Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But if scientists without any a priori beliefs come up with "God must have designed this"....you still won't call it science.

IT isn't science yet it is a valid scientific theory. IT explains things and it comes from a genuine desire to answer questions with careful logic and reason. There is a true answer to our question and the answer is part of science, but our speculations about that answer are only theories.

?

WAs I hard to understand? Would you say that we have an understanding of science, or would you say how we understand things is science? Was spotaneus generation science? I don't happen to believe it was, you may. I believe science is independant of our descriptions of things. Our descriptions are usually arrived at thorugh the logical sequence of scientific theorizing, but that doesn't amek them correct.

Just curious...because people say "it isn't science" but mean different things. Origins is by definition not science-you can't experiment and reproduce the past-you can in some cases attempt to replicate what MIGHT have happenned in the past...and I was stumped as to why you were calling it non-science...but I gotcha...

roysr wrote:

You're right it is bias, but because observations can be skewed by the one who is doing the observing it is best to try to observe as through the eyes of a baby.

You are right, observations can be skewed by the one who is doing the observing, especially when you rule things out a priori without having evidential support (which science does). Also, the "the eyes of a baby" comment you made was a false analogy.

There have been many world views throughout the history of man. And there are still many world views today. As a scientist why should I favor one over another? Why should I assume a creator?
If the evidence leads to one, I can conlude one but if you are saying assuming nothing is also metaphysical a priori, then I can only say that this is the most neutral approach.

roysr wrote:

That doesn't mean that science assumes that the metaphysical does not exist, only that science is limited to the physical. There is a distinction there.

And I never said it did. But there are people, like Dawkins, who use the methodology as their "worldview".

Well then we have a slight problem don't we?

roysr wrote:

In other words within science, observation does not need reason only explanation.

An explanation based on a metaphysical bias.

explain?

roysr wrote:

So when looking at the evidence and facts, nothing goes before them only from them.

Observation before explanation. This is how science works.

It is metaphysical assumption, observation and then explanation. This is how science works. This will be my last post here because I am not in the mood to play forum "ping pong" with you.

=(

There have been many world views throughout the history of man. And there are still many world views today. As a scientist why should I favor one over another? Why should I assume a creator?
If the evidence leads to one, I can conlude one but if you are saying assuming nothing is also metaphysical a priori, then I can only say that this is the most neutral approach.

You can't assume nothing-and there is no neutral assumptions. There is no neutral ground.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

There have been many world views throughout the history of man. And there are still many world views today. As a scientist why should I favor one over another? Why should I assume a creator?
If the evidence leads to one, I can conlude one but if you are saying assuming nothing is also metaphysical a priori, then I can only say that this is the most neutral approach.

You can't assume nothing-and there is no neutral assumptions. There is no neutral ground.

No, I am saying when conducting science don't bring your preconceptions with you when making observations. The human mind has a way of filling in the blanks and not really seeing what is really there. This is because people think symbolically. This can be observed when an individual draws. Most people draw the outlines and the major points so that the image in fact becomes a symbolic image of the subject. However if you are able suspend this thought process and really draw what is there the level of detail acheivable is amazing. One can begin to draw anywhere and continue and only until most of the drawing is in place does it become recognizable.

When observations have been made in this clarity of manor, then conclusions which may counter ones beleifs may be easier to reach.

Let us say that I am in a religion which beleives that everything breaks down into either fire water earth or air.

And I thow some lithium in a pot of water and watch it catch on fire.
Wouldn't I have the tendancy to beleive that fire is contained in the lithium?

Or lets say that in my relegion the general beleif is that spirits and sin causes disease. If I leave milk out and observe microorganisms within it, would I be able to make the conceptual jump that possibly these things I am seeing may be the disease causing agents? Or am I more likely to beleive that letting food spoil is a sin.

You may think that these are examples of ignorance, but not really. They are examples of pre-conceptual bias.

Uh...non sequitor? Letting food out is a sin because it looks different after a day or two? What in the...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Uh...non sequitor? Letting food out is a sin because it looks different after a day or two? What in the...

It's not a non-sequitor. Try to follow the logic, it often helps to read in context. And try to place yourself in the mindset of a European pre-Rennaisance. Also good would be to learn more about, Louis Pasteur.

Having preconceived notions, can skew and even invalidate an individuals observations. Wouldn't you agree?

OBSERVATION AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

Gravity is not optional.

Birds fly.

The Moon rotates around the Earth.

The Earth rotates around the Sun.

Lizards are reptiles.

Man is predisposed to believe that his existence reaches into another realm....a spiritual realm.......regardless of origin, culture, or geography.

Birds can fly. Man instinctively believes in a creator.......almost as reliably as you can count on a dog having a keen sense of smell.

Man, the great observer, has observed the nature of his being....and consistently come to the conclusion that he is part of a greater realm of being. Anthropology and Archeology have proven this fact about humanity conclusively.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Uh...non sequitor? Letting food out is a sin because it looks different after a day or two? What in the...

It's not a non-sequitor. Try to follow the logic, it often helps to read in context. And try to place yourself in the mindset of a European pre-Rennaisance. Also good would be to learn more about, Louis Pasteur.

Having preconceived notions, can skew and even invalidate an individuals observations. Wouldn't you agree?

I know Louis Pasteur. What I don't get is where you get that idea that because food turns weird, people thought it was God's way of saying it's a sin.

Anthropology and Archeology have proven this fact about humanity conclusively.

If you're saying what you're saying in support of the validity of support in the supernatural, mentioning anthropology is rather ironic considering it assumes evolution as a fact...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Uh...non sequitor? Letting food out is a sin because it looks different after a day or two? What in the...

