Evidence for God from Science

Can anything give what it does not have? My own view is that it cannot, because that would mean that something is coming from nothing, which is a contradiction in terms

Zap!

Let's say, for arguments sake, that the universe IS eternal and thus never had a beginning. That still means everything about it is nonetheless random and unguided. You'd still have the problem - whether fast or over immense time - of great complexity, both individually, comprehensively and interactively, developing by itself, and a staggering number of incredibly sophisticated processes and their complex guiding laws would have been produced by dumb, blind chance. An eternal universe, while it also must have an origin, really doesn't solve anything for the non-theist, as it doesn't explain the intelligence built into every system and organism. Really, dumb, blind chance would appear to be looking astoundingly brilliant!

Philip wrote:

Can anything give what it does not have? My own view is that it cannot, because that would mean that something is coming from nothing, which is a contradiction in terms

Zap!

Let's say, for arguments sake, that the universe IS eternal and thus never had a beginning. That still means everything about it is nonetheless random and unguided. You'd still have the problem - whether fast or over immense time - of great complexity, both individually, comprehensively and interactively, developing by itself, and a staggering number of incredibly sophisticated processes and their complex guiding laws would have been produced by dumb, blind chance. An eternal universe, while it also must have an origin, really doesn't solve anything for the non-theist, as it doesn't explain the intelligence built into every system and organism. Really, dumb, blind chance would appear to be looking astoundingly brilliant!

Philip we are thinking on the same wavelength . This is actually one of the most powerful arguments out there and one that I can grasp very easily .
It's like 2 people walking on the shore of a beach and there is a sign in the sand that says bob loves sara . Would anyone actually believe that this message was made by the water crashing on the shore a few trillion times or the more common sensical answer , that some kind if intelligent source created that message .

Nothing has ever made more sense to me than specified complex information because as human beings we see thousands of examples of this each day in our very own life experiences . You would literally need a miracle for this to happen without some intelligent force behind it .

I`m still trying to fully understand this so bear with me...

I read somewhere (in beyond belif by Peter Meadows, I think) that to picture our universe and how it relates to God like this.

Imagine God is a page of a book, the universe and everything else is what`s written on that page, so therefore everything is contained within God. And God is everywhere.

Therefore the universe could be eternal because it is a part of God yet it may have no beginning because it always, or the potential, has always existed within God.

I`ve just confused myself!!!

Philip wrote:

Can anything give what it does not have? My own view is that it cannot, because that would mean that something is coming from nothing, which is a contradiction in terms

Zap!

Let's say, for arguments sake, that the universe IS eternal and thus never had a beginning. That still means everything about it is nonetheless random and unguided. You'd still have the problem - whether fast or over immense time - of great complexity, both individually, comprehensively and interactively, developing by itself, and a staggering number of incredibly sophisticated processes and their complex guiding laws would have been produced by dumb, blind chance. An eternal universe, while it also must have an origin, really doesn't solve anything for the non-theist, as it doesn't explain the intelligence built into every system and organism. Really, dumb, blind chance would appear to be looking astoundingly brilliant!

Yes, with the "sophisticated processes and their complex guiding laws" I think you're getting more at the foundations.
By that, to re-use the illustration in my previous example of the wall with a picture on, you're getting more at the "wall" that holds up the "picture".

Many focus so much on just what visibly exists, that they overlook the invisible laws that hold everything together.
So let's even assume a multiverse. Great! But, the physical laws... including the higher-level ones that are maintained from one universe to the next (such as the ones that would govern "spawning" or maybe forces like gravitational, strong, weak, electro-magnetic). Some physicists also acknowledge with their multiverse scenarios the contingency of laws -- in that they could be have been tuned differently, or even been otherwise.
So if "laws" in and of themselves weren't enough to consider a "lawgiver", then given the apparent contingency of such laws (that they are potentially changeable, could have been otherwise, or not at all), then this really begs for a Lawgiver in my opinion.

What else are we to believe? That such sophisticated laws just happened from nothing. Magic?

What else are we to believe? That such sophisticated laws just happened from nothing. Magic?

And so there you have it: The miraculous belief that those who claim to not believe in miracles must and do assert they believe.

I mean, believing what non-theists do, scientifically, as to origins, what other word (besides "miracle") could they use to define what they say happened? "Unknowable?" "Inexplicable?" "The greatest of mysteries?" "Statistically impossible, but there you have it?" What?!!! They simply must admit that SOMETHING existed prior to the beginning of the universe - or of ANY supposed universe (and silly me thought "uni" means just ONE!). Really, these atheist scientist that propose all kinds of wild theories seem to try to gain a focus on the details and processes, but not the ultimate CAUSE. They are essentially using smoke and mirrors, the narratives of a magician keeping one's focus on the wrong thing. This is why I laugh at those purporting that if evolution happened that this disproves that there was a God responsible for it all. That is, they want the focus to be on a process that's supposedly occurred nearly 10 billion years AFTER the REAL question: How did a universe begin with such power, magnitude, and unfathomably complex guiding laws where as moments before, there was none - by itself, from nothing, unguided? That's why I don't get caught up in detailed arguments over evolution - as they are basically irrelevant. Plus I'm quick to remind them of just how many believe in both theism AND evolution.

