Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: Ken, you've already admited that science and pure logic cannot explain the origins of everything that exists, that there is NO science that can explain it.

Science admits to this.

Philip wrote:You are essentially saying that there are no scientific explanations that are compatible with whatever happened or existed before the Big Bang.

Agreed.

Philip wrote:Therefore, it is obvious that God being incompatible with the systematic measures of science, which are incapable of directly explaining Him, is to be expected.

When you say “God”, I am going to assume you are referring to the God as described in the Bible; okay?

Philip wrote: So, why, if you admit science's inability to prove God, do you also discount Him based upon that inability? Because, WHATEVER one thinks may be the reason and cause behind the universe - whether God or some other eternally existing thing or things - we must admit that science is totally incapable of explaining it. So, if God exists, why would you be hung up upon the fact that science cannot prove what you admit it is entirely insufficient to discern?

My reasons for discounting God has little to do with science.

Ken

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting question. Please explain how you see such as incompatible?

There is no scientific explanation of how someone can
*Come back to life after dead for several days
*A woman can get pregnant and give birth without having sexual intercourse.
*Someone walking on top of water, turning water into wine, etc. etc.

ken

There was an instance of a snake giving birth, despite being alone in a tank with no access to males. I`ll have to look it up as I can`t remember the full story but that suggests scientific proof for a virgin birth. I will have to check it though as I would have thought it would be really big news.

I'm not familiar with snakes. My claim was in reference to human birth

Ken

"Virgin birth" is unknown in mammals, Reptiles, amphibians fish, yes.

It would be most interesting, hardly earth shaking, if it is found to occur in some mammal.

ST, on the back Ken/Audie's comments, I'd say if Jesus' birth was a natural event then theologically Christianity would become unstuck. If Jesus isn't God, but was just a man, then we're still in our sin and all of us will stand condemned. Even if his birth was unusual but still a natural occurrence, Jesus is just a man and therefore can't be that "bridge" between us and God.

Philip wrote: Therefore, it is obvious that God being incompatible with the systematic measures of science, which are incapable of directly explaining Him, is to be expected.

Ken: When you say “God”, I am going to assume you are referring to the God as described in the Bible; okay?

NO! I am saying WHATEVER thing, god or God is responsible for this universe, that entity, entities or Entity, is beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove it or His existence. Also, whatever the reality of the truth of this, no one's mere opinion matters/won't change the reality of whatever the truth is. And, as we are speaking of the limits of science, why would you reference the God of the Bible? Why, if science is the issue, does it matter whether it is the God of Scripture, or some other that it is incapable of proving?

Philip wrote: So, why, if you admit science's inability to prove God, do you also discount Him based upon that inability? Because, WHATEVER one thinks may be the reason and cause behind the universe - whether God or some other eternally existing thing or things - we must admit that science is totally incapable of explaining it. So, if God exists, why would you be hung up upon the fact that science cannot prove what you admit it is entirely insufficient to discern?

Ken: My reasons for discounting God has little to do with science.

Clearly!

So, Ken, can you not, at the very least, not, at least, realize that whatever existed before the Big Bang, had to be unfathomably intelligent, all powerful, and self-existing/uncreated, and that it created with immense attention to detail and purpose, and that randomness cannot explain it? These characteristics of the universe's cause are simple logic, whatever one speculates about its identity or Identity!

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Scientifically, we can not explain how or why our universe and even ourselves exist. And, upon that unexplained miracle do we based our science.

As I mentioned before, whatever happened back then, common sense, reason, and logic is not going to give us anything very useful. We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it, the origin of mankind, the Universe, and physical laws will appear to defy logic.

Sorry Kenny, but maybe it defies your own logic, but it doesn't defy logic.
Logic often helps define the framework of science to work within.
If something is not logically (or mathematically) possible then it can't be reality.
On the other hand, something can be logically and mathematically possible but not apart of reality.
Philosophy helps set the framework and boundaries, and science (our observations) colour such in with what is actual.

