Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I actually think the Kaman cosmological argument has been very effective against materialism in science.

So you gonna tell a materialist (someone who only believes material exists) that something other than material exists and it is responsible for creation? That would be like telling a person who does not believe in Unicorns that Unicorns exist and is responsible for creation. Your first order of business should be to disprove materialism.

abelcainsbrother wrote: It makes sense to point out that if the Universe had a beginning it had a creator,

that would only make sense if you assume nothing existed before the Universe. Science says the singular existed before the Universe. Everything started with the singular

abelcainsbrother wrote: however I would not use it if I was debating,instead I would be more bold and tell the materialist to demonstrate fully functional living life creating itself all on its own

And suppose he admits he cannot? Do you really expect him to accept your explanation by default if he can't come up with a better explanation himself? How's that working out for ya?

Ken

1. No,he does not only believe material exists,the materialist does not think there is a need for a creator and they think all of the material on its own formed itself into planets,life,etc.Think about this fairy-tale and you'll know it is logical based on reason to think that Almighty God took the matter and created the planets,life,etc,it is not "God of the gaps"it is what the known understanding in science about the universe knows.Compare God picked up material and formed man and breathed into him and he became a living soul or material formed itself into life all on its own.

2.Yes,I do expect him to accept the default position,just because you think no creator is not needed and have nothing to base it on scientifically does not suddenly make this more than the default position.Man has always believed in God which makes it the default position even if you reject a God.

I saw a debate with William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss and I thought WLC should just tell Lawrence Krause to demonstrate it,put your money where your mouth is and give us a demonstration I want to see matter form itself into the stuff that makes up the universe like you assert. Lawrence kind of had him flustered a-bit but Lawrence was really just kicking the can down the road while asserting no creator is needed which is what Christopher Hitchens did.

Just say demonstrate it,you can say the same thing to Stephen Hawking - demonstrate it.I want to see how it can happen because it is harder to believe than to believe God created it.

Kenny wrote: If thoughts were real I would be a billionaire; I am not. Thoughts aren't real, they are only imaginary.

So, was this thought (your statement about thoughts being imaginary) imaginary?
If so, give us a reason we should consider any thought you have to share?
As I said, self-defeating. Thanks for setting the ball on the tee.

Yes, our thoughts aren't material, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. You are failing basic metaphysics here. Think of a two ton pink elephant. Now, if we cut open your brain, we won't find a two ton pink elephant. So, what were you thinking of? If materialism is true, then your thoughts don't exist, and in turn you don't exist. You are just a moist robot who thinks, uh, he exists. But if that is true, then your thought that our thoughts are imaginary is, well, imaginary. But you aren't saying that. You are saying that your thought is actually true. So, we are to believe that somehow your thoughts are exempt from your own worldview. I'm sorry, why are you here again?

Basically, you are saying that the reasonable conclusion is that materialism is true. But if materialism is true, then there is no truth and no reason. They don't exist. You are attempting to use logic to argue your point. Where does logic exist? Is it imaginary? Is it material or immaterial? Perhaps it is a construct of the human mind? Is so, then it is arbitrary, and what is logical now could be completely illogical tomorrow (or a 1,000 years from now). But, if that is the case, then you are forced to apply this to your position.
So, why is it that the human mind must submit to logic? The law of non-contradiction shows us that logic is transcendent, immaterial and immutable. If there were no humans on the earth, the statement, "there are no humans on the earth," would be true. So, logic can ONLY exist if there is also a transcendent, immaterial and immutable mind. What is more, uh, logical, that a mindless singularity gave rise to the immaterial laws of logic that govern minds, or that an immaterial mind gave rise to these laws?

Science only goes back to the singular, they do not claim a point when nothing existed. that is the point I was trying to make, but just because science can't say the singular always existed, or where it came from doesn't mean inserting God is the answer unless you want to incorporate faith to believe it.

