Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Lunalle wrote:Hey all, it seems that a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of science. I lay blame for this entirely on the education system. I know I was shocked at the inaccuracy of my "science education" when I got out of high school.

First of all, I would like to present some terminology.

Hypothesis - Untested idea about the nature of how things work.
Theory - Verified (by multiple tests) idea about the nature of how things work, including method of verification.
Law - Verified mathematical equation used to make predictions as accurately as possible.

Now, for some fundamentals.

Scientific theories are published explanations of our best understanding of how things work.
Scientific theories are the pinnacle of enlightenment in science.
Scientific theories are not regarded as "true", but as "the best way to explain it given our current understanding".

Scientific hypothesis, theories, and laws are all open to question, and are updated as new information is presented (so long as this new information meets certain requirements).

Scientific hypothesis, theories, and laws are not static. Ex. They are not equally accurate in every setting in this universe.

Hopefully this helps some people better understand the fundamentals of science.

Hopefully!

I see the talk soon turned to faith.
Do you think maybe some other words besides "faith" might be more appropriate?

The word seems so loaded with different meanings!

Luna's initial post was unhelpful as most of this forum's members already understand and know this long before the poster bothered to post it.


For your information, faith means to hold something or someone with trust or confidence.

This applies both to both religious faith and to trust in science, and the question becomes not about whether faith is good, but what kind of faith is Good. (That is, what is the ideal way to decide to hold trust an confidence in something?)


Furthermore, the foundation of rationality is not science, but philosophy, which is where science originally got its foundation, on top of the Christian's Biblical need to test claims and teachings to determine how truthful claims are.

In order to even have science at all, one must have faith that "truth" is self-consistent, let alone exists (a philosophic principle), that humans are capable of comprehending reality, and that there can, and do, exist tools to aid in making observations and verifying (or refuting) claims about reality, let alone that such tools have a degree of reliability.

Without believing in these foundational principles, science becomes impossible.

This is what Christians mean to say that both science and religion require faith.

On top of that, both science and religion depend on the existence of truth and the ability of humans to (somewhat) comprehend reality.Let's also not forget that, based on the nature of truth, both science and religion assume that there are underlying principles and rules to how reality operates.

Insomuch as this, science and religion both use the same kind of faith, but apply these foundational principles in different ways. Essentially, science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

Faith is synonymous with trust so if you prefer to use the term trust, it works just as well.
People tend to think "blind faith" when they think faith, that is the problem.

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Audie wrote:

Lunalle wrote:Hey all, it seems that a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of science. I lay blame for this entirely on the education system. I know I was shocked at the inaccuracy of my "science education" when I got out of high school.

First of all, I would like to present some terminology.

Hypothesis - Untested idea about the nature of how things work.
Theory - Verified (by multiple tests) idea about the nature of how things work, including method of verification.
Law - Verified mathematical equation used to make predictions as accurately as possible.

Now, for some fundamentals.

Scientific theories are published explanations of our best understanding of how things work.
Scientific theories are the pinnacle of enlightenment in science.
Scientific theories are not regarded as "true", but as "the best way to explain it given our current understanding".

Scientific hypothesis, theories, and laws are all open to question, and are updated as new information is presented (so long as this new information meets certain requirements).

Scientific hypothesis, theories, and laws are not static. Ex. They are not equally accurate in every setting in this universe.

Hopefully this helps some people better understand the fundamentals of science.

Hopefully!

I see the talk soon turned to faith.
Do you think maybe some other words besides "faith" might be more appropriate?

The word seems so loaded with different meanings!

Luna's initial post was unhelpful as most of this forum's members already understand and know this long before the poster bothered to post it.


For your information, faith means to hold something or someone with trust or confidence.

This applies both to both religious faith and to trust in science, and the question becomes not about whether faith is good, but what kind of faith is Good. (That is, what is the ideal way to decide to hold trust an confidence in something?)


Furthermore, the foundation of rationality is not science, but philosophy, which is where science originally got its foundation, on top of the Christian's Biblical need to test claims and teachings to determine how truthful claims are.

In order to even have science at all, one must have faith that "truth" is self-consistent, let alone exists (a philosophic principle), that humans are capable of comprehending reality, and that there can, and do, exist tools to aid in making observations and verifying (or refuting) claims about reality, let alone that such tools have a degree of reliability.

Without believing in these foundational principles, science becomes impossible.

This is what Christians mean to say that both science and religion require faith.

On top of that, both science and religion depend on the existence of truth and the ability of humans to (somewhat) comprehend reality.Let's also not forget that, based on the nature of truth, both science and religion assume that there are underlying principles and rules to how reality operates.

