Evidence for God from Science

I'd like to apologize if my posts seem too inflammatory. I never liked all the arrogant atheists out there, and do my best not to be like them, but I always liked to really get into these debates.

it seems you are implying therefore no God exists.

I'm not. I'm just saying that no theory makes use of God, making him superfluous to those theories.

Hey BGood, glad to see you here!! Haven't seen many posts lately.

Kynaros wrote: You still don't get it. I am not saying that God does not exist, or that evolution even talks about him, since that would make zero sense.

Please stop twisting your words... You clearly stated, "Therefore no God is required."

Kynaros wrote:I am only saying that he is not required for any of these theories to work. What is so hard to understand about that? Please present evidence to the contrary if you disagree. Sorry, but none of my chemistry or biology textbooks make any reference to God.

Again you are confused... You are divorcing God out of science, even if it relates to a theory.. Also look at your last sentence.. You stated, "There are perfectly good explanations out there that don't require a God." Again.. Science and evolution do not point to the existence or non existence of God...

Kynaros wrote:Sorry, but no. I simply admit that evolution is the best explanation we have. I never made any sort of commitments that it's 100% right. It's not faith because I do not have 100% confidence in it, and would ditch it the moment something better came up. Whereas Christians seem to know that their God is the right one and would never ditch him no matter what other kind of idea of God you proposed to them.

If you are not required to have 100% confidence in it, then sorry, you WILL need some faith to believe in it.

Yes, but science does not "prove" anything, and even our best theories could be proven false later. Science has not proven that the universe came out of nothing. That would violate the laws of thermodynamics, hence the need for multiverse theories or the like.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. You are claiming however to have a weight of evidence.. So I ask, how does your weight of evidence deny the presence of a creator?

zoegirl wrote:Hey BGood, glad to see you here!! Haven't seen many posts lately.

Hi zoegirl!

I've been lurking, haven't seen the need to get involved lately.

Gman wrote:Stop twisting your words... You clearly stated, "Therefore no God is required."

The only one that's seriously confused here is you. I seriously can't believe you've never heard a variant of the "____ is not required" expression. Let me break it down:

1) "No membership is required" does NOT mean that people are required to NOT have a membership. They can either have or not have a membership. But having one is not necessary.
2) "No god is required" does NOT mean that these theories require no God. It means that God is not necessary in these theories. Do you understand yet?

If you are not required to have 100% confidence in it, then sorry, you WILL need some faith to believe in it.

You seem to be hung up on this idea that people need to believe in something, that nobody can live without uncertainty and doubt. Well guess what, that's not true. Some people are more comfortable with not knowing all the answers than just making one up or believing in whatever is comfortable.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. You are claiming however to have a weight of evidence.. So I ask, how does your weight of evidence deny the presence of a creator?

I could just as well ask how your non-existing evidence for a creator denies the presence of evolution?

Again, I'm agnostic, so I could care less whether the creator exists or not. I simply deal with observable reality.

Kynaros wrote: The only one that's seriously confused here is you. I seriously can't believe you've never heard a variant of the "____ is not required" expression. Let me break it down:

1) "No membership is required" does NOT mean that people are required to NOT have a membership. They can either have or not have a membership. But having one is not necessary.
2) "No god is required" does NOT mean that these theories require no God. It means that God is not necessary in these theories. Do you understand yet?

Well obviously you don't read what you write... Read your first statement.

"I also have an appreciation for life, but I see no evidence that there's any sort of God pulling strings in the background. Instead, nature works by itself, and that I think, makes it much more amazing than it would be if we just chalked the whole thing up to some sort of God.

Looks like you are changing your stance... By the way I'm still waiting for your "nature works by itself" evidence. Why don't you show us this evidence?

How silly of me... Of course you don't deny the existence of God...

Kynaros wrote:You seem to be hung up on this idea that people need to believe in something, that nobody can live without uncertainty and doubt. Well guess what, that's not true. Some people are more comfortable with not knowing all the answers than just making one up or believing in whatever is comfortable.

What do you mean whatever is comfortable?

Kynaros wrote:Again, I'm agnostic, so I could care less whether the creator exists or not. I simply deal with observable reality.

Again I would question your religious reality.. Science is also not about believing. If science is about observation and experimentation, then we know what happens when conditions are met.

Gman wrote: but I see no evidence that there's any sort of God pulling strings in the background.

Just because I see no evidence doesn't mean that it couldn't exist. I tried to make this clear.

By the way I'm still waiting for your "nature works by itself" evidence. Why don't you show us this evidence?

