Evidence for God from Science

This is perhaps more one for the philosophy forums, but it also fits here.

We know dryness exists, because we experience wetness. If water did not exist, then the feeling of wetness would not exist, and so "dry" would just be so since otherwise wouldn't be known. A fish in water its whole life would not know it is wet because it does not experience dryness (even if it had a higher thinking capacity). Likewise, we would not know dryness except that we feel wetness. Dryness for us wouldn't exist, or even be spoken of, except that we experience what it is like to be wet.

Now, some say a Designer adds nothing to science, that only Naturalism exists and only natural explanations are good for science. Soundness of this aside, if one argues that a Designer benefits science nothing because of the presupposition everything can or must be explained naturally, then the logical conclusion of such a statement is that naturalism is meaningless. Why?

Well, just as it makes no sense to call something dry unless wetness exists (for without wetness, we would not know of dryness), it makes no sense to call something natural if a designer does not exist (for without a designer we would not know something to be natural). We as Christians hear over and over that it makes no sense to call something designed essentially because everything can be explained naturally if given enough time to understand. Yet, the double-edge is that if "natural" is all that exists, then what is "natural" looses all meaning. It makes no linguistic sense to say the world is entirely natural unless design ceases to exist, and yet if design ceases to exist then so does the meaning of "natural".

So what am I getting at. Am I saying everything can't be naturally occurring? I am just providing some of my thoughts for others here to consider. Personally, I can't see how one can properly say, "Everything that exists can be understood naturally" unless design exists, but then if design exists then the statement is nonsensical. A Naturalist might say they just borrow from a Design framework, yet now they've smuggled design in their whole statement is self-defeating. A purely natural framework can only say, "Everything that exists can be understood." Kind of boring and has less potency against design proponents, but at least it is a coherent statement.

For those trying to still understand, it is kind of like the moral argument for God. Unless a standard of good really does exist apart from us, it makes no sense to call the actions of someone else morally bad. Likewise, unless design really does exist, it makes no sense to call something natural. Natural is just the way things are, but without design, "natural" looses all meaning.

Ok I'll say it again,

Philosophy and science MUST conflict. Why? Because science and philosophy or religion deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other spiritual. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don’t interfere, but you can’t do that. As an example, scientific research into human life will want to account for it in terms of events dealt with the so called natural sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology and the likes.. This philosophical approach to this is called naturalism. Naturalism, in itself, is not a bad thing. It helps us to understand diseases, the weather, the planets, and more. Science, as assumed, therefore tries to account for the factual character of the natural world and tries to create theories to explain these facts.

Religion or philosophy on the other hand supposedly tries to operate in the equally important but utterly different realm of human purposes meanings and values. Something that science could illuminate but never resolve. Science studies how the heavens go, and religion how to go to heaven. Religion therefore is not even needed. The claim is that meaning and values are reduced to something entirely human that has no factual basis in the world in which we live. It’s something that can’t be reduced to the physical and is something we have to decide on our own. Basically it boils down to this, sense perceptible structures are facts where feelings are not in the area of truth or reality. But there is no good reason to think that all properties are sense perceptible or natural and therefore there is no good reason to think that all facts are natural. There might be non-natural facts.

It seems that issues raised by ID will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin.

In other words, we can't escape it folks.... You can't separate philosophy from science...

Choose your philosophy wisely..

Kurieuo wrote:We know dryness exists, because we experience wetness. If water did not exist, then the feeling of wetness would not exist, and so "dry" would just be so since otherwise wouldn't be known. A fish in water its whole life would not know it is wet because it does not experience dryness (even if it had a higher thinking capacity). Likewise, we would not know dryness except that we feel wetness. Dryness for us wouldn't exist, or even be spoken of, except that we experience what it is like to be wet.

I'm going to have to think about this one. But this analogy part is superfluous to the argument below.
1) What about heat? We know heat exists but there is no such thing as cold (absolute 0K).
2) What about mass? [Does anything not have mass? I suppose radiation doesn't, but that maybe isn't a physical object.]
3) What about the pungent, obnoxious smell of oxygen? That's similar to water to a fish; we don't notice this because oxygen is around so much.

