Evidence for God from Science

ManOfScience wrote:"invest in God" is a euphemism for "don't bother using rational thought to figure stuff out, just trust that what the scriptures (and church leaders like the Pope, who is constantly pulling new rules out of thin air) tell you".

Wrong. NOTHING here implies an absence of rational thought. Tell me how you take that quote and make this leap? Explain the process of how you arrived there. The Christian is in fact encouraged to get to the truth, to test everything. Back with the empty rhetoric are we? Tell me, what's "rational" about taking that quote to mean a suspension of rational thought?

ManOfScience wrote:Contrary to Gman's claim that "the harder you dig, the more evidence you will find for God", the opposite is continually proving itself to be true: "the harder we dig, the less use we have for God", until, finally, the need is removed completely.

Wrong. Religious belief and belief in God has never BEEN so high. The further science goes, the less need for atheism the world seems to have; your claim here is simply FALSE.

ManOfScience wrote:Scientists know they don't have all the answers! Unlike theists, however, this doesn't scare them -- they're not afraid to admit it -- and they strive to fill in the gaps with theories backed up with experimental proofs.

I've not met ONE theist who thinks he has all the answers. I've not met ONE theist who does not question things. Again, can you show some evidence for your sweeping generalisation here? Again, where's the "rational" thought? Have you taken leave of your senses?

ManOfScience wrote:Nothing is "outside the realm of science". If, by that, you mean that some things have yet to be answered by science, then fair enough. But science can, theoretically, explain every aspect of this universe in which we live.

This is just pure scientism. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the nature of consciousness, the nature of time; they have placed their faith in their cognitive processes and in their colleagues. They submit to those authorities; but faith they have, nonetheless. Your comment above just exposes you as extremely arrogant. And very misinformed.

ManOfScience wrote:As for theistic scientists, nobody is saying that theists can't do science. (In history, this would have been impossible, as just about everyone was a theist. Darwin was a theist, before he figured stuff out for himself.) However, things start to get a bit ridiculous when such "scientists" discover evidence that contradicts the scriptures -- and then decide the scriptures take priority -- the evidence must be wrong. (I heard this in a serious interview recently. I don't remember the guy's name, but I rolled my eyes hard.)[/quote

I'm rolling my eyes too because you have just made an assertion without one piece of evidence. Perhaps you could take the effort to find this "recent, serious interview"...

ManOfScience wrote:P.S. Kynaros: Don't let DannyM get to you. He tried the same BS tactics to start a flame war with me some time ago, so I put him on my enemies list.

Yes, as I remember it you were full of the same unsubstantiated bluster THEN.

ManOfScience wrote:Nothing is "outside the realm of science". If, by that, you mean that some things have yet to be answered by science, then fair enough. But science can, theoretically, explain every aspect of this universe in which we live.

Just out of interest, is the above a scientific statement? Isn't it the case that science itself couldn't justify such a claim?

Gman wrote:Unfortunately it was asked of Kynaros (about 4 times) to provide the evidence that disproves the existence of God. He couldn't provide it... Perhaps you and your knowledge could provide this overwhelming evidence. So by all means... Please reveal it....

Perhaps you misunderstood. I never implied that I have proof against God's existence; nor do I ever expect to. (I could say the same, of course, about fairies -- or the FSM.) The bit you quoted was more about our apparent need -- brought about during the course of our evolution -- for a deity in which to believe. However, these days, things are progressing quickly. As science fills in the gaps, our need for God diminishes.

Gman wrote:No one here is claiming to have all the answers... And no one has 100% proof that there is a God or not a God.. However we can often make 100% commitments with less than 100% proof, such as flying on an airplane and believing it will be safe.. etc..

I've no argument about the proof/disproof, but I don't agree with your analogy about flying. I know when I get on a plane (or when I get into my car, or when I stand on a chair to reach something from the top shelf) that there's an inherent risk. I just decide to take that risk. Does anybody really fool themselves that taking a flight is a 100% risk-free venture?

Gman wrote:And what is the science that contradicts the scriptures?

