Evidence for God from Science

I was wondering how people here would define science. And should you choose to answer that, I would like to know how you define faith.

I won't provide my own definition to start. I don't want to "seed" the topic, so to speak. There isn't any purpose to this other than personal curiosity. That is, i'm not going somewhere is this.

Ogjak wrote:I was wondering how people here would define science. And should you choose to answer that, I would like to know how you define faith.

I won't provide my own definition to start. I don't want to "seed" the topic, so to speak. There isn't any purpose to this other than personal curiosity. That is, i'm not going somewhere is this.

The question isn't always how we define it, it is more like how Darwinian evolutionists are defining it also. Christian faith is founded on Jesus Christ and His resurrection, science is about knowing reality.

Christian faith is founded on Jesus Christ and His resurrection, science is about knowing reality.

Its easier to piggy back off of Gman than to start fresh.

"Faith" is belief in something absent of concrete substantial evidence. I have faith in Jesus like I have faith that my brother won't cheat on his wife.

Science is about drawing conclusions via the scientific method based on the world as we understand it. Sometimes it is based on direct observation, while other times it is based on calculations and predictions. I disagree that it is about "knowing" reality.

Barabus wrote:I have faith in Jesus like I have faith that my brother won't cheat on his wife.

Do you trust your brother simply because he IS your brother, or is your trust based on direct observation of his character?

Trust is different than faith. Trust is based on direct observation of his character. Faith is not. Maybe faith wasn't the best term in the case of my bro.

Barabus wrote:Trust is different than faith. Trust is based on direct observation of his character. Faith is not. Maybe faith wasn't the best term in the case of my bro.

"How do you define trust (and faith)" might be another interesting discussion.

Barabus wrote:"Faith" is belief in something absent of concrete substantial evidence. I have faith in Jesus like I have faith that my brother won't cheat on his wife.

Um.. I disagree. While I can say my faith is in Jesus Christ, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is something absent of any concrete substantial evidence.

Barabus wrote:Science is about drawing conclusions via the scientific method based on the world as we understand it. Sometimes it is based on direct observation, while other times it is based on calculations and predictions. I disagree that it is about "knowing" reality.

Sure that fits the definition of science, but I don't understand your concept of reality. Are you saying that there is only one literal interpretation of reality?

Um.. I disagree. While I can say my faith is in Jesus Christ, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is something absent of any concrete substantial evidence.

If you have concrete substantial evidence then its not faith. People don't get convicted of murder based on faith nor do we build bridges based on faith.

Sure that fits the definition of science, but I don't understand your concept of reality. Are you saying that there is only one literal interpretation of reality?

Its not the reality part that we differ on. Its the concept of "knowing." If science is about "knowing" reality, then we wouldn't have theories. Facts are known. Theories are conclusions based on a compilation of a multitude of known facts combined with rigorous testing in an attempt to disprove or coroborate such a theory.

Barabus wrote:If you have concrete substantial evidence then its not faith. People don't get convicted of murder based on faith nor do we build bridges based on faith.

Most historians are convinced that Christ was a literal person who walked this earth. I can "base" part of my faith in this... That is why we have Christian apologetics.

Barabus wrote:Its not the reality part that we differ on. Its the concept of "knowing." If science is about "knowing" reality, then we wouldn't have theories. Facts are known. Theories are conclusions based on a compilation of a multitude of known facts combined with rigorous testing in an attempt to disprove or coroborate such a theory.

Ok, then let's put it this way then. What do you claim is factual in science? Darwinian evolution or the fact that the sun revolves around the earth, or both?

Gman wrote:

Barabus wrote:If you have concrete substantial evidence then its not faith. People don't get convicted of murder based on faith nor do we build bridges based on faith.

Most historians are convinced that Christ was a literal person who walked this earth. I can "base" part of my faith in this... That is why we have Christian apologetics.

I thought Barabus's idea about faith was a little loose or shallow, since I think of faith, in part, as a conviction. And of course conviction is based on something. So I looked up the definitions of faith in my dictionary. The first definition is: "A confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Yes. The second definition: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." I think most members here would say that their faith falls within the first definition, as Gman noted. We can have much confidence in Jesus Christ and his witnesses, and of what is written in the OT as well, based on evidence and reasoning.

I would define science (as in scientific fact) as proven principles, mathematical or systematic relationships based on experiments or measurements that can be repeated in a lab or using models. But all science starts with hypotheses, or educated guesses based on previous findings. If something cannot be proved through maths or models or experiments of some kind it is not science. Scientific theory is not the same as scientific fact. In fact, some socalled scientific theories require alot of faith!

I would define faith as 'being sure of what we know and certain of what we do not see' as in Hebrews 11:1. There is substantial circumstantial evidence for God if you choose to seek it or even see it, since it is all around us through creation.

