Is Christianity and Belief in God RATIONAL?

[Philip]

Ken, as for what you appear to believe, it's...

[Kenny]

To summarize, Ken must believe in magic,

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. I’m the only one in this conversation who does not believe in an eternal being who created the entire Universe and all that exist from nothing….. yet I’m the one who believes in magic! Got it.

[Kenny]

Ken, as for what you appear to believe, it's...

So what exactly did I say that I believed? Go ahead; be specific.

[Philip]

Ken: So what exactly did I say that I believed? Go ahead; be specific.

Without digging too deeply into your past posts, very recently you posted:

For one, you appear to doubt an intelligence is necessary to produce the incredible things of amazing designs and functions that instantly came into existence within minutes of the Big Bang beginning - meaning ALL things that did not previously exist.

Ken: Let’s stick with “uncaused thing” for now till we get an understanding before we make the leap of assuming this thing has to be conscious, aware of his surroundings, intelligent, etc. etc.

And you totally didn't get it why scientific study has led so many scientists to believe in God - which you apparently didn't realize, nor did you seem to know the considerable numbers of them - so many being prominent in their fields of study. The evidences, even in Einstein's day, were so massive as to force him from atheism to deism!

Ken: Okay; if scientific evidence points to an intelligent designer, how come nobody has attempted to make that a scientific theory?

BTW, there HAS been a scientific creation model approach to developing hypotheses: https://www.reasons.org/about/creation-model-approach - it's based upon what we would expect science to see based upon no creator / evolution / naturalism in vs. if the God of the Bible's Scriptures are true.

You don't seem to believe that the study of science could rationally lead anyone to believe in God.

Ken: If this guy claims his study of the physical and material (science) lead to belief in God (the spiritual), I cannot refute his claims. Obviously I’m skeptical of them.

OK, now to clarify what you DO believe:

Ken, do you believe that the Big Bang and the universe's construction, designs and functionalities, its astonishing precision and necessary interactive mechanisms required some great intelligence - (at this point, let's not debate the identity of that Source)? And do you believe there must have been something massively intelligent behind the stunning array of complexity, design and functionality across the universe, world and life? And if not, what is the alternative? Blind things that got lucky?

Do you believe any Source or sources for all things could be blind and non-intelligent, yet somehow have been able to gradually acquire intelligence on its own? And if you believe blind things could gain intelligence - HOW?

Your answers should determine whether or not I see your analysis and conclusions to be rational or not.

[Kenny]

OK, now to clarify what you DO believe:

Ken, do you believe that the Big Bang and the universe's construction, designs and functionalities, its astonishing precision and necessary interactive mechanisms required some great intelligence

No.

And do you believe there must have been something massively intelligent behind the stunning array of complexity, design and functionality across the universe, world and life?

No.

And if not, what is the alternative? Blind things that got lucky?

Sorry; I don’t have answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

Do you believe any Source or sources for all things could be blind and non-intelligent, yet somehow have been able to gradually acquire intelligence on its own?

Yes through evolution.

And if you believe blind things could gain intelligence - HOW?

A blind egg, and a blind sperm can come together to become one, eventually becoming one of the most intelligent beings in the known Universe. Happens all the time! Granted we only know of this happening when the sperm and egg comes from humans, but just because we don't know of it happening in any other cases doesn't mean it isn't possible!

[1over137]

Do you really find it that difficult to believe that some very intelligent scientists actually think that the study of science, points to the existence of God?

Yes I do find it difficult to believe a study of the physical world will point to the spiritual world.

I studied theoretical physics.
And as I studied it, I saw how few principles/symmetries/equations are enough for describing a vast amount of phenomena.
And the symmetries in equations, the beauties.
You know, it is like one Great designer is behind it all.

[Kenny]

Do you really find it that difficult to believe that some very intelligent scientists actually think that the study of science, points to the existence of God?

Yes I do find it difficult to believe a study of the physical world will point to the spiritual world.

I studied theoretical physics.
And as I studied it, I saw how few principles/symmetries/equations are enough for describing a vast amount of phenomena.
And the symmetries in equations, the beauties.
You know, it is like one Great designer is behind it all.

