Evidence for God from Science

I'd like to start by saying that I am not a religiously educated person, as well i have no notable education in science. But as I look at this site I am confused by a few things I've read. I've always looked at science as noting the observable, logging cause and effect and doing experimentation to show just how and why things happen. From what I have read I see more assumption than science. Behind theories like the big bang(which i have incredibly limited knowledge of) and quantum physics(which i have even less knowledge on) I see attempts at mathematical and physical explanation. Taking the accepted basic mathematics and laws of physics; scientists use these tools in a consistent fashion to attempt to build upon them and prove there own theories. Obviously, they have fallen short because our math and understanding of physics is limited by the constraints of the human mind. From what I've seen on this website, you have taken incomplete and VERY possibly wrong explanations for the existence of the universe and chosen to substitute your god in there place. Without mathematical backing and also any legitimate sort of physical evidence, how can you do this and call it science? I recognize that talk of things like the multiverse theory have no evidence, but this is why i choose not to base my life and beliefs around them and instead leave it to be unknown and figured out by those committed individuals in due time. You say "The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe." But, I would challenge that this mystery should only further our understanding of our own ignorance. The simple story can't be accepted just because it is easy. In summary, I would like to be pointed towards the section of this site that takes the known and concrete knowledge humans have acquired, and uses it to prove the existence of the christian god. If this site does what it claims to do and melds the christian religion with concrete and observable science, well then you have one more christian to add to your ranks.

I'm afraid you're not going to get proof of the Christian God until He decides to offer it Himself. That is the whole point of the current system of salvation by faith. If there was proof, we wouldn't have to have faith.

Then the name of this website should be changed, as it is not giving any evidence of god from science.

mattdumas wrote:Taking the accepted basic mathematics and laws of physics; scientists use these tools in a consistent fashion to attempt to build upon them and prove there own theories.

You have noticed this and so have we. So many scientists in today's academia have declared the opposite of what we have, that there is no God. Just as you say that this site takes "incomplete and VERY possibly wrong explanations for the existence of the universe and chosen to substitute (our) god in there place." So do the scientists who claim that the universe is at bottom, purposeless and without cause. I would have to ask you where their known and concrete knowledge is used to prove the non - existence of the christian God.

To save you years of tireless inquiry, I will tell you that they have no evidence. Only beliefs tied to observations made from the human cognitive faculties Just like us. So many scientists will stare into your eyes and tell you that they have proof that there is no God and maybe now you are closer to seeing through those lies.

The world appears as if it were designed, so in my view, they have the burden of proving that we are all wrong. This site is a rebuttal to their opening statements.

Before you get into debating higher order things like 'mathematical assumptions', please take a moment and consider the fundamental problem with pure naturalism: no explanation for existence. If you can wrap your mind around the concept that something exists when nothing ought to exist if existence is limited to the material universe, we have a problem that 'science' and 'math' become incapable of helping us solve with absolute certainty.

Before you hear people out on reasons for believing in God, consider that philosophy is just as important here as science and math.

rainagain wrote:I'm afraid you're not going to get proof of the Christian God until He decides to offer it Himself. That is the whole point of the current system of salvation by faith. If there was proof, we wouldn't have to have faith.

That really depends how far you want to take the definition of proof, you still have to be convinced up until a point to acquire that faith.

First, I asked where this site specifically uses science to prove the existence of the christian god. If it doesn't, then I say having a header at the top of the page proclaiming "Evidence for God from Science" would be a false claim.

Tevko I agree with you, to prove the non-existence of something that exists on a completely separate plain of reality is all but impossible at this time, but that argument goes both ways. I choose not to deny the existence of god; but to accept it fully based on the fact that i can't prove it is false would be the same as accepting the multiverse theory.

And to Marcus, that is a good point. But just because math and science have wielded no explanation for the existence of the universe, should I just go straight to the bible? I would rather not know, then explain away my questions with the next thing to offer an answer. I count on those two subjects two show me how the world around me works, so far they have done a job that is becoming more and more complete. I am more then happy to wait for solid evidence behind a theory that can explain to me the answers I desire, using information that I can see everywhere in the world around me.

I am a little on the fence here. Basically Science applies certain assumptions according to "Human logic", and "by design", one can't prove that "Human logic" is correct. Not unless one learns about brain and it's workings, somewhat probably. Argument about "something exists when nothing ought to exist" is not correct, matter and energy are complementary, and matter can come out of nowhere, in principle. "God has to allow you to prove his existence" is a little over my head, really.

