Evidence for God from Science

How do you respond to the following quote? Is ther really no evidence?

"How about (1) there is no scientificically valid data or evidence at all to support creationism---not one single solitary shred, (2) in general, creationist "research" consists solely of quote-mining and speech-making, none of which contains any scientific data for creation, and (3) no creationist, alive or dead, has ever put forth any scientific theory of creation that was not based directly on divine revelation or religious faith."

My first comment is that in one sense it is correct. Creation by definition will always be based on religion, because by saying God is the Creator introduces a divine element.

What are your thoughts?

You'll need to define "Creationism". I could essentially agree and then disagree depending on how it is defined.

back to creationism vs evolution are we? Well exactly what i was lookin forward as a thread! yes - what is creationsim? does it mean that created objects appeared ex nihilio and that they did not follow any other laws or theories? OK why not just the "evolution" everyone hates to accept be actually the "creationsim" meant? Why could not the creation be actually evolution? Ok, not random, but God would lead it. That is how i come to understand it. Because evolution always seems to win the argument and has overwhelming evidence. look at bilogical traits, all the things. how we compare with others. monkeys. chimpanzees. other mammals. etc. the list is endless.

Not that im an evolutionist but for the past few weeks i must have come to realize that 'hey! the word "create" could mean "make a plan and then let it all go according to it where things have been pre-programmed"'. Am i created? are we? in a way yes, in another no. God did not create us by His hands. Only metaphorically. we are created because of the fertilization of sperm and egg of our parents. and so on. in the other hand yes, He did, because it was Him who has put the system into place and the ability to reproduce. And we arose by His will.

So... is there any chance that creationism could mean a controlled process of evolution? Making all the decisions, planning, leading it by Divine Hand and Mind according to our God's will.
Any thoughts about this theory?

Let's just assume he meant creationism in it's most basic form....

God created the universe, planned it to physical perfection, and god was also responsible for creating life in this universe.

now the question of no evidence....is a hard one. I could throw a bunch of numbers at you about how it would be virtually impossible for the universe to come into being on it's own; but 2 problems there:

1) Virtually impossible does not mean impossible.
2)The numbers, formulas, and laws of nature involved in determining this virtual impossibility.....are relative to our current time, our current understanding of how the universe functions.

Expanding on the second problem.....you could say that 100 years ago our understanding of how the universe functions was very limited, and you could also say that our understanding now compared to then has improved a great deal. The problem of relativism still remains though. For example, on a scale of 1-10, what if our understanding of the universe 100 years ago was at say, a 3, and currently, it has drastically improved to a 7. Does this give us the capability of virtually scientifically proving the existance of God? If our understanding is only at a 7, what if, when our understanding reaches 8, we find out (which often seems to be the case) that the scale really isn't 1-10, it is 1-100 (roughly ofcourse). We make some great scientific discovery that lets us know how Little we truly know......and tells us our understanding is now not an 8/10, but an 8/100.

Our knowledge of the universe and of everything in general seems to be on an exponential curve as of the past 300 years. If we can look back and laugh about how wrong we were about things 300 years ago, what will our descendants laugh about when they read our ideas of the universe and of the laws of nature?

Furthermore, what if in 1000 years, we learn enough science to prove that the Big Bang actually did occur, and we can say so with 99% accuracy, because of the knowledge we possess. We can only try to imagine the complexity of the things we'll know that far down the road.

Although, it kind of ends up being philosophical, and concludes that you can only prove anything in a relative manner......but it succeeds in giving some needed perspective to the whole issue. What if the true existence of God was solely dependent on personal choice?

Notconvinced wrote:Let's just assume he meant creationism in it's most basic form....

God created the universe, planned it to physical perfection, and god was also responsible for creating life in this universe

Ok could that mean evolution to you as well, Notconvinced? most basic form - probably that's what has been causing disputes for the past years. Could it include process of evolution? do these 2 have to oppose each other?
As for the relativism - yes its true and scary to think about.

