Evidence for God from Science

MarcusOfLycia wrote:If 'natural' includes a limitless variety of physics, some capable of creating universes, it would seem the 'natural' would encompass the supernatural.

However, I am a little concerned with an attitude that seems to be common today where, if an answer to a question is unknown, the presumption is 'the science of the gaps may be beyond our reach completely to ever even get evidence for, but we can definitely say it isn't supernatural'. Doesn't seem quite fair.

After a lot of coaching from the mods, I'm hoping this time to post something that in no way invokes a flag lol. Here goes:

My question pertains to the website. I came here after listening to a Christian Apologetic speak at my university and wanted to learn more about this line of thought. Here (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... _real.html) the site author gives 2 possible explanations for the existence of the universe. The current popular naturalistic explanation that our universe lies within a greater universe whose physics and processes are unknown to us but could potentially create universes, like our own. The other is the theistic supernatural explanation, God created the universe. The meta universe idea would explain the seemingly impossible event that life was able to form as does the supernatural one. He goes on to say that that his reason for converting from atheistic agnosticism to deism and eventually to Christianity was that he applied Occam's Razor to the problem and decided that "God created the universe" was simpler than a complex meta universe doing the same thing.

Is this the conclusion everyone here came to? If so, why does it seem more logical to you that a supernatural event occurred to create the universe than physics that are do not yet understand created it? For me it's hard to accept a supernatural occurrence when there is still any plausible naturalistic options left on the table because however unlikely or hard to measure that option may be, it is still something that makes sense to my brain and is something I've experienced, where I've never experienced the supernatural and can't reconcile it with reality.

Hope that wasn't even the slightest bit offensive! Also, since I'm so heavily moderated (I guess there must have been a wave of arrogant atheist guys coming in here at some point?) I'd appreciate the same level of restraint and politeness from you guys. Thanks.

I'm sure he could think of a perfect way to proof it to me with relative ease.

As for what piece of evidence it would take. Well, the first step would be to eliminate the possibility of all other universe creation theories. By that I mean, if there were some proof that there wasn't a meta-universe. That would be the first step in making me think it was more plausible that a divinity existed.

I'm probably not the kind of person that can just accept one thing or the other without concrete proof,

So when you ask me where did matter come from, what gave particles their properties, my answer is just "I don't know".

So maybe I can't ignore science in favor of philosophy, I don't know if my mind would allow me to do that sincerely.

I have a whole bit about Hell and how someone like me will inevitably be punished eternally for being wrong (Pascal's Wager), but that's a different topic for a different day.

As for the fine tuned Earth part. I don't see it that way because what I see is us being a product of nature

We are on a planet that seems fine tuned for life because we have to be on a planet fine tuned for life.

So, anywhere we wound up would appear absolutely perfect for us, almost too perfect, because we come from organisms that have been growing and evolving over hundreds of millions of years on this planet, adapting and changing in accordance to the ecosystem.

The fact that we exist dictates that we be in a place like this, so there could be countless other universes and planets and we'd still have to be here or not exist at all.

Which perfect way would be that, ken?

As for what piece of evidence it would take. Well, the first step would be to eliminate the possibility of all other universe creation theories. By that I mean, if there were some proof that there wasn't a meta-universe. That would be the first step in making me think it was more plausible that a divinity existed.

There is no solid proof of multi-verse, either. I am curious as to why you'd believe it without first hand seeing that it really exists? Have you ever seen a paralel universe? how do you know for sure, it exists?

ahhh. you completely went against on the multiverse part here, there is no proof of it. Yet you still think it is plausible.

And whose product is nature by the way?

This implies value to your claim on a philosophical ground, well if it is spontaneous creation without intent, if it was really just a chemical accident then you are no more important than the ant you squish all around the day under your own feet.

An ecosystem that seemed to be favouring them all through history, care to elaborate, how could that be. It's like playing roulette and winning for 5 billion years straight off the bat. Not buying it, Ken.

No, this amounts to intent and purpose against spontaneous generation, you can't have both Ken.

