Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:As C.S.Lewis said, "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."

I cannot agree with C.S.Lewis. Why could not we find out that universe has no meaning?

I'm pretty sure the key word here is "should". If in fact we found the universe had no meaning, it was a mistake to even start the venture of proving it because it only confirms that the totality of our existence is at the end of a very short fuse, basically destroying any hope we would have of living on after this life.

Echoside wrote: I'm pretty sure the key word here is "should". If in fact we found the universe had no meaning, it was a mistake to even start the venture of proving it because it only confirms that the totality of our existence is at the end of a very short fuse, basically destroying any hope we would have of living on after this life.

Now, reading the Lewis's sentence again with the stressed word SHOULD I see the new meaning of the sentence. I allow to say that Lewis accepts the possibility that universe has no meaning but he expresses his wish that people never find out that universe has no meaning.
Echoside, if universe has no meaning, why is it a mistake to discover it? Because the hope would be lost? Because there would be nothing to live for? Do you think that people would destroy themselves when there is no more religion? We can only speculate what would happen. I think the 'mistake' would be to close our eyes before the truth, whatever the truth is, unless we want to live in a dream.
Science is not here to prove or disprove the God. Science is here to prove or to disprove theories. And if you wish, the Chistian God is one of the theories. But I really do not know how science can prove/disprove God. Are somewhere in scriptures written concrete things, things that people could not know about in the past but nowadays we are able to prove or disprove that? Science prove or disprove theories which give predictions. And scientists put ahead theories with the smallest input but the biggest output. But theory gets never proved. It only passes tests. If only one test is not in agreement the theory is disproved. But never we can prove theory. We can never test them at energies not accesible for us. But anyway, isn't it amazing what science has achieved so far?

1over137 wrote:I cannot agree with C.S.Lewis. Why could not we find out that universe has no meaning?

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." --C.S.Lewis on materialistic thoughts

Makes perfect sense to me. Chemical reactions in the brain can not account for the human reason, as they are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry.

If chemical reactions don't account for brain activity, how come mind altering drugs affect the brain and our consciousness? All they do is create a chemical reaction in the brain. Neurologists have also been able to test which of the brain do what and how they work (including the parts that account for reasoning), and the prevalent consensus amoung them is that the brain is materialistic. Researchers develop medicines and medical drugs under the assumption that the brain functions entirely by chemical reactions and they seem to be rather successful. I agree with CS Lewis that the universe has meaning, but materialism does have it's arguements...

As for if there is a science that can disprove God, there definitely isn't any accepted science that disproves God or suggests that he doesn't exist. I can think of a hypothetical finding that COULD do this though, that is if cosmologists were able to prove that existence (mutiverse, whatever exists outside our universe) had no beginning that required imput and is either an infinitely regressing chain of cause and effect, or that the mutiverse is timeless like how we think of God.

Seraph wrote:I can think of a hypothetical finding that COULD do this though, that is if cosmologists were able to prove that existence (mutiverse, whatever exists outside our universe) had no beginning that required imput and is either an infinitely regressing chain of cause and effect, or that the mutiverse is timeless like how we think of God.

Science has shown the universe is not timeless as postulated by the big bang theory; the existence of multi-verse does not negate a first cause as postulated by the BVG theorem (in fact an uncaused cause is necessitated), and Infinite regress has been dis-proven mathematically (applied mathematics that is), philosophically, metaphysically, and every other kind of '...cally' you could think of.

Seraph wrote:If chemical reactions don't account for brain activity, how come mind altering drugs affect the brain and our consciousness? All they do is create a chemical reaction in the brain.

It's true that drugs affect the brain, and that a part of the brain function is chemistry, but that doesn't mean consciousness and reason in their entirety are a chemical process. It's like messing with a TV set - you can remove the color, tweak the antenna or change the picture quality, but that doesn't mean the signal originates from that TV set. In the same way I believe our brain is just like that TV set - a receiver that stands between us and the physical world.

Seraph wrote:Neurologists have also been able to test which of the brain do what and how they work (including the parts that account for reasoning),

As far as I know, they've never found out where the input comes from, how people make decisions. More precisely, they don't have a clue about it. They've been trying for decades to create artificial intelligence, you can improve computers to an insane level, but you can never make them think for themselves, because they lack what we humans have - soul.

