Evidence for God from Science

Nothing you said I disagree with here Paul. All I'm saying is that whatever arguments are posited by atheists for the non-existence of God, I believe it is our duty to provide sound counter-arguments and not rest on the idea that it's inexplicable because it's a mystery. Ultimately you're right though, like I said to Seraph above, it all comes down to a matter of belief. Either one believes creation is from intent, intelligence, and purpose, or one believes it is from blind, purposeless chance from absolute nothing. But they are beliefs nonetheless. It's just that the former is grounded in reason and the latter in sheer absurdity.

Having debated atheist far more than I care to remember, many of them former JW's from another website, I have found that they tend to apply criticla thinking to what THEY want and in a way THEY want.
I firmly believe that our faith must be base don reason, much like the works of Augustin and Aquinas of the past and the likes of Craig, Habbermas, Wright and others of the present.
But we must also understand that, ultimatley, the question of God is a philosophical one and not a scientific one, at least right now anyways.
One day we MAY be able to prove or disprove God or at least certain definitions of God but noe right now so BOTH parties must acknowledge the limitations from which BOTH are working.
I think that there is ample evidence to make us believe in a creator or a creative force ( chance just doesn't add up) BUT it seems to me that many atheist don't see it that way because they choose NOT to see things that way, they choose to interpret facts in a different way and seem quite content to base their logic on luck, chance and unproven possibilities.
And under those circumstances I am not sure WHAT we are debating !
LOL !

^Nice lol

Byblos wrote:Either one believes creation is from intent, intelligence, and purpose, or one believes it is from blind, purposeless chance from absolute nothing. But they are beliefs nonetheless. It's just that the former is grounded in reason and the latter in sheer absurdity.

Have you read Albert Camus Byblos? I just read the first part of his essay The Myth of Sisyphus yesterday which appears to be a philosophy based upon the absurd, or at least a study of the meeting of the absurd and what is reasonable. Interesting stuff, but I think it will take me a while to digest.

Proinsias wrote:

Byblos wrote:Either one believes creation is from intent, intelligence, and purpose, or one believes it is from blind, purposeless chance from absolute nothing. But they are beliefs nonetheless. It's just that the former is grounded in reason and the latter in sheer absurdity.

Have you read Albert Camus Byblos? I just read the first part of his essay The Myth of Sisyphus yesterday which appears to be a philosophy based upon the absurd, or at least a study of the meeting of the absurd and what is reasonable. Interesting stuff, but I think it will take me a while to digest.

No I haven't. Let me know when you're done if it's worth my time. I'm knee deep in The Last Superstition now, will be done in a few days so I'm ready for another adventure. But if you want absurd, check out eliminative naturalism.

Will do.

Eliminative naturalism brings up Philip K **** in google, is that what you are referring to? I read The Imposter a few months ago but that was my first Philip K ****.

Proinsias wrote:Will do.

Eliminative naturalism brings up Philip K **** in google, is that what you are referring to? I read The Imposter a few months ago but that was my first Philip K ****.

No, my fault. It's eliminative materialism by Patricia Churchland.

Cheers Byblos, you had me a little puzzled there.

Will have a look into that.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nothing you said I disagree with here Paul. All I'm saying is that whatever arguments are posited by atheists for the non-existence of God, I believe it is our duty to provide sound counter-arguments and not rest on the idea that it's inexplicable because it's a mystery. Ultimately you're right though, like I said to Seraph above, it all comes down to a matter of belief. Either one believes creation is from intent, intelligence, and purpose, or one believes it is from blind, purposeless chance from absolute nothing. But they are beliefs nonetheless. It's just that the former is grounded in reason and the latter in sheer absurdity.

Having debated atheist far more than I care to remember, many of them former JW's from another website, I have found that they tend to apply criticla thinking to what THEY want and in a way THEY want.
I firmly believe that our faith must be base don reason, much like the works of Augustin and Aquinas of the past and the likes of Craig, Habbermas, Wright and others of the present.
But we must also understand that, ultimatley, the question of God is a philosophical one and not a scientific one, at least right now anyways.
One day we MAY be able to prove or disprove God or at least certain definitions of God but noe right now so BOTH parties must acknowledge the limitations from which BOTH are working.
I think that there is ample evidence to make us believe in a creator or a creative force ( chance just doesn't add up) BUT it seems to me that many atheist don't see it that way because they choose NOT to see things that way, they choose to interpret facts in a different way and seem quite content to base their logic on luck, chance and unproven possibilities.
And under those circumstances I am not sure WHAT we are debating !
LOL !

Kmart had this in his signature:

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

They don't want to!