Evidence for God from Science

chance wrote:I don't care so much about where life started - but where it ends and what is beyond that.

God does not always explain, especially to early humans, how things worked fully - they had limited vocabulary and understanding as do young children.

How, or even why, is not as important as a relationship with God and where we are going, and what he desires from us as his children.

Coming from a soup or even a monkey is no more amazing to me that I am here because two people had sex and I started as nothing more than a sperm and an egg and evolved into who I am now.

Makes no difference from where one came from, only matters where they are going.

And yet if someone states that science disproves an intelligent designer then this changes the argument considerably..

Gman wrote:No... This is a a supposed "scientific" anthropological observation making a theological claim. Don't deny it..

I deny it because it is patently untrue. The anthropology book says nothing at all about God, God's actions, God's will, etc.

You clearly stated materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance. You are clearly pulling your atheistic views out of science. Again science doesn't do that. People do.. It's how you interpret your science.

Changing your response I see.. Yes you have. You clearly stated that "materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance."

Materialism does account for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance. I'm not changing anything I said. Rather, I'm trying to help you understand it, but you seem to be disinterested in that, apparently favoring instead to try to catch me in a misstep. Since I don't appreciate that kind of conversation, this will be my last response to you for a while. But first I want to point you to where you can find an answer to the following...

I thought you said you had overwhelming evidence which supports the evolutionary theory?

So where is your overwhelming evidence?

I'm going to assume you're talking about common descent and not evolutionary theory in general. To that end, any or all of the following resources will be extremely useful, if you care to take advantage of them:

talk.origins archive (well-organized overview)

wikipedia (brief overview)

Richard Dawkins (book)

Charles Darwin (book)

the teaching company (lecture series)

That last one is extremely expensive, but well worth the money if you don't have any college-level background in biology. Also, Google's "site:.edu" parameter is rather helpful for specific questions about evolution.

Now, I don't expect you to find any of this convincing. You have a religious position on the origin of species, and that's going to guide your interpretation of evidence. All I can say is that you are welcome to your religious views, and I wish you well with them. I am not interested in arguing with you about them, though.

Gman: And yet if someone states that science disproves an intelligent designer then this changes the argument considerably..

I don't think science can disprove such. I could write an AI computer program, create a whole universe for it to live in, and it could never even prove I exist - it could though figure out, to some extent, how it came to be, the physics of it's universe (electronics/chips/etc in this case). It might see that it came from how electrons work, logic gateways, etc and the like and believe it just came into being (ala monkeys on a typewriter writing a novel scenario).

Heck, I could even zip around it's universe like one does in game, physics need not apply to the programmer - but most important, the logic we use need not apply either.

All too often people have created God in their own image and think he (it) would do things the same way they would...and so it makes no sense. But then those folks are really behind the times and science IMHO

hatsoff wrote:I deny it because it is patently untrue. The anthropology book says nothing at all about God, God's actions, God's will, etc.

The study of anthropology is not science? Then why was it offered to me as a science course? The book clearly stated that "religion" is based on faith and is not scientific. Do you really think it meant the atheistic religion? You even stated that my belief in God was religious. Why are you changing your tune now?

hatsoff wrote:Materialism does account for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance. I'm not changing anything I said.

Materialism, as you understand it, seems to be devoid of any God. The lens in which you define your reality..

hatsoff wrote:Rather, I'm trying to help you understand it, but you seem to be disinterested in that, apparently favoring instead to try to catch me in a misstep. Since I don't appreciate that kind of conversation, this will be my last response to you for a while. But first I want to point you to where you can find an answer to the following...

It appears you have nothing to offer or teach except soulless religion... Such a waste.

hatsoff wrote:I'm going to assume you're talking about common descent and not evolutionary theory in general. To that end, any or all of the following resources will be extremely useful, if you care to take advantage of them:

talk.origins archive (well-organized overview)

wikipedia (brief overview)

Richard Dawkins (book)

Charles Darwin (book)

the teaching company (lecture series)

That last one is extremely expensive, but well worth the money if you don't have any college-level background in biology. Also, Google's "site:.edu" parameter is rather helpful for specific questions about evolution.

Oh a shot gun approach? It's evident that you haven't debated this topic before.. The burden of proof is put forth on the person with the hypothesis. So where is the empirical evidence for this hypothesis in these links or books?

hatsoff wrote:Now, I don't expect you to find any of this convincing. You have a religious position on the origin of species, and that's going to guide your interpretation of evidence. All I can say is that you are welcome to your religious views, and I wish you well with them. I am not interested in arguing with you about them, though.

This is quite a laugh I must say.. My religious views... And yet you give your authority to science and to your natural world. Your god...

chance wrote:I don't think science can disprove such. I could write an AI computer program, create a whole universe for it to live in, and it could never even prove I exist - it could though figure out, to some extent, how it came to be, the physics of it's universe (electronics/chips/etc in this case). It might see that it came from how electrons work, logic gateways, etc and the like and believe it just came into being (ala monkeys on a typewriter writing a novel scenario).

Heck, I could even zip around it's universe like one does in game, physics need not apply to the programmer - but most important, the logic we use need not apply either.

All too often people have created God in their own image and think he (it) would do things the same way they would...and so it makes no sense. But then those folks are really behind the times and science IMHO

Science doesn't disprove God but people's philisophical view's do. What's even more annoying is when they try to pass them off as being scientific.

Have to agree with you on this:

Science doesn't disprove God but people's philisophical(sp) view's do. What's even more annoying is when they try to pass them off as being scientific.

Science is a vehicle to discovery, some ride it though not to discover but to bolster their own prejudices.

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:But naturalism, by very definition, cannot adjudicate on the supernatural. So why do so many seemingly sane people dismiss God on such a basis? Dogmatism? Desperation? It seems to me that to dismiss God you must first enter the philosophical, metaphysical and theological badlands rather than doing so on the strength of naturalistim.

I'd be very content with science not referencing God in any way but, at a minimum, recognizing its own limitation and making a full stop at attempting to answer what it cannot. Alas, not only it does not do that, it makes claims it cannot back up and puts them forth as fact.

Byblos, I've used this quote once on another thread but thought it quite apt to sum up both our thoughts...

"To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simple can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action)."
Stephen Jay Gould.

Seems the boy Gould had it about right, don't you think?

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:But naturalism, by very definition, cannot adjudicate on the supernatural. So why do so many seemingly sane people dismiss God on such a basis? Dogmatism? Desperation? It seems to me that to dismiss God you must first enter the philosophical, metaphysical and theological badlands rather than doing so on the strength of naturalistim.

I'd be very content with science not referencing God in any way but, at a minimum, recognizing its own limitation and making a full stop at attempting to answer what it cannot. Alas, not only it does not do that, it makes claims it cannot back up and puts them forth as fact.

Byblos, I've used this quote once on another thread but thought it quite apt to sum up both our thoughts...

"To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simple can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action)."
Stephen Jay Gould.

Seems the boy Gould had it about right, don't you think?

I think he did have it right. Too bad most science text books don't heed his advice.