Evidence for God from Science

Whenever I write an essay, I have to give a reference for everything. As of yet, Hawking has not. It would have been good if he stated his theories were theories, but he acts as if they're true when they're really ambiguous.

Telstra Robs wrote:Whenever I write an essay, I have to give a reference for everything. As of yet, Hawking has not. It would have been good if he stated his theories were theories, but he acts as if they're true when they're really ambiguous.

Since this is tv series, I think some of it was in the credits. If you want however you could buy the book.. But yes, this is simply speculation.

The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe

Gman wrote:
While I didn't see this show as being a direct attack against creationists, Stephen Hawking was just doing what he naturally does. He studies science. The problem here is when his "naturalistic" views collide with the Bible's view (as God being the creator). This can be a problem because science and the Bible deal with the same thing. Life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other spiritual. And that is why they "must" conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, life, from two different points of view. And Hawking clearly made the distinction between the two when he shot down the designer viewpoint. He drew a line in the sand which many naturally do...

In all, I highly disagree with the show.. We are not accidents, we are created in the image of God.

So, the problem with the show is that it demonstrates how science, based on innumerable mountains of evidence and centuries of human effort, collides with the belief system of a bronze age society?

Science will always conflict with religion, because it's based on reasoning and a search for objectivity. Religion celebrates subjectivity, ritualism, absence of critical thinking and submission to established dogmas.

Hawkings used the word "accident" refering to an improbable event, something perhaps you didn't quite get. Given millions of years, any improbable event will happen at least once. And that's how life emerged. Chemistry laws permit it.

Your "created in the image of god" concept is a subjective view that sounds nicer to you, and that's why you believe it to be better, no matter what evidence or research says.

Facundo wrote:So, the problem with the show is that it demonstrates how science, based on innumerable mountains of evidence and centuries of human effort, collides with the belief system of a bronze age society?

Science will always conflict with religion, because it's based on reasoning and a search for objectivity. Religion celebrates subjectivity, ritualism, absence of critical thinking and submission to established dogmas.

Religion sounds nice but some believe it is wrong based on materialistic philosophy. It's almost like the heart vs. the brain conflict. The heart is what we use for religion and the brain is what we use for science. Religion essentially is what you believe because of faith. With science, you need evidence and need to back it up. Science deals with the material world of genes and cells, religion with the spiritual world of value and meaning. Science is about facts, religion is about personal values. This isn't even accurate, because Christianity does make claims about the material world, about the cosmos, about human nature, events in history, etc..

If evolutionary forces produced the mind then things like religion and morality and no longer transcendent truths, but are things simply produced by humans imagination, they are products subjectivity.

Facundo wrote:Hawkings used the word "accident" refering to an improbable event, something perhaps you didn't quite get. Given millions of years, any improbable event will happen at least once. And that's how life emerged. Chemistry laws permit it.

Your "created in the image of god" concept is a subjective view that sounds nicer to you, and that's why you believe it to be better, no matter what evidence or research says.

Chemistry laws permit it? It certainly does NOT.... Again that is an assumption that isn't backed up by the empirical evidence. It's simply guesswork. A religion in itself...

Gman wrote:
Religion sounds nice but some believe it is wrong based on materialistic philosophy. It's almost like the heart vs. the brain conflict. The heart is what we use for religion and the brain is what we use for science. Religion essentially is what you believe because of faith. With science, you need evidence and need to back it up. Science deals with the material world of genes and cells, religion with the spiritual world of value and meaning. Science is about facts, religion is about personal values. This isn't even accurate, because Christianity does make claims about the material world, about the cosmos, about human nature, events in history, etc..

If evolutionary forces produced the mind then things like religion and morality and no longer transcendent truths, but are things simply produced by humans imagination, they are products subjectivity.

Yes, religion and morality are subjective. You're confirming my point.

Gman wrote:
Chemistry laws permit it? It certainly does NOT.... Again that is an assumption that isn't backed up by the empirical evidence. It's simply guesswork. A religion in itself...

