Cold Iron, on Mar 9 2009, 09:33 PM, said:
Dolorous Menhir, on Mar 10 2009, 07:08 AM, said:
Had a catch-up, was surprised that Cold Iron said something nice about me (or at least that I helped him). This is progress. I wanted to respond to a couple of points.
While we at it, can I invite you to have a crack at defining a self? I haven't progressed much with the research, basically humans seem to be able to understand inanimate and animate objects differently from a very early age, almost instinctually. Now the question is whether this is what shapes our sense of self or if our sense of self enables our identification of other selves...
I don't know the answers to these questions. If you want results, get a philosopher and an evolutionary biologist in the same room and hope something productive comes out. In the meantime, I have taken Ganoes' advice:
GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 9 2009, 10:23 PM, said:
As per one definition of the word "evidence", which is "an indication, or sign", I would argue that it is indeed evidence. Like I said, however, I can see how someone who does not believe in God would not think so. I won't include any links here, but if you google "scientific evidence of God", or something along those lines, you can find plenty.
The first ten results for "scientific evidence of god" are:
1.
http://www.creationi...EvidGodLife.htm
An extremely long essay which boils down to a clear logical fallacy. The author states that life has never been observed to arise from non-living material (this appears to be true). He assumes that this means it has never happened (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Thus he is able to assert the existence of a creator who brought about the first existence of life. Coincidentally, this creator is the Christian god that he already believes in.
His point is simple. Cells and other elements do not spring into life from rocks and other inanimate things. So they must have been made by something external. Although he clothes this in convincing scientific language, he seems to be blind to the possibility that these things arose gradually, or through another process that we have not yet observed or theorised.
Not proof.
2.
http://www.leaderu.c...3/evidence.html
An essay on intelligent design. This makes the same point as above. It's not conceivable that complex organisms could spring from nothing, so something must have made them. Intelligent design theorists (stealth creationists) are very good at maintaining a scientific veneer. This does not make it scientific evidence.
3 & 4.
http://www.godandscience.org/
Two entries on the same site. This person makes no effort to hide their beliefs. No pretence at science for this person. There's a lot of material here, but we're on the level of "Lots of dead scientists believed in God hundreds of years ago" and "People fear death because they know something comes next. This means Christianity is for real".
5.
http://toptenproofs....dsexistence.php
A novel one. The line of attack is via the 1st law of thermodynamics (alternatively, the principle of mass/energy conservation). The reasoning is simple: the amount of mass & energy in the universe doesn't change. But there is mass and energy - we can see it all around us! Therefore we have proven that God must exist, as only He could have created this in violation of the laws of physics. The author discounts the possibility that amount in the universe has always been fixed at the current value (it's not clear why). In any case, this is not sound.
6.
http://www.doesgodex.../Mansproof.html
Another large site - I have had a look at the first article. Big Bang theory is our proof here. This shows that the universe had a beginning. Someone must have been responsible for this beginning. That somebody was God. There are several wrong assumptions and leaps here. The first is that Big Bank theory must be correct (not necessarily true - note also that the faithful do not question science when it supports thier conclusions). That some agency had to be responsible for a Big Bang. That this agency is the god of our current religion. These are not logical steps. But they seem convincing.
This site relies a great deal on "pragmatism" and "common sense". These are warning signs. A debater who invokes common sense has nothing better to bring to the table. Common sense tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves round it, because that is what we see everyday. If common sense was a reliable guide, there would never have been any need for science.
7.
http://www.godisimaginary.com/i11.htm
As you might guess, this one takes the opposite argument - that there is no scientific proof. This is what I've been saying. They also make a point of covering the "First Cause" argument, which is what really underlies all of the above. This argument goes back to a long way, to Aquinas and further, but it is not credible. It is however easy to explain and understand (there's that common sense again), so it's very resilient.
8.
http://www.thecrimso...aspx?ref=379634
An article about a lecture by Steven Pinker, noted psychologist and atheist. He makes the case that religion is an evolutionary (mal)adaption. I agree with him, so I'm not going to repeat it or argue with it.
9.
http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scienti...e/dp/0743286391
Amazon entry for a book by the Christian who headed the Human Genome Project. I'm not going to read the book, but it would be useful to point out that the fact that some scientists are religious is not evidence that religion is correct.
10.
http://www.cosmicfin...newevidence.htm
An extremely long speech (in writing and audio) which I am going to admit I did not read. Looking through all the headings it does punch all the right creationist buttons.
There's nothing new in any of the above. The same religious arguments have always been made, and have always been wrong. The only thing is that science and human knowledge advances, and they can appropriate the most modern theories and language for their distortions and fallacies.
Help
