Evidence for God from Science

Isaiah 40:29-31
He gives strength to the weary, And to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, And vigorous young men stumble badly, Yet those who wait for the LORD Will gain new strength; They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, They will walk and not become weary.
Isaiah 50:4

Jeremiah 31:25
"For I satisfy the weary ones and refresh everyone who languishes."

Romans 8:26
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;

1over137 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:You are not helping.

What kind of faith do you have, anyway? I thought you were a born-again Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit. How can someone with the indwelling Holy Spirit and the resulting new nature question God's existence? Something doesn't add up!

Were you just a religious guy posing as a Christian?

FL

I admire Silver's sincerity. There may be times Christians may be tired, have doubts. Do not tire him even more.

Peace

Yes, even Elijah had doubts and hid but the Lord told him he is not in all the noise...

In he book of Psalms written by King David - he too expressed doubts and fears but the Lord did not abandon him.

Anyways, guess with old geezer-ship we'z don't get troubled as youth does as we have seen the latest greatest theories fall by the way side. I am sure the discovery of Piltdown Man made a few Christians shake in their faith but how did Piltdown Man pan out after 40 years on the books as fact? That is one example of this kind of thing even before I was born. During the 1970's, we were entering a new Ice age - science had proven that. Then suddenly it changed to global warming and that now has evolved into climate change (when hasn't climate never changed?). You see, these are fads of the academic's.

It all comes back to the old premise that there is no God and that it must be proved true thru created and invented manners. This however demonstrates that there need be a creator to even think of complex schemes why there is no God and thus being a creator to disprove a creator is rather silly. Even if there were multiple universes - which one was first - who created it - what is the stuff that supposedly made it - where did it come from is just ignored. So what if God designed a spiritual universe and the physical universe - it doesn't matter. Creation of any universe needs the creator to create it. If not, then it would be like saying the multiple works of William Shakespeare just appeared randomly on perfect pieces of parchment and dark atoms formed clumps to produce individual letters into coherent language of olde Englande 1600's into multiple bond books... Did that happen?

Silver, I would not get all worked up over this - us olde geezers seen this before... God and his word are sure. We are not, but only He Is...


-
-
-

Even Jesus's closest disciples doubted at the time of his ascension. Are we not supposed to encourage on another in the faith?

Thank you Hana for that scripture and thank you everyone for your kinds words and advice. I must admit I am going through a wobble at the moment but you are all helping me find stability again.

Silvertusk wrote:Thank you Hana for that scripture and thank you everyone for your kinds words and advice. I must admit I am going through a wobble at the moment but you are all helping me find stability again.

Silver, I think this video will help you even more.
The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem states that there must be an absolute beginning , and even if there is a multiverse, that multiverse itself must also have an absolute ultimate beginning. This is a very solid and widely excepted theorem in Cosmology.
William Lane Craig explains this beautifully in this video here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6vKrRWGYA

Here in this video Vilenkin agrees with Craig on this and also agrees that William Lane Craig argued his theorem correctly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQnRYhy6N0

Here we also see this written under the video how certain atheists like lawrence Krauss are trying to twist Vilenkin's theorem to state something it doesnt state.

Published on Nov 21, 2013

Alexander Vilenkin (an agnostic) has become a nightmare to atheists (like Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss) because his BGV Theorem has shown that the universe must have a beginning no matter what scientific model you propose (like a multiverse, cyclic ekpyrotic model, quantum vacuum fluctuation models, etc.). The reaction to Vilenkin's BGV Theorem has led many atheists to deliberately take him out of context in order to make it look like he didn't say what he meant! Much to his embarrassment, Victor Stenger received an email from Vilenkin that told him (Stenger) he believed the universe had a beginning [1]. Lawrence Krauss (in his debate with William Lane Craig) deliberately and shamelessly deleted portions of an email he received from Vilenkin and tried to make it look like Vilenkin believed the universe may not have had a beginning. However, Vilenkin's private email to Krauss was made public and it showed that Vilenkin argued that the universe indeed had a beginning [2]. Incidentally, William Lane Craig debated both Stenger and Krauss. Stenger and Krauss accused Craig of misrepresenting Vilenkin. Well, Vilenkin doesn't think so. It's no surprise Vilenkin said this to Craig: "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately" [3]. Stenger and Krauss both refuse to apologize to Craig and Vilenkin.

bippy123 wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Thank you Hana for that scripture and thank you everyone for your kinds words and advice. I must admit I am going through a wobble at the moment but you are all helping me find stability again.

Silver, I think this video will help you even more.
The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem states that there must be an absolute beginning , and even if there is a multiverse, that multiverse itself must also have an absolute ultimate beginning. This is a very solid and widely excepted theorem in Cosmology.
William Lane Craig explains this beautifully in this video here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6vKrRWGYA

Here in this video Vilenkin agrees with Craig on this and also agrees that William Lane Craig argued his theorem correctly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQnRYhy6N0

Here we also see this written under the video how certain atheists like lawrence Krauss are trying to twist Vilenkin's theorem to state something it doesnt state.

