The Strongest Argument for God

[Philip]

Ken, you are just playing pointless games with things you've well demonstrated you either know very little about, or you don't believe what science overwhelmingly says happened at the beginning of the Big Bang. But you've already said you don't accept what scientists assert, even though you act as if science is something for you to appeal to. So, basically, this is a total waste of everyones' time. You answers are all non-answers and nonsensical. You think you are being clever by spewing nonsense - but it's very obvious.

[Kenny]

Ken, you are just playing pointless games with things you've well demonstrated you either know very little about, or you don't believe what science overwhelmingly says happened at the beginning of the Big Bang.

I’ve already told you what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang; the thing expanded! You are the one who keeps going against science claiming an intelligence was involved; don’t get me wrong, if you wanna believe that, fine! But don't go around acting as if such a claim is supported by science.

But you've already said you don't accept what scientists assert, even though you act as if science is something for you to appeal to.

No. I never said I don't accept established scientific theory.

So, basically, this is a total waste of everyones' time. You answers are all non-answers and nonsensical. You think you are being clever by spewing nonsense - but it's very obvious.

How about if whoever makes a claim, they provide an outside source (a link, website etc.) to back it up. That way it doesn’t look like they are just making empty claims. Agree?

[Kurieuo]

Ken, you are just playing pointless games with things you've well demonstrated you either know very little about, or you don't believe what science overwhelmingly says happened at the beginning of the Big Bang.

I’ve already told you what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang; the thing expanded!

Philip, don't you understand? It just started expanding at the beginning, no explanation necessary.

___________________

"Even I never dreamed of Magic like this!"

[Kenny]

Ken, you are just playing pointless games with things you've well demonstrated you either know very little about, or you don't believe what science overwhelmingly says happened at the beginning of the Big Bang.

I’ve already told you what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang; the thing expanded!

Philip, don't you understand? It just started expanding at the beginning, no explanation necessary.

___________________

"Even I never dreamed of Magic like this!"

Actually it's more like; no explanation KNOWN. I can understand the temptation of makin' stuff up and inserting your own ideas of what started it all (God of the gaps) but when you do that, don't call it science, because it no longer is.

[Philip]

Ken: I’ve already told you what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang; the thing expanded! You are the one who keeps going against science claiming an intelligence was involved; don’t get me wrong, if you wanna believe that, fine! But don't go around acting as if such a claim is supported by science.

Ken, you are in major denial of what requires intelligence! Your words, "the thing expanded," is like asserting a few already existing rocks began to be propelled outward - and without a source, btw. But this was an event involving components of massive complexity, designs and functionalities and interacted with breathtaking precision and interactivities. There is nothing remotely simple about it!

Here's the timeline and widespread consensus of physicists and astronomers of the first three minutes of the Big Bang - you can find this documentation all over the net:

Big Bang's First Three Minutes:

0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.
10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.
10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.
10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.
10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.
10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.
10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.
1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.

Note, Ken, how amazing and complex are those first things, like quarks and antiquarks - that make up all the matter in the universe (From Encyclopedia Britannica): https://www.britannica.com/science/suba ... antiquarks

Ken: No. I never said I don't accept established scientific theory.

OK, above, I detailed established the present, widespread consensus of the first minutes of the universe coming into existence - along with the first, massively complex physical building blocks that came into existence as the universe, which moments before did not exist, began, yes, ORGANIZING!!! And not merely simple things merely expanding. And this takes INTELLIGENCE. Anyone believing such amazing things functioning as they did without an intelligent design and control is in complete denial. And funny how those who deny intelligence all just happen to be atheists or agnostics.

And you HAVE said you don't accept the scientific theory about the Big Bang event!

Ken: "I don't accept the claim that there was a time in history when things began to organize, or come into being."

(viewtopic.php?p=244375#p244375)

Well, Ken, then YOU don't accept the scientific theory that exhaustive testing has brought widespread consensus to its validity! At least admit that you said what you deny!

[PaulSacramento]

Humm; let me guess... God is the only one who is not contingent thus has no cause, and God is the only one who didn't come into existence, everything else did. Is that correct? If so, how is that different from when I said an exception is made for God because he is uncaused, everything else is caused? And how does this refute the objections I mentioned?

First off, no one said that everything else is caused, you said that.

Oh so according to you there are other things that are uncaused? Like what?

The reason we call that Uncaused Cause God is because of that an uncaused cause MUST be ( its attributes), but that is another point that can only be understood IF you understand why there must be an uncaused or first cause.

So are all of those other uncaused causes you eluded to, God as well?

IF more than one can exist, yes BUT if more than one exists then there has to be a way to distinguish them, right?
Which would mean that one of them can NOT have all the same attributes as the other, right?

[Kurieuo]

Ken, you are just playing pointless games with things you've well demonstrated you either know very little about, or you don't believe what science overwhelmingly says happened at the beginning of the Big Bang.

I’ve already told you what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang; the thing expanded!

Philip, don't you understand? It just started expanding at the beginning, no explanation necessary.

