Don't forget bad premises as well.
Yes, our world is complex. Logically concluding that that complexity requires a god is bad logic.
Good or bad, it is still based on evidence and that is what this discussion is about as I understand the discussion, you keep taking us into the good and bad of the conclusion, I thought the discussion was about the existance of evidence. Two different topics. Someone however, asked where the positive evidence for god was, I am showing you a string of it and you talk about good and bad evidence and good and bad logic as if I am trying to convince you to believe that the evidence is conclusive. What I am saying is that the evidence of complexity is evidence for god/God. You might come to a different conclusion based on your premis that god doesn't exist, but that doesn't change that it is evidence for god/God based on different premises. I think the problem you have is not with the evidence, but with the premises that lead to the conclusions and from a percise scientist, I would think you would understand that without me pointing it out. All I am doing is showing you a line of evidence that does evidence God. It evidences him based on our premis without doubt, but it is evidence none the less, which was the question asked.
Logically concluding that the existence of any god requires the existence of the Christian God is also bad logic.
Who is perposing that the evidence only shows the existance of the Christian God?
Good evidence collection means that the sources of error are well-understood and controlled. And yes, this is why we don't really consider something to be good evidence until it has been corroborated by independent groups of scientists.
Last time I checked, our existance, the existance of the universe, the complexity of our universe, the nature of humans, etc. were all "good evidence" corroborated by independent groups of scientists. So what exactly is your problem with the evience? As stated previously, it seems your problem is not with the evidence but with the premis, but, you keep assering it is with the evidence so I am wondering if I don't understand what you are saying and I am taking the time to ask you what problem you have with the above evidence?
The soul measuring experiment is bad evidence because it had inconsistent results, poor methodology, and has not been corroborated by independent experimentation. Thus it should be discounted entirely.
I am not argueing that point, the question was asked what evidnce, I presented several, all you seem to be argueing as bad evidence, yet much of it is the exact same evidence that leads you to believe there is no god/God's (for your benefit as to the question of Zeus), is the same evidence that speaks of god/Gods as well, so why then is it "bad" evidence when it speaks of god/God but "good" evidence when it speaks of no god/Gods? This makes no sense which is why I suggest your problem isn't with the evidence, but rather with the premis and/or conclusions of the evidence.
Now please, if you want to make the case that there is evidence for the existence of a god, you're going to have to do much better than that.
Much better than what? providing well documented, well studied evidence like the existance of the universe and it's complexity, etc. or do you just want to ignore all that evidence to knit pick about one small amount of evidence that is "bad" evidence thus throwing out all the evidence. I fear doing this would be an atrosity that would have dier consequences to your beliefs as well. We look at all the evidence, then dismiss what is not sound and look at the "good" evidence. I have absolutely no issue with throwing out some of the evidence presented because of how it was collected, but that doesn't dismiss all the evidence in any way shape or form.
Personal meaning? Perhaps. Believing or not believing in a god certainly changes ones' perspective on the world. But that doesn't mean it changes the expectation of observational evidence. There is, quite simply, no clear way in which the existence or nonexistence of a god would have any effect on any experimental evidence, for the simple reason that the idea of a god is not well-defined.
But, science isn't just about collecting evidence, it is also about drawing conclusions and those conclusions are definately altered by the premis of the existance of god/God or the non existance of the same, just as our conclusions would be different if the premis were the existance of gods over one god. So without being able to conclude the existance or non existance of said diety/dieties, science needs to accept that we don't know rather than to assume the non existance, that then colors our conclusions of the collected evidence and offers an non biased approach to our understanding, soemthing that I understand is important to the scientific community, an unbiased approach to our understanding. Is it not?
That's exactly the question I was asking. If you want to interpret data differently based upon the existence of a god, then you have to answer the questions, "If there is no god, then how will experiment A turn out? If there is a god, then how will experiment A turn out?" Due to the ill-defined nature of the concept of a god, one simply cannot answer the above questions in any intelligible way.
Well I dealt with this idea already, but a quick recap, it is not the experiment that changes but the conclusions based on logic, and an unbiased approach allows for all possibles, that being no god/God/gods, the existance of god, the existance of God, the existance of gods.....If we seek an unbiased approach to our understanding all these are possible until such time as we evidence beyond "reasonable doubt" (I just like saying that) that one or more are wrong assumptions.
Of course. Our theoretical models must fit all data. There must be no exceptions for the theoretical models to be accurate. If we find something that appears to be an exception, we must find an explanation that fits within the current theoretical framework, or we must modify our theoretical framework.
It is for this reason that scientists are looking very hard for any evidence of departure from currently-known theoretical models: every scientist wants to be the one to overturn the old and discover the new. The people that pick and choose evidence we call pseudo-scientists, and creationists are a primary offender.
Quick question, what or when did creationists become part of the discussion about the evidence for god/gods/God? What does creationism have to do with our discussion? Just trying to follow your discussion, you lost me on that one.
But the problem is that the question of the effects of the existence or non-existence of a god has no well-defined answer, and so it is useless to consider within the context of performing science.
The answer is well defined, it is either god/God/gods exist or they do not. No middle ground, exist or not exist. Now you could get into a bit of gray area in finding out which exists (provided we discover existance) but as to the question of existance, I don't see any way it could be more defined.
Well, this is precisely why there are many people that accept modern science that also accept the Bible. But this is also why there is no place for God within the confines of science: God is too poorly-defined to provide any insight as to what would be different if he existed versus if he didn't exist.
Well, I must disagree with you there, first in that God is percisely defined, that being that He cannot be confined (for this part of the discussion not we use capital God thus meaning "Christian God", used because of the inclusion of the Bible in the above quote) that God cannot be confined is a percise definition, just as saying that we will never have all the answers is a percise understanding. Secondly, I must disagree that it has no place in science. Anything that will affect the logical conclusions we draw is sugnificant to the process and thus the discipline. Therefore it is a question with much to do with science.