Evidence for God from Science

Well, Kenny, since, as you so nicely stated:

Well that's what I've been talking about Sherlock; reality, and based on science! What else did you think I was talking about? Faith???

Then base don THAT criteria, then the comment " everything has a cause" is correct since, from the perspective of "reality and science", which is based SOLELY on what is observable, everything has a cause.
Unless of course you can show me something that is "real and observable" that does not have a cause...can you?

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, Kenny, since, as you so nicely stated:

Well that's what I've been talking about Sherlock; reality, and based on science! What else did you think I was talking about? Faith???

Then base don THAT criteria, then the comment " everything has a cause" is correct since, from the perspective of "reality and science", which is based SOLELY on what is observable, everything has a cause.
Unless of course you can show me something that is "real and observable" that does not have a cause...can you?

Science doesn't address everything, so the claim everything has a cause is not a claim backed up by science.

Ken

And done.
Ciao guys.

PaulSacramento wrote:And done.
Ciao guys.

Good-by my friend!

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, Kenny, since, as you so nicely stated:

Well that's what I've been talking about Sherlock; reality, and based on science! What else did you think I was talking about? Faith???

Then base don THAT criteria, then the comment " everything has a cause" is correct since, from the perspective of "reality and science", which is based SOLELY on what is observable, everything has a cause.
Unless of course you can show me something that is "real and observable" that does not have a cause...can you?

Science doesn't address everything, so the claim everything has a cause is not a claim backed up by science.

Ken

We know science does'nt adress everything which is why we are focusing on reality and based on reality it is a fact.The reason why science does'nt adress everything is it has been trying to push a theory up a big hill and has wasted 150 years and billions of dollars on a wrong theory while ruling out God or any supenatural explanation,there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box but they have known for along time it is bunk yet have still pushed it up the hill and this is one reason so many people reject God now.It was all indoctrination for future votes.They remove God from public schools in 1962 and teach evolution and just like was planned we have people who reject God and now tolerate everything that is wrong so that now everything that is right is wrong and everything that is wrong is right.It's them hippi's from the 60's.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, Kenny, since, as you so nicely stated:

Well that's what I've been talking about Sherlock; reality, and based on science! What else did you think I was talking about? Faith???

Then base don THAT criteria, then the comment " everything has a cause" is correct since, from the perspective of "reality and science", which is based SOLELY on what is observable, everything has a cause.
Unless of course you can show me something that is "real and observable" that does not have a cause...can you?

Science doesn't address everything, so the claim everything has a cause is not a claim backed up by science.

Ken

We know science does'nt adress everything which is why we are focusing on reality and based on reality it is a fact.The reason why science does'nt adress everything is it has been trying to push a theory up a big hill and has wasted 150 years and billions of dollars on a wrong theory while ruling out God or any supenatural explanation.

No. The reason science doesn't address everything is because they can only address what they can observe and test. Science is unable to observe and test everything yet; but I'm sure they're working on it.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, Kenny, since, as you so nicely stated:

Well that's what I've been talking about Sherlock; reality, and based on science! What else did you think I was talking about? Faith???

Then base don THAT criteria, then the comment " everything has a cause" is correct since, from the perspective of "reality and science", which is based SOLELY on what is observable, everything has a cause.
Unless of course you can show me something that is "real and observable" that does not have a cause...can you?

Science doesn't address everything, so the claim everything has a cause is not a claim backed up by science.

Ken

We know science does'nt adress everything which is why we are focusing on reality and based on reality it is a fact.The reason why science does'nt adress everything is it has been trying to push a theory up a big hill and has wasted 150 years and billions of dollars on a wrong theory while ruling out God or any supenatural explanation.

No. The reason science doesn't address everything is because they can only address what they can observe and test. Science is unable to observe and test everything yet; but I'm sure they're working on it.

Ken

Well then why is science imagining this vast universe creating itself then?Nobody has ever seen matter pop into existence and form itself into the things that make up this vast universe and the earth and life,yet scientists adresses this as if it can happen.It is ignoring the facts of logic,reason and reality I told you about going on pure imagination.Kenny do you actually believe science can ever demonstrate matter popping into existence and then that matter forming itself into the things that make up this universe? just think about it.