___________________

"Even I never dreamed of Magic like this!"

Actually it's more like; no explanation KNOWN. I can understand the temptation of makin' stuff up and inserting your own ideas of what started it all (God of the gaps) but when you do that, don't call it science, because it no longer is.

Nothing exists of which it cannot be asked, what is the cause or reason why it exists. This is, in a nutshell, the principle of sufficient reason. It could be said perhaps that no other principle has higher importance than this one to natural scientific enquiry. This principle indeed undergirds science and any rational enquiry.

To rule out certain conclusions from the get go isn't free enquiry. You might think it "science", but it isn't the rational thing to do according to principle of sufficient reason upon which scientific enquiry rests. I'd say your "science" is a form of restricted enquiry, that is, it has certain limits only appropriate for certain intents and purposes (i.e., enquiring about the physical world).

Yet, why place restrictions and box yourself in? Is it a crime to consider a wider range of possibilities? Maybe you need to extend your tools of rational enquiry to embrace other "sciences" that aren't purely limited to the physical world order, such that you are more free to ask questions and consider possible responses to them in pursuit of sufficient reasons.

You may think restricting yourself to physical explanations "science", but to me it's flagrant violation of the principle of sufficient reason (which undergirds your "science") and as such logic and reason.

[Kenny]

Ken: I’ve already told you what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang; the thing expanded! You are the one who keeps going against science claiming an intelligence was involved; don’t get me wrong, if you wanna believe that, fine! But don't go around acting as if such a claim is supported by science.

Ken, you are in major denial of what requires intelligence! Your words, "the thing expanded," is like asserting a few already existing rocks began to be propelled outward - and without a source, btw. But this was an event involving components of massive complexity, designs and functionalities and interacted with breathtaking precision and interactivities. There is nothing remotely simple about it!

Here's the timeline and widespread consensus of physicists and astronomers of the first three minutes of the Big Bang - you can find this documentation all over the net:

Big Bang's First Three Minutes:

0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.
10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.
10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.
10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.
10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.
10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.
10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.
1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.[/quote]

If there is scientific consensus on this, how come it isn’t a part of a Scientific theory?

Ken: No. I never said I don't accept established scientific theory.

OK, above, I detailed established the present, widespread consensus of the first minutes of the universe coming into existence - along with the first, massively complex physical building blocks that came into existence as the universe, which moments before did not exist, began, yes, ORGANIZING!!! And not merely simple things merely expanding. And this takes INTELLIGENCE.

How do you know when things expanded it required intelligence, and that it was organizing? You think knowing about 4% of the Universe allows you to make assumptions about the 96% that you have no clue about? I don’t think so

Anyone believing such amazing things functioning as they did without an intelligent design and control is in complete denial. And funny how those who deny intelligence all just happen to be atheists or agnostics.

So the Cosmologists who spend their lives studying and specializing in this field (who are mostly atheists and agnostics) are all in denial, and those who know relatively little about the field (who are mostly Christians) have the real answers; huh? I will take my chances with the experts if you don’t mind!

And you HAVE said you don't accept the scientific theory about the Big Bang event!

The Big Bang theory says nothing about organizing, or coming into being; I did not say I don’t accept the theory about the Big Bang. Perhaps I should be clear on this so we don’t talk past each other.
If the Universe is defined as “all that exists
”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
That would mean when all that exists was the singularity prior to expanding, that singularity was the Universe. What I said was that I didn’t accept "all that existed" came into being when it expanded, and organized during this time. I know of no theory that makes this claim; do you?

[Kenny]

Humm; let me guess... God is the only one who is not contingent thus has no cause, and God is the only one who didn't come into existence, everything else did. Is that correct? If so, how is that different from when I said an exception is made for God because he is uncaused, everything else is caused? And how does this refute the objections I mentioned?

First off, no one said that everything else is caused, you said that.

Oh so according to you there are other things that are uncaused? Like what?

The reason we call that Uncaused Cause God is because of that an uncaused cause MUST be ( its attributes), but that is another point that can only be understood IF you understand why there must be an uncaused or first cause.

So are all of those other uncaused causes you eluded to, God as well?

IF more than one can exist, yes BUT if more than one exists then there has to be a way to distinguish them, right?
Which would mean that one of them can NOT have all the same attributes as the other, right?

Just because they all have different attributes doesn’t mean they all can’t have an eternal existence. One has nothing to do with the other

[Philip]

Ken: The Big Bang theory says nothing about organizing, or coming into being;

It absolutely DOES!!! It says those first physical things that began to assemble did not previously exist! That's exactly what the theory and research details! And when I say all that exists, I'm speaking of the physical universe and it's components that did not exist before the Big Bang began. And if you don't call what the Big Bang asserts as organizing, you are hopelessly in denial of the obvious! What do YOU call it? A meaningless "expansion" like bubbles floating down a creek? Again, the Big Bang's events don't prove the Cause is God, but it does show a required great intelligence. Only a person who believes in magic thinks blind, non-intelligent things began assembling and organizing as they did in the very first moments of the universe - as it's totally illogical to do so. And the aspects of the universe we don't know doesn't change that fact! And all we DO know - which is based on all science has deduced to this point, tells us that nothing ever observed or tested has produced intelligence or great complexity and detailed design that didn't come from some previously existing intelligence. And otherwise, only man has great intelligence, and yet we can scarcely understand the basics of what the Big Bang and the universe has revealed. So your only reason for believing what you do is: A) you don't believe in God; B) You think the things we don't know could explain the early universe's and life's staggering complexity, designs and operations; C) You apparently don't believe science has never shown it possible that blind, non-intelligent things can produce even things akin to the designs and functions of very simple machines - and yet, no machine ever made by man is as sophisticated in design or operation as a simple cell.