Notconvinced wrote: Although, it kind of ends up being philosophical, and concludes that you can only prove anything in a relative manner......but it succeeds in giving some needed perspective to the whole issue. What if the true existence of God was solely dependent on personal choice?

How would that be? that there were no absolute truth that God either exists or not? if it is dependent on personal choice are you saying that He only exists for those who believe in Him - i.e. that who dont wont have anythihg to do with him? quite unclear...

Notconvinced wrote:If we can look back and laugh about how wrong we were about things 300 years ago, what will our descendants laugh about when they read our ideas of the universe and of the laws of nature?

The problem with this line of thought is this:

If our descendants think like you (always assuming we will know more later and whatever we know now is wrong or incomplete or "Little") then who's to say they will look back at us and laugh. They know (again, according to the line of reasoning you laid out) that in a hundred more years, their own descendants will look back at them and laugh, becuase even though out descendants know vastly more than us, they still know so very little. We can't give a scale of knowledge (1 to 10 or 1 to 100) because we will never really know the upper end of that scale.

Maybe i am missing the bigger point of what you're saying, but this part kind of stopped me.

Personally, madscientist, I don't believe creationism and evolution have to be totally exclusive, it's totally possible to have just 1, or the other, or both be responsible for getting us to where we are today.

Madscientist wrote:

Notconvinced wrote: Although, it kind of ends up being philosophical, and concludes that you can only prove anything in a relative manner......but it succeeds in giving some needed perspective to the whole issue. What if the true existence of God was solely dependent on personal choice?

How would that be? that there were no absolute truth that God either exists or not? if it is dependent on personal choice are you saying that He only exists for those who believe in Him - i.e. that who dont wont have anythihg to do with him? quite unclear...

No absolute truth is the easy part, you can't prove a negative (i.e. god can't exist), and wouldn't absolute truth OF his existence only come in the time of revelations? -which I assume will be beyond my own death. By being dependent on personal choice I meant that the only absolute truth I see possible, is within each of us, we can so choose to absolutely believe or not....but again it was kind of an open-ended philosophical question...and sometimes those tend to be clear quite by their very nature.

Enigma7457 wrote:

Notconvinced wrote:If we can look back and laugh about how wrong we were about things 300 years ago, what will our descendants laugh about when they read our ideas of the universe and of the laws of nature?

The problem with this line of thought is this:

If our descendants think like you (always assuming we will know more later and whatever we know now is wrong or incomplete or "Little") then who's to say they will look back at us and laugh. They know (again, according to the line of reasoning you laid out) that in a hundred more years, their own descendants will look back at them and laugh, becuase even though out descendants know vastly more than us, they still know so very little. We can't give a scale of knowledge (1 to 10 or 1 to 100) because we will never really know the upper end of that scale.

Maybe i am missing the bigger point of what you're saying, but this part kind of stopped me.

I sure hope our descendants are smarter than me, and smarter than everyone alive right now. Looking back and laughing is somthing of a historical difference everyone in the future has over everyone in the past. Assuming we'll know more in the future is both an optimist point of view and the most likely thing to happen, very rarely in the progression of history have civilizations declined academically and failed to pull out of the trend. And I sure hope they do think that what they know is incomplete, because surely even based on God's standards we are still far too ignorant of the world, our galaxy, and our universe, and will continue to be for quite some time. For when we think that everything we know is right and complete, I believe is the true failure. As for the scaling, obviously it cannot be precise, but the idea remains that the more knowledge we gain, the more we can be sure how little we truly know.

Notconvinced wrote:Personally, madscientist, I don't believe creationism and evolution have to be totally exclusive, it's totally possible to have just 1, or the other, or both be responsible for getting us to where we are today.

Hm i dont believe that either!! yes they could be inclusive. so sounds rather like a point for possible evolution? Still remains God's creation though!!

Notconvinced wrote: No absolute truth is the easy part, you can't prove a negative (i.e. god can't exist), and wouldn't absolute truth OF his existence only come in the time of revelations? -which I assume will be beyond my own death. By being dependent on personal choice I meant that the only absolute truth I see possible, is within each of us, we can so choose to absolutely believe or not....but again it was kind of an open-ended philosophical question...and sometimes those tend to be clear quite by their very nature.

