Evidence for God from Science

Alien wrote:

Felgar wrote: So having to admit that science cannot hope to explain everything, you are left clinging to a semantic definition as "unexplained, and not supernatural." Tell me what is the difference between something that cannot be scientifically explained and something that is supernatural?

Strictly speaking, the answer to your question cannot be other than "None". There is no difference between "cannot be scientifically explained" and "supernatural".
But, I would not say that science cannot explain something. I would say that science does not explain something. Here there is a big difference, perhaps not immediately visible. I have never been in New Zealand. This does not mean that I am not able to go to New Zealand, but simply that I have not done it.

I understand what you are saying. I have all along; I'm not sure that YOU understand what you are saying. You are betting that science has the potential to explain everything. You are taking a position of faith that everything is natural, and as a consequence there IS nothing supernatural. I've been saying this all along; just trying to show you that you are closing yourself off to possibilities and are placing your trust in something inherrently not trustworthy. Proof of that merely requires consideration of how often scientific knowledge is uprooted by new theories and new knowledge. BTW, I reject your notion of faith being only positive; choosing the positive of two mutually exclusive possibilties also gives you the negative.

Alien wrote:

Felgar wrote: And why are you willing to preempt seeking real truth in lieu of a weak are arbitrary classification of those things that we cannot explain? How has your life been enriched by this philospohy?

I simply look for scientific explanations, for everything. And, as I said in my first posts here, I am trying to understand how it is possible (looking at the title of this site) to mix science with faith. The two concepts are foreign each other.

They are only foreign to each other from your point of view. Check out the banner at the top of the page; as God has stated: "The Heavens declare the glory of God."Psalm 19 By understanding our world, we better understand the One who made it.

Anyways, I hope that one day you'll open your mind to new possibilties. I believe your philosophies are to your own detrement, and maybe one day you'll come to see that.

I think this

Alien wrote: As an example, the described Sodoma and Gomorrha destruction can be associated to at least three explanations:

1. the one given by the Bible itself (God intervention)
2. the one associated to a nuclear weapon explosion
3. the one associated to a metaphorical image written by a human author

These are all explanations, at a first approximation. They can be called theories.

Theory #1 is supernatural because it does not use any scientific explanation
Theory #2 and #3 are both natural. But, whilst theory #2 needs to explain many other uncertainties, theory #3 has a better level of confidence.

If you accept #1, you make an act of faith
If you accept #2, you are left with unexplained parts
If you accept #3, you are moving at the highest level of scientific confidence

is a Very Bad Example as there are tons of Archealogical Proof of Sodom and Gomorrah and even the Utter Destruction of those Cities so #1 is not Completely an Act of Faith as there has been Proof for the way the Bible States it!

phoenix; Go to my website, http://www.ggod.info, and navigate to my page. I wrote an article there on Thermodynamics.

Alien wrote:

As an example, the described Sodoma and Gomorrha destruction can be associated to at least three explanations:

1. the one given by the Bible itself (God intervention)
2. the one associated to a nuclear weapon explosion
3. the one associated to a metaphorical image written by a human author

These are all explanations, at a first approximation. They can be called theories.

Theory #1 is supernatural because it does not use any scientific explanation
Theory #2 and #3 are both natural. But, whilst theory #2 needs to explain many other uncertainties, theory #3 has a better level of confidence.

If you accept #1, you make an act of faith
If you accept #2, you are left with unexplained parts
If you accept #3, you are moving at the highest level of scientific confidence

ALIEN IS RIGHT!!!!! Thank you, Alien

hamilrob wrote:Alien wrote:

As an example, the described Sodoma and Gomorrha destruction can be associated to at least three explanations:

1. the one given by the Bible itself (God intervention)
2. the one associated to a nuclear weapon explosion
3. the one associated to a metaphorical image written by a human author

These are all explanations, at a first approximation. They can be called theories.

Theory #1 is supernatural because it does not use any scientific explanation
Theory #2 and #3 are both natural. But, whilst theory #2 needs to explain many other uncertainties, theory #3 has a better level of confidence.