Many physicists for example build multiverse scenarios upon metaphysical assumptions.
In fact, such often forms the bulk of hypotheses and theories. Simply thinking through what is logically possible.
Have a read of this interesting article. Lee Smolin freely admits to the metaphyiscal assumption, and discusses much of the logic behind an infinite multiverse.

You just don't seem to want to explore anything, and my apologies, but you seem content with remaining ignorant because it suits you. Yet, those who do choose to venture whether will fall on one side or that other, that is like Audie does towards a multiverse, or on the other like I do towards just a fiat creation event. Why? Because if you opened your eyes for a minute you'd see something that needs explaining with the singularity and the break down of physical laws as we know them.

Your science isn't grounded at all, and you make no attempt to give it any grounding.
You'll take not one step to try investigate what happened at the beginning, with the singularity and the like.
How very un-, err scientific, of you.

Ken wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Indeed that our Universe with it's physical set of laws came into existence is the biggest miracle. To answer this, one must break with what science says is/isn't natural, because we're talking of a period existing before the physical laws we depend upon for scientific enquiry.

And that is the "gap" everybody keeps inserting God into; right?

This is a "gap" everyone realises it seems but you,
because you choose to remain willingly ignorant to it.

People on both sides see that logic demands an explanation.
Except for your logic it seems, where no explanation is a good enough explanation.
Only a foolish person sees the gap (i.e., "We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it"), says I don't know and then claims to know what is/isn't the case.

Others will explore other possibilities, such as a multiverse.
Some will continue to assert as they always have that, umm, guys... isn't a Creator obvious yet?

Kenny on the other hand acknowledges some "gap" (a missing piece of the puzzle), doesn't know how the physical laws and our universe came to be and then adds, surely tongue-in-cheek, "btw multiverse and God are not it. The universe just exists!" I repeat what you previously stated about multiverse:

Kenny wrote:Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

Ken wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So then, yes, there are certain stable laws in our universe which naturally results in childbirth.
When physical life dies, physical bodies do not naturally rise after death.
And when our universe formed with all its physical laws, such indeed is a miracle beyond science itself.
Science can only deal with natural claims within its scope.

Therefore there is no clash between science and these Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each.
The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know).

Unlike the Universe, when it comes to childbirth and death, science already has explanations for those; and they do not include God. To create a gap and insert God is IMO incompatible with those scientific explanations.

Unlike the Universe which you said, "We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it"? Oh, science has an explanation for it now does it? I thought you said you didn't know enough science to know?

Well, then please answer my two questions previously asked:

Kurieuo wrote:Can you please explain to me what science says about the singularity to our universe, that is, what it is and what came prior? Secondly why are the physical laws of our universe as they are?

I evidently misunderstood your words... so let me approach this differently.

If science can explain everything (which I see limits to, although you evidently believe it has no boundaries), then we should be able to detect through science when God intervenes and explain what exactly is going on. It doesn't really stop at "God did it", because then it becomes "how did God do it?" (like early practitioners of modern science who were largely Christian).

You know, just because we get use to a regularity, does not mean irregularities do no occur. So if someone does rise from the dead and science can answer all, science should be able to work out what happened. Such doesn't go against science necessarily, only one's preconceptions of what ought to be possible. Without having 100% knowledge of the universe, something you claim to be ignorant of, then you can't say whether a person coming back from being dead is indeed physically impossible. Science doesn't work with such certainties, only probabilities, even if such possibilities are very unlikely. However, I will qualify, that if Jesus was just a man, then that itself topples the Gospel.

As a side reflection, I find the pure physicalist position on human life intriguing. Physicalists obviously believe us humans to be entirely physical (although with philosophers the tides have changed who are realising more and more that logically, there is more to us than what can be physically accounted for)... Yet, if we die, we often understand there is no coming back. Although science deals with probabilities, you claim, "it's a scientific certainty, science claims people do not come back to life". Right? And yet, if we are just physical beings, then it should be physically possible to reconstitute someone physically to bring them back even from death. For some reason, we can have the body before us, but can't "reanimate" it, breath life back into it... maybe one day, one day we'll be able to do full body transplants, eh? Or do you think such is beyond science?

