Evidence for God from Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwQyEL9l ... re=related

what do you think, i stumbled on the randomly while it was on my suggestion bar

They seriously don't know what they are saying. I mean I see people who quote problems out of the Bible, but not so childishly. I laugh at religious humor, really I do but this is not even comedy which they so wanted to do. Anyone with study into the Biblical history would know where the problems are and how they are reconciled. It is very easy of course to stand in front of the camera and say what you like but it takes years to study and understand the largest religion on Earth, its history, its context. I actually do not have any problem with people pointing out problems in the Biblical text, what really pisses me off though, is when the problems are misrepresented and further distorted out of context. If you want to make an argument, make it fair on logical and reasoning grounds, not silly rantings and pathetic one liners which are actually not even creative. I wouldn't take these guys seriously. Why? cuz they are not serious themselves.

Despite all the confidence, I can tell you, I smiled at the point where "In science we don't have that kind of reasoning" where "absence of proof is not proof of absence" is allowed. HELLO....WHAT ABOUT MACRO EVOLUTION huh???, STRING THEORY, META VERSE, HIGS BOSON, BIG BANG, AND THE BIG DADDY OF ALL, THE VERY FIRST CREATION OF MATTER, WITNESSED AND RECORDED BY NONE; NOT PENN AND TELLER, NOR THEIR GRANDPAS, GRANDMAS, GREAT GRANDPAS, WHATEVER NOR THEIR GREAT GREAT GREAT APE ANCESTORS, NON ONE EVER RECORDED, WITNESSES THAT. YET THAT IS ACCEPTED, CONCRETE, ABSOLUTE SCIENCE. (it is irrelevant if these are true or not, as long as there is no recorded "proof" of it, its all crap by the same reasoning they applied)

These guys are a joke, which is not even funny. I don't say this cuz they insulted my "religion" no, I say this bcuz they are not even true researchers, just get paid for insulting others. If they had been serious they would go to the biggest names in research on both sides, not some unknown people. But again seeing their silly style who would have given them an audience unless he was in it for money and tv and not the research and argument itself.

I don't really like the presentation, and the show is mostly just for fun and I don't think even they take themselves that seriously. They get paid to be ridiculous and say crappy one-liners.

I do take issue with some of your points, though, neo-x. First of all, the "first creation of matter" is not regarded as absolute science. Not even close. The Big Bang Theory is based off of evidence gathered from such things as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and astronomical data and observations. But seriously, no one really claims to "know" what happened at the start of the universe except, of course, the Bible. Scientists have made a reasonable guess based on physics and astronomy, but it's just an educated guess (with evidence).

Macroevolution falls under the same category. It's not that there is "no evidence," not even close, and even those who push ID realize that. Evolution is framed as the best scientific explanation that we have for the genetic diversity of species today. The evidence is rampant for it. Do we have every scrap of evidence possible? No, but the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that ID is true. Ironic that you say that, because ID's only arguments are based on the "missing evidence for you = I'm right."

String Theory is fringe science and speculation. There's no real evidence, and thus it's not accepted as science, yet. Of course, physicists are always open to research on it, just in case something could come up, but it's not even close to being accepted as truth or a "best explanation."

Or maybe you just have trouble with definitions. You equate "evidence" with "proof" when they are absolutely not the same.

well, Ivel, you missed the whole point.

First, you can confirm what I believe and then write about it since it would save words. I never said ID is true, nor do I endorse that theory. So I don't see the irony anywhere.

Second,

First of all, the "first creation of matter" is not regarded as absolute science.

Yes, it can't; cuz there is no iota of an evidence for it, it is best a speculation or implied fill in the gap, for if there is no creator and nothing can form nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) then of course where did matter come from? its not from God, so it must have formed itself or was just present always (the latter is actually just a cop-out to avoid the question without proving the implied assertion). So no matter how you come about it, you must speculate at best. And while you don't think of it the same way, Stephen hawking does actually. So either you show me the document verified by a unified standard in science, which says what you propose is right or you would agree that there are different set of beliefs in science upon the topic, with a bunch of scientists leaning towards the one or the other. In which case what you say would not hold any more weight then a fellow scientist's belief which might be opposite to yours, since you are not speaking on science's own behalf for all, nor on something which is universally accepted, like gravity, the presence of air and water, etc etc. I don't see how, without any shred of evidence, someone can say it science, and some can not. Either both are arbitrary or contradictory, as both can not violate the law of non-contradiction at the same time.

