Evidence for God from Science

The thing is, once you attempt to create a theory or any other explanation based on facts you introduce something many atheists don't want to talk about: philosophy and worldview. Do you really think everyone would interpret the same facts in the same way? If you say no, then the discussion is not about scientific facts but personal philosophy.

This is why we have peer review, independent studies to confirm a finding, and objective thinking.
Science would be a bit meaningless if it did not consider these things.

There is no such thing as objective thinking.

DannyM wrote:

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote: You keep saying Creationism is a God-of-the-Gaps position... I'm telling you, you're wrong. Look over my analogy of the Shakespeare play. You're just repeating your position without really addressing the objections to it.

"God of the gaps" sounds completely stupid to a Christian. God is the God of everything. What are these "gaps"? Does this assume that God is 'filling in' for some thing? Nonsense.

Well, sir, the "God-of-the-Gaps" accusation is a argument commonly used by atheists which says that hypothesizing God as an explanation for the universe is intellectually lazy, since all you are doing is taking the "gaps" in scientific knowledge and saying "science can't explain it therefore God did it."
I'm trying to correct this assumption. I sense a note of anger in your post and I am trying to discern the justification for it.

aimforthehead wrote:

the issues you are bringing here are ones that come here daily.

I have my doubts...

But theory is not proven scientific fact.

You claim you've gotten into this argument before, but I'm wondering how you still don't know what a theory is then...
A theory is a collection of data (facts) that explains a phenomenon. While evolution is a theory, it is also a fact. Recognize a scientific theory is different from the common meaning of the word (which is generally synonymous to "idea").
For more, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So yes, there is a difference between fact and theory. Facts are data, theories are explanations. They go hand in hand, not in a hierarchy.

Wrong. A theory isn't just a collection of facts that explains a phenomenon. The facts ARE the phenomenon, and the theory is a hypothetical scenario which attempts to explain the facts. It is quite hypocritical for you to throw insults and tell the guy he doesn't know what a theory is when your view is clearly as much if not more askew than his.
Answer my question about logic, please. It can be found I think on my second or third post on this page.

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:Well, sir, the "God-of-the-Gaps" accusation is a argument commonly used by atheists which says that hypothesizing God as an explanation for the universe is intellectually lazy, since all you are doing is taking the "gaps" in scientific knowledge and saying "science can't explain it therefore God did it."

I'm trying to correct this assumption. I sense a note of anger in your post and I am trying to discern the justification for it.

I knew that. I was backing up your point, the point that I quoted.

no anger here

drop the gloves, Brother.

Once and for all on the "Theory" thing:

the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:

aimforthehead wrote:

the issues you are bringing here are ones that come here daily.

I have my doubts...

But theory is not proven scientific fact.

You claim you've gotten into this argument before, but I'm wondering how you still don't know what a theory is then...
A theory is a collection of data (facts) that explains a phenomenon. While evolution is a theory, it is also a fact. Recognize a scientific theory is different from the common meaning of the word (which is generally synonymous to "idea").
For more, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So yes, there is a difference between fact and theory. Facts are data, theories are explanations. They go hand in hand, not in a hierarchy.

Wrong. A theory isn't just a collection of facts that explains a phenomenon. The facts ARE the phenomenon, and the theory is a hypothetical scenario which attempts to explain the facts. It is quite hypocritical for you to throw insults and tell the guy he doesn't know what a theory is when your view is clearly as much if not more askew than his.
Answer my question about logic, please. It can be found I think on my second or third post on this page.

Refer to the bold.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, a hypothesis attempts to explain facts, a theory is a hypothesis proven to actually explain the facts. For example, we no longer question the validity of the theory of gravity.

Your argument against logic is that you cannot prove logic by logic. In which case this conversation is moot and you are welcome to worship Unicorns or what have you. I'm not all that interested in having illogical arguments, they don't make all that much sense to my tiny brain. I guess I just don't have what it takes to be religious...I have to stick to mathematics and science Maybe one day though...

aimforthehead wrote:

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:

aimforthehead wrote:

the issues you are bringing here are ones that come here daily.

I have my doubts...

But theory is not proven scientific fact.