Oh, they didn't mention any specifically, but, surely, depending on your specific set of beliefs, there are many! From Christianity, for example: the whole Genesis story, the Noah's Ark story, the parting of the Red Sea, to name just a few. There must be hundreds more! One of the scariest things I saw recently was some US politicial (just looked him up: John Shimkus) saying essentially: "God has promised us that he won't destroy the Earth, therefore, we shouldn't limit carbon emissions." (The main point is to demonstrate how easy it is for some people to ignore the overwhelming evidence available to them. But, on a political sidenote: how can somebody this stupid get voted into government?! Or, from another point of view, how can people be so stupid as to vote someone with such a dangerous attitude into a position of power?)

Gman wrote:How does evolution rule out the concept of a creator? Where is this overwhelming evidence?

I wasn't suggesting it did, and I completely agree that the origin of life can be separated from the process of evolution via natural selection. Rather, my comment was aimed at the people who claim that "genetic drift can only cause a loss of information", "evolution can not lead to more complex lifeforms", etc. These people simply haven't yet managed to understand the fundamental (and actually, to a point, rather simple) concept of how genetic mutation and natural selection can lead to animals better suited to survive and reproduce within their environment.

ManOfScience wrote: Perhaps you misunderstood. I never implied that I have proof against God's existence; nor do I ever expect to. (I could say the same, of course, about fairies -- or the FSM.) The bit you quoted was more about our apparent need -- brought about during the course of our evolution -- for a deity in which to believe. However, these days, things are progressing quickly. As science fills in the gaps, our need for God diminishes.

Perhaps I misunderstood? You clearly stated, "the harder we dig, the less use we have for God, until, finally, the need is removed completely." And now you are saying "As science fills in the gaps, our need for God diminishes." So I ask you again.. How does science diminish the need for God? Or.. How does evolution diminish the need for God??

Please answer in detail.... This is critical for you to answer this...

ManOfScience wrote:I've no argument about the proof/disproof, but I don't agree with your analogy about flying. I know when I get on a plane (or when I get into my car, or when I stand on a chair to reach something from the top shelf) that there's an inherent risk. I just decide to take that risk. Does anybody really fool themselves that taking a flight is a 100% risk-free venture?

No, but we can apply the same concept to our beliefs.. Would you do or believe in those things if the was only a 5 percent chance of you surviving it? Yes, you could do it, but if you were smart you wouldn't..

ManOfScience wrote:Oh, they didn't mention any specifically, but, surely, depending on your specific set of beliefs, there are many! From Christianity, for example: the whole Genesis story, the Noah's Ark story, the parting of the Red Sea, to name just a few. There must be hundreds more!

How does the whole Genesis story, the Noah's Ark story, the parting of the Red Sea, go against science?

ManOfScience wrote:One of the scariest things I saw recently was some US politicial (just looked him up: John Shimkus) saying essentially: "God has promised us that he won't destroy the Earth, therefore, we shouldn't limit carbon emissions." (The main point is to demonstrate how easy it is for some people to ignore the overwhelming evidence available to them.

Well that is dumb, but not all believers are that way... Tell me have you ever read the Bible? We are told to be stewards of the earth, not rapers of the earth.

ManOfScience wrote:But, on a political sidenote: how can somebody this stupid get voted into government?! Or, from another point of view, how can people be so stupid as to vote someone with such a dangerous attitude into a position of power?)

Well obviously not all Christians have this same attitude.. Christians like President Obama, The Clintons, Joe Biden, and many other democrats (like me).

ManOfScience wrote:I wasn't suggesting it did, and I completely agree that the origin of life can be separated from the process of evolution via natural selection. Rather, my comment was aimed at the people who claim that "genetic drift can only cause a loss of information", "evolution can not lead to more complex lifeforms", etc. These people simply haven't yet managed to understand the fundamental (and actually, to a point, rather simple) concept of how genetic mutation and natural selection can lead to animals better suited to survive and reproduce within their environment.

Don't look at me.... You stated that science diminishes the need for God.. I'm still waiting for the evidence. And if you think that an intelligent designer is not part of the process here then really all you are left with is blind luck chance.. Which, let's face it, is not science but faith. Just like believing in fairies or the spaghetti monster..

