Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:There was a thread which was opened as a loaded question: Why is there a conflict between religion and science? Although the original poster didn't really believe there was a conflict.

• Loaded Question: or "complex question fallacy" is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

I can see evident contradictions between some religions, like Hinduism which kind of prides itself on contradictions with relative truth rather than any real objective truth. Christianity however, has always had a foundation in reason. You just need to look at its rich heritage of thinkers.

Furthermore, Judaism and maybe even Islam as I see it aren't incompatible with science either. I mean science broken down is simply looking to nature, and all these theistic religions haven't had much issue with doing that over years. Looking to nature and natural revelation was heavily drawn from in each.

So then, when did it ever become granted in society that religion, ALL religion, is incompatible with science? You know, I'm not one who likes to call my beliefs religious, and I don't see them in that context. I merely believe what I see as sensible. Nonetheless, people today often just accept religion and science are incompatible without blinking, but this to me seems rather suspicious. Like they've swallowed rhetoric that is actually fallacious.

But isn't a virgin birth, rising from the dead, and various other miracles in the Bible incompatible with science?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:There was a thread which was opened as a loaded question: Why is there a conflict between religion and science? Although the original poster didn't really believe there was a conflict.

• Loaded Question: or "complex question fallacy" is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

I can see evident contradictions between some religions, like Hinduism which kind of prides itself on contradictions with relative truth rather than any real objective truth. Christianity however, has always had a foundation in reason. You just need to look at its rich heritage of thinkers.

Furthermore, Judaism and maybe even Islam as I see it aren't incompatible with science either. I mean science broken down is simply looking to nature, and all these theistic religions haven't had much issue with doing that over years. Looking to nature and natural revelation was heavily drawn from in each.

So then, when did it ever become granted in society that religion, ALL religion, is incompatible with science? You know, I'm not one who likes to call my beliefs religious, and I don't see them in that context. I merely believe what I see as sensible. Nonetheless, people today often just accept religion and science are incompatible without blinking, but this to me seems rather suspicious. Like they've swallowed rhetoric that is actually fallacious.

But isn't a virgin birth, rising from the dead, and various other miracles in the Bible incompatible with science?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: No, they are not.
Add to that the simple fact that right now, a virgin CAN give birth.

PaulSacramento wrote: Science comments on what it can observe directly via observation OR by remaining evidence.
At best, what science can say is that " based on what we know NOW, we can't explain how a person can be resurrected or who event "A" happened".

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: No, they are not.
Add to that the simple fact that right now, a virgin CAN give birth.

Yes today via artificial insemination, a woman can get pregnant without having sex, but that was not an option 2,500 years ago.

PaulSacramento wrote: Science comments on what it can observe directly via observation OR by remaining evidence.
At best, what science can say is that " based on what we know NOW, we can't explain how a person can be resurrected or who event "A" happened".

But science does not say that because they are not in the business of disproving every false claim that comes down the pike. If I claimed a woman could get pregnant by swallowing a watermelon seed, to say this is compatible with science simply because science does not refute it would be ridicules wouldn’t it?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.

So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken

Kenny wrote: I suspect matter has always existed in one form or another.
Ken

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.

So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken

Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?

Yeah that's pretty much it.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.

So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken

Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.

So can you understand why a skeptic like myself would, remain skeptical of a claim that could never happen in the material world without the assistance of a God I don’t believe in, would be compatible with science (the study of the material world)? Can you understand my skepticism?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?

Yeah that's pretty much it.

Ken

So, unless a claim can be verified by science in some way ( like computer models that are proven correct over time) then the claim isn't scientific and the view isn't compatible with science, correct?

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.

So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?
Ken

Only by God - the effect of his intervention and rejuvenation of dead bodies could be described by science if someone able to study it was there at the time, but that rejuvenation is not something that ever happens naturally.

So can you understand why a skeptic like myself would, remain skeptical of a claim that could never happen in the material world without the assistance of a God I don’t believe in, would be compatible with science (the study of the material world)? Can you understand my skepticism?

Ken

Skepticism that the claim is compatible with science? Well, of course, if you don't believe in God, it's hard to see how miracles are possible. But I believe that if God made the universe he can do anything he likes, whether it's normally possible or not.

PaulSacramento wrote:Skepticism is awesome, it really is.
IF it is applied to everything the same way.
Religion AND science.
I just find that it is not the case and, to be honest, I was that way too when I was a skeptic myself.
The whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" thing.
YET, I realized that I was not holding up science to the very same yard stick.
In science we routinely do get extraordinary claims and many times with little or no evidence ( see the multiverse thing for example) and yet we tend to accept them ( to one degree or another) at face value.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Again, you are stating that science is not compatible with christianity because it (christianity) makes claims that it can't prove and that contradict what science currently tells us was possible in those days, yes?
Is that your point of contention?

Yeah that's pretty much it.

Ken

So, unless a claim can be verified by science in some way ( like computer models that are proven correct over time) then the claim isn't scientific and the view isn't compatible with science, correct?

I would not say it has to be verified by science, there are many scientists who make claims that hasn't been verified by science (multiverse for example). If science has an explanation for "A" and the claim contradicts this explanation science provides, then I would say the claim is not compatible with science.

Ken