Evidence for God from Science

I don't understand why anyone would think there is a conflict between religion with science. An omnipotent God can certainly create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. If you count all the experimental errors, there may be more exceptions to the laws of physics than there is compliance. So maybe God speaks to us through experimental error? But as a scientist we must be objective. The problem with objectivity in science is all objectivity is subjectively determined as being "right", "wrong", "good", or "bad". Since subjectivity is based on free-will we run into the problem of hard determinism. If you accept the existence of a multiverse and a star collapsing to black hole creates a big bang in another dimension, then you have to accept that both hard determinism and free will can coexist equally. Then the question becomes can God have a thought so complex that even he can't understand it? This is a very difficult question to answer because the computational speed of reality will always be greater than any digital simulation of it. It's like asking the question: What is your brain doing between thoughts? So our best conclusion about reality based on our limited view of experiencing it becomes God is the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our comprehension. Which is probably a good thing because if we ever did fully understand nature we would probably accidentally imagine ourselves out of existence!

Will come back to this...


Have you read Why Us? by James Le Fanu?

Storyteller wrote:Will come back to this...
Have you read Why Us? by James Le Fanu?

Le Fanu has a background in medical science. My background is Computability and recursive theory. His book looks interesting though. "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter is a good book from my area of study.

I would highly recommend Alvin Plantinga's book titled: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. To answer your question very briefly, there's no conflict between science and theism, the real conflict is between science and methodological naturalism.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225
and here's an excellent example of science and religion melding, in time ... and .... the methodological naturalism contained in some of the interviews and reference material supplied. The post is ridiculously long but worth the time if you want.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

And another here of science and religion/spirituality coming together on the topic of ndes
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=40731

Byblos wrote:I would highly recommend Alvin Plantinga's book titled: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. To answer your question very briefly, there's no conflict between science and theism, the real conflict is between science and methodological naturalism.

Give an example of a conflict between Methodological Naturalism and any peer-reviewed science journal article.

Sometimes people are more concerned about "peer review" than truth.

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes people are more concerned about "peer review" than truth.

So no example?

OK, then name one scientist who cares more about peer review than truth.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes people are more concerned about "peer review" than truth.

So no example?

OK, then name one scientist who cares more about peer review than truth.

I'll bite, any scientist that accepts evolution.There is no peer reviewed evidence you can provide that makes evolution true,yet scientists defend it and it is taught in society as the truth,more proven than gravity,etc.The theory of evolution should have been dropped by science a long time ago.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes people are more concerned about "peer review" than truth.

So no example?

OK, then name one scientist who cares more about peer review than truth.

No example, it isn't necessary.
Your question is bizarre.

How about, the truth (or lie) of various "vestigal" organs and pseudo-genes, an expectation of no true design.
This thwarted many studies that could have been taking place much sooner. The philosophy of Methodological Naturalism, which is ultimately in bed with Metaphysical Naturalism, stunted scientific understanding and progress.

However, here we have knowledge of truth being frustrated by a particular philosophy being adhered to.
You won't or shouldn't find in many peer reviewed scientific journals discussions of such philosophies.
Your original request therefore asking for a conflict with MN and some scientific "peer reviewed" article seems a little absurd.

It's like asking someone to pick an orange from an apple tree, then when they don't, what you got no orange?
You're being rather foolish with your questions, while thinking yourself smart and intelligent.

In philosophy though, in particular surrounding the philosophy of science, you will find discussions to MN and the like -- in peer reviewed journals. One person in particular is Alvin Plantinga as Byblos mentioned who is quite respected as a philosopher, theistic or otherwise. But, your interest in science, science, science, science -- or really your opinion ("philosophy") of what is or isn't science seems to be causing you some clouding.

Kur, yes many atheists answer in this way which tells me that they are essential trying to hide an emotional objection by masking it behind an intellectual objection .
And then they will claim to be free thinkers .

When I was a pure evolutionist I always looked at vestigial organs as undeniable proof of evolution while never once questioning or critiquing this claim . I always assumed that scientists were above reproach and always followed the evidence in a neutral , objective way .

Today I know I couldn't be more wrong .

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes people are more concerned about "peer review" than truth.

So no example?

OK, then name one scientist who cares more about peer review than truth.

No example, it isn't necessary.
Your question is bizarre.

How about, the truth (or lie) of various "vestigal" organs and pseudo-genes, an expectation of no true design.
This thwarted many studies that could have been taking place much sooner. The philosophy of Methodological Naturalism, which is ultimately in bed with Metaphysical Naturalism, stunted scientific understanding and progress.

However, here we have knowledge of truth being frustrated by a particular philosophy being adhered to.
You won't or shouldn't find in many peer reviewed scientific journals discussions of such philosophies.
Your original request therefore asking for a conflict with MN and some scientific "peer reviewed" article seems a little absurd.

It's like asking someone to pick an orange from an apple tree, then when they don't, what you got no orange?
You're being rather foolish with your questions, while thinking yourself smart and intelligent.

In philosophy though, in particular surrounding the philosophy of science, you will find discussions to MN and the like -- in peer reviewed journals. One person in particular is Alvin Plantinga as Byblos mentioned who is quite respected as a philosopher, theistic or otherwise. But, your interest in science, science, science, science -- or really your opinion ("philosophy") of what is or isn't science seems to be causing you some clouding.

I didn't ask for journal articles talking about MN. I asked for an example of conflict between MN and existing peer-reviewed science.

To use your topic, pseudo-gene researchers implicitly embrace MN. No conflict whatsoever. So I'm still curious - which rogue scientist is doing work that conflicts with MN?

Of course, my questions are rhetorical. No science is in conflict with MN - not physics, not biology, not medicine. What you and Byblos seem to imply is that your "science" has a truthier (to use Stephen Colbert's terminology) foundation than the MN that scientists embrace.

But then you trot out Alvin Plantinga, to which in a previous post I (and elsewhere on the web, many others who are smarter than I), have already pointed out where his flawed logic regarding MN is. Do you really want to put your money on Plantinga, and against scientists?

Again, go talk in person to a scientist. They're not hard to find. Go prepared - with questions and curiosity. Yes, many are too busy. Don't take it personally. But you'll be surprised how many are actually eager to answer your questions, especially if you're buying the drinks.

bippy123 wrote:When I was a pure evolutionist I always looked at vestigial organs as undeniable proof of evolution while never once questioning or critiquing this claim .

Yes, never questioning or critiquing a claim is an all too common problem.

There is no controversy between philosophy and science, except in the head of "scientists" who don't know what their methodology is grounded upon. If the some of the people you'd have me discuss with aren't aware of the branch they sit upon, then why would I sit down with them to entertain a discussion while they saw it off?