Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. When I understand why someone is answering a certain way, it helps me have a more productive conversation with him. Kinda like trying to walk in someone else's shoes, to understand him better.

I wasn't trying to discredit any argument by asking your age. Age has no relevance to the arguments people make. I was asking your age because your level of understanding about basic things, leads me to believe you are either willfully ignorant, stupid, or young. And since I don't think your willfully ignorant or stupid, I'm guessing you're young.

Then address my level of understanding. What is it about my understanding that gives you the impression that I am either stupid or young? What are some specific things I have said that give you this impression?

Ken

Your lack of understanding basic things that people here are trying to tell you. I'm not going back to list anything specific. If you want to know, just look back at pretty much any post where someone has tried to help you understand something, and you disagree. It shouldn't be difficult to find something. It's prevalent throughout the threads you've posted in.

You can't be vauge about this; I am going to need you to get into specifics, and I will address each point and expalin to you why I repsonded the way I did. Often when I am making a point, someone will see a "buzzword" and they get sooo caught up in the buzzword, and so offended that they dismiss the entire point without even knowing the point that was being made. Now if I am proven wrong, I will admit to my mistake; apologize if necessary and change my exchange tactics if necessary; but if I am not, I think an admission from you of your error would be in order as well. Are you willing to agree with this?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

BW wrote: God is indeed speaking, it is you who chooses not to hear...

Is he speaking to me in a language I am able to understand?

BW wrote:Yes...

Then why can't I hear him?

Ken

BW wrote:You refuse to listen - why?

As I explained before, I am only capable of hearing audible sounds. Audible sounds do not require listening in order to hear them. If someone is going to communicate with me in a way that requires I listen using my heart, my mind, my imagination, or anything other than my ears, they are speaking to me using a method that I am unable to understand; thus it would be foolish to try to communicate with me that way.

You are also able to to read signs and body language as well too. For example, you can read, signs in the sky that points out that a storm is near or body language from another that indicates if one is happy or sad. in fact, does reading what we, existing beings, have typed produce audible sounds, if what you stated is true, then you could not read...

Therefore, stating that you can only hear audible sounds is in error. There are many ways in which we perceive and hear what is around us. If I spoke thus: "Því svo elskaði Guð heiminn, að hann gaf son sinn eingetinn, til þess að hver sem á hann trúir glatist ekki, heldur hafi eilíft líf." How would you know what an intelligent being wrote unless you learned to read the language?

Likewise, God is speaking to you in many ways - you chose to not read due to thinking that your own language is the only one and way...

Kenny wrote:

B.W. wrote:Look up and all around you - what began the universe?

I don't believe the Universe began, I believe it has always existed.

Ken

Where did the universe come from?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

BW wrote: God is indeed speaking, it is you who chooses not to hear...

Is he speaking to me in a language I am able to understand?

BW wrote:Yes...

Then why can't I hear him?

Ken

BW wrote:You refuse to listen - why?

As I explained before, I am only capable of hearing audible sounds. Audible sounds do not require listening in order to hear them. If someone is going to communicate with me in a way that requires I listen using my heart, my mind, my imagination, or anything other than my ears, they are speaking to me using a method that I am unable to understand; thus it would be foolish to try to communicate with me that way.

You are also able to to read signs and body language as well too. For example, you can read, signs in the sky that points out that a storm is near or body language from another that indicates if one is happy or sad. in fact, does reading what we, existing beings, have typed produce audible sounds, if what you stated is true, then you could not read...

Therefore, stating that you can only hear audible sounds is in error. There are many ways in which we perceive and hear what is around us. If I spoke thus: "Því svo elskaði Guð heiminn, að hann gaf son sinn eingetinn, til þess að hver sem á hann trúir glatist ekki, heldur hafi eilíft líf." How would you know what an intelligent being wrote unless you learned to read the language?

Likewise, God is speaking to you in many ways - you chose to not read due to thinking that your own language is the only one and way...

