Evidence for God from Science

Hi,

I have been listening to quite a few lectures of WLG. There was one in particular in which he talked about the disciplines science is based on. I was unable to find that passage again, can anyone help me out? I remember one of them was logic, but there were more- Internet search didn't turn up much useful stuff, either.

cheers from Germany,
Sven

Why don't you email them at reasonablefaith.org. Maybe they can help you out.

Hi Rick,

the reason is I doubt that Bill reads those emails. And some staff member probably wouldnt know where to find it either (I do not expect them to be philosophers). It is not relevant for me to find that exact passage, just the answer to that question. Also I know you people are pretty deep into this stuff, so I figured my chances would be higher to get a quick reply here.

But maybe I am overthinking this and should just do what you suggested

thanks & cheers,
Sven

It turns out, RF doesnt have customer service. So I turned to the forums on their website, which got me a quick reply. If anyone's interested, this is the clip I was looking for http://youtu.be/3vnjNbe5lyE

cheers,
Sven

Science is based on the observation of nature and as such, science can ONLY comment on what it CAN observe.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes fact'/law is when it CNA be reproduced over and over and the same results are achieved ( Gravity for example).
Scientific hypothesis becomes theory when there is enough evidence to suggest that something is that way it is BUT at this point can't be reproduced over and over and get the same results ( Evolution and the Bog Bang for example).
Scientific hypotises is a "guess" at what could be but not having any evidence for it to be so ( multiuniverse for example).

PaulSacramento wrote:Science is based on the observation of nature and as such, science can ONLY comment on what it CAN observe.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes fact'/law is when it CNA be reproduced over and over and the same results are achieved ( Gravity for example).
Scientific hypothesis becomes theory when there is enough evidence to suggest that something is that way it is BUT at this point can't be reproduced over and over and get the same results ( Evolution and the Bog Bang for example).
Scientific hypotises is a "guess" at what could be but not having any evidence for it to be so ( multiuniverse for example).

Gravity is based on the theory of relativity (and was based on the theory of newton's laws of motion) and is on the same level of understanding as evolution, quantum mechanics, the big bang, atomic theory, and so on. Scientific theories are equivalent to facts, they are the best working models we have for explaining phenomena. However, there is no scientific theory for the origins of life, currently.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Science is based on the observation of nature and as such, science can ONLY comment on what it CAN observe.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes fact'/law is when it CNA be reproduced over and over and the same results are achieved ( Gravity for example).
Scientific hypothesis becomes theory when there is enough evidence to suggest that something is that way it is BUT at this point can't be reproduced over and over and get the same results ( Evolution and the Bog Bang for example).
Scientific hypotises is a "guess" at what could be but not having any evidence for it to be so ( multiuniverse for example).

Gravity is based on the theory of relativity (and was based on the theory of newton's laws of motion) and is on the same level of understanding as evolution, quantum mechanics, the big bang, atomic theory, and so on. Scientific theories are equivalent to facts, they are the best working models we have for explaining phenomena. However, there is no scientific theory for the origins of life, currently.

Actually Gravity is a Law, as you know, and it can be reproduced and has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
The same can't be said for evolution ( as an example and I am an evolutionist) or the "Big Bang",hence they are theories, NOT hypothesis mind you and some people confuse the two.

zmorg wrote:It turns out, RF doesnt have customer service. So I turned to the forums on their website, which got me a quick reply. If anyone's interested, this is the clip I was looking for http://youtu.be/3vnjNbe5lyE

cheers,
Sven

The look on Atkins' face is priceless. That blank stare says it all.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Science is based on the observation of nature and as such, science can ONLY comment on what it CAN observe.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes fact'/law is when it CNA be reproduced over and over and the same results are achieved ( Gravity for example).
Scientific hypothesis becomes theory when there is enough evidence to suggest that something is that way it is BUT at this point can't be reproduced over and over and get the same results ( Evolution and the Bog Bang for example).
Scientific hypotises is a "guess" at what could be but not having any evidence for it to be so ( multiuniverse for example).

Gravity is based on the theory of relativity (and was based on the theory of newton's laws of motion) and is on the same level of understanding as evolution, quantum mechanics, the big bang, atomic theory, and so on. Scientific theories are equivalent to facts, they are the best working models we have for explaining phenomena. However, there is no scientific theory for the origins of life, currently.

Actually Gravity is a Law, as you know, and it can be reproduced and has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
The same can't be said for evolution ( as an example and I am an evolutionist) or the "Big Bang",hence they are theories, NOT hypothesis mind you and some people confuse the two.

I'm not sure what you mean. The equation/relationship behind gravity is a law (which is just a strong observation), but the explanation for it is a theory. And what is reasonable doubt? Just because we observe gravity in a much more tangible way does not mean evidence for the other theories is not just as reproducible. Are you familiar with statistical certainty? Or perhaps you mean the historical events of evolution and the big bang are not reproducible. Then again, neither is any gravitational event.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Science is based on the observation of nature and as such, science can ONLY comment on what it CAN observe.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes fact'/law is when it CNA be reproduced over and over and the same results are achieved ( Gravity for example).
Scientific hypothesis becomes theory when there is enough evidence to suggest that something is that way it is BUT at this point can't be reproduced over and over and get the same results ( Evolution and the Bog Bang for example).
Scientific hypotises is a "guess" at what could be but not having any evidence for it to be so ( multiuniverse for example).

Gravity is based on the theory of relativity (and was based on the theory of newton's laws of motion) and is on the same level of understanding as evolution, quantum mechanics, the big bang, atomic theory, and so on. Scientific theories are equivalent to facts, they are the best working models we have for explaining phenomena. However, there is no scientific theory for the origins of life, currently.

