Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:

Morny wrote:As I've said many times here, I don't think science and a Creator are at odds. If someone thinks otherwise, I'm pretty sure that their idea of either science or a Creator is incorrect.

Yet, you`re not a Christian? Do you believe in God at all?

I'm an agnostic fundamentalist.

Atheists and the religious often confuse science and religion. One of my dozens of hobbies (and personality faults) is to point out their confusion.

Storyteller wrote: See? I`m lost! mass curves space time and space time curves mass? Okay, let`s see if I get this. Mass curves space and time by causing space and time to allow for it? How does space time curve mass?

"Spacetime curves mass" means that a moving mass follows the local curvature of spacetime. For example, Earth is merely following the spacetime curvature ("gravity well") that the Sun's mass creates. Even light going near the Sun deflects a little bit. No one know why mass curves spacetime. Here are lots of spacetime curvature pictures:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gravity ... 4&bih=1011

Einstein's mind-blowing insight was understanding precisely how this mass and spacetime intertwinement work. Very loosely, his equation specifies how spacetime curves at every point, based on the distribution of mass/energy at every point.

That equation governs everything from black holes, to orbiting planets, to how your car's GPS works. We can make a case that that equation is the greatest single creation of the human mind.

Storyteller wrote: [...] but wasn`t there an experiment that proved that two individual atoms, or maybe the same one, "knows" where the other is and was demonstarted by something like the atom(s) acting in precisely the same way at exactly the same time? How do they "know"? Wouldn`t that suggest some kind of intelligence?

No one knows how the two particles "know".

"Some kind of intelligence" (I'm assuming you mean supernatural intelligence) is certainly one possible explanation. But science has a centuries-long track record of answering innumerable "we don't know" questions with natural explanations.

Morny wrote:
I'm an agnostic fundamentalist

Morny,

Is an agnostic fundamentalist one who believes the existence of God is possible, not true?

Thanks Morny

I need to ponder a while.
Yeah, I meant supernatural. Is there anything in science explained by the supernatural? Does supernatural even exist in science?

And, what is an agnostic fundamentalist?

RickD wrote: Is an agnostic fundamentalist one who believes the existence of God is possible, not true?

Aaaack!!

For many years, I've been using the term "agnostic fundamentalist" as what I thought was a term that I invented as an obvious oxymoron joke. After just now googling the term, I am horrified to find people are actually arguing over who is a real atheist, a real agnostic, or an agnostic fundamentalist! Ugh.

As if that revelation isn't bad enough, I then looked up several definitions of agnostic, only to find that none accurately captures my thoughts.

And on top of that, I consider such philosophical discussions unimportant. So maybe I should just stick with what I do think is important, viz., what is, and is not, science.

Sorry for the confusion.

Morny wrote:

RickD wrote: Is an agnostic fundamentalist one who believes the existence of God is possible, not true?

Aaaack!!

For many years, I've been using the term "agnostic fundamentalist" as what I thought was a term that I invented as an obvious oxymoron joke. After just now googling the term, I am horrified to find people are actually arguing over who is a real atheist, a real agnostic, or an agnostic fundamentalist! Ugh.

As if that revelation isn't bad enough, I then looked up several definitions of agnostic, only to find that none accurately captures my thoughts.

And on top of that, I consider such philosophical discussions unimportant. So maybe I should just stick with what I do think is important, viz., what is, and is not, science.

Sorry for the confusion.

So what is, and what is not God?

Or, if I understand you, what may be God, and what may not be God?

Equation or new age will suffice.

ps I am drinking vodka

Storyteller wrote: Yeah, I meant supernatural. Is there anything in science explained by the supernatural? Does supernatural even exist in science?

No. And no.
Science accepts Methodological Naturalism, which generally excludes the supernatural.

Storyteller wrote: Or, if I understand you, what may be God, and what may not be God?
[...]
ps I am drinking vodka

Isn't drinking and philosophizing dangerous?

Morny wrote:

Storyteller wrote: Yeah, I meant supernatural. Is there anything in science explained by the supernatural? Does supernatural even exist in science?

No. And no.
Science accepts Methodological Naturalism, which generally excludes the supernatural.

So science generally excludes God. What if it didn't? Read God into science, it doesn't discredit the science.