You claim you've gotten into this argument before, but I'm wondering how you still don't know what a theory is then...
A theory is a collection of data (facts) that explains a phenomenon. While evolution is a theory, it is also a fact. Recognize a scientific theory is different from the common meaning of the word (which is generally synonymous to "idea").
For more, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So yes, there is a difference between fact and theory. Facts are data, theories are explanations. They go hand in hand, not in a hierarchy.

Wrong. A theory isn't just a collection of facts that explains a phenomenon. The facts ARE the phenomenon, and the theory is a hypothetical scenario which attempts to explain the facts. It is quite hypocritical for you to throw insults and tell the guy he doesn't know what a theory is when your view is clearly as much if not more askew than his.
Answer my question about logic, please. It can be found I think on my second or third post on this page.

Refer to the bold.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, a hypothesis attempts to explain facts, a theory is a hypothesis proven to actually explain the facts. For example, we no longer question the validity of the theory of gravity.

Your argument against logic is that you cannot prove logic by logic. In which case this conversation is moot and you are welcome to worship Unicorns or what have you. I'm not all that interested in having illogical arguments, they don't make all that much sense to my tiny brain. I guess I just don't have what it takes to be religious...I have to stick to mathematics and science Maybe one day though...

You won't get away that easily, sir. My argument against logic wasn't that I can't prove logic through logic. How did you get that impression?
I'm asking you to prove the existence of the laws of logic scientifically. Else how can you appeal to them without credible, peer-reviewed, testable, scientific evidence that shows they exist?
And you say you argue using mathematics and science. Could you prove mathematics through science? Tell me exactly why, in purely naturalistic terms, using nothing but the laws of chemistry and physics, why 2 + 2 is always 4? Or why one cannot divide by zero? Or why you can never take the log of a negative number?
Also could you show me, using nothing but the laws of chemistry and physics, why in a syllogism "affirming the consequent" is fallacious? And perhaps why circular reasoning is invalid? Prove that to me scientifically, if you can.

You attempt to argue for a completely naturalistic worldview using mathematics and logic, but in doing so you appeal to absolute truths that transcend the very naturalistic worldview for which you argue. Do you see my point?
And do not think that your little snide remark about my views on logic causing me to believe in unicorns slipped by me or anyone else. That sort of thing is what will get you heavily moderated, sir, so for your sake I would suggest remaining cordial and polite.

DannyM wrote:

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:Well, sir, the "God-of-the-Gaps" accusation is a argument commonly used by atheists which says that hypothesizing God as an explanation for the universe is intellectually lazy, since all you are doing is taking the "gaps" in scientific knowledge and saying "science can't explain it therefore God did it."

I'm trying to correct this assumption. I sense a note of anger in your post and I am trying to discern the justification for it.

I knew that. I was backing up your point, the point that I quoted.

no anger here

drop the gloves, Brother.

Sorry! No hard feelings, I horribly misinterpreted your response. Thanks for backing me up!

aimforthehead wrote:

the issues you are bringing here are ones that come here daily.

I have my doubts...

Me too, it tends to come in bursts every few weeks or months

aimforthehead wrote:While evolution is a theory, it is also a fact.

Piffle, it doesn't even qualify as a law. I do warm to the theory myself but let's not get carried away.

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:You attempt to argue for a completely naturalistic worldview using mathematics and logic, but in doing so you appeal to absolute truths that transcend the very naturalistic worldview for which you argue. Do you see my point?

It's a good point

KravMagaSelfDefense, we do not prove logic or math using science, in fact almost the opposite (almost), we use science on the basis that logic and math are valid (depending on your field of science, I find chemistry and physics to be heavily intertwined with mathematics). They stand on their own because they are shown to be true and valid without exception. (I guess you can have a conjecture, but whatever).

So, while your question was inherently flawed (use an apple to explain why my dad is white skinned), your point still would not stand. The fact is, it is rational to assume logic is valid (given its track record) and therefore apply it to all questions we do not fully know the answer to. Compared to say, random guesses, or supernatural entities. If you meant to focus more on the validity/practicality of the scientific method, you'd have to suggest another method that can be more accurate in its results and replace it.

My comparison to your beliefs and the worship of unicorns was meant to express the value of suggesting logic/science is somehow in any way equivalent to religious thinking in terms of its validity, the value being about nonexistent.

Piffle, it doesn't even qualify as a law.

