Evidence for God from Science

Audie, sorry I can't resist.

Audie wrote:"Scientific truth.."
Science does not do truth.

Next time you declare some scientific truth, please let me re-quote you.

Audie wrote:I dont just say things. I know science is badly taught.

How can science be badly taught if it doesn't do truth?

Audie wrote:You are talking about what some ignorant people may say about science.

How can people be ignorant unless there are some truths about science?

Audie wrote:If you meant "scientific fact" that is a bit better, but not much. A theory can never be a fact. Theory of evolution is a theory. The only time a scientist says fact, is something like "its a fact that this is my data".

These sound like all truth statements.
(and re: theory of evolution, you mean theories of evolution right?)

So, regarding "Science does not do truth" it's perhaps more logically correct to say "Science does not do certainties." Which is likely what you mean anyway. Since you prefer science and not epistemology then this is what I'd move you philosophical towards.

But, you know, philosophy doesn't do certainties either.
There could always be a missing premise one didn't think of.
Or, an unsound argument being made where the premises don't follow or aren't tight enough.

Maybe we could agree that while science and philosophy can provide us with knowledge (after all, they are rational pursuits for discovering truth), that we just can't be absolutely 100% certain that the knowledge we have is true.

Further, we may provide strong scientific and philosophical justifications for such knowledge, or even perhaps just have an immovable belief that what we believe is true, but having a 100% proof that our knowledge of a matter is in fact correct just isn't possible.

I think post-modern influences that say, "because we can't know 100% know what is true (there is always a subjective element), truth cannot be had," is wrong. Science does do truth, but obviously our scientific knowledge of matters can change. It just means our previous knowledge was wrong, but we do science because we want our knowledge to move closer to truth.... find cures for diseases and what-not.

I don't really think you'll disagree with anything I've said. Because you and I both know it's gospel.

Kurieuo wrote:Audie, sorry I can't resist.

Audie wrote:"Scientific truth.."
Science does not do truth.

Next time you declare some scientific truth, please let me re-quote you.

Audie wrote:I dont just say things. I know science is badly taught.

How can science be badly taught if it doesn't do truth?

Audie wrote:You are talking about what some ignorant people may say about science.

How can people be ignorant unless there are some truths about science?

Audie wrote:If you meant "scientific fact" that is a bit better, but not much. A theory can never be a fact. Theory of evolution is a theory. The only time a scientist says fact, is something like "its a fact that this is my data".

These sound like all truth statements.
(and re: theory of evolution, you mean theories of evolution right?)

So, regarding "Science does not do truth" it's perhaps more logically correct to say "Science does not do certainties." Which is likely what you mean anyway. Since you prefer science and not epistemology then this is what I'd move you philosophical towards.

But, you know, philosophy doesn't do certainties either.
There could always be a missing premise one didn't think of.
Or, an unsound argument being made where the premises don't follow or aren't tight enough.

Maybe we could agree that while science and philosophy can provide us with knowledge (after all, they are rational pursuits for discovering truth), that we just can't be absolutely 100% certain that the knowledge we have is true.

Further, we may provide strong scientific and philosophical justifications for such knowledge, or even perhaps just have an immovable belief that what we believe is true, but having a 100% proof that our knowledge of a matter is in fact correct just isn't possible.

I think post-modern influences that say, "because we can't know 100% know what is true (there is always a subjective element), truth cannot be had," is wrong. Science does do truth, but obviously our scientific knowledge of matters can change. It just means our previous knowledge was wrong, but we do science because we want our knowledge to move closer to truth.... find cures for diseases and what-not.

I don't really think you'll disagree with anything I've said. Because you and I both know it's gospel.

amen

Kurieuo wrote:

Not that there isnt a detail or two to clarify.

I was interested in this..

(and re: theory of evolution, you mean theories of evolution right?)

Id like to know what you mean, why you said that.

And if by "truth" you mean an absolute, no science absolutely dont do dat.

There are some scientific truths such as "for every action there is a reaction".
We just need to understand what science actually says as opposed to what is being interpreted and why.

"for every action there is a reaction" is an example of an a scientific law based as they all are, on a limited set of observations.

No law can ever be proved to be correct. Simple reason being that its impossible to make a complete set of observations. There could always be an exception to the law.

Laws may be true and they may be false, but we will never know.

Audie wrote:"for every action there is a reaction" is an example of an a scientific law based as they all are, on a limited set of observations.

No law can ever be proved to be correct. Simple reason being that its impossible to make a complete set of observations. There could always be an exception to the law.

Laws may be true and they may be false, but we will never know.

