There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[cottage]

Science is a religion like no other with a congregation that is unique. They, you, worship their own God with greater zeal and fevor then any theistic God that I know, and they keep their Commandments with greater adherence then mine. Science is a living organism with its own needs and desires. It needs to be worshipped, like the only true God, by a congregation that glorifies it's name and defends it's honour. Your God is, out of necessity, the polar opposite in character to that of the Christian God, however, a God it is and it's congregationalists are folk just like you.

Well I’m sorry but the above is evident nonsense. Regardless of whatever hypothesis is held to there is no doctrine to prevent a competing hypothesis from being demonstrated.

The findings of science are frequently wrong or in need of amendment or alteration and will be tested to destruction or accepted as the orthodoxy, subject always to being disproved or faulted in some way. Science is something that can never be true, and at most it can only argue to a high degree of probability, but even then as with the rising of the sun or the existence of gravity, the probability is only held from induction. But of course it is true that on going to bed following the going down of the sun we have faith that we will awake to sunrise in the morning, and that is the case for both the unbeliever and the theist. The rising of the sun is accorded a very high degree of probability but as a “fact” it can be true or false, for there is no contradiction in conceiving the sun not to rise in the morning since it might not. And that, the Problem of Induction, is the difficulty for science. However, although no argument from the past or present can logically be an argument to the future (the very opposite of what science portends) it is nevertheless the case that science has served us well up to now.

If anything we all have a healthy scepticism of science. Almost on a weekly basis we see some previous findings concerning diet and healthy eating are overturned only to be replaced with a new hypothesis. And if you read the results of clinical trials they invariably find for no firm conclusion or they recommend further investigation in specific areas. Science is like democracy: imperfect but the best we have.

Therefore science can hardly be rated as a polar concept, to be compared with religious faith, where no argument is allowed to count against it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In science, it's not that unusual for "lines" to be crossed since all knowledge interrelates. A classic example was Einstein, who really worked mostly in the applied mathematics area, but that area certainly affects so many others. His Theories of Relativity were pure math applied to physics that also involved cosmology.

As another example, many different fields of science overlap and contribute to evolutionary theory - biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, biochemistry, etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess you need to look up the word theist. Christian denominations are comprised of theists. Two or more denominations in conflict are in fact theists fighting theists. As well as religion vs religion, groups of theists against other theists... They authorized themselves because religion requires authority figures. It does not matter if they were not commanded to fight. We still had theists fighting each other over religion. Theists can disagree as well or have you never heard of another religion? I find this hard to accept considering you are on a forum which has many religions. Yes atheists can disagree as there is no doctrine. It is an answer to one claim, that is all. Is the concept that hard to grasp?


No I said religion changes. Read what I post and you will not make mistakes. Many religions require a central texts in order to form their ideology. Since religion is the authority which dictate the idea of God, God also changes due to different views. Just take Adam and Eve for example. Some believe in Adam and Eve as is no evolution involved. Some accept evolution when place outside the Garden. Some accept evolution completely. These different views change God. It changes how God thinks, how God acted and this crosses over into other ideas of God. Granted this does not change the major attributes asserted as part of God. It does change minor aspects.

I believe SkepticThinker idea was that people seem to need an authority figure or text in order to form a way of life. Some need to be told what to think, other people will think for themselves and find their own path. This is not restricted to any religious view but is due to social structures which form society. We are a social species so we form hierarchies; material wealth, social standing, intelligence, education, etc. An issue is not all hierarchies are accepted by everyone nor universal. You do not accept Islamic or Nordic hierarchies while accepting a version in your society and religion. Likewise some can reject your religious views while accpeting a share social hierarchy

I think people think they need an authority figure or text in order to form a way of life. In actuality, they're doing what everyone really has no choice but to do, which is to think for themselves and find their own path.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He quoted me but the quote tag was your name. It was to show that we had some sort of disagreement as atheists. He is projecting religious doctrine on to us in which members share a common belief and ideology. Since we are both atheists he thinks we should agree with each other on subjects other than a belief in a God(s). As I said its just projection

Ah okay. Gotcha. I don't necessarily disagree with the statement anyway, I was just wondering when I had said something I don't remember saying!

Of course atheists can disagree on any number of things. There's really only one non-belief that ties us together in the first place. That's about it.

 

[cottage]

Do not put yourself out looking. The point is not that important. I have been debating this point for years and my experience with atheists and non-believers is that both are proactive in persecuting Christians. You need only look at Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Cox, Stephen Hawkins and the late Christopher Hitchen's, who is still sat in the naughty chair in heaven, to see the hostility and anger that they demonstrate, in the name of science. You need only look to James Watkins to see a prime example of a scientist rubbing his discovery into the face of theology when he found the double helix. It is just like science is motivated more by disproving theologies then they are in obtaining a Nobel Peace Prize for their scientific discovery. And to top it off, you get atheists here scrambling to find any scrap of internet evidence to defend the claim that science uses bully boy techniques to ridicule and discredit theists. It is just blatant silliness to defend behaviour that is blatantly dishonest, offensive and crass, as the above motley crew are.



