Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

naturalism does NOT say that god cannot be observed, in fact it says the contrary. naturalists believe that if there is a god, then he can be observed because he would have to be part of the physical universe (or physically outside the universe) in order to act on it. naturalism does not exclude the supernatural, but rather says it can be explained as natural. naturalism comes down to this: the supernatural cannot be distinguished from the natural as they are both physical processes of the universe.

That is not God though. So, yes, naturalism does say God does not exist.

who's to say?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

i notice you talk a lot about how bad it is to make an assertion, and yet that is what you and i and everyone else do every time we open our mouths. you cannot communicate without making an assertion.

But axiomatic ones are ok. It's the ones that aren't self evident that must be proven. You're reading to much into it...

but still, you cannot believe anything without making assumptions.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

evolution is falsifiable, though i agree that there are scientists who would make it their duty to make sure it isn't. ID is falsifiable as well. the thing about the falsifiability of both of these theories is that there are so many people who blindly believe them that even if they were disproven, many would ignore it and still believe in them.

See? This is not axiomatic. How is evolution falsifiable?

its falsifiable because if we find evidence contrary to what the theory posits, then the theory is modified (which has happened many times so far). if we find evidence disproving the entire theory (which we have not witnessed so far) then the entire theory is dropped. you don't seem to view it as falsifiable because it seems that everything people do to try to disprove evolution is refuted. that is mostly because the theory of evolution is accurate, not because people are blindly adhering to it (though i don't doubt that they do). a falsifiable theory does not mean that it will inevitably be disproven. but i do think that the theory of evolution is nowhere near complete, nor will it ever be.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

human logic can prove nothing, thats why we make assumptions. sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong, but we can't really know until we prove ourselves wrong.

But if human logic can prove nothing, how can we prove ourselves wrong?

by using something other than human logic, such as observable evidence. observations do not use human logic (at least they shouldn't) and are more definate in proving a hypothesis.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

also, are you trying to say that because ID is an older theory, that it is right?

This is tongue in cheek.

there was no irony implied in the statement, it was only a question, which you have not answered.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Non sequitor. You're going metaphysical. Similarity does not show common ancestry. And the idea of design ALSO goes back to the Greeks BGood...so if we can prove it's one day older...we win!

My point was that there must be something which lead people to follow this line of investigation. You must be in some state of denial to say that there is nothing which might suggest evolution. That would be like me saying there is absolutely no reason to beleive in God. Why make such a statement? Does it say in the bible that evolution is false? Did God tell you evolution is false? Or is it your very wise 19 year old mind telling you this? I think its the latter.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

How do you know something is irreducible?

Selective memory BGood? We kinda went over this, remember? You and you're not so witty remarks?

Sorry, but for me you failed. Is it possible that something we see as irreducible now may very well be explanable in the future? Is it also possible that since we are dealing with the result of a process that the intermediate steps are lost to us? What you are basically saying is that we don't know, so some unknown force put it together through some unknown means. Sorry but that doesn't have much explanatory power. All it seems to do is satisfy your world view. Be honest now.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Hmm? Are you saying I have no rights to post? lol

Yes

Arrogance.
=)

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

You're right I don't know. Do you?

Yes

Arrogance.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

So if I look at a duck and a chicken, wouldn't even a child see that they are both birds? Is it not ok for me to say that maybe a zebra and a horse are related somehow?

Non sequitor. Similarity does not infer common ancestry!

But doesn't it make you wonder? Or are you so stubborn you don't want to hear anything which might even lead to the possibility?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Going even farther all animals of a certain population share the same genetic sequence for certain proteins. Other species have similar sequences. This similarity corresponds with other observations.

So what?

It's an interesting observation, don't you think? Or are you so blind in your beleifs that you don't even want to give it any significance?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And no more crappy stories.

If you promise no more crappy posts we have a deal.

there was no irony implied in the statement, it was only a question, which you have not answered.