The same is with evolution, the text book would say just evolution in a lump. It won't tell the whole story, certainly doesn't do in the text books I have seen. So taking part true and part presumption and then labeling it all true or not telling the whole thing as it is, is quite problematic, to say the least.

String Theory is fringe science and speculation. There's no real evidence, and thus it's not accepted as science, yet. Of course, physicists are always open to research on it, just in case something could come up, but it's not even close to being accepted as truth or a "best explanation."

Well, here is the thing, it is the attitude (as I said earlier which really gets me upset). Why is there a double standard here? If physicists are always open for research, without any shred of evidence and you can respect that, then I would ask you to spend the same courtesy for the historical problems in the bible. Christians in history have always been looking into it and we know now a lot lot more than the first century Christians. So best is to not wildly speculate and let more research come up. For by that same standard you can say that the physicists should stop searching for things for which no concrete evidence exist, as they would by the same reasoning are hoaxes, built up by people who just didn't know what to fill the gap with.

Or maybe you just have trouble with definitions. You equate "evidence" with "proof" when they are absolutely not the same.

Nor do I think they are, but I am not a big fan of playing gymnastics around words. If something is observable and testable, its science, the ones which can't should be treated like the stuff which is non-scientific, like these guys did. If you don't like the two, then give the same respect and margin to others, which you give to your view to justify it.

As for string theory...Yeah, physics and science are open to string theory in the sense that, if someone presented serious scientific evidence for string theory the scientific community at large would listen and judge the evidence. But that doesn't mean they even kind of accept it now. Just like ID, if there was a shred of credible, observable, and experimental evidence, the scientific community at large would listen. If Christians could magically summon evidence for creationism (ID) then of course more people would listen. They are open to evidence, not just speculation. In essence, ID and String Theory are one in the same: Both fringe science and completely speculative, but without real support in science because of no evidence.

Secondly, I never said that demonstrated proof of one thing (microevolution) is proof of another (macroevolution). Of course not. But the difference between macroevolution and, say, ID or another Biblical account is this: Macroevolution uses a set of models and predictions consistent with microevolution and other experiments on a small scale. Yes, there are assumptions and jumps simply because we can't witness every species change over the past 4 billion years ourselves. But at least it uses fossil evidence, genetics, and the well-documented small-scale processes in microevolution to make those predictions and hypotheses. Same with the Big Bang.

Those have evidence. If you look at the example in the video (Moses, the Jews in Egypt, and the Red Sea), those have no evidence at all to even make those predictions/hypotheses. There is a huge difference between making an educated hypothesis and a case of "there is ZERO evidence, but it is still true."

Uum well the first 5 minutes of the clip offer nothing but a diatribe of insults.
There's a fine line between being funny and obnoxious, these guys went well beyond that.

Evidence isn't the issue. We all have the same evidence assuming we have access to it and know where to look. The issue is how we interpret that evidence and the framework we use to approach it.

Science is pretty straight forward. The Scientific Method is a proven and effective approach to understanding our material world. It's designed to continue to explore and adapt and fill in the missing pieces and it allows if an accepted "fact" needs to be discarded and a new framework constructed as long as it better explains the evidence and predicts effectively the things that come down from it.

Again, I'm a pretty unusual Christian I guess in that I'm not on the ID bandwagon. I think ID as an overall movement has often been based not on science but rather a reverse engineered approach to take court rulings and social leanings and find a way to introduce back into schools in a setting of science in an effort to put a foot back in the door. I understand it to some extent because, as I've stated before on this issue I think that there is at times a double standard that gives evolutionary philosophy a pass and presents it as science when it's no more science than ID in that regard. I think the solution there however is to pursue limiting elements of speculation in science class that aren't purely science rather than using a gimmick that many in the background are winking at one another.

The thing that clinches it for me is that I see some Young Earth Creationists who vehemently disagree with even the science of evolution that is solid and also vehemently opposed to Old Earth Creationism, but on this issue they take a practical point of view and embrace Old Earth Creationism and use Theistic Evolutionists and it's obvious they're simply trying to get what they can. One of the major proponents of ID is not a scientist, but a lawyer who is testing the system to see what he can make succeed. I have trouble seeing methods like that used while at the same time attempting to take the moral high ground.

It's been a while since I looked at the Mathematical approaches for ID based in statistical analysis that were being explored by William Dembski. I'm sure there's different opposing points of view there but at least Dembski to my observation was trying to come up with something that meets the requirements for something to have scientific foundations in terms of presenting an approach that is objective in this area.

