Evidence for God from Science

Proinsias wrote:Nice one Jac, as my wife is midway through a masters at the moment I'm not brave enough use up printer resources on a book but I will have a read of it on a suitable screen.

Thanks.

RickD wrote:Great news Jac!

Now I just have to find the time to read it all in one sitting. If the rest of the book is as interesting as the part you let me read, I won't be able to stop until I'm finished.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I had to go to Staples to get another ink cartridge...

Anyway, I'm not a proofreader but on page iii third sentence, you wrote "It is so deep and profound that it has historically governed a much, if not most, of what the Church has said , or has not said about Him. The a seems out of place.

On page iv, third paragraph, fourth sentence, you wrote, "...DS, which will be based on traditionally accept idea of what it means to be God anyway." You may want to correct that.

You write well...simplicity in style suits you!

FL

EDIT: page 2, fourth paragraph, third sentence, "...so you can see that part of me is 'here' and move six foot in one direction...

EDIT #2: page 6, first paragraph, first sentence, "...some of you might have head of and a lot of you...

EDIT #3: page 6, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, "...What is 'aseity' and why would I said that you probably hold...

EDIT #4: page 7, first paragraph of The First Premise, fourth sentence, ...then He does not existent independently of it. Also, the second paragraph of The First Premise, sixth sentence, "...no choice they make surprises God, and that God's will will still be accomplished... the double "will" annoys me. could you change it or write "...God's Will will.." ?

For example, you might find someone argue that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the math just doesn’t add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or they may argue that there are simply some aspects of life that in principle cannot be explained by evolutionary means (a popular example of this is called “irreducible complexity”). These types of arguments have been the mainstay of a movement called Intelligent Design, which hopes to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

Kurieuo wrote:

For example, you might find someone argue that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the math just doesn’t add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or they may argue that there are simply some aspects of life that in principle cannot be explained by evolutionary means (a popular example of this is called “irreducible complexity”). These types of arguments have been the mainstay of a movement called Intelligent Design, which hopes to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

While it doesn't ruin, this isn't really the best written example as it's not quite accurate. (am I nit picking?)
Maybe the mainstay are creationist arguments (e.g., fine-tuning arguments like RTB advocate, or Kalam Cosmological as Craig argues, or perhaps debating evolution).
BUT, IC isn't necessarily about saying something can't be explained by evolutionary means, but more rather identifying systems that don't appear reducible.
Many ID proponents do accept evolution. Some aren't even Theist. How'd that be possible if the hopes of ID are to reveal a Creator?
Ask Bippy, I'm sure he'll back me on this (he seems to have a good handle on ID too).

• If it isn’t clear what the purpose and nature of this work is already, then, let me put it plainly now: I am writing this book in non-technical language for a non-technical audience in hopes of explaining and defending a very technical issue. This is not at all intended to be a scholarly account, so I ask my scholarly readers in advance for your forgiveness as there will be times that you can expect to want to pull your hair out (if you have any left after all those years of study) if and when I gloss over some issues.

The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is in no way composed of parts. Not only is God incorporeal and immaterial, and thus not composed of form and matter, He is also not composed of essence and existence. Rather, His essence is His existence. There is also no distinction within God between any of the divine attributes: God’s eternity is His power, which is His goodness, which is His intellect, which is His will, and so on. Indeed, God Himself just is His power, His goodness, etc., just as He just is His existence, and just is His essence. Talking or conceiving of God, God’s essence, God’s existence, God’s power, God’s goodness, and so forth are really all just different ways of talking or conceiving of one and the very same thing. Though we distinguish between them in thought, there is no distinction at all between them in reality.

This doctrine is absolutely central to the classical theistic tradition, and has been defended by thinkers as diverse as St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes, to name just a few. It is affirmed in such councils of the Roman Catholic Church as the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and Vatican I (1869-70) – which means that it is de fide, an absolutely binding, infallible, irreformable teaching of the Church, denial of which amounts to heresy. Divine simplicity is generally understood to follow from the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of God as pure actuality.

(Ed Feser, William Lane Craig on divine simplicity: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2009 ... icity.html)

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

For example, you might find someone argue that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the math just doesn’t add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or they may argue that there are simply some aspects of life that in principle cannot be explained by evolutionary means (a popular example of this is called “irreducible complexity”). These types of arguments have been the mainstay of a movement called Intelligent Design, which hopes to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

While it doesn't ruin, this isn't really the best written example as it's not quite accurate. (am I nit picking?)
Maybe the mainstay are creationist arguments (e.g., fine-tuning arguments like RTB advocate, or Kalam Cosmological as Craig argues, or perhaps debating evolution).
BUT, IC isn't necessarily about saying something can't be explained by evolutionary means, but more rather identifying systems that don't appear reducible.
Many ID proponents do accept evolution. Some aren't even Theist. How'd that be possible if the hopes of ID are to reveal a Creator?
Ask Bippy, I'm sure he'll back me on this (he seems to have a good handle on ID too).

As I said on page iii

• If it isn’t clear what the purpose and nature of this work is already, then, let me put it plainly now: I am writing this book in non-technical language for a non-technical audience in hopes of explaining and defending a very technical issue. This is not at all intended to be a scholarly account, so I ask my scholarly readers in advance for your forgiveness as there will be times that you can expect to want to pull your hair out (if you have any left after all those years of study) if and when I gloss over some issues.

I don't want to use that as an excuse for inaccuracy. Still, I don't know a passing example is the place to get into all the nuances of the ID movement. But I don't think I'm being unfair. If I may pick at your nit, I did say "these types" (plural) of arguments have been the"mainstay" of ID. Isn't that true? Irreducible Complexity is certainly not identical with specified complexity, but it seems to me that they are related and that a discussion of one will naturally lead to another, and both issues, properly discussed, will rely heavily on information theory, which seems to be the heart of the ID argument.

I grant that many ID proponents accept full blown evolution, and that ID doesn't not even demand theism. But, again, is it unfair to say that ID in general seeks to show the need for a Creator, even if some proponents want something a bit more modest? I don't think so. Unnuanced? Certainly! Unfair? I don't think that's fair.

But, again, my interest isn't in defending inaccuracy, so if you have some language you think is more appropriate, to share, and I'll be more than happy to adopt it!

• For example, you might find someone arguing that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the probabilities just don't add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or within the Intelligent Design movement, some attempt to identify complex biological systems on the cellular level that cannot be explained through gradual evolutionary steps (for example, Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity"). These types of arguments are often used by creationists who hope to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.