Sorry..

Gman wrote:

ManOfScience wrote:One of the scariest things I saw recently was some US politicial (just looked him up: John Shimkus) saying essentially: "God has promised us that he won't destroy the Earth, therefore, we shouldn't limit carbon emissions." (The main point is to demonstrate how easy it is for some people to ignore the overwhelming evidence available to them.

Well that is dumb, but not all believers are that way... Tell me have you ever read the Bible? We are told to be stewards of the earth, not rapers of the earth.

Not only is it dumb, it is also wrong:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Re 21:1)

2 Peter 3:7, 10 say that this present earth is reserved for destruction by fire.

Carry on.

FL

Gman wrote:So I ask you again.. How does science diminish the need for God? Or.. How does evolution diminish the need for God??

Apparently, I'm not supposed to discuss this here, having just received a PM from the board owner advising me that the board is not meant to serve this purpose. However, seeing as you've requested an answer from me, both by way of starting this thread and explicitly in your most recent comment, I'll do my best to answer objectively and respectfully, and hope I don't fall foul of the rules!

Evolution is probably the most obvious example, so let's stick with that. As the overwhelming evidence of evolution has now proven (in the sense that the vast majority of experts support the theory), we can say with certainty that the story of Genesis is fictional. Therefore, God didn't mould us out of clay, or whatever: our need for him as an explanation for "where did we come from?" has gone.

Medicine could be a second example. It used to be that about the only thing we could do for a sick relative was to pray for them. These days, modern science is able to cure a whole host of diseases that were terminal several decades ago: we don't need God to help us with those anymore! I was reading an oldish episode of National Geographic, all about stem cell research, the other day. Science doesn't really know how stem cells transform themselves into different types of cells. (It might know more now; the episode was several years old.) Some people would say "That's God working his magic!" Eventually, though, science will undoubtedly figure it out -- and that need for God will disappear, too.

That's what I meant. Does it makes sense now?

Gman wrote:How does the whole Genesis story, the Noah's Ark story, the parting of the Red Sea, go against science?

Simply because there is no evidence for any of those things. Science is based on evidence. (Admittedly, it's also based on theory -- but there are no theories able to explain any of those things.)

Gman wrote:Well that is dumb, but not all believers are that way... Tell me have you ever read the Bible?

That is dumb. However, the fact that not all believers believe it is interesting in itself. You're saying, who am I to question your beliefs; but who are you to question his? You're so sure that I'm wrong; I bet he's just as sure that you're wrong! Who's to say that your interpretation of the scriptures is any better than his?

I have read the Bible, but it was a long time ago. As I recall, it was a pretty good read.

Gman wrote:Which, let's face it, is not science but faith. Just like believing in fairies or the spaghetti monster..

Science is not faith! In the words of They Might Be Giants:

A scientific theory isn't just a hunch or guess;
It's more like a question that's been put through a lot of tests.
And, when a theory emerges consistent with the facts,
The proof is with science, the truth is with science.

Gman wrote:Sorry..

No need to apologize! And I hope I've managed to answer your questions without offending the board.

the whole Genesis story, the Noah's Ark story, the parting of the Red Sea, to name just a few.

Regarding the Genesis story. Are you saying that the universe didn't have a beginning?

Regarding Noah's Ark. We actually do have evidence and models for a global flood. You may choose to reject them, but you can't say there aren't models for a flood. So, yes there are theories. Saying otherwise is a lie.

so let's stick with that. As the overwhelming evidence of evolution has now proven (in the sense that the vast majority of experts support the theory)

So when did truth become determined by opinion polls? You are saying that a certain number of scientists agreeing is what makes something true. That my friend is anti-science. It proves NOTHING. Zilch. That is a statement of ideology.
I can't even begin to address the blunders you've made in your assertions. They fail any standard of logic or reason.

Medicine could be a second example. It used to be that about the only thing we could do for a sick relative was to pray for them. These days, modern science is able to cure a whole host of diseases that were terminal several decades ago: we don't need God to help us with those anymore!

What?!? That is the most ludicrous, narrow minded assesment I think I've heard in some time.

