JCS

They are evidence of a god? Which god and by what methods? How does this evidence(?) point to a deity? What methods do you us to draw your conclusion and can they be verified?

Charles Darwin

Great questions. I do not have great answers, at least within the scope of a post. I can give you an overview / outline of what my approach would be, knowing you may not agree with my conclusions.

1) I would argue from science that naturalistic theories of origins are not good. I'm not saying naturalistic theories are literally impossible; simply that from everything we know about science, it is informing us that naturalistic theories are consistently failing, except in circles where only naturalistic theories are allowed, and therefore there is less critical review (ie, naturalistic theories are viewed critically only to the extent that they are inferior to *other* naturalistic theories).

2) I would make a similar argument about higher criticism of the Bible. Though higher criticism may not seem like science as we normally think of it, its methods and conclusions suffer from much the same sorts of problems as in #1.

3) I would argue from our inner sense of morality / good and evil, that it is evidence for an absolute standard that transcends materialism (ie, there is a "spirit" realm, where this is defined as something other then the material realm).

4) I would argue that the evidence for Christianity far outweighs the other religions, on several levels, including internal evidence from the Scriptures, external evidence in terms of knowledge of ourselves (we seem to have free will, we seem to be aware of sin, and that we commit sin, etc), and external evidence in terms of the early church, the risen Christ, the thousands of witnesses and tens of thousands manuscripts, etc.

5) I would argue from the witness of the history of the church, the respect for women, and Christian charity (so often maligned in circles such as these I realize, an no human organization is perfect, but in fact the world has been immensely improved by Christianity).

6) And finally, I would argue from the person of Jesus Christ, and his necessity. He was without sin and personally died for you. That is in immense thought. I had heard it so many times and it meant nothing to me. Now that has all changed.

I've probably left out a few steps, but you get the general idea.

Quantum Ninja

AHHHH!!! Too many negatives! Does not compute!

Philosoft

When did science implement "basic sanity tests"? Does quantum mechanics pass these tests? No a posteriori reasoning, please.

And, presumably, that helped falsify the theory once the mechanics were shown unsatisfactory. But it's not like the theory had no explanatory value whatsoever. A probable origin of the moon-capture theory was as an explanation for the different densities and compositions of lunar materials. Now, the impact theory better explains both the origin of the moon and the composition differences. Just how long do you think the moon-capture theory was promoted as fact?
I simply cannot believe you practice science as a profession.

Charles Darwin

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For starters, an approaching heavenly body cannot enter into a near-circular orbit without thrusters to slow it down, or some sort of complicated explosion or impact event which serves to slow the incoming object in just the right way.

Interesting point. I'm not crazy about the analogy because QM was more of a paradigm shift, responding to an increasing number of anomalies in classical macro physics which it nicely resolved, although admittedly introduced its own set of quandaries.

I have trouble equating the quandaries of QM with the quandaries of the moon capture theory, because the QM quandaries (eg, the idea that particles should be treated as waves) were considered quandaries because of the Newtonian bias built up over the centuries and strong tendency to think it should apply at all levels. Once it is realized that QM actually blends into Newtonian physics as you move to the macro level, then it is accepted more readily.

The moon capture theory anomaly, OTOH, actually contradicts the theory. It is not just a new concept which must overcome cultural-scientific tradition and bias and then otherwise it fits in -- rather, the moon capture theory anomaly doesn't fit in with established laws. The moon is supposed to be captured, but approaching bodies don't enter near circular orbits (or even closed orbits at all without some pretty interesting effects).

My point is that whereas QM was a reasonable, if unusual, conclusion given the state of science at the time, the moon capture theory was clearly underwritten by naturalism.

Good question. As I recall it was popular for quite a few years (>10), but don't know for sure. In any case, it wasn't as though somebody made a mathematical error, and it wasn't long before someone else caught it, saying: "hey, wait a minute, this doesn't work." Did the theory happen to have some explanatory value? Not sure, maybe.

