Can you find spiritual evidence in a physical world?

The line of reasoning that a lot of atheists have cut their teeth on is that nothing exists but the physical and what can be demonstrated empirically. I think Woodrow has said well that you already know that is untrue about yourself. What else can be demonstrated to be real but empirically unprovable? Certainly mathematical truths are real but do not affect the physical world in any way (which I take to mean interact with the physical world). Yet they can be demonstrated to be real and used to explain the world we live in. Physics and its guardian angel Cosmology, depend on mathematics-- it is the language of the universe. That is an amazing thing that we tend to take for granted. Why is the universe explicable in terms of mathematics? Why does science "work"? Again modern atheists too often take for granted that the universe operates according to what look like laws. Why should that be? Why isn't it random? It is only because it does operate predictably that science can exist. If there are no laws to discover, if your data can never form a coherent whole, there is no science.

But there is. Math and its sibling, logic exist. But they are not physical. They can be demonstrated as tools but not proven empirically. 



It is true that one cannot demonstrate that God exists. But one can infer Him from a number of logical arguments. If one approaches understanding God in this way, it is important to note that all one can get to is an immensely powerful being about whom we can know virtually nothing. We depend on revelation for what we know. If he doesn't tell us, we cannot know much. That is where the first leap of faith comes from . Still, I don't know if anyone has ever come to faith via logic. Maybe. But faith is a gift that is offered to all. To demand that God be part of the physical world and "testable" seems to me to miss completely that we are the creatures-- He is the creator. We don't draw breath apart from His will. I wouldn't expect him to sit tamely in a test tube of mine!

No problem.

Relax and take your time. Glad to see you put family first.

Maggie, I appreciate your viewpoint. Your criticism is a valid one. I use empiricism because I don't seem to have any other tools at my disposal. Could using empiricism overlook aspects over our universe that can not be detected empirically? I would agree they can. But, how else would be know they are there? Again, I have no other method to examine the universe. When you refer to faith of revelation, which revelation should I put my faith in? Many religions claim to have Divine revelation. How can I determine which one of these claims are true and which ones are false? When examining these claims I end up falling back into empiricism. So, I don't claim that I know these religious claims are false, because I can't prove that. But, I don't accept them as true until I have some way to evaluate that.

Some of the claims that Christians make is that prayer has an effect on outcomes. When I'm talking about looking for some outside influence. I would expect to see that Christian prayers have a greater effect on outcomes of events that any other religion's prayers. Studies into prayers don't seem to support this. At best they have found a placebo effect to prayer, and that isn't limited to one religion.

The Bible makes a claim that tithing will return your money ten fold. That is a claim that could be tested empirically. So, there are claims that can be tested empirically.

I'd like to thank you for inviting me to share my thoughts. I truly do appreciate the discussion in these areas, and I'm glad to have found others that have similar interests. So, let's continue with our discussion ...




Here's how I see logic and reason. Logic is an abstraction of what we find empirically. Logic is a way to define and organize what we see around us. Reason is an extension of that. Reason takes a step beyond categorizing the universe. Reason is our attempt to explain the universe. It helps us make predictions of future events. If the reason is sound, the predictions are accurate. If not, there's a flaw in the reason. For me, logic and reason are only important if they can be applied to the real world. The application of logic and reason is empirical research. Empiricism allows us to test our reason. More empirical evidence changes the models we use to explain the universe around us. So, empiricism drives logic and reason, and logic and reason drive future empirical research. These tools are all tied to each other. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are really just place holders for now. What we know through empirical observation is that the behavior of the universe isn't fully accounted for by our current models. We can't say for sure that the flaw is with our understanding of the forces within the universe, or if there's more matter out there that we're not detecting. All we know for sure is that there's a mystery out there that needs further investigating. So, the empirical evidence is at odds with our current models, pushing us to re-evaluate our models which will in turn encourage more empirical observations.





