Board index ‹ Science and the Bible

[jimwalton]

> So are you suggesting that the other things that science justifies are themselves justification for a belief in a god?

No, I'm not suggesting that. Normal cause-and-effect are a different matter than cosmology and the broad observation of components of the universe that beg for a more complete explanation than science can give.

> Is this part of why you believe he exists? What evidence for any of this do you have that science doesn't?

Not really, and since this is your second item of misunderstanding in just a few short paragraphs, I'm guessing your mind is on a completely different plane and closed to what I'm talking about. You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about, or possibly you're making assumptions that aren't accurate.

There are about a dozen reasons why I ~~believe~~ know God exists. The multiple dozen examples of fine tuning is one of them. I don't just assume a creator and then try to fit everything into that template. Instead, I follow the evidence where it leads and infer the most reasonable conclusion, which points to theism.

> I prefer a specific answer that can be fact checked.

Theism is abductive reasoning, not deductive. There are certain parts of science that can't be fact-checked either (our notions about dark matter, about black holes, about multiverses, etc.). Even this article from Nova (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/) questions the whole axiom of fact-checking and falsifiability.

Fact-checking is beneficial in many scientific arenas, but not all. And it has little place in other disciplines. The Supreme Court is deciding about whether certain situations violate certain rights. That's not an issue of "fact-checking" at all. There are many such things. The idea that God is involved in many aspects of the natural world can't be fact-checked because science has limited reach that doesn't extend into the metaphysical or supernatural. If, for the sake of argument, there is such a thing as supernatural realities, I would have no expectation that they are measurable by science. I fear that if you are limited your knowledge to what can be fact-checked, you won't even believe if your friend tells you he doesn't feel well or that he had a headache last night. My mind isn't so small as to believe only things that can be fact-checked.

Here's a challenge for you. Take your sentence "I prefer a specific answer that can be fact checked" and submit it to scientific experiment. You can't even fact-check your own position, because any answer you give is anecdotal, not scientifically verifiable. Your own position is self-defeating.

> Who was it that couldn't figure out the complex math of orbiting bodies oin our solar system and famously gave up and said god did it?

No clue, and this doesn't pertain to our conversation. Even just two months ago Dr. Fauci said "We're going to have millions of cases" of Covid in the U.S. Lots of people say lots of things. What does this have to do with our conversation?

> But if you are ever more concerned with the truth, rather than a belief, maybe you'll ask yourself why you're defending this belief, over following the evidence.

I'm not believing in God over the evidence; instead, the evidence is motivating me to infer theism as the most rational explanation of the data.

> But I would point out that many of your answers feel like a defense of a belief, rather than a critical evaluation of the question. That's your prerogative.

What's the difference between defending my belief and responding to your attacks of my positions? How can I evaluate and respond to your attacks and not simultaneously be accused of defending? Instead, in answer to the OP's search, I gave a rational position. After giving that, my position was attacked and so I defended it. Why does that disqualify me for being a critical evaluator? That doesn't make sense. I staked out a position and I am defending it. That's what people are expected to do in debates. So don't accuse me "feels like you're defending rather than a critical evaluation of the question." That's not fair or legitimate at all.

> No, it doesn't. There isn't a single scientific theory that mentions a creator.

HA! You really made me laugh with this one. I never said a "scientific theory" mentions a creator. That's hysterical. Of course they don't. Any scientific theory that said "the answer is a creator" would no longer be science. The natural world is the object of science's studies, not the supernatural world. The best science can do when it reaches the end of its range is to say, "We can't explain this," and that's fine. But any scientist who says "God is the explanation" is no longer doing science.

> Everything you believe about your god can be attributed to fairies, magic, or other gods. That is not science.

Now you're just being derogatory and insulting. We've had a better conversation than this, and this is undeserved. We've been talking about science for multiple exchanges. We've been talking about scientific evidence, logical positions, and reasoning to a conclusion. Now suddenly you toss in fairies and magic? That's a red herring if ever I saw one. One could possibly surmise that someone would only resort to such drivel if one knew their position was under assault by a stronger case.

I never claimed theology was science. I never claimed metaphysics was science. I never claimed the supernatural was a legitimate scientific pursuit. Of course such things are not science. Science has its field. Jurisprudence isn't science, either. Nor is historiography. Nor is examining and interpreting Shakespeare or Picasso. Lots of things aren't science. As fantastic as science is, it is not the only source of knowledge. I am not at all interested to limit the ways of obtaining knowledge to those that I call scientific.