Evidence for God from Science

Well, I have realized the error of my ways. I came to a religious site looking for more then speculation and blind faith. I am an 18 year old U.S. Marine, and I am leaving for boot camp in a matter of hours so, I am done. I don't have the education or the knowledge to argue such things as metaphysics or ontology , but i will say the subjects have a bad habit of leading to more questions then answers. As this will be my last post on this website, I should say I have nothing but the utmost respect for religious people(regardless of sect), you have found your fight and you stick with it until your dying breath. But we should all be open to change in belief, because chances are, every single one of us is wrong. The scientists and the priests alike. We are all united in our ignorance. And until we find a universally accepted belief, we should take every religious doctrine and every scientific theory with a grain of salt. Because they are just that, theory and doctrine.

mattdumas wrote:Well, I have realized the error of my ways. I came to a religious site looking for more then speculation and blind faith. I am an 18 year old U.S. Marine, and I am leaving for boot camp in a matter of hours so, I am done. I don't have the education or the knowledge to argue such things as metaphysics or ontology , but i will say the subjects have a bad habit of leading to more questions then answers. As this will be my last post on this website, I should say I have nothing but the utmost respect for religious people(regardless of sect), you have found your fight and you stick with it until your dying breath. But we should all be open to change in belief, because chances are, every single one of us is wrong. The scientists and the priests alike. We are all united in our ignorance. And until we find a universally accepted belief, we should take every religious doctrine and every scientific theory with a grain of salt. Because they are just that, theory and doctrine.

I wish you the best of luck and thank you in advance for your service for our country. There was never any intention of making you realize the error of your ways. Our hope was to clarify misconceptions and it seems you have plenty. Perhaps when you come back we can re-open the subject or have an in-depth discussion on metaphysics and ontology or you can do some reading on your own. I truly believe it will enrich your mind immeasurably, even if you ultimately still reject the notion of God.

All the best.

Science is observation of nature, of the universe and how it is an dhow it works.
If one believes that God reveals himself to us in Nature, then science can be used to point the way to the evidence ( not proof) of God.

I think sometimes we tend to confuse proof with evidence and forget that they are NOT the same thing.

Evidence means suggesting something might be true, all I see is the tearing down of widely accepted ideas and then saying it must be the christian god.

Can you site a specific example from the material on this board. If the arguments presented here are fallacious, I'm sure the board owner would like to see how and why.

Why does the fact that the universe looks like it has a design specific for man immediately mean it is the christian god?

It doesn't. And where do you see that argument being made. It is simply a step in this progression. It is consistent with the Christian God.

Why not any one of the other countless gods who would have, in their believers opinions, shaped the world in exact same fashion just for man kind? I find that view narrow minded.

For example?
It is a valid question. Can we examine other world religions and see if they comply to a universe that is designed? Yes we can. In fact it is one of the main reasons we can reject 99% of other world religions right out of the gate. Good observation.

I believe in the science that I can see at work in the world everywhere around me.

As you way, believe is a faith statement. A statement that can't even be upheld scientifically? It's your thought. Please scientifically explain your thoughts. If you are going to be that critical, then at least be consistent.

I have not tested all of it, that would take a lifetime. But i put my faith in the scientists the same way you put your faith in god, it just so happens that my scientists are a phone call away to explain any problems I might be having with their conclusions by showing me concrete and observable facts.

So, you came here to argue religious ideology, or examine evidential claims? What concrete and observable facts do you have on evolution and the big bang?

Without the talk of all the philosophers in the world, science would still exist.

Science is simply a method. The laws of nature would still exist.

It is concrete, it can't be changed just because of cultural differences or lifestyle choices.

Are you saying it is objectively true? If so, just whose side are you arguing for? This statement backs up Theism and Christianity .

If we were a different species on another planet who, perhaps, valued killing, aggression and the fight for dominance our philosophy would be different in every way. Philosophy is speculative, not observational.

Are you saying the laws of logic are arbitrary?

I came to a religious site looking for more then speculation and blind faith.

I think the initial replies to your OP were simply not good, and this gave you an impression that I don't think is correct. You were asked some questions later on because your replies came across as condescending and mocking. Evidence for God from Science is the name of the site. The main board has lots of information. If there is something specific you reviewed on the main board that you have issue with, then perhaps it would help if you would present those specific things. Otherwise it would appear that you are asking for things that the mainpage of the board already will direct you to. Apparently you haven't thoroughly reviewed the board or you would understand the cosmological argument, and arguments from Intelligent Design, among others. You may not agree with the assesments of the evidence, but the evidence is presented. I think you came with a chip on your shoulder.