You need to read what you just wrote, because you need to start with the man in the mirror. I'm not making a gaps argument. My argument is a positive argument for God's existence. I am consistently following cause and effect.All things that begin to exist have a cause. In other words, a basic premise of science. You are basically saying cause and effect doesn't apply. Again, contradictory. You are making a gaps argument. You just think it sounds legit because you call your god of the gaps, 'singularity,' instead of Yahweh.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I actually think the Kaman cosmological argument has been very effective against materialism in science.

So you gonna tell a materialist (someone who only believes material exists) that something other than material exists and it is responsible for creation? That would be like telling a person who does not believe in Unicorns that Unicorns exist and is responsible for creation. Your first order of business should be to disprove materialism.

abelcainsbrother wrote: It makes sense to point out that if the Universe had a beginning it had a creator,

that would only make sense if you assume nothing existed before the Universe. Science says the singular existed before the Universe. Everything started with the singular

abelcainsbrother wrote: however I would not use it if I was debating,instead I would be more bold and tell the materialist to demonstrate fully functional living life creating itself all on its own

And suppose he admits he cannot? Do you really expect him to accept your explanation by default if he can't come up with a better explanation himself? How's that working out for ya?

Ken

1. No,he does not only believe material exists,the materialist does not think there is a need for a creator and they think all of the material on its own formed itself into planets,life,etc.Think about this fairy-tale and you'll know it is logical based on reason to think that Almighty God took the matter and created the planets,life,etc,it is not "God of the gaps"it is what the known understanding in science about the universe knows.Compare God picked up material and formed man and breathed into him and he became a living soul or material formed itself into life all on its own.

2.Yes,I do expect him to accept the default position,just because you think no creator is not needed and have nothing to base it on scientifically does not suddenly make this more than the default position.Man has always believed in God which makes it the default position even if you reject a God.

Your concept of God is not the default position; I don't know is the default position.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:I saw a debate with William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss and I thought WLC should just tell Lawrence Krause to demonstrate it,put your money where your mouth is and give us a demonstration I want to see matter form itself into the stuff that makes up the universe like you assert. Lawrence kind of had him flustered a-bit but Lawrence was really just kicking the can down the road while asserting no creator is needed which is what Christopher Hitchens did.

Just say demonstrate it,you can say the same thing to Stephen Hawking - demonstrate it.I want to see how it can happen because it is harder to believe than to believe God created it.

If the believer told the unbeliever to demonstrate matter forming itself into the stuff that makes up the universe, the unbeliever would have probably told the believer to demonstrate God forming stuff that makes up the Universe. They would probably have given the same reply; it doesn't work that way.

K

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote: If thoughts were real I would be a billionaire; I am not. Thoughts aren't real, they are only imaginary.

So, was this thought (your statement about thoughts being imaginary) imaginary?

Yes.

jlay wrote:If so, give us a reason we should consider any thought you have to share?

You only need to consider them if you agree.

jlay wrote: our thoughts aren't material, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. You are failing basic metaphysics here. Think of a two ton pink elephant. Now, if we cut open your brain, we won't find a two ton pink elephant. So, what were you thinking of?

Do you know the difference between “make-believe, and real”? Thoughts are make-believe; material is real.

jlay wrote:If materialism is true, then your thoughts don't exist, and in turn you don't exist.

No. Thoughts only exist in the context of something that is real. I am real, but my thoughts only exist to me, via my imagination/make-believe world. The only way they can become real to you is if I describe them to you; then they can exist in your imagination/make-believe world.

jlay wrote:You are attempting to use logic to argue your point. Where does logic exist? Is it imaginary? Is it material or immaterial? Perhaps it is a construct of the human mind? Is so, then it is arbitrary, and what is logical now could be completely illogical tomorrow (or a 1,000 years from now). But, if that is the case, then you are forced to apply this to your position.

True. And what is logical to me, might be completely illogical to you!

jlay wrote:So, why is it that the human mind must submit to logic?

The human mind does not have to submit to logic; the (real) person who controls the mind submit to logic if he chooses to.

kenny wrote: Science only goes back to the singular, they do not claim a point when nothing existed. that is the point I was trying to make, but just because science can't say the singular always existed, or where it came from doesn't mean inserting God is the answer unless you want to incorporate faith to believe it.

jlay wrote:You need to read what you just wrote, because you need to start with the man in the mirror. I'm not making a gaps argument. My argument is a positive argument for God's existence. I am consistently following cause and effect.All things that begin to exist have a cause.