Philip wrote:

What else are we to believe? That such sophisticated laws just happened from nothing. Magic?

And so there you have it: The miraculous belief that those who claim to not believe in miracles must and do assert they believe.

I mean, believing what non-theists do, scientifically, as to origins, what other word (besides "miracle") could they use to define what they say happened? "Unknowable?" "Inexplicable?" "The greatest of mysteries?" "Statistically impossible, but there you have it?" What?!!! They simply must admit that SOMETHING existed prior to the beginning of the universe - or of ANY supposed universe (and silly me thought "uni" means just ONE!). Really, these atheist scientist that propose all kinds of wild theories seem to try to gain a focus on the details and processes, but not the ultimate CAUSE. They are essentially using smoke and mirrors, the narratives of a magician keeping one's focus on the wrong thing. This is why I laugh at those purporting that if evolution happened that this disproves that there was a God responsible for it all. That is, they want the focus to be on a process that's supposedly occurred nearly 10 billion years AFTER the REAL question: How did a universe begin with such power, magnitude, and unfathomably complex guiding laws where as moments before, there was none - by itself, from nothing, unguided? That's why I don't get caught up in detailed arguments over evolution - as they are basically irrelevant. Plus I'm quick to remind them of just how many believe in both theism AND evolution.

That's exactly right. From an atheistic point of view it boils down to only 1 of 2 possibilities. Either 1) the creation of somthing from nothing, which is absolutely absurd, or 2) a set of brute-force inexplicable laws. So much for science.

Byblos wrote:

Philip wrote:

What else are we to believe? That such sophisticated laws just happened from nothing. Magic?

And so there you have it: The miraculous belief that those who claim to not believe in miracles must and do assert they believe.

I mean, believing what non-theists do, scientifically, as to origins, what other word (besides "miracle") could they use to define what they say happened? "Unknowable?" "Inexplicable?" "The greatest of mysteries?" "Statistically impossible, but there you have it?" What?!!! They simply must admit that SOMETHING existed prior to the beginning of the universe - or of ANY supposed universe (and silly me thought "uni" means just ONE!). Really, these atheist scientist that propose all kinds of wild theories seem to try to gain a focus on the details and processes, but not the ultimate CAUSE. They are essentially using smoke and mirrors, the narratives of a magician keeping one's focus on the wrong thing. This is why I laugh at those purporting that if evolution happened that this disproves that there was a God responsible for it all. That is, they want the focus to be on a process that's supposedly occurred nearly 10 billion years AFTER the REAL question: How did a universe begin with such power, magnitude, and unfathomably complex guiding laws where as moments before, there was none - by itself, from nothing, unguided? That's why I don't get caught up in detailed arguments over evolution - as they are basically irrelevant. Plus I'm quick to remind them of just how many believe in both theism AND evolution.

That's exactly right. From an atheistic point of view it boils down to only 1 of 2 possibilities. Either 1) the creation of somthing from nothing, which is absolutely absurd, or 2) a set of brute-force inexplicable laws. So much for science.

You're being too fair Byblos. I'll go for both.

Katabole wrote:
A "beginningless universe" if ever proved true both scientifically and mathematically, would give greater credence to Buddhism being true than Christianity in my opinion.

Byblos wrote:
I disagree. A beginingless universe does absolutely nothing to undermine the most forceful arguments for God, i.e. the arguments from motion and from contingency.



Hi Byb. Oh I agree with you. I wasn't even taking into account the arguments from motion or contingency which would actually back up a monotheistic God creating a universe.

My point was that if you are a Buddhist and you believe that the universe never had a beginning and that from their perspective it does not need an explanation because in their Theogony they accept that gods came to this Earth from the universe (because Gautama Buddha was at first a Hindu) AND if the scientific and math models pointed to a "beginningless universe", then that would give greater credence to Buddhism being true just from that perspective.

Frankly Byb, I find this "beginningless universe" concept similar to the conundrum that Rick mentioned; that it just doesn't make sense. It is like trying to understand the concept of a square circle or as professor John Lennox says in his book, 'God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is it Anyway' after he refutes Hawking's thesis that, "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing", as Lennox states, "Nonsense remains nonsense, even it is spoken by a world famous scientist".

If we include all the other arguments for God's existence, then Buddhism fails miserably in giving a common sense explanation for the origin and maintaining of the universe we live in, which only Christianity can explain and these arguments would be:

God is the best explanation why anything exists rather than nothing.
God is the best explanation for the possibility of God's existence.
God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe in order for intelligent life to exist.
God is the best explanation for a universe with laws.
God is the best explanation for a universe that is rationally intelligible or comprehensible.
God is the best explanation for an objective moral reality within humanity.
God is the best explanation for existential choice or freedom to choose.
God is the best explanation for the emotion called love.
God is the best explanation for humans asking questions regarding ultimate purpose.
God is the best explanation for humans asking questions regarding ultimate justice.
God is the best explanation for the problem of evil.
God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
God is the best explanation for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.