Ken, babbling on about singularity and the unknown only makes you look desperate and silly to buttress your atheism - because it's irrational.

[Kenny]

Ken: The Big Bang theory says nothing about organizing, or coming into being;

It absolutely DOES!!! It says those first physical things that began to assemble did not previously exist! That's exactly what the theory and research details! And when I say all that exists, I'm speaking of the physical universe and it's components that did not exist before the Big Bang began. And if you don't call what the Big Bang asserts as organizing, you are hopelessly in denial of the obvious! What do YOU call it? A meaningless "expansion" like bubbles floating down a creek? Again, the Big Bang's events don't prove the Cause is God, but it does show a required great intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
This is where I got my information about the Big Bang. Though it says nothing about anything organizing or coming into being, let’s assume other sources says it did, because it does sound reasonable that some of which exists today began to exist during this time. My problem with your claims is that you say an intelligence was involved, because such a claim would have to identify the intelligence; and I don’t think you can list a non religious source that identifies an intelligence responsible for the start of the Universe. I find it quite foolish to assume an intelligence had to be involved in all of this because you can’t imagine it done any other way, especially when the experts in this field disagree with you. Like I said before, when it comes to believing the experts in the field vs someone like you with a religious agenda, I’m going with the experts.

[Philip]

Ken: This is where I got my information about the Big Bang. Though it says nothing about anything organizing or coming into being.

Ken, can you not read what the description of the Big Bang's series of subsequent developments and the makeup of the extraordinarily complex components it included? Do you actually need to see in type, "A grand intelligence designed and controlled the Big Bang," to see it obviously looks intelligently designed and controlled?

Why do you think even Stephen Hawking named his book with the title he did???!!!



In the foreword of the book, he even acknowledges the appearance of universal design as he asks the question: "Is the apparent ‘grand design’ of our universe evidence for a benevolent creator who set things in motion?" Of course, he disagrees with a designer God, but he does recognize that the universe APPEARS to be designed.

Why do you think American physicist and Nobel Prize winner Arthur Compton said, "For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence--an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered--'In the beginning God.'"

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Einstein: "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Einstein: "It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature."

Einstein, commenting on the mindset of scientists: "His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Einstein: "If I hadn't an absolute faith in the harmony of creation, I wouldn't have tried for thirty years to express it in a mathematical formula."

Einstein: "As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed."

Einstein: "... every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Over and over, our some of our greatest scientists have marveled at the design and precision of our universe, and it's incredibly fine-tuned organization. And while many of them have no explanation for it, they nonetheless recognize it. And all of those quotes are just a small sampling of what some of the world's greatest scientists have said about the obvious organization or the functionalities of he vast components of the universe. But you, Ken, can deny that what is clear to these men is the exact opposite of disorganization and chaos.

Ken: My problem with your claims is that you say an intelligence was involved, because such a claim would have to identify the intelligence.

That is a totally false statement that you've not well thought out - and I know you don't truly believe it.

[Kenny]

Ken: This is where I got my information about the Big Bang. Though it says nothing about anything organizing or coming into being.

Ken, can you not read what the description of the Big Bang's series of subsequent developments and the makeup of the extraordinarily complex components it included? Do you actually need to see in type, "A grand intelligence designed and controlled the Big Bang," to see it obviously looks intelligently designed and controlled?

My disagreement is not about what it looks like, I have no doubt for someone with only experience from what we see here on Earth, it probably does look like an intelligence is behind all of this. But just because it looks like an intelligent design doesn’t mean it is. That is why we need to go where the evidence leads us, rather than just relying on previous experiences.

[Nicki]

Here's the timeline and widespread consensus of physicists and astronomers of the first three minutes of the Big Bang - you can find this documentation all over the net:

Big Bang's First Three Minutes:

0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.
10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.
10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.
10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.
10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.
10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.
10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.
1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.

If there is scientific consensus on this, how come it isn’t a part of a Scientific theory?

Um, it is.

[Philip]

Here's the timeline and widespread consensus of physicists and astronomers of the first three minutes of the Big Bang - you can find this documentation all over the net:

Big Bang's First Three Minutes:

0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.
10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.
10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.
10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.
10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.
10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.
10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.
1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.

If there is scientific consensus on this, how come it isn’t a part of a Scientific theory?

Um, it is.

Better question: How could Ken not realize this?