Evidence for God from Science

Reactionary wrote: "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident,

Ok.

Reactionary wrote: and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.

Ok.

Reactionary wrote: If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms.

STOP. Big disagreement here. I wish C.S.Lewis was alive. I would discuss with him statistical physics and artificial neural networks. Dear people, do you know that there exists an artificial intelligence at the level of a 4-year-old child? If you spoke with it, you could not distinguish whether you are speaking to a child or to a computer.

Reactionary wrote: ... It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." --C.S.Lewis on materialistic thoughts

Makes perfect sense to me. Chemical reactions in the brain can not account for the human reason, as they are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Well, on the other hand, are we just boxes in which the struggle between metaphysical forces, between good and evil takes place? If so, then without the victory of the good in me I will never come to God. And the good is from God. Then, without the victory of God in me I will nevel come to God. Are we God's puppets or what?
Once, one Christian said to me "If you were a puppet you would be already in." So, If a were a puppet, I'd be already a Christian. Do we have free will, do we have not? If yes, then what is free will. No chemistry, no physics, hmmmmm.

[quote="Reactionary] ... but that doesn't mean the signal originates from that TV set. In the same way I believe our brain is just like that TV set - a receiver that stands between us and the physical world.
[/quote]

Then, where are signals coming from? From God, Satan, etc.? Are we just puppets? I discuss this little above.

[quote="Reactionary]
They've been trying for decades to create artificial intelligence, you can improve computers to an insane level, but you can never make them think for themselves, because they lack what we humans have - soul.
[/quote]

There is AI at the level of a 4-years-old child.

Reactionary wrote: But what has stunned scientists is that some people had certain parts of the brain removed due to a disease or tumour, yet over time they regained the abilities attributed to the parts of the brain they removed... that's plenty of food for thought for now.

Yes, neural networks are dynamic.

Echoside wrote: If the universe has no meaning people will react however the atoms that make them up are shifted. As noble as the sentiment "the mistake would be to close our eyes before the truth" is, you cannot in any fairness blame others for not holding to it. Not only because such opinions and worldviews in general are completely subjective, but because the person is no more responsible for their actions than a rock.

I do not blame anybody. I am only an observer. If people want, they can have their subjective truths. But there is a danger when they firmly stick to their truths. The past gives us many lessons. For example, people with knowledge about healing effects of plants. They could help many people to get from the diseases, to save them from death, instead of that, they ended on the fire.

Echoside wrote: Also, at any rate I think I may have misunderstood Lewis from other people's responses. If it's heading towards the "how can we know anything" debate I disagree with the conclusion that is usually drawn, I have more of a problem with the fact that "the universe has no meaning" is as unfalsifiable as "the universe wasn't created by god". I guess you can speak in pure hypotheticals though, I don't think a world where God doesn't exist and Knowledge can be discovered is unrealistic, but that's a debate for a different topic, I agree with the OP in the sense that we aren't going to design some repeatable experiment to "disprove" God, the notion is absurd.

Yes, when can directly jump to the result that would result from such debate. The result is: If God is than He is, if He is not, than He is not.

The closest thing to disproving the God would be creation of a complete human being. But there are restrictions coming from Christians, in experimenting with embryos, gens, etc.

1over137 wrote:The closest thing to disproving the God would be creation of a complete human being. But there are restrictions coming from Christians, in experimenting with embryos, gens, etc.

Yes, that would do it. But only if all the material required were to be created from scratch in a vacuum as well. And then only if it came about spontaneously, without an intelligent agent helping it along. THAT to me would be a compelling argument against God (well, maybe).

Legatus wrote:Your statement in the first post, that there is no science that disproves God, is entirely negative. What about looking at it from the other side, is there scientific proof that God DOES exist? What God has to say about this is Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ...

Legatus! What a nice essay. I wish more Christians were like you. Dear admins and moderators. Could not this essay be posted somewhere on the http://www.godandscience.org with big shining advertisement on that?

1over137 wrote:STOP. Big disagreement here. I wish C.S.Lewis was alive. I would discuss with him statistical physics and artificial neural networks. Dear people, do you know that there exists an artificial intelligence at the level of a 4-year-old child? If you spoke with it, you could not distinguish whether you are speaking to a child or to a computer.

I haven't heard of it - could you provide a link please, as "AI" is a very broad term often used with a lot of equivocation. Many such "intelligences" were pre-programmed by humans to react to the highest possible number of situations, to "learn" by experience etc., so I'd like to see some proof.