ManOfScience wrote:Apparently, I'm not supposed to discuss this here, having just received a PM from the board owner advising me that the board is not meant to serve this purpose.

A moderator warned you because you stated that "God loses" on a Christian forum.. Not for your other remarks....

ManOfScience wrote:However, seeing as you've requested an answer from me, both by way of starting this thread and explicitly in your most recent comment, I'll do my best to answer objectively and respectfully, and hope I don't fall foul of the rules!

Evolution is probably the most obvious example, so let's stick with that. As the overwhelming evidence of evolution has now proven (in the sense that the vast majority of experts support the theory), we can say with certainty that the story of Genesis is fictional. Therefore, God didn't mould us out of clay, or whatever: our need for him as an explanation for "where did we come from?" has gone.

Huh? Why are you using evolution to say that it can mold us out of clay (without God)? I thought you said that evolution doesn't address origins? Why are you going against your own words?

And God didn't mold us out of clay? Your statement completely contradicts your statement "I never implied that I have proof against God's existence; nor do I ever expect to."

On top of this, you have provided absolutely no evidence for your assertion... Now this is the 3rd time I'm asking you for the evidence to show that evolution goes against an intelligent designer...

ManOfScience wrote:Medicine could be a second example. It used to be that about the only thing we could do for a sick relative was to pray for them. These days, modern science is able to cure a whole host of diseases that were terminal several decades ago: we don't need God to help us with those anymore! I was reading an oldish episode of National Geographic, all about stem cell research, the other day. Science doesn't really know how stem cells transform themselves into different types of cells. (It might know more now; the episode was several years old.) Some people would say "That's God working his magic!" Eventually, though, science will undoubtedly figure it out -- and that need for God will disappear, too.

Why are you going off the subject?? I asked you for scientific proof that there isn't a god. So in your belief system people only go to God to work magic? How do you know that God doesn't work through doctors or the medicines they provide or invented?

ManOfScience wrote:That's what I meant. Does it makes sense now?

No... You have fully contradicted yourself..

ManOfScience wrote:Simply because there is no evidence for any of those things. Science is based on evidence. (Admittedly, it's also based on theory -- but there are no theories able to explain any of those things.)

And you have provided no evidence to the contrary, only assertions.. Try doing a search sometime on this website for Genesis or Noah's ark for answers..

ManOfScience wrote:That is dumb. However, the fact that not all believers believe it is interesting in itself. You're saying, who am I to question your beliefs; but who are you to question his? You're so sure that I'm wrong; I bet he's just as sure that you're wrong! Who's to say that your interpretation of the scriptures is any better than his?

Try reading the Bible for once.. Are you calling President Obama, the Clinton's, Biden, Al Gore, and other Christian democrats wrong for helping the environment? Do you wish to oppose them? They have read the Bible too.

ManOfScience wrote: Science is not faith! In the words of They Might Be Giants:

A scientific theory isn't just a hunch or guess;
It's more like a question that's been put through a lot of tests.
And, when a theory emerges consistent with the facts,
The proof is with science, the truth is with science.

No.. Science is NOT chance... Again science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts..

Your religious god "chance" has no creative power. It has never been shown to produce anything except outrageous probabilities.. When you ascribe absolute power to nothing, you are engaging in myths. Here, chance is the "magic wand" to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing. That is not science..

ManOfScience wrote:No need to apologize! And I hope I've managed to answer your questions without offending the board.

No it's sad to see you butcher science like that... As we have already explained before..

"The classical scientific method consists of the marriage of induction and deduction, of the empirical and the rational. Attributing instrumental causal power to chance vitiates deduction and the rational. It is manifest irrationality, which is not only bad philosophy but horrible science as well. Perhaps the attributing of instrumental power to chance is the most serious error made in modern science and cosmology. ... If left unchallenged and uncorrected, it will lead science into nonsense.... Magic and logic are not compatible bedfellows. Once something is thought to come from nothing, something has to give. What gives is logic." - Ankerberg

Please stop destroying science!

jlay wrote:Regarding the Genesis story. Are you saying that the universe didn't have a beginning?