How do you know the “singular” began to exist?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I saw a debate with William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss and I thought WLC should just tell Lawrence Krause to demonstrate it,put your money where your mouth is and give us a demonstration I want to see matter form itself into the stuff that makes up the universe like you assert. Lawrence kind of had him flustered a-bit but Lawrence was really just kicking the can down the road while asserting no creator is needed which is what Christopher Hitchens did.

Just say demonstrate it,you can say the same thing to Stephen Hawking - demonstrate it.I want to see how it can happen because it is harder to believe than to believe God created it.

If the believer told the unbeliever to demonstrate matter forming itself into the stuff that makes up the universe, the unbeliever would have probably told the believer to demonstrate God forming stuff that makes up the Universe. They would probably have given the same reply; it doesn't work that way.

K

True and the believer could have some clay with him and say I'll demonstrate why matter cannot form itself on its own like you think without a creator,he takes out two pieces of clay and keeps one and gives the other one to the materialist,the believer molds his clay into a ball and says you can see how I created this ball,I can take this matter and mold it,then he tells the materialist demonstrate that clay molding itself,I mean you believe matter can form planets and everything in the universe including life without the need for a creator so demonstrate how it happens with your clay I gave you.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I saw a debate with William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss and I thought WLC should just tell Lawrence Krause to demonstrate it,put your money where your mouth is and give us a demonstration I want to see matter form itself into the stuff that makes up the universe like you assert. Lawrence kind of had him flustered a-bit but Lawrence was really just kicking the can down the road while asserting no creator is needed which is what Christopher Hitchens did.

Just say demonstrate it,you can say the same thing to Stephen Hawking - demonstrate it.I want to see how it can happen because it is harder to believe than to believe God created it.

If the believer told the unbeliever to demonstrate matter forming itself into the stuff that makes up the universe, the unbeliever would have probably told the believer to demonstrate God forming stuff that makes up the Universe. They would probably have given the same reply; it doesn't work that way.

K

True and the believer could have some clay with him and say I'll demonstrate why matter cannot form itself on its own like you think without a creator,he takes out two pieces of clay and keeps one and gives the other one to the materialist,the believer molds his clay into a ball and says you can see how I created this ball,I can take this matter and mold it,then he tells the materialist demonstrate that clay molding itself,I mean you believe matter can form planets and everything in the universe including life without the need for a creator so demonstrate how it happens with your clay I gave you.

Yeah I'm sure that game could probably go on and on. The point is, you can't demonstrate something that probably took billions of years to accomplish, to happen upon demand. Just because he can't demonstrate it doesn't mean he isn't going to believe it could happen

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I saw a debate with William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss and I thought WLC should just tell Lawrence Krause to demonstrate it,put your money where your mouth is and give us a demonstration I want to see matter form itself into the stuff that makes up the universe like you assert. Lawrence kind of had him flustered a-bit but Lawrence was really just kicking the can down the road while asserting no creator is needed which is what Christopher Hitchens did.

Just say demonstrate it,you can say the same thing to Stephen Hawking - demonstrate it.I want to see how it can happen because it is harder to believe than to believe God created it.

If the believer told the unbeliever to demonstrate matter forming itself into the stuff that makes up the universe, the unbeliever would have probably told the believer to demonstrate God forming stuff that makes up the Universe. They would probably have given the same reply; it doesn't work that way.

K

True and the believer could have some clay with him and say I'll demonstrate why matter cannot form itself on its own like you think without a creator,he takes out two pieces of clay and keeps one and gives the other one to the materialist,the believer molds his clay into a ball and says you can see how I created this ball,I can take this matter and mold it,then he tells the materialist demonstrate that clay molding itself,I mean you believe matter can form planets and everything in the universe including life without the need for a creator so demonstrate how it happens with your clay I gave you.

