Evidence for God from Science

It all boils down to that God wins... Science can't explain it, philosophy can't explain it, don't waste your time on silly stuff. Everything else is temporary.

Invest in beauty, invest in love, invest in wisdom. Don't play the fools game.... Make smart choices in this life.. Always go for the gold.. Invest in God!!!

Gman wrote:It all boils down to that God wins... Science can't explain it, philosophy can't can't explain it, don't waste your time on silly stuff. Everything else is temporary.

Invest in beauty, invest in love, invest in wisdom. Don't play the fools game.... Make smart choices in this life.. Always go for the gold.. Invest in God!!!

Indeed you are correct because once the scientists prove God and etc. it will have gained us nothing in the sense of becoming closer to Him, and the reason for this is because those scientists will have proclaimed nothing greater than a simple chirstian who has done that all his life but also this christian has instead built a foundation of faith and relationship with the Lord.

Amen G!! Philosophy, history, science, math, logic, (I know I am forgetting some) but they seem to conflict and work independently from each other until you put God in the equation. When God is put is the mix, they become interdependent and make sense. For the sake of sounding cheesy, it is like they are all seperate musical instruments, throw God in the mix and they become a unified orchestra. I know, CHEESEBALL!!!, but it's true.

Gman wrote:It all boils down to that God wins... Science can't explain it, philosophy can't explain it, don't waste your time on silly stuff. Everything else is temporary.

So basically what you're saying is "I have no idea how the world really works and don't care. Let's all just give up."

Isn't this just advocating intellectual lazyness? What if Einstein, Newton, Edison or any other scientist/inventor took this approach? We'd all still be living in caves.

Kynaros wrote:

Gman wrote:It all boils down to that God wins... Science can't explain it, philosophy can't explain it, don't waste your time on silly stuff. Everything else is temporary.

So basically what you're saying is "I have no idea how the world really works and don't care. Let's all just give up."

Isn't this just advocating intellectual lazyness? What if Einstein, Newton, Edison or any other scientist/inventor took this approach? We'd all still be living in caves.

No he's not saying that. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

Well...what's he saying then?

There's more to reality than methodological materialism.

Kynaros wrote:

Gman wrote:It all boils down to that God wins... Science can't explain it, philosophy can't explain it, don't waste your time on silly stuff. Everything else is temporary.

So basically what you're saying is "I have no idea how the world really works and don't care. Let's all just give up."

Isn't this just advocating intellectual lazyness? What if Einstein, Newton, Edison or any other scientist/inventor took this approach? We'd all still be living in caves.

No we do have an idea... If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn't you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed. It really doesn't matter.

The harder you dig, the more evidence you will find for God..

Gman wrote:No we do have an idea... If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn't you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed. It really doesn't matter.

While I admire this sentiment, there are few theists who would actually adhere to this. Every single creationist out there does not adhere to this idea. When you have the idea of a Creator, digging deeper is not something you would naturally want to do, since you believe in a Creator in the first place for his explanatory power. HE created the universe. HE created life on Earth. The fun in religion is having all the answers. God is a "catch all answer". You only have to look back at history to see how religion has impeded science: Galileo and Bruno were burned at the stake for suggested ideas that contradicted current doctrine.

While it's great that there are theists who don't let their life philosophy impede them from questioning everything all the time, no matter how open-minded a theist is, he will more than likely come across a point where he chalks something up to God, which is bad for science.

Galileo wasn't actually put to death - but he was placed under house arrest for the latter portion of his life.

Kynaros wrote:

Gman wrote:No we do have an idea... If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn't you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed. It really doesn't matter.

While I admire this sentiment, there are few theists who would actually adhere to this. Every single creationist out there does not adhere to this idea. When you have the idea of a Creator, digging deeper is not something you would naturally want to do, since you believe in a Creator in the first place for his explanatory power. HE created the universe. HE created life on Earth. The fun in religion is having all the answers. God is a "catch all answer". You only have to look back at history to see how religion has impeded science: Galileo and Bruno were burned at the stake for suggested ideas that contradicted current doctrine.

