Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

Not quite. The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have to be described the way you have chosen to describe it. One might claim it isn't made of actual spaghetti, but only has the appearance of being made of the food. One could also claim that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists he would provide the metaphysical foundations for science to work just as you described God. IOW however you choose to describe God, one could describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster the same way, and describe your God as being neither compatible nor incompatible with science.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

Not quite. The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have to be described the way you have chosen to describe it. One might claim it isn't made of actual spaghetti, but only has the appearance of being made of the food. One could also claim that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists he would provide the metaphysical foundations for science to work just as you described God. IOW however you choose to describe God, one could describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster the same way, and describe your God as being neither compatible nor incompatible with science.

You make me laugh Kenny, in a good way.

Well then, if Flying Spaghetti Monster is that non-contingent necessary something, the logical necessity that has always had existence upon which everything else that is contingent or came into being has existence, well then... I'd just call such God. I mean if it's really all the same, looks like God, "quacks" like God, right?

To those though, who'd like to call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then science, the natural world, would be contingent upon the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Kurieuo wrote:I'll re-quote my whole first fuller reply to you here, which I now half-regret, but I'll continue because I love you Kenny... ok, so let's go a full circle, wheee! Boy, that was fun! Maybe we can go around again?

Kurieuo wrote:If science is like "c, d, e and f" and we have something else "a, b" (lets say metaphysics philosophy) and yet something other "g, h, i, j" (let's call such spiritual truths) --- then indeed all these things are compatible. Touching upon different areas they never come into conflict with each other.

Such are only incompatible if they clash. The only way they can clash is if you believe "science" can determine all truth and is the judge and juror of everything. Such isn't "science" but Scientism. And clearly science has limits. Even Morny acknowledges as much when we discussed methodological naturalism.

You know, consider historical truths. There are a very large array of them that are beyond science to detect. And yet, are we now saying very real events of the past are incompatible with science? That's just silly. Such truth might be beyond and inaccessible to science, but not incompatible.

Science is just a pursuit of truth that attempts to build knowledge based upon our observed experiences in the world. Where we can't set up tests, or observe first hand what is going on, such is beyond science.

If something is beyond science, such doesn't mean that something is incompatible with science. It just means there are limits to science, and whatever you're trying to deal with isn't likely in the realm of scientific enquiry.

And then, how science is compatible with miracles, is because they don't touch upon each other:

Kurieuo wrote:Indeed that our Universe with it's physical set of laws came into existence is the biggest miracle. To answer this, one must break with what science says is/isn't natural, because we're talking of a period existing before the physical laws we depend upon for scientific enquiry.

So then, yes, there are certain stable laws in our universe which naturally results in childbirth.
When physical life dies, physical bodies do not naturally rise after death.
And when our universe formed with all its physical laws, such indeed is a miracle beyond science itself.
Science can only deal with natural claims within its scope.

Therefore there is no clash between science and these Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each.
The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know).

As for the resurrection,

Kurieuo wrote:Re: Jesus resurrection, the claim when fully reduced to a base level isn't that someone came back from the dead (though that's part of it), but rather the central claim is that the Being who created and sustains our world into existence chose to intervene. Such is beyond science, and therefore presents no clash whatsoever. There is only an issue if one presumes all that is true or real must be discoverable by science. To claim such oversteps and errs into scientism.

Scientism: "Only what can be established scientifically is true, objective, and valid everywhere and for everybody."
- Eric Weil

Kurieuo wrote:Yes Audie, we all know there's no subjectiveness in interpretations of scientific data or the natural world.

Audie wrote:Science and the bible are compatible for the same reason they are incompatible; the bible says whatever you choose to read it as saying.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Science and the bible are compatible for the same reason they are incompatible; the bible says whatever you choose to read it as saying.

The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Science and the bible are compatible for the same reason they are incompatible; the bible says whatever you choose to read it as saying.

The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Science and the bible are compatible for the same reason they are incompatible; the bible says whatever you choose to read it as saying.

The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Science and the bible are compatible for the same reason they are incompatible; the bible says whatever you choose to read it as saying.

The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase it.

Audie wrote: "Christianity" takes in a lot of territory. Do you think all the sects etc are compatible with each other? All readings of the bible are compatible with the bible and with eac hother?