Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

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.

I'm not sure that I care about proving evolution wrong.All I care about is the truth being taught,if the truth is taught the evidence will back it up.I also do not expect science to suddenly realize evolution is wrong and the gap theory true.I don't think like that most of them are into scientism and they will not allow the bible in the front door when it comes to science.It is just our responsibility to teach the truth,and if we do?then the people will come regardless of scientism.

Audie wrote:

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.

I provided a picture of that allows us to introspectively see that "vice" being indulged.
While bats are visually blind they perceive the world through their ears. Humans are blind in the way bats see.
If they could talk, they may well say to a friend who is sonar-deficient: "Are you as blind as a human?"

I'd imagine if a bat had the intelligence to perform science, that their view and representation of the world would be much different from ours.
How much do we project onto the world through the apparatuses supplied (physical senses) through which we experience the world?

We can imagine what it would be like to experience the world as a bat does, but our imagination is limited because we cannot escape our subjective perspective as we attempt to "objectively" imagine the perspective of the bat.
Indeed if bats were scientists, how they would "objectively" experience and understand the real world. Is such really objective?

Now those of "Scientism" seem to go one worse...
Not only do they embrace their physical senses of the world as the objective world, but they throw in their own subjective opinions and beliefs, call it "science" and parade around with "superior sounding" words as though they're objective.
Really, it all just boils down to self-puffery and smoke. Those of scientism haven't yet deal with the post-modern challenge, if they've even reflected upon it (i.e., Kenny).

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

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.

I provided a picture of that allows us to introspectively see that "vice" being indulged.
While bats are visually blind they perceive the world through their ears. Humans are blind in the way bats see.
If they could talk, they may well say to a friend who is sonar-deficient: "Are you as blind as a human?"

I'd imagine if a bat had the intelligence to perform science, that their view and representation of the world would be much different from ours.
How much do we project onto the world through the apparatuses supplied (physical senses) through which we experience the world?

We can imagine what it would be like to experience the world as a bat does, but our imagination is limited because we cannot escape our subjective perspective as we attempt to "objectively" imagine the perspective of the bat.
Indeed if bats were scientists, how they would "objectively" experience and understand the real world. Is such really objective?

Now those of "Scientism" seem to go one worse...
Not only do they embrace their physical senses of the world as the objective world, but they throw in their own subjective opinions and beliefs, call it "science" and parade around with "superior sounding" words as though they're objective.
Really, it all just boils down to self-puffery and smoke. Those of scientism haven't yet deal with the post-modern challenge, if they've even reflected upon it (i.e., Kenny).

Ive detected someone who indulges in the Vice of Hyperexplication of the obvious, but, I asked for just a name, which I finally found as the very last word.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny 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

Kurieuo wrote: 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)...?

Logic and reason

Kurieuo wrote: 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.

I find an inconsistency in believers I don't find in empiricism.

Kurieuo wrote: Perhaps you have a skepticism that suits your taste. Maybe I'm not being fair. I don't know.

No; these are all fair questions; I invite them.

Kurieuo wrote: 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.

I don’t begrudge anybody who believes because of a personal experience. I have seen lives changes; sometimes for the good, sometimes for the not so good; and not just Christianity either! I’ve seen guys thugin’, constantly in and out of jail, etc. Join Islam and become peaceful, helpful, and an asset to the community; and they claim Allah is behind their transformation. Then I see guys on TV who joined Islam and are cutting peoples heads off and vowing to kill anybody who isn’t muslim. I know there is something behind religious belief; I just don’t believe it is supernatural.

Kurieuo wrote: 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.

Interesting concept. Unfortunately there is only one way to test that theory, and you won’t be coming back to tell anybody if it is right or wrong.

Kurieuo wrote: 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 friend and I were discussing cars and wether it was worth it to open up his exhaust system with bigger pipes. We both agreed the larger pipes will allow more horsepower at the top end when racing, but the smaller pipes will have more low end torque off the line. We just disagreed which was better, low end torque or top end speed.

My girlfriend and I were discussing which is the better apple; the “honey crisp” or the Red and delicious. We both agreed which had more crunch, sweetness, juicy, sweet/sour combination, etc. we just disagreed on which tasted better.

