Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.

Can you expound on this? What does it mean that nothing physical can exist without love. There are rocks that physically exist on the moon that have not loved nor ever been loved.

BGood, forgive me for the assumption. Are you an atheist? I have seen in posts where you have defended evolution (although you could be a theistic evolutionist). From what standpoint are you approaching this? When you say that "Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.", are you implying Creationism?

Sorry for the confusion. I'm kind of confused about your worldview...

BTW I was originally replying to madscientist's post, although it might seem I was replying to you as well.

The love and the rocks you speak of are like shadows on the wall.

There is nothing wrong with defending the mechanistic principals of evolution, it is after all based on observations, and backed by empirical data. It's more a defense/explanation of analytical, and critical thinking in general.

But in the end evolution and all of science is only a model, of the complexity that is reality.

Also there is nothing wrong with believing that there is much more to the world than can be seen by the naked eye. I cannot deny my spiritual nature.

However I cannot profess to know the truth.

I am neither an athiest, nor a creationist, I am just an explorer. And the universe is much too grand a place to look at it from one ledge alone.

Good enough. I'm just trying to get a handle on where you are coming from.

As far as evolution being observable, I guess it depends how one defines evolution.