Yeah I'm sure that game could probably go on and on. The point is, you can't demonstrate something that probably took billions of years to accomplish, to happen upon demand. Just because he can't demonstrate it doesn't mean he isn't going to believe it could happen

Ken

So if we left the clay there for billions of years it would change things somehow?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I saw a debate with William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss and I thought WLC should just tell Lawrence Krause to demonstrate it,put your money where your mouth is and give us a demonstration I want to see matter form itself into the stuff that makes up the universe like you assert. Lawrence kind of had him flustered a-bit but Lawrence was really just kicking the can down the road while asserting no creator is needed which is what Christopher Hitchens did.

Just say demonstrate it,you can say the same thing to Stephen Hawking - demonstrate it.I want to see how it can happen because it is harder to believe than to believe God created it.

If the believer told the unbeliever to demonstrate matter forming itself into the stuff that makes up the universe, the unbeliever would have probably told the believer to demonstrate God forming stuff that makes up the Universe. They would probably have given the same reply; it doesn't work that way.

K

True and the believer could have some clay with him and say I'll demonstrate why matter cannot form itself on its own like you think without a creator,he takes out two pieces of clay and keeps one and gives the other one to the materialist,the believer molds his clay into a ball and says you can see how I created this ball,I can take this matter and mold it,then he tells the materialist demonstrate that clay molding itself,I mean you believe matter can form planets and everything in the universe including life without the need for a creator so demonstrate how it happens with your clay I gave you.

Yeah I'm sure that game could probably go on and on. The point is, you can't demonstrate something that probably took billions of years to accomplish, to happen upon demand. Just because he can't demonstrate it doesn't mean he isn't going to believe it could happen

Ken

So if we left the clay there for billions of years it would change things somehow?

the clay would probably just deteriorate. Science doesn't know everything. It is easy to ask questions science cannot answer.

Ken

Kenny,
Yep.I agree but there are scientists pushing this idea and a lot of the new atheists believe it.I don't know if you noticed but there are scientists and professors pushing this kind of stuff.You might want to check out some John Lennox discussions he's had with these kinds of scientists because he challenges scientists about it when they bring it up.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny,
Yep.I agree but there are scientists pushing this idea and a lot of the new atheists believe it.I don't know if you noticed but there are scientists and professors pushing this kind of stuff.You might want to check out some John Lennox discussions he's had with these kinds of scientists because he challenges scientists about it when they bring it up.

Not sure who these "new Atheists" are, or these scientists you speak of, but if they make claims that doesn't make sense, I would question their claims just as I would anyone else. Right now they aren't here to defend their positions so I don't see a need to research their claims and critique them

Ken

Kenny wrote: You only need to consider them if you agree.

huh?

Do you know the difference between “make-believe, and real”? Thoughts are make-believe; material is real.

Perhaps that is a question you should ask yourself. You are saying that thoughts aren't real, which really creates a huge problem, since what you are saying is that what you are saying isn't real.

No. Thoughts only exist in the context of something that is real. I am real, but my thoughts only exist to me, via my imagination/make-believe world. The only way they can become real to you is if I describe them to you; then they can exist in your imagination/make-believe world.

Not really sure what you are trying to say with this. First, I should point out, that these black tokens I'm reading are a communication of your thought. Your thoughts certainly exist, although they are not material. Your thoughts are not, not real. Sure, your thoughts can correspond to things that exist in the material world, or an abstract world (make believe). That's exactly why logic matters. Should our thoughts about the material world correspond to reality? If you say yes, then you've just conceded the very real nature of the immaterial laws of logic. Heck, we haven't spoken about mathematics. Again, if materialism is true, none of this actually exist.
In fact, I can read the thoughts of Shakespeare even though he is no longer 'real.'
Yes, I know that your material brain is connected to your mind, but that doesn't answer the question of whether the mind is in fact a real immaterial thing. If it is only material then you aren't thinking, you are just a moist robot reacting to stimuli.

True. And what is logical to me, might be completely illogical to you!

This is classic example of trying to have your cake and it too. Either logic exist, or no truth exists. Period. If the later then your attempts to argue against or for anything are nonsense. You might as well hit random keys on the keyboard. Answer the question, where does logic exist? Is it imaginary? Is it material or immaterial?