If you accept #1, you make an act of faith
If you accept #2, you are left with unexplained parts
If you accept #3, you are moving at the highest level of scientific confidence

ALIEN IS RIGHT!!!!! Thank you, Alien

How Can one be right when the Example he uses has Proof of it.

Of Course as Scientists always do they Claim it to be Natural (it could have been but God can be seen in Nature)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 497476.stm

HUH???

To Phoenix, and all others:

This link will take you to the article I wrote which may have relevance to this topic. Thank you for taking to time to read it. It is just my opinion and I welcome your reactions. Even yours, Felgar!

http://ggod.info/thermodynamics.htm

I choose #1 not just because of what the Bible Says but of the Proof it contains! None of the three options fit except for #1 especially with the recent Archaeological Proof we now have!

bizzt wrote:I choose #1 not just because of what the Bible Says but of the Proof it contains! None of the three options fit except for #1 especially with the recent Archaeological Proof we now have!

Please note that I have said "at least three theories" for this explanation.

There might be many others, and the first two that come to my mind are

4. Earthquake
5. War

And, by the way, we can consider to rearrange and complete #1 and #3 by saying that the cause of the distruction is God in #1 and something else in #3. The metaphorical image is then focused on the cause of the destruction and not on the destruction itself.

Felgar wrote: I understand what you are saying. I have all along; I'm not sure that YOU understand what you are saying. You are betting that science has the potential to explain everything. You are taking a position of faith that everything is natural, and as a consequence there IS nothing supernatural.

I don't know whether or not everything is natural.
I only know that up to now science has always given explanations that are natural.

Felgar wrote:I've been saying this all along; just trying to show you that you are closing yourself off to possibilities and are placing your trust in something inherrently not trustworthy. Proof of that merely requires consideration of how often scientific knowledge is uprooted by new theories and new knowledge.

Of course, scientific theories are continuously tuned or refined. Sometimes are falsified. That's exactly why they can be called scientific.

I can write a theory that is scientific (because it can be falsified) but wrong (when it is actually falsified).
Look, my point is that science is not "the truth". Science is the only suitable and objective way to approach "the truth".

Science is a tool.

Felgar wrote: BTW, I reject your notion of faith being only positive; choosing the positive of two mutually exclusive possibilties also gives you the negative.

Sorry, not understood.

If we have two statements (both unfalsifiable)

1. Zeus exists
2. Zeus does not exist

Are you saying that choosing 1 or choosing 2 are both acts of faith? My answer is no.
I understand your answer is yes. And this is a disagreement. You should not call faith the lack of faith.

But then I don't understand what you mean by "also gives you the negative".

Felgar wrote:

Alien wrote:I simply look for scientific explanations, for everything. And, as I said in my first posts here, I am trying to understand how it is possible (looking at the title of this site) to mix science with faith. The two concepts are foreign each other.

They are only foreign to each other from your point of view. Check out the banner at the top of the page; as God has stated: "The Heavens declare the glory of God."Psalm 19 By understanding our world, we better understand the One who made it.

The last sentence looks clear to me. By trying to understand the product of a creation, you try to better understand the author of the creation.

I don't dispute that in principle.

But, having stated that creation is not a scientific theory, how can you use the scientific tool to clarify a non-scientific theory? To me, this sounds a bit like using mathematics to understand my sympathy for the Beatles music.

Felgar wrote: Anyways, I hope that one day you'll open your mind to new possibilties. I believe your philosophies are to your own detrement, and maybe one day you'll come to see that.

Please remember, I am not here to convince or to insult anyone.

I am here mainly to understand your viewpoints about mixing science and belief.
I don't want to convince anyone that he is wrong in his faith. I only would like to understand this mixing that for me is a contradiction.

Unfortunately, I've got the feeling that in 99% of cases I mainly had to answer questions, and only in a 1% of cases I got some answers from you guys.