You are right, that I am able to get messages in other ways than audible sounds. My point is, if your God is speaking to me, he is using a method that I am unable to recognize. If God is everything the Bible claims he is, he knows enough about me to get the message across in a way that I can understand.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B.W. wrote:Look up and all around you - what began the universe?

I don't believe the Universe began, I believe it has always existed.

Ken

B.W. wrote:Where did the universe come from?-

If the Universe always existed, it didn't come from anything or anywhere.

You are right, that I am able to get messages in other ways than audible sounds. My point is, if your God is speaking to me, he is using a method that I am unable to recognize. If God is everything the Bible claims he is, he knows enough about me to get the message across in a way that I can understand.

Ken

His message is in the Bible. You have sight and brain so you are able to read that.
If you do not understand just ask.

I also asked a lot (in humble way) before I have become Christian (and still ask).

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. When I understand why someone is answering a certain way, it helps me have a more productive conversation with him. Kinda like trying to walk in someone else's shoes, to understand him better.

I wasn't trying to discredit any argument by asking your age. Age has no relevance to the arguments people make. I was asking your age because your level of understanding about basic things, leads me to believe you are either willfully ignorant, stupid, or young. And since I don't think your willfully ignorant or stupid, I'm guessing you're young.

Then address my level of understanding. What is it about my understanding that gives you the impression that I am either stupid or young? What are some specific things I have said that give you this impression?

Ken

Your lack of understanding basic things that people here are trying to tell you. I'm not going back to list anything specific. If you want to know, just look back at pretty much any post where someone has tried to help you understand something, and you disagree. It shouldn't be difficult to find something. It's prevalent throughout the threads you've posted in.

You can't be vauge about this; I am going to need you to get into specifics, and I will address each point and expalin to you why I repsonded the way I did. Often when I am making a point, someone will see a "buzzword" and they get sooo caught up in the buzzword, and so offended that they dismiss the entire point without even knowing the point that was being made. Now if I am proven wrong, I will admit to my mistake; apologize if necessary and change my exchange tactics if necessary; but if I am not, I think an admission from you of your error would be in order as well. Are you willing to agree with this?

Ken

Kenny, who has gotten offended by you?

I haven't read every thread on this site, but I have read a few by you and that you have participated in. So far, none seem to be offended by you, at most it turns into circular conversations that go nowhere, but no offense at any point.

I also am a bit curious about your age as well. The fact that you don't want to say what it is makes me think that Rick D may be right and you're embarrassed to admit it. Are you in high school?

Kenny wrote: ryanbouma
Kenny, your posts make my head hurt. It's like you're not willing to thinking beyond the letters that forma sentence. Try to be more flexible and self critical.

Sorry I post and dash. Busy days for me.

Here's some things I suggest. If you're not willing to accept modern cosmology and the big bang the way scientists generally propose, then don't tell people they don't have it figured out when you clearly don't.

Ken
I never claimed I had it figured out. I said science can trace it back to the singular that expanded to be what we know as the Big Bang; what existed before that, nobody knows. Now if somebody here wants to believe they know more than the scientists knows, fine! But don't expect me to buy it unless they come to me with more than just faith.


ryanbouma
You're the one who thinks the big bang has been a singularity for eternity. That's harder to believe than God because it's actually falsified.

Ken
I didn’t claim the singular always existed in the form of a singular, I said that is as far as science can trace matter. I did suggest the possibility of the singular in a constant state of motion, or the possibility of it in a constant state of expansion and contraction; but I made it clear that these were just guesses, I never claimed science backs any of this stuff up.


ryanbouma
So you believe something that is blatantly false. Think that through before replying to these people with something like: "explain to me because you haven't". That's not a suitable reply. You're simply not willing to evaluate the evidence fairly.

Ken
Maybe you need to read what I write more carefully because it appears you do not have a clear understanding of the points I am trying to make.

Ken,

Thanks for wasting my time going back through this thread and finding your own words you've seem to forgotten. It's time you get real...

Kenny wrote: science does not support my claim the singular that eventually expanded to be what is known as the Big Bang has always existed.