While it's great that there are theists who don't let their life philosophy impede them from questioning everything all the time, no matter how open-minded a theist is, he will more than likely come across a point where he chalks something up to God, which is bad for science.

Some of the great advancements in science were done by theists, Christians in particular.

Kynaros wrote:

Gman wrote:No we do have an idea... If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn't you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed. It really doesn't matter.

While I admire this sentiment, there are few theists who would actually adhere to this. Every single creationist out there does not adhere to this idea. When you have the idea of a Creator, digging deeper is not something you would naturally want to do, since you believe in a Creator in the first place for his explanatory power. HE created the universe. HE created life on Earth. The fun in religion is having all the answers. God is a "catch all answer". You only have to look back at history to see how religion has impeded science: Galileo and Bruno were burned at the stake for suggested ideas that contradicted current doctrine.

While it's great that there are theists who don't let their life philosophy impede them from questioning everything all the time, no matter how open-minded a theist is, he will more than likely come across a point where he chalks something up to God, which is bad for science.

Wow Kynaros, you really believe that? "No matter how open-minded a theist is, he will more than likely come across a point where he chalks something up to God, which is bad for science." Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that sounds? Only an atheist can be objective enough to really be trusted to do science?

That makes about as much sense as stating a Christian shouldn't drive a car, because they might enjoy the song, "Jesus Take the Wheel".

There is no shortage of accomplished and respected scientists in history and today who are Christians and every bit as capable of applying and working within the constructs of the Scientific Method. Further they are fully capable to do something that appears to me to be missing here in your statement. They can identify what is hard science and what is metaphysics or philosophy.

What a completely biased, arrogant and dismissive statement to make and then attempt to retreat to a position of complete objectivity.

So what exactly am I missing here? Does God not have an effect on this universe at all? Are you guys really saying that there is not at least one thing in nature that a Christian will ascribe to God? If so, is that person still a Christian? Take a look at medical miracles: "the doctors were baffled, we can't explain it, it's a miracle". A Christian would ascribe this work to God, a non-theist would look for an alternative naturalistic explanation.

Christians have the ability to do science just as well as everyone else. But when it comes to the kind of complete objectivity that science requires, people who subscribe to the revealed religions won't always have that, is all I'm saying.

Kynaros wrote:You only have to look back at history to see how religion has impeded science: Galileo and Bruno were burned at the stake for suggested ideas that contradicted current doctrine..

What the heck? Are you being serious? Have you no grasp on history? Please tell me this is a genuine mistake...

Kynaros wrote:While it's great that there are theists who don't let their life philosophy impede them from questioning everything all the time, no matter how open-minded a theist is, he will more than likely come across a point where he chalks something up to God, which is bad for science.

No matter how open-minded an atheist thinks he is, he will more than likely never be open to the possibility of a creator. He thinks it is bad for science, yet he is so bereft of rational thought at this point that he does not realise that God is outside of the realm of the natural sciences. Hence God does not impede on, or "crash the party" of, science. Both are compatible. This is pretty easy to fathom for a rational being.

DannyM wrote:

Kynaros wrote:You only have to look back at history to see how religion has impeded science: Galileo and Bruno were burned at the stake for suggested ideas that contradicted current doctrine..

What the heck? Are you being serious? Have you no grasp on history? Please tell me this is a genuine mistake...

Kynaros wrote:While it's great that there are theists who don't let their life philosophy impede them from questioning everything all the time, no matter how open-minded a theist is, he will more than likely come across a point where he chalks something up to God, which is bad for science.

No matter how open-minded an atheist thinks he is, he will more than likely never be open to the possibility of a creator. He thinks it is bad for science, yet he is so bereft of rational thought at this point that he does not realise that God is outside of the realm of the natural sciences. Hence God does not impede on, or "crash the party" of, science. Both are compatible. This is pretty easy to fathom for a rational being.

How can God be bad for science if there is no such thing as objective morals to base that standard of thought upon concerning what makes bad - wrong?
-
-
-