A scientist would have to demonstrate matter just pops into existence out of nowhere from nothing,but then without touching any matter at all must stand there and demonstrate that matter forming itself into the things that make upour universe and this will never be done and it goes against everything reality tells us too and all to rule out an all-powerful God that can create universes easy and requires alot less faith to believe.Scientists have never even demonstrated life evolves,muchless abiogenesis and never will because we know from genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell in the nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern like evolutionists believe and have taught by claimng that blind fish became blind from swimming in dark water with no light so it evolved to be blind,this is a myth according to genetics.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well then why is science imagining this vast universe creating itself then?Nobody has ever seen matter pop into existence and form itself into the things that make up this vast universe and the earth and life,yet scientists adresses this as if it can happen.It is ignoring the facts of logic,reason and reality I told you about going on pure imagination.Kenny do you actually believe science can ever demonstrate matter popping into existence and then that matter forming itself into the things that make up this universe? just think about it.

A scientist would have to demonstrate matter just pops into existence out of nowhere from nothing,but then without touching any matter at all must stand there and demonstrate that matter forming itself into the things that make upour universe and this will never be done and it goes against everything reality tells us too and all to rule out an all-powerful God that can create universes easy and requires alot less faith to believe.Scientists have never even demonstrated life evolves,muchless abiogenesis and never will because we know from genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell in the nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern like evolutionists believe and have taught by claimng that blind fish became blind from swimming in dark water with no light so it evolved to be blind,this is a myth according to genetics.

The idea that the Universe created itself or just popped into existence is not a scientific theory. Sounds like you're just making stuff up now.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well then why is science imagining this vast universe creating itself then?Nobody has ever seen matter pop into existence and form itself into the things that make up this vast universe and the earth and life,yet scientists adresses this as if it can happen.It is ignoring the facts of logic,reason and reality I told you about going on pure imagination.Kenny do you actually believe science can ever demonstrate matter popping into existence and then that matter forming itself into the things that make up this universe? just think about it.

A scientist would have to demonstrate matter just pops into existence out of nowhere from nothing,but then without touching any matter at all must stand there and demonstrate that matter forming itself into the things that make upour universe and this will never be done and it goes against everything reality tells us too and all to rule out an all-powerful God that can create universes easy and requires alot less faith to believe.Scientists have never even demonstrated life evolves,muchless abiogenesis and never will because we know from genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell in the nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern like evolutionists believe and have taught by claimng that blind fish became blind from swimming in dark water with no light so it evolved to be blind,this is a myth according to genetics.

The idea that the Universe created itself or just popped into existence is not a scientific theory. Sounds like you're just making stuff up now.

Ken

Yes it is Kenny.Go watch NationalGeographic; The storyof the earth and see for yourself,now you may say National Geographic does not represent science but scientists are behind the program and it is based on science and evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well then why is science imagining this vast universe creating itself then?Nobody has ever seen matter pop into existence and form itself into the things that make up this vast universe and the earth and life,yet scientists adresses this as if it can happen.It is ignoring the facts of logic,reason and reality I told you about going on pure imagination.Kenny do you actually believe science can ever demonstrate matter popping into existence and then that matter forming itself into the things that make up this universe? just think about it.

A scientist would have to demonstrate matter just pops into existence out of nowhere from nothing,but then without touching any matter at all must stand there and demonstrate that matter forming itself into the things that make upour universe and this will never be done and it goes against everything reality tells us too and all to rule out an all-powerful God that can create universes easy and requires alot less faith to believe.Scientists have never even demonstrated life evolves,muchless abiogenesis and never will because we know from genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell in the nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern like evolutionists believe and have taught by claimng that blind fish became blind from swimming in dark water with no light so it evolved to be blind,this is a myth according to genetics.

The idea that the Universe created itself or just popped into existence is not a scientific theory. Sounds like you're just making stuff up now.

Ken

Yes it is Kenny.Go watch NationalGeographic; The storyof the earth and see for yourself,now you may say National Geographic does not represent science but scientists are behind the program and it is based on science and evolution.

