Evidence for God from Science

Very nice job DRDS, thanks.

PerciFlage wrote:
The big bang indicates that the universe had a beginning, it had a cause and lack of evidence from naturalists indicate it to be a personal cause outside of time and space. Also the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Gives additional philosophical weight to this argument.

The singularity implied by Big Bang theory means that whatever came before the Big Bang can never be known by those living within the universe created by it, because by definition energy, matter and time did not exist until after the singularity. The lack of time as we know it also makes use of terms like "beginning" and "before" fraught.

A question can never give weight to an argument. The observation that there is "something rather than nothing" barely gives weight to theism in general, leading as it does to the need to explain why there are supernatural beings rather than nothing. The observation certainly lends know weight to Christian theism in particular.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause - as stated by the Kalam cosmological argument. The universe begins to exist - therefore the universe has a cause. As determined by the big bang theory and the lack of any evidence against a singularity it implies that the cause is timeless (as it has to be outside of time) immaterial (as it has to be transcendent to space) un-caused (as you cannot have an infinite regression of causes) powerful (as to create the universe) personal (as a timeless cause needs to will something into creation and abstract objects have no causality power) being. Theism calls that God. Materialism does not have an answer.

Something rather than nothing is answered adequately by the following arguement

1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2) The universe exists.

3) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence

So the fact that there is something - requires an explanation. Why is there something rather than nothing.

It is important to note that no SINGLE argument is a valid case of ANY type of Theism ( or lack there of).
What can NOT be proven by physical observational means, can only be "believed" by a certain degree of faith BUT that faith must have reason behind it.
In short, the various lines of evidence in total, give reason to have a type of faith.
One can pick flaws in pretty much every independent line of evidence ( we can do that with even scientific theories of course, that is why they also need multiple lines of evidence) but no theological argument is based on a SINGLE line evidence.
Of course, evidence is NOT proof.
A man may have all the evidence that his wife is cheating but unless he catches her in the act, he still has no proof.

PerciFlage wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to note that no SINGLE argument is a valid case of ANY type of Theism ( or lack there of).
What can NOT be proven by physical observational means, can only be "believed" by a certain degree of faith BUT that faith must have reason behind it.
In short, the various lines of evidence in total, give reason to have a type of faith.
One can pick flaws in pretty much every independent line of evidence ( we can do that with even scientific theories of course, that is why they also need multiple lines of evidence) but no theological argument is based on a SINGLE line evidence.
Of course, evidence is NOT proof.
A man may have all the evidence that his wife is cheating but unless he catches her in the act, he still has no proof.

Faith alone should be reason enough for belief. In your post you seem to accept that the existence or otherwise of a deity is likely to be inherently unprovable; there's nothing wrong with that, of course, and it is the position of many theists.

Once that has been accepted, why then go on and attempt to prove the unprovable? It seems to help no one, as unsurprisingly making an attempt to prove the unprovable results in arguments that are flawed in either their premises or their internal logic.

Faith must be based on something or else it is "blind faith", which is no faith at all IMO.
It isn't a question of God being "unprovable" for many things "unprovable" are far more important and crucial and worth more than those that are provable.
The point is that it is important to understand that just because something is unprovable today, to YOU ( you as in general), doesn't mean it isn't provable tomorrow or even today to someone else.
Until it was proven that the world was round, that the planets orbited the sun, that man could go to the moon, there was evidence BUT no proof.
The people that believed those things with "only evidence" believed the "unprovable" nevertheless.
Many of their evidence was refuted one-by-one, just like the evidence for God and Christianity BUT in the end, they proved to be correct.
It MAY be the case that Christianity too well one day be vindicated and proven to be correct.
Again, the issue is one of cumulative evidence.
To use the analogy of the planets orbiting the sun, there was much evidence for such BUT all the evidence could have been something else when take "1-by-1", but the cumulative evidence was there and the interpretations of those that countered that evidence by showing how, 1-by-1, they could be something else, were proven to be wrong BUT only when observation proof was had.
The unproven became proven when observed and confirmed.
None of that changed that, 1-by-1, the evidence could have supported something else.
See my point?

Celt wrote:Very nice job DRDS, thanks.

You are welcome, I don't get that much so thank YOU for the compliment.

Perci your argument about the shroud being an art form from the Middle Ages is an argument from ignorance. We have a long thread on the shroud and you should really go through it before making old and debunked arguments.
Isabel Dame Piczek and other world reknowned artists have already stated that the shroud is not indicative of the artwork of any age. Plus there is no substance added to the shroud. This is typical atheist skeptic arguments that isn't from expertise but from opinion.
The nail through the hands is the a opposite of what medieval artists have shown. You failed
The cap of thorns injuries that is over the head is just the opposite of what medieval artists painted in that area.fail
The beard is perfectly indicative of a first century Jew as the Orthodox Jews of today still have it. Fail
The pollen found on the shroud is from the Jerusalem region and blooms in the spring fail
It would be rediculous for any artist to sprinkle pollen, rare limestone only found from the tombs of Jerusalem on the shroud knowing no one from his time would ever find them. Epic fail and total ignorance of the shroud.