Philip
NO! I am saying WHATEVER thing, god or God is responsible for this universe, that entity, entities or Entity, is beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove it or His existence. Also, whatever the reality of the truth of this, no one's mere opinion matters/won't change the reality of whatever the truth is. And, as we are speaking of the limits of science, why would you reference the God of the Bible? Why, if science is the issue, does it matter whether it is the God of Scripture, or some other that it is incapable of proving?

Ken
I was just trying to get an understanding of what you were saying. When you say God, that can be defined as different things by different people. There are those who worship nature; which is not beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove existence


Philip
Clearly!

So, Ken, can you not, at the very least, not, at least, realize that whatever existed before the Big Bang, had to be unfathomably intelligent, all powerful, and self-existing/uncreated, and that it created with immense attention to detail and purpose, and that randomness cannot explain it? These characteristics of the universe's cause are simple logic, whatever one speculates about its identity or Identity!

Ken
The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang. The way I see it, the singularity or what ever the matter was prior to becoming a singularity, did not need to be intelligent, all powerful, and creating things with immense attention to detail and purpose. The way I see it, if the Universe was created with detail and purpose, it would be much different than it is right now.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote: There is no scientific explanation of how someone can
*Come back to life after dead for several days
*A woman can get pregnant and give birth without having sexual intercourse.
*Someone walking on top of water, turning water into wine, etc. etc.

ken

There was an instance of a snake giving birth, despite being alone in a tank with no access to males. I`ll have to look it up as I can`t remember the full story but that suggests scientific proof for a virgin birth. I will have to check it though as I would have thought it would be really big news.

I'm not familiar with snakes. My claim was in reference to human birth

Ken

"Virgin birth" is unknown in mammals, Reptiles, amphibians fish, yes.

It would be most interesting, hardly earth shaking, if it is found to occur in some mammal.

ST, on the back Ken/Audie's comments, I'd say if Jesus' birth was a natural event then theologically Christianity would become unstuck. If Jesus isn't God, but was just a man, then we're still in our sin and all of us will stand condemned. Even if his birth was unusual but still a natural occurrence, Jesus is just a man and therefore can't be that "bridge" between us and God.

I put that badly. (am tired, not thinking straight)
there was a snake, alone in a tank, no access to males, gave birth. they think the fertilised eggs were somehow stored.


will post again when thinking straight but the birth of Christ was supernatural, absolutely.

Kenny wrote:Philip
NO! I am saying WHATEVER thing, god or God is responsible for this universe, that entity, entities or Entity, is beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove it or His existence. Also, whatever the reality of the truth of this, no one's mere opinion matters/won't change the reality of whatever the truth is. And, as we are speaking of the limits of science, why would you reference the God of the Bible? Why, if science is the issue, does it matter whether it is the God of Scripture, or some other that it is incapable of proving?

Ken
I was just trying to get an understanding of what you were saying. When you say God, that can be defined as different things by different people. There are those who worship nature; which is not beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove existence


Philip
Clearly!

So, Ken, can you not, at the very least, not, at least, realize that whatever existed before the Big Bang, had to be unfathomably intelligent, all powerful, and self-existing/uncreated, and that it created with immense attention to detail and purpose, and that randomness cannot explain it? These characteristics of the universe's cause are simple logic, whatever one speculates about its identity or Identity!

Ken
The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang. The way I see it, the singularity or what ever the matter was prior to becoming a singularity, did not need to be intelligent, all powerful, and creating things with immense attention to detail and purpose. The way I see it, if the Universe was created with detail and purpose, it would be much different than it is right now.

Ken

if it wasnt all powerful and intelligent, then how?

