Evidence for God from Science

The idea of arguing (with logic, which always starts from an assumption that is assumed to be true, and therefore cannot be questioned) for the existence of God (the assumption from which Christians start, i.e. FAITH) using as a starting point science, with the assumption (unprovable, if useful so far) that experiments can be repeated is pure mental masturbation.

System A, that starts with assumption x cannot use logic to prove or disprove assumption y of system B.

The best you can do, by the rules of elementary logic learned by EVERY 18 year old who takes a logic class, is to prove that the two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And as long as everyone sticks to the rules and only insists on their original assumptions, the existence of God and the belief that scientists can repeat experiments, are NOT mutually exclusive.

Science, in "proving" its view of the universe, succeeds only in arguing for its religious beliefs. As does "authentic" religion. But it's ALL religion, because EVERYONE starts with an unquestioned belief. So there's no argument - at the very worst, you're both giving different, but equally arguable, explanations for existence.

My personal belief is that the Christians are insane, but that doesn't change the fact that my belief in science remains a belief.

However, none of this is provable or arguable, especially if you start with the other guy's belief system. Duh.

Logic 101. Sorry to negate your existence.

I'm sorry, but WHAT? I don't get what you are trying to say here. The only part I understood is that you think Christians are insane.

jpenney wrote:The idea of arguing (with logic, which always starts from an assumption that is assumed to be true, and therefore cannot be questioned) for the existence of God (the assumption from which Christians start, i.e. FAITH) using as a starting point science, with the assumption (unprovable, if useful so far) that experiments can be repeated is pure mental masturbation.

System A, that starts with assumption x cannot use logic to prove or disprove assumption y of system B.

The best you can do, by the rules of elementary logic learned by EVERY 18 year old who takes a logic class, is to prove that the two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And as long as everyone sticks to the rules and only insists on their original assumptions, the existence of God and the belief that scientists can repeat experiments, are NOT mutually exclusive.

It might be impossible to have certainty based upon 100% logical reasoning since something always has to be assumed as true whether it is the logic itself or what-have-you, however you would be wrong to think this means a form of nihilism wins. While maybe not logically rational and justifiable, it is more practically rational to accept we ourselves exist and that our experiences and rational faculties are in fact truth conducive. If we did not accept such things as being properly basic then we are left in a loop of uncertainty which has no practical benefit what-so-ever. By "loop of uncertainty" I mean one can not know with 100% certainty that something is true, yet likewise one can not know with 100% certainty that a truth claim is false.

My personal belief is that the Christians are insane, but that doesn't change the fact that my belief in science remains a belief.

For me the Christian worldview makes the most sense of the world and my intuitions, is rationally sound and practically rational for living life, provides a lot more coherent answers to questions about the world, is backed by a wealth of tradition (meaning the beliefs are not abstract being plucked from nowhere in particular), and it has all the hallmarks of being far from an insane belief.

As a side note, I am a compatibilist and so would disagree with your embedded assumption that Christianity and science necessarily conflict to the extent that one either believes in "Science" or "Christianity".

I don't think that Christianity exhibits any of the classic signs of insanity...just because we hand our lives over to someone with total faith, who we can't see, hear, or touch with our physical senses?

FFC wrote:I don't think that Christianity exhibits any of the classic signs of insanity...just because we hand our lives over to someone with total faith, who we can't see, hear, or touch with our physical senses?

Unfortunately it seems that whenever a Christian says they know God exists from personal experience, everyone is quick to jump on them and say "You're on drugs" or "You need to have your head examined." I somehow seriously doubt that -everyone- who says they've experienced God directly is lying.

Swamper wrote:

FFC wrote:I don't think that Christianity exhibits any of the classic signs of insanity...just because we hand our lives over to someone with total faith, who we can't see, hear, or touch with our physical senses?

Unfortunately it seems that whenever a Christian says they know God exists from personal experience, everyone is quick to jump on them and say "You're on drugs" or "You need to have your head examined." I somehow seriously doubt that -everyone- who says they've experienced God directly is lying.

Me too. I was just being facitious. Even Jesus was called crazy and demon possessed. We as human being are prone to be afraid and shun things that we don't understand. So until God opens the eyes of an unbeliever how can they do otherwise.