That is fine, really, it is not necessary, I know the score with atheist scientist. I was once given a web link, by an arrogant boosting atheist scientist, showing that he and his kind held the majority of seats in the science community. So, there can be no advantage in getting you to interrupt your own time to satisfy my curiosity. The truth is being peddled by those who claim a majority rule.



May I say that I honour and respect your achievements in your chosen field. I am sure that you have done your professions proud. Now Christian theology is the enterprise which seeks to construct a coherent system of Christian belief and practice. It deals with the academics of theology not the spirituality of Christianity. I am a child of God who was converted into the Christian Religion, by the Holy Ghost, over thirty years ago. Since then I have witnessed many miracles, witnessed many conversions and have seen lives, destined for disaster, reclaimed and made righteous, and have received a great deal of knowledge from the Holy Ghost through the Study of scripture, fasting and prayer. I could not tell you much about the people of those times or how they lived their lives but I could tell you all that you would need to know about the plan of redemption and I could give you a logical answer to any question you pose on it, including why we have it. I can also instruct you on a fool proof method of receiving the truth about God that never fails the worthy seeker of His unconditional love. A method that disput. It's promise no atheist that I know would dare to try it. That speaks volumes about atheists. What I cannot do is give you what I have. It is the responsibility of all mankind to seek out the truth and be converted by the power of the Holy Ghost. In these things I would claim to be as qualified as any Christian who knows the character of God and His son, Jesus Christ. But I claim no glory for God has blessed me with any and all knowledge I possess, without which I would be as nought.

It’s impossible to ignore your thinly disguised and sometimes blatant loathing of atheists. Ad hominem attacks do not serve as argument but are nothing more than an unnecessary and fruitless distraction. I’m an atheist and yet I learn from people such as St Thomas (my favourite theologian); Rene Descartes; Dominican Friar, Brian Davies, lecturer in philosophy and theology, Blackfriars, Oxford; Bishop Berkley; Paul Tillich; and William Lane Craig. In total theist philosophers outnumber atheist or agnostic philosophers on my bookshelves by more than 2-1. I have regular spats on these forums with 1Robin, whom I respect, though our disagreements take very different paths.

You speak of a “logical answer to any question” concerning redemption as if that is the equal of proof. It is not. I too can give you a perfectly logical argument to redemption, in opposition to yours, even though I don’t believe in God. My “logical answer” would share the same speculative, scholastic-type sophistry as yours, i.e. either as a worthless tautology or blind assertion. Also you speak of the “truth”, and yet I can see no argument or reason to believe you are able to provide evidence for anything you claim, despite the claim made in the OP.

 

[Serenity7855]

According to a Pew poll of scientists, here's what they found:

48% theists
35% agnostics (various forms)
17% atheists
-- Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Sometimes there can be some confusion based on how one defines "atheist". I use this definition: a belief there are no deities; and I define "agnostic" this way: don't know if there are any deities or not. Some, however, include my definition of "agnostic" as also being "atheistic" since there's not a belief in a deity in either case.

Also taken from Pew Research. I was trying to avoid this. You claim to have gotten your figures from exactly the same place I got mine. I couldn't' find it but I did find this showing that most scientists are not theists, as you have stated. The internet is full of articles claiming that hardly any main stream scientists are theists. If you did a Google search then you couldn't but help to see them everywhere, yet you are going to be persistent that something that is not true can be proven true as long as you can find at least one article that agrees with you.

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Why are so Many of Scientists Atheists?

A recent survey (June 2009) of over 2,500 U.S. scientists shows that the scientific community has a very different view of God from society as a whole. Only 33% of scientists believe in "God" while another 18% believe in a "universal spirit" or "higher power". (See source 1. ) The study concluded that scientists are less likely to believe in a "God" or "Higher Power" as the general public.

It can be broken down even further by the different areas of study:

Biological/Medical Field: 32% believe in "God", another 19% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 41% do not believe in either.

Chemistry: 41% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 39% do not believe in either.

Geoscience: 30% believe in "God", another 20% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 47% do not believe in either.

Physics/Astronomy: 29% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 46% do not believe in either.