I know science folks are not amenable to "Things like faith based theories and proofs", which is largely for the good of "validity of application" and other stuff. The idea again is not to speculate, but to propose possible explanations (of reality, possible extensions of science etc...). At the same time, people should stop the "what else is possible" kind of questions and answers. This definitely never served anything from the beginning of time. Many things that do not fit in the "human psyche as of today", will be true tomorrow, and if you agree to that, whether being a science guy or a religion man, then it is better to avoid such replies.

1) I don't think you have any idea what philosophy is. It's a much broader term than you seem to think of.
2) All your ideas imply is that we have no idea who is right, so why bother? The ultimate agnostic. Well, if you can live with that then fine...
3) Your idea of believing science is a misleading one. Scientists are often wrong. Really, if any scientist says they are 100 % certain I would be highly skeptical that they're still doing science.
It seems though that you're saying no position can really be proven, in which case I suppose you don't really have anything to gain from this site. Well, what can I say: Ultimate agnostic.

Btw, people seem to have a great deal of disregard for philosophy, metaphysics and such nowadays.

The problem with not understanding the importance of worldview in interpreting information using the scientific method is that you can easily fall for traps that people who do understand know how to avoid.

Its too bad (based on my experience at two colleges) that 'philosophy' taught today is just exercises in postmodernism, atheism, and modern liberalism. There is no diversity on campuses today, at least in the thought department. I find a lot of modern philosophy to be garbage political, social, or economic propaganda centered on human want.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The problem with not understanding the importance of worldview in interpreting information using the scientific method is that you can easily fall for traps that people who do understand know how to avoid.

Its too bad (based on my experience at two colleges) that 'philosophy' taught today is just exercises in postmodernism, atheism, and modern liberalism. There is no diversity on campuses today, at least in the thought department. I find a lot of modern philosophy to be garbage political, social, or economic propaganda centered on human want.

And that is precisely why classical philosophy (the Arestotelian/Scholastic/Thiomistic kind) is coming back to its glory days because it is the only philosophy that makes any sense of anything and that was never refuted to begin with, only pushed aside in favor of postmodernism which failed miserably.

rainagain wrote:I'm afraid you're not going to get proof of the Christian God until He decides to offer it Himself. That is the whole point of the current system of salvation by faith. If there was proof, we wouldn't have to have faith.

Rain, I disagree that faith and proof are mutually exclusive, to me the word faith would be better understood as trust which is the more commonly used. I think god wants us to trust him but that doesn't stop us being able to prove (or disprove) his existence.

I believe the existence of a creator can be proved very convincingly (for example in lee strobels book"case for the creator") without resorting to a blind guess mistakenly called faith. And it doesn't make sense to me that god would give salvation to people for believing he exists,

hardthinkingben wrote:

rainagain wrote:I'm afraid you're not going to get proof of the Christian God until He decides to offer it Himself. That is the whole point of the current system of salvation by faith. If there was proof, we wouldn't have to have faith.

Rain, I disagree that faith and proof are mutually exclusive, to me the word faith would be better understood as trust which is the more commonly used. I think god wants us to trust him but that doesn't stop us being able to prove (or disprove) his existence.

I believe the existence of a creator can be proved very convincingly (for example in lee strobels book"case for the creator") without resorting to a blind guess mistakenly called faith. And it doesn't make sense to me that god would give salvation to people for believing he exists,

That's not proof, that's evidence. And faith doesn't have to be blind. Among Christian apologists (and scientists in general) the saying is "faith based on reason". Like WLCs' website.

The word faith was never originally meant to mean anything like 'blind faith'. In fact, asking the Apostles their view of 'blind faith', you'd probably find they'd interpret it much the same way we'd say 'honest lie' or any other contradiction.

Faith is based on the same meaning as the word 'faithful'. It is based on evidence of all kinds, and involves placing trust in the One at whom the evidence points.

A much better word for 'blind faith' would probably be 'ignorant stubbornness'.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The word faith was never originally meant to mean anything like 'blind faith'. In fact, asking the Apostles their view of 'blind faith', you'd probably find they'd interpret it much the same way we'd say 'honest lie' or any other contradiction.

Faith is based on the same meaning as the word 'faithful'. It is based on evidence of all kinds, and involves placing trust in the One at whom the evidence points.

A much better word for 'blind faith' would probably be 'ignorant stubbornness'.

I guess atheists assume that's what we do.

Hi
Sorry Byblos, you are right better off not better
mattdumas all the information about the way science is inline with the bible is on this site, there are no debunks that i know of which have not been answered already.

Your Friend
Daniel