Does National Geographic claim it to be a scientific theory? No. My point stands. Anybody can make a TV program and voice their opinions! But let's not confuse that with what science claims as theory

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well then why is science imagining this vast universe creating itself then?Nobody has ever seen matter pop into existence and form itself into the things that make up this vast universe and the earth and life,yet scientists adresses this as if it can happen.It is ignoring the facts of logic,reason and reality I told you about going on pure imagination.Kenny do you actually believe science can ever demonstrate matter popping into existence and then that matter forming itself into the things that make up this universe? just think about it.

A scientist would have to demonstrate matter just pops into existence out of nowhere from nothing,but then without touching any matter at all must stand there and demonstrate that matter forming itself into the things that make upour universe and this will never be done and it goes against everything reality tells us too and all to rule out an all-powerful God that can create universes easy and requires alot less faith to believe.Scientists have never even demonstrated life evolves,muchless abiogenesis and never will because we know from genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell in the nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern like evolutionists believe and have taught by claimng that blind fish became blind from swimming in dark water with no light so it evolved to be blind,this is a myth according to genetics.

The idea that the Universe created itself or just popped into existence is not a scientific theory. Sounds like you're just making stuff up now.

Ken

Yes it is Kenny.Go watch NationalGeographic; The storyof the earth and see for yourself,now you may say National Geographic does not represent science but scientists are behind the program and it is based on science and evolution.

Does National Geographic claim it to be a scientific theory? No. My point stands. Anybody can make a TV program and voice their opinions! But let's not confuse that with what science claims as theory

Ken

Kenny it presents what science thinks happened based on science.I'm not claimimg it is true but only that it represents what science believes happened all the way back before the earth formed,till it did form and all the way up to today.And it clearly shows the earth forming itself.It just seems that you have nothing to base your atheism on and even when I give reasons and back my self up with evidence you reject it,yet don't have anything of substance behind what you believe based on what you post.All I can say is I do not understand how somebody can choose to be an atheist,not have any substance behind it and disregard any valid reasons and even evidence that I give to back up what i say.I'm not just making up stuff.I mean you can lead a horse to water............

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well then why is science imagining this vast universe creating itself then?Nobody has ever seen matter pop into existence and form itself into the things that make up this vast universe and the earth and life,yet scientists adresses this as if it can happen.It is ignoring the facts of logic,reason and reality I told you about going on pure imagination.Kenny do you actually believe science can ever demonstrate matter popping into existence and then that matter forming itself into the things that make up this universe? just think about it.

A scientist would have to demonstrate matter just pops into existence out of nowhere from nothing,but then without touching any matter at all must stand there and demonstrate that matter forming itself into the things that make upour universe and this will never be done and it goes against everything reality tells us too and all to rule out an all-powerful God that can create universes easy and requires alot less faith to believe.Scientists have never even demonstrated life evolves,muchless abiogenesis and never will because we know from genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell in the nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern like evolutionists believe and have taught by claimng that blind fish became blind from swimming in dark water with no light so it evolved to be blind,this is a myth according to genetics.

The idea that the Universe created itself or just popped into existence is not a scientific theory. Sounds like you're just making stuff up now.

Ken

Yes it is Kenny.Go watch NationalGeographic; The storyof the earth and see for yourself,now you may say National Geographic does not represent science but scientists are behind the program and it is based on science and evolution.

Does National Geographic claim it to be a scientific theory? No. My point stands. Anybody can make a TV program and voice their opinions! But let's not confuse that with what science claims as theory

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: Kenny it presents what science thinks happened based on science.I'm not claimimg it is true but only that it represents what science believes happened all the way back before the earth formed,till it did form and all the way up to today.

That may be what some scientist believes, but it is not what science claims. Just like there are some scientists who believe in God, but God is not a part of any scientific theory.

abelcainsbrother wrote: And it clearly shows the earth forming itself.It just seems that you have nothing to base your atheism on and even when I give reasons and back my self up with evidence you reject it,yet don't have anything of substance behind what you believe based on what you post.All I can say is I do not understand how somebody can choose to be an atheist,not have any substance behind it and disregard any valid reasons and even evidence that I give to back up what i say.I'm not just making up stuff.I mean you can lead a horse to water............

I’ve stated my reason for being a skeptic plenty of times; and it has nothing to do with how the Universe came about.

Ken