However, here is an article describing "Possible application of faith in Science". In some philosophies it is an assumption that "Existence of God can't be proved. It can only be believed" (Swami Vivekananda's 4th Volume of "Jnana Yoga" has one such theory). Now, is that an axiom (assumption) of a scientific theory about God, yes, that is true. It is a scientific theory about God, and it starts with such an assumption. For once, the science can stop fighting about "assumption and logic based analysis and verification of it within the physical world" and look out with faith as an assumption. If it helps humans to expand the scientific frontiers, why not? The article is here: http://salahuddin-knowledgehobbyist.blo ... faith.html

I find most convincing to my faith is the incorruptible evidence within the Bible, there is more evidence contained within that book than i can comprehend.
Also i look at people who have converted, they are different somehow and better in some way, somthing that isnt tangible ( cause and effect ).
How God changes people is some pretty conclusive evidence in my book and from where i came from to where i am now, i am living proof of God's power.

Your Friend in Christ
Daniel

First, I ask for examples of science contained in this site that prove the existence of god. If there are none, the header "Evidence for God from Science" should be removed.

To Tevko, that is a good point. To prove the non-existence of something that does not exist on our plane of reality is all but impossible at this time. But does that argument not go both ways? I choose not to believe in the christian god because it has not been scientifically proven; for just the same reason i do not put full faith into the multiverse theory. I say the burden of proof falls on to the shoulders of those who are saying they can offer an explanation, god or no god.

Marcus,I didn't say anything about "mathematical assumptions". I count on math and the sciences to tell me how the world around me works. This is a job that they are doing slowly, and one that is becoming more and more complete as time goes on. I believe one day it will encompass the problem of existence, but until then should i do away with my questions by accepting the next available answer? You may disagree, but I consider philosophy the talk of opinions that can be interpreted differently from person to person, thus they are not concrete. I would not like to discuss the philosophical arguments because i don't believe science involves opinion.

Daniel, examples of the incorruptible evidence would be nice. If that is actually in the bible then that should be on this website. Also, saying that people who have converted to faith are "somehow better" then those who haven't is YOUR opinion and one I will refuse to discuss any further.

mattdumas wrote:First, I ask for examples of science contained in this site that prove the existence of god. If there are none, the header "Evidence for God from Science" should be removed.

As someone who values science I'm sure you know the difference between proof and evidence.

mattdumas wrote:To Tevko, that is a good point. To prove the non-existence of something that does not exist on our plane of reality is all but impossible at this time. But does that argument not go both ways? I choose not to believe in the christian god because it has not been scientifically proven; for just the same reason i do not put full faith into the multiverse theory. I say the burden of proof falls on to the shoulders of those who are saying they can offer an explanation, god or no god.

Does this mean you don't believe in anything not absolutely proven by science? Have you examined everything proven by science to ascertain that indeed they have been proven by science? Or do you take some things on the say-so of others?

mattdumas wrote:Marcus,I didn't say anything about "mathematical assumptions". I count on math and the sciences to tell me how the world around me works. This is a job that they are doing slowly, and one that is becoming more and more complete as time goes on. I believe one day it will encompass the problem of existence, but until then should i do away with my questions by accepting the next available answer? You may disagree, but I consider philosophy the talk of opinions that can be interpreted differently from person to person, thus they are not concrete. I would not like to discuss the philosophical arguments because i don't believe science involves opinion.

Forgive me but you must not know much about philosophy if you think it is the 'talk of opinions'. Philosophy IS the bedrock of rationalism without which there can be no science nor reason.

mattdumas wrote:Daniel, examples of the incorruptible evidence would be nice. If that is actually in the bible then that should be on this website. Also, saying that people who have converted to faith are "somehow better" then those who haven't is YOUR opinion and one I will refuse to discuss any further.

Better, no. Better off, yes. But that's just my opinion.

Well, if you want to get into the petty and pointless war of 'no, that's just your opinion; I follow the truth', go right ahead, but you probably aren't going to get much intelligence flowing into it.

Philosophy, despite what your fairly ignorant beliefs about it are, is, as Byblos said, the bedrock of rationalism. Logic is required for the scientific method. Belief in one's own existence is required for science to be trusted and this universe not to be viewed as an illusion, simulation, or something else. You can't 'prove', using 'science' (or whatever you deem science) that other people have minds, that the universe actually exists, that the universe had no beginning or had a beginning, that our own minds are reliable enough to correctly interpret anything, etc. But using evidence and philosophy to interpret it we can get somewhere despite these limitations.

Saying that philosophy is not necessary for science or mathematics is akin to saying that thinking is not required for reading a book.