I'm not threatened by science in it's narrowest sense. I believe truth resides within Christ and scriptures on one level and I believe that the same God who revealed these created this universe. So I expect that this universe and those elements of the Scripture that overlap are going to be in agreement. Of course that's not always the case and that's because we're not comparing the Scripture and the universe. We're looking at Man's approach to both which become Science and Theology. Those don't agree because both are incomplete and involve man's perspective and interpretation. I accept that the Bible is truth and I base my world view there, but it there's overwhelming evidence that the world is other that how some interpret the Bible then there's nothing wrong with stepping back and asking if we're missing sometihng in the interpretation of the Bible. As it turns out, there's good reason to believe that an Old Earth is a reasonable reading of the passages based on the merits of the text as well. Those who think that there's virtue in holding to their interpretation of things are not necessarily defending Scripture. It's as likely at times that they're confusing their interpretation with the Bible itself and either can't see it or they think there's virtue to claim a following of "Scripture" (really their take on it) even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. And in fairness, science isn't always right and it shouldn't be assumed that it's always right and scripture wrong. The overlap however between Scripture and Science isn't as great as what many people imagine.

Anyway, for what it's worth those are my thoughts. I seem to have a gift to be able to tick off people on both sides of the issue .....

Canuckster1127 wrote:Evidence isn't the issue. We all have the same evidence assuming we have access to it and know where to look. The issue is how we interpret that evidence and the framework we use to approach it.

Science is pretty straight forward. The Scientific Method is a proven and effective approach to understanding our material world. It's designed to continue to explore and adapt and fill in the missing pieces and it allows if an accepted "fact" needs to be discarded and a new framework constructed as long as it better explains the evidence and predicts effectively the things that come down from it.

Again, I'm a pretty unusual Christian I guess in that I'm not on the ID bandwagon. I think ID as an overall movement has often been based not on science but rather a reverse engineered approach to take court rulings and social leanings and find a way to introduce back into schools in a setting of science in an effort to put a foot back in the door. I understand it to some extent because, as I've stated before on this issue I think that there is at times a double standard that gives evolutionary philosophy a pass and presents it as science when it's no more science than ID in that regard. I think the solution there however is to pursue limiting elements of speculation in science class that aren't purely science rather than using a gimmick that many in the background are winking at one another.

The thing that clinches it for me is that I see some Young Earth Creationists who vehemently disagree with even the science of evolution that is solid and also vehemently opposed to Old Earth Creationism, but on this issue they take a practical point of view and embrace Old Earth Creationism and use Theistic Evolutionists and it's obvious they're simply trying to get what they can. One of the major proponents of ID is not a scientist, but a lawyer who is testing the system to see what he can make succeed. I have trouble seeing methods like that used while at the same time attempting to take the moral high ground.

It's been a while since I looked at the Mathematical approaches for ID based in statistical analysis that were being explored by William Dembski. I'm sure there's different opposing points of view there but at least Dembski to my observation was trying to come up with something that meets the requirements for something to have scientific foundations in terms of presenting an approach that is objective in this area.

I'm not threatened by science in it's narrowest sense. I believe truth resides within Christ and scriptures on one level and I believe that the same God who revealed these created this universe. So I expect that this universe and those elements of the Scripture that overlap are going to be in agreement. Of course that's not always the case and that's because we're not comparing the Scripture and the universe. We're looking at Man's approach to both which become Science and Theology. Those don't agree because both are incomplete and involve man's perspective and interpretation. I accept that the Bible is truth and I base my world view there, but it there's overwhelming evidence that the world is other that how some interpret the Bible then there's nothing wrong with stepping back and asking if we're missing sometihng in the interpretation of the Bible. As it turns out, there's good reason to believe that an Old Earth is a reasonable reading of the passages based on the merits of the text as well. Those who think that there's virtue in holding to their interpretation of things are not necessarily defending Scripture. It's as likely at times that they're confusing their interpretation with the Bible itself and either can't see it or they think there's virtue to claim a following of "Scripture" (really their take on it) even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. And in fairness, science isn't always right and it shouldn't be assumed that it's always right and scripture wrong. The overlap however between Scripture and Science isn't as great as what many people imagine.

Anyway, for what it's worth those are my thoughts. I seem to have a gift to be able to tick off people on both sides of the issue .....

