Ashwin and Faizal discuss science and miracles

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ashwin_s

@swamidass seems to be saying that science cannot really say if God’s involvement was necessary or not.
While @Rumraket says that evolution can work without having to invoke God.

Are you saying the same thing in different words?

I think both statements are different, but non contradictory, things.

[T_aquaticus]

@DaleCutler

What implications or ramifications do you see in that?

The most obvious ramification that I see would be to get rid of the dichotomy between God and nature. At times, it seems some Christians are arguing that if we can find a natural explanation for a phenomena then it rules out God’s actions or existence. If they would take a moment and think about it, I think they could see the folly in such an approach. If God’s existence is put in doubt by finding natural processes, then Christian theology and Christian belief is in serious trouble.

Pitting nature against God also doesn’t comport with what I have heard from Christians. I have heard many Christians explain how God had blessed them in some way, and the scenarios they describe are admittedly easily explained through natural processes. I think they would admit as much. However, they still believe that God is involved in some way.

Additionally, there doesn’t need to be an all or nothing approach. Christians can accept natural explanations and still believe in supernatural miracles. When there is evidence for a natural process, then that is the conclusion they draw. Where there is no evidence on way or the other, then believing in a miracle is consistent with both their faith and some basic principles of reason. As an atheist, I need evidence before I will accept something as possibly being true, but I fully understand that not everyone takes my approach, nor do they have to.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

Cloud formation, chemical reactions, planetary orbits, bacterial infections, and the like.

Is human actions like making buildings, dropping bombs on each other etc also an example of natural processes?
What about thing animals do like birds building nests and dogs taking their humans for a walk?

[DaleCutler]

I don’t know if you saw the flak I got (at least I remember it that way ) for suggesting that Joshua’s long day was a massive thermal inversion and superior mirage extending over the horizon. And I’m quite sure you’ve seen my suggestion that the crossing of the Red Sea was also a hypernatural miracle of providential timing and extreme degree of natural forces. So, no, my theology is not at all threatened by nature and natural explanations, because God is sovereign over timing and placing on the cosmic scale as well as the biomolecular, with my kidney testimony exemplifying the latter. And of course, fully supernatural miracles are within the scope of my faith and God’s providence, too.

I’m sorry you don’t find the ample evidence for God’s existence and activity compelling.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Ashwin_s

Is human actions like making buildings, dropping bombs on each other etc also an example of natural processes?
What about thing animals do like birds building nests and dogs taking their humans for a walk?

In the present context, yes.

[Faizal_Ali]

@DaleCutler

I’m sorry you don’t find the ample evidence for God’s existence and activity compelling.

Rather than showing the evidence is “ample”, you are showing it is non-existent in principle, since every single thing that could be observed can be contrived to serve as such evidence.

[DaleCutler]

For someone who does not want to recognize that God exists, every single thing that is evidence can be contrived not to be evidence.

[Faizal_Ali]

Exactly.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

If @DaleCutler and @Faizal_Ali agreed on the existence of God, then that would be a miracle. It could not be attributed to natural processes.

[DaleCutler]

You think that because you don’t want God to exist and because he doesn’t force himself down your throat that you are justified in your simplistic denialism. He won’t force himself on us with proof, and we know why.

[DaleCutler]

The reason he doesn’t force himself on us with proof is because proof negates love, as we have discussed before.

[Faizal_Ali]

And, of course, if there was proof of his existence, you would also say this was a sign of his love. Which just gets us back to my main point.

[DaleCutler]

More denialist logic.

[Ashwin_s]

@DaleCutler

More denialist logic

Is @Faizal_Ali in denial about God? Perhaps.
But his question is fair.

I think what you are saying is as below -

1. It’s obvious from nature and life and everything on earth that it is created. From creation we get an idea what the creator is like.
2. Since point 1 is obvious, all people can see this. However, they suppress this realisation within themselves and deny God. Hence they are in denial of the reality of God’s existence.

If so, how would you make the case for 1 to someone who thinks the existence of a creator is not obvious because if it was so obvious, scientists would acknowledge a creator and science would talk about an act of creation .
Since Scientists can find no “evidence” for a creator, then the act of creation cannot be called something that is obvious to all people.
And we can’t accuse those who deny creation of being a “denialist”.

I think the above is the crux of the discussion between you and @Faizal_Ali.