Does science prove the existence of god? (Jesus, ritual, beliefs)

[Ceridwen018]

Orthodox,

You're an atheist right? Where do you get your idea of 'perfect' from. You are saying that this universe does not match up to the ideal universe but, if this universe is all that there is and we were not meant for anything more (or anything at all actually) from whence comes this objective standard that you judge it by? As C.S. Lewis said a person doesn't call a line crooked unless they know what a straight one is like.

Good question! Perfection and imperfection don't really exist for me, because you're absolutely right--I don't have a personal objective standard to judge it on. So for the sake of argument, I adopt the religious definition of perfection/imperfection, and base things on that.

Actually, it was courtesy of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

Ah, very true, thank you! However, Aristotle and Ptolemy did not believe what they did in order to please any god or follow any doctrine. Science is made of building blocks--there are no instant answers. One must be wrong before they are able to be right. Aristotle and Ptolemy were wrong, but for reasons very different those of the church--that's my point.

And, until you provide us with this 'evidence' creationists will continue to view Darwinism (which as an atheist I imagine you espouse) with healthy scientific scepticism.

In all honesty I have never seen any 'cold hard' evidence for evolution. There is, however, cold hard evidence against it.

I have never seen a creationist argue their theory without directly opposing evolution, or without citing some god. I made a thread called "Evidence FOR the Creation Theory." So far it remains blank, but I would love for you to check it out. Like I said though, no one has been able to show any examples of creationist articles, evidence, etc. in which the words 'evolution' or 'god' are not mentioned. A true theory must stand by itself, and until I see that from creationism, I just can't take it seriously.

~Ceridwen

[Orthodox]

ceridwen,

I have never seen a creationist argue their theory without directly opposing evolution, or without citing some god. I made a thread called "Evidence FOR the Creation Theory." So far it remains blank, but I would love for you to check it out. Like I said though, no one has been able to show any examples of creationist articles, evidence, etc. in which the words 'evolution' or 'god' are not mentioned. A true theory must stand by itself, and until I see that from creationism, I just can't take it seriously.

What is science? A search for natural causes for everything or a search for truth? Science should try and discern truth without presupposing that bringing God into the question will automatically make the theory wrong. That is just bad science. Also, to prove evolution wrong one does not necessarily have to provide another testable model to fill the gap. Evolution is just simply astronomically improbable. It is an unsatisfactory theory for origins because it simply cannot supply a mechanism that is scientifically sound. Do you want me to show you why? (although I would much rather continue along the lines of BB cosmology!lol)

orthodox

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

A search for natural causes for everything or a search for truth?

Science is an abductive process aimed at providing testable explanations for natural phenomena. God is out of scope - not because it is necessarily fictive, but because the injection of the supernatural eliminates the the gaurantee of testability.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Science should try and discern truth without presupposing that bringing God into the question will automatically make the theory wrong. That is just bad science.

What texts have you read on the philosophy of science? Your statement demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance of the field.

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

God did it is not an answer but, rather, the acknowledgement that one has yet to be verified.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Also, to prove evolution wrong one does not necessarily have to provide another testable model to fill the gap.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Evolution is just simply astronomically improbable. It is an unsatisfactory theory for origins because it simply cannot supply a mechanism that is scientifically sound.

Even the darling of ID, William A. Demski, acknowledges:

"Sheer improbability by itself is not enough to eliminate chance."

"Complexity (or improbability) isn't enough to eliminate chance and establish design."

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

I'll just briefly explain my use of the word 'natural'. I qualify something as 'natural' if it is native to this universe (that is, a native to the spacetime and matter of this universe). I qualify something as natural if it is is bound to the physical and temporal confines of this universe.

I have a hard time accepting this definition, Orthodox. I'm just not sure how one distinguishes, for example, between "the physical and temporal confines of this universe" and "the physical and temporal confines of the known universe".

I would define anything that interacts with the observable world as natural.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

I don't think it has always existed.

When did the universe not exist, and for how long?

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Not if there is reason to believe that there was a supernatural factor in the equation.

You would first have to prove the existence of supernatural things.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

1. How can something that does not exist cause itself to exist? It would have had to existed before it actually did in order to cause itself. The argument against causa sui was one of Jean Paul Satre's arguments against the existence of God. However, (although you would care little about it) the christian God is uncaused not self caused.

If the universe has always existed (and, in my understanding, it has) the universe could have been uncaused.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

2. Finally we agree! I do think, along with many emminent scientists, that the fact that nothing natural existed before the BB reeks of the supernatural.

