Are scientists proving the existence of a Creator God ?

Originally posted by Conspiriology
"Fromabove" they are right and this does NOT prove anything as was explained by "thisguyrighthere" However it would be to your benefit to study more of dawkins and the other links I gave you. With all due respect,, you aren't really grasping the threads meaning .
- Con

Thanks for the advice, but I have engaged in debate with atheists for a long time now. What I find, is that even if you coud prove something to an atheist, they would still not believe it. The reason for this thread was to answer a complaint by a lot of atheists I have debated. They demand to be shown the science that proves there is a God, or at least the possibility of a God.

To be God, one would have to have dominion over what is created and would have had to create the "thing" in the first place. The scientists are not God, but, they are imitating God by doing an event that could be said to the actions of a God. So, if scientists can "create" life, and that life was in fact "ctreated", it would only prove at least that life can be "created".

Originally posted by Fromabove
Please refrsh me on your thread, I will reply.

Science teaches us this way. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory and eventually a fact, the subject in question has to be shown to be able to occur, and then be able to be tested, and then repeated. Like the theory of reletivity, it has been proven repeatedly. If I want to make carbon dioxide and my theory is to mix vinigar and baking soda together because I believe that I can make a gas from a combonation of a liquid and a solid, I have to show it can be done and I have to be able to repeat it over again.

So, I guess where I am coming from is, since we cannot see God, but life exists, and we want to know if it was the result of creation or evolution, I have to be able to prove my theory by a scientific test to either show:

1. That life itself can be created
2. That life can just randomly happen on it's own

If I want to prove the first, I have to by experimentation, create new life, to show that the possibility is there for a "creator"

If I want to prove the second, I have to create the enviroment that my theory rests upon and observe to see if life suddenly occurs randomly on it's own.

If scientists are able to create life, I have satisfied a test to show through science that life can be created and that it had a "creator", and to support the possiblity of a universal creator. The key word here is "possibility". Just as we do not know for certain that the theory of reletivity is universal and not a locally enclosed event, we can only say "through science" that the "possibility" of a universal "creator" exists.

Your last post in my thread was something along these lines, and excuse me for paraphrasing you: What exactly is your definition of science? I want to know so that I can show you how ID can be covered in a science class.

I then proceeded to define the scientific method for you and was expecting you to answer in my thread.

BUT, the point here is that you answer how ID fits into the scientific method, so it really doesn't matter to me if that is done here or in my thread. The important part is that you address it.

From your last post, you mentioned that humans have created life, which I would argue is not the case, but lets assume for a second that humans did create life and I follow your argument from there. These humans would have a way of explaining how they created life; i.e they used a microscope, a scalpel and other instruments. The point is that the scientific method can be used to explain how humans created the life, step by step, while explaining how creator did it is outside the realm of the scientific method at this point. You would have to answer questions like: how did the creator create life? What instruments did he use? What was the thought process and mechanism behind it? Why did he create it in such a manner? So far, you haven't addressed those yet. All you've done is put out a hypothesis, which I ,or any scientists wouldn't oppose to. In fact, anyone can come up with a hypothesis; that where science begins, but is far from the end. What you now have to do is list experiments that would falsify that hypothesis.

I would also like to mention again that evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. What you are talking about is the origins of life, which evolution doesn't address. There is no scientific theory to address that, as of yet to my knowledge, but to anyone who disagrees or knows of one, please add it to this discussion.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

Originally posted by Fromabove


Thanks for the advice, but I have engaged in debate with atheists for a long time now. What I find, is that even if you coud prove something to an atheist, they would still not believe it. The reason for this thread was to answer a complaint by a lot of atheists I have debated. They demand to be shown the science that proves there is a God, or at least the possibility of a God.

Ok well here pretty much answers the Dawkins essay on "The Problem of Information" www.trueorigin.org...

