Evidence for God from Science

I honestly don't know what to make of this ^ J. Parts of it I agree with wholeheartedly, yet other parts I find demeaning, condescending. Not saying that's how you meant it, it is how I am perceiving it nonetheless. Not even sure it's worth getting into it at all, really.

Byb, I've re-read the post, and am quite comfortable in saying that I did not find anything written with the intention of demeaning anyone. That doesn't mean that I didn't intentionaly point out some things I take acception with. The names were left out to the protect the guilty. That doesn't mean that I don't believe some will be offended. (There is a difference my friend) I do not regret if some are offended. That I did consider, and I stand by my post. I do find that many here, unknowlingly assume a naturalist starting point for reasoning. They are welcome to do it. Just as in recent threads, I was on the opposite end of this criticism.

Our Lord and Savior offended many. I myself, praise the lord, that I too was offended at a time. My intentions were not to demean, but to hopefully shed some light on some things within the thread, that quite frankly I considered demeaning to how the faith was being represented in the overall context of the thread. If someone thinks that conflicting explanations, all claiming to offer the Christian truth, isn't a real bother, then I would expect some to be offended.

Lord knows this thread has already veered on many a tangent. So, I'd have no problem with you better articulating your critiques, as opposed to just inferring that I might have been deamening. Or, you can convey them privately, but I would ask that you be specifc and detailed in what exactly is demeaning. Obviously, I have been wrong, and could be again. If you like and have time, Re-read it again. Peace.

jlay wrote:Byb, I've re-read the post, and am quite comfortable in saying that I did not find anything written with the intention of demeaning anyone. That doesn't mean that I didn't intentionaly point out some things I take acception with. The names were left out to the protect the guilty. That doesn't mean that I don't believe some will be offended. (There is a difference my friend) I do not regret if some are offended. That I did consider, and I stand by my post. I do find that many here, unknowlingly assume a naturalist starting point for reasoning. They are welcome to do it. Just as in recent threads, I was on the opposite end of this criticism.

Our Lord and Savior offended many. I myself, praise the lord, that I too was offended at a time. My intentions were not to demean, but to hopefully shed some light on some things within the thread, that quite frankly I considered demeaning to how the faith was being represented in the overall context of the thread. If someone thinks that conflicting explanations, all claiming to offer the Christian truth, isn't a real bother, then I would expect some to be offended.

Lord knows this thread has already veered on many a tangent. So, I'd have no problem with you better articulating your critiques, as opposed to just inferring that I might have been deamening. Or, you can convey them privately, but I would ask that you be specifc and detailed in what exactly is demeaning. Obviously, I have been wrong, and could be again. If you like and have time, Re-read it again. Peace.

The reason I said I didn't want to get into it is precisely because you did not name names so I really have no way of knowing who you meant nor can I address any specifics absent of that. It was just an observation to the overall tone of the post I had an issue with and, reading it over again, I will readily admit I'm not entirely certain I was justified in feeling the way I did. I still think that the tree being literal or symbolic is utterly besides the point. But feelings aside, I have nothing else to contribute at this point so please accept my apologies.

And if I offended anyone with by criticims, apologies as well. Onward!!

J:

The reason why science goes with naturalism is because that is what it is all about. The things we can measure, test and prove. If we go beyond that will we ever find anything? Diving into the super natural realm is even more endless then the natural realm. Science is about the natural world no? Are you saying we should start with the super natural? Science use to be called natural philosophy. And it has proven itself to provide alot of practical uses.

"then the error is presupposing that the world we are in is the result of unguided, chance processes."
because saying other wise would be a baseless assertion. We can only go with our senses.

"Funny how nature is so fine tuned, that if just any factor (of which there are hundreds or more) were changed by a fraction, life could not exist."
Yeah, If it was planning to try and create thing 100% of what they are now then one little mistake would screw us all over. But nothing says that that one little change wouldn't cause several others creating a totally new universe.

"'what would the world be like without gravity, oxygen, etc.?'"
That depends, would he still want us to run or need those?

"And further assumes that God's motives are as arbitrary as random chance. It"
I wouldn't say as random,just that he can do whatever he wants. To say other wise implies that there is something objective in where he can't do other wise.

"It isn't."
if it isn't then how can you look outside of nature and practically prove it in any way?

"so that an outcome is not THE reality but just a possible reality. "
Ahh, i like that one

sailornaruto39 wrote:The reason why science goes with naturalism is because that is what it is all about. The things we can measure, test and prove. If we go beyond that will we ever find anything? Diving into the super natural realm is even more endless then the natural realm. Science is about the natural world no? Are you saying we should start with the super natural? Science use to be called natural philosophy. And it has proven itself to provide alot of practical uses.

This is so off the mark, Sailo. Science is neutral (well it's supposed to be). Naturalism is not neutral. But let's leave this first contradiction to one side and focus on the 'scientific' assumption of the ruling out of God as being 'neutral'. It is self-contradictory of those who, claiming to be neutral, rule out God from the get-go. 'Neutral science' presupposes the absolute with this universal negative judgement, and so presupposes theism in doing so. As Van Til put it: "The standard of self-contradiction taken for granted by antitheistic thought presupposes the absolute for its operation. Antitheism presupposes theism. One must stand upon the solid ground of theism to be an effective antitheist."

The reason why science goes with naturalism is because that is what it is all about. The things we can measure, test and prove.