That quote is from page 3. You state that you claim the singularity has always existed (eternal) and eventually expanded. This is falsified. It's blatantly false. It cannot happen. You in fact claim science doesn't support your own views. And yet you keep pushing back on us the notion that our claims are not valid. We are saying that the big bang came into existence and the best causal explanation is God. Care to disagree? Then you better bring something better than the utter garbage an eternal singularity is.

You keep moving the goal posts and telling people to go back and show you where this or that has been said. Now I've taken the time to do that for you. I won't be wasting my time again and I won't put up with accusation like the one bolded above.

I've yet to see anything convincing from scientists that goes beyond stating that things were once a lot smaller than they are now. Attempts to ground the universe in a singularity, uncaused cause or simply in itself is a case of what do you prefer? chocolate or vanilla? uncaused cause or forever cycling. Does it matter?

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. When I understand why someone is answering a certain way, it helps me have a more productive conversation with him. Kinda like trying to walk in someone else's shoes, to understand him better.

I wasn't trying to discredit any argument by asking your age. Age has no relevance to the arguments people make. I was asking your age because your level of understanding about basic things, leads me to believe you are either willfully ignorant, stupid, or young. And since I don't think your willfully ignorant or stupid, I'm guessing you're young.

Then address my level of understanding. What is it about my understanding that gives you the impression that I am either stupid or young? What are some specific things I have said that give you this impression?

Ken

Your lack of understanding basic things that people here are trying to tell you. I'm not going back to list anything specific. If you want to know, just look back at pretty much any post where someone has tried to help you understand something, and you disagree. It shouldn't be difficult to find something. It's prevalent throughout the threads you've posted in.

You can't be vauge about this; I am going to need you to get into specifics, and I will address each point and expalin to you why I repsonded the way I did. Often when I am making a point, someone will see a "buzzword" and they get sooo caught up in the buzzword, and so offended that they dismiss the entire point without even knowing the point that was being made. Now if I am proven wrong, I will admit to my mistake; apologize if necessary and change my exchange tactics if necessary; but if I am not, I think an admission from you of your error would be in order as well. Are you willing to agree with this?

Ken

Kenny, who has gotten offended by you?

I haven't read every thread on this site, but I have read a few by you and that you have participated in. So far, none seem to be offended by you, at most it turns into circular conversations that go nowhere, but no offense at any point.

I also am a bit curious about your age as well. The fact that you don't want to say what it is makes me think that Rick D may be right and you're embarrassed to admit it. Are you in high school?

Nobody as actually claimed to have been offended by me, there have been several occasions when exchanging with a person, they become belligerent and hostile towards me so I assumed it was the result of them taking offence to what I said.

Ken

I think it is really hard to judge tone from writings.

1over137 wrote:

You are right, that I am able to get messages in other ways than audible sounds. My point is, if your God is speaking to me, he is using a method that I am unable to recognize. If God is everything the Bible claims he is, he knows enough about me to get the message across in a way that I can understand.

Ken

His message is in the Bible. You have sight and brain so you are able to read that.
If you do not understand just ask.

I also asked a lot (in humble way) before I have become Christian (and still ask).

I have already read the bible. As I explained before, reading the bible is what lead me away from Christianity. Back in my christian days, when I was content with taking everybody elses word for it, I was happy believing in God and believing everything in the Bible was true. It wasn't until I actually put forth an effort to become "saved" and I started praying, and studying the bible with a sincere effort of understanding what I was reading, and learning how the bible came about, I saw the bible for what it truly was and realized I was wrong.

Ken

ryanbouma wrote: Ken,

Thanks for wasting my time going back through this thread and finding your own words you've seem to forgotten. It's time you get real...

Kenny wrote: science does not support my claim the singular that eventually expanded to be what is known as the Big Bang has always existed.

Ryanbouma
That quote is from page 3. You state that you claim the singularity has always existed (eternal) and eventually expanded. This is falsified. It's blatantly false. It cannot happen.

Ken
And this has been falsified? You are claiming to have proof that matter (the singular that expanded) has not always existed? Okay since you are making this claim, prove matter has not always existed.