Kurieuo wrote:Now, some say a Designer adds nothing to science, that only Naturalism exists and only natural explanations are good for science. Soundness of this aside, if one argues that a Designer benefits science nothing because of the presupposition everything can or must be explained naturally, then the logical conclusion of such a statement is that naturalism is meaningless. Why?

I would argue that a Designer benefits science nothing because a Designer is (or can be) unpredictable as Designers are not bound by rules. Science is based on explanatory models. Scientists expect the sun to rise tomorrow because they understand celestial mechanics. A Designer might just randomly stop the sun for whatever reason. This would disprove the science. Scientists cannot predict but mostly understand earthquakes. A Designer could cause an earthquake in areas (Florida?) where earthquakes should not occur. This would upset geology. A Designer could have a dog give birth to kittens. On the other hand, a Designer might be perfectly predictable (i.e., act within natural law). Such a Designer could certainly influence events (such as causing an earthquake in Lisbon), but this would be indistinguishable from a natural earthquake. Such a Designer could also have created the world yesterday with the appearance of age. The world would be young but for all purposes could be represented by an old earth model.

But there are some questions that naturalism cannot address. Where did the universe come from? Is there a God who does not routinely interfere with natural rules? Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't see how naturalism can explain such things.

Kurieuo wrote:... it makes no sense to call something natural if a designer does not exist (for without a designer we would not know something to be natural). ... if "natural" is all that exists, then what is "natural" looses all meaning. It makes no linguistic sense to say the world is entirely natural unless design ceases to exist, and yet if design ceases to exist then so does the meaning of "natural".

In that sense, yes, everything observable would be described as "natural" (putting aside all the other meanings of "natural" in daily use). [I still contend that some things such as origin of universe cannot be explained naturally since everything we can measure is part of the universe. You cannot pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.] Contrarily, I will argue that if "design" exists, then "natural" loses all meaning. If everything is designed, then nothing is natural. Animals designed and rocks natural? Nope, everything is designed.

Kurieuo wrote:So what am I getting at. Am I saying everything can't be naturally occurring? I am just providing some of my thoughts for others here to consider. Personally, I can't see how one can properly say, "Everything that exists can be understood naturally" unless design exists, but then if design exists then the statement is nonsensical. A Naturalist might say they just borrow from a Design framework, yet now they've smuggled design in their whole statement is self-defeating. A purely natural framework can only say, "Everything that exists can be understood." Kind of boring and has less potency against design proponents, but at least it is a coherent statement.

I would say rather than "natural" and "design", two approaches might better be called "modellable" and "nonmodellable"? Things that are "natural" can be represented by models even if they are apparently random (decay of radioactive elements). Things that are "designed" cannot be represented by models (DNA if it can't occur naturally has no explanation other than Designer whim). In this sense, theistic evolution is physically indistinguishable from an atheistic perspective. I don't see any difference between "Everything that exists can be understood naturally" and "Everything that exists can be understood". The latter phrase either just removes a little redundancy and/or emphasizes that we do not need to invoke undetectable causes (no more sacrifices to the gods needed to ensure good harvests, fishing, whatever). I don't see how removing "naturally" makes it boring. "Design" can only be detected if it violates natural law, would be my opinion. And that would ruin science if it were not clear what is predictable and what is arbitrary.


[edited for typo]

sandy_mcd wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:We know dryness exists, because we experience wetness. If water did not exist, then the feeling of wetness would not exist, and so "dry" would just be so since otherwise wouldn't be known. A fish in water its whole life would not know it is wet because it does not experience dryness (even if it had a higher thinking capacity). Likewise, we would not know dryness except that we feel wetness. Dryness for us wouldn't exist, or even be spoken of, except that we experience what it is like to be wet.

