Does science prove the existence of god?

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Good points. I think our disagreement is becoming gradually smaller and smaller.

I'm in a rush and can't say a lot...but I just wanted to suggest a revision of your ball analogy. Allow that the Green ball represents all known causes. What is the color of the ball that remains in the box? Not Green, or, not known.

We know that if the BB is the correct view of the universe then all nature began in it.

No, I do not agree. Again, our definitions of nature conflict. If something caused the BB, that something is a part of nature. One of the definitions of nature supplied by dictionary.com is: "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature."

 

[Pah]

Pah,


What do you mean by this? [And I recognize that truth is not the same as proof in all cases.]

cheers
orthodox

Proof carries itself with a recognized, universally understood statement that is uncontravertible. There are "truths" that are subjective and which can not lead to a proof. You, thinking there is a God, has a truth that is good for yourself but offers no proof to me.

Bob

 

[Ceridwen018]

If we assume that there must be a cause for every effect then, while we do not know (on the basis of the BB data) what exactly the cause is, we do know that there is a cause for the BB and we can conclude that it must be of a certain type of cause. We know that if the BB is the correct view of the universe then all nature began in it. Hence, only the unnatural could have caused the BB. An example might suffice to show the reasoning behind my assertion.

This is a very interesting point. I wonder though--is it right to say that all nature began with the BB? That before the BB, there was nothing natural? According to the theory, wouldn't the little ball of whatnot that was the BB itself have to be natural?

If we imagine that I hold box in my hands which contains three balls of the same shape and size. Each ball is a different colour - one red, one blue and one green. Imagine that you saw me remove the green ball and throw it away. Now imagine that I put my hand in the box and remove another ball but this time you cannot see the colour of the one I have chosen. What colour is the ball which remains in the box?

Well it is either red or blue. We cannot no for sure without for information. What we do know is that it is not green. So, what colour is the ball? Not Green.

The problem with this analogy, in my opinion, is that we know too much. How do we know that the two remaining balls are both some color other than green? As Spinkles pointed out, it would be more accurate to call them 'unknown' rather than 'not green', because they very well may be green. Even if they aren't green, they still may not be blue or red either. Does that make any sense?

 

[painted wolf]

here is some nice info rangeing from basic questions to Advanced questions dealing with acutual mathmatical equasions. It should help you in your wanting to know more about the big bang. Its from a nice site called 'ask the astronomer'.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html

hope this helps

wa:do

 

[Orthodox]

Hello everyone,

Considering that the topic of this thread is "does science prove the existence of God" I thought I'd make you all aware of a recent development in this area.

Anthony Flew, probably the worlds' (former) preemminent atheist, has becomea theist citing scientific evidence for his defection. According to Flew three lines of evidence forced him to do the swap. These pieces of evidence are:
1. The big bang.
2. The Anthropic Principle
3. The "enourmously strong" ID movement (as concerned with Chemical evolution).

This event cannot be taken lightly. It's magnitude is such that it compares to a hypothetical scenario of Billy Graham de-converting from Christianity. Flew has been called the "Betrand Russell of our day" and he suggested that Russell "certainly would have had to notice these things". Flew went on to say that "I’m sure [J.L] Mackie would have been interested, too."

Anyway, please read the interview Flew gave about his change of heart. The URL is
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was very excited when I began reading this interview....but I stopped reading it after a while, as I found it rather disappointing. It seems to be all the same old stuff: "science doesn't know how [X]happens (happened), therefore God exists".

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree Spinkles... I thought I was getting a Christmas present and got some meanderings instead.

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

science doesn't know how [X]happens (happened), therefore God exists

Rather, the position is that "science knows what cannot happen, therefore a god exists."

Before you go to deep into declaring Flew's position one based on non-falsifiability beware of this: Flew wrote the atheist's handbook on the falsifiability of theistic claims. If any atheist knew what constituted 'evidence' and what constituted 'ignorance' it was Flew.

Science is the examination of effects in search of their cause. Generally speaking, natural effects have natural causes. Does this mean that there is no such thing as an unnatural (ie divine) cause? Not necessarily. In our examination of effects and our search for causes let's not be forced to conclusions by our prejudices. Let's assume that the universe might be the effect of a divine cause. How would we cast doubt over this conclusion? By proving that there could be a naturalistic cause for the universe, of course. How would we prove that the universe was the effect of a divine cause? By proving all natural causes highly unlikely or impossible. This has been done in the Big Bang. A Persistence in declaring the cause "unknown" on the basis that the evidence indicates it is not natural is the result of an entrenched 'anti-supernatural presupposition'. What if the cause of the universe and first life is divine? For a scientific theory about an event to be true it is generally assumed that it needs to be falsifiable and repeatable.

