Evidence for God from Science

Something I've noticed of late.
What many claim to be science, is often a very subjective form of scientism.
Akin to what many claim to be scripture, is often a very subjective interpretation.

Audie wrote:

There is a enormous body of data that supports ToE, despite any hand wave.

Here Audie, I fixed it for you:

There is a enormous body of data that I believe supports ToE, despite any hand wave.

Well we know the earth is billions of years old and we know about the fossils and evidence of death and extinction in the earth,we know that there is more life extinct than life we have in this world(this rules out YEC because it is too much death from only Adam and Eve to Noah's flood)and yet this evidence is used to support evolution in science, but if everybody would step back and look at what this evidence proves?We would see this is the kind of evidence we would expect to find if a former world existed that perished until God created this world on the same earth,we can call it a lost world and yet this evidence is being used to support evolution.

The dirty little secret is that if you did not assume life evolves? Based on just looking at this evidence,you would not believe all things have gone on from the beginning,but because of the assumption life evolves they must keep at least some life living through the extinction events because of the assumption life evolves.It is an assumption that no scientist can demonstrate.

ACB wrote:
Well we know the earth is billions of years old and we know about the fossils and evidence of death and extinction in the earth,we know that there is more life extinct than ...

ACB,

Regarding the underlined, be careful. You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. By saying "Well we know the earth is billions of years old", you are making what you believe the evidence shows, as a fact. It's no different than someone who believes in the ToE, claiming it as a fact.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Well we know the earth is billions of years old and we know about the fossils and evidence of death and extinction in the earth,we know that there is more life extinct than life we have in this world(this rules out YEC because it is too much death from only Adam and Eve to Noah's flood)and yet this evidence is used to support evolution in science, but if everybody would step back and look at what this evidence proves?We would see this is the kind of evidence we would expect to find if a former world existed that perished until God created this world on the same earth,we can call it a lost world and yet this evidence is being used to support evolution.

The dirty little secret is that if you did not assume life evolves? Based on just looking at this evidence,you would not believe all things have gone on from the beginning,but because of the assumption life evolves they must keep at least some life living through the extinction events because of the assumption life evolves.It is an assumption that no scientist can demonstrate.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that you cannot produce one fact contrary to ToE, nor can anyone else.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.

Why does that matter? (serious question)

Why does what matter?

What does it matter that your senses are reinforced by each other?
How does that mean what you sense is in fact true any more than someone's senses reinforcing each other who experiences schizophrenia or even when dreaming?

For something to prove itself as a valid theory of knowledge, it cannot use itself. Such is circular.
So give me some other reasoning. Unless you just blindly accept such.

What about the fact that everybody else experiences the same information from their 5 senses that I experience from mine. You expect me to assume everybody else suffers from the same schizophrenia delusions as I?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.

Why does that matter? (serious question)

Why does what matter?

What does it matter that your senses are reinforced by each other?
How does that mean what you sense is in fact true any more than someone's senses reinforcing each other who experiences schizophrenia or even when dreaming?

For something to prove itself as a valid theory of knowledge, it cannot use itself. Such is circular.
So give me some other reasoning. Unless you just blindly accept such.

What about the fact that everybody else experiences the same information from their 5 senses that I experience from mine. You expect me to assume everybody else suffers from the same schizophrenia delusions as I?

I'm not expecting anything, but rather hoping you will explain why it matters that your senses reinforce each other?
Now in addition to that, why does it matter that others appear to experience the same as you?

To be clear, you stated earlier that empirical evidence provides "reasonable justification" for beliefs,
so I'm trying to get at how is it you then justify that your belief in physical senses being reliable.

If you wish to now extend your "reasonable justification" to include logical reasoning, then I welcome you formulating your reasons here in the form of logical arguments.
That is, logical arguments that clarify why it is "senses reinforcing each other" or "people appearing to experience the same as you" leads to the conclusion that therefore "physical senses are reliable and so can be used to reasonably justify our beliefs."

Kurieuo wrote:
I'm not expecting anything, but rather hoping you will explain why it matters that your senses reinforce each other?
Now in addition to that, why does it matter that others appear to experience the same as you?

Because when my experiences are reinforced that way, that is enough evidence for me to believe my experiences are real

Ken

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Well we know the earth is billions of years old and we know about the fossils and evidence of death and extinction in the earth,we know that there is more life extinct than life we have in this world(this rules out YEC because it is too much death from only Adam and Eve to Noah's flood)and yet this evidence is used to support evolution in science, but if everybody would step back and look at what this evidence proves?We would see this is the kind of evidence we would expect to find if a former world existed that perished until God created this world on the same earth,we can call it a lost world and yet this evidence is being used to support evolution.

The dirty little secret is that if you did not assume life evolves? Based on just looking at this evidence,you would not believe all things have gone on from the beginning,but because of the assumption life evolves they must keep at least some life living through the extinction events because of the assumption life evolves.It is an assumption that no scientist can demonstrate.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that you cannot produce one fact contrary to ToE, nor can anyone else.

Not sure I would have to.All I need is the evidence used as evidence for evolution,then I can explain what it really proves and without evidence that demonstrates life evolves?This Gap theory will be more believable than the ToE.This is because the evidence now used as evidence for evolution,once was evidence for the Gap theory before Charles Darwin.

Kurieuo wrote:Something I've noticed of late.
What many claim to be science, is often a very subjective form of scientism.
Akin to what many claim to be scripture, is often a very subjective interpretation.

Give us an example of someone indulging in the vice of scientism?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:
I'm not expecting anything, but rather hoping you will explain why it matters that your senses reinforce each other?
Now in addition to that, why does it matter that others appear to experience the same as you?

