Evidence for God from Science

Religion isn't bad-it gets corrupted by people. Science is the exact same.

Everything God does is natural lol.
Seen, unseen, miracles etc.
The Resurrection was natural.
The only things that aren't natural are sins and results of sin such as death and decay.
Death is actually supernatural lol.
All this being said, you can't dismiss all study of everything just because you can't trust some bad actors.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:58 amSo when faced with issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc... that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes, their preexisting world view does not allow them to acknowledge that the existence of intelligent design in the natural world is evidence of a 'supernatural' Intelligent Designer.

Again; anything that cannot be explained using empirical evidence is not natural science.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:05 amAgreed... but the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.

Such as…..?

In case you somehow missed it, I give some examples in my post that you quote directly above...
"issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc..."

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:45 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:58 amSo when faced with issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc... that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes, their preexisting world view does not allow them to acknowledge that the existence of intelligent design in the natural world is evidence of a 'supernatural' Intelligent Designer.

Again; anything that cannot be explained using empirical evidence is not natural science.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:05 amAgreed... but the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.

Such as…..?

In case you somehow missed it, I give some examples in my post that you quote directly above...
"issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc..."

*The existence of matter
The singularity that lead to the Big Bang was matter and science does not know where it came from, so though individual scientists may speculate there is no accepted theory on the origin of matter

*The basis of the laws of nature
I don't think there is a scientific theory claiming the laws of nature are based on anything. If you know of such a theory feel free to provide it.

*The origin of life
As you can see from the link below, there doesn’t appear to be an accepted theory on how life began. There may be various people who speculate, but as you can see nobody knows.
https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-the ... -life.html

*The complex life in DNA
What about it? What do scientists claim about the complex life in DNA that isn't based on empirical evidence?

It seems most of what you provided, science doesn’t have an answer for. Science does admit there is much about the physical world that they just do not know. So while they may exhibit observable characteristics of the above mentioned, they don’t claim to have answers.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:51 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:45 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:05 am the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.

Such as…..?

I give some examples in my post that you quote directly above...
"issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc..."

*The existence of matter
The singularity that lead to the Big Bang was matter and science does not know where it came from, so though individual scientists may speculate there is no accepted theory on the origin of matter

*The basis of the laws of nature
I don't think there is a scientific theory claiming the laws of nature are based on anything. If you know of such a theory feel free to provide it.

*The origin of life
As you can see from the link below, there doesn’t appear to be an accepted theory on how life began. There may be various people who speculate, but as you can see nobody knows.
https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-the ... -life.html

*The complex life in DNA
What about it? What do scientists claim about the complex life in DNA that isn't based on empirical evidence?

It seems most of what you provided, science doesn’t have an answer for. Science does admit there is much about the physical world that they just do not know. So while they may exhibit observable characteristics of the above mentioned, they don’t claim to have answers.

Which goes directly to the point I've been focusing on here...

The natural sciences demonstrate that matter exists, and they even tell us when it came to exist in our universe.
But the natural sciences cannot tell us how matter came to be.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

The natural sciences demonstrate that ordered laws of nature exist, and human experience tells us that it takes intelligence to understand those laws of nature. But the natural sciences cannot tell us how those laws of nature came to be.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

The natural sciences tell us that life exists and how life behaves, they can even tell us about how long life has existed on our planet.
But the natural sciences cannot tell us how life began on our planet.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

The natural sciences can describe the order, structure, and complexity of DNA in life today. However, unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity that the natural sciences tell us exists in the DNA of life.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

These are four specific examples (and there are many more) where the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:51 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:45 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:05 am the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.

Such as…..?

I give some examples in my post that you quote directly above...
"issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc..."

*The existence of matter
The singularity that lead to the Big Bang was matter and science does not know where it came from, so though individual scientists may speculate there is no accepted theory on the origin of matter

*The basis of the laws of nature
I don't think there is a scientific theory claiming the laws of nature are based on anything. If you know of such a theory feel free to provide it.

*The origin of life
As you can see from the link below, there doesn’t appear to be an accepted theory on how life began. There may be various people who speculate, but as you can see nobody knows.
https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-the ... -life.html

*The complex life in DNA
What about it? What do scientists claim about the complex life in DNA that isn't based on empirical evidence?

It seems most of what you provided, science doesn’t have an answer for. Science does admit there is much about the physical world that they just do not know. So while they may exhibit observable characteristics of the above mentioned, they don’t claim to have answers.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmWhich goes directly to the point I've been focusing on here...
The natural sciences demonstrate that matter exists, and they even tell us when it came to exist in our universe.