Can you prove that claim scientifically? No, you can't. So, I guess your statement isn't part of nature or even real.

Yes, science is about the natural world. Just because 'naturalism' has the word 'nature' contained in it, doesn't mean it is the proper worldview, or starting point.

Yeah, If it was planning to try and create thing 100% of what they are now then one little mistake would screw us all over. But nothing says that that one little change wouldn't cause several others creating a totally new universe.

What? That's your answer? Are you saying that all the laws of physics are just arbitrary? Sure sounds like it. One of the points I was trying to make to you a while back was that assuming things could be better totally neglects the sovereignty of a creator God, and that events aren't arbirtrary, but all work towards a final redemption.

I wouldn't say as random,just that he can do whatever he wants. To say other wise implies that there is something objective in where he can't do other wise.

OK, So You define God. If you define who God is and what he can do, then who is actually playing god in that scenario? It is much better to use reasoning that is not self-defeating, and contradictory.

A transcendent, intelligent, pusposeful creator is not simply rolling the dice and playing the odds, so that an outcome is not THE reality but just a possible reality. It seems to be the equivalent of saying God has 1 million dice, and he is rolling them over and over until all come up on six. What are the odds of this happening? And then so, we deduce that the other rolls are actual possibilities. If that is the case, then God is not the 'creator' that is revealed in the scriptures. He is some hypothetical gambler who, BTW, would still be rolling the dice, hoping for the correct outcome.

Not sure if this was aimed somewhere near me or not but i would just like to clarify my position anyway.
I dont think God rolls the dice, when he made us with freewill there was only one outcome of it and that was sin and no multiple outcomes.
Anywho thats the way i see it, yes it is my opinion based on what i get from the Bible.


Daniel

Jlay:

Can you prove that claim scientifically? No, you can't. So, I guess your statement isn't part of nature or even real.

I don't know if you are serious or testing me. But... something doesn't need to be proven, scientifically or otherwise to be real of natural. And besides you are asking proof for a word, an arbitrarily assigned definition made up by humans. But i guess with that it isn't natural. You don't see picking science from a tree XD

Are you saying that all the laws of physics are just arbitrary?

With god they are

OK, So You define God.

I don't not, it isn't really my place to do so.


Danny:
Science "rules out god" because with some of the most popular descriptions(immaterial,timeless,outside of human understanding,etc) he is impossible to do anything with. Impossible to prove,observe, test,measure.
It is all about empirical evidence. To my knowledge science doesn't say he isn't real, it just doesn't bother with it because for the most part he is a baseless assertion. One can say we (results of god) are proof,but that does nothing but insert a different answer to a question that has many.

sailornaruto39 wrote:Jlay:

Can you prove that claim scientifically? No, you can't. So, I guess your statement isn't part of nature or even real.

I don't know if you are serious or testing me. But... something doesn't need to be proven, scientifically or otherwise to be real of natural. And besides you are asking proof for a word, an arbitrarily assigned definition made up by humans. But i guess with that it isn't natural. You don't see picking science from a tree XD


Danny:
Science "rules out god" because with some of the most popular descriptions(immaterial,timeless,outside of human understanding,etc) he is impossible to do anything with. Impossible to prove,observe, test,measure.
It is all about empirical evidence. To my knowledge science doesn't say he is real, it just doesn't bother with it because for the most part he is a baseless assertion. One can say we (results of god) are proof,but that does nothing but insert a different answer to a question that has many.

I'm confused.

Kog,

I'm confused as well. Obviously Sailor totally missed the point of that statement. But it did reveal an inconsistency in his reasoning, which you wisely spotted. I hope he sees it as well. On one hand he says science is all we have, and naturalism is the only way. Something doesn't need to be proven scientifically, but God is 'ruled out.' Wow. Where is that brick wall again?

Not sure if this was aimed somewhere near me or not but i would just like to clarify my position anyway.
I dont think God rolls the dice, when he made us with freewill there was only one outcome of it and that was sin and no multiple outcomes.
Anywho thats the way i see it, yes it is my opinion based on what i get from the Bible.

Daniel, that statement was not directed at you. It was specific to sailor.

sailornaruto39 wrote:With god they are

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? Be specific.

sailornaruto39 wrote:I don't not, it isn't really my place to do so.

Uhh,...? Too late, you already were. In fact you did again when you said, "with God they are." Please explain how this is consistent with how God defines Himself.

jlay wrote:Obviously Sailor totally missed the point of that statement. But it did reveal an inconsistency in his reasoning, which you wisely spotted. I hope he sees it as well. On one hand he says science is all we have, and naturalism is the only way. Something doesn't need to be proven scientifically, but God is 'ruled out.' Wow. Where is that brick wall again?

Yes, thanks J.

And God being beyond the scientific method is irrelevant and besides the point here. Any scientist who wants to say that God is '"ruled out" as an explanation is presupposing the absolute by making such a universal negative judgement. This is a fundamental basic we are talking about here, and the error is inexcusable. We mustn’t blame Sailo for repeating this nonsense, for this is the product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking.

why does my rank say "anti-member"?

Murray wrote:why does my rank say "anti-member"?

Murray, I think it's because you've posted 666 times.

Reactionary wrote:

Murray wrote:why does my rank say "anti-member"?

Murray, I think it's because you've posted 666 times.

AHhahahahahaha, i saw that a week ago......