…and composers don’t write music, sculptors do not produce sculpture, architects don’t produce aesthetic buildings and engineers don’t produce designs. (All are artistic endeavors.) It’s all in the eye of the beholder. No, it’s all in the eye of the beholder whether it is good art or not. That is what’s subjective.
You seem to have missed that this whole diversion on art was started with:
That has provided the backdrop (or context) for my replies.
If you want to have a discussion of art that is outside of that context, then start a new thread.
Thanks for honestly sharing with us @DaleCutler. I don’t think anyone would have guessed our conversation on flagellum and motors would lead here 
.
Thank you for hearing me out, and seeing value in where we are coming from. I think there is a better way forward for Christians in science and I’m glad to be finding it with you.
2 Likes
I’ve thought about that and kind of whimsically wondered that if, similar to the wings of birds before man-made flying devices were built and the devices’ protrusions were called wings, that if what rotated the bacterial flagellum had been discovered first and called a motor before a man-made device had been built and called that, if we would have had as much difficulty calling a motor a motor. 
But yes, we are interested in truth ultimately, and in ultimate truth.
1 Like
If you want to omit the latter part of my response then you should certainly read the first as very much intended irony.
(I don’t think further discussion would be anything but a squabble.)
I dont think so. The impression i got was that, God’s activity would be detectable by Science and hence no God as described by theists exists.
This is not true… look at Judas. He had all the proof anyone could ask for in terms of the miracles he witnessed.He did not feel any compulsion to believe. The same can be said of anyone in Israel who witnessed Jesus miracles at that time.
Its entirely possible for people to reject God even if they can see clearly that he exists. I am sure, this has happened in history and will continue to occur. The devil and his angels know that God exists, yet they feel no compulsion to surrender to him. Rather, if we go by Romans 1; God has made his nature/existence obvious through creation.
I think Scientists are missing out on design as hypothesis because of a commitment to methodical naturalism. Besides, most scientific conclusions are inferential, its not proof of a fact. Its the best inference based on the evidence available.
1 Like
No. It is a commitment to evidence. It is a commitment to not jump to conclusions unsupported by the evidence.
1 Like
You are highlighting a difference in opinion here. unless of course all the theistic Scientist think there is no evidence for design in nature.
What is the evidence that nature can create anything?
We agree that seeing does not guarantee believing, but I would appeal to God’s requiring faith as opposed to proof in a couple of places:
and
Did you follow the embedded links above about why God would not even want to give proof? They are in this paragraph:
Here is another…
This is a transcript of a six and a half minute video, so it should be readable in four minutes or less (the link to the video is at the end, if you would rather watch that):
1 Like
Actually the discussion wasnt about seeing. Its about whether God would leave evidence for his existence. The resurrection is the greatest example of this. We can see how Paul used this as evidence/justification for God’s jusgement-
Acts 17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
I agree that faith is a requirement to please God. However this faith is a confidence in God’s character/ attributes and is not baseless.
No… I will have a look at it.
Some comments on the argument made -
This is not true. Take a the devil for example. He doesnt love or like God. However, he has ample evidence for who and what God is. This is the point made by James contrasting true faith and an acknowledgement of God -
James 2: 19 -19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Jesus himself talks about people “gnashing their teeth” when he will judge the world.
Its obvious from the bible that a revelation of God does not lead automatically to a loving response.
While i agree with your basic premise that Gods treasures love freely given, there is a hidden premise in your argument that assumes that knowledge of God leads to love for God.
This need not be true and is false in many cases.
I agree with this argument here. However, the fact that people will not believe inspite of evidence does not negate the fact that God provides evidence because of his righteousness.
Its this point which Paul mentions in Romans 1 when he argues that God is right in his judgement of all people, including those who refuse to acknowledge him.
Romans 1:8 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
In short, God provides sufficient evidence to believe in him and for any rational person to infer that he is the creator.
As per the bible this is not a valid question that athiests bring up (Refer Romans 1:18,19). I have heard many atheists arguing that there isn’t enough evidence for the existence of God. The arguments tend to be along the below lines -
- They argue that only some kinds of evidence (usually things that can be verified through the scientific method) are valid.
