Science, faith, and theists

[The Grand Nudger]

That suggests a "creator" how? When you walk into a field that had been plowed a few months ago and see grass and weeds growing, do you think a "creator" plopped them all down in the dirt? Does their existence suggest such to you?

[Michael]

That suggest a "creator" how? When you walk into a field that had been plowed a few months ago and see grass and weeds growing, do you think a "creator" plopped them all down in the dirt? Does their existence suggest such to you?

At first sight we might observe:

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning

ergo

The universe has a cause.

Remember all that Ben wanted was some evidence to support a hypothesis. That has duly been supplied. The ball is in Ben's court. Though I suspect he may prefer golf so that some long grass may be found :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

So, yes, you do think that the weeds and grass in the previously barren field were plopped there by a creator?

I'm asking if that evidence actually supports the hypothesis. I'd withhold the designation of "duly supplied". Apply your assertions ("evidence"...ffs michael.....?) to my field of weeds.

You, btw, were asked for -evidence- that suggests a "creator" (your hypothesis), and you've given an -argument- that ends in a "cause". What did you supply? Don't you think we might already be going down the wrong road?

[Michael]

So how would you test the difference between my hypothesis and your weeds example Rhythm? I have a prima facie case. You suggest that the universe is more like a weed in a field coming from a previous weed, with I assume, an infinite regress of weeds. So we have two plausible alternatives (I'll grant your's is plausible).

So what scientific test will help us distinguish between those two alternatives? How would you test for your infinite regress?

P.S. Do you guys really think I'm saying something odd by saying these questions are outside of the purview of science? I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't generally accepted by both most scientists and by most theologians.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again you ask another to do your work and then claim to be generating a hypothesis?

But nevermind, I'll help you. We could take a look at the weeds and see whether or not whatever "causes" them (if we accept this argument) fits our criteria for a "creator". We don;t have to accept cuase or creator, in gathering that data. But, You and I have a cheatsheet in that while we may have had no clue once upon a time, we can clearly say that there are "causes" involved in plant growth. We've looked, we've found.

Yes, I think it's odd. I consider it special pleading writ large, point of fact. I don't think it's odd that you say it, as you've pointed out it's a pretty common line of thought. The most generous thing I could call it is useless dualism..lol. Here we are, talking about "cause" -at the very least - but you're suggesting the means that we have available to us to even make this designation - the principles upon which the very concept is pinned - all of a sudden break down when we approach the sacred cow? They cease to be informative? If you wanted to know what caused weed growth (or tumor growth) - where would you look? What is a cause? How do you know that something has "caused" some other thing? Can you explain any of this in a manner that would be -outside- the purview of science? I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

[Michael]

So was that a 'yes, we can test for God in a lab' or 'no we can't'. I was asked to bring my faith to put to test in the lab. But no-one yet is saying how. I'm just getting prevarication on the matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup, sure was. But it isn't up for anyone to explain how we might do that if you want to claim that god is -your hypothesis-.

(I'd have to be privy to excruciating details about your god claim to design a test. Honestly, it's not just your baby conceptually...you'd be better at it than I would - you're privy to the details in a way that I probably never could be. Any test I design would most likely fall to some nuance, I will have been testing around you, arguing against -and testing for- a straw man of my own creation)

[Michael]

Again. 'Nuff said ☺

[The Grand Nudger]

To give a very rough example. Take faith in a god who engineered a global flood. It's testable, the very god is testable, it's attached itself to something testable..if no flood, not -that- god. So has god as a "creator"- in the general. The more specific we become the simpler it is to design the test - but at what point (going in the reverse, less specific, do we reach a place where it becomes conceptually un-testable; and why would that happen, if it did happen?

[Ben Davis]

Sure, the prima facie evidence (not proof) of a creator is that there is something rather than nothing.

That's a shoddy first-pass analysis. If this is representative of your standard of evidence, you're not even going to get your supposition off the ground. 2 main points here:

1. You've shifted the goalposts from 'god' to 'creator' (remember, your statement is 'God exists'). Further, because yours is a specific Catholic god, your evidence would need to account for discrete, defined attributes of that god.

2. That's not evidence for a creator, just for existence. For it to be evidence of a creator, you would need to demonstrate 2 things:
i. that application of design (a.k.a. creation) is necessary for existence
ii. that design was applied

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning
ergo
The universe has a cause.

So the cosmological argument is your next piece of 'evidence'? That's not evidence, it's not even a coherent argument.

Remember all that Ben wanted was some evidence to support a hypothesis. That has duly been supplied

None of your 'evidence' supports any hypothesis let alone yours. Please, try again.