Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

I said life lacks meaning.

Objectively or subjectively? Now, prove it.

In other words: science starts by observing small, localized changes while religion attempts to provide a single account for everything in one broad stroke.

What's your point?

Let me suggest that you peruse the main board. And review the purpose and rules.
To this point, it appears as little more than an attempt to derail the thread and throw out multiple points that you take contention with. Even things that arent' being specifically discussed on this thread. There are threads on the different matters you bring up.

Good day.

I gave you the point first: Empiricism offers a local design argument, religion offers a global design argument.

I'd rather rely on comparisons between known likes (local design) than get frustated by it's limitations, start with a wonderful and perfectly valid a priori ontological assertion (that noone can disprove the existence of unicorns, God, or Flying Spaghetti monsters) and then just jump straight to "ergo, the Christian God MUST exist and is the best possible explanation for everything".

anyway, i would sincerely like some suggestions on where to look. i'm here for answers. i don't care who gives them to me on what thread. at what point of our discussion should i start a new thread?

sweetadeline112358 wrote:My problem with many Christians is this...they seek out evidence only to in return prove themselves correct and reject evidence against their claims. This is also the definition of a horrible scientist. Many scientists do the same thing. It is hard to have a conversation with you guys because it is simple for me to discern whether or not you have done research with an open mind. I would put a bank roll on the fact that you hold a strong bias through your research.

Cognitive psychological research has shown that people tend to seek out, recall and interpret evidence in a manner that sustains their beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just Christians. I note you also mention "horrible scientists," but your target is clear. And your point is simply invalid becuase, as I have said, this applies to humankind in all walks of life and to all beliefs. It applies to you- yep, even you! Can you believe it? Imagine that, you, subject to human frailties just like the rest of us ...

DannyM wrote:Cognitive psychological research has shown that people tend to seek out, recall and interpret evidence in a manner that sustains their beliefs. This applies to everyone, not just Christians. I note you also mention "horrible scientists," but your target is clear. And your point is simply invalid becuase, as I have said, this applies to humankind in all walks of life and to all beliefs. It applies to you- yep, even you! Can you believe it? Imagine that, you, subject to human frailties just like the rest of us ...

This is actually untrue because I seek out evidence to prove myself wrong and not to prove myself correct. I was once a Christian too - yep, even me! Can you believe that? What makes and a researcher more valid is when they simply seek out evidence to prove themselves wrong. I am not strongly opposed to the bible, however many people that follow it tend to reject the rest of the world findings. That is what I meant. I also do not believe everything I read or hear which is why I do not consider myself a theist, atheist or agnostic...no isms for me...I do not want to make up my mind and label myself because I know that the answer will never be clear to me.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:This is actually untrue because I seek out evidence to prove myself wrong and not to prove myself correct. I was once a Christian too - yep, even me! Can you believe that? What makes and a researcher more valid is when they simply seek out evidence to prove themselves wrong. I am not strongly opposed to the bible, however many people that follow it tend to reject the rest of the world findings. That is what I meant. I also do not believe everything I read or hear which is why I do not consider myself a theist, atheist or agnostic...no isms for me...I do not want to make up my mind and label myself because I know that the answer will never be clear to me.

You are quite clearly missing the point. I too once used to think that I was objectively looking at all the evidence and interpreting the evidence on the basis of what I thought was the stronger. To some extent this is true. However, even while you *think* you are seeking to prove yourself wrong, you are not. The predisposition of your mind will not allow you to be totally impartial to all evidence. It's something we call human nature.

Really, you knew Christ? You were born again?
So, did you get spiritual amnesia, or were you someone who thought you were a Christian, but in fact, were a phony? What evidence can you provide that you were ever a Christian? Does that evidence complement what the bible says makes a Christian?

Empiricism offers a local design argument, religion offers a global design argument.

Ok, So what?

Religion is upfront about its predispositions. Wow! You really have stumbled on something new. Not.

i'm here for answers.

Being 100% candid, I don't buy that anymore than I buy that you were ever a Christian.

I'd rather rely on comparisons between known likes (local design) than get frustated by it's limitations, start with a wonderful and perfectly valid a priori ontological assertion (that noone can disprove the existence of unicorns, God, or Flying Spaghetti monsters) and then just jump straight to "ergo, the Christian God MUST exist and is the best possible explanation for everything".

Again, another argument that is not being discussed on this thread. I haven't even mentioned disproving the existance of God. You my friend, need to admit that you are LOADED down with prejudice, and predisposition as much as any religous wack job. The sooner you do, the sooner you will find some answers.

What makes and a researcher more valid is when they simply seek out evidence to prove themselves wrong.

Really, are you saying that as a unbeliever you should seek out evidence to prove yourself wrong?

I am not strongly opposed to the bible, however many people that follow it tend to reject the rest of the world findings.

Then start a thread with some specific examples, and we can discuss. Otherwise, stop sabotaging this thread. There are plenty of Christian apologist who have done such. Lee Strobel immediately coms to mind. Also, what scientific principle do you base your proposal to "prove yourself wrong."

Atheists are not into facts, jlay & DannyM. Although they give lip service to knowledge and empirical evidence, they do not consider it - nor will they - whenever it leads to Christ. How do I know this? I was an atheist for over 30 years before being snatched from my folly by God. So, I know they are deceitful - every last one of them - and only pretend to have an interest in learning about Christianity.

In all cases, remember Psalm 14:1. Remember whom you are dealing with.

