I believe this is nothing more than a rationalization to account for the lack of such proof, when it would otherwise be expected.
1 Like
John, did you know that Jesus said he offers only one sign to skeptics?
Why do you think he would do that? Why would he like himself to one sign with skeptical you?
1 Like
My point was from what we see in the Bible. @cdods’ point was related to current instances. I’m not sure why you assume these points are contradictory.
1 Like
No idea. It seems like a bad way to convince people. Perhaps he has no interest in convincing me. Perhaps he wants me to go to hell. Is that it?
1 Like
I can understand the logic, I simply believe it is consistent with what is written in the Bible - which I also understand you will be skeptical about.
I don’t think that’s it at all. We all have our choices.
2 Likes
Pretty sure we don’t have “incontrovertible proof” for just about anything in nature, since we still have flat earthers =) Some still wouldn’t believe.
But it’s an interesting question for agnostics and atheists: What minimum one piece of scientific evidence WOULD it take to believe in a creator/god?
But I understand your point and agree with the importance of faith. I also still think Thomas came to believe, even though it took the 33 AD version of “scientific evidence” to get him there.
And, again, many scientists come to believe because of the evidence they see for God in His Creation. Yes, faith takes them to the final step, but what they saw as evidence started them on the journey. Hugh Ross being one of the more notable ones, but many others.
1 Like
That is not it. But if you can work through the reasons why you, at your best, would probably do the exact same thing in his position, then it might make more sense to you.
1 Like
Dunno about you, but I don’t choose what to believe. I am forced to believe what evidence shows me or, if you prefer, what my prejudices tell me, but in neither case do I get a choice.
2 Likes
This seems to be making a very big assumption. What is your basis for assuming what I would do?
Not sure I’d say convincing 2 billion people and counting is “bad” scorecard. =)
He has so much interest in wanting you to know him. So much so that he brought you to this board. Yes, he’s the creator of our immense universe, but he loves each of us more than we know.
And of course God doesn’t want us to suffer. But He also wants free will for us and doesn’t force us or it make painfully obvious (per @cwhenderson’s point).
2 Likes
That’s a mouthful. I’ll just call it “evidence,” but sorry if that offends some. =)
2 Likes
No one is offended.
I’m just trying to help you understand how scientific culture, discourse, and language works. It is not merely about just making claims, but about having those claims understood.
1 Like
So here’s how I would maybe explain why scientists might hesitate here. I see two ways to look at “scientific evidence”:
- empirical data verified by scientific methods. This is what I’m hearing you say, would that be close?
- a testable model grounded in empirical data and observation that has been thoroughly critiqued and vetted. This is what I’m thinking when I hear “scientific evidence”.
In other words, I think for many scientists the “working ground” of science is models and theories (definition 2), not individual facts or observations (definition 1).
So I’m not sure if we can have scientific evidence for God in the 2nd way since God sits outside of science. How do I model God mathematically? Can I reliably predict God’s behavior? Can I get a DNA sample from God?
Data that evokes a “well that’s interesting?” or “what a coincidence?” in one person may evoke a “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands” in another. That’s why I like @swamidass’s “evocative” much better than “evidence”
3 Likes
I used to feel the same way, but I think that I have a better understanding of the difference between the two, now. Sure, some will go to an extreme and reject your “evidence”… but that is their own interpretation of such. Some things will resonate with some, but not with others. Some will have pre-conceived notions to which they remain faithful, despite how compelling something may seem to us. So, yes, you are correct. We can call something evidence. Others also have the right to explain why they don’t think it is so, or why it is not compelling to them. Just as with a jury trial.
4 Likes
So then, it is perfectly balanced. One can see it either way.
In this case, would any “evidence” supporting string theory or the multiverse fall into this category in your usage of the term? Would that also be “science-engaged philosophy, interacting with data in science?"
This seems to place scientific evidence to a higher weight and standard, above philosophical, historical or biblical “evidence.” Seems pretty close to scientism.
What would you say if Christianity fell behind in that score to Islam and Hinduism? Would you convert?
No, Brad, fine-tuning is an interpretation, not evidence. You’re conflating your conclusion with the evidence.
Are there scientific theories, maybe string theory or the multiverse, where you would not call the empirical data they use, verified by scientific methods, “evidence presented in support of those theories” simply because those theories are not testable? Since that is the only word you use that distinguishes #2 from #1.
I know some scientists do consider string theory or the multiverse to be non-testable pseudoscience or philosophy for these same reasons. But just want to see if there is consistency in your view. If so, that’s fine.
If the the empirical data, verified by scientific methods, is not disputed and presented as evidence for a claim, it doesn’t seem like those who don’t think the evidence is strong or that dispute the claim, should be able to dismiss it as not even being called “evidence” in support of a claim. Sure, they can say it doesn’t support the claim.
The data collectively known as “fine tuning” (though I realize some don’t like that term) seems to be a well-established accumulation of empirical data verified by scientific methods. Some may use it as evidence for a multiverse, some an intelligent creator. We may not agree with their claims, but seems valid to allow it to be called “evidence” by the claimants in either case (or no case, if that is your view).
2 Likes
This is an area where there seems to be debate amongst scientists themselves. As an experimentalist myself, I tend to view these as philosophy heavily engaged with scientific data. I see, in some ways, the far end of theoretical physics as separating itself from the rest of science and becoming more closely associated with philosophy. My theoretical colleagues may disagree, but I think there is a (fuzzy) line there somewhere where physics slips into philosophy. To me the multiverse does that, I’m not sure about string theory.
But I don’t see it as “scientific evidence” per se, as evidenced, in my view, by:
4 Likes
Thanks, @Jordan. I respect the consistency of that view and that you took the time to respectfully reply to me.
Unfortunately, I can’t say this is always the tact taken on this board at times and thus, I just have to bow out for a while. Best to you and all.
3 Likes