Oh, so chemistry laws forbid aminoacides to thump together? or phospholipids to form micelles? Or order to arise from chaos? Are those unsupported by empirical evidence?

Facundo wrote:Yes, religion and morality are subjective. You're confirming my point.

Not at all.. I was just following your logic. And what of religion? Anything that is seeking to probe or give answers to that question is considered a religious confession. Not just simply to those who have an outward form of worship. You simply make your own religion, the one that best fits your needs. Your religion simply becomes your own philosophy. Everyone is capable of being religious in that sense.

Facundo wrote:Oh, so chemistry laws forbid aminoacides to thump together? or phospholipids to form micelles? Or order to arise from chaos? Are those unsupported by empirical evidence?

To make a cell out of nothing? Tell me... Where are the instructions coming from to form it? How is it formed from inorganic matter and please provide sources.. Show me.. I want details.

Gman wrote:
Not at all.. I was just following your logic. And what of religion? Anything that is seeking to probe or give answers to that question is considered a religious confession. Not just simply to those who have an outward form of worship. You simply make your own religion, the one that best fits your needs. Your religion simply becomes your own philosophy. Everyone is capable of being religious in that sense.

So... you are defining religion just by a philosophy of life? In other words, holy books and religious institutions are not important? Because that's the only religion that I find sense in, and it's not the religion I see in 99.99% of believers.

And I know that if not for religious indoctrination you wouldn't be a believer. Everyone's born an atheist.

Gman wrote: To make a cell out of nothing? Tell me... Where are the instructions coming from to form it? How is it formed from inorganic matter and please provide sources.. Show me.. I want details.

Oh, so you think the abiogenesis theory states that nothing formed a cell? You're confusing the scientific abiogenesis theory with creatonism, that DOES say everything came out of a wizard's hat. Look the theory up.

You don't need instructions. I won't explain this again, it's the same flawed argument as that of "evolution requires a designer". Look it up, too.

When I first heard about evolution, I wondered how did they discover such a powerful theory and looked for the original documents, and all of the modernisation of it. As I learned more about the facts, everything fell into place and the theory seemed solid, consistent. You, on the other hand, stubbornly wait for someone to "enlighten" you, to "Show you the details". Look them up.

If you really care about the truth, that is.

Facundo wrote: So... you are defining religion just by a philosophy of life? In other words, holy books and religious institutions are not important? Because that's the only religion that I find sense in, and it's not the religion I see in 99.99% of believers.

If you say that science can only be explained in the natural world only, then you are giving your authority to science only to the natural world.

We are religious animals that cannot help but think that something is divine. If you deny the authority of God, that He created all things, you haven't denied the concept of authority, you simply transfer it to something else like nature or mother nature, evolution, etc... You just transfer your authority to your own knowledge, your own experiences, etc.

Facundo wrote:And I know that if not for religious indoctrination you wouldn't be a believer. Everyone's born an atheist.

Well that is a bunch of bull...

Facundo wrote:Oh, so you think the abiogenesis theory states that nothing formed a cell? You're confusing the scientific abiogenesis theory with creatonism, that DOES say everything came out of a wizard's hat. Look the theory up.

What's the matter, can't answer my questions? Scientific abiogenesis? Ok prove it... Because of the obvious problems abiogenesis is, at best, myth of modern science. At worst, abiogenesis is the lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend to know more about the origin of life than we actually do, we are fooling ourselves.

Your religion is faith based that requires miracles too..

According to George Wald all we need is time to perform the naturalistic miracles. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probably virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

Even Darwin admitted this, as he stated, “To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”

Facundo wrote:You don't need instructions. I won't explain this again, it's the same flawed argument as that of "evolution requires a designer". Look it up, too.

You don't need instructions to design a cell? No codes? Oh well but this isn't science then...

Facundo wrote:When I first heard about evolution, I wondered how did they discover such a powerful theory and looked for the original documents, and all of the modernisation of it. As I learned more about the facts, everything fell into place and the theory seemed solid, consistent. You, on the other hand, stubbornly wait for someone to "enlighten" you, to "Show you the details". Look them up.

