Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote: Mainstream science,

I think a person might be a bit careful with that term "mainstream science". As contrasted with what? "Mainstream" is a term much used in such as creosites, tabloids, UFO and other such irresponsible fringe sources.

I think it is sometimes important to distinguish between the conventional, dull, well-established and coherent world most scientists dwell in, and the imaginative, exciting, largely speculative and often incoherent world of the scientific fringe.

hughfarey wrote: I think, simply doesn't go there, saying that we can follow the expansion of the universe backwards just so far and no further, at which point we can only express ignorance.

Audie wrote:Like the children's' game of asking "why" 2 or 3 times in a row. Taking a bit of a long view here, humans have been around for a very long time, and in that time its only been the last hundred and some years that anything very fundamental and sophisticated-or seemingly so-has been learned about such things. Of course you soon arrive at ignorance in any inquiry.

hugh wrote:You do indeed, and then what? Sit around at the edge wondering what might happen beyond, or leave it and go and find something else to think about? Both equally reasonable, just demonstrating a difference in attitude.

Audie wrote:I offer no defense or explanation of theoretical astrophysics. I am not a mathematical thinker. I kind of liked the idea that our universe is but one of an infinite number constantly coming into existence, and behind it all is nothing but math.

Audie wrote:Content.. It is a bit like asking if I am content being a female living in the 21st century. Or with the colour of the sky. Its just how things are. Could you identify something that is known for sure?

hugh wrote:Perhaps it was a clumsy form of words. I suppose I just wondered what kind of speculation about the origin of the universe you incline towards, or if you don't really incline to any of them. I think your answer about math might have answered that

abelcainsbrother wrote:The only problem is that unless you believe God got it started with a miracle you will never know why or how it got here.If a person rejects God you will forever have to speculate without really knowing,knowing and understanding how it works is not enough,even those who believe in God can understand how it works. Science leaves us hanging about why and how it happens,so that if we go with only science? We will never know or understand how or why it happens. This is why it requires both God and science to fully understand the universe. We cannot just go with just God or just science to have full understanding,we need both.

A wrote:The problem is, unless you believe god throws lightning bolts, that earthquakes and volcanoes
are his wrath, you will never know what is really going on.

Audie wrote:There is no bright line distinction such as you are imagining, imo.

Audie wrote:Overall, I think your impression of scientists as dull conventional etc is entirely from your imagination, not experience.

Audie wrote:As for invoking a god, I find that very unsatisfactory. It is an intellectual cheat, substituting a mystery even greater than the existence of universe itself, onethat cannot by its defined nature be investigated in any way.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The only problem is that unless you believe God got it started with a miracle you will never know why or how it got here.If a person rejects God you will forever have to speculate without really knowing,knowing and understanding how it works is not enough,even those who believe in God can understand how it works. Science leaves us hanging about why and how it happens,so that if we go with only science? We will never know or understand how or why it happens. This is why it requires both God and science to fully understand the universe. We cannot just go with just God or just science to have full understanding,we need both.

A wrote:The problem is, unless you believe god throws lightning bolts, that earthquakes and volcanoes
are his wrath, you will never know what is really going on.

Do we ever get to the bottom of what is happening? Seems more like smaller and smaller particles, and then things start behaving in strange ways being both this and that. It's like there's always a cut off point where the scientist walks away and says I don't know, don't have the answer, but we'll get the answer one day. I'm not saying we won't know more and more about stuff, but then do we ever finally reach the bottom? Whether it's the beginning of the universe, origin of life, quantum mechanics... or in the case of lightening, perhaps there is a "Zeus" force.

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:There is no bright line distinction such as you are imagining, imo.

I do not imagine a bright line distinction between mainstream science and fringe science. But I do see a distinction.

Audie wrote:Overall, I think your impression of scientists as dull conventional etc is entirely from your imagination, not experience.