Did you conclude Great designer from your study of theoretical physics? Or did you conclude Great designer because you didn’t get any credible answers from Theoretical Physics.

[1over137]

neither one

[Kenny]

neither one

Now THAT makes perfect sense to me.

[Philip]

OK, Ken, so it's established that you don't believe the astonishing array of massively complex designs and functionalities required an intelligence.

Philip: And if not, what is the alternative? Blind things that got lucky?

Ken: Sorry; I don’t have answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

Now you aren't being forthcoming - as to whether the universe required an intelligent creator/designer/intelligence - because there are only two possible ability / non-ability categories for the source of all things: This source (or sources, if you will) was either a thinking intelligence or it was not. If not, it was a blind thing incapable of thinking, planning, seeing, hearing, maneuvering, etc. And so you need to admit that. You've stated that you don't believe an intelligence was required, so that leaves you with a massively complex universe that runs with unfathomable precision - that has done so since the Big Bang began - and so your ONLY choice left is that a non-thinking / non-intelligent thing or things created, assembled and orchestrated what only intelligence can produce. So THIS is why I say your thinking is illogical - and it's certainly not even remotely scientific.

And I should have asked you - do you not realize that SOMETHING had to be eternal?

Philip: Do you believe any Source or sources for all things could be blind and non-intelligent, yet somehow have been able to gradually acquire intelligence on its own?

Ken: Yes through evolution.

A) You didn't answer the question (I asked about the originating Source)- evolution would have been a secondary process entirely dependent upon the first source that created the materials of the universe and the conditions for it to have take place. And B) intelligence is an innate ability of a creature or machine passed along or installed via a prior intelligent source - for animals, this is done genetically, requiring an previous intelligent animal. Humans, likewise, genetically. But again, remember, I'm asking you about the FIRST source or sources for the universe - and that first Source or sources could not evolve intelligence - it either has this capacity or not. And please do not mistake having intelligence with that creature's intelligence providing it the capacity to learn and get smarter, as these advancements in knowledge first required the intelligent capacity to learn (get smarter / utilize its expanding knowledge).

Philip: And if you believe blind things could gain intelligence - HOW?

Ken: A blind egg, and a blind sperm can come together to become one, eventually becoming one of the most intelligent beings in the known Universe. Happens all the time! Granted we only know of this happening when the sperm and egg comes from humans, but just because we don't know of it happening in any other cases doesn't mean it isn't possible!

NO, Ken, I'm asking you about the originating FIRST thing(s), Source (or sources) - how did these things obtain the ability intelligence makes possible? As if It or they weren't intelligent, how could they BECOME intelligent? That's your issue - the problem a non-intelligent explanation for the universe requires! That first Source HAD to be intelligent - which means it was a thinking being. And that's not even considering that this First "thing" had the ability to make the non-physical come into reality, at the Big Bang event.

So, Ken, what do you think is possible for a non-intelligent thing? What potential does it have? What abilities? Because as you've rejected a non-intelligent Source for the universe, a NON-intelligent thing or things is your ONLY alternative. That's just plain logic. But you have no reason whatsoever to believe such a thing LOGICALLY! Science can speculate about this problem, but it does not have the ability or tools to solve it. But those scientific tools can and do show us that the universe's birth and the creation since is filled with an astonishing array of complex things that require intelligence to produce, as they sophistication and designs check every known box that reveals only an Intelligence could have produced such.

[Stu]

Kenny, do you believe such a finely tuned universe came about by mere chance?

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

[RickD]

Kenny, do you believe such a finely tuned universe came about by mere chance?

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Stu,

All that could just be a result of blind coincidence.

[1over137]

neither one

Now THAT makes perfect sense to me.

Ken,

Both, theoretical physics and other things helped me to recognize there is God.
It is not that I concluded Great Designer only from theoretical physics.
And it is not that I concluded Great Designer because I did't not have answers from theoretical physics.

[Kenny]

OK, Ken, so it's established that you don't believe the astonishing array of massively complex designs and functionalities required an intelligence.

Like a coral reef? Yeah.

Philip: And if not, what is the alternative? Blind things that got lucky?