We might have a different use of the word faith. Faith, as I understand it is belief without evidence. Scientists applying the scientific method to gather evidence almost seems to be the opposite of faith. If it was faith that scientists were using, then gathering evidence would be unnecessary. Instead, scientists don't trust that they are accurate with anything without the evidence to support their claims. I will admit that some scientists have made unfounded claims, but that only gives us more of reason to test every claim before accepting it. Not even scientists themselves can be trusted without evidence.




I don't really have much of a disagreement with you concerning this. It's true that in modern times the Abrahamic religions are the most widely believed, and have historicity to rely on. I'm more familiar with Christianity than any other religion. But, I wouldn't neglect that there are other religions that are believed to be true. For any religious claims, Abrahamic or otherwise, I would have to take each truth claim separately and examine the evidence for that claim. When there is a lack of evidence, I cannot accept that claim. That is not to say that I've declared the claim as false. Without evidence, I can't determine whether the claim is true or false.

Thanks, again, Maggie, for your responses. I'm sure that these questions can spawn other threads. And, I hope that others will join in the conversation, as well. I encourage many viewpoints. It definitely makes a better conversation. 

You give empiricism an amazing amount of weight to bear. It is, after all, only one theory of knowledge (it has lots of branches but I am simplifying mainly because I have only a simple understanding of it really). It holds that knowledge comes from experience mediated by the senses. Well, right off the bat you can see where that runs you into trouble. Just sticking to our dark matter/dark energy example it is not knowledge based on any sense data gleaned from experience. Those theories do nothing but try to explain what we, in fact, do not know. So what gives those two theories such staying power? My guess (I am not a physicist, after all) is that when one looks at all the data and reasons from them, the theory that there is such a thing as dark matter, seems to be the best working hypothesis. It is not evidence that created the hypothesis, it is reason/logic that did. Indeed, it is not testable, verifiable, repeatable or any of the other great gods of the scientific method. But it is not a silly guess either. So I think we can say that logic is not a tool of empiricism. It is another way of gaining knowledge.

Speaking of the scientific method, I always shock scientific types when I tell them that it is faith-based! But think about it. How could science have gotten off the ground without a belief that the universe operates according to what look like laws? Why should it be describable in the language of mathematics? Why are we able to understand that language? The scientific method is nothing but a tool that depends on all these things before it can get off the ground.

We aren't talking about the anthropic principle at all. We aren't talking about the constants that make life possible. We are talking about the nature of the universe. It is not at all obvious why the universe should be describable in the language of mathematics. You cannot simply take for granted that it behaves in a law-like manner and that we can comprehend it. Well, you can but that is a mighty big leap of faith! Hawking put it this way: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Well, he doesn't like the answer "God" but at least he recognizes that there is question.

We could live in a random universe, I suppose. But there could be no science in such a world. It is hard to imagine what it would look like.

I haven't said "God" yet. But it is very telling that you immediately jump to that conclusion. It is, of course, a possibility, and the possibility scares the heck out of atheist physicists and cosmologists. I am sure you are aware that when Father LeMaitre first proposed Big Bang, most physicists were horrified. They saw the implications immediately. Hoyle is the one who coined the phrase "big bang" as a way of demeaning the theory. But Father LeMaitre was right and the rest is history, as they say.

If all you can accept is objective evidence then you do not accept rational argumentation and logical deduction as objective evidence. At least, through most of this thread you have stated that you only accept empirical evidence. There is no such evidence for God. God is a logical postulate. His existence can be inferred and supported by a number of logical arguments but he cannot be proved. The question really comes down to how compelling is the rational argument? If you cannot logically dispute it, you are going to find it hard to hold to atheism.

However, as I said in an earlier message, such logical arguments only get us to some sort of immensely powerful being. It does not get us to Christianity. Once we look at it, we are basically in the realm of historical reasoning about the facts in evidence. That is a completely different kettle of fish.

So how familiar are you with the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas? (5 proofs for the existence of God). If you are open to logical evidence, we might talk about them next.