1over137 wrote:Well, on the other hand, are we just boxes in which the struggle between metaphysical forces, between good and evil takes place? If so, then without the victory of the good in me I will never come to God. And the good is from God. Then, without the victory of God in me I will nevel come to God. Are we God's puppets or what?
Once, one Christian said to me "If you were a puppet you would be already in." So, If a were a puppet, I'd be already a Christian. Do we have free will, do we have not? If yes, then what is free will. No chemistry, no physics, hmmmmm.

Yes, we do have free will. We can choose to accept or reject God. "Evil" may be considered an absence of good, just like darkness is an absence of light, or coldness an absence of warmth. The good is from God because He is the highest being, and as such, the direction of our progress. No, we're not puppets, exactly because we may choose to make the moves we want in our lives.

1over137 wrote:I do not blame anybody. I am only an observer. If people want, they can have their subjective truths. But there is a danger when they firmly stick to their truths.

I believe that's your subjective truth.

1over137 wrote:The past gives us many lessons. For example, people with knowledge about healing effects of plants. They could help many people to get from the diseases, to save them from death, instead of that, they ended on the fire.

They wouldn't save them from death, they would only postpone their death. Why do you care anyway?

1over137 wrote:The closest thing to disproving the God would be creation of a complete human being. But there are restrictions coming from Christians, in experimenting with embryos, gens, etc.

No... The closest thing to disproving God would be a living cell that spontaneously arises from non-life. Tampering with embryos, genes etc. wouldn't really get us anywhere in the God discussion, and yes, as a Christian, I find it inhumane and I oppose it.

1over137 wrote:The closest thing to disproving the God would be creation of a complete human being. But there are restrictions coming from Christians, in experimenting with embryos, gens, etc.

There's a whole lot more people than just Christians who want restrictions. I know its entirely fictional in nature, but I think of the Bioshock computer game that came out a few years ago. Imagine if we had a way to genetically 'improve' humans in every way. You don't see this backfiring with such severity that we lose sight of who humans are and end up destroying every last ounce of humanity we have? At some point, 'improve' will be defined entirely differently, and might even look like regression. Some people even define a more perfect world as one without humans (I think of some very radical environmentalists). Without objective morality, whose to say they're wrong? Why not embrace their vision of the future for humanity?

The problem really stems from the fact that if you can't define perfection (and you need an objective standard to do so), you can't be trying to 'perfect' anything, and experimenting with human DNA is one of those things.

---

As far as the topic of AI goes, there is a reason it is called 'AI'. I'm a software engineer, and I've written AI myself and have studied it on my own and as part of the coursework required for getting a degree. Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than a weighted decision making system. You 'reward' good behavior and 'punish' bad behavior by weighting the decisions. And you may be right; it may have the look of a four year old in some cases. But don't confuse the model and the thing being modeled - it would be just as erroneous to suggest that gravity is an equation or that an atom is a collection of perfectly spherical, multicolored protons and neutrons. AI is not self-aware. AI's wants and needs are scripted. AI's existence is created - it does not rise naturally. AI does not have, as we understand them, true longings. It does not have true desire.

Remember: If AI were at some point able to simulate a human being perfectly, wouldn't that just help show that intelligence requires an intelligent designer?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Remember: If AI were at some point able to simulate a human being perfectly, wouldn't that just help show that intelligence requires an intelligent designer?

Actually no. It would just show that an intelligent designer can design a perfect human simulation. It in no way contraindicates human evolution.

Byblos wrote: Yes, that would do it. But only if all the material required were to be created from
scratch in a vacuum as well. And then only if it came about spontaneously, without an
intelligent agent helping it along. THAT to me would be a compelling argument against
God (well, maybe).

Unfortunately, the experiment would have to run for a looooong time.

Reactionary wrote: I haven't heard of it - could you provide a link please, as "AI" is a very broad term
often used with a lot of equivocation. Many such "intelligences" were pre-programmed
by humans to react to the highest possible number of situations, to "learn" by
experience etc., so I'd like to see some proof.

for example: "Meet Milo: Microsoft's virtual four-year-old boy who acts just like a
real child" on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... Meet-Milo-
Microsofts-virtual-year-old-boy-acts-just-like-real-child.html. Then there is also
Eddie from Second Life.

