|
|
Post by skully on Jan 28, 2012 21:37:46 GMT -5
Thought I might start this thread for fun. for me personally, I consider myself an evidental apologist (in other words I believe and use science and history to prove the existence of God). Anyway, lately i have been trying to do a lot of research on that subject and i would like your guys's opinions  p.s: although i do believe that both science and history can prove God's existence, i do also believe that believing in God is based mostly on faith, but His existence can be proven in other ways. don't get me wrong though, but I also don't entirely trust in science or even history, but like i said, i only use those to help back my beliefs. enjoy... |
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Feb 4, 2012 6:58:47 GMT -5
When asking this question, we should look at what science is. In apologetics we usually discuss natural sciences right? This is rather confusing for me, because in my native language, Dutch, there is a clear distinction between natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry etc.) and science in general (which would also include things like, linguistics, history, psychology, sociology etc.), but in English I think 'science' is usually only used in the sense of natural sciences, right? So since you say science and history, I'm assuming by science you're mean the natural sciences.
Now on to the question, what is (natural) science? For natural sciences wikipedia gives me: 'The natural sciences are branches of science that seek to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world by using scientific methods.' (I know wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy of sources, but this is an internet forum, not an academic debate, so I reckon it'll do). If we define natural sciences like that, it's to me quite clear that science is fundamentally unable to answer the question 'is there a God?', regardless of whether there is a God or not. Science can describe and research the rules that govern the natural world, but not who or what put them in that place or why. Science seems to be unable to answer 'why' questions. Science can explain the world around us, but cannot give a meaningful answer to the question whether it is designed or a coincidence. In our culture science has become so prominent that we feel like only knowledge derived from science is trustworthy; all the rest is meaningless speculation. So because we can't see a purpose in the natural world through the lens of science - which in it's very methodology doesn't even seek to find purpose - some people have concluded that there is no purpose. That is pure silliness.
I'll try to illustrate using the following comparison; if you walk into your kitchen and you see the water boiler is turned on and you ask: 'why is the water boiling?' Science will explain to you how the water boiler works and how the water molecules are moving faster etc, it can go back as far as explaining somebody or something filled it with water and pushed the button etc. But that's not the answer we're looking for, is it? What we want to hear is: 'Oh, I turned it on, because I'm going to make some tea.' Science isn't going to give that answer, but that doesn't mean that answer is meaningless speculation without proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by skully on Feb 4, 2012 20:15:18 GMT -5
When asking this question, we should look at what science is. In apologetics we usually discuss natural sciences right?This is rather confusing for me, because in my native language, Dutch, there is a clear distinction between natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry etc.) and science in general (which would also include things like, linguistics, history, psychology, sociology etc.), but in English I think 'science' is usually only used in the sense of natural sciences, right? So since you say science and history, I'm assuming by science you're mean the natural sciences. evidential apologetics can actually cover both natural science and general science. we basically have it the same way in america too where natural science covers chemistry, biology, physics, etc. but the main difference is that it's considered natural sciences if it deals with organisms. for example the study of how certain chemical factors influence animal behavior could be considered natural science. also, apologetics can also cover different aspects too such as certain types of theological thinking or philosophy. as with this thread though, i'm only asking for science (both natural and general) and history (such as world history, american history, etc.) Now on to the question, what is (natural) science? For natural sciences wikipedia gives me: 'The natural sciences are branches of science that seek to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world by using scientific methods.' (I know wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy of sources, but this is an internet forum, not an academic debate, so I reckon it'll do). If we define natural sciences like that, it's to me quite clear that science is fundamentally unable to answer the question 'is there a God?', regardless of whether there is a God or not. Science can describe and research the rules that govern the natural world, but not who or what put them in that place or why. Science seems to be unable to answer 'why' questions. Science can explain the world around us, but cannot give a meaningful answer to the question whether it is designed or a coincidence. In our culture science has become so prominent that we feel like only knowledge derived from science is trustworthy; all the rest is meaningless speculation. So because we can't see a purpose in the natural world through the lens of science - which in it's very methodology doesn't even seek to find purpose - some people have concluded that there is no purpose. That is pure silliness. that is a great point and of course i already helped clarify what natural science is. however, eventhough science can only explain the physical, it also says in the bible that God's existence can be proven by the physical and natural. for instance we are made in the image of God and every working of our being (i'll put something such as the process of cellular respiration or even genetics) as meticulous as it is can in a way prove that we were made by a creator; but the question is whether that creator is the God of the Christian Bible or some other kind of god. that's what i'm trying to debate here. the only problem is that what i'm asking for requires other people to have a good knowledge of science and/or history or they can even use examples of theological theories. I'll try to illustrate using the following comparison; if you walk into your kitchen and you see the water boiler is turned on and you ask: 'why is the water boiling?' Science will explain to you how the water boiler works and how the water molecules are moving faster etc, it can go back as far as explaining somebody or something filled it with water and pushed the button etc. But that's not the answer we're looking for, is it? What we want to hear is: 'Oh, I turned it on, because I'm going to make some tea.' Science isn't going to give that answer, but that doesn't mean that answer is meaningless speculation without proof. that is true but there is one major inconsistency with science: it's 1) man's speculation, theories or attempts to explain the unexplained and 2) because of the fact that we don't know everything, today's answers in science will often become tomorrow's questions. that is why i said that i believe that only faith alone can prove God's existence but since science only deals with the natural and it says in the Bible that God's works is revealed in the natural then science can indeed prove that God exists. of course since a lot of people would rather rely on man-made observations of the natural rather than the absolute true, living word of God; then what i'm asking is how can science prove the existence of a Creator without Biblical theology? and how can Biblical theology be applied to this scientifical evidence? i know that may sound really confusing so i'll give an illustration: we as humans are made in such a unique way where science, math, history, etc. can even prove that. how can all those factors that make us unique (such as genetics or even something simple as our different personalities) prove that we were made by a Creator instead of "evolving"? also what parts of the Bible help support this evidence? now from a probably easier, historical view: what events in history support the Bible? what proof do you have historically and biblically supports this? i know this may get really confusing and i highly doubt anyone can answer this, but i'd still like to give the challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by skully on Feb 4, 2012 20:24:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Mar 23, 2012 15:47:19 GMT -5
This is not meant to be in any way confrontational or lead to a conflagration of sorts, but I must admit that I am a bit disillusioned by the attempts of science to prove God.
