Evidence for God from Science

There was a thread which was opened as a loaded question: Why is there a conflict between religion and science? Although the original poster didn't really believe there was a conflict.

• Loaded Question: or "complex question fallacy" is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

I can see evident contradictions between some religions, like Hinduism which kind of prides itself on contradictions with relative truth rather than any real objective truth. Christianity however, has always had a foundation in reason. You just need to look at its rich heritage of thinkers.

Furthermore, Judaism and maybe even Islam as I see it aren't incompatible with science either. I mean science broken down is simply looking to nature, and all these theistic religions haven't had much issue with doing that over years. Looking to nature and natural revelation was heavily drawn from in each.

So then, when did it ever become granted in society that religion, ALL religion, is incompatible with science? You know, I'm not one who likes to call my beliefs religious, and I don't see them in that context. I merely believe what I see as sensible. Nonetheless, people today often just accept religion and science are incompatible without blinking, but this to me seems rather suspicious. Like they've swallowed rhetoric that is actually fallacious.

Kurieuo wrote:There was a thread which was opened as a loaded question: Why is there a conflict between religion and science? Although the original poster didn't really believe there was a conflict.

• Loaded Question: or "complex question fallacy" is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

I can see evident contradictions between some religions, like Hinduism which kind of prides itself on contradictions with relative truth rather than any real objective truth. Christianity however, has always had a foundation in reason. You just need to look at its rich heritage of thinkers.

Furthermore, Judaism and maybe even Islam as I see it aren't incompatible with science either. I mean science broken down is simply looking to nature, and all these theistic religions haven't had much issue with doing that over years. Looking to nature and natural revelation was heavily drawn from in each.

So then, when did it ever become granted in society that religion, ALL religion, is incompatible with science? You know, I'm not one who likes to call my beliefs religious, and I don't see them in that context. I merely believe what I see as sensible. Nonetheless, people today often just accept religion and science are incompatible without blinking, but this to me seems rather suspicious. Like they've swallowed rhetoric that is actually fallacious.

But isn't a virgin birth, rising from the dead, and various other miracles in the Bible incompatible with science?

Ken

Interesting question. Please explain how you see such as incompatible?

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting question. Please explain how you see such as incompatible?

There is no scientific explanation of how someone can
*Come back to life after dead for several days
*A woman can get pregnant and give birth without having sexual intercourse.
*Someone walking on top of water, turning water into wine, etc. etc.

ken

So that just shows a limit of science, limits pursuing knowledge via scientific methods alone doesn't it?

Kurieuo wrote:So that just shows a limit of science, limits pursuing knowledge via scientific methods alone doesn't it?

You cannot go beyond science and still be comparable with science at the same time.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So that just shows a limit of science, limits pursuing knowledge via scientific methods alone doesn't it?

You cannot go beyond science and still be comparable with science at the same time.

I believe you meant "compatible" and I think you're clearly mistaken.

If science is like "c, d, e and f" and we have something else "a, b" (lets say metaphysics philosophy) and yet something other "g, h, i, j" (let's call such spiritual truths) --- then indeed all these things are compatible. Touching upon different areas they never come into conflict with each other.

Such are only incompatible if they clash. The only way they can clash is if you believe "science" can determine all truth and is the judge and juror of everything. Such isn't "science" but Scientism. And clearly science has limits. Even Morny acknowledges as much when we discussed methodological naturalism.

You know, consider historical truths. There are a very large array of them that are beyond science to detect. And yet, are we now saying very real events of the past are incompatible with science? That's just silly. Such truth might be beyond and inaccessible to science, but not incompatible.

Science is just a pursuit of truth that attempts to build knowledge based upon our observed experiences in the world. Where we can't set up tests, or observe first hand what is going on, such is beyond science.

If something is beyond science, such doesn't mean that something is incompatible with science. It just means there are limits to science, and whatever you're trying to deal with isn't likely in the realm of scientific enquiry.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So that just shows a limit of science, limits pursuing knowledge via scientific methods alone doesn't it?

You cannot go beyond science and still be comparable with science at the same time.

I believe you meant "compatible" and I think you're clearly mistaken.

If science is like "c, d, e and f" and we have something else "a, b" (lets say metaphysics philosophy) and yet something other "g, h, i, j" (let's call such spiritual truths) --- then indeed all these things are compatible. Touching upon different areas they never come into conflict with each other.