Storyteller wrote: Or, if I understand you, what may be God, and what may not be God?
[...]
ps I am drinking vodka

Morny wrote:Isn't drinking and philosophizing dangerous?

Yes.

But fun

ST,

Pleading the fifth, I see.

And when I produce a myriad of peer reviewed articles that apply evolutionary biology as the foundational hypothesis how would that change your mind?

I'll bite, any scientist that accepts evolution.There is no peer reviewed evidence you can provide that makes evolution true,yet scientists defend it and it is taught in society as the truth,more proven than gravity,etc.The theory of evolution should have been dropped by science a long time ago.[/quote]

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.

To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

How would you carry out science otherwise?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225
and here's an excellent example of science and religion melding, in time ... and .... the methodological naturalism contained in some of the interviews and reference material supplied. The post is ridiculously long but worth the time if you want.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

weshartland wrote:And when I produce a myriad of peer reviewed articles that apply evolutionary biology as the foundational hypothesis how would that change your mind?

I'll bite, any scientist that accepts evolution.There is no peer reviewed evidence you can provide that makes evolution true,yet scientists defend it and it is taught in society as the truth,more proven than gravity,etc.The theory of evolution should have been dropped by science a long time ago.

[/quote]

Go ahead. I want you to produce a myriad of peer reviewed articles that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction that we all observe and don't need scientists in a lab demonstrating what we already know that there is variation in reproduction such as dogs and roses,but this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves because it was normal variation that caused Darwin to assume life evolves and so you cannot 150 years later point out the obvious and then tell us it is evidence life evolves.However this might not be the thread to do it in.I would change my mind about evolution if you can provide peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Go ahead. I want you to produce a myriad of peer reviewed articles that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction that we all observe and don't need scientists in a lab demonstrating what we already know that there is variation in reproduction such as dogs and roses,but this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves because it was normal variation that caused Darwin to assume life evolves and so you cannot 150 years later point out the obvious and then tell us it is evidence life evolves.However this might not be the thread to do it in.I would change my mind about evolution if you can provide peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

Cancer cells in essence originate as cells belonging to the body, but through a mutation becomes a separate new form of life. The cancer cells divide and multiply, and through a process of selection changes to better survive in the host. Through this process the cancer cells differentiate and are no longer identical to the original cancer cell nor to each other. Often times when a medication is used to treat the cancer, there is a possibility that it will not affect the individual cells within the cancer collective equally. The result? The cancer cells which happen to survive, become the source for a new population of cancer cells, and the cancer returns. This new population is far more resistant to the medication originally used. The prognosis? 3 to 6 months.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Go ahead. I want you to produce a myriad of peer reviewed articles that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction that we all observe and don't need scientists in a lab demonstrating what we already know that there is variation in reproduction such as dogs and roses,but this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves because it was normal variation that caused Darwin to assume life evolves and so you cannot 150 years later point out the obvious and then tell us it is evidence life evolves.However this might not be the thread to do it in.I would change my mind about evolution if you can provide peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

Cancer cells in essence originate as cells belonging to the body, but through a mutation becomes a separate new form of life. The cancer cells divide and multiply, and through a process of selection changes to better survive in the host. Through this process the cancer cells differentiate and are no longer identical to the original cancer cell nor to each other. Often times when a medication is used to treat the cancer, there is a possibility that it will not affect the individual cells within the cancer collective equally. The result? The cancer cells which happen to survive, become the source for a new population of cancer cells, and the cancer returns. This new population is far more resistant to the medication originally used. The prognosis? 3 to 6 months.

That is variation in reproduction,or evidence that God created and made life to produce after its kind it is no different than the many different dog breeds or roses, on what basis do you claim it demonstrates life evolves?

Darwin insisted that the tiny variation we see in a litter of kittens could be extrapolated ad infinitum generation after generation until the cat becomes a new and totally different creature and yet here you are 150 years later caiming the slight variation we see in cancer cells can be extrapolated ad infinitum generation after generation until the cancer becomes a new and totally different creature with no evidence still after 150 years.

It's the same with all of the other peer reviewed evidence I've seen that is used for evidence life evolves and yet I see it applies to cancer cells now too.Normal variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves an yet it is used for evidence life evolves in example after example.