Seraph wrote:and the prevalent consensus amoung them is that the brain is materialistic.

...and that the universe came to be from nothing, and that we gradually evolved from a single cell when a thunder bolt hit a primeval pond.

So logically, I'm highly skeptical towards any consensus made these days, especially if it's without evidence.

Seraph wrote:I agree with CS Lewis that the universe has meaning, but materialism does have it's arguements...

...that stand on shaky feet.

It's true that drugs affect the brain, and that a part of the brain function is chemistry, but that doesn't mean consciousness and reason in their entirety are a chemical process. It's like messing with a TV set - you can remove the color, tweak the antenna or change the picture quality, but that doesn't mean the signal originates from that TV set. In the same way I believe our brain is just like that TV set - a receiver that stands between us and the physical world.

Thats a reasonable position. Probably the one I hold too. But is there evidence for the soul or are we presupposing that it exists as long as there isn't evidence that it doesn't exist? Basic consciousness can't be traced to a particular part of the brain but more and more seem to think that consciousness is the sum of all those individual characteristics rather than just a single characteristic. As for reasoning, I'm fairly sure that has been traced to being a function of the frontal lobe.

So logically, I'm highly skeptical towards any consensus made these days, especially if it's without evidence.

I am too if it's without evidence. In this case I don't feel that it is though.

Seraph wrote:Thats a reasonable position. Probably the one I hold too. But is there evidence for the soul or are we presupposing that it exists as long as there isn't evidence that it doesn't exist? Basic consciousness can't be traced to a particular part of the brain but more and more seem to think that consciousness is the sum of all those individual characteristics rather than just a single characteristic. As for reasoning, I'm fairly sure that has been traced to being a function of the frontal lobe.

Not sure... But what has stunned scientists is that some people had certain parts of the brain removed due to a disease or tumour, yet over time they regained the abilities attributed to the parts of the brain they removed... that's plenty of food for thought for now.

Seraph wrote:If chemical reactions don't account for brain activity, how come mind altering drugs affect the brain and our consciousness? All they do is create a chemical reaction in the brain. Neurologists have also been able to test which of the brain do what and how they work (including the parts that account for reasoning), and the prevalent consensus amoung them is that the brain is materialistic. Researchers develop medicines and medical drugs under the assumption that the brain functions entirely by chemical reactions and they seem to be rather successful. I agree with CS Lewis that the universe has meaning, but materialism does have it's arguements...

As for if there is a science that can disprove God, there definitely isn't any accepted science that disproves God or suggests that he doesn't exist. I can think of a hypothetical finding that COULD do this though, that is if cosmologists were able to prove that existence (mutiverse, whatever exists outside our universe) had no beginning that required imput and is either an infinitely regressing chain of cause and effect, or that the mutiverse is timeless like how we think of God.

Interesting Seraph, got a few questions, currently what is your view on life after death? Do you believe the popular Christian consensus that when we physically die we still exist in a immaterial form temporarily until the second coming where then our bodies get raised and we are re-unitied with those bodies, OR do you hold to some kind of "soul sleep" doctrine like what many SDAs and JWs hold to, that teach when we physically die we cease to exist until the second coming where God essentially recreates us?

If you all really want to have a discussion about this, here is a old transcript from a thread I started on this very topic at another message board:

Ok, the things I have come across thus far in favor of a immaterial soul are

Philosophical arguments such as objective experience and free will

Argument that the brain and the mind are not the same, but are closely inter connected almost like a television and a tv show. If you damage or destroy a tv set while a tv show is playing on it, you of course either stop the tv show from playing all together or you get a distorted version of the tv show. And since we know that tv shows do not come directly from the tv set but come elsewhere through a television signal or some kind, thus this shows what could very well be much like what the relationship is like with the mind and the brain.

Qualia

Ndes

Esp

Work done by Dr. Jeffery Swartz with ocd patients where he was able to get them to rewire their brains or change their brain chemistry in order to cure or effectively treat their ocd.

Work done by Dr. Charles Tart who has done something similar to Dr. Sam Parnia's AWARE study but on a much smaller scale. He had a case in which a woman who claimed to have OBEs on a regular basis, while in a room where Dr. Tart was conducting the experiment, was able to hover around her body while asleep and accurately read a five digit code number that Dr. Tart put on top of a shelf somewhere else in the room.