I'm going to have to think about this one. But this analogy part is superfluous to the argument below.
1) What about heat? We know heat exists but there is no such thing as cold (absolute 0K).
2) What about mass? [Does anything not have mass? I suppose radiation doesn't, but that maybe isn't a physical object.]
3) What about the pungent, obnoxious smell of oxygen? That's similar to water to a fish; we don't notice this because oxygen is around so much.

I didn't come up with the fish analogy, just borrowing it from CS Lewis' Mere Christianity for my own purpose here, who wrote:

CS Lewis wrote:“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

So my post, was essentially pointing out a similar kind of dependancy with "Naturalism" upon "Design". If Naturalism can be defined in a way that does not stand it in contradistinction to Design, than "natural" could stand on its own. However, many (i.e., Atheists) who would say Nature is all there is, or everything can be worked out naturally, stand on Naturalism as contrary to Design. In which case they're not really standing on anything meaningful.

Gman, I'm sure you can appreciate that Atheists embrace Naturalism in a different way you do -- its like a statement of faith for the Atheist that everything can be explained without God.

Sandy, my whole argument here would not apply to you, since you say you accept the universe came from somewhere. So you do accept an element of design (which I found surprising). Unless I'm misreading your words, I never knew you did accept an element of design since you always seem to come down hard on ID or any support for design. If you do accept an element of design, then based on my reasoning previously provided you are able to use "natural" since in your framework supports both "natural" and "design" ("wet" and "dry"). If your framework only supported one, then the question of "natural" or "design" would not even arise. It would be, as you say, redundant.

sandy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Now, some say a Designer adds nothing to science, that only Naturalism exists and only natural explanations are good for science. Soundness of this aside, if one argues that a Designer benefits science nothing because of the presupposition everything can or must be explained naturally, then the logical conclusion of such a statement is that naturalism is meaningless. Why?

I would argue that a Designer benefits science nothing because a Designer is (or can be) unpredictable as Designers are not bound by rules. Science is based on explanatory models. Scientists expect the sun to rise tomorrow because they understand celestial mechanics. A Designer might just randomly stop the sun for whatever reason. This would disprove the science. Scientists cannot predict but mostly understand earthquakes. A Designer could cause an earthquake in areas (Florida?) where earthquakes should not occur. This would upset geology. A Designer could have a dog give birth to kittens. On the other hand, a Designer might be perfectly predictable (i.e., act within natural law). Such a Designer could certainly influence events (such as causing an earthquake in Lisbon), but this would be indistinguishable from a natural earthquake. Such a Designer could also have created the world yesterday with the appearance of age. The world would be young but for all purposes could be represented by an old earth model.

But there are some questions that naturalism cannot address. Where did the universe come from? Is there a God who does not routinely interfere with natural rules? Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't see how naturalism can explain such things.

If you accept an element of design, then my argument doesn't necessarily apply to you. However, to respond to your words on their own terms...

Designers leave elements of themselves in their design. The physical laws and stabililty of our world, suggests whoever created it desired predictability and order. Rather than things happening for no reason. Scripture supports God as being someone who desires order, promises are made upon stability and predictability of physical laws (Jer 31:35-36), we are told God's handiwork can be seen in the heavens. So while a chaotic designer (much like I'd expect in a multiverse model without "Designer"), laws may be unstructures and random, the very fact we have predictability and stability points to design.

A designer could have a dog give birth to kittens. And if the laws of the universe worked differently, perhaps a dog could. I'd expect a lot of disorder in the world, and unpredictability, if the designer was non-intelligent. That fact we can predict things, and the physical laws are reliable, to me suggests the designer is intelligent. So for me, at the end of the day, believing in a Creator -- God -- provides great philosophical foundations for science to work with. Atheism on the other hand, uses smoke and mirrors and elitest talk to try steal this away from Theism.

sandy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:... it makes no sense to call something natural if a designer does not exist (for without a designer we would not know something to be natural). ... if "natural" is all that exists, then what is "natural" looses all meaning. It makes no linguistic sense to say the world is entirely natural unless design ceases to exist, and yet if design ceases to exist then so does the meaning of "natural".

