Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

qsI would have thought in logic that one can prove
or disprove something given sufficient data and
validated assumptions.[/qs]In deductive logic you can prove things to be true or untrue. Science is inductive. I like this quote...

quote:

---

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

​

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

​

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

---

If God intervened in situations like these, it would destroy our free will. I, being a Weslyian (theology wise), hold desperatly on to free will; not only does it account for a lot, but I just don't buy predestination.[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 04-30-2003]

You still had the ability to refuse their help. If God intervened you wouldn't have a choice. First of all, I'm not sure if I like the logic behind him taking away our free will to give us more...Its not my will that I trip and fall, by the same logic he should intervene everytime that happens. Furthermore, I see this his williness to preserve the laws that he has set in motion. If God ran around and defied his own law, much like the Greek gods did, then were would that leave things like science? You would have to have a "God-O-Meter" everytime you observed something to figure out if it was done by natural law, or God.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I see your point, but you haven't answered my point about him contradicting his natural law.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

False analogyThe Christ event changed the development of mankind forever. It was through the demonstration that he was the one that shaped his natural law that he had to prove himself.Furthermore, in that example he didn't act within the area of free will. There is one time when God did (at least it seems that way) that God did influence human will, and that was to influence Pharoh to not let the Hebrews leave Egypt, and again this was for a very utilitarian purpose. He had to prove himself again to the world. If God did constantly bend and shape free will throughout history, then I might buy that arguement as it stands now, I don't.edit: By the way, I was wondering who was Flynn, and how did that expression come about? I've heard it before, and I know what it means... but I guess I never really got it.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 05-01-2003]

It’s not really any one law. I see any and every law that seems to be inscribed upon creation as a part of his natural law. IMO, being an evolutionary creationist, God allowed the Big Bang to happen and let things unfold according to his natural law. It would violate God's character to just arbitrarily mess around with his natural law.Any assumption that we make in science is based on the belief that natural law does not change. After all, why research evolution if at any point in the process, God can come in and turn everything upside down? In the same way science 'believes' that natural law never changes, I assume God's natural law remains constant. There are a few exceptions to this however, any miracles talked about in the Bible for example, but in every case it seems there is an inherent purpose in them, which is to prove himself to his people and to the world.Now the question becomes "why doesn't God prove himself now?"
The only answers that I can give are (I would rather leave it up to theologians and philosophers)
1) He has already proven himself
2) He continually proves himself through people, actions and personal revelation
3) Our current worldview isn't compatible with miracles, we would explain them away.All Truth is God’s Truth------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

You skipped my arguement about God not working within the nexus of free will. Again, God allows his natural law to unfold.This is not an example of God working within the bounds of free will. He holds us to believe in his word. The above ends will come as a result of that (yes I do believe in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit).Evil in the world is not evidence against God. I view evil as the lack of God, just as cold is the lack of hot. That would mean that God is not responsible for everything wrong with the world, but he is currently working in it bringing about all that is good.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Like I said before, he did it to show us supernatural signs that he is real. I'm confused as how you would expect him to act physically in this world at all without bending natural law. By definition, any action he takes will be supernatural and therefore out of the realm of natural law.The closest thing to working through the system he created that I can point through is through special revelation.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This is in response to your inconsistency argument.Follow me here... God doesn't take away free will. Therefore you can't blame him for being inconsistant when it comes to influencing free will. The example set forth was God changing water into wine, this miracle clearly did not act upon anyone's free will. Does it make him any less powerful by letting creation follow his natural Law?Again, if he controls everything outright, then how do we have free will?------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I'm not familiar with this... can you give me a reference?------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

sorry about that...Comparing a miracle that is preformed in the physical realm isn't comparable to a interference in someone's free will.On to the wedding in Cana...
God didn't interfere with their free will. While he did affect the consequences of drinking all of the wine, by making more, he didn’t change their ability to make their decision.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I haven't hit on this question directly, so its all good. I did say earlier that any intervention by God in the system he created would by definition be a defiance of natural law. This is because any kind of supernatural event (special revelation, turning water into wine etc..) is beyond the realm of empirical science.Now, I believe God has a quality about him that inherently strives for a relationship with his creation. Of course, to have a relationship with anyone, first they have to know that you exist. Therefore, he had to defy his own natural law so that he could be in a relationship with his creation.By the way, this is another arguement for complete free will. The highest form of a relationship is love, and I believe God strives to have mutual love between him and his creation. If God had made things that were not free, like windup toys, that said they love him, but do not have a real choice in the matter, then that would not be real love. I don't believe in a predetermined universe. I think God knows all possible futures that might be. I believe he tries to influence the world's destiny via his relationship with man.The reason why the world is not predetermined, is because free will is thrown into the mix and it is an unknown variable. I believe God has a pretty good handle on what we will choose, but I do not think he knows exactly what I will do in every instance.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

For one, he influenced the career path I'm going in. I would consider that a direct influence, but is it testable... no.edit: I was going to be a lawyer... no offense, but I have no idea what I was thinking, lol
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 05-01-2003]

Okay, now I get your point... I misinterpreted you before.Your saying he does not have to work in the realm of free will to end your scenario. (correct me if I'm wrong)I guess my argument would be that it is not characteristic of God to use supernatural means to serve any other purpose than to reveal himself and his will to his people. Except for these select moments he allows his natural law to unfold.Maybe the question we should be asking is, why God holds his natural law above human suffering?... If you don't mind I'll have to ponder that.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I would disagree with you here, you are actually limiting God's power by saying he knows only one future. God's power is actually increased in the light of this limitation. Fallible, I don't think so. I would like you to expand on this point though so I can better understand it. Intervention does not preclude free will. An example from personal experience: I came to college wanting to become a lawyer, untill I felt a strong calling to go into Biology. I'm not sure why, but it was definately there. I don't HAVE to go into Biology, I can be a lawyer if I want. I just trust in the fact that God knows whats best for me and what is closest to his will.PS: If you ever want to know how somebody set up their post just click on the edit button bellow their post and it will show you exactly what they typed, code and all.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein