Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:I can't even understand that. /\

Welcome to our world.

neo-x wrote:I can't even understand that. /\

Apparently you aren't wearing your 'Omniscience' (perfect knowledge) beanie -- but don't worry -- RickD and I don't have one , either.

neo-x wrote:I can't even understand that. /\

isn't any new information going to appear to be not understandable? So, i'm not sure how to reply here;


The Andromeda–Milky Way collision is a galactic collision predicted to occur in about 4 billion years between the two largest galaxies in the Local Group—the Milky Way (which contains the Solar System and Earth) and the Andromeda Galaxy, although the stars involved are sufficiently far apart that it is improbable that ...
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... r%20galaxy

and as for the rest, if you were to describe your life today, to someone living even 100 years ago--a blink, relatively speaking--they would likely think that you had lost your mind. Isn't this some kind of remade world? Or am i missing your point?

neo-x wrote:

hughfarey wrote:It's certainly a sensible question. However, I'm not sure I know how to characterise a form of existence in the absence of time, even to myself! Obviously the concept of a holiday, in the sense of not interfering with something going on somewhere else, wouldn't make any sense before the start of time. So was there - or rather is there any reasonable way of inferring - something before there was something? Something extrinsic to everything? The story of the rebellious angels, which although to my mind very largely metaphorical, seems to take place somewhere, at sometime, before (or perhaps outside) the creation of the universe, but if so, it was not within the same concept of place and time as we have now, and I really can't come up with an adequate model to account for it.

So that's a 'no' then, I guess...

Angels are after all, creation. The reason I asked you is because to me it seems like going on an angelic holiday isn't really an issue at all, nor do I think it's a solid objection. God at some point must have been on one, until unless he created. So to think that God has to be doing something all the time is an assumption that is really not necessary, to begin with. Ofcourse this goes back to my point of God not interfering in the what he created. And I understand you don't think the same and that's fine, just didn;t think it was a valid objection to my view. Perhaps, a better one imo is that God loves being in interaction with his creation, that though can't be held up on all accounts but is still better than God not doing anything at all, which I think he must have been at some point.

I don't know how to underline, etc. but want to comment on "God loves being in interaction with His creation....." That is made known to us in Philippians 4:6,7, 8,9, 13.

crochet1949 wrote:I don't know how to underline, etc. but want to comment on "God loves being in interaction with His creation....." That is made known to us in Philippians 4:6,7, 8,9, 13.

It is indeed, and I believe (by Faith) it's true. However, from a Scientific perspective we may ask whether there is any non-biblical evidence of this love, and also ask how does this love of interaction manifest itself. Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:I don't know how to underline, etc. but want to comment on "God loves being in interaction with His creation....." That is made known to us in Philippians 4:6,7, 8,9, 13.

It is indeed, and I believe (by Faith) it's true. However, from a Scientific perspective we may ask whether there is any non-biblical evidence of this love, and also ask how does this love of interaction manifest itself. Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines.

Being in a church or Bible-study group -- a person can observe / inter-act With those who pray for / share With each other.

Some things do Not have Scientific evidence. Love, hope, peace. Googling the subject -- there are many scientists - in various areas who Do believe in God -- hold the same convictions that I do.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:I don't know how to underline, etc. but want to comment on "God loves being in interaction with His creation....." That is made known to us in Philippians 4:6,7, 8,9, 13.

It is indeed, and I believe (by Faith) it's true. However, from a Scientific perspective we may ask whether there is any non-biblical evidence of this love, and also ask how does this love of interaction manifest itself. Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines.

Not only scientific. Common sense reasoning is appropriate, too. Informed by science, sure. But you cannot and can never let others make the claim that only science conveys truth. Such a statement is self-defeating. After all, the sentence "only science can convey truth" is not itself scientific. So if only science can convey truth, then that statement itself is false.

The real question, then, is whether or not there are any reasons other than those rooted in Scripture to affirm God's love for us. And I think the obvious answer to that is, "yes." Ben Franklin, for instance, said that wine is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy (not beer, as is often thought). Now, it takes some reasoning to get there, but that's just the sort of thing that if you're willing to really look at the world, you see so much that makes God's love for us undeniable that to deny it really is the near the height of irrationality. No, not only does God exist, He loves us and wants us to be happy. For those that have never looked into that line of thought, Mere Christianity is an excellent place to start.

crochet1949 wrote:Some things do Not have Scientific evidence. Love, hope, peace. Googling the subject -- there are many scientists - in various areas who Do believe in God -- hold the same convictions that I do.

and

Jac3510 wrote:Ben Franklin, for instance, said that wine is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy (not beer, as is often thought). Now, it takes some reasoning to get there, but that's just the sort of thing that if you're willing to really look at the world, you see so much that makes God's love for us undeniable that to deny it really is the near the height of irrationality. No, not only does God exist, He loves us and wants us to be happy.

Noble sentiments, but surely just a little one-sided? To crochet's love, hope and peace, should we not add hatred, despair and conflict? Are these inexplicable by science too? Are they manifestations of God's love? And to Benjamin Franklin's wine, must we not add cholera and earthquakes? It is quite easy for those with Ben Franklin's success and comfortable lifestyle to find the love of God undeniable - to others it is much less obvious.

First, there's nothing inexplicable about love, hope, peace, joy, or any of that from a scientific perspective. Yet all of them, rightly understood, still absolutley prove the existence of a loving God. And second, yes, we should add hate and despair to that list, for they, too, prove the existence of a loving God. More important for you is that you stop implying or maintaining epistemic scientific reductionism, which is to say, the idea that all things either can be explained by science or else only that which science can explain can be regarded as true or known. That's a self-defeating, and thus irrational, proposition to hold.

Jac3510 wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:I don't know how to underline, etc. but want to comment on "God loves being in interaction with His creation....." That is made known to us in Philippians 4:6,7, 8,9, 13.

It is indeed, and I believe (by Faith) it's true. However, from a Scientific perspective we may ask whether there is any non-biblical evidence of this love, and also ask how does this love of interaction manifest itself. Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines.

Not only scientific. Common sense reasoning is appropriate, too. Informed by science, sure. But you cannot and can never let others make the claim that only science conveys truth. Such a statement is self-defeating. After all, the sentence "only science can convey truth" is not itself scientific. So if only science can convey truth, then that statement itself is false.

The real question, then, is whether or not there are any reasons other than those rooted in Scripture to affirm God's love for us. And I think the obvious answer to that is, "yes." Ben Franklin, for instance, said that wine is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy (not beer, as is often thought). Now, it takes some reasoning to get there, but that's just the sort of thing that if you're willing to really look at the world, you see so much that makes God's love for us undeniable that to deny it really is the near the height of irrationality. No, not only does God exist, He loves us and wants us to be happy. For those that have never looked into that line of thought, Mere Christianity is an excellent place to start.

Only one comment -- does God want us to be 'happy'? or to be growing, maturing Christians. Because sometimes Our idea of being 'happy' -- involves things that aren't in our best interest.

Thanks for agreeing about the common sense.

crochet1949 wrote:Only one comment -- does God want us to be 'happy'?

Yes

or to be growing, maturing Christians.

Yes

Because sometimes Our idea of being 'happy' -- involves things that aren't in our best interest.

Yes. And such "happiness" isn't real happiness, is it?

Thanks for agreeing about the common sense.

You're welcome.

Jac3510 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Only one comment -- does God want us to be 'happy'?

Yes

or to be growing, maturing Christians.

Yes

Because sometimes Our idea of being 'happy' -- involves things that aren't in our best interest.

Yes. And such "happiness" isn't real happiness, is it?

Thanks for agreeing about the common sense.

You're welcome.

Christians should be happy, growing, maturing people.

Yes!

"Epistemic Scientific Reductionism"? In a forum call "God and Science"? On a website called "Evidence for God from Science"? Well, wash my mouth out with soap and water. Heaven forfend that anybody should actually be discussing Science as evidence for God, rather than taking as a premise that Science is wrong, and then attempting to refute it by using 'common sense' or biblical quotation.

I find it intriguing that Jac thinks hate and despair are not only "evidence" of a loving God, but actually "prove the existence" of a loving God. I can't help wondering what Jac thinks the evidence for a malevolent God might be.

No. Common sense reasoning is never appropriate, unless it is indistinguishable from scientific reasoning. If it conflicts, then it is not reasoning at all.

No. A baby dying of cholera is not evidence of a loving God. It does not suggest that God wants it to be happy, nor that God wants it to be a growing maturing Christian. It may be - indeed I believe it is true - that "loving" is a real attribute of God, in which case the dying baby has to be carefully explained, but dismissing it as "in our best interest" is not a persuasive way of doing so.

So there's a bit of a challenge - and I think appropriate to the forum and the website. Given that there is scientific evidence for God (which I think true, and I think could defend at least enough for atheists to engage in discussion), what scientific evidence is there that he's a "loving" God (which I also think true, but would find harder to justify to an atheist)?

"rather than taking as a premise that Science is wrong"

That's not the premise, and if you aren't going to interact with my actual point, then nevermind. I won't waste any more of my time.