Ah right see what u were sayin. Yes... well some beings already know about Him... angels, Satan etc. But it is only until then we'll find out He really exists.

Notconvinced wrote: As for the scaling, obviously it cannot be precise, but the idea remains that the more knowledge we gain, the more we can be sure how little we truly know.

so true!! the more we know in absolute terms we realize the less we know in relative terms!!

Notconvinced wrote:I sure hope our descendants are smarter than me, and smarter than everyone alive right now. Looking back and laughing is somthing of a historical difference everyone in the future has over everyone in the past. Assuming we'll know more in the future is both an optimist point of view and the most likely thing to happen, very rarely in the progression of history have civilizations declined academically and failed to pull out of the trend. And I sure hope they do think that what they know is incomplete, because surely even based on God's standards we are still far too ignorant of the world, our galaxy, and our universe, and will continue to be for quite some time. For when we think that everything we know is right and complete, I believe is the true failure. As for the scaling, obviously it cannot be precise, but the idea remains that the more knowledge we gain, the more we can be sure how little we truly know.

Okay, i think i may not have been clear. I wasn't saying out descendants are going to know less than us. Thinking that our descendants will look back at us and laugh at our ignorance is irrelevant. They most likely will. However, we cannot let that effect our decision making today. If we stop and go, "We're probably wrong. In a hundred years, they'll be more right." Then we miss now. We have to make decisions based on what we know, regardless of how much more we will know tomorrow.

Kind of like someone waiting for the next best computer to come out before buying:They will be waiting forever.

Enigma7457 wrote:Okay, i think i may not have been clear. I wasn't saying out descendants are going to know less than us. Thinking that our descendants will look back at us and laugh at our ignorance is irrelevant. They most likely will. However, we cannot let that effect our decision making today. If we stop and go, "We're probably wrong. In a hundred years, they'll be more right." Then we miss now. We have to make decisions based on what we know, regardless of how much more we will know tomorrow.

Kind of like someone waiting for the next best computer to come out before buying:They will be waiting forever.

Why shouldn't we be somewhat skeptical of our current knowledge based on the fact that we may be mistaken? All it really does is add a "...and it's possible we have this wrong." onto the end of all of our current findings. But More Than Anything, I don't want to be concerned ONLY with what we know now, I want to take it a step further and try to base my current knowledge on the possibility of it being proved wrong in the future. It's like simply saying "You can't be absolutely certain about anything."
The few times I feel satisfaction, is when I take a step back out of the day to day ordinary, and see the pattern, and have it spark new thoughts and new revelations about my own life. And it's even nicer when you can step back from there, and see the pattern in all those patterns. And taking that step back, concerning theories on the beginning of the universe, is quite vital I'd think. I mean, to think, that right now, we have enough knowledge to adequately understand the beginning of the universe, is quite absurd.

The Big Bang theory alone generally states that everything started with a singularity, that exploded into eventually the universe. Now, do we understand how time functions at a singularity? No. So can we ask ourselves what caused it to happen? How do we even know there had to be a cause if we don't know how time functions. Our brain likes to think of things in terms of "cause and effect" because we've been preconditioned to do so. Our science is based on observation, and no one as of yet has observed how time works AT a singularity.

Take a whole nother subject, free will, as an example of some problems with our current way of thought, on a public consensus that is. If I were to ask you if you have free will, what would u say? "Sure I do" you say. But in actuality you don't, in the truest sense, because your brain is a physical object, and was produced biologically with both your mothers and fathers influence, and grown through years of personal experience by your environment. In other words your brain is a machine, the reason behind your choices is based on your brain chemistry, and the way you were brought up. Some would say the reason people want to believe in free will is because of the ego, and the way we perceive the world. If you do believe in free will, try to convince yourself you don't, it's a exercise I had a good deal of fun with, and based on who wins, will tell you a bit about the strength of your ego over you.

