Evidence for God from Science

Paleontologists, archaelogists and evolutionists are known to lie on occassion, there's numerous accounts of this. So what they say doesn't mean much to me.

God created the laws of nature so me saying God did it is as viable as your scientific jargon.

I have nothing against learning chemistry, biology, what not, but don't attack the phrase "God did it" as every christian believes that yes in fact God did do it, we are just trying to figure out what or how he did it.

Also in your mind you don't understand Genesis very well or rather you don't make an effort to understand it. You have preconcieved notion that Genesis is wrong and obviously you have revealed your lack of understanding on that matter. I wouldn't jab at someone for maybe overlooking something about evolution when you overlook much about Genesis.

Good answer, mastermind

Hmm... Don't ask me why, I can't but thinking of the addage, "Give an inch, and they take a mile."

Ipazia wrote:

K wrote:but I do appreciate having someone on the other side who can discuss without attacking or taking jabs at Christianity.

I never attacked Christians or less than ever christianity.
I always attacked (and still attack) flawed arguments.
When you want my home is open to you. Do you want to come for dinner?
I have nothing against you or others. I just think some of your arguments
are wrong and feel the right (at least for scientific arguments) to discuss them. Can I?

Thing is, anything that leads to a Theistic conclusion appears to be flawed to you. Now discussions are fine by me, but arguments in favour of ones perspective vs. Christianity should be taken to a place such as Secular Web, as the guidelines do not support this. These guidelines are not to prevent so much what one says, but the type of people that should be posting, which should be those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds. In all honesty, I do not think you should be here since you have been quite clear in the past that you do not accept, nor are willing to accept, Christianity.

That said, as much as people may think of me here as a moderator nazi, I hate having to warn people, and turn some away . I'm all for those who aren't Christian and not even considering Christianity, to post and make Christians think more about issues as you initially did within this thread. However the moment such a person begins to raise tensions amongst Christians, and incite arguments where their position is stacked against Christianity, is the moment they cross the discussion guidelines in my opinion, and as a moderator I am required to uphold the discussion guidelines. These guidelines have come to be currently seen as the best way of fulfilling the desired purpose of GodandScience.org on the boards, seeing as it was thought the last board became overrun and failed to meet such a purpose.

I hope this helps to answer some things.

Ipazia wrote:

K wrote:Considering the problems with natural origin of life scenarios, I'm curious to know whether you think it would be a rational position for
someone to adopt a God belief?

Not in my definition of rational.
I acknowledge the possibility for someone to adopt a god belief on an emotional or mistical or moral motivation. I acknowledge the possibility for someone to adopting it as a scientific agent without rational motivation (what I called goddiditso position and what I have always acknowledged).

I think that I'll follow Flew's philosophy and continue following the Scientific evidence to where it leads, and thus accept an origins model, which I think best fulfills what we presently know through Science.

Kurieuo.

I don't have time to go into a lot of detail right now, however, I do have one source for you which states that bacteria do evolve faster than animals.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/090antibio_resist/

The creativity of bacteria in adapting to weird environments rests on their rapid multiplication, genetic exchange and frequent genetic errors. Errors, the building blocks for evolution, are "evaluated" by natural selection as an organism faces the demands of survival, and some are so beneficial that they are found in subsequent generations.

These factors explain why bacteria evolve much faster than, say, boa constrictors or duck-billed platypuses. This rapid evolution has produced antibiotic-resistant bacteria that...


I would like one source from you as well. You said Stephen Hawking(who is lingering between agnosticism-deism and hates to be called an atheist btw.) doesn't believe the universe had a beginning. Got a source?

i don't think so.
just learned that scientists and other experts still can't determine which part of the brain if any is responsible for self-awareness...maybe it comes from the soul...robots wouldn't have souls.

I'm late to the discussion but I thought I would state my point of view. I'm a programmer and I have taken courses on Artificial Intelligence, and I am familiar with Neural Nets and how they work. The way I see it, the key difference between a sentient being and a computer is the property of determinism. A human has the capabilty to act to the same situation in a variety of ways - including ones that are unusual and nonsensical - but most of all to act in a way that is unpredictable. A computer on the other hand is necessarily deterministic - meaning that given the exact same input conditions, the resulting action is completely consistent and predictable. This holds even for neural nets - they are still deterministic.

With this in mind, the next question to be asked is whether or not WE are determinstic. Maybe we are - maybe we are COMPLETELY predictable, maybe we are completely defined by our synaptic pathways, and maybe we're nothing more than complex robots that respond in set ways to a set of stimuli. Were this the case, it's not hard to see how the sum of our experiences would input into our behaviour (as would occur in a neural net).