Not to sound condescending, but take any science class to see this evidence. Seriously, if anybody ever got "god is pulling the strings in the background" out of a science class, then they obviously didn't understand the material.

I think the point he was trying to make is that you will never be able to prove that nature works by itself. It's not as if you can examine a control universe and declare "see, in Universe A, we see life happening perfectly fine without God"

At most you can simply argue that science as a purely naturalistic study can offer no answers, however, that is completely different than declaring that nature works by itself. You simply cannot know that. You may like that idea and prefer that, but you have no way of knowing.

To use the analogy, we cannot examine the strings or rather we cannot examine life without the strings.

Kynaros wrote:Just because I see no evidence doesn't mean that it couldn't exist. I tried to make this clear.

Right... But apparently nature by itself can provide the evidence. How?

Kynaros wrote:Not to sound condescending, but take any science class to see this evidence. Seriously, if anybody ever got "god is pulling the strings in the background" out of a science class, then they obviously didn't understand the material.

I thought you said that science doesn't address the existence of God? Science is neutral to the existence of God so how ever could it? Therefore you can't take science to disprove the existence of God too..

hoist with his own petard

zoegirl wrote:At most you can simply argue that science as a purely naturalistic study can offer no answers, however, that is completely different than declaring that nature works by itself. You simply cannot know that. You may like that idea and prefer that, but you have no way of knowing.

More of this "you can't prove it's not God" stuff eh. I also can't prove that it's not Santa Claus, or a giant clown. But none of these assumptions are productive. The fact remains that out of everything we have seen, God does not partake an active process in anything. The burden of proof is on you if you want to refute my claim that nature works by itself and insist that there is an extra superfluous element. By definition, anything existing in our universe is "nature" and does work by itself, so this kind of argumentation doesn't even make any sense.

In fact, what you guys have basically done here with this argument is create an endless merry-go-round of fallacies, untruths and non-sequiturs.

Gman wrote:Right... But apparently nature by itself can provide the evidence. How?

I never claimed such, but if the bible is to be believed:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." - Psalms 19:1

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:20

Are you a Christian? Do you believe that God interferes in our universe at all?

Gman wrote:I thought you said that science doesn't address the existence of God? Science is neutral to the existence of God so how ever could it? Therefore you can't take science to disprove the existence of God too..

What? You asked me to show you how nature can work by itself, not address the existence of God.

Kynaros wrote: Well, if the bible is to be believed:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." - Psalms 19:1

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:20

Are you a Christian? Do you believe that God interferes in our universe at all?

Oh I believe that God interferes all the time... In nature, in the universe, in everything.. And you have beautifully proved it too because you couldn't provide any evidence to the contrary.. Thank you.

Kynaros wrote:What? You asked me to show you how nature can work by itself, not address the existence of God.

You stated that nature, by itself, can chalk everything up.. So the burden of proof is on you.

Where is this mountain of evidence that nature, by itself without God, can account for everything in the universe? Don't be bashful.. Just provide it...

Gman wrote:Oh I believe that God interferes all the time... In nature, in the universe, in everything.. And you have beautifully proved it too because you couldn't provide any evidence to the contrary.. Thank you.

*facepalm

I proved something because I couldn't find any evidence to the contrary? You need a serious refresher in logic and critical thinking.

Anyway, 100% of everything we have found does not show any evidence that God is interfering. So again, the burden of proof is on you if you wish to insist there's an extra totally unnecessary element.

Kynaros wrote:Where is this mountain of evidence that nature, by itself without God, can account for everything in the universe? Don't be bashful.. Just provide it...

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/ ... tional.jpg

Everything in the universe? No, sorry I never said that. In my original post I was talking only about the evidence that I have seen. Unfortunately, the strawman argument and twisting my words is not a valid debate tactic.

Kynaros wrote: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/ ... tional.jpg
Everything in the universe? No, sorry I never said that. In my original post I was talking only about the evidence that I have seen. Unfortunately, the strawman argument and twisting my words is not a valid debate tactic.

You stated that God does not partake an active process in anything...

Very cute... Well since you don't want to talk about science perhaps you would be better off at the philosophy forums... That is where you are taking the argument.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

Enjoy...

@Kynaros:

Will you at least admit that it takes faith to believe in evolution? Obviously you believe that God is a delusion, but at the very least you should be able to admit that evolution (which you seem to define as nature working by itself -- according to your first post), also takes a leap of faith.

By the way, I would like to give a big thumbs up to the administrators of this board. You all do a very good job of keeping the discussion civil. Unfortunately, many Christian boards end up dissolving into name calling and vitriol, so keep up the good work.

And Happy Easter everyone!!