No, my statement was tongue in cheek. Not your question.

by using something other than human logic, such as observable evidence. observations do not use human logic (at least they shouldn't) and are more definate in proving a hypothesis.

But logic is used when interpreting the evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself.

its falsifiable because if we find evidence contrary to what the theory posits, then the theory is modified (which has happened many times so far). if we find evidence disproving the entire theory (which we have not witnessed so far) then the entire theory is dropped. you don't seem to view it as falsifiable because it seems that everything people do to try to disprove evolution is refuted. that is mostly because the theory of evolution is accurate, not because people are blindly adhering to it (though i don't doubt that they do). a falsifiable theory does not mean that it will inevitably be disproven. but i do think that the theory of evolution is nowhere near complete, nor will it ever be.

How could you disprove the theory zenith? I agree with the first sentence , that's not in dispute-but it's everything that follows. What could prove evolution did not happen? I asked you how, and you give me a textbook response.

but still, you cannot believe anything without making assumptions.

True-and you can have no confidence in your beliefs unless you believe in God.

who's to say?

God?

If you promise no more crappy posts we have a deal.

Don't annoy me so much in so little time.

It's an interesting observation, don't you think? Or are you so blind in your beleifs that you don't even want to give it any significance?

But doesn't it make you wonder? Or are you so stubborn you don't want to hear anything which might even lead to the possibility?

Maybe you don't understand what non sequitor means...quite simply...it does not follow. The conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Arrogance.

You have no foundation for objective morality so stop saying arrogance is wrong.

Sorry, but for me you failed. Is it possible that something we see as irreducible now may very well be explanable in the future? Is it also possible that since we are dealing with the result of a process that the intermediate steps are lost to us? What you are basically saying is that we don't know, so some unknown force put it together through some unknown means. Sorry but that doesn't have much explanatory power. All it seems to do is satisfy your world view. Be honest now.

Misrepresenting ID and IR again. For someone who's not even read Michael Behe's book, you seem to feel quite well read up on irreducible complexity and the argumetns for it, along with the evidence.

My point was that there must be something which lead people to follow this line of investigation. You must be in some state of denial to say that there is nothing which might suggest evolution. That would be like me saying there is absolutely no reason to beleive in God. Why make such a statement? Does it say in the bible that evolution is false? Did God tell you evolution is false? Or is it your very wise 19 year old mind telling you this? I think its the latter.

To the sentences with question marks:
I never said there was never anything that didn't support evolution. I'm just saying it was found to be wrong. For example...naturalistic philosophy with Darwin. No clue how the Greeks thought it up.
Yes
No
No, and I'm 18.

Bah, I had a pretty good reply, BGood, and I lost it in the spell check.

Ah well, here's the short version: you are defining science too narrowly by focusing on a particular method (which is born out of a philosophy of science rather than an understanding of the subject itself). Check out any dictionary and you'll see that science, in its purest form, is nothing more than the observation, comparison, and systemization of data. Philosophical naturalism is not science. It is a philosophy disguised as science.

Do you consider history to be science? What about forensics? Mathematics? Theology?

So, I again assert that, on your definition of science, science has ruled out the possibility of life arising by natural means. Of particular interest to me is the space theory, which, again, I've posted resources from the ISSOL '99 (hardly a Christian organization!) to prove my point.

No spell check, as I don't want to retype this again

Jac3510 wrote:Bah, I had a pretty good reply, BGood, and I lost it in the spell check.

Ah well, here's the short version: you are defining science too narrowly by focusing on a particular method (which is born out of a philosophy of science rather than an understanding of the subject itself). Check out any dictionary and you'll see that science, in its purest form, is nothing more than the observation, comparison, and systemization of data. Philosophical naturalism is not science. It is a philosophy disguised as science.

Do you consider history to be science? What about forensics? Mathematics? Theology?