I believed the free will argument and the causation of the big bang argument are uniquely linked in terms of our understanding. Even my own explanations for both can be wrong in time, and although it doesn't stop me from believing in them, it helps me understand that my beliefs are relative, and I should Strive to base my beliefs on something more than relativity.

Notconvinced wrote:Why shouldn't we be somewhat skeptical of our current knowledge based on the fact that we may be mistaken? All it really does is add a "...and it's possible we have this wrong." onto the end of all of our current findings. But More Than Anything, I don't want to be concerned ONLY with what we know now, I want to take it a step further and try to base my current knowledge on the possibility of it being proved wrong in the future. It's like simply saying "You can't be absolutely certain about anything."

Agreed. Partially. Although we can never assume we know it all (i did not mean to imply that) we can only base our current actions on our current knowledge. I don't smoke cigarettes. They are bad for you, addicting, and costly. A hundred years ago, we may not have known that. Can you blame people for smoking then? Should they have said "Wait, we might find out in a hundred years that these are bad for us." No, they shouldn't. having limited understanding is going to lead to mistakes, mistakes we all make day to day. Although we should never assume we are done learning and growing (and hence never assume our decisions are correct), we cannot refrain from making them. Even though we don't understand the creation of the universe (other than, imho, God did it), we can still try to figure it out.

Notconvinced wrote:Take a whole nother subject, free will, as an example of some problems with our current way of thought, on a public consensus that is. If I were to ask you if you have free will, what would u say? "Sure I do" you say. But in actuality you don't, in the truest sense, because your brain is a physical object, and was produced biologically with both your mothers and fathers influence, and grown through years of personal experience by your environment. In other words your brain is a machine, the reason behind your choices is based on your brain chemistry, and the way you were brought up. Some would say the reason people want to believe in free will is because of the ego, and the way we perceive the world. If you do believe in free will, try to convince yourself you don't, it's a exercise I had a good deal of fun with, and based on who wins, will tell you a bit about the strength of your ego over you.

I believed the free will argument and the causation of the big bang argument are uniquely linked in terms of our understanding. Even my own explanations for both can be wrong in time, and although it doesn't stop me from believing in them, it helps me understand that my beliefs are relative, and I should Strive to base my beliefs on something more than relativity.

I gotta say, i completely disagree. I have a soul, a unique soul created by God that guides my decisions. Although my decisions are somewhat based on my heritage, genes, upbringing, whatever, those factors do not lay out my whole life before me. I make my decisions, i choose my end, i decide my fate. Me.

God may already know my decisions and my end and my fate, but he is not deciding them for me. He is merely watching (every once and while throwing me a little curveball to help me grow). No, he is doing more than watching. He is whispering to me, always whispering. Helping to guide me through life.

But it is still my responsibility to make my decisions. I do what i want to do, not what i am programmed to do.

Enigma7457 wrote:
Agreed. Partially. Although we can never assume we know it all (i did not mean to imply that) we can only base our current actions on our current knowledge. I don't smoke cigarettes. They are bad for you, addicting, and costly. A hundred years ago, we may not have known that. Can you blame people for smoking then? Should they have said "Wait, we might find out in a hundred years that these are bad for us." No, they shouldn't. having limited understanding is going to lead to mistakes, mistakes we all make day to day.

Why would you blame someone for smoking anyway? I'm blaming them....because they pay lots of money to likely feed an addiction that is bad for them? Regardless, for those few that may have been too skeptical to start smoking, they were rewarded most likely with a longer life.

Enigma7457 wrote: I gotta say, i completely disagree. I have a soul, a unique soul created by God that guides my decisions. Although my decisions are somewhat based on my heritage, genes, upbringing, whatever, those factors do not lay out my whole life before me. I make my decisions, i choose my end, i decide my fate. Me.

God may already know my decisions and my end and my fate, but he is not deciding them for me. He is merely watching (every once and while throwing me a little curveball to help me grow). No, he is doing more than watching. He is whispering to me, always whispering. Helping to guide me through life.

