Evidence for God from Science

So, what are your views on climate change ?

It might snow this week. Or NOT. Depends upon how accurate the projections of the computer models will be, over the next four days. Ouija boards have been known to be more accurate.

Kurieuo wrote:Given Kenny's understanding of things (sorry to talk about you in third person, well perhaps not since I am right? ha!), I wonder how Kenny finds science compatible with many other things.

There are plenty of things that clearly can't be described in scientific terms which are part of reality: mathematics, logic, language, history, and well, consciousness. It is never going to be possible to put these under a microscope.

I see math, logic, and language as systems people use to accomplish things, history as a record of past events, and consciousness is awareness of your surroundings; little to do with science. Not sure of your point here.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

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

So, what are your views on climate change ?

I know little about it. I hear views on both sides of the subject, I don't know who is telling the truth. what are your views?

Ken

Just curious how you view something that some call science and others pseudo-science BUT that is another topic.

For what it is worth, I do understand your POV in regards to what you see as the incompatibility of science and christianity.
I don't agree mind you BUT I do understand.

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote: 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.

It isn't about what I believe, its about what is compatible with scientific claims.

It is indeed about what you believe, more than scientific claims.
I mean look at you paragraph about "never happen in the material world" and "science (the study of the material world)". You've already decided at the outset the Materialist view of the world is correct.

From there, you proceed to claim what science does/does not claim.
Here is another question for you Kenny: Does science claim God doesn't exist?

Also, I'd love you to please scientifically detail what happens at conception, you know, explain scientifically what is going on with the woman, sperm and ovum just before/at conception.

And explain why you claim someone can't come back from the dead. You know what is it that happens to a body on the biological level, on the inside, a real scientific breakdown of the physical process. Francis Collins I'm sure knows a lot more than you about the inside of the body, and he sees science and Christianity as compatible, and indeed such a relationship beneficial. To again quote him:

Francis Collins wrote:I am privileged to be somebody who tries to understand nature using the tools of science. But it is also clear that there are some really important questions that science cannot really answer, such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? In those domains I have found that faith provides a better path to answers. I find it oddly anachronistic that in today’s culture there seems to be a widespread presumption that scientific and spiritual views are incompatible.

I think you'll find science is more descriptive of reality than prescriptive of what can't be. There in I see lies your confusion, because from the outset, you've assumed a Materialist view of reality, and so science in your eyes should be able to describe everything that happens in the world.

You see the issue isn't science, but with the view of the world you've assumed.

PaulSacramento wrote:Just curious how you view something that some call science and others pseudo-science BUT that is another topic.

For what it is worth, I do understand your POV in regards to what you see as the incompatibility of science and christianity.
I don't agree mind you BUT I do understand.

Thank you; and though I may not agree, I do understand and respect your POV on this issue as well

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:
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.

It isn't about what I believe, its about what is compatible with scientific claims.

Kurieuo wrote:It is indeed about what you believe, more than scientific claims.

No, the topic is not “What Kenny Believes,” its “Why is Christianity compatible with science”.

Kurieuo wrote:I mean look at you paragraph about "never happen in the material world" and "science (the study of the material world)". You've already decided at the outset the Materialist view of the world is correct.

No; This conversation is about science. Science is about the material world; not the spiritual world or any other world you may wanna throw into the conversation. If you wanna talk about anything other than the material world, you need to take science out of the picture, because science only addresses the material world.

Kurieuo wrote:From there, you proceed to claim what science does/does not claim.
Here is another question for you Kenny: Does science claim God doesn't exist?

Which God are you talking about? A God of the spiritual world or a God of the material world? Remember; science only addresses the material world, anything other than that is not addressed by science.

Kurieuo wrote:Also, I'd love you to please scientifically detail what happens at conception, you know, explain scientifically what is going on with the woman, sperm and ovum just before/at conception.

And explain why you claim someone can't come back from the dead. You know what is it that happens to a body on the biological level, on the inside, a real scientific breakdown of the physical process.

What’s your point? If I can’t, am I supposed to believe virgin births and dead people coming back to life is consistent with the study of the material world? (science)

Kurieuo wrote:Francis Collins I'm sure knows a lot more than you about the inside of the body, and he sees science and Christianity as compatible, and indeed such a relationship beneficial. To again quote him:

Francis Collins wrote:I am privileged to be somebody who tries to understand nature using the tools of science. But it is also clear that there are some really important questions that science cannot really answer, such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? In those domains I have found that faith provides a better path to answers. I find it oddly anachronistic that in today’s culture there seems to be a widespread presumption that scientific and spiritual views are incompatible.

I’m sure there are some claims in the Bible that are compatible with science, but do you really think Francis Collins is going to claim EVERYTHING claimed in the Bible is compatible?

Kurieuo wrote:I think you'll find science is more descriptive of reality than prescriptive of what can't be. There in I see lies your confusion, because from the outset, you've assumed a Materialist view of reality,

This conversation is about science, and science is the study of the material world, not some other world you might be referring to. One doesn’t need a materialist view of reality to understand that.


Ken

Kenny, come on. You make me smile.
Seriously, in your last message, you've just demonstrated to me that it's more about your Materialistic worldview than science. And you're right, this thread is about Science.

As a side, strictly speaking Materialism is wrong, right? I just have a thing about being proper with language. We already know the world is more than the material world scientifically, but nonetheless for conventional reasons perhaps, it is used interchangably with Physicalism. It's actually properly Physicalism that you'd want to embrace.

Nonetheless, Science describes that world around us without philosophical prejudice.
If you detailed the science behind people dying and new life being conceived, you'd find all Christians agree with the actual science of the matter and how the "natural law of the world" works.