So, I again assert that, on your definition of science, science has ruled out the possibility of life arising by natural means. Of particular interest to me is the space theory, which, again, I've posted resources from the ISSOL '99 (hardly a Christian organization!) to prove my point.

No spell check, as I don't want to retype this again

I understand what you mean, however how can one be sure that we have exhausted all the possibilities? Are we that knowledgeable? It is not because one does not want to face the possibility that God created life. It is simply because we cannot prove this.

Also:

If it only happened once then why don't older layers contain fossils of modern forms?

If it occured many times, then why would new forms be derivatives of older forms?

At this juncture it would be wisest to say that science does not have an answer for the origins of life.

If it only happened once then why don't older layers contain fossils of modern forms?

Who says life was created just once? Who says God life wasn't created at different points in earth's history?

If it occured many times, then why would new forms be derivatives of older forms?

Who says they are?

At this juncture it would be wisest to say that science does not have an answer for the origins of life.

But you still believe it was naturalistic.

Haha, KMart hit the nail on the head with reference, especially, to the last statement. Yes, of course, from a naturalist's perspective, it is best to say we don't have an answer. But, from a more general standpoint, we CAN scientifically say how life began. It was created. Consider only a few of the following observations:

1. We have the apparant inability for naturalistic explanations to even begin to solve the problem. In other words, the observations of hard science have yielded data that is at direct odds with the very preconceptions of naturalism,

2. We have, of course, the direct evidence of the Bible, corroborated by:

a. The accuracy of biblical claims in other areas,
b. The extreme corroboration of the biblical account of Gen. 1-2 with observed data,
c. The testimony of Jesus Christ, whose authority was validated in the historically verifiable Resurrection.

3. We have the general unity of not only a Creation model that actually fits with the evidence (as expected), but also is at harmony with the broader philosophy of science as it relates to the unification of the disciplines. Thus, the old statement, "Theology is the queen of sciences."

Would the above observations pass muster in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal? Absolutely not, but that is because these publications are biased in favor of naturalism. If you, again, define "science" in its correct sense, then the above observations simply need to be verified. Taken together, they make for a very strong reason to actually believe that life was created. Against this, we have your own admission that we simply don't know how it could have happened naturally.

So . . . lots of evidence for one position vs. no evidence for and lots of evidence against another position. Which should we go with?

So . . . lots of evidence for one position vs. no evidence for and lots of evidence against another position. Which should we go with?

The naturalistic explanation, of course, until logic is turned on its head and positive premises lead to negative conclusions...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If it only happened once then why don't older layers contain fossils of modern forms?

Who says life was created just once? Who says God life wasn't created at different points in earth's history?

Is this your stance?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If it occured many times, then why would new forms be derivatives of older forms?

Who says they are?

Mammals and Birds share many anatomical features with reptiles. They all share similar blood clotting mechanisms for example. Bones, organ systems, etc.

Modern whales seem to be patterned after primative whales.
And many more.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

At this juncture it would be wisest to say that science does not have an answer for the origins of life.

But you still believe it was naturalistic.

No, I never said that. I said that in order for science to deal with it there needs to be empirical evidence. Science is not the only player which helps me formulate my beliefs. Far from it.

ROFL

=)

Do you know what a paradigm is?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:No, my statement was tongue in cheek. Not your question.

oh, my misunderstanding.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

by using something other than human logic, such as observable evidence. observations do not use human logic (at least they shouldn't) and are more definate in proving a hypothesis.

But logic is used when interpreting the evidence. Evidence does not speak for itself.

there is evidence that doesn't require human interpretation. in fact the base data for most scientific observations are simple fact, or at least the description of simple facts. such as the length of a leaf, or the density of a rock. or more complex facts like pi or the measures of angles and other mathematical ratios. these things are all the same without interpretation, we all experience them as being the same. though theories might be just assumptions, they are based on solid facts (or at least as solid as can possibly be).