As Romans 1:20 reveals: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (ie creation) so that men are without excuse."

Ok, then let's put it this way then. What do you claim is factual in science? Darwinian evolution or the fact that the sun revolves around the earth, or both?

I thought I already answered this. Sun....fact. Evolution...theory. Keep in mind , though, a scientific theory isn't just some idea some quack came up with. If evlolution was on trial for murder, it would go to prison despite not having any witnesses present.

As I stated to you before in the other thread, it has mounds of evidence coroborating it and nothing that refutes it. I was plenty of reason to believe it and none not to believe. I don't need to watch a frog turn into a brid-like creature to believe that it happens and has happened, but no.....my belief in it isn't as string as, say, gravity. I have a hard time believing that God would have planted all of this evidence as some sort of test to trick us into thinking that nature works the way that it does. He created DNA and DNA behaves the way that it does. I have no reason to believe why he would magically block a natural process that he created just to keep a species from changing too much. We KNOW they change.......look at two different dogs. They only thing that can possibly keep them from changing enough to be separate species given enough time (and boy did they have it) would be direct divine intervention.

Sorry....I went off on a tangent.

Barabus wrote:

Ok, then let's put it this way then. What do you claim is factual in science? Darwinian evolution or the fact that the sun revolves around the earth, or both?

I thought I already answered this. Sun....fact. Evolution...theory. Keep in mind , though, a scientific theory isn't just some idea some quack came up with. If evlolution was on trial for murder, it would go to prison despite not having any witnesses present.

As I stated to you before in the other thread, it has mounds of evidence coroborating it and nothing that refutes it. I was plenty of reason to believe it and none not to believe. I don't need to watch a frog turn into a brid-like creature to believe that it happens and has happened, but no.....my belief in it isn't as string as, say, gravity. I have a hard time believing that God would have planted all of this evidence as some sort of test to trick us into thinking that nature works the way that it does. He created DNA and DNA behaves the way that it does. I have no reason to believe why he would magically block a natural process that he created just to keep a species from changing too much. We KNOW they change.......look at two different dogs. They only thing that can possibly keep them from changing enough to be separate species given enough time (and boy did they have it) would be direct divine intervention.

Sorry....I went off on a tangent.

Further, why would He "design" our intellect to be capable of critical thinking, deductive reasoning, memory, and communication, then plant all sorts of evidence (geology, fossils, ... ) and give us various means of dating that evidence just to mislead us into thinking we evolved if we use our intellect as "designed" on the planted evidence?

Creationism was pretty much universally accepted until fairly recently. Discoveries over only the last several hundred years have proven the Earth to be much older than previously thought, shown that the Earth is not static but is constantly changing, and that species can change and adapt to their environment. Those same discoveries have taken evolution from a hypothesis (aka "just a theory") to a full-blown theory (in the scientific meaning of the word).

In regards to the dog(more specifically, canine). We have millions of case studies (mounds of evidence) that prove that dogs produce dogs, and not one case study that a dog has ever produced anything else. you might get big dogs, small dogs, brown dogs, black dogs. But you will always get dog (canine). Even when a virus mutates, guess what it mutates into. Drum roll.......A virus!


jt,
Well said. paul didn't need faith to know that Jesus was Lord after his encounter on the Damascus road. But he did need faith to follow Christ's plan for his life.
I had an encounter that settled all the "is God real/is Jesus Lord" issues in my life. But my faith is constantly being stretched and excerised as I walk out my life in Christ. Judas saw the miracles. He knew Jesus was the messiah. But that doesn't mean he had faith.

In regards to the dog(more specifically, canine). We have millions of case studies (mounds of evidence) that prove that dogs produce dogs, and not one case study that a dog has ever produced anything else. you might get big dogs, small dogs, brown dogs, black dogs. But you will always get dog (canine). Even when a virus mutates, guess what it mutates into. Drum roll.......A virus!

A dog will ALWAYS produce a dog. It will NEVER produce something that is not a dog. If that's what you need to see happen to believe that evolution exists, then you will be incapable of believing it because you are holding it to a standard of which cannot phyically happen.....but you are also creating a big strawman.


Speciation doesn't occur in a single generation. It occurs over multiple generations. We have, in existence, several ring species of birds. If I were so inclined and had the resources, I could go out and kill all of the relatives of two extremes of a ring species and voilla! the two extremes would be separate species. Its that simple.

If you hold evolution to this unreasonable standard, then I contend that either A) you don't fully understand how evolution works or the evidence supporting it or B) you cannot without being utterly disengenuos believe in the existence of stars OR God, neither of which we've actually seen. In otherwords, you hold evolution to a higher standard of scrtunity than you do of the others I mentioned, which is irrational.