Such are only incompatible if they clash. The only way they can clash is if you believe "science" can determine all truth and is the judge and juror of everything. Such isn't "science" but Scientism. And clearly science has limits. Even Morny acknowledges as much when we discussed methodological naturalism.

You know, consider historical truths. There are a very large array of them that are beyond science to detect. And yet, are we now saying very real events of the past are incompatible with science? That's just silly. Such truth might be beyond and inaccessible to science, but not incompatible.

Science is just a pursuit of truth that attempts to build knowledge based upon our observed experiences in the world. Where we can't set up tests, or observe first hand what is going on, such is beyond science.

If something is beyond science, such doesn't mean that something is incompatible with science. It just means there are limits to science, and whatever you're trying to deal with isn't likely in the realm of scientific enquiry.

You are right; I did mean compatible; (darn spell check) unfortunately that is about the extent of our agreement my friend.

*Science makes claims about the process that results in childbirth.
*Science makes claims about what happens to the body after death.
The idea that a person could be born and die in the matter Jesus did according to the Bible, contradicts those scientific claims.

Ken

Kenny, a couple of questions if you don't mind answering.
Can you please explain to me what science says about the singularity to our universe, that is, what it is and what came prior? Secondly why are the physical laws of our universe as they are?

Without answers to these questions, your science and empirical methods are hung upon nothing.
That a universe like ours with its physical laws, life and the like could come into existence is nothing short of a miracle.
Scientifically, we can not explain how or why our universe and even ourselves exist. And, upon that unexplained miracle do we based our science.

Science works within a universe with a stable set of laws where someone can observe or experience.
We've all grown to appreciate the predictability of our own universe, such that we can see causal patterns, processes and certain laws and rules at work it seems just running on their own. When something in the universe happens according to such regularity, we call such a happening natural. Yet, such natural order arose from something prior to itself; a science of some other kind before science if you will.

Interestingly, today most scientists do not believe our universe is closed with no external influences. Whether they believe in God and a Creator as such bringing our universe into existence... or as some others prefer, invoking another something like another universe causing our own universe as in some multiverse scenario. Many multiversers talk of all physical laws breaking down, such that time itself breaks down which leads to a possibility of an infinite number of universes. Our own universe therefore is just one of an infinite number of universes, and so we shouldn't be surprised that ours just happens to have physical laws right for life, or that life unfolded. This creates a push back on teleological fine-tuning arguments for God's existence you see. So it must be right since we can't just accept God created!

Based upon previous discussions we've had, you've stated:

Kenny wrote:Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? The Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

You are right, evidently our Universe does seem to exist. Yet, you can't say either way how it got there or why it exists as it does. Without answering such questions, then you cannot rule out that the same things which caused our Universe giving it the unique and stable set of physical laws on which we base scientific enquiry, will not continue having some effect.

Indeed that our Universe with it's physical set of laws came into existence is the biggest miracle. To answer this, one must break with what science says is/isn't natural, because we're talking of a period existing before the physical laws we depend upon for scientific enquiry.

So then, yes, there are certain stable laws in our universe which naturally results in childbirth.
When physical life dies, physical bodies do not naturally rise after death.
And when our universe formed with all its physical laws, such indeed is a miracle beyond science itself.
Science can only deal with natural claims within its scope.

Therefore there is no clash between science and these Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each.
The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know).

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting question. Please explain how you see such as incompatible?

There is no scientific explanation of how someone can
*Come back to life after dead for several days
*A woman can get pregnant and give birth without having sexual intercourse.
*Someone walking on top of water, turning water into wine, etc. etc.

ken

There was an instance of a snake giving birth, despite being alone in a tank with no access to males. I`ll have to look it up as I can`t remember the full story but that suggests scientific proof for a virgin birth. I will have to check it though as I would have thought it would be really big news.

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a couple of questions if you don't mind answering.
Can you please explain to me what science says about the singularity to our universe, that is, what it is and what came prior? Secondly why are the physical laws of our universe as they are?

Without answers to these questions, your science and empirical methods are hung upon nothing.

I don’t know enough about science to answer your questions

Kurieuo wrote:That a universe like ours with its physical laws, life and the like could come into existence is nothing short of a miracle.
Scientifically, we can not explain how or why our universe and even ourselves exist. And, upon that unexplained miracle do we based our science.