It's not a non-sequitor. Try to follow the logic, it often helps to read in context. And try to place yourself in the mindset of a European pre-Rennaisance. Also good would be to learn more about, Louis Pasteur.

Having preconceived notions, can skew and even invalidate an individuals observations. Wouldn't you agree?

I know Louis Pasteur. What I don't get is where you get that idea that because food turns weird, people thought it was God's way of saying it's a sin.

Ok lets take it step by step.
Back in the day they beleived that evil spirits and sin was the source of all sickness and illnesses. Lus us say we leave a goblet of milk out to spoil. A man decides to drink it and becomes sick. The man is likely to attribute the sickness to of course evil spirits or some sin he committed. It took someone like Pastuer to make the ideological leap to microorganisms causing disease.

This may be obvious to you know, but once upon a time it was obvious otherwise.
This is what I meant by putting yourself in the mindset of a pre-Rennaisance European.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Anthropology and Archeology have proven this fact about humanity conclusively.

If you're saying what you're saying in support of the validity of support in the supernatural, mentioning anthropology is rather ironic considering it assumes evolution as a fact...

It really doesn't matter if anthropology assumes evolution to be a reality. It may very well be. But evolution does not eliminate the possibility of a greater being.

As far as "supernatural".......well, that also assumes that anything beyond our knowledge stands outside the realm of nature. In other words, our science is only as good as our microscopes and telescopes.......and our scientists are only as good as far as they can see (physically observe).

However, that is not the case. The biggest leaps in cosmology were imagined, not observed. Everything including the big bang was theorized in abstract thought first, and proven by direct observation later.

My point is that antrhopology has proven that man is born with a notion for a realm greater than him. Call it what you want. Call it heaven or quantum physics. The plain and simple fact is that man, the observer, has sensed this greater realm much, much, much before the invention of either religion or science.

Man was aware of his own "spirit" before religion. Man buried the dead long before anyone told him it was a religious ritual. Man has felt that there is a greater realm binding humanity before anyone came up with the term "morality".

In other words, this is a fact about the human species. It is a fact that has consistently carried throughout the entire history of humanity reguardless of race, gender, geography, or technological advancement. Anthropology has proven that as fact.........wether it chooses to believe in the "supernatural" or not.

Quite to the contrary.......the fact that Anthropologists have chosen to completely ignore such a distinguishing characteristic about the human animal is quite unbelievable. Alligators, squirrels, and sharks don't burry or mourn their dead. They don't have any sense of morality. The don't have any sense of spirit or being. The human animal does, and ignoring this EVIDENCE is quite irresponsible.

No branch of science should ignore overwhelming evidence of such a defining characteristic in any species. This is like ignoring a bat's ability to use sonar...........and still claim you are comprehensively analyzing the species.

Man's sense of spirit has had a much deeper impact on the evolution of humanity than has......lets say.....other defining characteristics such as the use of tools...........which after all turned out to not be a characteristic unique to humans.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Uh...non sequitor? Letting food out is a sin because it looks different after a day or two? What in the...

It's not a non-sequitor. Try to follow the logic, it often helps to read in context. And try to place yourself in the mindset of a European pre-Rennaisance. Also good would be to learn more about, Louis Pasteur.

Having preconceived notions, can skew and even invalidate an individuals observations. Wouldn't you agree?

I know Louis Pasteur. What I don't get is where you get that idea that because food turns weird, people thought it was God's way of saying it's a sin.

Ok lets take it step by step.
Back in the day they beleived that evil spirits and sin was the source of all sickness and illnesses. Lus us say we leave a goblet of milk out to spoil. A man decides to drink it and becomes sick. The man is likely to attribute the sickness to of course evil spirits or some sin he committed. It took someone like Pastuer to make the ideological leap to microorganisms causing disease.

This may be obvious to you know, but once upon a time it was obvious otherwise.
This is what I meant by putting yourself in the mindset of a pre-Rennaisance European.

You start with the assumption that people are dumb and stupid before the dawn of science have always blamed supernatural on natural events...where is this idea backed up?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok lets take it step by step.
Back in the day they beleived that evil spirits and sin was the source of all sickness and illnesses. Lus us say we leave a goblet of milk out to spoil. A man decides to drink it and becomes sick. The man is likely to attribute the sickness to of course evil spirits or some sin he committed. It took someone like Pastuer to make the ideological leap to microorganisms causing disease.

This may be obvious to you know, but once upon a time it was obvious otherwise.
This is what I meant by putting yourself in the mindset of a pre-Rennaisance European.

You start with the assumption that people are done and before the dawn of science have always blamed supernatural on natural...where is this idea backed up?

No, this is not an assumption. Read a little about the period in Europe before the Renaissance. Another prevalent idea was that mice spontaneously arose from sacks of wheat, etc.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok lets take it step by step.
Back in the day they beleived that evil spirits and sin was the source of all sickness and illnesses. Lus us say we leave a goblet of milk out to spoil. A man decides to drink it and becomes sick. The man is likely to attribute the sickness to of course evil spirits or some sin he committed. It took someone like Pastuer to make the ideological leap to microorganisms causing disease.

This may be obvious to you know, but once upon a time it was obvious otherwise.
This is what I meant by putting yourself in the mindset of a pre-Rennaisance European.

You start with the assumption that people are done and before the dawn of science have always blamed supernatural on natural...where is this idea backed up?

No, this is not an assumption. Read a little about the period in Europe before the Renaissance. Another prevalent idea was that mice spontaneously arose from sacks of wheat, etc.

Yes, but did they consider it a supernatural event? Did they blame God for it? No, they made some pretty funny claims that science disproved.