Honestly, this still makes things interesting; I like polite discussions.

Alien wrote:The last sentence looks clear to me. By trying to understand the product of a creation, you try to better understand the author of the creation.

Exactly right.

Alien wrote:But, having stated that creation is not a scientific theory, how can you use the scientific tool to clarify a non-scientific theory?

I'm not trying to learn about 'the theory of creation'... I accept that as an axiom. What we are learning about is the how the product of that creation works. The product of God's creation is our natural world, and that's what science can teach us about.

Alien wrote:I don't know whether or not everything is natural.
I only know that up to now science has always given explanations that are natural.

I explained this in an earlier post.

Alien wrote:Of course, scientific theories are continuously tuned or refined. Sometimes are falsified. That's exactly why they can be called scientific.

I can write a theory that is scientific (because it can be falsified) but wrong (when it is actually falsified).
Look, my point is that science is not "the truth".

No problem with anything you say here, especially when you point out that "science is not 'the truth'".

Alien wrote:Science is the only suitable and objective way to approach "the truth".

Here, though, you get into illogical "strong scientism". Describe the science experiment you used to reach this conclusion. Also, demonstrate a method with which it can be falsified, if falsifiability is a part of science.

Alien wrote:Science is a tool.

Right. One of several useful tools.

Alien wrote:If we have two statements (both unfalsifiable)

1. Zeus exists
2. Zeus does not exist

Strictly speaking, 2 is falsifiable. It can be falsified if we ever see Zeus. Although this isn't really possible, the same is the case for any falsifiable statement which is true.

Felgar wrote:Are you saying that choosing 1 or choosing 2 are both acts of faith? My answer is no.
I understand your answer is yes. And this is a disagreement. You should not call faith the lack of faith.

But then I don't understand what you mean by "also gives you the negative".

I think Felgar was saying that faith in one matter implies faith in the falsehood of all that contradicts it.

Alien wrote:The last sentence looks clear to me. By trying to understand the product of a creation, you try to better understand the author of the creation.

I don't dispute that in principle.

But, having stated that creation is not a scientific theory, how can you use the scientific tool to clarify a non-scientific theory? To me, this sounds a bit like using mathematics to understand my sympathy for the Beatles music.

You answer your own question, and then ask it. What's up?

Felgar wrote: Anyways, I hope that one day you'll open your mind to new possibilties. I believe your philosophies are to your own detrement, and maybe one day you'll come to see that.

Please remember, I am not here to convince or to insult anyone.

Alien wrote:I am here mainly to understand your viewpoints about mixing science and belief.
I don't want to convince anyone that he is wrong in his faith. I only would like to understand this mixing that for me is a contradiction.

I don't see any problem. Science gives insight, as does the Bible. As I said before, science is one of many tools. It is a useful tool, but not the only one.

Plus, there are statements that as you noticed are outside the scope of science, like some unfalsifiable ones. What is there wrong with mixing belief on those with science on the areas it can shed light on?

jerickson314 wrote:

Alien wrote:But then I don't understand what you mean by "also gives you the negative".

I think Felgar was saying that faith in one matter implies faith in the falsehood of all that contradicts it.

Yup!

Felgar wrote:I'm not trying to learn about 'the theory of creation'... I accept that as an axiom. What we are learning about is the how the product of that creation works. The product of God's creation is our natural world, and that's what science can teach us about.

I like this statement. I can now find some consistency. And I can finally see some separation between faith and science.
You think that creation of the universe is an axiom, and therefore, by definition, not demonstrable and not falsifiable.
Therefore, not scientific.
I agree.
In addition, you use science to understand the world. Right.
The only open point remains the equation world = product of creation, that should remain part of the axiom and therefore an act of faith.

jerickson314 wrote:

Alien wrote:Science is the only suitable and objective way to approach "the truth".

Here, though, you get into illogical "strong scientism". Describe the science experiment you used to reach this conclusion. Also, demonstrate a method with which it can be falsified, if falsifiability is a part of science.

