Reality: can science prove God? (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 18, 2020, 18:49 (1739 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: From this undeniable evidence and solid logic we infer that a First Cause exists. The a posteriori reasoning behind the scientific evidence for God’s existence is much stronger — much more compelling scientific evidence — than the evidence for any other theory in natural science.

dhw: I don’t see how anyone can deny that there must be some kind of first cause. The question is what is its nature?

Animal, vegetable or mineral. Obviously a designing mind is required.

QUOTE: "We on the reality-based side of this debate must not cede science to the atheists. Atkins is right that science can answer some of the biggest questions we can ask, such as “Does God exist?” Atkins’s problem is that he doesn’t like the answer science provides: using the ordinary methods of a posteriori inference essential to the scientific method, scientific evidence and logic clearly demonstrate the existence of God."

dhw: Scientific evidence and logic do no such thing! This is every bit as unscientific and illogical as the argument that science demonstrates that God does not exist. The only form of consciousness that we know of and can observe is that of material beings. What observable evidence is there that a conscious mind can exist without a source, has always been in existence, is capable of creating universes and living, material organisms? The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind?

Your final hopeful ever-evolving theory must take into account the complexity of proteins as Tour points out. It required the appearance of biochemical molecules coming together in an organized fashion from inorganic chemical in the initial universe. Inorganic chemicals are simple and organic molecules are highly complex. Just compare the size of text books. Yours is an impossible wishful sort of prayer for miracles.

dhw: My own view is that science cannot possibly answer any of the “biggest questions” simply because science is confined to the study of the material world as we know it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing if the material world as we know it comprises a true and complete account of all reality.

I agree to the extent that our view of reality is mediated by our biological brain which gives us an interpretation of reality.

DAVID: Of Course I use the science of natural theology. The complexity requires a designer. and the complexity and the steady direction of evolution to the final result of the human brain makes the case for design. There is no room for a theory of self-design which would never create the directionality of evolution.

dhw: Of course there is room for a theory of self-design (whether theistic or atheistic). It would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, and the drive for survival would explain the increased complexity from bacteria to elephants, whales, eagles and humans. Your own theory, however, has been covered comprehensively on other threads, so please let’s not discuss it here as well.

Yes, design is required. the drive for survival is pure unacceptable Darwinism. Living animals are very wary for day to day survival, but have no foresight or ability to arrange for new modifications to enhance survival. Survival is good or bad luck, per Raup, if you believe in Darwin as he did.