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

[Greg]

@cwhenderson

Maybe someone will come up with clear scientific evidence of God’s existence. That would be very interesting if it happened, but it is not something that I am expecting.

I don’t expect to see this either. Throughout the Bible, there is an emphasis on faith. It is my belief that a solid “proof” of God’s existence would undercut the role of an active faith that God desires in His followers. This may seem counterproductive to some participants here, and I can understand how this would raise some confusion, but there it is.

The Bible emphasizes faith but not solely as obvious here in Ro 1: 19-20. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,in the things that have been made.”

So if we as Christians believe this is the word of God, and this testimony declares with 100% certainty that observation of the creative order points to the Creator directly designing it and making it, then the Christian MUST conclude that ALL historical science is not the determination of how nature pulls this off, but rather the observation about how God did it. If the scientist tends towards concluding against the hand of God making the creative order in a direct way, then it is suppressing what he already knows to be true based on what the Bible says here as undeniably true.

ID is therefore better in line with Scripture and mainstream science that swamidass says he subscribes to is more in line with atheistic naturalism.

When Swamidass says that ID not using good scientific argument for the intelligent development of a bacterium etc, what he is therefore potentially suggesting is that they are not using the argument that is fitting of a naturalistic philosophy he chooses to subscribe to as he says he approves of mainstream science views.

I have said this a million times: pure science may not be able to 100% detect the hand of God. The fact that the universe had a beginning sure points 99 out of 100 towards the existence of Something outside of the natural creating it but some want to focus on the 1. But think about this: Pure science is also incapable of determining that the natural pulled it off. So for the Christian who believes Scripture to be true about human nature and the reality of God (Ro 1) should fall more in line with ID and creation science line of thinking where the science is observation of Gods works and less in line with godless mainstream science that seeks a naturalistic explanation of our existence at all cost. If one is not naive, they have to admit that the power of presumption will guide the development of theory.