By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in "God" or a "Higher Power" with approx. 83% having a religious affiliation according to a 2006 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

I have both a natural science degree and an engineering degree. I have found that a large majority of my colleagues who have science degrees are atheist. But in my engineering field, I have found that it depends on where I was working. When I worked in the south, it was about 60% have a belief, and 40% are atheist. Living back again in the north, I would say maybe 1 in every 3 or 4 engineers I know have a belief in something. There is a difference between engineers and scientists. Scientists seek to understand why and how something happens, whereas engineers tend to apply knowledge of how something happens.

My question is why do you suppose scientist in general have a higher percentage of people who are atheist than the public as a whole?

Source 1: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009
Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Shad]

I think people think they need an authority figure or text in order to form a way of life. In actuality, they're doing what everyone really has no choice but to do, which is to think for themselves and find their own path.

True in some respect. However indoctrination of children, religious or otherwise, hinders people finding their own path.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True in some respect. However indoctrination of children, religious or otherwise, hinders people finding their own path.

Also true. But even within that context, people travel their own path, even though it may be a more narrow path than it could otherwise be. Look at all the different denominations within each religion.

 

[Serenity7855]

Well I’m sorry but the above is evident nonsense. Regardless of whatever hypothesis is held to there is no doctrine to prevent a competing hypothesis from being demonstrated.

The findings of science are frequently wrong or in need of amendment or alteration and will be tested to destruction or accepted as the orthodoxy, subject always to being disproved or faulted in some way. Science is something that can never be true, and at most it can only argue to a high degree of probability, but even then as with the rising of the sun or the existence of gravity, the probability is only held from induction. But of course it is true that on going to bed following the going down of the sun we have faith that we will awake to sunrise in the morning, and that is the case for both the unbeliever and the theist. The rising of the sun is accorded a very high degree of probability but as a “fact” it can be true or false, for there is no contradiction in conceiving the sun not to rise in the morning since it might not. And that, the Problem of Induction, is the difficulty for science. However, although no argument from the past or present can logically be an argument to the future (the very opposite of what science portends) it is nevertheless the case that science has served us well up to now.

If anything we all have a healthy scepticism of science. Almost on a weekly basis we see some previous findings concerning diet and healthy eating are overturned only to be replaced with a new hypothesis. And if you read the results of clinical trials they invariably find for no firm conclusion or they recommend further investigation in specific areas. Science is like democracy: imperfect but the best we have.

Therefore science can hardly be rated as a polar concept, to be compared with religious faith, where no argument is allowed to count against it.

I have already answered this so please refer to the following post.
N
Post 3189

I am not talking about scripture and verse in Christianity no more so then I am talking about the scientific method and all of its ramifications. I am not giving you an opportunity to show us all that you know how experiments are conducted under the scientific method either. I am talking about the ethos of science in comparison to the ethos of theism. The overall organisms and not its individual parts, that you seem so eager to enlighten us about. We are not comparing like for like but ethos to ethos. I am somewhat surprised that I need to explain this.

You have taken it literal rather the metaphorical. You are suggesting that I believe that science has a literal God instead of a God of principles. How very strange.

 

[cottage]

I have already answered this so please refer to the following post.
N
Post 3189

In the above you are saying nothing of substance; all I can see is a vague allusion to ethics. Science doesn’t pretend to be some kind of on-high moral arbiter; it is only a means by which we learn from causal relationships. So it is still unexplained why you believe science is a religion, either metaphorically or metaphysically. If you’re contending that unbelievers “worship” science, “glorifying and defending its honour”, then the arguments I’ve given you make a complete nonsense of that. But perhaps you are edging towards a moral argument? If so lay out your case and I’ll give you my response. WLC makes a fair fist of the moral argument, so perhaps you could start with that?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Human development would have stagnated long ago if God hadn't put scientists on earth to keep pushing the envelope-
Paul said- "We have different gifts.." (Romans 12:6-8)

But the downside is that scientists have such a thirst for explaining the physical world around us, they feel UNEASY with spiritual matters that can't be explained, so they tend to pooh-pooh religion..

 

[metis]

As another example, many different fields of science overlap and contribute to evolutionary theory - biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, biochemistry, etc.

Exactly, and the same is true in my field of anthropology, especially physical.

 

[metis]

Also taken from Pew Research. I was trying to avoid this. You claim to have gotten your figures from exactly the same place I got mine. I couldn't' find it but I did find this showing that most scientists are not theists, as you have stated. The internet is full of articles claiming that hardly any main stream scientists are theists. If you did a Google search then you couldn't but help to see them everywhere, yet you are going to be persistent that something that is not true can be proven true as long as you can find at least one article that agrees with you.

On the poll you cited, you need to add the first two sets of numbers together since the first one is in reference to God and the second is in reference to a higher spiritual power, which is still implied as being theistic. For example, if one is a polytheist, they certainly wouldn't be in the first category but probably would be in the second.