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

its falsifiable because if we find evidence contrary to what the theory posits, then the theory is modified (which has happened many times so far). if we find evidence disproving the entire theory (which we have not witnessed so far) then the entire theory is dropped. you don't seem to view it as falsifiable because it seems that everything people do to try to disprove evolution is refuted. that is mostly because the theory of evolution is accurate, not because people are blindly adhering to it (though i don't doubt that they do). a falsifiable theory does not mean that it will inevitably be disproven. but i do think that the theory of evolution is nowhere near complete, nor will it ever be.

How could you disprove the theory zenith? I agree with the first sentence , that's not in dispute-but it's everything that follows. What could prove evolution did not happen? I asked you how, and you give me a textbook response.

i see your point. the theory of evolution is much like religious beliefs in that any new evidence that is found is only used to modify and strengthen the supposed belief. it follows that there is no real way to falsify that belief, as everything is interpreted and twisted to prove it. i agree, but i have one thing to add to it. as more evidence is gained, whether the interpretations are right or not, they change, they do not stay stagnant. the change is more easier to occur in the scientific community, but that only means that there are so many more ways to prove each other wrong. but i don't really want to refute what you are saying because you bring up a good point, whether it was your intention or not.

my partiality towards evolution is that it has comparisons that i (myself) can observe and interpret. my view of god is something much more subtle and yet much more believable than what i feel from more orthodox religion. my question in life is this: would god have left his words in a book, or in the very work of his creation?

if you wanted an actual answer for your question i'll try not to disappoint you. honestly, i think the only thing that could disprove evolution for the majorty of the scientific community would be proof of Intelligent Design, or proof of some other force behind the diversity of life. if evolution is wrong, there might come a time, possibly within the next century, where a new science will gradually overtake the theory of evolution, much like the theory of evolution gradually overtook creationism a few centuries ago. scientists might begin discovering clues to an alternate explanation for the diversity of life, or even the origin of life and they might begin piecing it together. its possible.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

but still, you cannot believe anything without making assumptions.

True-and you can have no confidence in your beliefs unless you believe in God.

i have confidence in my beliefs that moral scientists (even if they are atheist) will record accurate observations with as little bias as they can. i can have confidence in that belief without a belief in god. i can have confidence in my own senses.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

who's to say?

God?

i would rather believe in the clues left in the physical world than clues left in a book.

It is not because one does not want to face the possibility that God created life. It is simply because we cannot prove this.

But evolution which also cannot be proven is acceptable? So it is clear that the acceptability is not based upon proof, but on palatability.

Since neither can be proven, you must pick one. quickly choose now. Choose. Choose. Choose. Don't sit on the fence. There is proof for neither. Choose one already.

Perhaps it would help to understand some consequences

evolution - supposed freedom of action - no eternal consequence

evolution - no hope for the future, no important or lasting choices

evolution - you are a picture on an etcha sketch time will shake it and you will be gone

Creation - guilt and restricted actions on pleasruable bahvior

Creation - Ridicule from the world. persecution

creation - not an etcha sketch. There is hope or damnation tomorrow further choices to make

These are a few, but choose, choose.

Jbuza wrote:

It is not because one does not want to face the possibility that God created life. It is simply because we cannot prove this.

But evolution which also cannot be proven is acceptable? So it is clear that the acceptability is not based upon proof, but on palatability.

There is ample empirical data supporting evolution. Does it prove it? no, However the idea is testable and continues to be supported by many independent studies, experiments, and observations.

Jbuza wrote:Since neither can be proven, you must pick one. quickly choose now. Choose. Choose. Choose. Don't sit on the fence. There is proof for neither. Choose one already.

Perhaps it would help to understand some consequences

evolution - supposed freedom of action - no eternal consequence

This is not what evolution states. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE

Jbuza wrote:evolution - no hope for the future, no important or lasting choices

Again any scientist will tell you that morality should not be derived from scientific studies. This is not what evolution states. AGAIN ABSOLUTELY FALSE
So because Bonobo's exhibit homosexual activity and Chimpanzees murder each other it is ok for humanity to do the same?