The work done by Dr. Wilder Penfield on subjects whom while still conscious, stimulated various areas of their brains. While doing this he could get them to move their mouths, arms, hands and so on and after a round of doing this he asked them "did YOU do that" and many if not most said "no I didn't do it you did". In fact, I remember reading about one of them who while one of their arms was moving due to electrical stimulation was able to take their opposite arm and attempt to hold their other arm down.

Odd cases like the Hogan twins (conjoined twins who essentially share the same brain). In fact according to the article they are able to see out each others eyes and read each others thoughts. But at the same time, have completely different personalities,egos or self's.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krista_and_Tatiana_Hogan

Ok, now for the best arguments and evidences from naturalistis/atheists/soul and afterlife skeptics and so on...

Brain mapping

Split-brain studies

The argument that things like NDES are an illusion to give the person peace in the process of dying.

The argument that when a person receives a very bad head or brain injury they typically loose memories, senses, and even have new or different personalities or personality traits. Hence, giving indication that the mind and the brain are one and the same. IE the case of Pengas Gage

And studies like this one possibly demonstrating anti free will

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/ ... 8.751.html

1over137 wrote: Now, reading the Lewis's sentence again with the stressed word SHOULD I see the new meaning of the sentence. I allow to say that Lewis accepts the possibility that universe has no meaning but he expresses his wish that people never find out that universe has no meaning.
Echoside, if universe has no meaning, why is it a mistake to discover it? Because the hope would be lost? Because there would be nothing to live for? Do you think that people would destroy themselves when there is no more religion? We can only speculate what would happen. I think the 'mistake' would be to close our eyes before the truth, whatever the truth is, unless we want to live in a dream.

If the universe has no meaning people will react however the atoms that make them up are shifted. As noble as the sentiment "the mistake would be to close our eyes before the truth" is, you cannot in any fairness blame others for not holding to it. Not only because such opinions and worldviews in general are completely subjective, but because the person is no more responsible for their actions than a rock.

Also, at any rate I think I may have misunderstood Lewis from other people's responses. If it's heading towards the "how can we know anything" debate I disagree with the conclusion that is usually drawn, I have more of a problem with the fact that "the universe has no meaning" is as unfalsifiable as "the universe wasn't created by god". I guess you can speak in pure hypotheticals though, I don't think a world where God doesn't exist and Knowledge can be discovered is unrealistic, but that's a debate for a different topic, I agree with the OP in the sense that we aren't going to design some repeatable experiment to "disprove" God, the notion is absurd.

Interesting Seraph, got a few questions, currently what is your view on life after death? Do you believe the popular Christian consensus that when we physically die we still exist in a immaterial form temporarily until the second coming where then our bodies get raised and we are re-unitied with those bodies, OR do you hold to some kind of "soul sleep" doctrine like what many SDAs and JWs hold to, that teach when we physically die we cease to exist until the second coming where God essentially recreates us?

Hi DRDS,

I'm not sure really. There's no way to know for sure, though I probably lean toward a "soul sleep" type idea. I imagine though that from the perspective of the person it seems as though no time has passed between death and life after death.

Science has shown the universe is not timeless as postulated by the big bang theory; the existence of multi-verse does not negate a first cause as postulated by the BVG theorem (in fact an uncaused cause is necessitated), and Infinite regress has been dis-proven mathematically (applied mathematics that is), philosophically, metaphysically, and every other kind of '...cally' you could think of.

Sorry Byblos I didn't see your post until now. I agree completely, I'm just coming up with a hypothetical situation for the sake of being a pain in the butt.

Though one question that gets raised is, why do the ideas of existing outside of time and an uncaused cause work when we're talking about God but not when we're talking about a multiverse? Our own universe clearly isn't eternal, but I think that multiverse proponents (at least of the "parallel universe" model. The "oscillating universe" model seems to be debunked) usually claim that the multiverse that spawned our universe is an uncaused state of quantum chaos.