But it is still my responsibility to make my decisions. I do what i want to do, not what i am programmed to do.

Ok the soul question, is actually the only argument that holds its own against the no free will argument, but if you disregard the soul, no one is truly free to make "their own" free decisions. And in the very least, if you say you "have a soul," it's something you possess, and thus you can't say "I choose my end, I decide my fate. Me." You'd have to say "My soul chooses my end, my soul decideds my fate. My very own Soul. .......... I do what my Soul wants me to do, not what I am programmed to do." But again, disregard the soul, and everyone does exactly what their programmed to do, all biology, environment, and lots of neurons. Even then, it's not like not having a free will changes everything for you, you still go on living your life, making decisions, doing actions, you just don't have the ability to do actions totally free of your biology.

Notconvinced wrote:Why would you blame someone for smoking anyway

I don't mean blame. Bad choice of word. Held responsible? If they didn't know it was bad for them, it was not necessarily a bad decision that they deserve the punishment for. If someone starts smoking now, fully aware of the consequences, then it is their fault they are sick. Back then, when no one was aware of the consequences, it is not their fault they are sick.

Notconvinced wrote:Ok the soul question, is actually the only argument that holds its own against the no free will argument, but if you disregard the soul, no one is truly free to make "their own" free decisions. And in the very least, if you say you "have a soul," it's something you possess, and thus you can't say "I choose my end, I decide my fate. Me." You'd have to say "My soul chooses my end, my soul decideds my fate. My very own Soul. .......... I do what my Soul wants me to do, not what I am programmed to do."

I think this is kind of a ridiculous argument. Saying 'my soul did it, not me.' When you watch TV, do you say, "my eyes are watching tv and sending the signal to my brain" or when you eat, "My mouth is chewing and then sending the food to my tummy". No, you say "i am watching TV" or "I am eating." My soul is me. When my body dies, I (ie my soul) will live on. When 'my soul' makes a decision, I make a decision.

Perhaps i should say 'i am my soul' instead of 'i have a soul' Maybe that would be clearer.

Notconvinced wrote:But again, disregard the soul, and everyone does exactly what their programmed to do, all biology, environment, and lots of neurons. Even then, it's not like not having a free will changes everything for you, you still go on living your life, making decisions, doing actions, you just don't have the ability to do actions totally free of your biology.

1-You can't 'disregard the soul.' It exists.
2-If you could, of course you can't do actions totally free of your biology. That's common sense. i can't eat without a mouth. I can't watch TV without my eyes.

Either way, we have free will. If we didn't, you wouldn't be arguing right now with me. Our bodies are not computers that are programmed and then react to a situation totally predictably.

Well what I believe is that we should put the arguments of free will and cause and effect together. I read somewhere in New Scientist it was some time ago about this argument of FW. It says that if everything has a cause and effect, no free will can exist and it is a bunch of illusion. But that there are "gaps" in cause and effect, and it is these that make FW possible.

And as regarding soul - what is soul? Our feeling, consciousness, i.e. conscious result of brain chemistry I'd say. When that is not present, our soul is not present, it is absent from any feelings or actions. When we sleep without any dreams, when we fall into unconscience - as if we had no more soul. When we're fully awake, we have our soul, we are the soul. That's how i explain it. God does not need to have a body, nor do angels and other beings, yet they ar capable of free will. We are limited by our brain and biology. It is the neurons and above all the fact we are conscious that we are able to make free decisions. if we did not, then we would be machines. Or if we did have feelings and were able to suffer/experience pleasure, but were unable to respond to our environment voluntarily, we'd be no more than slaves - no free will.
And at times we are! Under influence of drugs, alcohol etc. When we are no longer held responsible for actions directly as we have no (full) conscience whilst doing them.

But yes I agree FW debate is NOT easy. It may seem a paradox. And the fact we do have laws here. Biology. chemistry, physics. What happens is influenced. The fact that this neuron fires off a signal means this and this. And we are predetermined genetically how we behave, what we like etc. So our free will is but a small part of the whole lot of actions we do. Nature, then nurture, then free will.