The human mind does not have to submit to logic; the (real) person who controls the mind submit to logic if he chooses to

Of course the mind must submit to logic. If it doesn't, then you can't argue for anything, or even the mind itself. One doesn't reason to logic. One reasons from logic. You have to presume it to even question it. If you argue otherwise then you are defeating your own argument from the onset. As you as you attempt to argue a position, you have already assumed objective logical rules.

How do you know the “singular” began to exist?

Ken

[/quote]
The burden is on you. Sorry Ken, but you can't invoke causality (if you are standing on science then you are standing on causality) and then cast it aside when it suits you. As I said, I'm making a positive argument for God.

I think it's funny that Kenny can't see that he has already refuted materialism. When he says "thoughts aren't real," he either has to mean either 1) thoughts don't have material/extra-mental existence, or else 2) thoughts don't have any kind of existence. If the latter, then "thoughts are not real" reduces to"thoughts do not exist." That, of course, is self-refuting. If the former, then "thoughts are not real" reduces to "thoughts do not have material existence." But no one disputes that. The materialist claims, "Only material things exist," which means, "The only kind of existence is physical/material existence." So the question that jlay originally was raising was whether or not thoughts have physical/material existence. When Kenny says, "thoughts are not real," then the second answer would be the materialistic answer; that is, it would say, "the only kind of existence is material existence; thoughts do not have material existence; therefore thoughts do not exist." But it's obvious why that position is false, and therefore, materialism is false. If Kenny wants us to read his claim in the first sense, though, he is just refuting materialism himself, since he would be saying, "materialists say the only kind of existence is material existence; thoughts don't have a material/extra-mental existence (but they have some sort of mental/immaterial existence); thoughts really exist; therefore, materialism is false."

Either way, materialism fails. There are many other reasons that materialism fails, of course, but I just think it's worth pointing out that Kenny as already given us evidence for it himself.

Once again, to simplify: if materialism is true, nothing exists that is not material; thoughts are not material; therefore, either thoughts do not exist (at all, not even some "imaginary" existence, since ALL existence on materialism is physical existence) or else materialism is false. And since thoughts do have some sort of existence--a mental, subjective existence to be specific, then it is materialism that is false. And the statement "materialism is false" just reduces to, "Something(s) exists that is (are) not physical/material." Nothing more and nothing less.

Jac3510 wrote:I think it's funny that Kenny can't see that he has already refuted materialism. When he says "thoughts aren't real," he either has to mean either 1) thoughts don't have material/extra-mental existence, or else 2) thoughts don't have any kind of existence. If the latter, then "thoughts are not real" reduces to"thoughts do not exist." That, of course, is self-refuting. If the former, then "thoughts are not real" reduces to "thoughts do not have material existence." But no one disputes that. The materialist claims, "Only material things exist," which means, "The only kind of existence is physical/material existence." So the question that jlay originally was raising was whether or not thoughts have physical/material existence. When Kenny says, "thoughts are not real," then the second answer would be the materialistic answer; that is, it would say, "the only kind of existence is material existence; thoughts do not have material existence; therefore thoughts do not exist." But it's obvious why that position is false, and therefore, materialism is false. If Kenny wants us to read his claim in the first sense, though, he is just refuting materialism himself, since he would be saying, "materialists say the only kind of existence is material existence; thoughts don't have a material/extra-mental existence (but they have some sort of mental/immaterial existence); thoughts really exist; therefore, materialism is false."

Either way, materialism fails. There are many other reasons that materialism fails, of course, but I just think it's worth pointing out that Kenny as already given us evidence for it himself.

Once again, to simplify: if materialism is true, nothing exists that is not material; thoughts are not material; therefore, either thoughts do not exist (at all, not even some "imaginary" existence, since ALL existence on materialism is physical existence) or else materialism is false. And since thoughts do have some sort of existence--a mental, subjective existence to be specific, then it is materialism that is false. And the statement "materialism is false" just reduces to, "Something(s) exists that is (are) not physical/material." Nothing more and nothing less.

Jac this piece of scripture came to mind, as I read this.
Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."