Design arguments and science

[Kelp]

I am assuming a basically evidentialist stance here.

If you agree with the view that ID is not science or if you reject for some other reason, do you believe that a coherent argument for God's exsistence based on what we know about nature is still possible?

Could there ever be a scientific argument for God's exsistence in your view?

If you answer "no" to these questions and you are a Christian, then how do you view these verses?

1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:19-20)

I respectfully ask that Jorge not post in this thread.

Both Scripture quotes, NASB.

Thanks.

[FreezBee]

Hi Bruce,

Interesting questions

I am assuming a basically evidentialist stance here.

If you agree with the view that ID is not science or if you reject for some other reason, do you believe that a coherent argument for God's exsistence based on what we know about nature is still possible?

Maybe I should put my view like this: for me, God is something I sense -- in the Bible, in many other texts, in nature, everywhere; but it's not a presence that I think can be intellectualized such as the IDists do it.

Does this make sense to you?

Could there ever be a scientific argument for God's exsistence in your view?

I hope not -- wouldn't that be reductionism?


Thanks for being allowed to participate in your questionnaire


- FreezBee

[Warcraft3]

I am assuming a basically evidentialist stance here.

If you agree with the view that ID is not science or if you reject for some other reason, do you believe that a coherent argument for God's exsistence based on what we know about nature is still possible?

Could there ever be a scientific argument for God's exsistence in your view?

If you answer "no" to these questions and you are a Christian, then how do you view these verses?

1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:19-20)

I respectfully ask that Jorge not post in this thread.

Both Scripture quotes, NASB.

Thanks.

I would be in that category so I'll answer....

All of these verses seem to describe something that is internal, not external. I think knowledge of God is intuitive and clearly seen from nature, but in an experiential sense instead of an evidential sense.

So the evidence is there, but its not scientific.....it spiritual.

I believe everyone, no matter what their current belief or state of mind, does have a natural tendency to believe in God.....it seems to be part of human nature.

[Kelp]

I believe everyone, no matter what their current belief or state of mind, does have a natural tendency to believe in God.....it seems to be part of human nature.

Yes, I think I can understand that view.

Although, it seems odd to me that one should accept that science gives us a real picture of the universe God created and then say that it could not, in principle, lead us to that Creator.

It sort of reminds me of the YEC "omphalos" view. In the same way in which God as creating everything to look aged seems kind of deceptive, doesn't the view in which God is the behind the scenes man who can't be detected by the sensory ways of knowing that He created seem just as deceptive? I'm not saying it would be easy, but shouldn't it at least be strictly possible to find God through normal, evidential means?

[Kelp]

Does this make sense to you?

I hope not -- wouldn't that be reductionism?

What's wrong with that? I'm not say that God would ever be completely knowable or anything. I'm also not saying that the intuitive or the religious experience are not important ways of knowing God. But like I said to Steadele, it seems to me "wrong" somehow not to at least allow for the possibilty of something like ID.

Thanks for being allowed to participate in your questionnaire

What's with the bow smiley?

[Philosophickle]

Howdy Kelp,

I think that there is something to design arguments. Perhaps not the biological arguments, but fine-tuning seems to present some problems for the naturalist. Even more so, I think we can make some interesting arguments with apparent design of our minds, especially our ability to reason. Not all design arguments must be centered on complexity.

[technomage]

I am assuming a basically evidentialist stance here.

If you agree with the view that ID is not science or if you reject for some other reason, do you believe that a coherent argument for God's exsistence based on what we know about nature is still possible?

Could there ever be a scientific argument for God's exsistence in your view?

If you answer "no" to these questions and you are a Christian, then how do you view these verses?

1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:19-20)

I respectfully ask that Jorge not post in this thread.

Both Scripture quotes, NASB.

Thanks.

I hope you won't object to a non-Christian answering. If you do, ask one of the area mods to remove the post--I'll understand.

Steadele brings up a very gopoint, but I think it can be expressed more cojently--we can experience God, and that does provide a type of evidence, but not all of our experiences can be reduced to the rather narrow definition of evidence that science can work with.

A case in point: we can experience a specific shade of the color blue, and science can tell us what wavelength that blue corresponds to. But no amount of science can tell us if that particular shade is esthetically pleasing: only human judgement can do so, and some people will judge differently than others.

[Philosophickle]

A case in point: we can experience a specific shade of the color blue, and science can tell us what wavelength that blue corresponds to. But no amount of science can tell us if that particular shade is esthetically pleasing: only human judgement can do so, and some people will judge differently than others.

Mmm, science does not seems capable of explaining why certain experiences feel as they do.

[technomage]

Mmm, science does not seems capable of explaining why certain experiences feel as they do.

Science may even be able to someday explain why certain experiences feel as they do--but I have my doubts that science will ever be able to explain beauty.

[Philosophickle]

Science may even be able to someday explain why certain experiences feel as they do--but I have my doubts that science will ever be able to explain beauty.

I don't see how that is possible, even in theory. It is easy enough to imagine that pain is substituted for pleasure, even though our physical configuration remains the same.

[Kelp]

Even more so, I think we can make some interesting arguments with apparent design of our minds, especially our ability to reason. Not all design arguments must be centered on complexity.

Yeah, I agree with that. Maybe the first person perpectiveand private access to one's own thougts are other good examples.

[Philosophickle]

Whether or not these are design arguments proper...

[technomage]

I don't see how that is possible, even in theory.

Oh, goodness, I don't either! If I did, I'd probably be well on my way to a Lasker Award,if not a Nobel for medicine.

[Kelp]

I hope you won't object to a non-Christian answering. If you do, ask one of the area mods to remove the post--I'll understand.

No, that's fine. This thread is really for anyone. The verses question was the only part specifically meant for Christians. I just put it in Cosmogony because at the time I wrote the OP, it seemed less specifically within Nat Sci's perview. I might move it.

Steadele brings up a very gopoint, but I think it can be expressed more cojently--we can experience God, and that does provide a type of evidence, but not all of our experiences can be reduced to the rather narrow definition of evidence that science can work with.

Experience as evidence is important, I think. In fact, I think the idea butresses with what I'm thinking of.

When we think about the religious experiences that we have had, we tend to think, "Hmm, what's the best explanation for this? That it's some natural thing like self-deception or that there really is a Person behind this punction?" The experience, although it maybe only indirectly came throught he five senses, is a piece of data that one considers and integrates into his view of reality. We look at what we've felt and decide how likely it is that it came from a certain source, yes?

As long as we acknowledge that the notion of the universe being the creation of a "supernatural" being is an internally consistent one, I don't see why we can't apply the same naturally-or-supernaturally-produced qustons to what we find with our five regular senses.

[Kelp]

Whether or not these are design arguments proper...

Meh, if it's an argument that something is designed....six of one, half dozen of the other and all.