Reactionary wrote: Yes, we do have free will. We can choose to accept or reject God. "Evil" may be
considered an absence of good, just like darkness is an absence of light, or coldness
an absence of warmth. The good is from God because He is the highest being, and as
such, the direction of our progress. No, we're not puppets, exactly because we may
choose to make the moves we want in our lives.

I have a free will and want to live in the truth. Why am I not a Christian? (We are
going off topic, so please react to this in the thread "What makes a person atheist"
in "Questions for Christians" where I am active).

Reactionary wrote:

1over137 wrote: ... there is a danger when they firmly stick to their truths.

I believe that's your subjective truth.

It is my subjective truth but there is a chance that it can be also an objective truth
from the following reason: There is an objective truth. The truth is the truth by
definition. And logic dictates that I have a chance of having objective truth.
(We are going off topic also here, so meet me in the other mentioned thread)

Reactionary wrote: They wouldn't save them from death, they would only postpone their death. Why do you
care anyway?

Yes, they would (only?) postpone it. And now to the question of caring. I can give you
following answer. If I was living also in that period of time, I could have also
troubles with my health and if all the people who could have help me would get killed
I could die as well. So I dare to say, that as while as our lives are concerned we
care. Another example is terrorism. Because of some people sticking to their
subjective truth many people get killed. (Again, we are going off topic, meet me in
the other thread.)

Reactionary wrote: No... The closest thing to disproving God would be a living cell that spontaneously
arises from non-life. Tampering with embryos, genes etc. wouldn't really get us
anywhere in the God discussion, and yes, as a Christian, I find it inhumane and I
oppose it.

It is difficult to make a border between what is non-living and what is living. I do
not want to tamper with embryos anymore either.

MarcusOfLycia wrote: There's a whole lot more people than just Christians who want restrictions. I know its
entirely fictional in nature, but I think of the Bioshock computer game that came out
a few years ago. Imagine if we had a way to genetically 'improve' humans in every way.
You don't see this backfiring with such severity that we lose sight of who humans are
and end up destroying every last ounce of humanity we have? At some point, 'improve'
will be defined entirely differently, and might even look like regression. Some people
even define a more perfect world as one without humans (I think of some very radical
environmentalists). Without objective morality, whose to say they're wrong? Why not
embrace their vision of the future for humanity?
The problem really stems from the fact that if you can't define perfection (and you
need an objective standard to do so), you can't be trying to 'perfect' anything, and
experimenting with human DNA is one of those things.

I think that there are some clues about what is more perfect and what is not. Let's
start with very trivial thing. Certainly, it is better to have two hands then only one
hand, because with two hands you can do more things. And imagine that there would be a
genetic disease that would make people one-handed. Should not we try to help these
poeple? Well, thinking about this, what about having three hands? (little joke)

MarcusOfLycia wrote: As far as the topic of AI goes, there is a reason it is called 'AI'. I'm a software
engineer, and I've written AI myself and have studied it on my own and as part of the
coursework required for getting a degree. Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than
a weighted decision making system. You 'reward' good behavior and 'punish' bad
behavior by weighting the decisions. And you may be right; it may have the look of a
four year old in some cases. But don't confuse the model and the thing being modeled -
it would be just as erroneous to suggest that gravity is an equation or that an atom
is a collection of perfectly spherical, multicolored protons and neutrons. AI is not
self-aware. AI's wants and needs are scripted. AI's existence is created - it does not
rise naturally. AI does not have, as we understand them, true longings. It does not
have true desire.

Speaking about rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour. Isn't it also
this way in the real world? Do no people behave in the way to be punished the least?

waynepii wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote: Remember: If AI were at some point able to simulate a human being perfectly, wouldn't
that just help show that intelligence requires an intelligent designer?

Actually no. It would just show that an intelligent designer can design a perfect
human simulation. It in no way contraindicates human evolution.

Thanks for your post. I agree.

1over137 wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote: There's a whole lot more people than just Christians who want restrictions. I know its
entirely fictional in nature, but I think of the Bioshock computer game that came out
a few years ago. Imagine if we had a way to genetically 'improve' humans in every way.
You don't see this backfiring with such severity that we lose sight of who humans are
and end up destroying every last ounce of humanity we have? At some point, 'improve'
will be defined entirely differently, and might even look like regression. Some people
even define a more perfect world as one without humans (I think of some very radical
environmentalists). Without objective morality, whose to say they're wrong? Why not
embrace their vision of the future for humanity?
The problem really stems from the fact that if you can't define perfection (and you
need an objective standard to do so), you can't be trying to 'perfect' anything, and
experimenting with human DNA is one of those things.

