Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Naturalism is a view that every effects arises from a cause in the material world.
The physical world is all there is. No God. It is a philosophical world view.

I think it is naive to think the philosophy doesn't get mixed in with one's science.
It is in fact a necessary part of science. And that includes how one theorises about evolution.

Your beliefs in evolution therefore are very different from say Dawkin's, Gould's and many other respected Materialistic biologists.

Nagel's book I think is very appropriate and perhaps builds off/adds weight to Plantinga's argument from evolution against Naturalism.
Katabole's mentioning it just supports your beliefs as a Theist believing in evolution over and against the Materialist's evolution.

All this talk of naturalism and philosophy the Katabolic one, "physical world" and god
is naught but red herring, so it seems, howbeit dragged betimes before the nose of the herringer himself.

The validity of lack thereof of any scientific theory stands of data. and a consistency with that data.


There is no contest on the issue of whether scientists are normal humans, given to herd mentality, self deception. error and so forth.

IF tho, ToE were "wrong" on some basic level, it does seem odd that only creationists are aware of this (the they can produce no data to back their contentions) and no scientist from any field of study has ever anywhere on planet earth in 150 years somehow stumbled upon such data as would lead to the disproof of said theory.

Bunk. Naturalism is a major philosophy embedded in thought today and so very relevant.
The fact in discussions people always push back on "God's existence" or heaven forbid something actually appears designed to a common sense intuition is evidence of that bias.

The fact that HFD (although he can speak for himself) feels ashamed to just admit God, sorry god, sorry Fred, sorry "some thing", actually it may not even be such...
People are naive to think it's nothing other than a Naturalism philosophy at the foundation.

Evolution has nothing to do with the issue. Science has nothing to do with the issue.
These are just diversions and smoke screens for people who choose to willfully deny what is otherwise obvious.
Unless of course you're talking about YEC or global flood, because than that's an easy strawman to beat down with a stick...

HOWEVER, let's not forget the gibberish talk like the universe actually popped into existence from nothing (-/+ energy is not nothing), multiverse or parallel universes (go turtles!), that there is no natural solution to the origin of life problems, that the metaphysics of Naturalism is quite lacking, there is no reason for the contingent laws that we see working (they rest upon nothing which also sustains them although contingency requires something other), there is really no free will that we have since we're all determine products of nature (just atoms and molecules bouncing around), there is no true sense of fairness, responsibility justices and the like (since such all require free will), there is not good or bad within the natural world (us included), there is a problem in how "we" interact with our physical bodies (in physical reductionism like epiphenomenalism)... blah, blah, blah.

There is a reason why Atheists, especially your scientific New Atheist kind, are scared of philosophy.
If you don't associate with them, then there is no reason to be offended. They don't like logic and reason shined onto their facts.
They'd much rather prefer to just affirm the food that is before their eyes rather than consider how it got their before them.
Kurieuo, over and out.

Kurieuo wrote:Bunk. Naturalism is a major philosophy embedded in thought today and so very relevant.
The fact in discussions people always push back on "God's existence" or heaven forbid something actually appears designed to a common sense intuition is evidence of that bias.

The fact that HFD (although he can speak for himself) feels ashamed to just admit God, sorry god, sorry Fred, sorry "some thing", actually it may not even be such...
People are naive to think it's nothing other than a Naturalism philosophy at the foundation.

Evolution has nothing to do with the issue. Science has nothing to do with the issue.
These are just diversions and smoke screens for people who choose to willfully deny what is otherwise obvious.
Unless of course you're talking about YEC or global flood, because than that's an easy strawman to beat down with a stick...

HOWEVER, let's not forget the gibberish talk like the universe actually popped into existence from nothing (-/+ energy is not nothing), multiverse or parallel universes (go turtles!), that there is no natural solution to the origin of life problems, that the metaphysics of Naturalism is quite lacking, there is no reason for the contingent laws that we see working (they rest upon nothing which also sustains them although contingency requires something other), there is really no free will that we have since we're all determine products of nature (just atoms and molecules bouncing around), there is no true sense of fairness, responsibility justices and the like (since such all require free will), there is not good or bad within the natural world (us included), there is a problem in how "we" interact with our physical bodies (in physical reductionism like epiphenomenalism)... blah, blah, blah.

There is a reason why Atheists, especially your scientific New Atheist kind, are scared of philosophy.
If you don't associate with them, then there is no reason to be offended. They don't like logic and reason shined onto their facts.
They'd much rather prefer to just affirm the food that is before their eyes rather than consider how it got their before them.
Kurieuo, over and out.

To a philosopher everything looks like a nail.

To a naturalistic scientist when he sees the nail he imagines ignoring everything we already know and understand about the universe and thinks the materials that make up the nail appear from nothing,out of nowhere then the material forms itself into the nail all on its own without any possible way the materials and nail was created by a creator.And he/she runs with this kind of imagination and thinks they are highly educated and intelligent.

Don't you too see some of the nails Audie?

Kurieuo wrote:Don't you too see some of the nails Audie?

I saw a lot of words but I sure dont know what you are talking about.

Too much jarg! Not as bad as jac but seriously, a bit of plain talkin' is nice.
I mean, jac doesnt write anything I cant figure out, but its ten words for every one needed,
and I get annoyed and impatient with it.

I spend my time with thick books of the most turgid prose,! Do you have it in you
to not talk like every thing has to be seen thru or crammed into that
philrubric?

Please?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Don't you too see some of the nails Audie?

I saw a lot of words but I sure dont know what you are talking about.

Too much jarg! Not as bad as jac but seriously, a bit of plain talkin' is nice.
I mean, jac doesnt write anything I cant figure out, but its ten words for every one needed,
and I get annoyed and impatient with it.

I spend my time with thick books of the most turgid prose,! Do you have it in you
to not talk like every thing has to be seen thru or crammed into that
philrubric?

Please?

Maybe its a discussion best had over a few drinks.
I think I'd definitely need some as might you.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Don't you too see some of the nails Audie?

I saw a lot of words but I sure dont know what you are talking about.

Too much jarg! Not as bad as jac but seriously, a bit of plain talkin' is nice.
I mean, jac doesnt write anything I cant figure out, but its ten words for every one needed,
and I get annoyed and impatient with it.

I spend my time with thick books of the most turgid prose,! Do you have it in you
to not talk like every thing has to be seen thru or crammed into that
philrubric?

Please?

Maybe its a discussion best had over a few drinks.
I think I'd definitely need some as might you.

here is a poem I thought of for you

There's never a drink
that couldnt be drunk
Nor never a thought,
that couldnt be thunk.

I didn't take you for the poet?
Here's an updated version for you.

There's never a drink
that couldnt be drunk,
although some really shouldnt be sunk.
Nor never a thought
that couldnt be thunk,
although some really amount to bunk.

Kurieuo wrote:I didn't take you for the poet?
Here's an updated version for you.

There's never a drink
that couldnt be drunk,
although some really shouldnt be sunk.
Nor never a thought
that couldnt be thunk,
although some really amount to bunk.

"Derivative", she says with a snort and toss of her head.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I didn't take you for the poet?
Here's an updated version for you.

There's never a drink
that couldnt be drunk,
although some really shouldnt be sunk.
Nor never a thought
that couldnt be thunk,
although some really amount to bunk.

"Derivative", she says with a snort and toss of her head.

Why change what is already so well written.

Zactly.