No, of course not. But Genesis doesn't simply say "The Universe began." It's a bit more specific than that.

jlay wrote:Regarding Noah's Ark. We actually do have evidence and models for a global flood. You may choose to reject them, but you can't say there aren't models for a flood. So, yes there are theories. Saying otherwise is a lie.

Well, there are theories for just about everything. I meant theories supported by experts -- something you might find in New Scientist, Scientific American, or the National Geographic, not only on creationist websites.

jlay wrote:

ManOfScience wrote:As the overwhelming evidence of evolution has now proven (in the sense that the vast majority of experts support the theory)...

So when did truth become determined by opinion polls?

This is how science works. We start out with a theory. We then test that theory. If the observation backs up the theory, it's called a proof. The work is then peer-reviewed (by way of scientific journals, for example). If no flaws are found in the theory or the experimentation, and the majority of experts agree with the findings, we call it fact. (The order of events is sometimes shuffled a bit.) Nobody has ever seen a black hole, but we know they exist. Just about every astrophysicist agrees. It's a fact.

Gman wrote:A moderator warned you because you stated that "God loses" on a Christian forum.. Not for your other remarks....

Ah, OK. That wasn't made clear to me. When I changed the title of my post, I was being facetious. As I assumed your original thread title was also somewhat in jest.

Gman wrote:Huh? Why are you using evolution to say that it can mold us out of clay (without God)?

No, sorry, I was referring to the fact that Adam and Eve didn't spring into existence: we didn't go from nothing to a fully-formed human being. The evidence for evolution (not including the origin of life) is everywhere. I'm sure, if you're at all interested in this, you've read some of it for yourself.

Gman wrote:I asked you for scientific proof that there isn't a god.

I thought we were talking about humans' (psychological) "need" for God? I already stated that I cannot disprove God's existence. (This doesn't make his existence any more likely, however.)

Gman wrote:Are you calling President Obama, the Clinton's, Biden, Al Gore, and other Christian democrats wrong for helping the environment? Do you wish to oppose them? They have read the Bible too.

Not sure what you're thinking here. I'd've thought it clear that I fully support their environmental work. But, for sake of argument, let's say I was looking to change my status to "believer". Whose belief set should I use as a starting point? Obama's? Shimkus'? Yours?

Gman wrote:Your religious god "chance" has no creative power. It has never been shown to produce anything except outrageous probabilities..

My "god" is not chance. The Standard Model very cleanly and precisely predicts this universe. It may not be perfect or complete -- yet -- but the brilliant thing about it is that we can keep working on it, keep refining it, and, the more we do, the better it gets and explaining and predicting what we see all around us.

ManOfScience wrote: Ah, OK. That wasn't made clear to me. When I changed the title of my post, I was being facetious. As I assumed your original thread title was also somewhat in jest.

This is a Christian website.. What do you expect?

ManOfScience wrote:No, sorry, I was referring to the fact that Adam and Eve didn't spring into existence: we didn't go from nothing to a fully-formed human being. The evidence for evolution (not including the origin of life) is everywhere. I'm sure, if you're at all interested in this, you've read some of it for yourself.

That is certainly not what you have been stating.... Now you are simply trying to save face it seems. You have been saying that nature, by itself, is capable of doing the job and that God didn't mold us out of clay. Why are you changing your tune now?

And now this is the 4th time I'm asking you for the scientific evidence that shows us that God didn't mold us out of clay or other creations..

ManOfScience wrote:Not sure what you're thinking here. I'd've thought it clear that I fully support their environmental work. But, for sake of argument, let's say I was looking to change my status to "believer". Whose belief set should I use as a starting point? Obama's? Shimkus'? Yours?

Call it reading the Bible.. Genesis 2:15.

ManOfScience wrote:My "god" is not chance. The Standard Model very cleanly and precisely predicts this universe. It may not be perfect or complete -- yet -- but the brilliant thing about it is that we can keep working on it, keep refining it, and, the more we do, the better it gets and explaining and predicting what we see all around us.

You stated that nature, by itself and without God, can do the work... Therefore if there wasn't an intelligent designer behind it, all you are left with is "chance". Which is your creator, your belief system... Again, chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent and an embarrassment to science.