I think that there are some clues about what is more perfect and what is not. Let's
start with very trivial thing. Certainly, it is better to have two hands then only one
hand, because with two hands you can do more things. And imagine that there would be a
genetic disease that would make people one-handed. Should not we try to help these
poeple? Well, thinking about this, what about having three hands? (little joke)

Your 'little joke' about three hands and your disregard for one hand as a genetic disease are both totally trivial and meaningless statements. You don't have any basis with which to claim either of those would be 'better' or 'worse' for human beings. What about more than three? What about more fingers? Bigger brains? And in what ways are they more or less perfect? Some people, as I pointed out, think human beings are bad for the planet and we are the definition of evil. If that was the case, it would be better if we had no hands and couldn't do any of the things we do to supposedly 'destroy the planet'. You never once responded with what you are basing your moral code on, but you hinted at it when you said 'certainly'. You trust your own judgements. Yet, you don't have any reason to do so objectively... and you can't define perfection in any meaningful way without being objective.

What in the world are you basing 'more perfect' on? You haven't defined a single fundamental thing to do so! You just say it is 'certainly better' to do something over another thing. I never suggested you weren't free to create your own totally baseless system of perfection. I tried to get at the fact that it is baseless. You not only didn't give me any reasons other than your own opinion, you gave a trivial and ultimately worthless example because of your lack of explanation; especially since I could make the claim that three hands make us more perfect because we become more efficient.

1over137 wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote: As far as the topic of AI goes, there is a reason it is called 'AI'. I'm a software
engineer, and I've written AI myself and have studied it on my own and as part of the
coursework required for getting a degree. Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than
a weighted decision making system. You 'reward' good behavior and 'punish' bad
behavior by weighting the decisions. And you may be right; it may have the look of a
four year old in some cases. But don't confuse the model and the thing being modeled -
it would be just as erroneous to suggest that gravity is an equation or that an atom
is a collection of perfectly spherical, multicolored protons and neutrons. AI is not
self-aware. AI's wants and needs are scripted. AI's existence is created - it does not
rise naturally. AI does not have, as we understand them, true longings. It does not
have true desire.

Speaking about rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour. Isn't it also
this way in the real world? Do no people behave in the way to be punished the least?

Its also true in the real world that people require an energy source, are made of matter, and have input and output sensors. So what? Isn't the point of a good simulator to -simulate- something? Human beings do not boil down to rewards and punishments for behavior, but for a simulator, this is required. However, if you think that human beings do boil down to that, then based on that claim we can assume that human beings fundamentally are simply complex processors. If that's the case, do you think that love, hope, mercy, and all other immaterial things that humans pursue are simply the optimal state for this processor to operate at at any given time? That sort of world is pretty easy to define as meaningless... unless you can say that one arrangement of atoms has more meaning than another and give some substantial reason as to why.

1over137 wrote:

waynepii wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote: Remember: If AI were at some point able to simulate a human being perfectly, wouldn't
that just help show that intelligence requires an intelligent designer?

Actually no. It would just show that an intelligent designer can design a perfect
human simulation. It in no way contraindicates human evolution.

Thanks for your post. I agree.

Would you agree that if we observed something repeatably and reliably that we'd be able to make some basic assertions? That's part of the basis of science right? Well, what if every time we observed a tree grow, we found that it grew from seeds. Would you be fair to assume that trees don't spontaneously produce, but might instead be the product of the seeds that hit the ground? I think so. So, look at it this way: Every form of intelligence that we've ever seen come into existence has been the result of previous intelligence working on it. So... since we -have- seen this and it is repeatable, why do you trust in something you've never seen and has never been repeated? Why not even just give them both a fair chance? That's what I really don't get...

If you read carefully, my point wasn't that it proves an intelligent designer. My point was that it helps more than hurts the case, and I think it does.

I do wonder though, what exactly would it take for you to see a contradiction in the theory of atoms to human evolution? Do you guys believe in an evolution-of-the-gaps type of argument? If so, do you also give equal credence to a God-of-the-gaps argument?

MarcusOfLycia wrote: Its also true in the real world that people require an energy source, are made of matter, and have input and output sensors. So what? Isn't the point of a good simulator to -simulate- something? Human beings do not boil down to rewards and punishments for behavior, but for a simulator, this is required. However, if you think that human beings do boil down to that, then based on that claim we can assume that human beings fundamentally are simply complex processors. If that's the case, do you think that love, hope, mercy, and all other immaterial things that humans pursue are simply the optimal state for this processor to operate at at any given time? That sort of world is pretty easy to define as meaningless... unless you can say that one arrangement of atoms has more meaning than another and give some substantial reason as to why.