If you really care about the truth, that is.

Powerful theory? You have the truth?? Well that's a laugh... There are no solid facts for it. Even your most ardent supporter won't admit this.. Maybe in cases of microevolution, but certainly not marco..

Also did you see what Hawking said? He stated, "The most plausible answer is we are an accident." Plausible?? He is making it a solid fact?

If so prove it... We are waiting..

There maybe no facts other than natural facts, but of course is that what you mean that doesn't get you what you want and need which is your reason for believing that there are no facts other than natural facts. It just gives you the way you are choosing to use the term. But can natural facts explain everything? Look it up..

Facundo wrote:Religion celebrates subjectivity, ritualism, absence of critical thinking and submission to established dogmas.

Care to back any of this up with anything other that your own subjective feelings?

Facundo wrote:Given millions of years, any improbable event will happen at least once. And that's how life emerged. Chemistry laws permit it.

Care to provide the empiricism to back up this rather wild statement?

Gman wrote:To make a cell out of nothing? Tell me... Where are the instructions coming from to form it? How is it formed from inorganic matter and please provide sources.. Show me.. I want details.

Facundo wrote:Oh, so you think the abiogenesis theory states that nothing formed a cell? You're confusing the scientific abiogenesis theory with creatonism, that DOES say everything came out of a wizard's hat. Look the theory up.

Gman wrote:What's the matter, can't answer my questions? Scientific abiogenesis? Ok prove it... Because of the obvious problems abiogenesis is, at best, myth of modern science. At worst, abiogenesis is the lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend to know more about the origin of life than we actually do, we are fooling ourselves.

Gman, that's unfair...He can't answer your questions. He's tripped himself up already. He's a "critical thinker," Gman, and like most self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" he isn't actually thinking straight.

DannyM wrote:Gman, that's unfair...[Facundo] can't answer your questions. He's tripped himself up already. He's a "critical thinker," Gman, and like most self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" he isn't actually thinking straight.

Correct. Atheists are by and large not critical thinkers when it comes to dealing with faith since their worldview is itself rooted in hatred of God. I speak as a former atheist (30+ years as a fool) who was actively involved in the Montreal chapter of Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement. Atheists may be critical thinkers in other areas, such as their job or academic pursuits - or sports - but they are self-deluded when they think their ability to think critically extends to Christianity. No one - no one - can at once hate a subject and be able to «think critically» about that same subject. Hello?!

Re-read this bizarre statement made by our latest Ps 14:1 guy:

Facundo wrote: In other words, holy books and religious institutions are not important? Because that's the only religion that I find sense in, and it's not the religion I see in 99.99% of believers.

What he seems to be saying is that religious forms and traditions are more worthwhile than an actual relationship with God, AKA «Faith». Exactly the message a degenerate mind would approve of. Variants of this would be: «all religions lead to God» and «whatever works for you [is OK]»

Take it from me - a former atheist - athiests are stupid, period. I didn't say that, God did.

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:What he seems to be saying is that religious forms and traditions are more worthwhile than an actual relationship with God, AKA «Faith». Exactly the message a degenerate mind would approve of. Variants of this would be: «all religions lead to God» and «whatever works for you [is OK]»

Take it from me - a former atheist - athiests are stupid, period. I didn't say that, God did.

FL

True.. I think the trap that many fall into is that one is religious or needing faith only if one follows the "traditional" relationships with God or some other spiritual deity.. The problem with this is there is absolutely no doubt certain evolutionary beliefs also require faith -plenty of it.

Most don't realize that when it comes to the particulars of evolutionary theory, faith is required in each case, and Darwinian evolution has other religious aspects as well. Evolutionary theory has its own creator "gods" (time, chance, matter, natural selection), its own faith in the miraculous, its own creeds, altars, and heresies. Even Darwin himself referred to "my deity, Natural Selection."

