Science and God

Quote: FrGamble

What evidence points away from God?

That's not how you ask a question. What points
to god is correct. What evidence points away
from the Roman gods? It's a meaningless question.

Quote: Nareed

In all that amazing amount of data, there is no sign of any kind of deity, nor any sign of any need for one.

There is more than an ice cube in the desert, there is a desert and there is ice. There are things that exist in an amazing universe that the more we discover and learn the more wonderful and mind boggling it seems to be. This is a sign of God for me and the need for God only gets stronger the more we discover about our universe, our world, and about life.

Quote: Evenbob

What evidence points away
from the Roman gods? It's a meaningless question.

This is a very important question if you are going to posit that there are no Roman gods.

Quote: FrGamble

This is a sign of God for me

It can be a sign of Yoda for all I care. What's your proof? When you look at how gravity determines and affects planetary orbits, say, what part of it tells you "this cannot be explained without posing the existence of a sentient entity who created and controls the universe"? And how do you go about proving it?

Quote: Nareed

When you look at how gravity determines and affects planetary orbits, say, what part of it tells you "this cannot be explained without posing the existence of a sentient entity who created and controls the universe"? And how do you go about proving it?

The whole thing; all of it.

Seriously look again at what you wrote. There are these amazing huge planets floating around the universe and a force called gravity determines their orbit in such a way that we as human beings call calculate exactly where that planet will be and how its orbit affects the other planets around it. Not to mention if this force of gravity was a hair stronger or weaker the universe would never have formed and we wouldn't be around to examine, study, and discover how amazing this all is. This cannot be explained without posing the existence of a sentient entity who created and controls the universe.

Concerning proof I think we are all making headway in realizing that the absence of mathematical proof of something does not mean we cannot rightly believe or not believe in something.

Quote: FrGamble

What evidence points away from God?

It isn't evidence pointing away from god.

It is evidence that used to be used to point to god that is now used to explain something else.

Zeus and Lightning bolts, for example. The explanation for lightning used to be god throwing thunderbolts, or something like that. Lightning was used as evidence to support the existence of god, because the explanation of lightning is that it was caused by god.

Lightning is no longer used as evidence of the existence of god.

More and more things which were used as evidence of god are now explained by natural phenomenon. I'm not aware of this trend ever having reversed.

As more and more natural phenomenon are understood, there is less and less "evidence" that god exists.

Quote: FrGamble

This cannot be explained without posing the existence of a sentient entity who created and controls the universe.

It can be, and frequently is.

You are fallaciously attributing the formation of things within the laws of nature as proof of a designer of the laws of nature.

There are laws of nature. The things that could form within those laws did form, and the things that could not did not. There is no need of a designer.

Quote: Dalex64

You are fallaciously attributing the formation of things within the laws of nature as proof of a designer of the laws of nature.
.

Very well put. Christians are excellent at
arriving at the 'truth' thru logic, and then
labeling it a fact. For instance, if you study
the heavens with the naked eye, it appears
that the sun and stars revolve around the
earth. This made us the center of the universe,
and was even more evidence that we were
the apple of god's eye.

Like you said, a little more of the god myth
crumbles every time science advances just
a little. As Campbell says, all myths serve a
purpose. They fill in the gaps until science
can fill them in correctly. When you try and
make a myth coexist beside science, the myth
will always lose because it's not based on reality.

Quote: FrGamble

Seriously look again at what you wrote. There are these amazing huge planets floating around the universe and a force called gravity determines their orbit in such a way that we as human beings call calculate exactly where that planet will be and how its orbit affects the other planets around it.

Little known fact: no one knows how to solve a gravitational problem involving three or more bodies. For all their genius, Newton's and Einstein's theories on gravity describe the attraction between two and only two bodies.

Of course you can calculate every pair of bodies you're interested in, and then how all the combinations affect the whole thing. In fact, that's what scientists do. the answers are accurate, but far from exact. Objects with odd orbits, like comets and asteroids, are nightmarishly difficult to pin down.

Quote:

Not to mention if this force of gravity was a hair stronger or weaker the universe would never have formed and we wouldn't be around to examine, study, and discover how amazing this all is.

That's called the anthropic principle. It has always struck me as complicated tautology, which can be reduced to: things are as they are because they are as they are, otherwise we wouldn't be around to observe how things are.

I've read of mathematical simulations giving the four fundamental forces different values, and even removing one. May combinations yield universes little different from ours. Therefore had gravity been different, perhaps we wouldn't exist but other beings would. the universe is incredibly large, after all.

I'll give your argument some fuel:

Billions of years ago the proto-Earth was struck by a Mars-sized object. Both bodies were still half molten. This had all kinds of consequences, one of which is the Moon. Now, the Moon has had a HUGE influence on our world. From keeping the Earth's axis steady, to giving the planet rather large tides, to providing some nocturnal illumination.

Perhaps life wouldn't have evolved without the Moon, it's hard to say. But the tides do have a large effect on the oceans, and that helped life move out into the land. Perhaps without the Moon this would have taken longer, or wouldn't have happened at all. We probably wouldn't be here.

Now, does this point towards a creator arranging things?

No.

What kind of creator is so sloppy as to require cataclysmic events to make one planet? On the other hand, random events like that are incredibly common given enough time. How common? Something as large or larger very likely hit Uranus and knocked the planet on its side.

Quote: Dalex64

As more and more natural phenomenon are understood, there is less and less "evidence" that god exists.

This would only make sense if the existence of God rested on natural phenomenon. This is not the case. Discovering that the universe is expanding doesn't make it less likely that God exists. Discovering penicillin or inventing new technology doesn't diminish the evidence for God's existence, I don't see how it could. God gave us a brain to answer the questions posed by natural phenomenon, He gave us a soul to try to understand the supernatural phenomenon and mysteries of life. Let's remember that science is limited as to its scope and won't be able to answer the big questions of life like why are we here? What is the meaning and purpose of life? Is there a God? etc.