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:Philip
NO! I am saying WHATEVER thing, god or God is responsible for this universe, that entity, entities or Entity, is beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove it or His existence. Also, whatever the reality of the truth of this, no one's mere opinion matters/won't change the reality of whatever the truth is. And, as we are speaking of the limits of science, why would you reference the God of the Bible? Why, if science is the issue, does it matter whether it is the God of Scripture, or some other that it is incapable of proving?

Ken
I was just trying to get an understanding of what you were saying. When you say God, that can be defined as different things by different people. There are those who worship nature; which is not beyond the capabilities of science to measure and prove existence


Philip
Clearly!

So, Ken, can you not, at the very least, not, at least, realize that whatever existed before the Big Bang, had to be unfathomably intelligent, all powerful, and self-existing/uncreated, and that it created with immense attention to detail and purpose, and that randomness cannot explain it? These characteristics of the universe's cause are simple logic, whatever one speculates about its identity or Identity!

Ken
The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang. The way I see it, the singularity or what ever the matter was prior to becoming a singularity, did not need to be intelligent, all powerful, and creating things with immense attention to detail and purpose. The way I see it, if the Universe was created with detail and purpose, it would be much different than it is right now.

Ken

if it wasnt all powerful and intelligent, then how?

I suspect matter has always existed in one form or another.

Ken

Kurieuo
Sorry Kenny, but maybe it defies your own logic, but it doesn't defy logic.

Ken
I think you’ve misunderstood me; I said “it will APPEAR to defy logic”.


Kurieuo
Many physicists for example build multiverse scenarios upon metaphysical assumptions.
In fact, such often forms the bulk of hypotheses and theories. Simply thinking through what is logically possible.
Have a read of this interesting article. Lee Smolin freely admits to the metaphyiscal assumption, and discusses much of the logic behind an infinite multiverse.

You just don't seem to want to explore anything, and my apologies, but you seem content with remaining ignorant because it suits you.

Yet, those who do choose to venture whether will fall on one side or that other, that is like Audie does towards a multiverse, or on the other like I do towards just a fiat creation event. Why? Because if you opened your eyes for a minute you'd see something that needs explaining with the singularity and the break down of physical laws as we know them.

Your science isn't grounded at all, and you make no attempt to give it any grounding.
You'll take not one step to try investigate what happened at the beginning, with the singularity and the like.
How very un-, err scientific, of you.

Ken
Kurieuo! Why would you say that? What have I said that gave you the impression that I don’t care to explore anything and would prefer to remain ignorant? Is this because you disagree with my explanation of the Universe and I disagree with yours? How is your explanation any more credible than mine to an unbiased person who believes neither?


Kurieuo
Unlike the Universe which you said, "We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it"? Oh, science has an explanation for it now does it? I thought you said you didn't know enough science to know?

Well, then please answer my two questions previously asked:

Can you please explain to me what science says about the singularity to our universe, that is, what it is and what came prior? Secondly why are the physical laws of our universe as they are?

Ken
I think you’ve misunderstood me again. When I said “science has an explanation for it, I was referring to how humans are born, and what happens when they die. When I said “I don’t know enough about science to know” I was referring to the two questions you asked about the Universe.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo
Sorry Kenny, but maybe it defies your own logic, but it doesn't defy logic.

Ken
I think you’ve misunderstood me; I said “it will APPEAR to defy logic”.


Kurieuo
Many physicists for example build multiverse scenarios upon metaphysical assumptions.
In fact, such often forms the bulk of hypotheses and theories. Simply thinking through what is logically possible.
Have a read of this interesting article. Lee Smolin freely admits to the metaphyiscal assumption, and discusses much of the logic behind an infinite multiverse.

You just don't seem to want to explore anything, and my apologies, but you seem content with remaining ignorant because it suits you.

Yet, those who do choose to venture whether will fall on one side or that other, that is like Audie does towards a multiverse, or on the other like I do towards just a fiat creation event. Why? Because if you opened your eyes for a minute you'd see something that needs explaining with the singularity and the break down of physical laws as we know them.