Not scientists, science. Once a scientific 'fact' has been established, it ceases to be the bright cutting edge of science, and is assumed into the vast coherent mass of rationality that make up a conventional understanding of the world. And that is 'mainstream' science.

Audie wrote:As for invoking a god, I find that very unsatisfactory. It is an intellectual cheat, substituting a mystery even greater than the existence of universe itself, onethat cannot by its defined nature be investigated in any way.

Good point, but we Theistic Rationalists (or am I the only one?) do not "invoke a God" to explain stuff; we call the explanation itself God. You suggested that it might all be "math" without explaining how "math" was able to do things rather than simply describe them. Couple "math" to "power" of some kind, and you begin to define an entity.

Audie wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The only problem is that unless you believe God got it started with a miracle you will never know why or how it got here.If a person rejects God you will forever have to speculate without really knowing,knowing and understanding how it works is not enough,even those who believe in God can understand how it works. Science leaves us hanging about why and how it happens,so that if we go with only science? We will never know or understand how or why it happens. This is why it requires both God and science to fully understand the universe. We cannot just go with just God or just science to have full understanding,we need both.

A wrote:The problem is, unless you believe god throws lightning bolts, that earthquakes and volcanoes
are his wrath, you will never know what is really going on.

Do we ever get to the bottom of what is happening? Seems more like smaller and smaller particles, and then things start behaving in strange ways being both this and that. It's like there's always a cut off point where the scientist walks away and says I don't know, don't have the answer, but we'll get the answer one day. I'm not saying we won't know more and more about stuff, but then do we ever finally reach the bottom? Whether it's the beginning of the universe, origin of life, quantum mechanics... or in the case of lightening, perhaps there is a "Zeus" force.

Someone presse attribute this to whom it is rightly attributed to. Which is not me.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The only problem is that unless you believe God got it started with a miracle you will never know why or how it got here.If a person rejects God you will forever have to speculate without really knowing,knowing and understanding how it works is not enough,even those who believe in God can understand how it works. Science leaves us hanging about why and how it happens,so that if we go with only science? We will never know or understand how or why it happens. This is why it requires both God and science to fully understand the universe. We cannot just go with just God or just science to have full understanding,we need both.

A wrote:The problem is, unless you believe god throws lightning bolts, that earthquakes and volcanoes
are his wrath, you will never know what is really going on.

Do we ever get to the bottom of what is happening? Seems more like smaller and smaller particles, and then things start behaving in strange ways being both this and that. It's like there's always a cut off point where the scientist walks away and says I don't know, don't have the answer, but we'll get the answer one day. I'm not saying we won't know more and more about stuff, but then do we ever finally reach the bottom? Whether it's the beginning of the universe, origin of life, quantum mechanics... or in the case of lightening, perhaps there is a "Zeus" force.

Someone presse attribute this to whom it is rightly attributed to. Which is not me.

Then you'll never know why or how. However,once you can realize the importance knowing why or how and can understand God makes the most logical sense you can then begin to find out which God you can atrribute it to,but until then you're stuck with never knowing why or how going only by science and you'll just have speculations that are not peer reviewed science.

Audie wrote:I dont agree that math just describes things. I think it is the same
with or without a universe that could be described.

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:I dont agree that math just describes things. I think it is the same
with or without a universe that could be described.

That's interesting. That math exists independently of any universe. And I think true. The angle subtended by a diameter at the circumference of a circle would be a right angle even if no circles actually existed at all. But how do you think it brings a Universe into being?

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:I dont agree that math just describes things. I think it is the same
with or without a universe that could be described.

That's interesting. That math exists independently of any universe. And I think true. The angle subtended by a diameter at the circumference of a circle would be a right angle even if no circles actually existed at all. But how do you think it brings a Universe into being?

This is not of course my idea. But my understanding is that matn did
not bring the universe into being, it is math.

