Is PS Against Using Scientific Arguments as Evidence for God's Existence?

I see that major junctures seem to have happened much more often in the bible than they have lately, and their rate seems to have decayed exponentially since the creation.

No. It’s more God of the gaps. “I don’t know how that happened” ≠ “God did that”. Dr. Duffin seems unusually credulous for a supposed agnostic.

1 Like

Sure. Doesn’t that seem reasonable? “I don’t know” is a perfectly good answer to many questions. But in the current case, I don’t think the evidence is inconclusive.

Yes, by the evidence. In this case the evidence is a lack of the evidence one should expect if God existed.

1 Like

You don’t think that the evidence is inconclusive? You mean that you have proved a negative?

Correct.

Two responses. First, “proved” is not a useful word. Second, one can as easily have evidence favoring a negative as a positive, provided the positive is not so vague as to lack all entailments.

So, did you come in to the debate from a neutral position and then analyze the available evidence, and then conclude that God does not exist because there is insufficient evidence? Or did you come in to the debate disbelieving, evaluate the evidence, and then choose to maintain your position?

53 posts were split to a new topic: An exhortation from Greg on Genesis, miracles, and natural evil

It certainly is not scientific evidence, but that does not mean it does not have validity. I think the challenge, in this case, is that there are often good alternative explanations in each individual case, so multiplying them 100x does not really solve this problem. Of course, the fact that there are alternate explanations does not actually rule out a miracle.

I would call them possible miracles, that are not “signs.”

@rcohlers will certainly have thoughts on this.

1 Like

String-theory and related…

The hoary edges of science tend to be speculative and sometimes involve “neat ideas in search of an application”. That’s where I think string theory exists. It’s got some interesting ideas and math but there’s work to be done connecting it to observation. As long as they keep trying to move in that direction I think it’s a reasonable, scientific enterprise. But when do you give up? That’s subjective (& often budget-driven). Unproductive offshoots tend to die or get tabled when proponents can’t drum enough interest among other scientists. Or if something better comes along. And sometimes previously abandoned project come back to life with new information. Keep in mind that we’ve invested billions in verifying the Higgs Boson and trying to determine its energy – It’s good that the accelerator is useful for other projects, but still… The amount spent on computer time and chalk for string-theory physicists are like table crumbs in comparison.

Aside: I’m not sure how one justifies being ‘against’ multi-verse or string theory from a Christian theological standpoint. There’s nothing about these notions that stand against Christianity. Maybe it’s the erroneous assumption that it leaves “no role for God”.

1 Like

This is an interesting way to phrase it and I’m not familiar with the distinction. What would be an example of an actual miracle that is a sign?

As you indicate, it does boil down to how each of us defines evidence. This is why I often describe myself as a skeptic instead of an atheist because it references the method I use to gain knowledge and judge claims instead of simply defining what I do or don’t believe in.

Out of all of the pursuits of knowledge, science probably has the strictest definition of what counts as evidence. The ethos of science is to start with facts that no one can deny, and then see what we can figure out from that starting point. That type of scientific evidence is independent and verifiable.

For me, as a skeptic, I am looking for something more than “because I say so”. I know from personal experience that I can honestly believe in untrue things because I am a fallible human being. I know that other people are just as susceptible to this as I am. This is why I look for verification outside of subjective human experience. Do some people have subjective evidence or personal experiences that they count as evidence? Absolutely. For me, that doesn’t count as evidence, but I don’t see why others need to follow those methods.

3 Likes

Very good. Sadly, far too much “positioning” on the big questions about reality rests on little more than appeals to authority.

I like that expression of intellectual humility. It’s commendable.

Have you considered how the concept of true vs. untrue fits into a working (meaning, “practical” as you have indicated the way you live from a practical standpoint) philosophy of naturalism?

2 Likes

That’s why I don’t find “because the Bible says so” to be that compelling.

It’s really a question of how true vs. untrue fits into any philosophy. Epistemology defines any philosophy.

I don’t personally adopt the philosophy of naturalism, as you would probably define it. I don’t take any axiomic position when it comes to nature or the supernatural. What I do tend to follow is the concept of skepticism, and being fallible I probably follow it inconsistently. If anything, I don’t subscribe to taking a position on absolute truths, and instead lean towards tentative truths, which is a bit of an oxymoron like “partial vacuum”. I view knowledge as a journey instead of a hill to stand on and defend from attackers.

Good for you. Neither do I. At least not apart from some additional context that gives reason for doing so.

Jesus calls the Resurrection the only “sign” given to skeptics, a miracle with objective public evidence.

1 Like

Totally agree that, if true, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a miracle with objective public evidence.

Just thought I’d add in this, fwiw: The gospel writer John calls every single miracle he records “signs.”

2 Likes

Yes, that is true. However these are not signs for skeptics.

It is notable, also, that there are (I am fairly certain) 7 miracles in John, all of which has deep symbolic significance. They are signs, in this case, because they flow out a deep tradition, with significance appreciated within that context. John saw many miracles, but only selected a tiny subset as signs.

4 Likes

Sorry, not good enough. I don’t have good evidence that this event actually happened. Guess I’m going to hell. Damn this scientific mindset!

3 Likes

The evidence is available. It takes effort to look and understand. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

And a willingness or desire to.

1 Like

Would this be worth a thread of its own? Others have hinted at wanting to have this type of discussion with atheists, so it might be worth it. The only thing I would worry about is the quality of the discussion, but there seems to be some interest at least.

3 Likes