You do however, believe in a eventual afterlife right? I ask this because I ran across someone on another forum claiming to be a "christian" of some sorts, but he denies all the supernatural, thinks the bible is uninspired, thinks heaven and hell are both metaphors and when someone dies just like in a purely naturalistic universe they cease to exist forever. I certainly hope that's not he direction Christianity, reasonable Christianity or apologetics is heading towards.

Also if indeed science proves that the brain and the mind are both one and the same, how does one reconcile all the bible verses that appear to be talking about a soul? The only way I can think of is to do it the same way theistic evolutionists interpret Genesis. Come to think of it, John Lennox may touch on this, have you ever read his book "Has science buried God"?

Lol yeah I believe in Heaven after death for those who have been saved. I think believing in Heaven and going to be with God after death (whenever or wherever that is) is pretty essential for a Christian, since ultimately that's the goal for a Christian. Thats the ultimate message of Christianity so I'm not sure why one would consider themself a Christian or commit themselves to a Christian lifestyle if they thought God and the Bible were lies. At some point, calling something a metaphor is the same thing as calling it completely false.

I'm in a gray area when it comes to the nature of the soul though I think it does exist. If the soul was one with the brain, I'd interpret the verses talking about the soul the same way I interpret verses talking about the heart. One doesn't actually feel with the heart organ but it refers to an important component of a person. I'd say the soul is the same way.

Whether or not the soul is something seperate from the brain, I believe God has a way of ensuring that people's consciousness live on after death and that a ressurection will take place.

Your statement in the first post, that there is no science that disproves God, is entirely negative. What about looking at it from the other side, is there scientific proof that God DOES exist? What God has to say about this is Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This clearly states that there IS evidence of God in the natural world, in science. This is also unique, this is the only religion to say that we can see evidence for God from the natural world, no other religion makes this claim. In this way, the bible fearlessly allows itself to be falsified, as if it's author knows it cannot be falsified. Other religions do not make this claim, and we can see, for instance in religions that allow multiple wives in a world where the ratio of men and women is about 50 50, that some religions are seen to be falsified by the natural world, and any "god" who would say such a thing is shown to not be the creator, since the creation is clearly different than what that god said.

If God said the natural world, science, shows his existence and even some of his characteristics, should we not look for it? If God is fearless in allowing himself to be falsified, should we not also be fearless in looking at ALL of science, secure in the knowledge that God will not be falsified in it? Or should we continue to do what many now do, and reject science, thus showing that we do not really believe what God said?

And what is science exactly anyway? Did you know that science is essentially a Christian worldview of the natural world? Did you know that a Christian monk invented the scientific method, and that a Christian invented virtually every branch of science? Do you know that, basically, the scientific method was set up to screen out bias and error, which therefore means it agrees with the bible that mankind is sinful and fallible? It is hard to get more of a Christian worldview than that, why, that is the whole reason for the messiah, the Christ, in the first place!

And how do we know that when they call it "science" it really is science? Is someone saying, "scientists believe" actually science? Could it have something to do with "the scientific method", which basically says, if you say it is true, "show me"? How much of "science" is actually really science, and not someone’s untested opinion? Are we to call it "science" if all we are doing is using the old, pre science method of saying that some old dead Greek guy said it was so and that therefore it must be so? Does wearing a white lab coat make anything you say true? What does then, could this idea of making a theorem and then, dare I say it, testing that sucker work? (A theorem is an idea that is testable, and if the test fails, falsifiable)

In short, the current idea fashionable among Christians today as well as non-Christians is that science and Christianity are at war, and are mutually incompatible. Does Rom 1:20 say that? If God did not say that, who did? Might Satan want to effectively divorce Christianity from science, and thus make sure that no one ever understands "from what has been made"? Might Satan want to make Christians reject science, and thus look like ignorant fools with minds still living in the dark ages? Would not people then never even consider that Christianity might be true, since it is now at odds with science, which has been shown to be true? And might Christians then have some very un-Christian attitudes, like pride at not being one of those "evil godless evolutionists"? And once you have those Christians checking their brains in at the church door, what other kinds of errors can you fill what little of their minds they have left with? As it has been said, "error begets error".

Therefore I believe that the statement 'science does not disprove God" is actually a rather weak statement. You should, instead, make the bold statement that the bible makes, that science actually proves God and even allows us to see Gods characteristics "so that men are without excuse". Unless you don’t actually believe Rom 1:20 ...