What is the best theory? (Creator, Darwin, evolution, creation)

[troyjsmalley]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You are mistaken. Creationism does reach it's own conclusion and then tries to find supporting evidence, but science does not.

I agree. I believe that creationism presumes that God is responsible and then then tries to 'prove' it. (the theistic scientists such as Newton did not try to prove God's existence from science, however he did presume it.)

However, modern science also does have it's presumptions. It doesn't allow for the interactions of God with the universe.

Notice that I did not propose that we take God out science. I did however propose that we should take God out of our presuppositions, in order to be more objective.

We can not provide evidence for the existence of God from what we don't know (the god of the gaps), but I do believe that we can find evidence for the existence of God from what we do know, (ie. the singularity of the universe).

[troyjsmalley]

Originally Posted by KaLi

Unless divine experiences with God are considered proof of his existence, God is either one of three things:


1. Non-existent

2. Completely uninteractive with the universe

3. The very universe we live in.

Yet people still believe our very existence is ultimate proof that some God made us and actually cares about us...

Please show me how it is impossible for there to be other kinds of proofs for the existence of God. Of course, this is impossible. It would be to prove a universal negative. You would have to prove that we know of all the different kinds of proofs.

Also, your second point does not follow from your contention. It may be possible that God does not interact with us directly, but is active within the universe.
Please explain your third point.

[Ryan2065]

However, modern science also does have it's presumptions. It doesn't allow for the interactions of God with the universe.

Modern science does not have presumptions of no god... Many scientists in fact believe in God, it is just they do not let that belief interfere with their work. Science deals with the natural world... If there is no natural explanation of what occured then that is what science says. It is just quite hard to be able to rule out a natural explanation when we don't know everything about the natural world.

We can not provide evidence for the existence of God from what we don't know (the god of the gaps), but I do believe that we can find evidence for the existence of God from what we do know, (ie. the singularity of the universe).

Could you explain better how the singularity theory gives evidence to god?

[Ryan2065]

Please show me how it is impossible for there to be other kinds of proofs for the existence of God. Of course, this is impossible. It would be to prove a universal negative. You would have to prove that we know of all the different kinds of proofs.

I believe the both of you should replace "proof" with "evidence".

Also, your second point does not follow from your contention. It may be possible that God does not interact with us directly, but is active within the universe.

Yup that is the 4th one =P
If god is A and the universe is B then there is a series we could do...
A exists (or doesn't)
If A exists:
A has something to do with B (or not)
If A has something to do with B:
A could have created B (or not)
A could be active in B (or not)
A could be B (or not)

But one of those 3 needs to be true if A does have something to do with B. More than one can be true... Then you can branch out further from those assumptions... =)