DMB

So if one doesn't know what the weather is going to be, but, say, knows that on days when it is going to rain there are certain visible signs that are absent today, How am I making a claim that some other weather will transpire? I am simply saying that the rain hypothesis is unconvincing.

Ah! I see! Handwaving.
I did not suggest that you were foisting these things on us. Nevertheless, if we take up your gauntlet on either evidence for your god or your views on evolution here, it will distract us from the main flow of this thread. The place for those arguments is in EoG and E/C. All you need to do is to start threads in the appropriate fora and link to them from here.

It would seem that your view of science differs hugely from that of the majority of its practitioners. So perhaps you should raise these issues elsewhere as well, in either the Philosophy forum or the S&S forum. Most of us here will find your ideas about science sufficiently bizarre to doubt that you are a scientist. No doubt your acceptance of Quantum Theory is based on your belief that god is constantly fiddling with photons.

As regards the awareness of "sin", no, it isn't something we have naturally. It seems to occur as a result of religious indoctrination. And please don't hare off into a discussion about atheists and morality. That would belong in MF&P.

When I used my example of a typical piece of creationist reasoning, I wasn't sure that you were a creationist. It was merely an example of faulty logic. Now you have posted what you have on science, I don't think there is much more to discuss here. I hope you will take my advice and start a number of threads elsewhere.

enfant terrible

CD, can you try to post quotable messages so I don't have to copy and paste everything?

I've rejected God long ago, didn't need you for that, thanks. I asked if you could provide any argument in support of your proposition that it is more likely that "God" created the universe than that you did it. From your answer I gather that you cannot.

If you have such a warped concept of religion, it may explain this whole thread: you are Humpty-Dumpty and your words mean what you want them to mean, not what the rest of the world expects them to mean. To the rest of the world, this is not a possible definition of religion.

Doh. There's nothing to "believe" about it, that is an undisputed fact. But that does not make it a religion.

Yes, that is what I said - and I asked you to teach me if you can.

Great reasoning. Have you also concluded that I have bad breath?

You explained nothing. All you did was make an entirely unconvincing claim that love was an example. No explanation to support that claim.

That is still the same handwaving. I want a concrete example and the reason(s) science cannot explain it. If you still maintain that love is a valid example, then just give reasons.

So how does this apply to anything I wrote?

Wasn't it a lion before? This is all about your stuff, not mine. I asked you where my fallacy was.

Wow! That's really "out there"! I hope you have some arguments to support this monumental claim.

enfant terrible

Continued:

I wasn't even referring to consciousness in that claim, but to the rest of your list. If you are ready to disown your statement regarding all other phenomena, maybe we can discuss consciousness.

I haven't a clue what this is supposed to mean (what the *** is "evidence for the Bible"?) and what relevance for the discussion it is supposed to have.

Well argue then!

Give an example how they are "failing" - let alone "consistently".

Would, would, would... well, if you ever do argue that, I will poke a lot of holes in your argument.

That is just ridiculous. Maybe someone else will find it worthwhile to debate you on that, I won't waste time on such nonsense.

That doesn't even make sense gramatically. What would you argue? What respect for women?

Amen! May the Lord forgive you for you know not what you are doing.:boohoo:

JCS

Well I had a pretty good idea from the get go, thanks for confirming it.

That is your evidence?! You're right it isn't proof in fact it isn't anything other than your hopes and dreams. I have seen all of these claims in one form or another dozens of times. You keep avoiding the most obvious questions, how do you know which god, what methods, can any of it be varified beyond wishful thinking. I'm not even going to engage in this any further since all you are offering is hand waving. :banghead:

Charles Darwin

You say that if the BSA was exclusionary based on atheism, then it is an organization that makes religious discrimination. This mean, according to you, that atheism is a religious claim; (otherwise, it would have no bearing on the Establishment clause.)