Are you suggesting that an action can come to be/pass with NO reaction occurring AT ALL?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:"for every action there is a reaction" is an example of an a scientific law based as they all are, on a limited set of observations.

No law can ever be proved to be correct. Simple reason being that its impossible to make a complete set of observations. There could always be an exception to the law.

Laws may be true and they may be false, but we will never know.

Are you suggesting that an action can come to be/pass with NO reaction occurring AT ALL?

I am saying that under some unknown circumstances, it is possible that could happen. There is no way to know.

Why do I hear Jaws music?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:(and re: theory of evolution, you mean theories of evolution right?)

Id like to know what you mean, why you said that.

That's a good question.
I'll put some skin on the table but I'd be interested in your own answer to one of my own questions.

Could approach answering in several ways I suppose, but perhaps an overview would serve best.

Science
Time - Gradual and/or Punctuated equilibrium
Ideas - Neo-/Darwinian, Neo-/Lamarckian
Scale - microevolution, macroevolution
Depth - molecular, organs/systems, species
Kingdoms - plants, animal, fungi, bacteria, etc
Mechanisms - natural selection, mutations, environmental pressures, hox genes...
Specific species/classes - human evolution, dinosaurs to birds, mammalian, reptilian, etc

Philosophical
Theistic theories
Naturalist theories

Audie wrote:And if by "truth" you mean an absolute, no science absolutely dont do dat.

Sorry, I don't understand.

The question I have in return is what do you generally have in mind when you use the term "evolution"?

Kurieuo wrote:Why do I hear Jaws music?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:(and re: theory of evolution, you mean theories of evolution right?)

Id like to know what you mean, why you said that.

That's a good question.
I'll put some skin on the table but I'd be interested in your own answer to one of my own questions.

Could approach answering in several ways I suppose, but perhaps an overview would serve best.

Science
Time - Gradual and/or Punctuated equilibrium
Ideas - Neo-/Darwinian, Neo-/Lamarckian
Scale - microevolution, macroevolution
Depth - molecular, organs/systems, species
Kingdoms - plants, animal, fungi, bacteria, etc
Mechanisms - natural selection, mutations, environmental pressures, hox genes...
Specific species/classes - human evolution, dinosaurs to birds, mammalian, reptilian, etc

Philosophical
Theistic theories
Naturalist theories

Audie wrote:And if by "truth" you mean an absolute, no science absolutely dont do dat.

Sorry, I don't understand.

The question I have in return is what do you generally have in mind when you use the term "evolution"?

You are correct in your idea of a bundle of related theories/ fields of study. Just checking what you meant, others say
some odd things.

What does "evolution" mean to me? First thought is to say its the unifying
concept by which one understands living things / their relationships. (That latter
being "ecology", before the hippies ruined the word.)

Is "truth" an absolute? If so its not a term for science as
science is about probabilities.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:And if by "truth" you mean an absolute, no science absolutely dont do dat.

Kurieuo wrote:Sorry, I don't understand.

The question I have in return is what do you generally have in mind when you use the term "evolution"?

You are correct in your idea of a bundle of related theories/ fields of study. Just checking what you meant, others say
some odd things.

What does "evolution" mean to me? First thought is to say its the unifying
concept by which one understands living things / their relationships. (That latter
being "ecology", before the hippies ruined the word.)

That seems like quite a neutral and open-ended definition.
I like the thoughts embedded thought.

To me ecology, and in particular symbiosis, would be best understood within the framework of a purposeful design
I suppose where you would see "red" I see "blue"?

Audie wrote:Is "truth" an absolute? If so its not a term for science as
science is about probabilities.

Maybe I wasn't as clear in my post that you said "amen" to as I thought.

I don't know any kind of truth, except absolute truth.
1+1 = 2 and never 3, 4 or 5.

If truth were not absolute, then we science would perhaps be a chaotic excersise.
The closer we get to understanding how the world truly works one day, the further we could drift away the next.

Science attempts to get at truths about the world.
I see our knowledge about the world as movable however.

