Evidence for God from Science

unless the intelligent designer was always present, in which case it was not created.

Anyone can take out this mad hatter. Goooooooood.

This is the whole point. The precept of ID is that design can be somehow "scientifically proven". ID goes on to infer a (unspecified) designer of some shape or form.

What do you mean by proven? Science can't prove anything.

No it doesn't, but I respectfully think you may do. Certainly if one thinks the intelligent designer is God then the implication is that God can be scientifically studied - predicted, measured and tested.

No sir. Science, by definition, cannot analyze God.

Meanwhile I just showed how simple logical argument can be used on the premise: "A designer exists" (and ID does say a designer exists). Either the designer or designers is/are natural or supernatural. Either way it produces nonsense - hence the premise is wrong.

If your false premises were not false then you'd be somewhat correct. Though even if you were correct, some of what you say is still not necessarily true.

mathmystic wrote:

c) The speed of light is not constant

In any medium, such as glass or water, the speed of light is only assumed to be constant in a vacuum.

you are going to have to explain much better how you arrive at the conclusion that there is no designer if the designer is "natural"

perhaps you can help then ...

... if you offer up some examples of who a "natural" candidate for intelligent designer might be, let's see if any of them make sense. Then perhaps we can see a generic pattern to describe all of them.

mathmystic wrote:

you are going to have to explain much better how you arrive at the conclusion that there is no designer if the designer is "natural"

perhaps you can help then ...

... if you offer up some examples of who a "natural" candidate for intelligent designer might be, let's see if any of them make sense. Then perhaps we can see a generic pattern to describe all of them.

You are trying to deflect the discussion away from your faulty logic. For your conclusion to hold true, it means that you have to have scientifically investigated every possibility for a designer in the entire universe, which clearly no-one has. The particular identity of the designer has no relevance to that.

... Science can't prove anything. ... Science, by definition, cannot analyze God

Good, then presumably you do not believe in ID - whose proponents seek to establish scientific proof for intelligent design and thereby an intelligent designer.

you have to have scientifically investigated every possibility for a designer in the entire universe

Fortunately not. That's why we have scientific theorems.

mathmystic wrote:

you have to have scientifically investigated every possibility for a designer in the entire universe

Fortunately not. That's why we have scientific theorems.

Right, and those theorems are the result of inductive science, reaching general conclusions based on specific observations. In arguing for a designer, that is exactly the case.

I am curious about something else. You claim to be a believer in God. What has lead you to believe in God?

mathmystic wrote:

... Science can't prove anything. ... Science, by definition, cannot analyze God

Good, then presumably you do not believe in ID - whose proponents seek to establish scientific proof for intelligent design and thereby an intelligent designer.

Really? You know what the proponents of ID say? Have you read any of their books? Uncommon Dissent? Darwin's Black Box? Anything?

theorems are the result of inductive science, reaching general conclusions based on specific observations

up to a point (see the opening post). Science also uses pure logic, and is sufficient here to dismiss the case for a designer.

mathmystic wrote:

theorems are the result of inductive science, reaching general conclusions based on specific observations

up to a point (see the opening post). Science also uses pure logic, and is sufficient here to dismiss the case for a designer.

No, you quoted the scientific method, that is an inductive process.

You can assert all you like that logic is sufficient to dismiss the case for a designer, you have not demonstrated that.

Maybe a syllogism will help.

You also did not answer my question on how you came to believe in God.

You know what the proponents of ID say?

I do and disagree with their conclusions. Meanwhile I have been debating via email with Dembski, Behe and Calvert.

They are all very interesting and civil people, and very generous with their time.

Really? Because if you had, Dembski, being a philosopher, would have pinned you to the wall. And when will you answer my questions? What is proof? Let's start with that.

mathmystic wrote:Interestingly you offer absolutely nothing to refute the simple systemic argument above as to the impossibility of an “Intelligent Designer” that can be studied in the science classroom.

I believe in God, but not a scientifically provable God. Proof precludes the need for faith. Faith is necessary simply because there is no proof.

Reading through your comments, though it appears you think of God as a “rational God” who thinks like humans — designing things like we might do.

I don't believe in a God who thinks like humans, however. This seems to me how we differ.

B. W wrote:Every experiment used to prove evolutionary processes was made by someone who had intelligently designed the test/experiment. Therefore, intelligent design is probable.

Next, Mathematical probability reveals that some things are just impossible to just happen. Remember, Darwin intelligently developed his theory and others adapted to it as well.

Also Physics / Mathematics prove there is an order to the universe — a measurable design.