When I look at my experience with machines, tools, food, or anything that can be empirically observed; everybody around me seems to experience the same thing I experience even though they may subjectively judge it different than I.

When I look at people who claim to know God, I don’t see this consistency. I look at political/moral issues like Illegal Immigration, death with dignity, what if anything should be done about the wage gap between the rich and the poor, Death penalty, Religious people are all over the place on this.
I can also look at what they say about the Bible like was Noah’s Ark, Adam and Eve, Jonah and the Whale; were these actual events or allegory stories designed to make a point. Religious people disagree over these things even though they get their same information from the same book!
Yet these same people can pick up a cook book, or instruction manual, and be in complete agreement on what is supposed to be done.

This is why I trust my 5 senses over what religious people tell me about their religion.

Kurieuo wrote: 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.

It’s like asking how do I know my girlfriend loves me. I know because her actions speak louder than her words. Can I be tricked? Yes! But thus far I have no reason to assume I am being tricked.

Ken

Wow, thanks for the detailed response Ken.
It is good when you do open up a bit more with your responses.
I'll have to digest it and get back later as run out of time, but just wanted to say that.

Kurieuo wrote:Wow, thanks for the detailed response Ken.
It is good when you do open up a bit more with your responses.
I'll have to digest it and get back later as run out of time, but just wanted to say that.

Thank-you

K

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

I provided a picture of that allows us to introspectively see that "vice" being indulged.
While bats are visually blind they perceive the world through their ears. Humans are blind in the way bats see.
If they could talk, they may well say to a friend who is sonar-deficient: "Are you as blind as a human?"

I'd imagine if a bat had the intelligence to perform science, that their view and representation of the world would be much different from ours.
How much do we project onto the world through the apparatuses supplied (physical senses) through which we experience the world?

We can imagine what it would be like to experience the world as a bat does, but our imagination is limited because we cannot escape our subjective perspective as we attempt to "objectively" imagine the perspective of the bat.
Indeed if bats were scientists, how they would "objectively" experience and understand the real world. Is such really objective?

Now those of "Scientism" seem to go one worse...
Not only do they embrace their physical senses of the world as the objective world, but they throw in their own subjective opinions and beliefs, call it "science" and parade around with "superior sounding" words as though they're objective.
Really, it all just boils down to self-puffery and smoke. Those of scientism haven't yet deal with the post-modern challenge, if they've even reflected upon it (i.e., Kenny).

Ive detected someone who indulges in the Vice of Hyperexplication of the obvious, but, I asked for just a name, which I finally found as the very last word.

You also have two subtly mentioned in the first sentence. I'll let you try figure.
As for Kenny, he finally scored with me by opening up to logic and reason in addition to empiricism.
So his "scientism" is much less in my eyes now. But, we all have the "vice" to a degree. It is pragmatic to do so, right?

PS. I should ask, what is the vice of scientism to you?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny 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

Kurieuo wrote: 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)...?

Logic and reason

I was wondering when you'd get there.
So then, please let it sink in if it hasn't, your empiricism isn't all there is.
You know experience + reason provides quite good foundations for knowledge.

I don't know why some like to sacrifice one for the other except that people either have too much pride to either listen to reason or lack experience.
Ultimately it perhaps comes down to people don't like to think they don't know anything about something.

Sadly, even with both, the question becomes how do we justify our minds are properly functioning so-as that reason is reasonably justified itself.
Did I tell you I was once borderline nihilistic? Yes, that's where extreme skepticism leaves you.

Thankfully, I found a resolution in pragmatism.
It comes down ultimately to either you are in a loop of skepticism forever questioning every belief including the thought that you are questioning -- absolutely everything unravels.
Or, you say enough is enough. I'm going to choose to be practical. If everything is a dream, or fake, well at least it seems most logical and rational to be pragmatic and live as though what is obvious is true.

It was a big revelation to me, that all my knowledge doesn't depend upon reason or empiricism, but rather a decision to accept such as true, indeed faith, however small you might think it.
There's no getting around that. Even if you think otherwise it is stupid, then you need to have a sound argument for it, or else it isn't logical and entirely reasonable.

Thus, we (or I) took a leap of faith on pragmatic grounds to accept what seems obvious.
I mean why would anyone prefer nihilism? That only appears to lead to be paralised, insanity and perhaps suicide.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: 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.