Directed by all-powerful natural selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. Just look at Stephen Hawking's title.. "The Story of Everything." Sounds like an ultimate belief to me. The answer for everything in existence... An accident. A holy one albeit...

In hindsight... I've seen many evolutionists on this forum get very emotional and defensive when you talk about their beliefs. It's no wonder, I would probably get emotional too if you attacked my religion as well. It's personal... It's a god..

Gman wrote:
Well that is a bunch of bull...

Nice christian retort.

Gman wrote:
You don't need instructions to design a cell? No codes? Oh well but this isn't science then...

You need instructions to build a modern cell, but not for a primordial one. You seem to confuse those two.

Gman wrote:
Powerful theory? You have the truth?? Well that's a laugh... There are no solid facts for it. Even your most ardent supporter won't admit this.. Maybe in cases of microevolution, but certainly not marco..

There's lot of solid facts and evidence, such as aminoacides already in comets going near earth. MOUNTAINS of evidence actually, but it's nothing a christian would read anyway, would it?

If you grant credibility to microevolution and acknowledge population bottlenecks have happened, you're granting credibility to macroevolution. They are not separate.

Gman wrote:
What's the matter, can't answer my questions? Scientific abiogenesis? Ok prove it... Because of the obvious problems abiogenesis is, at best, myth of modern science. At worst, abiogenesis is the lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend to know more about the origin of life than we actually do, we are fooling ourselves.

Your religion is faith based that requires miracles too..

According to George Wald all we need is time to perform the naturalistic miracles. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probably virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

Even Darwin admitted this, as he stated, “To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”

Your questions can be answered by Wikipedia and 30 minutes of source-checking. If you think you can't do that, or you think you're important enough to deserve someone to chew it all for you and explain it... You are deluded either way.

You seem to confuse a theory with a hunch. You should read more about aminoacides and phospholypids (hint: it's not in the bible).

Gman wrote:
Also did you see what Hawking said? He stated, "The most plausible answer is we are an accident." Plausible?? He is making it a solid fact?

If so prove it... We are waiting..

There maybe no facts other than natural facts, but of course is that what you mean that doesn't get you what you want and need which is your reason for believing that there are no facts other than natural facts. It just gives you the way you are choosing to use the term. But can natural facts explain everything? Look it up..

Science's not about certainty, it's about the search for it. Religion's ALL about certainty. That's where the problem lies.

So far, natural effects can explain everything around us. Even if they didn't right now, it doesn't mean that one day they won't, and that we should believe in baseless religion stories.

A harsh truth's better than a comforting lie.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DannyM wrote:Gman, that's unfair...[Facundo] can't answer your questions. He's tripped himself up already. He's a "critical thinker," Gman, and like most self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" he isn't actually thinking straight.

Correct. Atheists are by and large not critical thinkers when it comes to dealing with faith since their worldview is itself rooted in hatred of God. I speak as a former atheist (30+ years as a fool) who was actively involved in the Montreal chapter of Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement. Atheists may be critical thinkers in other areas, such as their job or academic pursuits - or sports - but they are self-deluded when they think their ability to think critically extends to Christianity. No one - no one - can at once hate a subject and be able to «think critically» about that same subject. Hello?!

Re-read this bizarre statement made by our latest Ps 14:1 guy:

Facundo wrote: In other words, holy books and religious institutions are not important? Because that's the only religion that I find sense in, and it's not the religion I see in 99.99% of believers.

What he seems to be saying is that religious forms and traditions are more worthwhile than an actual relationship with God, AKA «Faith». Exactly the message a degenerate mind would approve of. Variants of this would be: «all religions lead to God» and «whatever works for you [is OK]»

Take it from me - a former atheist - athiests are stupid, period. I didn't say that, God did.

FL

That's ok, sidestep every argument I wrote and accuse me of being "emotional". Christians are expert at dodging arguments, and you're a perfect example.

What I wrote (and perhaps it was hard for you to get it through your skull) was that religion beliefs are permissible, but not when they interfere with social common good, politics, economy, sex and war.