Evidence for God from Science

I noticed all this topic did was go back and forth asking for evidence when it's obvious NOBODY can give evidence or give an answer.

Everything was interpreted by HUMANS saying it's the word of god or some type of god.

What's so hard for people to say "I don't know"?
Why do we as humans think we have the answers?
We like to think that we have figured something out or we know something someone else doesn't.

I think it sounds selfish to say "I'm going to heaven" because I believe in another human(jesus).
I think it also sounds selfish to say "there is no god".
Because surely we are not here by accident right?

Maybe it's simply a creator?
One thing we can all agree on that is real is LOVE.

I'm not trying to come off as some who hates religions nor am I coming off saying there is no god.
I liked jesus I thought he was a good guy who spoke his mind... he should of never been killed at all.

All I'm doing is giving another side to this topic to possibly help him come to a conclusion.

talkingwalnut wrote:
I'm not trying to come off as some who hates religions nor am I coming off saying there is no god.
I liked jesus I thought he was a good guy who spoke his mind... he should of never been killed at all.

Would you say that a liar is a "good guy"?

puritan lad wrote:
Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.

Step 1 - Assume the opposite. ~A: God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 2 - ~A --> B: If God is not the precondition of human knowledge, then knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 3 - ~B: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 4 - ~~A: It is not the case that God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 5 - A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED

Hey PL , my only problem with this argument, is that to me it seems as though you have to assume knowledge has properties that can only be explained by God. In a pure naturalistic sense knowledge is just a result of atoms and matter moving around. Sure, it exists, but it would be more illusory than we like to think. Similar to morality/decision making/whatever, the end result is a cold, boring universe.

I agree that knowledge in the sense you are using it here may very well require God, but I feel like the argument falls slightly short of a proof when you take into account what atheism actually says about the world, and not just what it's proponents (often times fallaciously) assert.

That's not to say your argument isn't rather convincing, or useful of course.

Echoside wrote:Hey PL , my only problem with this argument, is that to me it seems as though you have to assume knowledge has properties that can only be explained by God.

Actually, I assumed the opposite, and proved my premise to be true via reducitio ad absurdum. If naturalism is to be considered a viable worldview, shouldn't it be able, at least, to justify the tools it uses to debate with?

Until the opposition presents a valid, objective epistemology that doesn't require God, my premises remain true, my logic sound, and thus the proof stands.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Right gman. I wasn't sure if you were responding to me or not, but that is exactly what I was trying to say in my small reply to you. Basically, that if an appeal to a "God of the gaps" explanation is invalid, it is equally invalid to do a "science of the gaps" approach, and yet its done. Example: "We should just assume that there will be, at some point, a naturalistic explanation for everything."

No not you directly Marcus, just an observation. Science etymologically, comes from the word to know. Science is about knowing. Darwinism is basically materialism or the philosophy that matter is all that there is. However, as we have pointed out, matter can't explain everything.. There maybe no facts other than natural facts, but of course is that what you mean that doesn’t get you what you want and need which is your reason for believing that there are no facts other than natural facts. It just gives you the way you are choosing to use the term.

puritan lad wrote:

Echoside wrote:Hey PL , my only problem with this argument, is that to me it seems as though you have to assume knowledge has properties that can only be explained by God.

Actually, I assumed the opposite, and proved my premise to be true via reducitio ad absurdum. If naturalism is to be considered a viable worldview, shouldn't it be able, at least, to justify the tools it uses to debate with?

Until the opposition presents a valid, objective epistemology that doesn't require God, my premises remain true, my logic sound, and thus the proof stands.

My mistake, I quoted a proof of a premise rather than your original argument. I agree with the conclusions you draw, but the definition by which someone might use knowledge in an objection might vary.

If knowledge is an occurence with about the same significance as a leaf falling from a tree to the universe, Then would you say your argument could be modified to fit existence as a whole? Because with naturalism whether the word you use is knowledge, meaning, logic, whatever human processes we describe, it all boils down to the movement of atoms and is not nearly as significant or real as we would like to believe.

Is there a reason you specifically use knowledge?

Seraph wrote:Hey CopaceticMan

I believe Katabole's reason for listing famous intellegent people who believe in God wasn't to try and show that since smart people believe in God, you should too. Rather, it's to show that belief in God does have a rational basis and isn't simply for less than intellegent people like militant Atheists often claim.
...
Ommitted for brevity
...
As many will tell you though, with much of Christianity it will be less reliant on observable evidence (though it exists) and more reliant on personal experience with a relationship with God.

I like your style.
Patience is indeed a virtue my friend.