Audie wrote:

melanie wrote:I get what Audie is saying.....
I've felt the same as far as these so called miraculous healings go.
I've seen first hand Pentecostal healings and they were a farce. Nobody with any significant illnesses were cured. I visited with my nan who was in a wheelchair after suffering 2 strokes and whilst minor things were apparently 'healed' those with the most significant ailments went home as sick and crippled as before.
If anyone had the power of healing physically in the manner we claim then I personally would be in the paediatric cancer clinic.
Healing the most innocent and deserving.

I still believe in miracles but not in the realm of growing back limbs but in healing hearts. Restoring worth and connecting spirits.
Do I think it's possible for miraculous physical healing.... Sure
But not on a stage show, not in the manner we seem to need.
It seems like we require a water into wine, a walking on water, healing of the blind to justify, maintain, justify or secure faith.
It doesn't work like that.

The biggest miracle that we have, that previously wasn't around pre Jesus is what's written on our hearts.
In the Old Testament Moses needed personal revelation from God.
Man connecting to God.
Then Jesus came and rocked our world, it was God connecting to man.

Now we live in an era where the Holy Spirit resides in us.
God living within.

God isn't our miracle puppet.
We think if He would just do some spectacular stuff, enough times, too enough people, to satisfy our clinical nature without question, on camera, at the right time, to the right audience then all the answers would be answered.
I think we already know that wouldn't be enough...

ohhh but just grow a limb....
If there is a God blow our collective minds!!!
Perhaps we are blown away everyday but we are so caught up we don't see it.
I find it everyday with my kids who are immature and impulsive and need external stimuli. They know I love them ridiculously but they prod me everyday for reassurance. I want this... Read to me, watch me dance, show me love, give me appreciation, show me appreciation, come to my soccer game, coach my AFL , be on canteen ect.
So I do,
I don't fix every wrong, I don't prevent every injury, I can't be there every second, I don't and can't pander to their every whim, I can't make sure everything is perfect and I wouldn't even if I could.
I am there 100% but they need to learn. To fail, to work it our for themselves.
The most loving thing I can do is let them grow......
To not fix everything
To step back back.
The hardest lesson I have learnt is to back off...
Because it benefits them in the long run.

As a parent if I could take away every hurdle even the most traumatic before they could experience it, then I robbing them.
Of evolving , of growing into who they are meant to be.

Life isn't designed to be one miraculous turn after another
It's for our benefit to learn and grow.
Each hurdle, every sorrow and all life experience.
God isn't robbing us, He is enriching us...

I do tend to think that such god as there may be couldnt help but be smart enough to know how to convince people he is real. The problem is not in skepticism, but in a lack of demonstration.

And that is ok. Why should he dance for us?

Regarding the Pentacostal etc stage healings, it is really a shame.

It is a fraud.

Now, I dont actually care one way or the other if people are or become Christians.

Looking at it from the outside, tho, if one sees that the sort of people who are convinced by the bible also are convinced by ads for copper bracelets to cure arthritis, tales of Nessie
and the latest discovery of Noahs ark, it tends not to give a good impression, it makes anything the person says suspect.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:I dont agree that math just describes things. I think it is the same
with or without a universe that could be described.

That's interesting. That math exists independently of any universe. And I think true. The angle subtended by a diameter at the circumference of a circle would be a right angle even if no circles actually existed at all. But how do you think it brings a Universe into being?

This is not of course my idea. But my understanding is that matn did
not bring the universe into being, it is math.

It is both descriptive and predictive but not causative.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:I dont agree that math just describes things. I think it is the same
with or without a universe that could be described.

That's interesting. That math exists independently of any universe. And I think true. The angle subtended by a diameter at the circumference of a circle would be a right angle even if no circles actually existed at all. But how do you think it brings a Universe into being?

This is not of course my idea. But my understanding is that matn did
not bring the universe into being, it is math.

It is both descriptive and predictive but not causative.

I didnt say causative, I said Isative. Or something like that.