Science is not a theory, and therefore it does not need either an experiment or to be falsified on its own.

Science is a methodology on which everyone can agree (even "must" agree). Science is a language that can be understood by everyone. Science is the ONLY language that can be universal, by definition.

What is not science is therefore a methodology that leaves room for subjective ideas or anything that cannot be universally valid for everyone. As a good example, look at the quote from Felgar above. Creation is an axiom. It cannot be falsified. It does not fit in the scientific methodology. It is not science. It is faith.

jerickson314 wrote:I think Felgar was saying that faith in one matter implies faith in the falsehood of all that contradicts it.

Then I agree. As long as you distinguish between faith and science, I agree.

But there is a bit more to say.

Faith in one matter implies that there is nothing scientific in it. It also implies that there is nothing scientific in its negation.
OK.
But you cannot require anyone to demonstrate the negation of your statement of faith.

If you Believer have faith in the statement "God exists", you cannot require a demonstration to an Atheist about the statement "God does not exist". This is unfair.

And the fact that you have faith in the statement "God exists", does not allow you to say that the Atheist has faith in the negation. This was the asymmetry I was talking about.

In other words, I think that the statement "God does not exist" is not demonstrable (I am an Agnostic, not an Atheist), but it is not an act of faith. It is the negation of a previous act of faith. And the negation of a non-scientific statement is neither scientific nor an act of faith.

jerickson314 wrote:

Alien wrote:The last sentence looks clear to me. By trying to understand the product of a creation, you try to better understand the author of the creation.

I don't dispute that in principle.

But, having stated that creation is not a scientific theory, how can you use the scientific tool to clarify a non-scientific theory? To me, this sounds a bit like using mathematics to understand my sympathy for the Beatles music.

You answer your own question, and then ask it. What's up?

I am only repeating the answer you can give to my question, but I cannot justify it. It's again a mixture of science and faith.
Scientific methodology to understand faith axioms. This is the unclear.

jerickson314 wrote:I don't see any problem. Science gives insight, as does the Bible. As I said before, science is one of many tools. It is a useful tool, but not the only one.

This is the disagreement point again.
Science is definitely the only tool.
Faith is subjective, and therefore it's not a common language like science. Therefore, it cannot be a tool.

jerickson314 wrote:Plus, there are statements that as you noticed are outside the scope of science, like some unfalsifiable ones. What is there wrong with mixing belief on those with science on the areas it can shed light on?

Statements that are outside the scope of science cannot be, by definition, analysed by science, and therefore you should only use faith and beliefs.

It would be like using both euclidean and non-euclidean geometries together to analyse a square.

Alien wrote:

Felgar wrote:I'm not trying to learn about 'the theory of creation'... I accept that as an axiom. What we are learning about is the how the product of that creation works. The product of God's creation is our natural world, and that's what science can teach us about.

I like this statement. I can now find some consistency. And I can finally see some separation between faith and science.
You think that creation of the universe is an axiom, and therefore, by definition, not demonstrable and not falsifiable.
Therefore, not scientific.
I agree.
In addition, you use science to understand the world. Right.
The only open point remains the equation world = product of creation, that should remain part of the axiom and therefore an act of faith.

I agree. I'm ok with everything you've said here.

Alien wrote:Statements that are outside the scope of science cannot be, by definition, analysed by science, and therefore you should only use faith and beliefs.

I also agree with this statement, provided that you allow for the scope of science to expand. The mechanics of flight might once have been thought to be in defiance of scientific laws (opposing Newton's gravity) and therefore outside the scope of science. Then we start learning about air pressure and suddenly flight is no longer a matter of faith. I'm quite confident that you'll agree with this.

So the final question for you then, is this: Given that you admit that some statements, and therefore some assertions of truth, fall outside the scope of science, (as you just stated "statements that are outside the scope of science") how can you be comfortable in refusing to explore anything but science? You are closing yourself to potential truths... And the reasoning behind the decision to that alludes me.