Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[theVOID]

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.)

Oh come on, we both know that the only time progress was ever made in science is when the explanation "god did it" was ignored in favour of digging deeper - setting aside the claims of the bible and the mindset it's based upon in favour of a new methodology for evaluating truth claims, the scientific method. It has already achieved more for our species in a few hundred years than religious insight ever achieved.

God can be used to explain anything, but it is more of an intellectual blank cheque cashed with the bank of ignorance - It offers you absolutely zero understanding, testability or predictability, three things that are absolutely essential in order to speak of a truth claim with any level of certainty.

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.

Assuming the explanation is not materialistic of course, and thus far there is absolutely no reason to assume the existence of undetermined supernatural influence on the creation of the universe - it will get you absolutely nowhere towards understanding what happened, why or how and thus no further from the point you were at when you had no supernatural explanations. It's all just another case of the carte blanche.

Any explanation for the origins of the universe that involve matter or energy would be entirely consistent with the materialistic world view.

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".

You'll need to be more specific - 60% of the entire scientific community believe in a God, but for biologists and physicists that number is much lower, like in the region of >20%.

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.

An unassisted human body floating into the sky would be a good enough example, no law of our universe would allow for such a phenomenon, not the failure of gravity because everything else would be observing the usual effects of gravity, not even negatively charged exotic matter which, while allowing an object to fall away from gravity (repelled by a stronger force) would repel the human into inorganic matter instantaneously.

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.

You might as well just say it's all in your head, because you have managed to part yourself no further from that conclusion.

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 internal language of the brain in which all of these abstracts are realised is a process of mechanism, the logical interaction of neurons and pathways in the brain to represent information. To say that we can understand without logic is nonsense as it is logic than allows the brain (or any system) to function in the first place.

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.

And you interpret it from a literal biblical point of view, so claiming that the approach is the problem without offering a reason for why it is flawed or any evidence to support your statement gets you absolutely nowhere towards verifying the truth of your claims.

So you want to try again, some evidence this time, not a conclusion based on your presuppositions.