Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

Can a Christian believe that God has NOT overridden the laws of physics after He created the Big Bang?

I know this is directed at Gman, but I hope you don't mind my comments.

This question seems to answer itself.

What is Christianity?
That Jesus is the Christ. That His very birth, life and death are an act of God overriding the laws of physics. The virgin birth, water to wine, raising a man from the dead, healing disease, and himself raising from death to life.

The question should be, "How could someone claim to be a "Christian" and not believe that God has overridden the laws of physics?"

In a post above, I made clear that the question is in the context of science things, e.g., evolution, and NOT relevant to the kind of miracles you mentioned.

IgoFan wrote:In a post above, I made clear that the question is in the context of science things, e.g., evolution, and NOT relevant to the kind of miracles you mentioned.

Well Darwinian evolution requires miracles too. Even more preposterous at times...

Gman wrote:Well Darwinian evolution requires miracles too. Even more preposterous at times...

The dancing around the crucial question continues. Let me try to re-state the question as clearly as I can: Can someone be a Christian AND support evolution, in which God did NOT interfere with natural laws? I'm not smart enough to know if Gman answered "No" above.

IgoFan wrote:

Gman wrote:Well Darwinian evolution requires miracles too. Even more preposterous at times...

The dancing around the crucial question continues. Let me try to re-state the question as clearly as I can: Can someone be a Christian AND support evolution, in which God did NOT interfere with natural laws? I'm not smart enough to know if Gman answered "No" above.

You are confused about what evolution means, so any answer I give won't suffice..

Gman wrote:You are confused about what evolution means, so any answer I give won't suffice..

Fine. I'll re-phrase using words that you are less likely to be confused about. Replace "evolution" with "the progression, under natural laws only, from the first self-reproducing cell to humans". With this wording we don't have to agree on the definition of evolution, any philosophical issues, or even how the progression occurred. What's your answer now?

IgoFan wrote:

Gman wrote:You are confused about what evolution means, so any answer I give won't suffice..

Fine. I'll re-phrase using words that you are less likely to be confused about. Replace "evolution" with "the progression, under natural laws only, from the first self-reproducing cell to humans". With this wording we don't have to agree on the definition of evolution, any philosophical issues, or even how the progression occurred. What's your answer now?

Igofan, are you truly reading my posts or are you here simply to debate? What do you mean by natural laws only? Do you think you have the monopoly on natural laws under evolution? Of course God intersects into our natural laws, even from the first self-reproducing cell to humans... That is why Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything. That is why it is not science, it's a philosophy based on a few biased facts..

Please get off your high horse.... Evolution does NOT equal "the progression, under natural laws only, from the first self-reproducing cell to humans." It is a philosophy. You believe that it adequately explains our natural laws, but is it your belief nonetheless. Darwinian evolution disobeys our natural laws...

I'll leave you with a quote by Kurieuo to better explain the position..

“Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God. Specifically, scientific investigations conducted using methodological naturalism (MN) is neutral to God's existence. In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics). To do so would be to mix personal philosophical and/or theological conclusions with scientific inquiry.

Likewise, MN is neutral to philosophical naturalism (positive atheism). However, an atheist's philosophical naturalism is more easily smuggled into MN clouding true scientific inquiry with atheistic personal opinion and bias. So where true ID proponents are criticised for not stating the designer (a philosophical and even theological affair), those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions.

To respond to your other statement that MN excludes the supernatural in its methods of inquire, I also disagree. For all we know, what we perceive as supernatural may in fact being a part of the natural. Until someone can define that line of what makes something "natural" and something "supernatural" based upon sound reasoning, naturalism and supernaturalism are just terms we use for convenience to classify certain types of existences.”

Gman, your posts are non sequiturs to my question, and your notions of evolution and the philosophy of science aren't relevant to the essence of my question. To try to reach semantic common ground, let's try a simpler analogous question that eliminates the words to which you insist on attaching non-standard connotations:

Can a Christian believe that God did not violate physics to cause South America to break off from Africa to drift to the present location over tens of millions of years?

"Yes"? Or "No", for the reason you stated above: "Of course God intersects into our natural laws [...]"? If the latter case, then what does "intersects into" physics mean in the context of the question?!

(Note: the person does not have to have a theory of HOW the continents drifted, just that somehow they did without violating the known laws of physics.)

IgoFan wrote:Can someone be a Christian AND support evolution

I think it is simplest to say "Yes." Being a Christian simply requires faith.

vdancer wrote:

IgoFan wrote:Can someone be a Christian AND support evolution

I think it is simplest to say "Yes." Being a Christian simply requires faith.

And belief in Darwinain evolution also requires faith and miracles too...

IgoFan wrote:
Can a Christian believe that God did not violate physics to cause South America to break off from Africa to drift to the present location over tens of millions of years?

Is this a violation of physics? I think not. Plate tectonics is a geologically proven fact. Our continents/land masses are not fixed in place, they are moving and measurable to that fact today.

W

Can a Christian believe that God did not violate physics to cause South America to break off from Africa to drift to the present location over tens of millions of years?

Which "Law of Physics" does plate tectonics violate? Or perhaps the quoted sentence had a typo?