Echoside wrote:

puritan lad wrote:

Echoside wrote:Hey PL , my only problem with this argument, is that to me it seems as though you have to assume knowledge has properties that can only be explained by God.

Actually, I assumed the opposite, and proved my premise to be true via reducitio ad absurdum. If naturalism is to be considered a viable worldview, shouldn't it be able, at least, to justify the tools it uses to debate with?

Until the opposition presents a valid, objective epistemology that doesn't require God, my premises remain true, my logic sound, and thus the proof stands.

My mistake, I quoted a proof of a premise rather than your original argument. I agree with the conclusions you draw, but the definition by which someone might use knowledge in an objection might vary.

If knowledge is an occurence with about the same significance as a leaf falling from a tree to the universe, Then would you say your argument could be modified to fit existence as a whole? Because with naturalism whether the word you use is knowledge, meaning, logic, whatever human processes we describe, it all boils down to the movement of atoms and is not nearly as significant or real as we would like to believe.

Is there a reason you specifically use knowledge?

I used knowledge because it would be the very foundation of discussing worldviews. Just how is it that the human mind can obtain anythign that should be considered of worth? But one could substitute any number of Kant's transcendentals into the argument: Science, Logic, Ethics, Intelligible Experience, free thought, human dignity, etc. These things simply cannot be accounted for in naturalism. But whn we start with knowledge, naturalism cannot even get off the ground.

In a pure naturalistic sense knowledge is just a result of atoms and matter moving around.

Is it? You are saying that knowledge is then material?

1harpazo wrote:

talkingwalnut wrote:
I'm not trying to come off as some who hates religions nor am I coming off saying there is no god.
I liked jesus I thought he was a good guy who spoke his mind... he should of never been killed at all.

Would you say that a liar is a "good guy"?

We have all told lies one way or another at least once in our life's.

What about the people who are really good parents but they tell their kids about Santa..do you think that makes them bad people?

What if your wife says "Do I look fat"? and you say "no honey you look great just how you are" Does that make the husband a bad guy?


So even if jesus lied he deserved to be nailed to wood?
Sounds pretty over the top to me.

I think his point was that if Jesus wasn't who He said He was, his entire life was a sham. It wouldn't be comparable with saying "no" when someone asks "do I look fat". It would be more like living in an adulterous relationship for the duration of your marriage while lying and saying you are being faithful. If Jesus was a liar (in this sense), He wasn't good. But if He was good... then maybe He wasn't lying.

jlay wrote:

In a pure naturalistic sense knowledge is just a result of atoms and matter moving around.

Is it? You are saying that knowledge is then material?

If that were true (which would be one of the logical conclusions of naturalism), then...

1.) Knowledge would be worthless, since there would be no right or wrong opinions, only matter. Thus we are stuck in a world of pure materialist determinism.
2.) We could neither learn nor forget, since matter cannot be created or destroyed in naturalism.

Talkingwalnut,

None of the Christians here on this website worship a dead guy. If Jesus Christ did not rise from death, he was nothing more than a man and according to Jewish law, he fully deserved the penalty of death for claiming to be God, when he was not because he broke the first commandment. I have faith to believe that Jesus did rise from death and by so doing, he not only defeated death, but proved he was God and the only God at that, making Chrsitianity a reality and not a religion.

talkingwalnut wrote:So even if jesus lied he deserved to be nailed to wood? Sounds pretty over the top to me.

On what authority would you doubt Jesus or suggest He lied?

puritan lad wrote:I used knowledge because it would be the very foundation of discussing worldviews. Just how is it that the human mind can obtain anythign that should be considered of worth? But one could substitute any number of Kant's transcendentals into the argument: Science, Logic, Ethics, Intelligible Experience, free thought, human dignity, etc. These things simply cannot be accounted for in naturalism. But whn we start with knowledge, naturalism cannot even get off the ground.

I suppose the line of thought i'm following is do things like free thought, intelligible experience, human dignity even really exist? I mean, in a hypothetical universe without God would logic still be able to exist, would not 1+1 still equal 2 and not possibly 3? The way our atoms moved to decide our thought processes would decide whether we "reasoned" incorrectly or correctly, but would the law of non contradiction, etc. still be in tact?

Sorry this might sound a bit cluttered I'm simply voicing aloud my thoughts as they come to me. Perhaps the idea of existence without God is so absurd that I cannot even contemplate it without being in a reality where knowledge is quite real.

Jlay wrote: Is it? You are saying that knowledge is then material?

I'm not quite sure of the actual essence of knowledge, but in a naturalistic sense it is at the very least contingent upon the material that accesses/creates it. Is it material itself? Maybe, although if you asked me to I don't think i could piece together the atoms that tell me my home address