No it doesn’t. Natural science starts with the singularity already existing. How the singularity/matter came to exist? THEY DON”T KNOW. Natural science admits to not having an answer

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmBut the natural sciences cannot tell us how matter came to be.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

No; Natural science does not point to a “super” natural cause, PEOPLE who aren’t satisfied with “I don’t know” as an answer, point to a supernatural cause. When this happens, it is no longer natural science.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmThe natural sciences demonstrate that ordered laws of nature exist, and human experience tells us that it takes intelligence to understand those laws of nature. But the natural sciences cannot tell us how those laws of nature came to be.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

No! Again; natural science admits to not knowing, but people who insist on answers (even if they aren't scientific answers) point to a super natural cause. Again; this is no longer science.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmThe natural sciences tell us that life exists and how life behaves, they can even tell us about how long life has existed on our planet.
But the natural sciences cannot tell us how life began on our planet.
So the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

Again; NO. I think you can see the pattern to my responses.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmThe natural sciences can describe the order, structure, and complexity of DNA in life today. However, unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity that the natural sciences tell us exists in the DNA of life.

How do you know unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity of DNA of life? Do you know something the scientists do not?

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmSo the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

These are four specific examples (and there are many more) where the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

All four of your examples failed because you seem to be confusing natural scientists as the ones who point to the supernatural to “fill in the gaps” left by science, when it is really just people who are not satisfied with the lack of scientific answers, that do this.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:28 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmThe natural sciences can describe the order, structure, and complexity of DNA in life today. However, unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity that the natural sciences tell us exists in the DNA of life.

How do you know unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity of DNA of life? Do you know something the scientists do not?

No... I am aware of what scientists know very well... Scientists now know how mutations work at the molecular level and through observation in the lab and the real world they know the frequency of different types of mutations.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmSo the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

These are four specific examples (and there are many more) where the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

All four of your examples failed because you seem to be confusing natural scientists as the ones who point to the supernatural to “fill in the gaps” left by science, when it is really just people who are not satisfied with the lack of scientific answers, that do this.

Just because you make an inaccurate assertion about my examples failing has nothing to do with whether or not my examples really are failures.

I gave four specific examples where the natural sciences point to aspects of the natural world that cannot be explained by the natural sciences. I stated that the natural sciences point to the existence of 'super'natural causes for observable characteristics of the natural world.
As I mentioned before, the presuppositions of some do not let them follow this natural evidence through to its obvious and natural conclusion.

But the presuppositions of some do not change the fact that there are many evidences in the natural sciences that point to an intelligent and 'super'natural Creator.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:51 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:28 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmThe natural sciences can describe the order, structure, and complexity of DNA in life today. However, unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity that the natural sciences tell us exists in the DNA of life.

How do you know unguided random natural processes are incapable of producing the order, structure, and complexity of DNA of life? Do you know something the scientists do not?

No... I am aware of what scientists know very well... Scientists now know how mutations work at the molecular level and through observation in the lab and the real world they know the frequency of different types of mutations.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:26 pmSo the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

These are four specific examples (and there are many more) where the natural sciences point to a characteristic of the natural universe that cannot be explained through the natural sciences alone and thus point to a 'super'natural cause.

All four of your examples failed because you seem to be confusing natural scientists as the ones who point to the supernatural to “fill in the gaps” left by science, when it is really just people who are not satisfied with the lack of scientific answers, that do this.

Just because you make an inaccurate assertion about my examples failing has nothing to do with whether or not my examples really are failures.

I gave four specific examples where the natural sciences point to aspects of the natural world that cannot be explained by the natural sciences. I stated that the natural sciences point to the existence of 'super'natural causes for observable characteristics of the natural world.
As I mentioned before, the presuppositions of some do not let them follow this natural evidence through to its obvious and natural conclusion.

But the presuppositions of some do not change the fact that there are many evidences in the natural sciences that point to an intelligent and 'super'natural Creator.

What do you mean when you say “natural sciences point to the existence of the Super natural causes?” How does science point to something else when it has no answers? And which of the natural science is doing this pointing? Chemistry? Biology? Physics? Or all Three? Again; what do you mean when you say science points, and can you give an actual example of one of the sciences doing this?

Science is literally the study of God lol.

Biology, Astrophysics etc. Take your pick but they all point to intelligent design. Even micro evolution points to intelligent design. It's up to an individual to suppose where or who the intelligence comes from but to deny design is to err and the error comes from a dishonest place.

Legitimate science leads us back to the creator every time. Science is just an attempt to figure out what He already knows.

From the very first post

This genius god couldn't think of a better way to forgive mankind than to send himself to Earth as his alter ego Jesus, have himself hideously tortured and killed so that he could forgive himself for something he knew would happen anyway? Really?