By adding the two together, the number with theistic inclinations comes to 51%.

 

[metis]

Also taken from Pew Research. I was trying to avoid this. You claim to have gotten your figures from exactly the same place I got mine. I couldn't' find it but I did find this showing that most scientists are not theists, as you have stated. The internet is full of articles claiming that hardly any main stream scientists are theists. If you did a Google search then you couldn't but help to see them everywhere, yet you are going to be persistent that something that is not true can be proven true as long as you can find at least one article that agrees with you.

On the poll you cited, you need to add the first two sets of numbers together since the first one is in reference to God and the second is in reference to a higher spiritual power, which is still implied as being theistic. For example, if one is a polytheist, they certainly wouldn't be in the first category but probably would be in the second.

By adding the two together, the number with theistic inclinations comes to 51%. Also, please not that there's 16% that are agnostic or didn't answer.

 

[metis]

Human development would have stagnated long ago if God hadn't put scientists on earth to keep pushing the envelope-
Paul said- "We have different gifts.." (Romans 12:6-8)

But the downside is that scientists have such a thirst for explaining the physical world around us, they feel UNEASY with spiritual matters that can't be explained, so they tend to pooh-pooh religion..

Most scientists that I know that are atheists or agnostics actually don't, at least as far as my experience with them goes. Matter of fact, scientists over the decades pretty much stayed out of the theistic fray to the disappointment of some who felt that they should throw in the two cents because of the fact that some theists were trying to ramrod their religious agendas through public school systems. With the constant attack on evolution, and more recently things like climate change, the National Academy of Sciences finally encouraged its members to get involved to stop this religious bigotry.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..With the constant attack on evolution, and more recently things like climate change, the National Academy of Sciences finally encouraged its members to get involved to stop this religious bigotry.

All the Christians I know fully believe in evolution, BUT they believe it needed God to keep tweaking it to keep it on track..
What they don't like is the way evolutionists are trying to remove God from the picture by presenting evolution as all neatly explained and tied up in pretty pink ribbons.
Fact is there are holes and gaps and missing links all over the theory that a bus could drive through..

 

[Sapiens]

I am not talking about scripture and verse in Christianity no more so then I am talking about the scientific method and all of its ramifications. I am not giving you an opportunity to show us all that you know how experiments are conducted under the scientific method either. I am talking about the ethos of science in comparison to the ethos of theism. The overall organisms and not its individual parts, that you seem so eager to enlighten us about. We are not comparing like for like but ethos to ethos. I am somewhat surprised that I need to explain this.

You have taken it literal rather the metaphorical. You are suggesting that I believe that science has a literal God instead of a God of principles. How very strange.

I know what the ethos of science is, good write ups are easy to find. Could you direct me to a simple and straightforward definition of the ethos of theism?

 

[SkepticThinker]

All the Christians I know fully believe in evolution, BUT they believe it needed God to keep tweaking it to keep it on track..
What they don't like is the way evolutionists are trying to remove God from the picture by presenting evolution as all neatly explained and tied up in pretty pink ribbons.
Fact is there are holes and gaps and missing links all over the theory that a bus could drive through..

Perhaps some simply don't feel that a god is a necessary part of the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I.e., Maybe they see no reason to inject a mysterious deity into an equation that works well enough on its own. Or they don't feel that adding a mysterious deity really adds any explanatory value.

 

[Sapiens]

What they don't like is the way evolutionists are trying to remove God from the picture by presenting evolution as all neatly explained and tied up in pretty pink ribbons.
Fact is there are holes and gaps and missing links all over the theory that a bus could drive through..

From what I have seen, what they don't like is the absence of authoritarian absolutes, that you misinterpret as, "holes and gaps and missing links all over the theory that a bus could drive through." There is no doubt as to the Theory of Evolution, that is established fact, all discussion revolves around defining the exact mechanisms.

 

[metis]

All the Christians I know fully believe in evolution, BUT they believe it needed God to keep tweaking it to keep it on track..
What they don't like is the way evolutionists are trying to remove God from the picture by presenting evolution as all neatly explained and tied up in pretty pink ribbons.

Most that I have run across don't really say much of anything about whether God had anything to do with evolution. Of course on message boards like these, you're gonna see quite a few, no doubt.

Fact is there are holes and gaps and missing links all over the theory that a bus could drive through..

Actually, as far as the basics of evolution, the above is not true. As far as specifics are concerned, the above is quite true. The ToE is a work in progress and always will be as long as there are people studying it.

And the ToE makes common sense, namely that all things change over time, and we well know that genes are no exception. I started teaching it in the mid-1960's, and we know so much more now than we did back then. There's literally been an explosion of information, especially in the last two decades.