Evidence for God from Science

If cavemen were scientists, they would say electricity is not true unless we can prove it. And eventually it was proven so it became factual, therefore, scientifically proven. God, hasn't been proven, but if he was, he could become scientifically proven just as electricity was. But if God allowed himself to be proven, we couldn't choose him just like we couldn't choose electricity, it exists, therefore it is not a matter of choice. Where would that leave us as humans? We would be forced to recon with a force that existed, not by choice but by fact. I don't think God wanted to force himself on us as a fact, but wanted us to choose to have a relationship with him through experience. Like choosing a marriage instead of arranged marriage. To say something is not factual unless it passes scientific standards is like saying electricity did not exist until it was discovered. Yes it did! We just hadn't discovered it yet. Science is not a universal law, it is man made by laws that man made. Science is just the means to an end, not the end itself. The end itself is not here, it has yet to be discovered. For human thought to be considered irrational unless proven by science is like saying electricity was irrational until discovered. Of course it was never irrational, it just wasn't discovered yet.

Hi Robyn,

Science doesn't require that something be demonstrated via scientific techniques (demonstrated rather than proven; proof is the realm of logicians and pure mathematicians) in order to be considered true. Science assumes that a) the universe has some structure and that b) we can learn something about that structure - it's possible that something can be both true and yet remain beyond the tools available to science. For example imagine if water existed but had no mass, energy, visible structure...none at all of it's normal properties and indistinguishable from a vaccuum - water would still exist but it would remain (probably) forever out of reach of science.

Thank you CS Lewislover, that was my point exactly.

I find there is order in natural consequences.
Natural Consequences seem spiritual in nature, for humans. as opposed to random.

Natural consequences
Drinking or drugs.............natural consequence=death, insanity, broken homes.
premarital sex.................sexual disease, broken homes, single parents
greed................war, corruption,depression.
homosexuality..............aids
gluttony...................obesity, high blood pressure

Seems uncanny that these things occur

If there weren't a god, wouldn't it make sense that we could all be, drug addicted, alchoholic, sex crazed, over eating, happy human beings?
How can the world, if random, give us natural consequences to our sins? Some say we named them sins after we dicovered they brought us pain. But there is objective truth to what makes a human a "good" human, and I am supposed to beleive it is random nature that rewards and punishes us according to following those spiritual truths? Doesn't that demand intelligence?
Certain human behaviors tend to lead to character deficits which would be considered more spiritual, not something that would be a part of natural selection as far as I know, in other words, should not logically effect one's chances of survival. For example, when we over indulge in pleasure, instead of practicing self contol, there are consequences: if one eats too much sugar, we are overindulging in pleasure which seems to demonstrate selfishness, and "coincidentally"rots our teeth and causes obesity . If we eat too many vegatables, not usually on one's most pleasurable list, we become healthier- a positive consequence. If we drink too much alchohol or drugs, avoiding our problems and lessening our character, we become sick. This doesn't occur when we overindulge in water or juice- which clearly doesn't alter one's character, nor do these make us self absorbed. If we have too much sex where we don't hold sex as a sacred act, thus doing it for selfish phisical reasons, we incur disease, unwanted pregnacy, destroyed relationships. if we love money too much, thus becoming greedy, another character flaw, we often seperate ourselves from people we love. These seem to take away from one's character and have consequences. They have phisical consequences and "coincidentally" also affect our character as human beings. When we indulge in things that don't negatively effect our character, example, water, running, exercise, kindness-things that don't have a negative affect on our "character" nature seems to reward us. So, how does random nature punish humans for things that negatively affect our "character" or spirituality. Granted, I know there are plenty of random acts that kill us, car accidents, disease, etc. But if we are fortunate enough to live a regular life span and make choices that are, I believe, universally considered morally good choices, we live longer and happier existences. That is, of course, if we don't get hit by a moving bus - I am just thinking out loud.

cslewislover - I got Robyn's point, but I was adding that, unlike electricity, there are some things that we may never be able to gain a scientific understanding of even though they may exist. Steven Novella has a nice succinct definition of methodological naturalism (the linchpin of science):

methodological naturalism posits that nature is all the we can know, regardless of whether or not it is all that there is (which by definition we cannot know).