BUT, this question is moving away from science and toward philosophy and religion. If we are simply deterministic machines, then do we truly have choice and free will, or is it simply an illusion? Even though a computer is completely predictable, it could become complicated enough that to factor in everything required predict its behaviour would be too difficult to be feasible - and if we reach this point can the computer then said to be 'alive?' And are we anything more than machines that are just too complicated to understand fully?

Ultimately what it comes down to, is what makes us sentient. What is it that gives us free will, and what makes us question the nature of our existance? I believe that it's our soul that provides the leap from machine to being. Our soul is what makes us beings created in the image of God - and it's this aspect of our being that provides our capability to love and be loved by Him. But with this realization, I would then have to conclude that animals are in fact merely very complicated machines. Which leads me to believe that in time, with enough advancement, we have the potential to develop computers that act as alive as any other animal - be it a dog or monkey. Given that type of intelligence coupled with perfect memory, almost instant calculation capabilities, and the ability to communicate with people, I do wonder if we will be able to tell the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

But could it understand abstract concepts? I know it wouldn't have any problem with calculus or physics, but could a computer ever understand emotions (I Robot comes to mind....which is Terminator with feelings and no artificial skin.

And my answer (to stay on topic) is no.

And mastermind, that's not evolution, it's the same bacteria that has a mutation at the right location so the drug can't attach and kill it. *sighs*

And I said no (back on topic).

Anyone got a good place to read up on neural networks?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But could it understand abstract concepts? I know it wouldn't have any problem with calculus or physics, but could a computer ever understand emotions (I Robot comes to mind....which is Terminator with feelings and no artificial skin.

And my answer (to stay on topic) is no.

Honestly I'm not convinced either way. Does an ant understand emotions? Maybe a honey bee? How about a frog? A mouse? A horse? Or maybe a dog?

As you go from less advanced to more advanced the evidence of emotion in animals seems to grow. But I'm claiming that our sentience is a result of our spiritual nature. So either our emotions are not completely tied to our sentience, or else animals are only simulating emotions. Either way, it would seem that computers should at least be able to act in the same manner as animals if they advance far enough. And would that not then count as being 'alive'?

You opened another door, the question of whether animals have real emotions or only look like they do. I'm going they only look like they do. Someone might say they show fear...but is that instinct designed by God so the animal wouldn't die when the first carnivore walked up to it?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You opened another door, the question of whether animals have real emotions or only look like they do. I'm going they only look like they do. Someone might say they show fear...but is that instinct designed by God so the animal wouldn't die when the first carnivore walked up to it?

Ok, if you take that position then I would have to say that computers could one day be as living as an animal. A computer could be made to simulate emotions very well. True sentience is something that I don't believe we could ever attain artificially, but the appearence of being alive - I wouldn't rule it out.

It's said that with our best super computers and algorithms we can currently mimick the intellect of a frog. So we've got a ways to go, but fortunately our computers double in speed in two years or less.

Show me a computer with higher intellect and capable of reproducing like a human with only one cell and work its way up...then I'll be amazed....

well, since there has been much research which demonstrates that animals have a large range of emotions, we can conclude that they are not simulating emotions. but that issue is tangential to this discussion. the soul does not determine emotion, it determines self-awareness. animals don't have self-awareness for the possible following reasons: they have no souls, their souls are different from ours, or they do not have eternal souls.

robots could never be self-aware because they would not have souls. man has not created anything yet which God has deemed worthy of being assigned a soul. why would God give robots souls?

colors wrote:well, since there has been much research which demonstrates that animals have a large range of emotions, we can conclude that they are not simulating emotions. but that issue is tangential to this discussion. the soul does not determine emotion, it determines self-awareness. animals don't have self-awareness for the possible following reasons: they have no souls, their souls are different from ours, or they do not have eternal souls.

I'm inclined to agree, and was really just trying to get someone else to weigh in on this - so thanks, even though you're a little late. See earlier:

Felgar wrote:But I'm claiming that our sentience is a result of our spiritual nature. So either our emotions are not completely tied to our sentience, or else animals are only simulating emotions. Either way, it would seem that computers should at least be able to act in the same manner as animals if they advance far enough. And would that not then count as being 'alive'?

colors wrote:robots could never be self-aware because they would not have souls. man has not created anything yet which God has deemed worthy of being assigned a soul. why would God give robots souls?

I completely agree - you need a soul to be self-aware. That would conclude the actual original topic.

But moving beyond that, do you need a soul to be 'alive'? Could a robot ever be made alive? Could we have robot companions as trustworthy and emotionally engaging as man's best friend some day?