Evidence for God from Science

Cougar wrote:Roy,

Who are these scientists that attempt to refute the spirituality of God? Is Galileo still blasphemous in your eyes? What do you mean by logical analysis?

I don't know and have never read any scientific article that refutes the spirituality of God. It isn't even discussed in scientific articles... it is not an appropriate place for it.

I would like to call out your ignorance about science, because the entire point of writing scientific articles is to teach other people what you did and what your results were. Most are like a freaking cook book, showing a step-by-step process of the hypothesis, what was done, how it was done, what results were obtained, what the results mean, and future discussion for the topic. However, a good scientific article does delve any further than what results can show, which leaves questions and considerations for the reader... this is a good thing because it leaves some interpretation up to the reader and the reader can then decide what to do with that particular information.

Scientific research seems to advocate that everything can be explained deterministically; that there is no allowance for a force that acts outside of the observable universe. What authority do they have to say this when there is no evidence to back it up? There are certainly countless number of variables in our model of the universe that leave the possibility open for a being that transcends the universe.

Logical anyalysis is flawed deductive reasoning. It is the act of arriving at a conclusion based on incomplete evidence. I.E. concluding that humans evolved from apes just because we share many similar traits. Many scientists get carried away with their findings and their theories and they make premature judgments.

My argument is not against all science, but rather those that take a misguided view of what science is. There is such a large population of scientists who suppress spirituality merely based on personal bias, rather than any kind of evidence. And it is my belief that there never will be any evidence, that it is a test of faith and those that cannot feel that supreme presence miss out. Science to me seems like half of the brain, and some scientists seem to only be using half of theirs. This kind of thinking causes a black and white view of the world; there is no feeling, no purpose, no meaning to anything. This is not the world I experience.

Galileo was a pioneer of thought and I think he had some good ideas, but he was too quantitative in his studies. In life there are two things dominating the world; quantity and quality. You should not emrace one and refute the other. But he was right in arguing that no authoritative truth should be taken for granted; that we each need to experience our own truth to find it.

Cougar wrote:If scientists don't show how to learn, then why do schools hire chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy teachers?

That is still not showing how to learn. That is teaching one about different observations or different interpretations of the world as we (or they) know it. It is more vital for one to know how to properly learn, then for them to be taught 'facts'.

Galileo wasn't blasphemous. He was "censored" by the church for other reasons.

Forge wrote:Yet you absolutely believe we lack evidence. Self-contradiction.

Ok, I do admit I was interpreting a little to deeply into the matter. At the moment, it is obvious that we are unaware of most of the universe, and totally unaware of anything that might be beyond the universe.

Forge wrote:So 1+1=2 is God? Or is mathematic relative?

I would say that mathematics is a system of symbolism associated to God's language. It is a language that is much more tied to reality than our spoken language.

Forge wrote:Nope. God is eternally unbound by the univserses' laws. What? Will God start to die when he steps foot into this place?

It is not as if God cannot do whatever he wants in our universe, it is rather that if he did, he would disrupt what the universe is meant for. It is a matter of choice, not ability.

Jbuza wrote:Shouldn't one use logical analysis and the power of human reason to test what is being said to see if it is a perversion of the actual order of things?

In the presence of incomplete evidence, yes. But that is nothing like truth. If one knows enough, one does not have to test the validity of what is being said because one knows whether it coincides with one's own experiences or not. This is not the same thing as what scientists call logical analysis. This is not an estimate based on intuition and what one has learned from others. If a there is a blue pen on a table between you and another person, and the other person says that the pen is red, you do not need to use logical analysis to determine that the pen is not red. If you change the situation such that we cannot see, then it becomes much harder to determine the color of the pen, but that does not mean it is not a different color.

Forge wrote:From what I have gathered, Roy believes the human mental faculties to be irrevocably flawed

Not irrevocably, as I believe that we are sort of 'plugged into' a spiritual broadcast and that our physical mind is only part of our personality. But the state of almost everyone's (if not all) minds (including my own) are unable to completely tap into this potential. But it is still there to be used, we just have to properly use it. It is that part of us which is the soul.

Roy wrote:

Scientific research seems to advocate that everything can be explained deterministically; that there is no allowance for a force that acts outside of the observable universe. What authority do they have to say this when there is no evidence to back it up? There are certainly countless number of variables in our model of the universe that leave the possibility open for a being that transcends the universe.