Well, questions asked in this way...
Is this person trying to understand? Honestly understand?

"This genius god couldn't think of a better way...."
Questions asked in such a way tells a lot about the person asking.

Compare to:
"Well, why God did it this way? Why he choose such a way to forgive mankind?

My very first question I would ask atheist is: "What is your aim/point/goal asking these questions? "

...

Kenny..

The points that DBowling makes are are really good ones. How science studies the natural world and points to the supernatural.

How do you explain the Christian scientists, the lawyer that was a staunch atheist before "putting the resurrection on trail" writing "who moved the stone", the shroud? Even today, no one can figure out how that image got there. They can't reproduce it...

There ARE suggestions, supported by science, that God (or intelligent design) exists.

Re the 33% of scientists that are Christian...
How many of the 77% that are left are agnostic as opposed to atheist?

Why, if it is so blindingly obvious that God doesn't exist, do people still believe? Why do die hard atheists who set out to prove God doesn't exist convert?

zacchaeus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:26 pm Science is literally the study of God lol.

lol = Laughing out loud? I would but I've got a feeling you are serious which makes it no longer a laughing matter!

zacchaeus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:26 pmBiology, Astrophysics etc. Take your pick but they all point to intelligent design. Even micro evolution points to intelligent design. It's up to an individual to suppose where or who the intelligence comes from but to deny design is to err and the error comes from a dishonest place.

Legitimate science leads us back to the creator every time. Science is just an attempt to figure out what He already knows.

Science is the study of the physical world based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. Where it finds answers this way it provides them, where it does not find answers, it admits to not having answers. Nowhere does science point to something else outside of science to fill in the gaps left by science; it sounds like you are just playing the age old game of “God of the gaps”! Don’t worry, it isn’t the first time I’ve seen it played around here and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 am Kenny..

The points that DBowling makes are are really good ones. How science studies the natural world and points to the supernatural.

It appears DBowling is just playing “God of the gaps”; filling in the questions left unanswered by science (gaps) with the supernatural (God).

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 amHow do you explain the Christian scientists,

Science is about knowledge; Christianity is about belief.

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 amthe lawyer that was a staunch atheist before "putting the resurrection on trail" writing "
who moved the stone", the shroud? Even today, no one can figure out how that image got there. They can't reproduce it...

The fact that the Catholic Church who actually has custody of the Shroud, and has more to gain from it’s authenticity than anybody else, yet they refuse to authenticate it; that should tell you something. Though I know very little about the shroud, I’ve got a feeling much of what you are being told about it is propaganda and exaggerations.

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 amThere ARE suggestions, supported by science, that God (or intelligent design) exists.

Re the 33% of scientists that are Christian...
How many of the 77% that are left are agnostic as opposed to atheist?

That 33% are not Christian, they are just scientists who believe in God. Christians aren’t the only ones who believe in God.

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 amWhy, if it is so blindingly obvious that God doesn't exist, do people still believe?

I wouldn’t say it is blindingly obvious that God doesn’t exist, but then I wouldn’t say it is blindingly obvious that Santa Clause doesn’t exist either.

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 amWhy do die hard atheists who set out to prove God doesn't exist convert?

Probably for the same reason die hard Christians who set out to prove God does exist; become atheists.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:39 am

Storyteller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:08 am The points that DBowling makes are are really good ones. How science studies the natural world and points to the supernatural.

It appears DBowling is just playing “God of the gaps”; filling in the questions left unanswered by science (gaps) with the supernatural (God).

I was wondering when "god of the gaps" would show up...
When logic, data, and facts don't support support your argument, I guess the next step is to pull out a handy catch phrase.

What do you mean when you say “natural sciences point to the existence of the Super natural causes?” How does science point to something else when it has no answers?

I've addressed this question a number of times in our dialogue already. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.
But let's try... one... more... time...

Deep diving one of the examples we have been discussing.
Science tells us that matter and energy exist.
Science tells us that we live in a finite universe which began around 14 billion years ago
The first law of thermodynamics tells us that the amount of matter/energy in our universe is a constant.

So science tells us when the matter/energy of our universe came into being.
But based on the first law of thermodynamics, the natural sciences are incapable of telling us how the matter/energy of our universe came into being.

Therefore the causal factor for the matter/energy in our universe operates outside the laws of natural science and by definition is 'super'natural.

And which of the natural science is doing this pointing? Chemistry? Biology? Physics? Or all Three?

As has been stated by myself and others repeatedly...
All of the scientific disciplines provide evidences that point to an intelligent, 'super'natural God.

what do you mean when you say science points, and can you give an actual example of one of the sciences doing this?

I've already given four...