Evidence for God from Science

Have fun and debate what you want! By the way, Dan Abrams is a bitter atheist in the first clip and so is the guy in the second clip.

ID vs. Evolution Debate

ID vs. Evolution Debate Part 2

Personally, I think ID is going to get kicked out, obviously it is God as the Creator, but science continues to argue that life happened by chance and not by a divine God. Science ONLY observes the NATURAL, how do you observe the supernatural? I just find it ridiculous that people will put their faith in science and reject God altogether saying we came from a chance accident. In all due respect, in my Christian belief, I believe God created everything, how that happened is beyond me, but I put faith in the things that God has chosen not to reveal. He has given us an Earth, a playground if you will, to discover how we were created. As I stated in a different thread, science may explain the "hows", but it can't explain the "whys".

My dad got a secular medical journal in the mail recently like he always does, and one of the front stories is how prayer has been proven to work. My dad knows it is proven, as well as TONS of other doctors and whoever else. As I discussed with my dad, he told me that even if prayer was shown how it worked, it still wouldn't answer why it works. I respect that from my dad. He has been through decades of college, one of the most highly respected doctors in the world, owns a 2 story family medical office, always current on the latest medical and scientific stuff, travels around the world teaching, we get people from distant states such as New York to see us as well as closer ones, we get some famous media people, and the list goes on. He has patients that are scientists in all fields, he has a patient that discovered things in the Bible that no one else knows yet and will soon be published. My dad is highly respected and all thanks to Jesus for his intervention in his life a decade and a half ago. Without that intervention, he wouldn't be where he is today! This is through faith. I just see all these people nowadays putting more faith in science than God, and it saddens me, it saddens me that they won't have a life to live after death.

Good to see you Brian

That's the problem with the supernatural... it is increasingly difficult to observe! But, that is where faith comes in.

I, however, believe to have seen supernatural powers at work, only in that I can't explain them scientifically. My mom does energy work, which I won't go into detail about, and she does it on animals as well as humans. I have actually seen her save a horse's life using energy. I can't explain how it happened, and neither can science. But it was amazing and that fact can't be debated!

I am a scientist, but I do realize that science has its limitations... supernatural observations happen to be one of them.

The epistemology of science does not comment on the existence of a God. It does not have a mechanism to do so.

However, it cannot be denied that certain theories in science provide those with no theistic beliefs mechanisms to explain humanity's origins. Sometimes this is conflated with the actual findings of science. This is not science's fault. The mechanism cannot be criticized by attaching the misappropriations of adherents to the methodology.

Matthew_O wrote:The epistemology of science does not comment on the existence of a God. It does not have a mechanism to do so.

No, but the methodology presupposes the non-existence of God.

However, it cannot be denied that certain theories in science provide those with no theistic beliefs mechanisms to explain humanity's origins. Sometimes this is conflated with the actual findings of science. This is not science's fault. The mechanism cannot be criticized by attaching the misappropriations of adherents to the methodology.

I agree. However, methodological naturalism pressuposes ontological naturalism, which is why those with no theistic beliefs find comfort in science.

I disagree. Metaphysical naturalism presupposes methodological naturalism, and not vice versa.

However, given this, it is obvious that an atheist will find comfort in an epistemology that is skeptical of supernatural forces.

Scientific assumptions don't seem to be anti-God. That the universe exists in a physical sense and that it is primarily orderly are not positions that theists would disagree with.

Matthew_O wrote:I disagree. Metaphysical naturalism presupposes methodological naturalism, and not vice versa.

However, given this, it is obvious that an atheist will find comfort in an epistemology that is skeptical of supernatural forces.

Scientific assumptions don't seem to be anti-God. That the universe exists in a physical sense and that it is primarily orderly are not positions that theists would disagree with.

So if "Metaphysical naturalism presupposes methodological naturalism, and not vice versa." are you saying that metodological naturalism is used to arrive at metaphysical conclusions? Do you start a scientific hypothesis by assuming that there is, or can be, a supernatural explanation?

***So if "Metaphysical naturalism presupposes methodological naturalism, and not vice versa." are you saying that metodological naturalism is used to arrive at metaphysical conclusions? Do you start a scientific hypothesis by assuming that there is, or can be, a supernatural explanation?***

No, that is not what I'm saying. I was simply stating that methodological naturalism does not presuppose ontological naturalism, because a person can use naturalistic presumptions within a paradigm without accepting a metaphysical position. Instead, an ontological position of naturalism will necessarily contain (and thus presuppose) methodological naturalism.

And of course, you can assume a supernatural agent in science. It just happens to be an unwritten convention that many scientists do not explicitly state.

And of course, you can assume a supernatural agent in science.

So what is the problem with ID again, if you believe this?

I was simply stating that methodological naturalism does not presuppose ontological naturalism, because a person can use naturalistic presumptions within a paradigm without accepting a metaphysical position.

But if you accept naturalistic presumptions in methodological naturalism, then you are by definition excluding anything metaphysical (naturalism=non-metaphysical), and therefore you necessarily presuppose an ontological naturalistic position, i.e. the belief that there is no metaphysical.

ID does not deal with the assumption of a supernatural force.

It deals with the conclusion that you can test for design (be it natural or supernatural). I have no problem with this viewpoint. Maybe you can.

As it stands though, there is no model nor any evidence to support the notion. Irreducible Complexity is a hypothetical; it serves as the common sense notion that motivated preliminary research.

The problem is is that this notion has not gone anywhere. And to offer it as an alternative explanation is categorically unscientific, because it offers no explanation at all. At best it can support the unwritten assumption many scientists have regarding the existence of God.

ID does not deal with the assumption of a supernatural force.

It deals with the conclusion that you can test for design (be it natural or supernatural). I have no problem with this viewpoint. Maybe you can.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

As it stands though, there is no model nor any evidence to support the notion. Irreducible Complexity is a hypothetical; it serves as the common sense notion that motivated preliminary research.

Complex specified information was the observation that lead to the theory.

The problem is is that this notion has not gone anywhere. And to offer it as an alternative explanation is categorically unscientific, because it offers no explanation at all.

How would you define the criteria for an alternative explanation? Has there, in your opinion, been no further systems discovered which show intelligent cause as the most likely explanation, through the improbabality of the contrary?

August:

I would call it a hypothesis for now...there is no scientific evidence to support it. And as a scientific hypothesis, it requires the ability to be tested. Otherwise it is a philosophical argument.

Yes, complex and specific information is one possible test criteria. It should be interesting to see how they would perform such a test.

The systems pointed out as being "intelligently designed" have often been equally defended by those who think they are products of "natural selection".
Both of these hypotheticals are not scientific; however, the concept of natural selection by itself has been observed and reproduced in the lab. To apply it to certain systems is appropriate.

As for probability, no mechanisms exist to determine the probability of these systems occurring. It hasn't been tested. People have made guesses but these guesses have never been scientific. You can't predict the chance of a system being co-opted for another use. You don't have any test subjects that can be objectively measured.