Actually Gravity is a Law, as you know, and it can be reproduced and has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
The same can't be said for evolution ( as an example and I am an evolutionist) or the "Big Bang",hence they are theories, NOT hypothesis mind you and some people confuse the two.

I'm not sure what you mean. The equation/relationship behind gravity is a law (which is just a strong observation), but the explanation for it is a theory. And what is reasonable doubt? Just because we observe gravity in a much more tangible way does not mean evidence for the other theories is not just as reproducible. Are you familiar with statistical certainty? Or perhaps you mean the historical events of evolution and the big bang are not reproducible. Then again, neither is any gravitational event.

Gravity can be observed, it can be calculated, it can be proven, it is a Law of Physics, yes?
Lets no confuse biology ( evolution) with Physics and just because a THEORY of PHYSICS "pans out" extremely well, lets not place that kind of 'faith" in biology.
In short, no one doubts gravity and we can't say that about evolution.
So, to claim that evolution is a scientific theory like gravity is quite misleading.
Scientific theories in physics are not the same as in biology.
Just because physics gives us extraordinarily accurate things, doesn't mean we extend that kind of confidence to other sciences.

PaulSacramento wrote:Gravity can be observed, it can be calculated, it can be proven, it is a Law of Physics, yes?
Lets no confuse biology ( evolution) with Physics and just because a THEORY of PHYSICS "pans out" extremely well, lets not place that kind of 'faith" in biology.
In short, no one doubts gravity and we can't say that about evolution.
So, to claim that evolution is a scientific theory like gravity is quite misleading.
Scientific theories in physics are not the same as in biology.
Just because physics gives us extraordinarily accurate things, doesn't mean we extend that kind of confidence to other sciences.

I see, you place more trust in physical and chemical theories rather than biological, psychological, cosmological, astronomical, or other facts. But all of these facts are at some level physical. The theory of evolution really does have as much support for it as something like gravitational or atomic theory, as does the big bang (which is grounded in quantum mechanics, ultimately). All of these theories are based on laws in various places and just because some aren't as intuitively obvious as gravity doesn't mean they aren't as sound. Perhaps sometimes God stepped in during evolution - but then, sometimes God also stepped in 'during gravity' too.

I guess I tend to have more confidence on physics than in some other sciences, probably because I have more reason to do so I guess.
BUT I do subscribe to evolution and the big bang, its hard to refute the evidence for some sort of evolutionary process and for the universe to have started at a "point in time before there was time".
I just don't think its correct to take a theory based on a current understanding of the evidence that we can't reproduce or observe and compare it to one that we can.
In short, we can see that "what goes up, must come down" but we can't see that all living beings evolved from a common ancestor ( even if they probably did), know what I mean?

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, we can see that "what goes up, must come down" but we can't see that all living beings evolved from a common ancestor ( even if they probably did), know what I mean?

Well, upon closer inspection, it really does feel as if you can see that. A study on taxonomy will show a staggering progression among species and the genetic algorithm through natural selection has been reproduced many times, even in non-microscopic animals - although it's much slower in species that take longer to reproduce, fruit flies, mice, etc. can work well over a long enough period of time. Gravity is only intuitively obvious because it's more accepted. But, it's a lot harder to tell that what goes up doesn't come down when we're in space - why is there no down in space? Why does gravity relate to mass? Why is gravity a force and not some random linear relationship. There's a lot that is harder to explain when you really dig in to the theory of gravity, and of course, you also then have to account for relativity to get accurate results - prior to relativity, I'd even go so far to say that evolution was a better understood theory than gravity was!

Beanybag wrote:Well, upon closer inspection, it really does feel as if you can see that. A study on taxonomy will show a staggering progression among species and the genetic algorithm through natural selection has been reproduced many times, even in non-microscopic animals - although it's much slower in species that take longer to reproduce, fruit flies, mice, etc. can work well over a long enough period of time. Gravity is only intuitively obvious because it's more accepted.

And why is it more accepted? Let's take for example statistics. As you said "it's much slower in species that take longer to reproduce". And it does not take so long to 'reproduce gravity'. I dare to say, that we do more experiments with gravity than with evolution.

Beanybag wrote: But, it's a lot harder to tell that what goes up doesn't come down when we're in space - why is there no down in space?

Can you explain what you mean here? And also, how do you define down?

Beanybag wrote: Why does gravity relate to mass?

Because mass curves spacetime.

Beanybag wrote: Why is gravity a force and not some random linear relationship.

If it was random, we would not call it gravity.

Beanybag wrote: There's a lot that is harder to explain when you really dig in to the theory of gravity, and of course, you also then have to account for relativity to get accurate results - prior to relativity, I'd even go so far to say that evolution was a better understood theory than gravity was!

I would not go so far.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, we can see that "what goes up, must come down" but we can't see that all living beings evolved from a common ancestor ( even if they probably did), know what I mean?

Well, upon closer inspection, it really does feel as if you can see that. A study on taxonomy will show a staggering progression among species and the genetic algorithm through natural selection has been reproduced many times, even in non-microscopic animals - although it's much slower in species that take longer to reproduce, fruit flies, mice, etc. can work well over a long enough period of time. Gravity is only intuitively obvious because it's more accepted. But, it's a lot harder to tell that what goes up doesn't come down when we're in space - why is there no down in space? Why does gravity relate to mass? Why is gravity a force and not some random linear relationship. There's a lot that is harder to explain when you really dig in to the theory of gravity, and of course, you also then have to account for relativity to get accurate results - prior to relativity, I'd even go so far to say that evolution was a better understood theory than gravity was!

If gravity is harder to explain and we even have a mathematical formula for it, then good look with evolution, LOL !
In the end, I stand by my view on what science is based on : Observation and repeatability ( even if only in theory).
SO what do you think science is based on?