Once again, our conflicting definitions cause us problems. If things existed "before" the BB (my understanding--which does not presuppose the existence of supernatural things--is that nothing could have existed "before" the BB) and those things caused the BB, I would define those things as natural--even though they are unknown to us. At best, the "reek" of the BB is that of the sweet perfume of the unknown.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

We don't know everything but we do know some important things which have bearing on the current topic. So far as we know the universe poped out of a singularity. We both know what this means in terms of space, time and matter. Saying that there is insufficient evidence to tell us anything is not right. We can hope that the future brings some change to, or re-evaluation of, the evidence. But, this does not forbid one from drawing a scientific conclusion that supernatural forces were at play.

Refer back to my definition of 'natural'.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Because it better ensures their survival. My point is, for what reason should one strive to survive?

I cannot answer your question, as it presupposes the existence of a "reason" one should strive to survive. I strive to survive because of what I am. As the burning bush said to Moses, "I am that I am".

[Ceridwen018]

What is science? A search for natural causes for everything or a search for truth? Science should try and discern truth without presupposing that bringing God into the question will automatically make the theory wrong.That is just bad science.

Science is the search for natural causes--not the search for philosophical or spiritual truth. Often, philosophical and spiritual truths are influenced by the natural truths that science unearths, but that's where the affiliation ends. That is why it is unacceptable to include god in a scientific theory. If there is a god, he is not natural, and therefore has nothing to do with science.

Scientific theories and scientific evidence are based upon what can be percieved. Because god cannot be percieved using scientific methods, it is simply bad science to include one.

Also, to prove evolution wrong one does not necessarily have to provide another testable model to fill the gap.

Yes and no. Due to the strength of the evolutionary theory, as well as it's multi-faceted nature, any new discoveries in science would more than likely simply be added onto it, rather than create an entire new theory.

Then again, to disprove the entire theory of evolution would most certainly require an alternative theory. Otherwise, evolution would not have been validly disproven.

One more thing--are you agreeing that Creationism is not a scientific theory?

Evolution is just simply astronomically improbable. It is an unsatisfactory theory for origins because it simply cannot supply a mechanism that is scientifically sound. Do you want me to show you why? (although I would much rather continue along the lines of BB cosmology!lol)

I would LOVE for you to show me why!

~Ceridwen

[Orthodox]

Duet 32:8,

Science is an abductive process aimed at providing testable explanations for natural phenomena. God is out of scope - not because it is necessarily fictive, but because the injection of the supernatural eliminates the the gaurantee of testability.

Did you mean an inductive process? Anyway, I am guessing that’s what you meant, you don’t normally muck up your vocab so I am supposing it was a typo! Anyway, I agree with you - to an extent. I don’t believe it possible to ‘test’ God in a scientific sense. Nevertheless, I do believe that one can eliminate natural causes for things and by doing so give reason to believe in the supernatural causation of things.

Your point about science ignoring religious claims is something that I again support to an extent. There are areas in which naturalistic and religious claims collide. An example is the causation (or non-causation) of the universe. In this occasion the search for naturalistic causes disqualifies itself from the causation of the universe (it being the causation of nature).

About improbability. I make it a prerequisite that all of my beliefs be probable. It isn't impossible that we are all pink unicorns about to wake up from a dream - but that's kind of improbable though, just like chemical evolution.

orthodox

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Did you mean an inductive process? Anyway, I am guessing that?s what you meant, you don?t normally muck up your vocab so I am supposing it was a typo!

You guessed wrong.

• Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal in Science
• abduction
• What is Abductive Inference?
• Abduction

Abduction is 'Inference to Best Explanation (IBE)'.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Nevertheless, I do believe that one can eliminate natural causes for things and by doing so give reason to believe in the supernatural causation of things.

Of course you do. And your ability to sustain such a belief is predicated upon your willingness to hold your God(s) to much lower standards than nature. It is the classic case of the argument from ignorance producing a God-of-the-Gaps.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Your point about science ignoring religious claims is something that I again support to an extent. There are areas in which naturalistic and religious claims collide. An example is the causation (or non-causation) of the universe. In this occasion the search for naturalistic causes disqualifies itself from the causation of the universe (it being the causation of nature).

You are wrong.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

About improbability. I make it a prerequisite that all of my beliefs be probable.

You have no basis for establishing the probability of diety. What you call probability is, again, simply argument from ignorance - you've managed to convince yourself that the probability of !{X} is a function of your ignorance of {X}.

[chronic1634]

1) whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2) the universe began to exist.
3) therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.