The theory asserting divine creation is falsifiable - prove this material universe eternal (without beginning or end) and you will effectivley difuse the theory that it was 'created'. As for repeatability, it is not repeatable but, before you point the finger, neither are the atheists naturalistic explanations for the universe and onset of first life.

The fact is that it's just down right impossible that natural mechanisms accounted for the complexity of the 'simplest' life - even the non-evidenced evolution of the imaginary 'hypothetical protobionts' that are advanced by darwinian dogmatists is statistically impossible. When chance cannot account for the existence of life one must look for some purposeful agency above and beyond it . These days buying into darwinism is like purchasing a run down car missing an ignition - It could perhaps get you to your destination (the complexity of human life), if only you could manage to get it started!
This is the ID that Flew cites as reason for his 'defection'. When asked about the research into DNA Flew recently said that it, "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved." His argument is not one based on ignorance, it is one grounded in evidence. As he said, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As he said, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

And I have not seen any evidence apart from Flew's non-sequitur "by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved".

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

I think that you are wrong about Flew's statement being a non-sequitur. Basically, Flew's assertion is that highly specified and complex "arrangments" do not arise through chance. Would you disagree with this? If you found a piece of paper lying on your keyboard with the following number sequence writen on it,
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 73 79 83 89 97 101,
would you assume that the paper and the number on it was generated by naturalistic processes and chance? Of course not!Flew's statement is most certainly not a non-sequitur.

This is what the ID movement is all about. The catchphrase of the ID movement is specified complexity. An example of specified complexity would contain a large combination of features that arise independently of each other yet together work towards the same goal. An example of this is a car engine. An engine contains many complicated pieces of machinery which, in addition to their complicated individual designs, must fit together in exactly the right way to achieve internal combustion. Imagine there are 10 pieces to an engine. If you arrange nine of the 10 parts of the engine in the correct way and neglect the 10th you will not travel at 9/10ths of the speed of a complete engine, you won't get anywhere! Likewise, a 'simple' organism contains many highly complicated parts of 'machinery' which must fit together perfectly to form a living cell. If just one of the many millions of parts of a 'simple' organism are incorrectly 'arranged' then the cell will never be 'alive'. Natural chance mechanisms flail about when it comes to explaining the specified complexity of a 'simple' organism.

Orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Netdoc,

I thought I was getting a Christmas present and got some meanderings instead

I suggest you read it again. The interview was not 'aimless wandering', it had a definite point. What exactly did you find objectionable with what was said?

orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- I'm afraid you, like many others, have been duped by a cleverly disguised pseudoscience. I highly recommend this article on the subject: http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

Here's a relevant quote in response to your automotive engine analogy (I beleive Behe makes a similar analogy):

H. Allen Orr writes:

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.​

​

 

[Scuba Pete]

Science and philosophy/theology approach different subjects, disciplines and have vastly different motivations. The prior exists to answer what and how, and the latter aim to answer why and who. Anyone then who has scientific proof for God has subsequently proved that there is no God. While God invented and implemented the rules and physics that govern the universe, he did it so subtlely that there is no direct proof.

I'm OK with that, but the article promised to serve the existence of God on a Scientific platter, which it completely failed to . I will return now to my regularly scheduled faith. Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

Orthodox-- I'm afraid you, like many others, have been duped by a cleverly disguised pseudoscience.

I am dying to respond in detail to this but, alas, I must go and buy Christmas presents for my family. I'll respond as soon as I can.

Orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Netdoc,

Have a Merry Christmas

you too mate.

orthodox

 

[HelpMe]

...said "Blessed are they who believe and have not seen". This is basically a catch all. In any case, trying to 'prove' faith-based beliefs does them an injustice, in my opinion.

he also said he was the sign for the generation(or new covenent[sp?]).

may i call this thread absurd*?

 

[Orthodox]

Helpme,

may i call this thread absurd*?

how so?

 

[HelpMe]

as a statement of opinion.the premises(sp) for discussion is absurd.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm OK with that, but the article promised to serve the existence of God on a Scientific platter, which it completely failed to . I will return now to my regularly scheduled faith. Have a Merry Christmas.

I find myself in agreement with you once more, NetDoc. We're going to have to stop meeting like this. The others will begin to suspect that we are sharing the same regulator.

TVOR

 

[Orthodox]

Helpme,

Sorry to ask again but....

as a statement of opinion.the premises(sp) for discussion is absurd.

How so? Which ones? What makes them absurd?

orthodox