I find an inconsistency in believers I don't find in empiricism.

Perhaps you haven't read enough "scientific" opinions?

Really, what I hear you saying, is you have more confidence in your own experiences of the world.
And don't we all? And being the "subjects" that we are, there are going to be differences.

That doesn't mean knowledge can't hit upon truth, or that we can't know truth -- does it?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Perhaps you have a skepticism that suits your taste. Maybe I'm not being fair. I don't know.

No; these are all fair questions; I invite them.

Good to know. I'm sure I'll have more at some time.
The point I was wanting to make with my questions, I suppose has been made now.
All of it summarised in this post above. Trust me when I say, how we can know anything was a big issue for me.
In any case, I'll relax a little more with the questioning.

K, you said..PS. I should ask, what is the vice of scientism to you? [/quote]

Dunno what the "lol" is for but anyway..

Id just go with the first definition on google, quite different from the cefinition provided by some unnamed other..

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Which to me seems an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. I doubt its descriptive of Ken, or enough people of any note to be worth discussing.

Oh, bats are not blind, btw. (lol)

Audie wrote:K, you said..PS. I should ask, what is the vice of scientism to you?

Dunno what the "lol" is for but anyway..

Id just go with the first definition on google, quite different from the cefinition provided by some unnamed other..

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Which to me seems an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. I doubt its descriptive of Ken, or enough people of any note to be worth discussing.

Oh, bats are not blind, btw. (lol)

Audie,
While I posted the other definition of scientism, the definition you posted is fine too. To me, they basically say the same thing.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:K, you said..PS. I should ask, what is the vice of scientism to you?

Dunno what the "lol" is for but anyway..

Id just go with the first definition on google, quite different from the cefinition provided by some unnamed other..

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Which to me seems an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. I doubt its descriptive of Ken, or enough people of any note to be worth discussing.

Oh, bats are not blind, btw. (lol)

Audie,
While I posted the other definition of scientism, the definition you posted is fine too. To me, they basically say the same thing.

Well as the home doctor kit suggests, "Suture Self".

Scientism seems to me surely a rare affliction, and not one to take very seriously.

Audie wrote:K, you said..PS. I should ask, what is the vice of scientism to you?

Dunno what the "lol" is for but anyway..

Because just the last few exchanges between us have been about a "vice".
And only at the end of our discussion I ask "btw, what is the vice of scientism?"
Get it now? Bit late...

Audie wrote:Id just go with the first definition on google, quite different from the cefinition provided by some unnamed other..

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

This is really a tame definition of Scientism -- which is the view that ALL knowledge can only be empirically gained.
BUT, regardless. Is that bad? A vice is something bad. What is bad?

The statement that philosophy is dead, is not just a vice of scientism with some, but an idiotic statement. So I'd perhaps call it the idiocy of scientism.
It seems to me that whenever you or someone neglects, or take a stab at logic or reason, that such are cutting off the branch on which they're sitting.

Audie wrote:Which to me seems an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. I doubt its descriptive of Ken, or enough people of any note to be worth discussing.

Well, a few posts back Kenny was asking for scientific empirical proof as the only thing that could provide "reasonable justification" for belief, and hence give us knowledge.
So then I spent a few posts challenging his belief that only our five physical senses (empiricism) can provide reasonable justification.
Such reasons ended up being circular -- empiricism justifying empiricism -- until he added "logic and reason" as justification for empiricism.

While he didn't elaborate upon what such "logic and reason" consisted of, it was this I was driving at.
AND it is that point I don't want to be lost in discussions also involving God.

Just because most of the arguments for God are based upon logic and reason, doesn't make them any less valid the scent of a rose which is smelt.

That's the main take away point. I hope it won't be lost.

Audie wrote:Oh, bats are not blind, btw. (lol)

Only someone as blind as a bat would say such a thing!

Well, I dont side with or defend ken.

Your bat metaphor went down in flames, hoisted on its own petard.

Audie wrote:Your bat metaphor went down in flames, hoisted on its own petard.

I think if you re-read what I said, the bat metaphor still stands and your misunderstanding doesn't.

Audie wrote:Well, I dont side with or defend ken.

And what don't you side with Ken on? It's not clear.