Ryanbouma
You in fact claim science doesn't support your own views. And yet you keep pushing back on us the notion that our claims are not valid.

Ken
Yes I admit all I have are guesses, I don't know all the answers. Do you have anything outside religious claims that validates your claims?


Ryanbouma
We are saying that the big bang came into existence and the best causal explanation is God. Care to disagree?

Ken
The big bang came into existence? Where is it? Where is the big bang right now? The big bang does not exist! It is what happened to the singular that did exist.


Ryanbouma
Then you better bring something better than the utter garbage an eternal singularity is.

Ken
I am going to give you the opportunity to rephrase what you actually meant so I can respond to it because I am sure you know better than to claim the big bang actually came into existence! Fair enough?


Ken

I'm not a physicist but Hana is (1over137) so my knowledge is limited, but if the universe was constantly expanding and contracting there is something to do with the Hubble expansion rate not being right for such a case (insert Hana here), so we can conclude that the universe is not constantly expanding and contracting due to our observations of the universe. We know that the singularity cannot be eternal because it makes a contradiction of past events and we should never even be here, it breaks the laws of logic so we can conclude that it is not eternal. We can also conclude that everything that exists must have a cause, because this is what we observe from the universe around us, since the universe expanded from the singularity it must have a cause. The cause cannot be nothing because nothing is just well.......nothing and nothing doesn't cause anything, so the singularity must have an external cause.

Just some things to think about.

Daniel,

I just wanted to fix something you said, so Kenny won't be confused about what you meant.

We can also conclude that everything that exists begins to exist must have a cause, because this is what we observe from the universe around us, since the universe expanded from the singularity it must have a cause. The cause cannot be nothing because nothing is just well.......nothing and nothing doesn't cause anything, so the singularity must have an external cause.

It's only things that begin to exist that have a cause. Because if God exists, he doesn't have a cause. I was trying to explain this to my son a little while back.

RickD wrote:Daniel,

I just wanted to fix something you said, so Kenny won't be confused about what you meant.

We can also conclude that everything that exists begins to exist must have a cause, because this is what we observe from the universe around us, since the universe expanded from the singularity it must have a cause. The cause cannot be nothing because nothing is just well.......nothing and nothing doesn't cause anything, so the singularity must have an external cause.

It's only things that begin to exist that have a cause. Because if God exists, he doesn't have a cause. I was trying to explain this to my son a little while back.

Thanks for the clarification Rick, my mistake.

Daniel220
I'm not a physicist but Hana is (1over137) so my knowledge is limited, but if the universe was constantly expanding and contracting there is something to do with the Hubble expansion rate not being right for such a case (insert Hana here), so we can conclude that the universe is not constantly expanding and contracting due to our observations of the universe.

Ken
Wait a minute, you need to explain this Hubble expansion rate and why it prevents the possibility of the universe constantly expanding and contracting



Daniel
We know that the singularity cannot be eternal because it makes a contradiction of past events and we should never even be here, it breaks the laws of logic so we can conclude that it is not eternal.

Ken
How did you conclude that if matter has always existed, we would not be here right now? Please explain

Daniel
We can also conclude that everything that exists must have a cause, because this is what we observe from the universe around us,


Ken
First of all, what we know about the Universe is very limited. We barely know everything that goes on with planet Earth let alone all those trillions of stars trillions of light years away! To assume what little bit of the Universe we have been able to test, analyze, & study; and assume it applies to every inch of the Universe is akin to a person going to a library for the first time,picking up the first book he sees which happens to be a Dr Seuss children’s book; studying that book then assuming the entire library consists of children’s books.

Second, if you are going to claim everything that exists must have a cause, then you have to apply that to your God as well if you are going to claim he exist. If you are going to present an exception for your God, then I will present an exception for that vast majority of the Universe that we have no clue about.

[Daniel
since the universe expanded from the singularity it must have a cause.[/quote]

Ken
Do you have anything outside religion that backs this up?

Ken