I find it fascinating that your answer directly contradicts @cwhenderson’s.
Thank you. Hope you also insist on this, not just in Christian circles, but all circles where someone also uses the word “prove” when it comes to God’s existence or non-existence?
What do you think of folks who say there is no evidence?
Along these lines, saw Templeton’s choice here:
In this and other interviews, he’s said:
“I don’t see evidence for any kind of supernatural being or intervention”
and “I have no evidence for God or any kind of god…”
No evidence? Yet working in faith/science intersection for so many years and never came across any? Perhaps a few folks on this board or other Christians in science could share some with him?
Sure, seems reasonable to say you don’t think the evidence is credible or that it supports a creator or god, etc. Or to say you don’t agree with the evidence presented leads to a conclusion of a god. Fine.
But to say that no evidence has ever been put forth? And to be selected by Templeton? Huh?
At the same time, of course, Jerry Coyne thinks this is nonsense, but for the opposite reason… because he didn’t go far enough in dismissing God:
2 Likes
What does it mean to “make space for God’s action?” Doesn’t God make His own space vs. us making space for Him?
Would you say that you recognize that there many be “evidence” for God’s existence, whether in the historical record, in the bible, in philosophy or even in science? Seems important to distinguish between “evidence” and “arguments intended to prove.” Seem like very different things?
I’m pretty sure I talk about that evidence all the time.
I mean merely space in our understanding.
1 Like
Thomas didn’t expect it either, but in today’s world, he might have tested Jesus’ DNA to make sure it was him who was resurrected. Would that be enough to claim scientific evidence?
I personally try to be careful not to assume that God would never present us with any “clear scientific evidence of God’s existence.”
Understand the points being made here, but also would caution against making too many assumptions about what God might do/not do.
in science?
Well, sure. In my experience, fewer and fewer atheists are making the claim that science disproves God. What I am hearing is something more like the statement that “I just lack a belief” or what you noted:
And the thing I note in response to statements like that is that the one making that statement is saying something about himself but nothing about reality outside of himself. If it’s a personal discussion and the context is friendly, I’ll ask: “Are you making a claim about reality, or are you just telling me something about yourself?”
4 Likes
As a scientist and among scientists I explain the evidence for the Ressurection all the time, though this is not scientific evidence for the most part.
Well, that 2nd article I just shared get’s pretty close to this, without claiming it directly.
It’s also a pretty nasty personal attack on another scientist. I don’t know either one of them, and yeah, have concerns about the Templeton selection process in this case, but wow.
You mean the one from Jerry Coyne? That’s to be expected from him. I’d say it’s noteworthy and significat from an apologetics standpoint that he doesn’t come right out and say it. 
Well, he’s not known for being nice.
2 Likes
OK, that was more my question and an important one: Do you see any scientific evidence that points to God?
This seems like a key hallmark of RTB (and I guess of ID, without calling the creators, “God”).
While I don’t always agree with strength of the evidence or that it strongly supports a given argument, I can at least recognize that it is nonetheless evidence being presented.
Fine tuning would be one example. Does that at least count as scientific evidence in your mind?
Sure, others would say an infinite bubble universe or a multiverse are theories that could explain the evidence (though even those don’t have much evidence, if any, and also may still require fine tuning of their own).
But that doesn’t mean fine tuning isn’t evidence in support of a creator, does it?
Of course I do, but this evidence is suggestive, and science lacks tools to make the final leap.
This is also a shift in your original question. We what are you really after?
1 Like
Fine tuning alone is not enough because it is joined with two more facts:
- Uniqueness of life in the observable cosmos.
- The possibility of mutliverse.
This gives rise to the weak anthropic principle, which is an alternate explantion.
Fine tuning might be true, or not. It is certainly evocative, but it isn’t definitive.
1 Like
Not really a direct contradiction as much as a different experience. I haven’t been in environments that @cdods describes.
@purposenation Brad, to me this fits well with your opening comment at the top of this thread. And this is how I see it as well. As @terrellclemmons said, many will evaluate the same evidence and come to their own conclusions. But there is a difference between evidence and proof.
2 Likes
I’m just asking if you think it can be called “scientific evidence” in support of a creator.
Seems like we don’t have to say that it “makes the final leap” or that it is “true” or that it “proves” it in order to call it evidence?
And BTW, #1 doesn’t seem to be an arguement against fine tuning. There could be tons of life in the universe, I expect we’ll find some, but the “Big Filter” may have just wiped all communicating life out before overlapping with us. And again, #2 still requires fine tuning of it’s own. What “evidence” makes the final leap for you to support the existence of a multiverse?
I think that is way if saying it that creates conflict among scientists. We have very high standards for evidence, and plausible alternate explanations keep this from being claimed ad you.
I would say just as I have. Evocative.
I think we could call it a “science-engaged” philosophical case, interacting with data in science. I that phrase is more what you are after.
2 Likes
This hypothetical scenario is meaningless since it was not possible at the time.
Certainly making assumptions about what God might or might not do is typically foolhardy. Perhaps I should have been more careful to explain exactly what I meant. I do not believe there is incontrovertible proof in nature of God’s existence. Certainly God has revealed Himself in special ways to individuals or small groups of people (or even 500+ after the resurrection) in the past, but I believe incontrovertible proof in nature would be accessible to all and would undermine the role of faith in the salvation experience.
2 Likes
Ha! Sounds like “alternative facts”. Your point was that, with rare exceptions, miracles appeared to believers. His point was that miracles appeared to non-believers.
1 Like
I agree. But seems like some are going further than that, and not wanting to call any scientifically derived information that points to a creator as “evidence.” I guess historical, philosophical or biblical information is OK to call “evidence,” but nothing scientific is allowed to be called evidence?
Would you say that scientific information in support of a theory (in this case, of a creator or other intelligence) is “evidence.” We don’t have to agree that it is strong or that it is “proof,” but that at least it is evidence?
1 Like