Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote: IgoFan, You stated 'morality is also outside the scope of science.'

Correct. The scientific method, by its very nature, cannot address right vs. wrong questions.

B. W. wrote: So therefore were the medical experiments performed in Auschwitz in the name of science moral or immoral?

You're blaming science itself because Hitler used science as an excuse for anti-semitism?! You can't be serious, because that's as ridiculous as blaming Christianity itself because Hitler used Christianity as an excuse for anti-semitism.

Hitler wrote: (from Mein Kampf) I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

B. W. wrote: Next, IgoFan, this Forum and website is called "Evidence for God from Science."

Pointing out posted items that are NOT evidence for God is central to this forum, because when people make such claims, they misrepresent Christianity to its detriment. For example, when "scientific evidence" for a 6000 years old Earth is presented as evidence for God, or as in this topic when some still unspecified psychic or occult occurrence is given for evidence of God. If someone posted that thunder is scientific evidence that God is bowling in heaven, would you object if someone pointed out that's lousy evidence?

It may surprise you to know that I spend more time on the flip side of this issue, viz., confronting science-oriented atheists claiming scientific evidence against God. And unlike here, I'm not polite with them, because they should know better.

B. W. wrote: Question: was Isaac Newton daffy because he based his science on seeking evidences for God from the natural world — was he fooling himself?

Yes. For the physics that Newton knew, he was. Here's a fragment from Isaac Newton's 1692 letter to Reverend Bentley, describing implications of the Law of Gravitation:

Newton wrote: [...] To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent. For since comets descend into the region of our planets and here move all manner of ways, going sometimes the same way with the planets, sometimes the contrary way, and sometimes in cross ways in planes inclined to the plane of the ecliptic at all kinds of angles, it's plain that there is no natural cause which could determine all the planets both primary and secondary to move the same way and in the same plane without any considerable variation. This must have been the effect of counsel.

Interestingly, at that same time, Leibniz (co-inventor of calculus) had already chided Newton for his eagerness to assign God a required supernatural job of fiddling with the solar system.

So if even Newton needed to be more careful about stating what is scientific evidence for God, what hope does Gman have? The irony of all this is that justification of religion doesn't even need scientific evidence.

IgoFan wrote:
Pointing out posted items that are NOT evidence for God is central to this forum, because when people make such claims, they misrepresent Christianity to its detriment. For example, when "scientific evidence" for a 6000 years old Earth is presented as evidence for God, or as in this topic when some still unspecified psychic or occult occurrence is given for evidence of God. If someone posted that thunder is scientific evidence that God is bowling in heaven, would you object if someone pointed out that's lousy evidence?

This is interesting since I actually hadn't thought about how much, or what type, of evidence for God there is on this site. I'm sure that sounds odd, lol, but it made me wonder about in what ways the site is different from an intelligent design site, say. That would be an interesting discussion.

Anyway, the owner of the site, and most of the members, do not believe that the bible points to a young earth as you have stated here. I haven't read all of the posts regarding the paranormal and whether they point to God or not. However, I did post a link to a pdf booklet that discusses this topic.

So if even Newton needed to be more careful about stating what is scientific evidence for God, what hope does Gman have? The irony of all this is that justification of religion doesn't even need scientific evidence.

I don't think you've made your point about Newton and his attitude. His looking for God in creation, and trying to see how He put it into place and motion, is fine. If you're saying that his inquisitiveness regarding God affected his science, then that's different, and maybe you could argue for that more. As far as religion not needing scientific justification, I think that's true. But there are so many people that want to dismiss our religious concepts through the use of science, that I'm sure that is one reason why this site and others like it exist.

IgoFan wrote:...Correct. The scientific method, by its very nature, cannot address right vs. wrong questions.

Without human beings science would be an impossibility...

Are human beings moral or immoral?

Can science be moral or immorally applied by human beings?

What standard of morality should guide human beings in quest for science?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

IgoFan wrote:...Correct. The scientific method, by its very nature, cannot address right vs. wrong questions.

Without human beings science would be an impossibility...