As I mentioned before, whatever happened back then, common sense, reason, and logic is not going to give us anything very useful. We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it, the origin of mankind, the Universe, and physical laws will appear to defy logic.

Kurieuo wrote:Indeed that our Universe with it's physical set of laws came into existence is the biggest miracle. To answer this, one must break with what science says is/isn't natural, because we're talking of a period existing before the physical laws we depend upon for scientific enquiry.

And that is the "gap" everybody keeps inserting God into; right?

Kurieuo wrote:So then, yes, there are certain stable laws in our universe which naturally results in childbirth.
When physical life dies, physical bodies do not naturally rise after death.
And when our universe formed with all its physical laws, such indeed is a miracle beyond science itself.
Science can only deal with natural claims within its scope.

Therefore there is no clash between science and these Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each.
The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know).

Unlike the Universe, when it comes to childbirth and death, science already has explanations for those; and they do not include God. To create a gap and insert God is IMO incompatible with those scientific explanations.

Ken

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting question. Please explain how you see such as incompatible?

There is no scientific explanation of how someone can
*Come back to life after dead for several days
*A woman can get pregnant and give birth without having sexual intercourse.
*Someone walking on top of water, turning water into wine, etc. etc.

ken

There was an instance of a snake giving birth, despite being alone in a tank with no access to males. I`ll have to look it up as I can`t remember the full story but that suggests scientific proof for a virgin birth. I will have to check it though as I would have thought it would be really big news.

I'm not familiar with snakes. My claim was in reference to human birth

Ken

Ken: Unlike the Universe, when it comes to childbirth and death, science already has explanations for those;

Yes, Ken, but childbirth and even death are DEPENDENT things, springing from previously existing things, ultimately going back to that which is inexplicable.

Ken: To create a gap and insert God is IMO incompatible with science.

Ken, you've already admited that science and pure logic cannot explain the origins of everything that exists, that there is NO science that can explain it. This is true. You are essentially saying that there are no scientific explanations that are compatible with whatever happened or existed before the Big Bang. Therefore, it is obvious that God being incompatible with the systematic measures of science, which are incapable of directly explaining Him, is to be expected. So, why, if you admit science's inability to prove God, do you also discount Him based upon that inability? Because, WHATEVER one thinks may be the reason and cause behind the universe - whether God or some other eternally existing thing or things - we must admit that science is totally incapable of explaining it. So, if God exists, why would you be hung up upon the fact that science cannot prove what you admit it is entirely insufficient to discern?

As WHATEVER is behind the universe is beyond science's ability to explain, why would anyone reject God based upon His supposed scientific incompatibility? As, clearly, something beyond scientific understandings IS the answer. And so THAT understanding IS perfectly compatible with the existence of God - as whatever this previously existing "thing" that is responsible for the universe is, it is 1) not self-created (a logical impossibility), 2) has to be eternal, 3) and it must of immense, unfathomable intelligence, power and purpose. And all three of these variables are perfectly compatible with God's existence, are they not???!!! Actually, they should be what we should expect, as to the characteristics of God.

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting question. Please explain how you see such as incompatible?

There is no scientific explanation of how someone can
*Come back to life after dead for several days
*A woman can get pregnant and give birth without having sexual intercourse.
*Someone walking on top of water, turning water into wine, etc. etc.

ken

There was an instance of a snake giving birth, despite being alone in a tank with no access to males. I`ll have to look it up as I can`t remember the full story but that suggests scientific proof for a virgin birth. I will have to check it though as I would have thought it would be really big news.

I'm not familiar with snakes. My claim was in reference to human birth

Ken

"Virgin birth" is unknown in mammals, Reptiles, amphibians fish, yes.

It would be most interesting, hardly earth shaking, if it is found to occur in some mammal.

Audie: "Virgin birth" is unknown in mammals, Reptiles, amphibians fish, yes.

It would be most interesting, hardly earth shaking, if it is found to occur in some mammal.

Of which I'm sure Audie would agree, that even IF found to be true, has zero to do with the God debate. So, why the endless board debates concerning evolutionary scenarios - which, EVEN IF TRUE - are ALL entirely dependent and secodary processes to what would have occurred, at least, over 10 billion years before?