Published on Nov 21, 2013

Alexander Vilenkin (an agnostic) has become a nightmare to atheists (like Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss) because his BGV Theorem has shown that the universe must have a beginning no matter what scientific model you propose (like a multiverse, cyclic ekpyrotic model, quantum vacuum fluctuation models, etc.). The reaction to Vilenkin's BGV Theorem has led many atheists to deliberately take him out of context in order to make it look like he didn't say what he meant! Much to his embarrassment, Victor Stenger received an email from Vilenkin that told him (Stenger) he believed the universe had a beginning [1]. Lawrence Krauss (in his debate with William Lane Craig) deliberately and shamelessly deleted portions of an email he received from Vilenkin and tried to make it look like Vilenkin believed the universe may not have had a beginning. However, Vilenkin's private email to Krauss was made public and it showed that Vilenkin argued that the universe indeed had a beginning [2]. Incidentally, William Lane Craig debated both Stenger and Krauss. Stenger and Krauss accused Craig of misrepresenting Vilenkin. Well, Vilenkin doesn't think so. It's no surprise Vilenkin said this to Craig: "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately" [3]. Stenger and Krauss both refuse to apologize to Craig and Vilenkin.

Thanks Bippy - I will check those out.

Just watch them thanks Bippy - very interesting.

What do people think of this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM

Silvertusk wrote:Just watch them thanks Bippy - very interesting.

What do people think of this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM

I kept waiting for him to admit the obvious. That God existed "prior to" inflation. The intelligent can be so blind sometimes.

He admitted that inflation can't go back forever, but doesn't want to admit it's possible that God is the infinite cause. He seemed to think some kind of energy caused inflation. But what caused that energy?

Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...

RickD wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Just watch them thanks Bippy - very interesting.

What do people think of this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM

I kept waiting for him to admit the obvious. That God existed "prior to" inflation. The intelligent can be so blind sometimes.

He admitted that inflation can't go back forever, but doesn't want to admit it's possible that God is the infinite cause. He seemed to think some kind of energy caused inflation. But what caused that energy?

Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...

He's a scientist, not a philosopher. What'd you expect?

It was interesting that he admitted that there there existed the physical laws before the "free lunch" of our universe that he could not explain how they got there.

To be honest - their version of what nothing is really bothers me. If you have negative energy and positive energy that totals up to 0 - you still have the negative energy and the positive energy - so surely that is not nothing? Something must have created both those types of energies to have given you 0 in the first place.

Am I missing something here?

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:
Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing the "we don't need no stinking God" factor.

No matter how logical it seems, no matter what, deny God's existence. Deny, deny, deny!

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Just watch them thanks Bippy - very interesting.

What do people think of this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM

I kept waiting for him to admit the obvious. That God existed "prior to" inflation. The intelligent can be so blind sometimes.

He admitted that inflation can't go back forever, but doesn't want to admit it's possible that God is the infinite cause. He seemed to think some kind of energy caused inflation. But what caused that energy?

Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...

He's a scientist, not a philosopher. What'd you expect?

I'm certainly no philosopher...I'm just a simple man, and even I get it, because it's simple logic!

" As I have already mentioned, I did not find the multiverse alternative very helpful. The postulation of multiple universes, I maintained, is a truly desperate alternative. If the existence of one universe requires an explanation, multiple universes require a much bigger explanation: the problem is increased by a factor of whatever the total number of universes is. It seems a little like the case of a schoolboy whose teacher doesn't believe his dog ate his homework, so he replaces the first version with a story that a pack of dogs--too many to count--ate his homework. "

--Anthony Flew, "There is a God", Chapter 8


"What is especially important here is the fact that the existence of the multiverse does not explain the origin of the laws of nature. Martin Rees suggests that the existence of different universes with their own laws raises the question of the laws governing the entire multiverse..."

"So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine mind."

Both quotes from " There is a God", I am reading it on my Kindle as I type so I don't have page numbers.

RickD wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Just watch them thanks Bippy - very interesting.

What do people think of this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM

I kept waiting for him to admit the obvious. That God existed "prior to" inflation. The intelligent can be so blind sometimes.

He admitted that inflation can't go back forever, but doesn't want to admit it's possible that God is the infinite cause. He seemed to think some kind of energy caused inflation. But what caused that energy?

Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...Kicking the can...

Rick that reminds me of a quote by Robert Jastrow an agnostic astrophysicist

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Silvertusk wrote:It was interesting that he admitted that there there existed the physical laws before the "free lunch" of our universe that he could not explain how they got there.

To be honest - their version of what nothing is really bothers me. If you have negative energy and positive energy that totals up to 0 - you still have the negative energy and the positive energy - so surely that is not nothing? Something must have created both those types of energies to have given you 0 in the first place.

Am I missing something here?

Silvertusk.

Nope Silvertusk, your got it perfect . Vilenkin who isn't a philosopher as Byblos pointed out has a hard time understanding that nothing = non being , and William lane craig pointed this out when he said that to believe that something can come out of non being is worse then believing in Magic.

This is what happens when you get out there proclaiming something like this.
In this video Richard Dawkins made a complete nimrod of himself

http://youtu.be/v34QjYPuiEA