Doesn't tick me off, on some deeper level I agree with you but on the surface sometimes my emotions get the better of me, I know it is irrational but that is only with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose I try not to adhere totally to any of my Idea's on Biblical matters or scientific but can sometimes get caught up in emotion ( I guess that is a part of being human ), like you said in your post the truth resides in Christ and scripture and not within in ourselves and our perception.
When I go to meet my maker and he says "Daniel I can see you tried really hard and you did what you thought was right but you got this part a little wrong, I am not angry but here let me show you the way it actually is" and I will say "Thanks Father now I understand".
I feel science and God coexist peacefully, one can't prove or disprove the other and should/will always remain in separate areas within my mind, that is also how i feel about the different creation perspectives.
I hope that makes sense as I have never really been good at explaining myself and have always been a little socially awkward in that way.

Dan

ID is not my problem, Ivel so I'm gonna let the ID supporters respond to your objection on that.

However,

If you look at the example in the video (Moses, the Jews in Egypt, and the Red Sea), those have no evidence at all to even make those predictions/hypotheses. There is a huge difference between making an educated hypothesis and a case of "there is ZERO evidence, but it is still true."

This is just circular, only at a different level. But apart from that debate, you do understand that the educated hypothesis is still making assumptions based on what it thinks "may be" OR "could be" the right thing, taking of course similarities in cases; it is an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. I would not go as far as to say that just because the Bible is old, it means what is written is NOT TRUE. Who is to say that? At best what anyone can say is that it is impossible to ascertain unless some new discovery and research comes up, like some photographs or perhaps a youtube video of the Israelite crossing the water. Too bad Moses didn't leave a secret document hidden in some treasure room in Egypt. Might have come in handy now. But this all "there is no evidence" is just peanuts in my view. Would you believe in God if you had an actual footage proof of the crossing of Israel through the water. No, this would not prove that God exists...it will not prove the story of Genesis to be true. So you should ask yourself this question, what kind of evidence do you need? As a matter of fact if the whole bible can be shown to be historically correct, would you say that this makes God the final answer? No, you can still question the existence of God, regardless of these events being true or false. So these events are not the problem. This is looking at the issue, in reverse. The problem is when you start with an equation that does not has God in it, you will be forced to move to a conclusion which does not has God in it. In that sense science can never find God because to start with, it is never assuming that God exists in the first place and so every pointer which might be attributed to this cause will either be discarded because of its nature or the bias thereof. I don't actually blame science itself for this shortcoming as God is indeed invisible and the references we assign, are implicit. And that is also not a bad thing because in the end, religion is not science.

And yet, what is true is true regardless of there being any evidence of it. If the Higgs Boson exists, it exists regardless of your acknowledgement or mine, the same is with meta verse, or creation of matter. So when it comes to that, either you accept that these things formed on their own or were made by God and they exist from time immaterial. If these were not made by God then they must have formed themselves. There is no other way around it. As an agnostic you might not have trouble with the idea but as a scientist you would, as God can not be evoked. So the conclusion is chosen based on bias towards "absence of proof" rather then "proof of absence". It is as a matter of fact not bad at all, since God can't be tested in labs; but it poses a serious question towards the understanding of those who weigh and make the decision. Absence of proof can be negated at any time in future since we can never know what we might discover. What if there is a world wide nuclear catastrophy and all of our records and history is wiped out, taking us back to the stoneage. And in 10000 years from now, people living on this planet would not even know about us, how we lived and what we did, would it make the actual truth that we did exist once, untrue? No, same is the case for a lot of biblical stories, just because we don't have evidence otherwise from different sources and as in "every scrap of evidence" as you say, doesn't mean it COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. And that is where faith comes in, and it is not as blind and cut and dry as you say. We do believe but it is not irrational. Religion is different from science and in a lot of ways it can not be judged by science as well.

The bottom line is, you need to know that the method you are employing can only direct you towards the creator. You won't find "There is a God" written under a rock on Mars.
What evidence will satisfy you? As an agnostic you need to see that. If God actually comes to you in a vision, you will think you have gone nuts. How do you avoid that obvious problem? You are of course not required to answer this last part in particular, just asking to know what you think about it.

I hope that makes sense as I have never really been good at explaining myself.

Did you just explained yourself in a good way?

neo-x wrote:

I hope that makes sense as I have never really been good at explaining myself.

Did you just explained yourself in a good way?

Nah not really it should have been more like this, brown hair, blue eyes, average height, and not very good at explaining himself.

jakobp wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwQyEL9l ... re=related

what do you think, i stumbled on the randomly while it was on my suggestion bar

Pretty stupid if you ask me... Like their science has all the answers? Their religion is based on faith as well...