Ken: Sorry; I don’t have answers to the mysteries of the Universe.[/quote]

Now you aren't being forthcoming - as to whether the universe required an intelligent creator/designer/intelligence - because there are only two possible ability / non-ability categories for the source of all things: This source (or sources, if you will) was either a thinking intelligence or it was not. If not, it was a blind thing incapable of thinking, planning, seeing, hearing, maneuvering, etc. And so you need to admit that.

Admit it? I’ve never denied it.

You've stated that you don't believe an intelligence was required, so that leaves you with a massively complex universe that runs with unfathomable precision - that has done so since the Big Bang began -

I don’t agree the Universe runs with unfathomable precision. You know how they say an Astroid hit Earth millions of years ago resulting in the death of all the Dinosaurs? And how we are constantly having Meteor’s entering Earths atmosphere causing destruction? If the Universe ran with unfathomable precision; that stuff wouldn’t be happening

and so your ONLY choice left is that a non-thinking / non-intelligent thing or things created, assembled and orchestrated what only intelligence can produce. So THIS is why I say your thinking is illogical - and it's certainly not even remotely scientific.

You know how that law of thermodynamics that says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed? That it cannot be created from nothing nor reduced to nothing; that it only changes form? If that's true, that would mean nothing was ever created.

And I should have asked you - do you not realize that SOMETHING had to be eternal?

With as many conversations you and I have had, why would you ask me something like that? You know my opinion on the issue.

Philip: Do you believe any Source or sources for all things could be blind and non-intelligent, yet somehow have been able to gradually acquire intelligence on its own?

Ken: Yes through evolution.

A) You didn't answer the question (I asked about the originating Source)- evolution would have been a secondary process entirely dependent upon the first source that created the materials of the universe and the conditions for it to have take place.

Your question assumed matter was actually created; a position I don’t hold.

And B) intelligence is an innate ability of a creature or machine passed along or installed via a prior intelligent source - for animals, this is done genetically, requiring an previous intelligent animal. Humans, likewise, genetically. But again, remember, I'm asking you about the FIRST source or sources for the universe - and that first Source or sources could not evolve intelligence - it either has this capacity or not. And please do not mistake having intelligence with that creature's intelligence providing it the capacity to learn and get smarter, as these advancements in knowledge first required the intelligent capacity to learn (get smarter / utilize its expanding knowledge).

The only way I can speculate this happening is if that matter that has always existed included cells.

Philip: And if you believe blind things could gain intelligence - HOW?

Ken: A blind egg, and a blind sperm can come together to become one, eventually becoming one of the most intelligent beings in the known Universe. Happens all the time! Granted we only know of this happening when the sperm and egg comes from humans, but just because we don't know of it happening in any other cases doesn't mean it isn't possible!

NO, Ken, I'm asking you about the originating FIRST thing(s), Source (or sources) - how did these things obtain the ability intelligence makes possible? As if It or they weren't intelligent, how could they BECOME intelligent? That's your issue - the problem a non-intelligent explanation for the universe requires! That first Source HAD to be intelligent - which means it was a thinking being. And that's not even considering that this First "thing" had the ability to make the non-physical come into reality, at the Big Bang event.

So because I don’t have all the answers concerning the Universe, I’m supposed to accept yours?

The only way I can speculate this happening is if that matter that has always existed included cells.

So, Ken, what do you think is possible for a non-intelligent thing? What potential does it have? What abilities? Because as you've rejected a non-intelligent Source for the universe, a NON-intelligent thing or things is your ONLY alternative. That's just plain logic.

If the Universe has always existed, it has no source.

But you have no reason whatsoever to believe such a thing LOGICALLY! Science can speculate about this problem, but it does not have the ability or tools to solve it

If science cannot give answers, why are you asking me? All I can do is speculate.

But those scientific tools can and do show us that the universe's birth and the creation since is filled with an astonishing array of complex things that require intelligence to produce, as they sophistication and designs check every known box that reveals only an Intelligence could have produced such.

Now that sounds like your speculation.

[Kenny]

neither one

Now THAT makes perfect sense to me.

Ken,

Both, theoretical physics and other things helped me to recognize there is God.
It is not that I concluded Great Designer only from theoretical physics.
And it is not that I concluded Great Designer because I did't not have answers from theoretical physics.

So how did the study of the physical world cause you to believe or recognize God?