So by that definition there are several possible outcomes:
- God or Gods exist and are either
a) amenable to scientific investigation, in which case at some point we will be able to say that God/s are natural
or
b) not amenable to scientific investigation, in which case they will forever remain outside of nature (even though they are true)
- No gods exist, so they will forever remain outside of nature

I guess what I'm getting at is that science makes no claim to be able to discover everything that exists or is true; only that we are able to know the knowable (hope that makes sense!).

Some people don't understand the limitations of science, some think if it isn't scientific it CAN'T be true. I think some wait for science to declare truths and that truth so far is only what science offers. I am glad to see that we agree that is not the case. Logically , there are many truths that have not, and mabe never can be, proven scientifically. Science is simply one man made method in a universe that is not man-made.

robyn hill wrote:Some people don't understand the limitations of science, some think if it isn't scientific it CAN'T be true. I think some wait for science to declare truths and that truth so far is only what science offers. I am glad to see that we agree that is not the case. Logically , there are many truths that have not, and mabe never can be, proven scientifically. Science is simply one man made method in a universe that is not man-made.

The bit I took issue with in the OP was "electricity isn't true unless we can prove it". That's philosophical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism - only the latter is the formal position of science.

touchingcloth wrote:

robyn hill wrote:Some people don't understand the limitations of science, some think if it isn't scientific it CAN'T be true. I think some wait for science to declare truths and that truth so far is only what science offers. I am glad to see that we agree that is not the case. Logically , there are many truths that have not, and mabe never can be, proven scientifically. Science is simply one man made method in a universe that is not man-made.

The bit I took issue with in the OP was "electricity isn't true unless we can prove it". That's philosophical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism - only the latter is the formal position of science.

She's not sophisticated yet to know the difference touchingcloth. Thank you for explaining it to her. Robyn, follow up on these clues. Look them up. Peace.

Wow, that was harsh, I always considered myself sophisticated and usually try not to insult people.

To be honest I don't really feel the need to throw around alot of scientific jargon to have opinions on God. C.S. Lewis, in most of his books, spoke from a philisophical perspective even more than from a scientific perspective, I can relate to his thinking and just thought I would share a few of my own thoughts. Who decides that is less sophisticated?

robyn hill wrote:Wow, that was harsh, I always considered myself sophisticated and usually try not to insult people.

I don't think age meant sophisticated as in "unintelligent" or anything like that. I think he meant you're perhaps "unsophisticated" as in having a lesser understanding of the state of the science than some...
I'm sure age's intention wasn't to insult you - you yourself are certainly not coming across as trying to insult anyone.

CS Lewis, for all his qualities, was not a scientist.

Touching Cloth, I don't have a major in science, took a lot of philosophy classes though. What I was trying to say, and maybe came across with little science knowlege in my posts, is that I don't think God will be found or defined by science, so it really isn't something I can use to state my case as a believer in God. My point is there may be truths in our universe that can not, and will not, be answered by scientific means. Which is why we can't prove God scientifically. I still can't understand how there are natural consequences in life, how our resources have allowed us to continue thus far(seems another fortunate "coincidence") how there is pleasure for us, how the odds of our planet, the cycles, our dna, our minds, all line up just right to give us life, and to me this again cannot be answered by science, and I know, science doesn't claim to answer these. So my point is, to be intelligent, or make intelligent opinions, can be outside of scientific methodology. Maybe someone could help me understand how these things are explainable without a God. Maybe that would cause me to see how they are unsophisticated questions. Someone please let me know your opinions on natural consequences, resources to allow us to live this long, pleasure, etc. Enlighten me please. Could all of these be more random occurences?

Robyn, I don't have a degree in science either (in the UK we don't do majors/minors...and my course was in computing).

I'd suggest you do some reading about the "anthropic principle", that might enable you to either answer your question yourself or at least refine your points a little.

When you speak about the "odds" of certain events...it's easy to marvel at narrow odds after the fact. Roll a dice 20 times and note down the numbers you got - then do the calculation for the odds of getting that particular sequence of numbers. Imagine aliens that breathe methane and drink acid, on a world far away from our own - peering at our planet through their telescopes and thinking how lucky they are to not have been created on our planet with all its poisonous water and oxygen.