No, the implication is simply Bonobo's exhibit homosexual behavior, and Chimpanzees participate in murder. PERIOD.

Jbuza wrote:evolution - you are a picture on an etcha sketch time will shake it and you will be gone

Again the physical nature of life is only that. It cannot attest to any spiritual or supernatural realities of existence.

Jbuza wrote:Creation - guilt and restricted actions on pleasruable bahvior
Creation - Ridicule from the world. persecution
creation - not an etcha sketch. There is hope or damnation tomorrow further choices to make
These are a few, but choose, choose.

lol

This is like asking me to choose between Calculus and Budhism!

Calculus describes everything in numbers. I suppose you can stretch math to the level where everything is predetermined. There is no free will. The universe is like a giant time peice. etc etc...

It seems you're mixing athiests beleifs with scientific theories.
Perhaps you should study the topic a bit more.

Jac3510 wrote:Do you consider history to be science? What about forensics? Mathematics? Theology?

No, although history may use scientific techniques on occasion. Forensics is borderline, technically no since it uses science for other goals. Absolutely no. Absolutely no.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Do you consider history to be science? What about forensics? Mathematics? Theology?

No, although history may use scientific techniques on occasion. Forensics is borderline, technically no since it uses science for other goals. Absolutely no. Absolutely no.

Are you saying these are not sciences because they are not the natural sciences? Because you do know there's more to science than the natural sciences.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

It is not because one does not want to face the possibility that God created life. It is simply because we cannot prove this.

But evolution which also cannot be proven is acceptable? So it is clear that the acceptability is not based upon proof, but on palatability.

There is ample empirical data supporting evolution. Does it prove it? no, However the idea is testable and continues to be supported by many independent studies, experiments, and observations.

Jbuza wrote:Since neither can be proven, you must pick one. quickly choose now. Choose. Choose. Choose. Don't sit on the fence. There is proof for neither. Choose one already.

Perhaps it would help to understand some consequences

evolution - supposed freedom of action - no eternal consequence

This is not what evolution states. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE

Jbuza wrote:evolution - no hope for the future, no important or lasting choices

Again any scientist will tell you that morality should not be derived from scientific studies. This is not what evolution states. AGAIN ABSOLUTELY FALSE
So because Bonobo's exhibit homosexual activity and Chimpanzees murder each other it is ok for humanity to do the same?

No, the implication is simply Bonobo's exhibit homosexual behavior, and Chimpanzees participate in murder. PERIOD.

Jbuza wrote:evolution - you are a picture on an etcha sketch time will shake it and you will be gone

Again the physical nature of life is only that. It cannot attest to any spiritual or supernatural realities of existence.

Jbuza wrote:Creation - guilt and restricted actions on pleasruable bahvior
Creation - Ridicule from the world. persecution
creation - not an etcha sketch. There is hope or damnation tomorrow further choices to make
These are a few, but choose, choose.

lol

This is like asking me to choose between Calculus and Budhism!

Calculus describes everything in numbers. I suppose you can stretch math to the level where everything is predetermined. There is no free will. The universe is like a giant time peice. etc etc...

It seems you're mixing athiests beleifs with scientific theories.
Perhaps you should study the topic a bit more.

So you don't feel that the idea that man evolved and is a step in an ongoing process, and simply a product of the environment like all the other animals has any moral implications at all?

Where is it written in stone, that science must ignore the non physical? That is trash. Science can only observe interpret and explain by any means that man has at his disposal. If I hypothesize that man has a God given morality, and that explains things, than it is scientifically OK.

A theory that says God causes all things to attract and sustain in the order of the universe, is not less scientific than one that says gravity does that.

I was asking you to choose between hypotheses that both explain our existence.

I guess what you are saying is that the hypothesis of evolution cannot explain the origin of life while the hypothesis of creation can.