Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Complete faith in anything will obviously eliminate doubt in that thing, but it won't eliminate doubt.

Is this your personal opinion? I certainly disagree with it. Not even 'complete' faith (whatever that means) will eliminate doubt. Doubt is not the opposite of faith, it is part and parcel of it. Doubt and free will go hand in hand.

zcaz wrote:I hear many Creationists argue that without a God, we wouldn't have "Objective Morality". What leads us to believe certain actions are right and wrong? While I do agree that we are given these right and wrongs by God, I don't believe the animal kingdom proves any less 'Moral' than us, in fact they seem to be more morally intact.

Animals mostly do what is necessary for their survival, and nothing more than that.. they don't go on random killing sprees(against their own kind) if it does not somehow benefit them like humans do. They do not abort their babies simply because they don't want to take care of them as humans do, with 93% of abortions being due to...birth control reasons, and 1.3 million babies aborted per year, I would say Humans show more negative moral values than the 'spiritless'(therefore incorruptible) animal kingdom.

Isn't this view backed up within the Bible? Didn't sin cause man to do evil deeds? So i would say on the contrary to what these certain creationists claim, that our immorality is what proves we are separate from any spiritless animal out there, not our ability to do good.

In this video below, William Lane Craig debates Lewis Wolpert and uses this argument to no avail, and ends up finding himself in a bit of trouble..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ejresKtSBg&NR=1

You can tell his back was up against the wall when he claimed animals kill their own babies off all the time. He had no prior knowledge to whether they do or not, and eventually made up a pretty hilarious lie about pet mice that he had who ate their babies, saying it was umm...awful lol! It was a shame seeing Craig in such a tough position, I love watching him debate because he brings up many great points and is very educated in how to school an atheist(haha) however I do think he needs to reinvent this argument, which would be pretty easy..

I'm just wondering, do you guys think "Objective Morality" is a good case, or do you think it's easy for evolutionists and such to pass it off as learned behavior as natural selection progresses?(In which case I come to wonder why we have become more mischievous and selfish?)

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don't have to prove anything. Objective truths testify of themselves as to their objectivity, unless that is, you want to admit that the objective truths of the laws of math, physics, chemistry, and biology are not objective in and of themselves unless and until humans and their perceptions came along. Are you certain you want to admit that or do you concede that objective truths do exist independent of our perceptions?

I appreciate that you don't have to prove anything.
Again I ask, you made these things "objective"? who stated and proved them to be such?
We did, based on our perception of reality as we know it.
Remember, not to long ago it was the objective truth that no woman could give birth AND be a virgin ( never had sexual intercourse), correct?
Is that the case now?
No.
Not too long ago the object truth was that atoms were made of proton, neutrons and electrons and now?
Now we have quarks that are also part of the atomic structure.
In our reality 1 + 1 = 2, until we discover that it doesn't or discover an alternate reality/universe/dimension where it doesn't, then what?
It is the objective truth that people die and after they are dead there is NOTHING, no afterlife and certainly no ressurection, there is no object proof of those things.
That we die and do not come back to life is a truth that testifies to itself, correct?

Proinsias wrote:

B. W. wrote:Pros, does our mortal physical life cease?

It may well do. Saying that all dead things were once alive does not mean that all that is alive will die, I'll admit it seems likely. If I were a betting man......

B. W. wrote:Matter of fact, did your great-great-great grand father's physical mortal life cease?

I have no idea who they were but imagine they were pronounced dead a long time ago.

B. W. wrote:Is physical mortal death certian?

no

Proinsias wrote:

B. W. wrote:Is physical mortal death certian?

no

Saying that all dead things were once alive does not mean that all that is alive will die, I'll admit it seems likely.

How many case studies are on record that something living hasn't died?

Proinsias wrote:Certainty is where we disagree

If it's a matter of time it's unfortunate we're not very certain about matter or time.

B. W. wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Certainty is where we disagree

If it's a matter of time it's unfortunate we're not very certain about matter or time.

Certain about uncertancy???
-
-
-

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.

Proinsias wrote:Reading Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy at the moment. The opening lines made me think of this thread:

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.