When you state we just don't know you mean ignorant shroud-uneducated skeptics like u don't know or don't care to know.
Your knowledge of the shroud from forensics to science to history are sophomoric at best. The problem with your response to DRDS about being honest and saying you don't know something isn't how your behaving here with your response on the shroud. You have already made up your mind that the shroud is a middle age relic , and I know 100% that you haven't researched the shroud at all. Your being dishonest little perci .

The evidence is compelling for it not to be a middle age relic. If I were you I would stay away from the shroud unless u actually want to convert away from your anti-scientific and anti-rational ignorant worldview of the shroud.

Even unbelieving skeptic art historian Thomas de Wesselow would be laughing at the post you just made about the shroud and even though he is an atheist/agnostic he knows the evidence of the shroud being from 1st century Israel region is strong and in fact he believes it is the shroud of Jesus.

Go peddle your ignorant pseudo skeptical conspiracy theories elsewhere buddy
We know about the shroud on this forum.

And if your response to DRDS about his other evidences is probably as ignorant as your knowledge of the shroud then you have wasted our time by filling this thread with nothing of real substance.

Go and do some real research on the shroud, the come back and converse with us.
As for now don't you have a curfew to beat?

Unfortunately when atheists argue against the shrouds authenticity they tend to check their brains and their honesty out the door.

Celt wrote:Very nice job DRDS, thanks.

Agreed Celt, DRDS out did himself on this thread.
I see we have the village perci here. He is still stuck in the 1970's on his shroud of turin information.
Heck maybe he still believes in a static universe

Ohhhh perci, we do have a shroud thread here hint hint
I do check it often for ignorant posts hint hint
Do you guys think I was subtle enough

DRDS wrote:

Celt wrote:Very nice job DRDS, thanks.

You are welcome, I don't get that much so thank YOU for the compliment.

DRDS you know u da man bro

PaulSacramento wrote:

PerciFlage wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to note that no SINGLE argument is a valid case of ANY type of Theism ( or lack there of).
What can NOT be proven by physical observational means, can only be "believed" by a certain degree of faith BUT that faith must have reason behind it.
In short, the various lines of evidence in total, give reason to have a type of faith.
One can pick flaws in pretty much every independent line of evidence ( we can do that with even scientific theories of course, that is why they also need multiple lines of evidence) but no theological argument is based on a SINGLE line evidence.
Of course, evidence is NOT proof.
A man may have all the evidence that his wife is cheating but unless he catches her in the act, he still has no proof.

Faith alone should be reason enough for belief. In your post you seem to accept that the existence or otherwise of a deity is likely to be inherently unprovable; there's nothing wrong with that, of course, and it is the position of many theists.

Once that has been accepted, why then go on and attempt to prove the unprovable? It seems to help no one, as unsurprisingly making an attempt to prove the unprovable results in arguments that are flawed in either their premises or their internal logic.

Faith must be based on something or else it is "blind faith", which is no faith at all IMO.
It isn't a question of God being "unprovable" for many things "unprovable" are far more important and crucial and worth more than those that are provable.
The point is that it is important to understand that just because something is unprovable today, to YOU ( you as in general), doesn't mean it isn't provable tomorrow or even today to someone else.
Until it was proven that the world was round, that the planets orbited the sun, that man could go to the moon, there was evidence BUT no proof.
The people that believed those things with "only evidence" believed the "unprovable" nevertheless.
Many of their evidence was refuted one-by-one, just like the evidence for God and Christianity BUT in the end, they proved to be correct.
It MAY be the case that Christianity too well one day be vindicated and proven to be correct.
Again, the issue is one of cumulative evidence.
To use the analogy of the planets orbiting the sun, there was much evidence for such BUT all the evidence could have been something else when take "1-by-1", but the cumulative evidence was there and the interpretations of those that countered that evidence by showing how, 1-by-1, they could be something else, were proven to be wrong BUT only when observation proof was had.
The unproven became proven when observed and confirmed.
None of that changed that, 1-by-1, the evidence could have supported something else.
See my point?

Amen Paul. ,nothing further to add

PerciFlage wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The unproven became proven when observed and confirmed.
None of that changed that, 1-by-1, the evidence could have supported something else.
See my point?

With respect, I think you've missed the distinction I was making between currently unproven and inherently unprovable.

May be, probablybecause I was trying to point out that deconstructing evidence by taking it "1-by-1" and offering a different view doesn't make the evidence any less valid.
As I point out that the evidence for heliocentricity was also dismantled "1-by-1" because it couldn't be proven at the time, BUT heliocentricity was correct.

