Science Proves God

[e lansing]

hum...Science proves God....Science cannot even tell us what came first when it comes to the human body Did the brain, the heart, the eyeball, the lung, blood, what came first? and then how did it all come together so perfectly:39: Science wants to tell us that the earth billions of years...ok...then the earth should be filled with all kinds of proof of macro evolution everywhere and yet nothing comfirm the missing link These are not very technical term, such as all of the previous post, but my point still stands...science has a hard enough time explaing some of these natural thing, let alone, God! Maybe science proves God by default

e

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

There is a scientific "rebuttal" of the fine tuning and cosmological argument. But for that you might consider posting to my personal forum on the outer court, it is easy to find, it is called viole . Given the popularity of this thread, I cannot guarantee prompt replies

I always asked myself (Einstein did the same, lol):

Did God have any choice in defining the values of the constants of nature to allow life?

If yes, then it could have created the universe with completely different constants, basically with all possible values. In this case the fine tuning is not fine at all. All possible values are possible.

If not, then He is not omnipotent. He must follow some design rules which cannot be changed without falling into the previous case. We can still call Him God (albeit not omnipotent), but the design rules are stronger and look more God-like.

Ya, you keep asking this, regardless of how invalid it's shown to be.

Viole, I underlined your false assumption. The rest is a terrible non-sequitor.

In addition, the conclusion you reach under the affirmative doesn't seem to be realistic. Just because He could have created life with different values, doesn't make this physical reality any less fine tuned. Change THIS reality by a few units in either direction and you end up with no life.

Not only that, but if you're walking along with someone and you find a mechanical watch ticking on the beach and the person says, "Wow, what a beautifully crafted watch, I wonder who made it", you don't say "Pppffftt, that wasn't crafted by anyone. Watches can be digital, so clearly the rules can change, so if there was a designer he didn't really do any designing in creating that watch."

The argument is so terrible, it's hard to imagine on what level it's supposed to be compelling. Evidence of fine tuning is evidence of fine tuning, and none the less so if the tuner has the resources to facilitate options.

Digital watches must be created,also.

Good point Shiloh62, I completely agree with your objection. Why mechanical watches only should be evidence of creation is puzzling to me and a clear evidence that the general ontology of watches and the corresponding epistemology of watches origin and their associated metaphysical causation has not be thought thoroughly enough. The same arguments should apply to digital watches, too. Is this the case? For instance, spontaneous decay of heavy elements can be used as a watch (with a precision similar to digital ones); do we have enough evidence that such watches are also created?

That's actually the whole point.

Whether the watch was digital or mechanical makes no difference, in both cases it would be evidence of design.

That's why seeing a designed universe is none the less evidence for a creator even if Einstein was wondering if God could have done it differently.

Re-write the metaphor, and put the digital watch on the beach and the mechanical one on the wrist, if you prefer, it makes no difference.

And viole, spontaneous decay must be measured to use as a watch.

Did you think time was called time becasy Timex made it? Did they just place a patent on the ticking hands that were suspended in the air, or do companies manufacture mechanisms that simply measure time?

Likewise, does the decay have an external measure that communicates the decay, or is that something someone would have to design a watch-like instrument to detect?

Naturalism would be so easy to support as long as no one holds it up to reality, hey?

[apologia828]

This debate is pretty lopsided but I'm gonna jump in really quick here. Lol.

Let's go back to the simple illustration given previously about finding an ancient arrow. You're digging and all of a sudden you find this finely-carved arrowhead attached to a base pole using some sort of thread. Wow! You just discovered an artifact of some ancient tribe. You don't necessarily know who it belonged to but you know it was a somewhat intelligent agent.

How does science prove that there must be a god? Well, with technological advances allowing us to observe and understand the nano-sized factories working away within the human body we have a very similar moment like the arrow discovery. The work done in creating functioning proteins using dna is incredible. We are talking about something way more advanced than an arrow, however, we are not capable of making the logical and obvious inference that it must have been an intelligent agent. I'm sorry but just because its biotic doesnt change the fact that there is an obvious design there. Without design we couldn't even do science! The only reason scientists are able to make accurate predictions is because there is a design.

Anyway, I know I'm rambling so I'll jump back out for a bit. Great stuff so far everyone!