Why I said to describe the process, is because that is the actual Science. I'm debunking your claim that Science claims dead people don't rise. It doesn't! Science rather illuminates why our physical bodies decay when we stop breathing, because there's no longer blood circulating around our bodies carrying oxygen etc. The heart which does this pumping has stopped. When this happens, the brain dies. Once the body starts to decay, it's physical composition has changed and naturally we don't see there's ever any turning back.

I tell you, the people didn't proclaim Jesus' resurrection as a natural event. They claimed it was a divine intervention. Which leads into my question you kind of responded to...

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:From there, you proceed to claim what science does/does not claim.
Here is another question for you Kenny: Does science claim God doesn't exist?

Which God are you talking about? A God of the spiritual world or a God of the material world? Remember; science only addresses the material world, anything other than that is not addressed by science.

Well, science doesn't deal with the material world per se, but rather it's more proper to say the natural world.

Nonetheless, I want to thank you Kenny because here you've made precisely the point I've been trying to make to you.
To put matters simply, Science has nothing to do with God or no God. It makes no claim either way. Therefore if a "God" claim is made, such knowledge is not within the jurisdiction of Science to make one claim or the other. All Science can say is that such an occurrence (i.e., the resurrection) is very extremely improbably not a natural occurrence if such did happen, because once the heart stops and body is dead rigamortis sets in, etc, etc. Jesus was stabbed with a spear and bloody and water flowed out, meaning he was dead beyond dead by all material and physical means we know. He should not have come back to life.

Oooh, Krink! Some admin is gonna have to jump in and tell you that science cannot say (or do) anything.

Audie wrote:Oooh, Krink! Some adim is gonna have to jump in and tell you that science cannot say (or do) anything.

What's an "adim"?


And, who's Krink?

A "adim' is the same as a "admin" but with fewer letters.

"Krink" knows who he is but he is aka Kurieuo.

We need to stop saying thet sciences claims or does ANYTHING, it doesn't.
Scientists do.
When a scientists says that "people don't just come back from the dead" He is making a personal statement ( and he would be wrong of course since there are many documented cases of just that happening).
Now, when a scientists says that science shows us that people simply don't come bac from the dead as is described in the NT, then what he/she is doing is saying that:
According to what we know through the scientific method, people do not come back from the dead as described in the NT.

The problem is, of course, that science does NOT address historical events of ANY type unless that science is archaeology and even archaeology is slave to written accounts of non-geographical events ( people and people related events).

The reality is that there is NO scientific field that can address the reality or lack thereof, of the resurrection.
So science and scientists can't comment on it OTHER than by personal opinion NOT backed up or supported by the scientific method.

Now, biologically speaking, we have NO RECORD of any person ever coming back from the dead after being crucified and proven to be dead ( spear to the side) and being buried for 3 days.
So, biologically speaking, we can say that something like that has never been recorded as to happening and as such, the chances of it ACTUALLY have happened as very, very small.
BUT we can NOT say that it never happened since, as has been stated before by others, science does not deal in absolutes.

So, how compatible is science with christianity?
Well, all those christian scientists seem to thing it is BUT add to that the simple fact that science has always gotten it's biggest "boost" from Christians and christian-oriented thinkes, it seems counter-intuitive to view them as incompatible.

http://www.cslewis.org/journal/science- ... operation/
http://biologos.org/common-questions/ch ... d-religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology
http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-h ... ty-139762/
http://qideas.org/articles/christianity ... rspective/

Kurieuo wrote: Why I said to describe the process, is because that is the actual Science. I'm debunking your claim that Science claims dead people don't rise. It doesn't!

I didn’t say that. I said; (paraphrasing)

“Some of the claims science makes about a body after death includes
*Organs shutting down
*Blood stops flowing
*Body begins to deteriorate.
Of all the claims science makes about a body after death, none of them include coming back to life.

That is what I said, which is different than what you claimed I said.

Kurieuo wrote:Nonetheless, I want to thank you Kenny because here you've made precisely the point I've been trying to make to you.
To put matters simply, Science has nothing to do with God or no God. It makes no claim either way. Therefore if a "God" claim is made, such knowledge is not within the jurisdiction of Science to make one claim or the other. All Science can say is that such an occurrence (i.e., the resurrection) is very extremely improbably not a natural occurrence if such did happen, because once the heart stops and body is dead rigamortis sets in, etc, etc. Jesus was stabbed with a spear and bloody and water flowed out, meaning he was dead beyond dead by all material and physical means we know. He should not have come back to life.

If that is the standard of being “compatible” with science, that means I can make up any ridicules claim, make up any character of fiction, and as long as it is not addressed, or refuted by science, I can claim it is compatible with science; right?

Ken

If that is the standard of being “compatible” with science, that means I can make up any ridicules claim, make up any character of fiction, and as long as it is not addressed, or refuted by science, I can claim it is compatible with science; right?

Let's take Flying Spaghetti Monster as an example.

We have no scientific evidence that such exists. So far, it is beyond science.
Science can't tell us such is ridiculous. It would just pose problems as to how such a monster could exist, being seriously made of spaghetti, how would it fly, and the like.

To call such ridiculous, requires a person to make a judgement. They'll draw from science, they might draw from metaphysics and logical reasoning, they might draw from experience, tradition (what people have believe in the past), their heart or intuition.

So then, perhaps a better understanding would be to say that Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither compatible nor incompatible with science. God however, if God exist, would provide the metaphysical foundations for science to work. This, instead of all the contingent* physical laws and material world existing and running on nothing at all.

* They're contingent because they are always in a state of potentiality and changeable. It is logically absurd to think anything contingent just has no foundation beneath itself.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Oooh, Krink! Some adim is gonna have to jump in and tell you that science cannot say (or do) anything.

Oooh, Minny! I'm not sure what you mean with what I've said.
I'm sure Kenny would disagree with you on that one though with his claiming what it does say.