Evidence means suggesting something might be true, all I see is the tearing down of widely accepted ideas and then saying it must be the christian god. Why does the fact that the universe looks like it has a design specific for man immediately mean it is the christian god? Why not any one of the other countless gods who would have, in their believers opinions, shaped the world in exact same fashion just for man kind? I find that view narrow minded.

I believe in the science that I can see at work in the world everywhere around me. I have not tested all of it, that would take a lifetime. But i put my faith in the scientists the same way you put your faith in god, it just so happens that my scientists are a phone call away to explain any problems I might be having with their conclusions by showing me concrete and observable facts. If they were not allowing me to question their conclusions, and dismissing anyone that disagreed as wrong, or a heretic, I would not put faith in them at all. I disagree, YOUR philosophy is the bedrock of YOUR rationalism. We have rationalized our world differently on the subject of god, therefore our philosophy on the subject is completely different. Without the talk of all the philosophers in the world, science would still exist. It is concrete, it can't be changed just because of cultural differences or lifestyle choices. If we were a different species on another planet who, perhaps, valued killing, aggression and the fight for dominance our philosophy would be different in every way. Philosophy is speculative, not observational.

Marcus, Ill test my luck. You are right up to a point, but so what if I don't believe in my own existence? Science would still be 100% the same even if I went around all day shouting that I don't exist. All of those things are unprovable at the given time. But back to what I said earlier; why explain away my questions with the next answer, however incomplete and frail it may be? As well, your god offers not a single explanation to any of those questions, I don't understand why you feel comfortable throwing them at someone who says they are willing to wait for the answers.

You have a Childs understanding of philosophy if what you say is true. You define science by your use of the term as existential reality but then say that I you didn't exist it wouldn't matter, science/reality would go on. It's a complete contradiction. If reality doesn't exist, your science doesn't exist.

Now, if you define science correctly as the application of the scientific method (logic) to data, which is inherently an exercise of philosophical application based on information, we could actually hold a discussion. Instead, as you say, your trust in science is akin to religious faith and it can be just as irrational as any other belief because of that.

Your accusation that God doesn't answer your questions is a reflection of your ignorance, not the way reality works. It would take minimum research to find answers even on this website. instead though, you want a standard of evidence above what you use for any other area of knowledge in your life. Why is that? What philosophical underpinnings in your mind bring you to the assumptions that you have about God. I suspect purely based on what you've written here that you may benefit from giving your worldview some thought.

mattdumas wrote:Evidence means suggesting something might be true, all I see is the tearing down of widely accepted ideas and then saying it must be the christian god. Why does the fact that the universe looks like it has a design specific for man immediately mean it is the christian god? Why not any one of the other countless gods who would have, in their believers opinions, shaped the world in exact same fashion just for man kind? I find that view narrow minded.

In other words you see what you want to see and not what the evidence is pointing to. Besides, since we're a Christian site of course we will appeal to the Christian God but that is not the point at all of the articles. The point is to show evidence that an intelligent, transcendent mind is behind all of existence. That is a matter of sound philosophy first, and observation second (including science). Who this intelligent, transcendent mind is is a matter of metaphysics first and religion second but has no bearing on the discussion really unless and until we agree that such a mind exists.

mattdumas wrote:I believe in the science that I can see at work in the world everywhere around me. I have not tested all of it, that would take a lifetime. But i put my faith in the scientists the same way you put your faith in god, it just so happens that my scientists are a phone call away to explain any problems I might be having with their conclusions by showing me concrete and observable facts. If they were not allowing me to question their conclusions, and dismissing anyone that disagreed as wrong, or a heretic, I would not put faith in them at all.

So you do take certain things on faith, that's good to know. But you must agree that science is limited to the inductive process and the inductive process is limited in what it can or cannot answer. It cannot answer questions such as what is the meaning of life, why is there something rather than nothing, or even if there is such a thing as conscience. Those are metaphysical/ontological questions best left to philosophy and were largely answered (even though the discipline was dropped in the last 3 centuries or so to the detriment of philosophy in general and science in particular).

mattdumas wrote: I disagree, YOUR philosophy is the bedrock of YOUR rationalism. We have rationalized our world differently on the subject of god, therefore our philosophy on the subject is completely different. Without the talk of all the philosophers in the world, science would still exist. It is concrete, it can't be changed just because of cultural differences or lifestyle choices. If we were a different species on another planet who, perhaps, valued killing, aggression and the fight for dominance our philosophy would be different in every way. Philosophy is speculative, not observational.

Then I submit to you sir that you haven't the slightest clue what philosophy is.