It has been my experience that much of the ID, YEC, etc. movements seem to devolve into one of two problematic stances: either
1) They become increasingly politicized until they virtually cease to involve themselves in science, favoring instead courtrooms, lawyers, etc. in the attempt to appease angry mothers who chant "You can't teach THAT (that being evolution, or something similar) to my children!"
or
2) They quickly become mass 'debunkers' trying to poke holes in evolution, the idea of an old earth, etc. hoping to find the elusive Jenga piece that once pulled will topple the enemy's tower once and for all. The problem with "disproving" evolution, is that no actual proactive scientific investigation is being done. "Here's a problem," does not provide a viable solution to replace it. "God did it," or, "The Bible says...," is not a scientific statement (particularly in the sense of the natural sciences to be clear) because you cannot empirically test or verify something metaphysical.
If you view reality as containing a "natural" or "physical" realm in which we exist and a "supernatural," "spiritual," or "metaphysical" ream of any sort (be it God, angelic beings, or something else), then perhaps the two layer cake metaphor can be of assistance. The lower layer of the cake is the natural sphere, and the physical sciences ask questions with answers contained in this cake layer. God would be in the upper cake layer, where purposive questions (why, to what end, etc) may find answers that cannot be given by science.
If the empirical sciences cannot observe, measure, quantify, etc. God; then whether the Bible is accurate scientifically/historically or not is irrelevant to scientific inquiry. A theory that Genesis explains it, that The Flood did it, and so forth is not positing a scientific response. Even if you can scientifically prove that the earth is young, that fossils exist because of a flood like in Genesis, etc. the problem remains that all you've proved is that a flood did it and we were wrong about the age of the earth. Science cannot take the next step and say, "Therefore God." It could still be the case that while the Israelite (and other) people record a historical flood that destroyed most of the earth that there is no God and that this parallel is either coincidental or that the ancients merely stamped their God on something that happened. God has not been proved and remains a concept not provable.
We can surely note that the evidence does or not correlate with accounts found in the Bible, but to ask the Bible scientific questions when it is a theological document or to ask science to give answers to theological questions is to ask a non-sequitor.
Again, I hope this didn't come across as too controversial, opinionated, etc. I just thought I'd add my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Mar 23, 2012 22:58:14 GMT -5
First off, I apologize for the double post.
In case I wasn't clear in my previous post, I was not trying to take a stance for or against evolution. Also, about the argument that nothing proactive has come from movements against evolution: my critique is not meant to defend evolution or attack it. While there are clear holes and issues in current evolutionary theory, mearly saying that there is a problem is not enough, rather a viable alternative model must be produced. So far, apart from appeals to religious texts, I've seen little in this regard. That is part of my problem with the debate between creationism and evolutionism at large. There is too much attacking going on with little positive and constructive to balance it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Mar 24, 2012 18:19:36 GMT -5
I will propose two different reasons why we can never be certain of the existence of God.
1.The Problem of Induction.
Basically what this all comes down to is that all knowledge is based off of observations. For instance, even the laws of thermodynamics are laws merely because a contrary example has not been found. The second we observe something that violates a physical law, the law ceases to be knowledge.
Furthermore, this is all compounded by the fact that our own observation and thoughts are inherently subjective and untrustworthy. Humans, because we process all thought through language (symbols and representation) are incapable of objective reasoning and thought. Even the most pure of our reasoning sciences, mathematics, is subjective in terms of the numbers we use to represent concepts.
2. Theism is Atheism
Mysticism is required with regards to a belief in God. A god that can be proven and distilled into an "essence" or provable "qualities" is in no way infinite. The desire to capture God conceptually has been historically dangerous. The greatest sin of the Israelites out of Egypt, the golden calf, was not an issue of paganism, but of idolatry. The golden calf was supposed to represent God and the Israelites worshiped it in honor of God. What God had a problem with wasn't the worship, it was the fact that he had been manifested as such a finite being.
Meister Eckhart once said "I pray God rid me of God." His prayer was not for freedom from God, but from the word "God" as it was so hopelessly insufficient to describe God. The moment we begin to quantify God, creating proofs and absolute theorems or ontological arguments, we are once again taking God from something transient and unknowable into the sphere of material and real things, turning him into an idol. And this god, in his finitude, (as we all know) is not truly a God.
|
|