But to address your issue:
The difference between currently unproven and inherently unprovable.
The difference is, well, opinion and "faith".
I have faith that one day the existence of God will be proven, either by God's revelation OR by my faith in Science.
I do NOT think that anything is "unprovable" other than based on current understanding ( and lack of personal revelation).

PerciFlage wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Perci your argument about the shroud being an art form from the Middle Ages is an argument from ignorance. We have a long thread on the shroud and you should really go through it before making old and debunked arguments.

My comment on the shroud was flippant. I assumed that for Christian sceptics the shroud fell in with the numerous other relics and indulgences of dubious provenance. I didn't realise that a thriving sceptical movement in shroud research existed, so clearly this is something I need to read up on.

My initial reaction was based on my recollection that the image in the shroud matches quite closely those depictions of Jesus from Western Renaissance art, which as we know are based more on the ideals of the time than the likely appearance of the historical Jesus.

Go peddle your ignorant pseudo skeptical conspiracy theories elsewhere buddy
We know about the shroud on this forum.

And if your response to DRDS about his other evidences is probably as ignorant as your knowledge of the shroud then you have wasted our time by filling this thread with nothing of real substance.

Go and do some real research on the shroud, the come back and converse with us.

Although my comment on the shroud was ignorant, I think that particular comment has a quite plain tongue-in-cheekness that is lacking from my other comments. It's unfair to dismiss the rest of the response as "nothing of real substance" on the strength of one flippant comment.

I haven't pushed any conspiracy theories, so I'm not sure where that comment came from.

As for now don't you have a curfew to beat?

I'm afraid I don't understand this reference.

Perci, ask yourself why do most atheists back peddle in their comments on the shroud of turin when they have been called out in it? You obviously aren't an art expert and its obvious that whatever skeptic site you got this from isnt an art expert either. Because of your atheistic worldview you came in with a snide a priori opinion about the shroud matching western renaissance art , an opinion that no expert shares. The shroud exposes the atheistic worldview for what it really is. It's an e optional worldview and not an intellectual one. Even the agnostic/atheist art historian Thomas de Wessellow admits that the shroud isn't indicative of the art of western renaissance artists or for that matter any era of paintings, but because your an atheist, you made a comment based on pure ignorance and PRAYED that we were as ignorant about the shroud as you are. Your statement is one of pure blind faith.

Instead of doing the honest thing and admitting to all this, you every excuse in the book to cover up for your bs statement.
Instead of wasting your time and ours by trying to nitpick every part of Christianity, why don't you be open minded and study Christianity from all of its aspects.
Don't atheists call themselves free thinkers?
Now correct me if I'm wrong but since when is free thinking about forming an opinion before you actually study the subject at hand?
I'm sure you understood my comment about a curfew. Please don't pretend you don't
It's referring to your sophomoric posts.
As far as the shroud why not start reading up on it from former unbelievers who were honest enough to admit that they were wrong on the shroud.
You can start off by reading Ray Rogers peer reviewed paper about the c14 dating of the shroud published in thermochimica acta which has been graciously been made available online.
If your comfortable being an atheist then by all means stayyyyy away from the shroud.

For Perci or any skeptic or atheist that sees this thread, if you really I mean REALLY want to study and study DEEPLY about the Shroud, go here if you haven't already.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225

There's a reason why this thread is at the top of the list on this board. Although, if you are committed emotionally to the atheist worldview, this thread will give you great fear. But if you are a honest truth seeker and are open to the possibility of Christian Theism being true, than I strongly suggest that you look into this. I won't say, that the Shroud is the main nor the only reason for my faith, but it has become a very huge and vital piece of evidence and just more than adds to the growing list of arguments and evidences that support Christian Theism.

DRDS wrote:For Perci or any skeptic or atheist that sees this thread, if you really I mean REALLY want to study and study DEEPLY about the Shroud, go here if you haven't already.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225

There's a reason why this thread is at the top of the list on this board. Although, if you are committed emotionally to the atheist worldview, this thread will give you great fear. But if you are a honest truth seeker and are open to the possibility of Christian Theism being true, than I strongly suggest that you look into this. I won't say, that the Shroud is the main nor the only reason for my faith, but it has become a very huge and vital piece of evidence and just more than adds to the growing list of arguments and evidences that support Christian Theism.

I like anything by Gary Habermas, especially the minimal facts argument.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/so ... 2-2012.htm

I've never experienced any kind of personal divine revelation, so it is hard for me to fully understand the faith of someone who has. I can't argue against or be convinced by someone whose faith is purely (or largely) based on subjective experience, so I find myself drawn to approaches such as this that are grounded more in the objective case to be made for theism.

PerciFlage:
Well, yes, one cannot fully understand what divine revelation is like, when not experiencing himself.

When I was atheist and then agnostic, I could not become a believer by some other believer telling me God is.

Mmm, do you know some objective case for theism? If not, what kind of objective case do you expect? People often search at wrong places.