In that sense, yes, everything observable would be described as "natural" (putting aside all the other meanings of "natural" in daily use). [I still contend that some things such as origin of universe cannot be explained naturally since everything we can measure is part of the universe. You cannot pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.] Contrarily, I will argue that if "design" exists, then "natural" loses all meaning. If everything is designed, then nothing is natural. Animals designed and rocks natural? Nope, everything is designed.

Kurieuo wrote:So what am I getting at. Am I saying everything can't be naturally occurring? I am just providing some of my thoughts for others here to consider. Personally, I can't see how one can properly say, "Everything that exists can be understood naturally" unless design exists, but then if design exists then the statement is nonsensical. A Naturalist might say they just borrow from a Design framework, yet now they've smuggled design in their whole statement is self-defeating. A purely natural framework can only say, "Everything that exists can be understood." Kind of boring and has less potency against design proponents, but at least it is a coherent statement.

I would say rather than "natural" and "design", two approaches might better be called "modellable" and "nonmodellable"? Things that are "natural" can be represented by models even if they are apparently random (decay of radioactive elements). Things that are "designed" cannot be represented by models (DNA if it can't occur naturally has no explanation other than Designer whim). In this sense, theistic evolution is physically indistinguishable from an atheistic perspective. I don't see any difference between "Everything that exists can be understood naturally" and "Everything that exists can be understood". The latter phrase either just removes a little redundancy and/or emphasizes that we do not need to invoke undetectable causes (no more sacrifices to the gods needed to ensure good harvests, fishing, whatever). I don't see how removing "naturally" makes it boring. "Design" can only be detected if it violates natural law, would be my opinion. And that would ruin science if it were not clear what is predictable and what is arbitrary.

For you, we can put my whole previous message aside. That is, you can sensibly use "natural" in a way that stands in contradistinction to "design" since, from what I can tell, you embrace both within your own framework of beliefs. Only if you accepted one (either "design" or "natural" but not both), does it become meaningless to use any, since it would be as you say redundant for the person. So putting all I've said aside, I'll response more to your own words.

You say that the origin of the universe cannot be explained, which with your other words, suggests you attribute it to design? Then you say, if "design" exists, "natural" looses all meaning. I think I'm lost. Are you here saying you believe everything is "designed" but perhaps is designed to work in a natural and predictable way?

You say, "I would say rather than "natural" and "design", two approaches might better be called "modellable" and "nonmodellable"?" How does the following statement sit with you: "natural" requires foundations of "design" in order to be "modellable". Perhaps true, things that are designed cannot be represented by models, but they can be seen -- as you say "detected if it violates natural law". Why is natural law though predictable like it is, and not something chaotic?

To respond to one answer I see from Multiverse proponents (I'm not saying you are one); they will say there are lots of different laws depending on which universe that exists. Some universes (the majority) chaotic, other universes like ours have a stable set of laws. And yet, in a multiverse scenario, there is still one overarching stable set of laws that reliably enables universes to pop into existence with different sets of physical laws. So the question is just pushed back a little to: why are the natural laws of a multiverse stable like they are, and not something more chaotic?

At the end of the day, the most logical answer I see, is that such a stability in physical laws point to a teleological foundation. That is, they are predicated on an intelligent designer who ordered them. And this provides the foundations natural sciences need in order to function.

Kurieuo wrote: Gman, I'm sure you can appreciate that Atheists embrace Naturalism in a different way you do -- its like a statement of faith for the Atheist that everything can be explained without God.

K, I find it humorous when an Atheist attempts a personification of nature to disprove God. We hear in our culture today about nature doing this or nature doing that, acting in some way like mother nature caused a storm today, or an earthquake, etc.. Nature by itself doesn’t do anything.. Nature is impersonal, but humans try to apply their personal attributes to it. It doesn’t mean that that person is not religious, it just means they have a different set of religious presumptions..

We are all religious animals that cannot help but think that something is divine. If you deny the authority of God, that He created all things, you haven’t denied the concept of authority, you simply transfer it to something else like nature or mother nature, etc...

Mother nature good... God bad...

Whatever.