There Are absolute truths. And people also have personal biases about most everything. Look at a half glass of water -- is it half Full or half Empty. These days the OEConcept is much more popular. Science is considered to be the ultimate authority -- and science Is authoritative -- it's simply that millions/ billions of years were Not necessary for this world and us to be here.
Someone had commented that its' easy to get sidetracked from the important issues in God's Word. Salvation is the Most important -- it determines everyone's eternal home. Either in heaven or hell. That being said -- How is our salvation made Possible. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. His death, burial and bodily resurrection. Those are supernatural events. Those events have been debated for years , also.
So -we get back to 'what does the Bible / God's Word / say to us?" Did God indeed create this world and everything in it or didn't He. Are we going to accept theistic evolution? Lots of people Do. They put / allow God to be involved in some way or another. But If He's really powerful enough to do Some of it -- why not All of it. Was He Really powerful enough to cause Mary, as a virgin, to become pregnant? and was He Really powerful enough to raise Jesus Christ from the dead? Because if He Wasn't -- then this world Doesn't have a Risen Savior and with out a Risen Savior we don't have Christianity.
God created a perfect environment for Adam and then Eve in the Garden. His Only requirement was that they were NOT to eat anything from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil cause if they Did, they would Die. So -- enter the serpent and his lying to Eve and then Adam. Would Eve listen to God's Words or the serpent. Well -- she listened to the serpent.
So --who are We listening to -- do we take God at His Word or look for ways to rationalize everything to suit Our desires and that which Society tries to tell us.
Science is Wonderful -- so many fields of have given this world So Much. But -- scientists are still People. A degree by a name does Not make for ultimate / infallible knowledge in Any subject. Continue to research and learn and share.

crochet1949 wrote:There Are absolute truths. And people also have personal biases about most everything. Look at a half glass of water -- is it half Full or half Empty. These days the OEConcept is much more popular. Science is considered to be the ultimate authority -- and science Is authoritative -- it's simply that millions/ billions of years were Not necessary for this world and us to be here.
Someone had commented that its' easy to get sidetracked from the important issues in God's Word. Salvation is the Most important -- it determines everyone's eternal home. Either in heaven or hell. That being said -- How is our salvation made Possible. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. His death, burial and bodily resurrection. Those are supernatural events. Those events have been debated for years , also.
So -we get back to 'what does the Bible / God's Word / say to us?" Did God indeed create this world and everything in it or didn't He. Are we going to accept theistic evolution? Lots of people Do. They put / allow God to be involved in some way or another. But If He's really powerful enough to do Some of it -- why not All of it. Was He Really powerful enough to cause Mary, as a virgin, to become pregnant? and was He Really powerful enough to raise Jesus Christ from the dead? Because if He Wasn't -- then this world Doesn't have a Risen Savior and with out a Risen Savior we don't have Christianity.
God created a perfect environment for Adam and then Eve in the Garden. His Only requirement was that they were NOT to eat anything from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil cause if they Did, they would Die. So -- enter the serpent and his lying to Eve and then Adam. Would Eve listen to God's Words or the serpent. Well -- she listened to the serpent.
So --who are We listening to -- do we take God at His Word or look for ways to rationalize everything to suit Our desires and that which Society tries to tell us.
Science is Wonderful -- so many fields of have given this world So Much. But -- scientists are still People. A degree by a name does Not make for ultimate / infallible knowledge in Any subject. Continue to research and learn and share.

Couldn't agree more crochet

crochet1949 wrote:There Are absolute truths. And people also have personal biases about most everything. Look at a half glass of water -- is it half Full or half Empty. These days the OEConcept is much more popular. Science is considered to be the ultimate authority -- and science Is authoritative -- it's simply that millions/ billions of years were Not necessary for this world and us to be here.
Someone had commented that its' easy to get sidetracked from the important issues in God's Word. Salvation is the Most important -- it determines everyone's eternal home. Either in heaven or hell. That being said -- How is our salvation made Possible. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. His death, burial and bodily resurrection. Those are supernatural events. Those events have been debated for years , also.
So -we get back to 'what does the Bible / God's Word / say to us?" Did God indeed create this world and everything in it or didn't He. Are we going to accept theistic evolution? Lots of people Do. They put / allow God to be involved in some way or another. But If He's really powerful enough to do Some of it -- why not All of it. Was He Really powerful enough to cause Mary, as a virgin, to become pregnant? and was He Really powerful enough to raise Jesus Christ from the dead? Because if He Wasn't -- then this world Doesn't have a Risen Savior and with out a Risen Savior we don't have Christianity.
God created a perfect environment for Adam and then Eve in the Garden. His Only requirement was that they were NOT to eat anything from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil cause if they Did, they would Die. So -- enter the serpent and his lying to Eve and then Adam. Would Eve listen to God's Words or the serpent. Well -- she listened to the serpent.
So --who are We listening to -- do we take God at His Word or look for ways to rationalize everything to suit Our desires and that which Society tries to tell us.
Science is Wonderful -- so many fields of have given this world So Much. But -- scientists are still People. A degree by a name does Not make for ultimate / infallible knowledge in Any subject. Continue to research and learn and share.

Crochet, your words I made bold: "people also have personal biases about most everything."

Just keep that in mind when when considering people who interpret Scripture just as much as Science.

Observing from outside the loop, one gets the impression that most feel Gods word is what they say it is.