- They demand evidence that is irrefutable, i.e if materialists can think of some way to explain the evidence using material cause/effect; then its not evidence for God. So we have athiests who explain away the resurrection as fraud,myths, a hoax,mass hallucinations etc.
- They refuse to consider personal testimony of reliable witnesses.
- They refuse to accept anything as a miracle unless it falls within a narrow definition such as regrowing limbs (and would probably need to witness it to believe it anyway).
- They refuse to believe in their own nature as a living soul capable of having a legitimate experience of God and hence do not seek God in a spiritual sense (for example through prayer). And any experience of God involving dreams,visions etc would be explained away as some kind of psychological phenomenon.
So, its more accurate to say athiests ignore evidence for God and their own selves. Its more like a courtroom where many kinds of evidence are inadmissable. The only admissable evidence would be sanitised to remove all reference to God or the supernatural (mostly peer reviewed papers in todays times).
In short, they are very similar to the rich man and his brothers in the parable you mentioned. They refused to consider all the existing testimonies/evidence for God. They refused to seek him out… and now mistakenly think a dead man returning from the grave would convince them. This is also proven false with Israel’s rejection of Jesus.
That’s the point Jesus was making with the parable. Israel would refuse to believe in him even after he rose from the dead.
As a theistic scientist, I would say that it would probably depend a lot on what you mean by “design” and “evidence”.
Design
I have no a priori problem with God performing a miraculous and obvious demonstration of his sovereignty within natural history (e.g. a “poof” creation that is unlike anything we’ve seen nature do), I just don’t think I’ve ever seen an example. On the other hand, to me it looks like God designed the whole thing and designed it to work according to the physical laws he instituted in the beginning.
Evidence
What evidence do I have? Hints here and there, but mostly from scripture, so hardly scientific proof. I think this is the biggest problem I have with ID. The starting assumption seems to be:
proof of design → proof of God
,where I would probably be more:
acceptance of God → acceptance of design
3 Likes
Both “design” and “create” are vague terms. Having tight definitions is a prerequisite of having evidence. With only vague concepts, all you will get is opinions.
3 Likes
When you first suggested this scenario, I was fascinated by the irony!
Your description tends to identify Atheists as wanting to live in two different worlds… almost, that is.
I can imagine an Atheist insisting that any God worth his GODNESS would also make the effort to send “daily notes” to his followers… requiring no real scientific challenge… like genetic coding that formed a congenital tattoo of sorts, like some portion of this famous line of Hebrew!
[ For those who aren’t into horns, a human voice steps in
with great glory at the 30 second marker of this video of
just another 120 seconds. ]
The Atheist core complaint is sometimes forgotten: what should be easy enough for a God to do … is completely unavailable to billions of humans… and at what cost?
So, short of this rather dramatic kind of evidence (I would hesitate to say it is scientific, but it would be pretty hard to dismiss in any case, is there any implicit or deductive process that still allows for someone to make the same conclusion - - without the Tattoos?
Even though I am on record, multiple times, for saying NO, there is NO SCIENCE that can do this, I nevertheless am rather content and convinced that there is some greater power of the Universe.
And the Paradox of @Ashwin_s fades away.
2 Likes
Did you see this yet @Dan_Eastwood?
3 Likes
I had not, thanks!
Where we’ve had a bunch of rousing good arguments!
I’ve come to admire Dale for his tenacity and ability to consider ideas he doesn’t necessarily agree with. (Dale is good people, just don’t tell him I said so!) 
To detect God we would first need a scientific definition of God. That should not be possible. It if were possible, then it’s not a god as any of us conceive God to be. This isn’t just the atheists ans scientists saying this, plenty of theists agree too.
God’s activity might be detectable (IMO), but upper case ID doesn’t ask questions that can be meaningfully tested. Instead ID often tries to invent new kinds of scientific arguments, does it badly, and tries to pass it off as evidence.
6 Likes