Are human beings moral or immoral?

Can science be moral or immorally applied by human beings?

What standard of morality should guide human beings in quest for science?
-
-
-

You lost me. Do these philosophical questions have anything to do with my claim that science doesn't address moral questions?

IgoFan wrote:...1) The scientific method, by its very nature, cannot address right vs. wrong questions...

...You lost me. Do these philosophical questions have anything to do with my claim that science doesn't address moral questions?

Yes,

How can science not be subject to morality since science spawns from the human mind?

Science by itself cannot exist. It can only exist when those prone to reason and learning engage in a quest for knowledge. Science is subject to the morality and biases of the seeker. Link: dictionary definition for science

Therefore the questions posed still stand:

Without human beings science would be an impossibility...

Are human beings moral or immoral?

Can science be moral or immorally applied by human beings?

What standard of morality should guide human beings in quest for science?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

IgoFan wrote:...1) The scientific method, by its very nature, cannot address right vs. wrong questions...

...You lost me. Do these philosophical questions have anything to do with my claim that science doesn't address moral questions?

Yes,

How can science not be subject to morality since science spawns from the human mind?

Science by itself cannot exist. It can only exist when those prone to reason and learning engage in a quest for knowledge. Science is subject to the morality and biases of the seeker. Link: dictionary definition for science

Whoa! Now we're back to what I addressed in this thread 2 weeks ago. Science, and what people do with it (e.g., Hitler), are separate things. The scientific method (the bedrock of science) is a brilliant, effective, well-defined process, but devoid of moral implications.

To use your terminology, science is only subject to the morality and biases of the seeker, when the seeker wrongly imposes it on science. Please give some modern examples that you have in mind, and I'll show you what I mean.

IgoFan wrote:

B. W. wrote:

IgoFan wrote:...1) The scientific method, by its very nature, cannot address right vs. wrong questions...

...You lost me. Do these philosophical questions have anything to do with my claim that science doesn't address moral questions?

Yes,

How can science not be subject to morality since science spawns from the human mind?

Science by itself cannot exist. It can only exist when those prone to reason and learning engage in a quest for knowledge. Science is subject to the morality and biases of the seeker. Link: dictionary definition for science

Whoa! Now we're back to what I addressed in this thread 2 weeks ago. Science, and what people do with it (e.g., Hitler), are separate things. The scientific method (the bedrock of science) is a brilliant, effective, well-defined process, but devoid of moral implications.

To use your terminology, science is only subject to the morality and biases of the seeker, when the seeker wrongly imposes it on science. Please give some modern examples that you have in mind, and I'll show you what I mean.

There is Political Science, Social/cultural Science, etc... There are all kinds of science.

Did the scientific method exist before humanity or is it a discipline of humanity's quest for knowledge?

The scientific method can help us understand that consciousness exists but it cannot answer where it comes from or why.

The scientific method can help us understand that there was a big bang but it cannot prove what caused it.

The scientific method can help us understand that light exist but it cannot tell us when the first light appeared.

The scientific method can help us understand the biology of life forms but it cannot answer where life comes from.

The scientific method is a human discipline to help us understand but many things it cannot answer. Likewise, the scientific method is prone to human bias and morality. Is it wrong to experiment on animals and not humans?
-
-
-

IgoFan wrote: Whoa! Now we're back to what I addressed in this thread 2 weeks ago. Science, and what people do with it (e.g., Hitler), are separate things. The scientific method (the bedrock of science) is a brilliant, effective, well-defined process, but devoid of moral implications.

To use your terminology, science is only subject to the morality and biases of the seeker, when the seeker wrongly imposes it on science. Please give some modern examples that you have in mind, and I'll show you what I mean.

B. W. wrote: There is Political Science, Social/cultural Science, etc... There are all kinds of science.

The word science, by itself, means the study of the natural world. If you want to bash Political Science, etc., be my guest. Isn't Political Science an oxymoron anyway?

B. W. wrote: Did the scientific method exist before humanity or is it a discipline of humanity's quest for knowledge?

The latter, assuming that you add the sentence suffix: "of the natural world".

