Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[rjh4 is back]

I'm sure you'll agree, it is far better to assume materialism and get results which can be used to further advance technology, than to not assume anything and spend your time questioning whether the colour change in the test tube was the result of a chemical reaction or the interference of a supernatural entity.

1. True...but it is even better to have a Biblical world view that presupposes God and the Bible as the Word of God because such a world view can not only account for the uniformity of nature (which can be used to further advance technology) but it can also account for the laws of logic we use in our scientific endeavors, which I do not think materialistic presuppositions can do since the laws of logic are other than matter and/or energy. (I do agree that assuming everything is supernatural and nothing behaves in a law like fashion gets you nowhere, but that is not my world view.)

2. Relative to origins, nothing you said seems to change or refute my statement that if you only uses materialistic assumptions for science and you treat origins as a scientific question and the universe came to be in other than a materialistic manner, then it seems that science would never be able to discover that manner because it would automatically be rejected for its lack of adherence to materialism.

I think you are forgetting the number of scientists who believe in Gods

Actually I was not. That is why I said "scientists in general".

A violation of a law of nature, such that the violation could be easily demonstrated, and such that another law could not be interjected in order to explain the occurrence, or the current law changed to account for the violation.

How would you know? It seems like you could never satisfy the part where you say "such that another law could not be interjected in order to explain the occurrence". It seems like the things that "would constitute a good reason to believe something other than material happened" for you are things that you would never even recognize.

I'd also point out that without the logic we have, the words and things "revealed" to us would make no sense; and neither would your argument that the only way we can really know about God is if he revealed himself to us. Hence your argument that revelation is the only way of knowing God is itself a violation of this revelation. You first need logic in order to understand anything to do with words or language. Thus if your God created everything, it created logic, and our use of logic is relied upon to understand revelation. Would you agree with this?

When I said "The only way we can really know about God is if He revealed Himself to us." I did not mean to imply that revelation is the only thing we need to know God. Certainly we need some sort of intellect and the ability to understand that which is revealed. I meant that we can only know who and what God is, to the extent that He reveals Himself to us. We cannot find God on our own.

I think you are using a loose definition of logic here. Logic in a more formal sense is certainly not needed to understand anything. One can understand much of language without logic. I would not say logic is a precondition for understanding revelation. I think logic is a tool to use for discovering things beyond the basics of God's revelation.

The main ones which I argue are that it does not constitute an argument of proof since it relies on unproven premises (assumptions) which by definition could be wrong, that it is circular by assuming the validity of Christian theism in order to prove the Christian God exists (the Christian God existing being a part of Christian theism), and that ultimately, it sets out to prove the existence of a specific God and utterly fails to do so (at best, it can only attempt a proof of the existence of *some* God).

All proofs go back to some unprovable premises (assumptions) which could be wrong by definition. So based on this, it would seem to follow that you think that there is no such thing as an "argument of proof". True? So does this lead you to reject any world view? If not, why?

As to the circularity, all presuppositions are subject to cirularity to some degree, since presuppositions by definition are taken as self-attesting or self-evidence and not requiring "proof". If one presupposes materialism, then interprets all the facts/evidence in light of this materialistic presupposition, one would then conclude that materialism is confirmed.

Could you explain why you think it utterly fails to prove the existence of a specific God?

---

If so where is the physical evidence? ( I'm basing this on the supposed bibical timeframe of

six thousand years)

All around you. You just interpret it all in a materialistic/evolutionary manner. That is why you do not recognize it for what it is.

---

Nice how you can put your own little spin on it.

Any reason why I shouldn't?

However, you assume that humans decided to go "f*** you, God, we'll find out own way." When in truth it's more along the lines of finding the evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts God and the Bible and then losing faith. That's how it happened with Darwin, and that's how it happens with many other people.

You characterize atheists as children who want to rebel against their parents, when in truth it's a matter of discovering the parents aren't really there.

I don't assume it, that is what the Bible says is going on. Read Romans 1:18-23:

"18For(AJ) the wrath of God(AK) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be(AL) known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,(AM) have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(AN) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(AO) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(AP) exchanged the glory of(AQ) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

You may not like it but that's the way it is.

Furthermore, your characterization of the evidence "overwhelmingly" contradicts God and the Bible is merely based on your own presuppositions and how you use them to interpret the evidence. Regardless of how much you want to think you don't have presuppositions, E, you do.