Insomuch as this, science and religion both use the same kind of faith, but apply these foundational principles in different ways. Essentially, science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

I dont see how it can be the same kind of faith, when you can do the one based on very concrete facts and repeatable tests, and the other is based on.....?

What reality is it that one comprehends, in a religious belief?

PaulSacramento wrote:Faith is synonymous with trust so if you prefer to use the term trust, it works just as well.
People tend to think "blind faith" when they think faith, that is the problem.

Some faith is blind, of course. How is trust in God not blind faith?

Audie wrote:I dont see how it can be the same kind of faith, when you can do the one based on very concrete facts and repeatable tests, and the other is based on.....?

What reality is it that one comprehends, in a religious belief?

Prove to me that Positivism is true based upon your same criteria for justification.

Prove to me that it is possible to determine what is inside a brick.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Faith is synonymous with trust so if you prefer to use the term trust, it works just as well.
People tend to think "blind faith" when they think faith, that is the problem.

Some faith is blind, of course. How is trust in God not blind faith?

Some faith is blind, yes.
Faith in God is ONLY blind if one believes without any understanding or WHY they believe.

Faith in any god may be for very insensible reasons.

Audie wrote:Faith in any god may be for very insensible reasons.

Maybe. One must do their homework.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Faith in any god may be for very insensible reasons.

Maybe. One must do their homework.

Maybe? Which god is it sensible to believe in,and why?

All the rest of the gods and reasons would be insensible?

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Faith in any god may be for very insensible reasons.

Maybe. One must do their homework.

Maybe? Which god is it sensible to believe in,and why?

All the rest of the gods and reasons would be insensible?

If you really wanna go there ( and I think you should if you truly wanna understand the reason why belief in God is rational), can I suggest a few books?

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Faith in any god may be for very insensible reasons.

Maybe. One must do their homework.

Maybe? Which god is it sensible to believe in,and why?

From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover. With a little revelation and faith the leap to the Christian God is just a small step, not much of a leap.

Audie wrote:All the rest of the gods and reasons would be insensible?

Correct (see above).

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Faith in any god may be for very insensible reasons.

Maybe. One must do their homework.

Maybe? Which god is it sensible to believe in,and why?

From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover. With a little revelation and faith the leap to the Christian God is just a small step, not much of a leap.

Audie wrote:All the rest of the gods and reasons would be insensible?

Correct (see above).

I wonder who "we" are in this, who can do such proof?

I've seen proofs offered and as readily dismantled, with both sides
as satisfied they won.

To me proof can be done in math only. Not science, still less
in philosophy. Elsewhere I asked if one can prove what is inside a
brick.

The sensible person would break it open,the philosopher
can counter saying, no, now that surface is the outside.

Maybe you can prove God, I'd need more than assurance
that its doable to believe it, tho. Fair is fair dont you
think so?

Do you, bit of a side note, take the Bible literally on the
big things? Not "Jesus is a lamb" but the big ones like
6 day creation, flood etc.

Audie wrote:
I wonder who "we" are in this, who can do such proof?

I've seen proofs offered and as readily dismantled, with both sides
as satisfied they won.

To me proof can be done in math only. Not science, still less
in philosophy. Elsewhere I asked if one can prove what is inside a
brick.

The sensible person would break it open,the philosopher
can counter saying, no, now that surface is the outside.

Maybe you can prove God, I'd need more than assurance
that its doable to believe it, tho. Fair is fair dont you
think so?

Do you, bit of a side note, take the Bible literally on the
big things? Not "Jesus is a lamb" but the big ones like
6 day creation, flood etc.

Let's not get too much ahead of ourselves and talk about Jesus and the Bible. Baby steps, first we need to learn to stand up. The existance of God is an ENORMOUS subject as it is so let's stick with that first, if you don't mind.

If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs. Philosophy is the basis, the foundation, the bedrock (there are other superlatives, I'm sure) of any scientific domain. Without philosophy we have no logic, no reason, no rationality. Might as well speak of kljhkjhkjhkjh and we'd make as much sense as the most complex mathematical arguments ever thought of.

So no, if I were you I would not summarly discount philosophical arguments out of hand lest you cut off the very branch you're sitting on. As to how do we know a philosphical argument is sound? It's very simple really, like in any logical argument, either it can stand on its own or it can be refuted. How is it refuted? Also simple, if one can offer a contradiction to one of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow then the argument is said to be refuted. The fact that others disagree with it means nothing. Either it is refuted or it isn't, there is no in-between.

Are you with me so far?

My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?