Social evolution tries to adress that.

MarcusOfLycia wrote: Would you agree that if we observed something repeatably and reliably that we'd be able to make some basic assertions? That's part of the basis of science right? Well, what if every time we observed a tree grow, we found that it grew from seeds. Would you be fair to assume that trees don't spontaneously produce, but might instead be the product of the seeds that hit the ground? I think so. So, look at it this way: Every form of intelligence that we've ever seen come into existence has been the result of previous intelligence working on it. So... since we -have- seen this and it is repeatable, why do you trust in something you've never seen and has never been repeated? Why not even just give them both a fair chance? That's what I really don't get...

Have I said somewhere that I trust evolution?

MarcusOfLycia wrote: If you read carefully, my point wasn't that it proves an intelligent designer. My point was that it helps more than hurts the case, and I think it does.

I do wonder though, what exactly would it take for you to see a contradiction in the theory of atoms to human evolution?

Gaps.

MarcusOfLycia wrote: Do you guys believe in an evolution-of-the-gaps type of argument? If so, do you also give equal credence to a God-of-the-gaps argument?

I'd like to ask here what is supported by Bible.

First of all, I'm curious how your two sentences-

"Social evolution tries to address that" and "Have I said somewhere that I trust evolution?" work together. They seem contradictory to me.

Second, a lot of my questions were not answered - saying 'social evolution tries to address that' doesn't really do any of those questions justice. I've encountered very few people who think evolution (of any kind) tries to give meaning to human existence - people who embrace it as part of their worldview would much more likely say they think evolution simply explains a process.

There are plenty of 'gaps' in our knowledge, but that hasn't seemed to change your mind. We have, for instance, no idea how life began in a scientific way. We are missing vast swaths of 'inter-species' fossils. The more we learn the more we realize we don't understand. If 'gaps' would be something that would help you see contradiction, then you should have plenty to go on.

As far as what the Bible supports, there is an additional source of information Christians draw from called 'revelation'. I don't think a 'gaps' argument is a good one in either direction.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:First of all, I'm curious how your two sentences-

"Social evolution tries to address that" and "Have I said somewhere that I trust evolution?" work together. They seem contradictory to me.

They may seem contradictory, but in my opinion are not. The first sentence is of an informative character, it only says that there is a social evolution theory that tries to address the stuff you mentioned. You don not know me so you cannot say what I trust and do not trust in. Next time, when you ask me the question "Why do you trust in ..." ask me the question "Do you trust in ..." first.

MarcusOfLycia wrote: Second, a lot of my questions were not answered - saying 'social evolution tries to address that' doesn't really do any of those questions justice. I've encountered very few people who think evolution (of any kind) tries to give meaning to human existence - people who embrace it as part of their worldview would much more likely say they think evolution simply explains a process.

I am sorry, but I can't provide you with more answers at the moment. I would have to do more research to tell you what people working in that field has achieved so far. My sentence was only of an informative character and the 'social evolution' is the keyword to look up.
I agree that evolution addresses the process of evolution.

MarcusOfLycia wrote: There are plenty of 'gaps' in our knowledge, but that hasn't seemed to change your mind. We have, for instance, no idea how life began in a scientific way. We are missing vast swaths of 'inter-species' fossils. The more we learn the more we realize we don't understand. If 'gaps' would be something that would help you see contradiction, then you should have plenty to go on.

Some people brought an idea that aliens effected our evolution.

MarcusOfLycia wrote: As far as what the Bible supports, there is an additional source of information Christians draw from called 'revelation'. I don't think a 'gaps' argument is a good one in either direction.

Thanks

1over137 wrote:Some people brought an idea that aliens effected our evolution.

1) Correct, they brought an idea. Without a shred of evidence. Blind faith is, obviously, not an issue when an idea fits a naturalistic worldview.
2) Still, that idea doesn't explain how those aliens came to be in the first place. If they could travel galaxies and create life, they'd obviously be a much more advanced civilization than us, so... Their evolution would also need "assistance" like ours, which only creates an endless chain of causes, with an assumption that the laws of physics and chemistry are the same throughout the Universe, which is undoubtedly true.