It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

jlay wrote:

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

Love it!!

jlay wrote:

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

Love it!!

Byblos wrote:It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:"We create our own morality" is absurd, and unfortunately is not a very flattering thing for one to say... it is a thoroughly worthless non-philosophical statement.

The point I was originally trying to make is that your definition of the natural encompasses literally every possibility. In that case, you already accept the plausability (possibility, and I dare-say even likelihood) of the supernatural. But by suggesting that the natural can encompass all things known and all things not known (including those things we can never know), you can avoid saying you believe in the supernatural.

It is, unfortunately, playing with definitions. If we can define the 'natural' as cause-and-effect, then the supernatural is the only explanation for anything- it explains a First Cause. However, if you redefine 'natural' to mean 'existent', you remove the barrier between what used to be distinguished.

And perhaps we should see no distinction. However, in that case, one still has to explain a First Cause. They, however, are no longer permitted to identify it separately from the cause-and-effect chain. I feel that task to be impossible. I make the differentiation. I see a requirement for the supernatural, not just a chance.

KenV wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:"We create our own morality" is absurd, and unfortunately is not a very flattering thing for one to say... it is a thoroughly worthless non-philosophical statement.

Your failure to understand the implications the statement presents does not make the statement absurd. It may not be pleasant for you to think about but that takes nothing away from it. It is simply something that does not conform to your world view so you've decided to color negatively. However, it speaks to the realist in me and it is comforting that I am not being judged on values that I do not hold, that I can create for myself what I think is right and wrong, beneficial and not beneficial to society, respectable and not. In a way it is the most flattering thing one can say because it doesn't assume that one has to be a slave to someone else's moral code, one that in my eyes is outdated and superficial, to live a good life.

Furthermore, please explain some of the things you say. If you call something absurd, explain why you think it's absurd. It just makes conversation flow smoother.

The point I was originally trying to make is that your definition of the natural encompasses literally every possibility. In that case, you already accept the plausability (possibility, and I dare-say even likelihood) of the supernatural. But by suggesting that the natural can encompass all things known and all things not known (including those things we can never know), you can avoid saying you believe in the supernatural.

Why would I "believe" in something I've never seen and have no evidence of? I do accept the possibility but I wouldn't say likelihood, especially since its the only possibility that literally has no evidence what so ever while several others at least have basis in the fact that they can be witnessed and possibly tested. Saying that I should accept it as likely is absurd when there are still possibilities that do not require events so far unseen left to explore.

It is, unfortunately, playing with definitions. If we can define the 'natural' as cause-and-effect, then the supernatural is the only explanation for anything- it explains a First Cause. However, if you redefine 'natural' to mean 'existent', you remove the barrier between what used to be distinguished.

I'll start this off with saying I think your definition is wrong. I don't think it means "Cause and effect". I think it means to obey ones observable laws. We don't know the laws of the meta-universe so we don't know what supernatural is in regards to the meta-universe. What may be possible there may not be possible here.

Say the meta-universe always existed, no beginning, much like God. Would that be supernatural? I don't think so. It obeys its own laws. But what gets me is, with so little information and nothing more than philosophical basis for argumentation, how can you be so sure of anything? Would you suggest that even if I come to the conclusion that the supernatural is likely, that I should also conclude that the supernatural must also be conscious and attribute to it the whole host of Christian implications of what God should be? That level of certainty in this context can never be concluded without a certain level of arrogance.

And perhaps we should see no distinction. However, in that case, one still has to explain a First Cause. They, however, are no longer permitted to identify it separately from the cause-and-effect chain. I feel that task to be impossible. I make the differentiation. I see a requirement for the supernatural, not just a chance.

If you feel that their must be a supernatural for a beginning to have occurred, which above I stated that I do not, why do you assume that it has to be a conscious being? Why is it something that you can understand? Why can't you accept that the supernatural, a thing that already transcends what you can even understand as a reality based thing, might be something that we couldn't possibly comprehend? Do you know something about the supernatural that I do not? If we are going to start talking about the necessity for a supernatural origin, what right or qualifications do we have to opine on the characteristics of that entity?