Scientific evidence FOR or AGAINST the existence of god.

[HitchSlap]

Using the scientific method assumes our brain are wired to understand the outside world which is also wired to "see" intelligent design.

So people who "see" aliens, ufo's, slendermans, goblins, leprechauns, unicorns and Elvis are all correct, because ID?

 

[Smidlee]

So people who "see" aliens, ufo's, slendermans, goblins, leprechauns, unicorns and Elvis are all correct, because ID?

And black holes, mythological creatures that are not in the fossil record , etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

Using the scientific method assumes our brain are wired to understand the outside world which is also wired to "see" intelligent design.

Where is your evidence that our brain is the produce of intelligent design? Why would a brain need to be intelligent designed in order to differentiate what humans make from what bees or birds make?

 

[Smidlee]

Where is your evidence that our brain is the produce of intelligent design? Why would a brain need to be intelligent designed in order to differentiate what humans make from what bees or birds make?

There you are again like a dog chasing it's own tail. You can't use your brain to explain away your existence. If you choose to believe your brain is an accident of nature that is not evidence that could prove to you otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

There you are again like a dog chasing it's own tail. You can't use your brain to explain away your existence. If you choose to believe your brain is an accident of nature that is not evidence that could prove to you otherwise.

I am not explaining away my existence. I do not believe that my brain is an accident of nature.

Perhaps you could address what I am actually saying instead of the distortions you prefer to make?

 

[Smidlee]

I am not explaining away my existence. I do not believe that my brain is an accident of nature.

Perhaps you could address what I am actually saying instead of the distortions you prefer to make?

Intelligent design is something wired into man from birth that allows him to do stuff like science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Intelligent design is something wired into man from birth that allows him to do stuff like science.

Prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you would call that scientific evidence?

Of the non-physical type ... yes.

Intangible evidence -- how's that?

I'm under the impression that the effects of gravity are considered scientific evidence of the exisence of gravity.

Am I wrong?

 

[Michael]

Of the non-physical type ... yes.

Intangible evidence -- how's that?

I'm under the impression that the effects of gravity are considered scientific evidence of the exisence of gravity.

Am I wrong?

You're right. Likewise they claim that the *effect* on photons is considered evidence of "dark energy", and the *effect* on lensing data is scientific evidence of "dark matter" too. The *effect* is observed, but the *cause* is pure speculation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right. Likewise they claim that the *effect* on photons is considered evidence of "dark energy", and the *effect* on lensing data is scientific evidence of "dark matter" too. The *effect* is observed, but the *cause* is pure speculation.

I like to think dark matter is what God shackled fallen angels with.[VERSE=2 Peter 2:4,KJV]For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;[/VERSE]Thoughts?

 

[joshua 1 9]

How do atheists survive then?

They survive 100% on the grace of a God that is long suffering not willing that any should perish but wanting all to come to a saving knowledge of the truth. We are given time to repent and to turn away from sin and what does not please God.

 

[bhsmte]

They survive 100% on the grace of a God that is long suffering not willing that any should perish but wanting all to come to a saving knowledge of the truth. We are given time to repent and to turn away from sin and what does not please God.

The same grace that allows 9 million children to die each year before the age of five?

 

[Strathos]

Of the non-physical type ... yes.

Intangible evidence -- how's that?

I'm under the impression that the effects of gravity are considered scientific evidence of the exisence of gravity.

Am I wrong?

Well there is a model of gravity that can be analyzed and tested scientifically. You can't do that for God, and you're not supposed to. God is an existence that is not subject to scientific investigation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't do that for God, and you're not supposed to. God is an existence that is not subject to scientific investigation.

I totally agree.

God is invisible.[VERSE=1 Timothy 1:17,KJV]Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.[/VERSE]But we can, in my opinion, see the effects of God everywhere; if only by faith.[VERSE=Hebrews 11:27,KJV]By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.[/VERSE]And the best secular example I can think of is gravity.

We can't see gravity, but we can see its effects.

We can't see God, but we can see His effects: BC/AD, buildings, hymns, Scripture on public & private buildings, holidays, etc.

 

[Michael]

I totally agree.

God is invisible.[VERSE=1 Timothy 1:17,KJV]Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.[/VERSE]But we can, in my opinion, see the effects of God everywhere; if only by faith.[VERSE=Hebrews 11:27,KJV]By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.[/VERSE]And the best secular example I can think of is gravity.

We can't see gravity, but we can see its effects.

We can't see God, but we can see His effects: BC/AD, buildings, hymns, Scripture on public & private buildings, holidays, etc.

A *lot* of physics is based upon studying the *effects*, and proposing a potential cause to explain that effect. Only atheists seem to *presume* that all physics is based upon *empirically verified* cause/effect relationships, when in fact the exact opposite is often true.

GR for instance presumes that gravity is a geometric effect of spacetime curvature that is "caused" by the concentration of mass/energy, whereas QM concepts of gravity *assume* a carrier particle called a "graviton' is the real
"cause" of gravity, and the real cause of the effects of gravity which we are able to observe.

Cause is *often* in debate, even in science. Only atheists *require* some sort of established 'cause' with respect to explaining 'observed effects', and typically only with respect to the topic of God. It's a complete double standard, particularly when they are using "science" and the scientific method as their surrogate source of truthiness.

 

[Strathos]

I totally agree.

God is invisible.[VERSE=1 Timothy 1:17,KJV]Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.[/VERSE]But we can, in my opinion, see the effects of God everywhere; if only by faith.[VERSE=Hebrews 11:27,KJV]By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.[/VERSE]And the best secular example I can think of is gravity.

We can't see gravity, but we can see its effects.

We can't see God, but we can see His effects: BC/AD, buildings, hymns, Scripture on public & private buildings, holidays, etc.

Those are the effects of people worshipping God. I wouldn't call them scientific evidence of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cause is *often* in debate, even in science. Only atheists *require* some sort of established 'cause' with respect to explaining 'observed effects', and typically only with respect to the topic of God. It's a complete double standard, particularly when they are using "science" and the scientific method as their surrogate source of truthiness.

Let's not just lay this at the atheists' feet though, eh?

I think "evolutionists" would be a better word.

A lot of others have sold their souls to science as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are the effects of people worshipping God. I wouldn't call them scientific evidence of God.

Would you call "falling" scientific evidence of gravity?

 

[Strathos]

Would you call "falling" scientific evidence of gravity?

If it can be examined, tested, and used to create a model with predictive ability.

Honestly I don't think that you and I are in opposition considering our views on this topic, from my perspective it seems like you are just trying to argue some kind of nitpick solely for the sake of arguing with me about something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly I don't think that you and I are in opposition considering our views on this topic, from my perspective it seems like you are just trying to argue some kind of nitpick solely for the sake of arguing with me about something.

Either that, or you called me out on saying there's no evidence for God.

I may have said that ... and if I did, I was wrong.

There is no physical evidence for God, but earth is dotted with heresay evidence (i.e., testimonies), forged from personal relationships with Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 11).