Being able to deduce these equations / formulas takes intelligence. Intelligence of itself proves design. If these things exist, and there is a design and pattern to the entire natural world as well as mathematics, then there must be a head designer somewhere desiring to engage our own intelligence for some intention.

Just the fact we can use our intelligence to attempt to prove or disprove God existence reveals another measurable means to note intelligent design at work. If our own intelligence exists, so can, in all probability, another far greater intelligent designer, or designers, also exist due to the design and pattern of the entire natural world as well as mathematics.

Therefore, from our own existence and arguments we can note two great intelligent designers at work: one designer with intelligence busy blinding people to reject God's existence and another intelligent designer busy revealing that He, God, does indeed exist. How? by engaging our human intelligence.

What camp do you choose to reside? - One that rejects God rationally well? Or one that rationally accepts God as He is? If one rationally or irrationally rejects, God, why would God want to live next to you forever?

Where do you want to reside? You and I have a 50/50 chance to make the correct intelligent decision. Why make the wrong one that offers no return?

You claim, “that I have - absolutely nothing to refute the simple systemic argument above as to the impossibility of an “Intelligent Designer” that can be studied in the science classroom.”

In this you err,

Every experiment used to prove evolutionary processes was made by someone who had intelligently designed the test/experiment. Therefore, intelligent design is probable because each test proves the need for someone with intelligence to plan and create the test/experiment using some design and method.

Physics / Mathematics / Biology / Earth and Atmospheric sciences all prove there is an order to the universe — a measurable design. Lets toss is chemistry, pharmacology, and a host of other science disciplines. These detect design, patterns all around us. The problem resides not with the data but rather how one's intelligence interprets this data. Herein lies the construct of error: biased intelligence.

It is amazing how brilliant man and women go to such great lengths to interpret that the orderly data of the universe proves no intelligent design, no God, because it cannot be tested. It has — but reading the data through rose colored glasses prevents one from seeing anything except their own exalted intelligence.

If the evidence — hard core evidence can be read and deciphered — then what is the conclusion? All creation was fashioned with an intelligent design in mind. Therefore what else can you deduce? I guess that ...

People hate God and want nothing to do with Him. People deny God so they cannot be held responsible for their own actions and justify how they personally live. People acknowledge a form of God that is impotent so they can claim they have a form of godliness based on their great intelligence and works. Or a few people who acknowledge God and simply accept Him by faith concerning all He is and all He does. These see the data that all creation displays and thus return to God on God's terms.

Romans1:18-23 — was written before Darwin, before all the advancements of modern science, and its truth still rings true for today…

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” NKJV
-
-
-

mathmystic wrote:

I do and disagree with their conclusions. Meanwhile I have been debating via email with Dembski, Behe and Calvert.

They are all very interesting and civil people, and very generous with their time.

Can you PM me their e-mail addresses? I'd like to ask a couple of questions as well.

I for one am an old earth creationist.

I think what is happening with the Intelligent Design movement is pretty much an attempt to by-pass the separation of Church and State in the Public Schools which I happen to disagree with as it is currently applied.

I think in the long run we're making a mistake by attempting to reintroduce religious thought in the realm of science rather than allowing it to be what it is.

There's nothing wrong with religious or theistic philosophical thought. There are varying degrees of materialistic thought that purports to not incorporate presuppositions but in the end we all build a framework through which we interpret reality. Even the most militant atheist, if they are honest, cannot have a sane system without their own leaps, however they may qualify them.

Intelligent Design is ultimately not science and can never be. While the presence of a designer may be inferred, and I believe it is, it can never be proven short of direct revelation. As such it is not falsifiable and fails as science.

I think evolution has some elements lacking as a philosophy and there are several leaps from science into philosophy that take place and are dressed up as science. I think we'd be better served focusing on that element and seeking to allow theistic philosophy to be taught in a different context within schools other than science.

Of course, the ultimate solution is to stop playing the game by their rules and send your children to a private school where you can choose what the topics of teaching are. Science needs to be taught however, and not dressed up as the anti-Christ the way too many Christians do. Science is pretty much amoral. It is a method and it can yield great results and has. It can seep into philosophy and does. Evolution as a science is really a pretty benign thing. It's when it is built into the realm of religion and philosophy as a substitute for God it ceases to be science yet our education system doesn't recognize that to the degree they target anything religious.

Those are my thoughts for what they are worth.

We're fighting the wrong battle. We're allowing our opponents to frame the question. Intelligent Design is more politics and social engineering and a fall back to post-modernistic thinking that is attempting to use some of the weapons of our opponents against them. It may have some level of expediency but in the end I think it fails for us and concedes too much.

Just my opinion though.