B. W. wrote: The scientific method can help us understand that consciousness exists but it cannot answer where it comes from or why.

Without a useful working definition of consciousness, scientific progress on this topic has been slow.

B. W. wrote: The scientific method can help us understand that there was a big bang but it cannot prove what caused it.

Please repeat out loud: Science does not prove. Science deals with evidence supporting a theory. There are 2 types of people who I cannot take seriously: those who ask science to prove something, and those who pronounce "nuclear" as "nu-kyu-lar".

And now back to your statement, after replacing "prove" with "build evidence supporting a theory of"...

Currently, science admits having no clue about what caused the Big Bang. But if you bet against science ever having an evidence-supported theory about the cause, then I feel sorry for your money. History is littered with people who grossly underestimated what science would discover.

B. W. wrote: The scientific method can help us understand that light exist but it cannot tell us when the first light appeared.
The scientific method can help us understand the biology of life forms but it cannot answer where life comes from.

See my previous answer, excluding the lecture on proof.

B. W. wrote: The scientific method is a human discipline to help us understand but many things it cannot answer.

OK. Not sure what your point is though.

B. W. wrote: Likewise, the scientific method is prone to human bias and morality.

I've already agreed with this. But any problems are with the human, not the scientific method itself. Please give specific examples with specific scientists if you disagree.

B. W. wrote: Is it wrong to experiment on animals and not humans?

I'm still don't see how these questions affect my claim of a morality-neutral scientific method. Does your train of thought in this reply have a caboose? If not, I'm getting off at the next stop.

IgoFan wrote: Please repeat out loud: Science does not prove. Science deals with evidence supporting a theory. There are 2 types of people who I cannot take seriously: those who ask science to prove something, and those who pronounce "nuclear" as "nu-kyu-lar".

And now back to your statement, after replacing "prove" with "build evidence supporting a theory of"...

Currently, science admits having no clue about what caused the Big Bang. But if you bet against science ever having an evidence-supported theory about the cause, then I feel sorry for your money. History is littered with people who grossly underestimated what science would discover.

OK. Not sure what your point is though. .

You just stated my point — 'science admits having no clue about…', and, 'Please repeat out loud: Science does not prove. Science deals with evidence supporting a theory.'

Likewise, the scientific method is prone to human bias and morality. Therefore, were the scientists at Auschwitz moral or immoral in their use of science? What is scientific method without experimentation? If a person's reduces the scientific method to just noble words on a page — then correct — it can never prove a thing and is useless.

A hypothesis comes first then the theory is developed and then experimentation to prove the theory, etc. Science can help us understand the natural world of matter and elements but it cannot tell us if matter and elements either always existed or how they originated. The study of the natural world does point to a creator as cause.

A person cannot base everything on science to be one's savior because as you stated Science does not prove. Yet science does prove things like gravity, laws of psychics, even the lowly light bulb do indeed prove something: Human beings are creative.

Since we are creative, we can use science for either malicious purposes or for good. However, what is deemed evil or good is still based on the morals of the scientists (just as your own postulations concerning science proves your own biases on this very thread).

The questions I posed do indeed affect your claim of a morality-neutral scientific method, because human beings use of scientific method is subject to the moral biases of the scientist. To be morality-neutral would mean the scientist must be perfect and without fault. That is impossibility.

If science does not prove anything — what moral judgment are you basing this statement on?
-
-
-

Well, at least no one can say I didn't try.

I understand what you mean, and I'm not being obtuse. But I'd like to point out a possible misnomer is your question. You ask, how do evolutionists explain the paranormal.To paraphrase, how does evolution explain paranormal phenomenon. That question is like asking how does the recipe for chocolate chip cookies explain the paranormal. The answer? It doesn't, it doesn't have anything to do with it. Evolution attempts to explain a set of observations regarding a perceived natural phenomenon with collected evidence. That phenomenon is the aggregate change in populations over time. It does not address anything outside of that phenomenon. Unless you're calling the aggregate change in populations overtime paranormal.