Whats funny is I thought that same thing when I read dawkins essay as Royal Truman does DNA doesn't prove god the language it uses sure does. Until Dawkins can prove how that came around without a mind ,, then ID has to replace Darwinian Biobabble

www.trueorigin.org...

reply to post by LuDaCrIs


I guess to try to answer your question might be difficult because on your last post where you ask me about the science method I would use, I explain it. No one needs to know what or how the "creator" did it or what he used, etc. If it cannot be shown that a "possibility" exists that a "creator" could exist, the rest is meaningless. What the scientists claim is that they have created life from scratch, so if that is true then they have achieved one demand of science, proof that it could be done.

A good alternate "possibility" would be that life evolved, having suddenly appeared from the "primordail soup". The test for this possibility would be to repeat that claim in the lab so that if scientists can get life to spontaniously appear, the "possibility" has been shown to exist.

Originally posted by Fromabove

I guess to try to answer your question might be difficult because on your last post where you ask me about the science method I would use, I explain it. No one needs to know what or how the "creator" did it or what he used, etc. If it cannot be shown that a "possibility" exists that a "creator" could exist, the rest is meaningless. What the scientists claim is that they have created life from scratch, so if that is true then they have achieved one demand of science, proof that it could be done.

A good alternate "possibility" would be that life evolved, having suddenly appeared from the "primordail soup". The test for this possibility would be to repeat that claim in the lab so that if scientists can get life to spontaniously appear, the "possibility" has been shown to exist.

Again, scientists acknowledge the possibility of a creator having made everything on earth. But that is far from being a certainty. Can you see the difference there: probability vs certainty? And by certainty I mean an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. Of course, 100% certainty in science is not possible because of the falsifiability of the experiments, but I hope you can understand what I mean when I say certainty and not take it too literally.

No one needs to know what or how the "creator" did it or what he used, etc.

This is the essence of science though! You would have to show how the creator did it for it to be considered sound science, which has not been shown by ID and creationist proponents.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by Fromabove

I guess to try to answer your question might be difficult because on your last post where you ask me about the science method I would use, I explain it. No one needs to know what or how the "creator" did it or what he used, etc. If it cannot be shown that a "possibility" exists that a "creator" could exist, the rest is meaningless. What the scientists claim is that they have created life from scratch, so if that is true then they have achieved one demand of science, proof that it could be done.

A good alternate "possibility" would be that life evolved, having suddenly appeared from the "primordail soup". The test for this possibility would be to repeat that claim in the lab so that if scientists can get life to spontaniously appear, the "possibility" has been shown to exist.

Again, scientists acknowledge the possibility of a creator having made everything on earth. But that is far from being a certainty. Can you see the difference there: probability vs certainty? And by certainty I mean an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. Of course, 100% certainty in science is not possible because of the falsifiability of the experiments, but I hope you can understand what I mean when I say certainty and not take it too literally.

No one needs to know what or how the "creator" did it or what he used, etc.

This is the essence of science though! You would have to show how the creator did it for it to be considered sound science, which has not been shown by ID and creationist proponents.

Yes, as far as science goes, I'm afraid that only the "possibility" of there being a "creator" can be shown. All that could be shown at our level of knowledge and understanding of the universe is that a "creator" could "possibly" exist and create life.

I liken it to forensic science in which one can see a bear print in the woods, and they know that fresh snow had fallen the night before, and yet the sun is starting to melt the snow, but the footprint is fresh. Science indicates that a print is made and it's not that old, but it's not certain because no one can see the bear, even though bears have been known to make such prints.

All that the scientists can do is prove that life can be created. They can't see or find the creator but they known that a "creator" would be able to do the same and possibly more. Creators are said to "create" but it's not certain because no one can see the creator. All they have is an example of created life.

Originally posted by Fromabove
Yes, as far as science goes, I'm afraid that only the "possibility" of there being a "creator" can be shown. All that could be shown at our level of knowledge and understanding of the universe is that a "creator" could "possibly" exist and create life.

All that the scientists can do is prove that life can be created. They can't see or find the creator but they known that a "creator" would be able to do the same and possibly more. Creators are said to "create" but it's not certain because no one can see the creator. All they have is an example of created life.

You've basically answered your thread title, are scientists proving the existence of a Creator God?, with the statements above. And it is: No, they aren't proving the existence of a Creator God.


[edit on 29-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]