FL

sweetadeline112358 wrote:>I'd rather rely on comparisons between known likes (local design) than get frustated by it's limitations...

You quoted my opinion, and then pointed out that it was my opinion. That's why I prefaced the statement with "I'd rather rely on" It was supposed to be a cue that I was departing from objectivity and revealing my own disposition to you. If I thought it was some sort of "absolute truth" I would have worded it accordingly.

Empiricism offers a local design argument, religion offers a global design argument.

I am describing the different approaches. If you want to dismiss it you can, but you won't know what my argument is if you don't at least try to build a model for what I am saying in your mind.

So it sounds like it is your position that even though I seem to be in agreement with you that the existence of various entities (such as God) can not be disproven, you still believe I'm loaded with bias?

You could at least get to work deciding how we will deal with the potentially cluttered ontology full of God, unicorns, Zeus, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster we have just inherited. I'll go find a bucket and a mop.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:I am describing the different approaches. If you want to dismiss it you can, but you won't know what my argument is if you don't at least try to build a model for what I am saying in your mind.

So it sounds like it is your position that even though I seem to be in agreement with you that the existence of various entities (such as God) can not be disproven, you still believe I'm loaded with bias?

You could at least get to work deciding how we will deal with the potentially cluttered ontology full of God, unicorns, Zeus, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster we have just inherited. I'll go find a bucket and a mop.

Why don't you begin a thread, and we can deal with zeus, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster one by one ...? Or are you here to simply trot out the same old tired arguments of atheism?

DannyM wrote:Why don't you begin a thread, and we can deal with zeus, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster one by one ...? Or are you here to simply trot out the same old tired arguments of atheism?

Uh...you don't expect sweetadeline112358 to give you a straight answer to this, do you?

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DannyM wrote:Why don't you begin a thread, and we can deal with zeus, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster one by one ...? Or are you here to simply trot out the same old tired arguments of atheism?

Uh...you don't expect sweetadeline112358 to give you a straight answer to this, do you?

FL

I'm not very optimistic, FL, but where there is faith there is hope

Yeah, the thing I am trying to discern with morality is that there are cases where an individual is conflicted about choosing between two mutually exclusive courses of action, then utilizes a value judgement in order to resolve that conflict and commit to a course of action. To me, that is when an issue becomes an issue of morality. There are other situations where an individual is compelled to take one course of action, and it becomes complicated to create a division between those situations a person has control over, and those situations a person doesn't have control over. It seems like morality is tied to internal processes and can't entirely be determined by a third party. It's practical to say that murder is generally unacceptable and enforce that.The problem with considering things like this is people get all funny about it and think you are encouraging to supporting things that you aren't... or trying to justify them. But I also know that morality is not the same as law. For those who never feel compelled to murder and do not murder, we are not acting morally because we are not murdering. And for anyone who has ever decided not to murder after thinking about legal punishments... you can't say that acted morally either

Jac,

I think you just got invited to the dicsussion.

Sweet,

You've got a funny way of getting to the point.

sweetadeline112358 wrote: But I also know that morality is not the same as law. For those who never feel compelled to murder and do not murder, we are not acting morally because we are not murdering. And for anyone who has ever decided not to murder after thinking about legal punishments... you can't say that acted morally either

I'm not following what point you are driving at.
I can't say that I disagree with anything you point out here. But what is your point?

sweetadeline112358 wrote:I gave you the point first: Empiricism offers a local design argument, religion offers a global design argument.

I'd rather rely on comparisons between known likes (local design) than get frustated by it's limitations, start with a wonderful and perfectly valid a priori ontological assertion (that noone can disprove the existence of unicorns, God, or Flying Spaghetti monsters) and then just jump straight to "ergo, the Christian God MUST exist and is the best possible explanation for everything".

I do not know what you mean by local vs global design argument... even given your extended explanation which makes an ill-comparison between the abstract idea of a "flying spaghetti monster" and the seemingly innate belief that God or supernatural being exists which most of humanity throughout time has believed.

Furthermore, I challenge you to try prove that empiricism is true. How do you even get started if this can't be empirically validated?

sweetadeline112358 wrote:Yeah, the thing I am trying to discern with morality is that there are cases where an individual is conflicted about choosing between two mutually exclusive courses of action, then utilizes a value judgement in order to resolve that conflict and commit to a course of action.

I do not fully understand the point you are making here, however moral dilemmas just validate our moral intuition. We are forced to choose between two morally undesirable outcomes. It therefore makes sense to choose the one we feel is the least worst outcome. If someone chooses to warp this into justifying something they know under normal circumstances would be wrong, well... it is human nature to see ourselves in positive light isn't it?

For the morality thing, I think that what I am trying to understand is how anyone could possibly say whether or not some other person was acting from a moral decision. In other words, a human being is a sort of black box, where we can observe their external behaviors, but do not have access to their internal experience.

I am not talking about a moral dilemma where either action seems morally unappealing. I am talking about situations where a person feels equally motivated to perform one of two possible actions and utilizes a moral judgement to decide which course of action to take.

Actually, I am not trying to make a comparison between Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns, and God. I am saying that that when you accept the possibility of metaphysical objects based on the reasoning that the nonexistence of any given entity can not be guaranteed, you open yourself up to the possibility of any conceivable entity. Those are 3 possible entities out of many. It is right to say that out of that set of three, only one may have the property of existence, but it is wrong to say that a possibility for the existence of God means God exists.

I need to know what aspect of empiricism you are interested in looking at.