This again, is a misunderstanding of scientific terms. A theory does not turn into a law, that is not how the hierarchy works (there really is no hierarchy). A theory never becomes a law, because they are completely different things. On that note, there is nothing more valid than a theory in science. It is an entire explanation of any given subject (assuming there is a theory on that subject). If it were in anyway unsupportable or unproven, it would not be a theory. A law deals with specific statements on the matter of fundamental scientific principals. They do not explain events like theories.

aimforthehead wrote:KravMagaSelfDefense, we do not prove logic or math using science, in fact almost the opposite (almost), we use science on the basis that logic and math are valid (depending on your field of science, I find chemistry and physics to be heavily intertwined with mathematics). They stand on their own because they are shown to be true and valid without exception. (I guess you can have a conjecture, but whatever).

So, while your question was inherently flawed (use an apple to explain why my dad is white skinned), your point still would not stand. The fact is, it is rational to assume logic is valid (given its track record) and therefore apply it to all questions we do not fully know the answer to. Compared to say, random guesses, or supernatural entities. If you meant to focus more on the validity/practicality of the scientific method, you'd have to suggest another method that can be more accurate in its results and replace it.

My comparison to your beliefs and the worship of unicorns was meant to express the value of suggesting logic/science is somehow in any way equivalent to religious thinking in terms of its validity, the value being about nonexistent.

Piffle, it doesn't even qualify as a law.

This again, is a misunderstanding of scientific terms. A theory does not turn into a law, that is not how the hierarchy works (there really is no hierarchy). A theory never becomes a law, because they are completely different things. On that note, there is nothing more valid than a theory in science. It is an entire explanation of any given subject (assuming there is a theory on that subject). If it were in anyway unsupportable or unproven, it would not be a theory. A law deals with specific statements on the matter of fundamental scientific principals. They do not explain events like theories.

"They stand on their own because they are shown to be true and valid without exception."
I don't care whether or not they ARE true and valid, I asked you to demonstrate scientifically WHY they are true.
Here's my quote:
"And you say you argue using mathematics and science. Could you prove mathematics through science? Tell me exactly why, in purely naturalistic terms, using nothing but the laws of chemistry and physics, why 2 + 2 is always 4? Or why one cannot divide by zero? Or why you can never take the log of a negative number?
Also could you show me, using nothing but the laws of chemistry and physics, why in a syllogism "affirming the consequent" is fallacious? And perhaps why circular reasoning is invalid? Prove that to me scientifically, if you can."
Answer THOSE questions.

aimforthehead wrote:KravMagaSelfDefense, we do not prove logic or math using science, in fact almost the opposite (almost), we use science on the basis that logic and math are valid (depending on your field of science, I find chemistry and physics to be heavily intertwined with mathematics). They stand on their own because they are shown to be true and valid without exception. (I guess you can have a conjecture, but whatever).

So, while your question was inherently flawed (use an apple to explain why my dad is white skinned), your point still would not stand. The fact is, it is rational to assume logic is valid (given its track record) and therefore apply it to all questions we do not fully know the answer to. Compared to say, random guesses, or supernatural entities. If you meant to focus more on the validity/practicality of the scientific method, you'd have to suggest another method that can be more accurate in its results and replace it.

My comparison to your beliefs and the worship of unicorns was meant to express the value of suggesting logic/science is somehow in any way equivalent to religious thinking in terms of its validity, the value being about nonexistent.

Piffle, it doesn't even qualify as a law.

This again, is a misunderstanding of scientific terms. A theory does not turn into a law, that is not how the hierarchy works (there really is no hierarchy). A theory never becomes a law, because they are completely different things. On that note, there is nothing more valid than a theory in science. It is an entire explanation of any given subject (assuming there is a theory on that subject). If it were in anyway unsupportable or unproven, it would not be a theory. A law deals with specific statements on the matter of fundamental scientific principals. They do not explain events like theories.

"They stand on their own because they are shown to be true and valid without exception."
One last thing.
The fact that they are shown to be true doesn't matter at all, you shouldn't use them if they go against naturalistic philosophy. Because you say everything that exists is only molecules in motion, how can you consistently use laws of logic which AREN'T composed of molecules in motion?

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:Sorry! No hard feelings, I horribly misinterpreted your response. Thanks for backing me up!

sorry I gave you the wrong impression.