Gman wrote:

ManOfScience wrote:My "god" is not chance. The Standard Model very cleanly and precisely predicts this universe. It may not be perfect or complete -- yet -- but the brilliant thing about it is that we can keep working on it, keep refining it, and, the more we do, the better it gets and explaining and predicting what we see all around us.

You stated that nature, by itself and without God, can do the work... Therefore if there wasn't an intelligent designer behind it, all you are left with is "chance". Which is your creator, your belief system... Again, chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent and an embarrassment to science.

Haven't you heard the news? Nature did it. Nature created itself; IT happened. The inherent notion of Right and Wrong just happened. It's not quite chance; but it is certainly not Intentioned! Slow down there puppy. Moral laws? Now we're just losing the plot!

Gman wrote:That is certainly not what you have been stating.... Now you are simply trying to save face it seems. You have been saying that nature, by itself, is capable of doing the job and that God didn't mold us out of clay. Why are you changing your tune now?

I'm not. I've been saying the same thing all along. I'm nearly certain an objective reader would agree.

Gman wrote:And now this is the 4th time I'm asking you for the scientific evidence that shows us that God didn't mold us out of clay or other creations..

Are you seriously asking me to provide you with specific links to research papers about evolution and natural selection? There's a veritable mountain of peer-reviewed research out there; I'm sure you can find something!?

Gman wrote:Call it reading the Bible.. Genesis 2:15.

That doesn't answer my question. Millions of people have read the Bible, and they certainly haven't all turned the last page holding the same belief set!

Gman wrote:You stated that nature, by itself and without God, can do the work... Therefore if there wasn't an intelligent designer behind it, all you are left with is "chance". Which is your creator, your belief system... Again, chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent and an embarrassment to science.

I've already rejected "chance"; I'm not sure why you're still attaching it to me. Let's take a more down-to-earth example than the origin of life or the universe. Let's say you're walking down the street and you see a baseball rolling across your path. Are the only two explanations you can think of (i) God did it and (ii) it was chance (all the atoms in the ball happened to move in sync, causing the ball to move)? Isn't there a third, much more likely, explanation?

Gman wrote:You stated that nature, by itself and without God, can do the work... Therefore if there wasn't an intelligent designer behind it, all you are left with is "chance". Which is your creator, your belief system... Again, chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent and an embarrassment to science.

ManofScience wrote:I've already rejected "chance"; I'm not sure why you're still attaching it to me. Let's take a more down-to-earth example than the origin of life or the universe. Let's say you're walking down the street and you see a baseball rolling across your path. Are the only two explanations you can think of (i) God did it and (ii) it was chance (all the atoms in the ball happened to move in sync, causing the ball to move)? Isn't there a third, much more likely, explanation?

That is a good point, but is there not process in which God did it, could science explain the process of how he did it, rather than as an alternative to him? Wasn't that sciences purpose in the first place? To see how God did the things he did.

GodGamesGirls wrote:That is a good point, but is there not process in which God did it, could science explain the process of how he did it, rather than as an alternative to him? Wasn't that sciences purpose in the first place? To see how God did the things he did.

Ah, that is a more interesting argument. There's still no evidence for it, but you could certainly argue that everything we observe is the direct result of God's influence. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a single entity could simultaneously control 10^80 atoms*. Not to mention the fact that he can read all our thoughts simultaneously.

* That just made me think. What is the point to the other 80 billion plus galaxies (~50 sextillion stars) in the universe?

ManOfScience wrote:

GodGamesGirls wrote:That is a good point, but is there not process in which God did it, could science explain the process of how he did it, rather than as an alternative to him? Wasn't that sciences purpose in the first place? To see how God did the things he did.

Ah, that is a more interesting argument. There's still no evidence for it, but you could certainly argue that everything we observe is the direct result of God's influence. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a single entity could simultaneously control 10^80 atoms*. Not to mention the fact that he can read all our thoughts simultaneously.

* That just made me think. What is the point to the other 80 billion plus galaxies (~50 sextillion stars) in the universe?

What does that matter in contrast to an infinite, omnipotent God? Infinity divided by anything, is still infinite.