In that regard, it is circular and will only see what that framework allows.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Agreed. Methodological naturalism as a philosophy restricts observation and reality to that which can be seen and then demands evidence of the supernatural in the realm of the natural. In that regard, it is circular and will only see what that framework allows.

It seems that many people go on from methodological naturalism to the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism.

Gman wrote:It seems that many people go on from methodological naturalism to the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism? Wow...a two-headed monster! It must be the littermate of Agnostic atheism! (Talk about oxymorons!)

FL

Hello - Kinda drifted off the topic here - so I will drop my 2 pence.

Essentially I think Jac is absolutley right. I think the atheists on this board was getting angry because they might have thought that Jac was stating that they were bigoted and intolerant. That was not the case. This is the way I see it -

1) Atheism in its truest form has no basis for objective moral values.
2) According the the Atheist then - all values are then created through relative opinion, or social and cultural evolution.
3) Most atheist's, thankfully - tend to live a good moral life.
4) Atheist's have no basis to say that the good life that they are living is the right one because it is essentially relative.
5) Most Atheists then are not living consistently to their world view - again thankfully.
6) A Christian has got a basis for objective moral values
7) Those values come from God
A Christian living a good life is keeping consistent to his/her world view.
9) A Christian living a questionably inmoral life is not consistent to his/her world view.

Luckly very few atheists live their lives that is 100% with their world view - becuase ultimately human life has no more meaning that the other animals on the earth and that morality is determined by the people currently in charge.

The difference is this -

A Christian that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is a good person
An Atheist that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is essentially evil.

Like I said - very few true "Atheists" actually exist - but we certainly know about them when they come around.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote: A Christian that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is a good person
An Atheist that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is essentially evil.

Hold on - you stated that an atheist has no basis for objective moral values. In that case how can they be any more "essentially evil" than they are "essentially good"?

From their own world view, they can't. And so I would disagree with ST's last statement that, an Atheist that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is essentially evil.

touchingcloth wrote:

Silvertusk wrote: A Christian that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is a good person
An Atheist that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is essentially evil.

Hold on - you stated that an atheist has no basis for objective moral values. In that case how can they be any more "essentially evil" than they are "essentially good"?

I'm not ST, but perhaps he is using the definition of evil that says that it is the lack of good, or God. As darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. Since only God is good, behaving and thinking without God is generally evil. I'm not saying that humans don't have a basic morality and that by this they don't "do good," I'm just explaining what ST might be getting at here. Jesus referred to this: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts . . . " (Matthew 7:9-11a).

Perhaps another way to phrase it....there is no evil or good...(since, of course, there is no absolute morality)

cslewislover wrote:I'm not ST, but perhaps he is using the definition of evil that says that it is the lack of good

zoegirl wrote:Perhaps another way to phrase it....there is no evil or good...(since, of course, there is no absolute morality)

Neither good nor evil exist in most atheist worldviews and in this sense they are very close to Hinduism and very far from traditional Western thought. «Good» is that which promotes whatever values you or your culture have decided upon; and «evil» is whatever is destructive to those values. You pick and choose your values.

In this form of reasoning, God can be seen either as good (Individualism), neutral (various), bad (Humanism) or downright evil (Marxism). To take an extreme case (and since I happen to have my copy of Capital open!) , Marx refers to gods and God as fetishism; and religion is a commodity which may be either useful or detrimental to a culture's economy.* Ultimately, however, belief in God is a sign of weakness and should not be encouraged.

FL

*Capital, Chapter 1, Commodities, #4 The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret thereof.

cslewislover wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

Silvertusk wrote: A Christian that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is a good person
An Atheist that is sticking 100% to his/her world view is essentially evil.

Hold on - you stated that an atheist has no basis for objective moral values. In that case how can they be any more "essentially evil" than they are "essentially good"?

I'm not ST, but perhaps he is using the definition of evil that says that it is the lack of good, or God. As darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. Since only God is good, behaving and thinking without God is generally evil. I'm not saying that humans don't have a basic morality and that by this they don't "do good," I'm just explaining what ST might be getting at here. Jesus referred to this: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts . . . " (Matthew 7:9-11a).

What I was saying was that if an person follow the atheistic world view 100% then that person will be evil. Because you take the whole package - the devaluing of humans as an important species and the lack of objective moral values - everything is therefore relative and morality is down to each individual interpretation of it. No one can judge someone else's values as wrong as there is no objective standard to base it against.

Silvertusk.

zoegirl wrote:Danny, you can always preview your post as well....it will show up looking like the form it will post as....then you can see if things like crazy and correct before you actually post....I have found that helpful for longer posts...

I missed this Zoe -- thank you

Silvertusk wrote:
What I was saying was that if an person follow the atheistic world view 100% then that person will be evil. Because you take the whole package - the devaluing of humans as an important species and the lack of objective moral values - everything is therefore relative and morality is down to each individual interpretation of it. No one can judge someone else's values as wrong as there is no objective standard to base it against.

Silvertusk.

I see what you are getting at but how does one "follow the atheistic worldview 100%"?

Could someone explain to me what "metaphysical naturalism" means?

DannyM wrote:Could someone explain to me what "metaphysical naturalism" means?

The term is ambiguous and ultimately contradictory. Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that the physical world is the only one that exists, the only one that can be known and the only one that can be observed and measured scientifically. In short, Naturalism contains zero percent supernatural and 100% natural. Metaphysics cannot be regarded as a body of valid knowledge by naturalists because the objects which metaphysics investigates cannot be investigated scientifically. This is why I said,

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Metaphysical naturalism? Wow...a two-headed monster! It must be the littermate of Agnostic atheism! (Talk about oxymorons!)

FL

For the record, Danny, just to follow up on FL's excellent summary, metaphysics has been broadly regarded as dead--or at least not a primary area of study--since Kant. That doesn't mean that there aren't philosophers deeply interested in metaphysics or metaphysical questions. It just means that those philosophers are regarded by the scientific community--and by many philosophers of science--as playing with ideas unrelated (at best) to scientific issues.

Imagine if a scientist were to come out talking about how morality had a direct bearing on some scientific experiment. He'd be regarded as unscientific in every sense of the word. So, too, would "metaphystical naturalists." This, by the way, is the reason I say that Darwinism is inherently atheistic. The philosophy underlying Darwinism is perfectly atheistic. Put the other way, Darwinism is atheism expressed philosophically pertaining to origins.

Off to visit my father. More later.