Because when my experiences are reinforced that way, that is enough evidence for me to believe my experiences are real

Ok then, so you accept empiricism (that all knowledge is based upon experience derived from the physical senses) based upon what?
Faith, or blind acceptance, because you feel like it, or circular reasoning (justifying empiricism with physical senses)...?

I've thought about all these questions and have come to certain conclusions as I was heavily skeptical, borderline nihilistic.
I find it surprising that you're so skeptical of Christianity and God's existence, and yet haven't even dabbled into such skepticism.
Perhaps you have a skepticism that suits your taste. Maybe I'm not being fair. I don't know.

Let me put forward some points to ponder in relation to your "evidences" which will help add some perspective.

1) Senses corroborating each other...

Many Christians tout spiritual experiences of the divine. I myself have had what you might call spiritual experiences.
More often than not Christians will report a warmness, intense joy, completeness and closeness they feel with God, tears start streaming down.
Some ultra spiritual types open up their Bible, get a word from God which supports a soft spoken voice they were feeling impressing words upon them.
Such may even be further supports by another person who speaks a word to them that touches upon the exact "word" they were feeling impressed upon them from God.

Having grown up in Pentecostal churches in Australia (my impression is that in the US is supersonic out-of-this world Pentecostal, whereas those here are just more plainly out of this world ), these stories are common.
They are by no means a rare thing amongst such Christians or even just Christians. We have here a "spiritual" sense being supported and corroborated by other things.
Oh, it's all coincidence you might say. Yeah, because you don't believe in that stuff.

And interestingly such isn't as circular as justifying physical sense perception with physical sense perception.
Now, I'm not here arguing the full blown legitimacy, but just highlight the reasoning you use of physical senses corroborating each other equally applies to some religious Christian folk.

Furthermore, we sleep and all our senses seem fully active.
I've dreamt of seeing, touching, smelling food that I'm sure I'd hear myself munching on while I taste and eat it.
Does this mean those things in my dreams are real? They can certainly feel real. If it weren't for my waking up, why sometimes I wouldn't know I was dreaming. Right?
Maybe when you die, you'll wake up from a sleep of this life you think is so real. To see the real word. You don't know.

2) Others experience the same things...

Well, many Christians experience the same spiritual things I've spoken of.
Many churches who place such a supreme emphasis upon spiritual experiences flourish, in large part because people are experiencing something.
And yet, I'm sure you still reject all such. Why? When it's fine for your physical senses.

A matter of your taste? Perhaps that's what your beliefs really all boil down to.
Your own personal preference, and not really anything you have tried to rationally ground.

Further on this second reason that you present.
Since you're not in another person's body, then you don't really know what other's experience. You only know what you experience.
A robot can be created and made to behave in a certain way. But, just because they behave in this or that way, it doesn't mean they're really feeling and experiencing as we do.
Kids often attach human feelings to their toys. Rip an ear off their stuffed toy dog and watch them cry: "you've hurt Puppy!" (yes, I perform such experiments on my kids )
How do you know the other person is really conscious? You can't. You just presume to know. Because you "see" them exhibiting similar behaviour to yourself.

And then you try to justify your physical senses with what you cannot know.
Using your physical senses to detect "experiences" in others that you align to your own in order to justify your physical senses.
You do know what a circular argument is right. Or since you would only accept empiricism, I suppose logical reasoning doesn't matter much.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Something I've noticed of late.
What many claim to be science, is often a very subjective form of scientism.
Akin to what many claim to be scripture, is often a very subjective interpretation.

Give us an example of someone indulging in the vice of scientism?

Vice of scientism...? Scientism presumes to know objective facts all the while ignoring the subjective nature of our experiences.

sci·en·tism
\ˈsī-ən-ˌti-zəm\
noun
1 :methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2 :an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

http://i.word.com/idictionary/scientism

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Well we know the earth is billions of years old and we know about the fossils and evidence of death and extinction in the earth,we know that there is more life extinct than life we have in this world(this rules out YEC because it is too much death from only Adam and Eve to Noah's flood)and yet this evidence is used to support evolution in science, but if everybody would step back and look at what this evidence proves?We would see this is the kind of evidence we would expect to find if a former world existed that perished until God created this world on the same earth,we can call it a lost world and yet this evidence is being used to support evolution.

The dirty little secret is that if you did not assume life evolves? Based on just looking at this evidence,you would not believe all things have gone on from the beginning,but because of the assumption life evolves they must keep at least some life living through the extinction events because of the assumption life evolves.It is an assumption that no scientist can demonstrate.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that you cannot produce one fact contrary to ToE, nor can anyone else.

Not sure I would have to.All I need is the evidence used as evidence for evolution,then I can explain what it really proves and without evidence that demonstrates life evolves?This Gap theory will be more believable than the ToE.This is because the evidence now used as evidence for evolution,once was evidence for the Gap theory before Charles Darwin.

If that is all YOU need, it is not how science works. If ToE were wrong, someone could have long ago disproved it. It has not been and cannot be disproved by anyone at this time. It stands till it is disproved. Your "gap" idea is taken seriously by nobody of any education simply because it is so easily falsified.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Something I've noticed of late.
What many claim to be science, is often a very subjective form of scientism.
Akin to what many claim to be scripture, is often a very subjective interpretation.

Give us an example of someone indulging in the vice of scientism?

Vice of scientism...? Scientism presumes to know objective facts all the while ignoring the subjective nature of our experiences.

so identify someone who indulges in that vice. I think I can identify people who indulge in the vice / fallacy of equivocation.