So, do you avoid taking your children to the doctor when they are sick? I hate to break it to you, but medical doctors are often some of the best scientists in the world... they use the scientific method and deductive reasoning when they diagnose an illness... but I am guessing there is not a problem with that because that does not question theories and beliefs regarding our existence. A doctor using deductive reasoning (based on scientific studies, observations, and experience) to diagnose your child with the flu is ok, but putting together logical pieces of a puzzle to form evolutionary theory is not... this doesn't seem right to me.

Again, many scientists suppress their religious or spiritual beliefs in the scientific realm because it would be inappropriate to divulge that type of information. Science is a specific process, standardized across the world to make communication about our findings possible... whereas religion and belief structures are purely personal. One must also be able to separate a person's life's work from their spiritual beliefs. Being a scientist does not equal being devoid of spiritual thought, as you seem to claim that they are synonymous.

I would also not say that scientists believe everything can be explained... actually, scientists say "I don't know" more than any theologian or religious leader I have ever encountered.

Also, I have to point out a common misconception about evolutionary theory: It does not claim that humans evolved from apes. There usually seems to be a common belief among non-biologists that evolution is seen as a ladder, when it is in fact more like a tree. Cladistics and phylogenetics have so far determined that humans and apes have evolved from the same ancestor, not that humans were once apes. That is a common misconception... just for your knowledge.

Finally, I would say that teachers do show children, college students how to learn, how to do research. If that were not the case, how would anything get done? Experience is the best teacher, so when students are asked to do experiments for their classes, they are learning on their own how to accomplish a task. Any good teacher will not do the experiment for them and the students will see for themselves the objective of the experiment. Practice is important, so after years of doing experiments, researching on your own (not just in the scientific realm, mind you) I think that kids do "learn how to learn". Facts that are taught in class are merely a basis for understanding their experiences. A truely learned person can take those facts, combine them with their own experience and create their own conclusions about the world around them... And I don't think that is such a bad thing.

to diagnose your child with the flu is ok, but putting together logical pieces of a puzzle to form evolutionary theory is not... this doesn't seem right to me.

Circular reasoning is logical now? And logic transcends the individual, meaning...but how, if logic is somewhere in the physical brain?

Again, many scientists suppress their religious or spiritual beliefs in the scientific realm because it would be inappropriate to divulge that type of information.

Unless your an evolutionist. Because guys like Dawkins aren't putting their philosophy into science...no, no, that would be impossible.

I would also not say that scientists believe everything can be explained... actually, scientists say "I don't know" more than any theologian or religious leader I have ever encountered.

Met many?

Cladistics and phylogenetics have so far determined that humans and apes have evolved from the same ancestor, not that humans were once apes. That is a common misconception... just for your knowledge.

Cladists ignore the fossil record and go into extremely hilarious versions of circular reasoning. Also, phylogenetics keeps on getting conflicting results. (Icons of Evolution baby)

RoyLennigan wrote:Ok, I do admit I was interpreting a little to deeply into the matter. At the moment, it is obvious that we are unaware of most of the universe, and totally unaware of anything that might be beyond the universe.

That is true. But not knowing what is out there is not equal to not knowing what is here. We can be sure of things that we find to be true.

I would say that mathematics is a system of symbolism associated to God's language. It is a language that is much more tied to reality than our spoken language.

But is Mathematics = God?

It is not as if God cannot do whatever he wants in our universe, it is rather that if he did, he would disrupt what the universe is meant for. It is a matter of choice, not ability.

Where do you get the assumption that God designed the universe to run without Him?

Not irrevocably, as I believe that we are sort of 'plugged into' a spiritual broadcast and that our physical mind is only part of our personality. But the state of almost everyone's (if not all) minds (including my own) are unable to completely tap into this potential. But it is still there to be used, we just have to properly use it. It is that part of us which is the soul.

Well... I agree, I suppose. Out minds are flawed.

Cougar wrote: Who are these scientists that attempt to refute the spirituality of God? Is Galileo still blasphemous in your eyes? What do you mean by logical analysis?

I don't know and have never read any scientific article that refutes the spirituality of God. It isn't even discussed in scientific articles... it is not an appropriate place for it.

Do you consider "Evolutionary Biology", by Douglas Futuyma a credible scientific source? It is one of the textbooks for biology in quite a few colleges. Here is a quote from page 5: “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”