Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote: Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...

The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.

Ken

Aristotle and Aquinas disagree. In fact you are only correct under a very narrow definition of science that materialists try to proclaim.

And we believe in God because it is reasonable to do so. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote: Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...

The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.

Ken

Aristotle and Aquinas disagree.

Yes! They were very religious people

SoCalExile wrote:In fact you are only correct under a very narrow definition of science that materialists try to proclaim.

Modern science proclaims it as well

SoCalExile wrote:And we believe in God because it is reasonable to do so. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

But how do you know the singularity had a beginning?

Ken

1/137,

thanks very much for the link. I read it and am very pleased you gave it to us.

I've known about dark energy and dark matter for some time. I watch the Universe series on TV and have actually been inspired to read quite a bit too. Isn't it amazing that all we can see, hear, touch-taste-feel, measure... all the variables that encompass our existence... all of it... billions of galaxies, billions upon billions of stars... all of whom may have 1 or more planets around them, comets, asteroids dwarf planets... all of it only comprises 4.6% of the universe. The enormity of it all is astounding. Psalm 19:1

Even the dark matter and energy, although we don't yet understand the complexity of it's components (not baryonic matter !) we still are smart enough to realize it's existence and measure with great accuracy it's density and composition in relation to the universes as a whole...

you guys (scientists) are amazing, and thanks 1/137 again for the primer

You're welcome.

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote: Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...

The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.

Ken

Aristotle and Aquinas disagree.

Yes! They were very religious people

SoCalExile wrote:In fact you are only correct under a very narrow definition of science that materialists try to proclaim.

Modern science proclaims it as well

SoCalExile wrote:And we believe in God because it is reasonable to do so. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

But how do you know the singularity had a beginning?

Ken

to be fair, Aristotle and Plato weren't Jews or Christians, but they were monotheists based on logic. BTW Alexander the Great was also a monotheist, because Aristotle taught him. (Link)

By definition, the first cause is God.

SoCalExile wrote: By definition, the first cause is God.

That all depends upon your definition of God. Most people define God as an intelligent being. The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being.

Ken

The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being

.

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being

.

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

My problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
 
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. it proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. He then proclaims his God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
 
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!

Ken

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being

.

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

My problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
 
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. it proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. He then proclaims his God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
 
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!

Ken

You're dangerously close to a science-of-the-gaps argument there

Follow this logic for a moment:

1: The universe is material, and materialistic science has shown it to have a beginning.

2: Having a beginning, it must have a cause.

3: Since the material universe began, it's cause logically cannot be material, but immaterial.

4. Material science, by definition, ignores the immaterial

5. Thus material science cannot study God, only His material creation.

Materialist scientists have been trying to find material evidence for a eternal universe for a long time. Einstein tried to cover up the fact that his research showed it had a beginning. The material evidence is clear.

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being

.

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

My problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
 
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. it proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. He then proclaims his God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
 
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!

Ken

SoCalExile wrote:* Having a beginning, it must have a cause.

How do you know? You are assuming the vast majority of the Universe we are unfamiliar with is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we are familiar with.

SoCalExile wrote:Since the material universe began, it's cause logically cannot be material, but immaterial.

How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?

Ken

Kenny wrote: How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?

Ken

As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.

Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.

As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote: How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?

Ken

As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.

Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.

As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.

What happens when one of your perfect certainties dissolves?

Triangles dont always add up as you so confidently assert.

Does "same goes for..." still apply?

Audie wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote: How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?

Ken

As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.

Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.

As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.

What happens when one of your perfect certainties dissolves?

Triangles dont always add up as you so confidently assert.

Does "same goes for..." still apply?

Audie,
Are you saying that the angles in a triangle don't always add up to 180 degrees, as SoCal said?

Sure, if you have triangle on a sphere for example.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote: How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?

Ken

As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.

Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.

As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.

What happens when one of your perfect certainties dissolves?

Triangles dont always add up as you so confidently assert.

Does "same goes for..." still apply?

Audie,
Are you saying that the angles in a triangle don't always add up to 180 degrees, as SoCal said?

It's a dishonest counter-example, Rick, insofar as it attempts to deny "perfect certainties." Little more than a four-term-fallacy.

http://nrich.maths.org/1434