Your science isn't grounded at all, and you make no attempt to give it any grounding.
You'll take not one step to try investigate what happened at the beginning, with the singularity and the like.
How very un-, err scientific, of you.

Ken
Kurieuo! Why would you say that? What have I said that gave you the impression that I don’t care to explore anything and would prefer to remain ignorant? Is this because you disagree with my explanation of the Universe and I disagree with yours? How is your explanation any more credible than mine to an unbiased person who believes neither?

You've never provided an explanation of the universe, none that I've read. My questions were trying to elucidate such from you, but you say you don't know. If you don't mind, please explain and clarify your explanation of the Universe?

Kenny wrote: Kurieuo
Unlike the Universe which you said, "We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it"? Oh, science has an explanation for it now does it? I thought you said you didn't know enough science to know?

Well, then please answer my two questions previously asked:

Can you please explain to me what science says about the singularity to our universe, that is, what it is and what came prior? Secondly why are the physical laws of our universe as they are?

Ken
I think you’ve misunderstood me again. When I said “science has an explanation for it, I was referring to how humans are born, and what happens when they die. When I said “I don’t know enough about science to know” I was referring to the two questions you asked about the Universe.

Yes, I noticed I did misunderstand. I actually edited my post, but you responded.
I decided to take my thoughts in a different direction, here is my edited response:

Ken wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So then, yes, there are certain stable laws in our universe which naturally results in childbirth.
When physical life dies, physical bodies do not naturally rise after death.
And when our universe formed with all its physical laws, such indeed is a miracle beyond science itself.
Science can only deal with natural claims within its scope.

Therefore there is no clash between science and these Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each.
The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know).

Unlike the Universe, when it comes to childbirth and death, science already has explanations for those; and they do not include God. To create a gap and insert God is IMO incompatible with those scientific explanations.

Unlike the Universe which you said, "We are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle, and until someone finds it"? Oh, science has an explanation for it now does it? I thought you said you didn't know enough science to know?

Well, then please answer my two questions previously asked:

Kurieuo wrote:Can you please explain to me what science says about the singularity to our universe, that is, what it is and what came prior? Secondly why are the physical laws of our universe as they are?

I evidently misunderstood your words... so let me approach this differently.

If science can explain everything (which I see limits to, although you evidently believe it has no boundaries), then we should be able to detect through science when God intervenes and explain what exactly is going on. It doesn't really stop at "God did it", because then it becomes "how did God do it?" (like early practitioners of modern science who were largely Christian).

You know, just because we get use to a regularity, does not mean irregularities do no occur. So if someone does rise from the dead and science can answer all, then science should be able to work out what happened. Such doesn't go against science necessarily, only one's preconceptions of what ought to be possible. Without having 100% knowledge of the universe, something you claim to be ignorant of, then you can't say whether a person coming back from being dead is indeed physically impossible. Science doesn't work with such certainties, only probabilities, even if such possibilities are very unlikely. However, I will qualify, that if Jesus was just a man, then that itself topples the Gospel.

As a side reflection, I find the pure physicalist position on human life intriguing. Physicalists obviously believe us humans to be entirely physical (although with philosophers the tides have changed who are realising more and more that logically, there is more to us than what can be physically accounted for)... Yet, if we die, we often understand there is no coming back. Although science deals with probabilities, you claim, "it's a scientific certainty, science claims people do not come back to life". Right? And yet, if we are just physical beings, then it should be physically possible to reconstitute someone physically to bring them back even from death. For some reason, we can have the body before us, but can't "reanimate" it, breath life back into it... maybe one day, one day we'll be able to do full body transplants, eh? Or do you think such is beyond science?

audi:
It would be most interesting, hardly earth shaking, if it is found to occur in some mammal.

philip:
Of which I'm sure Audie would agree, that even IF found to be true, has zero to do with the God debate.

he already did, our little Asian beauty hit the nail right on the head : hardly earth shaking ...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... birth.html ... perhaps audi meant in some mammalian way an individual here-to fore unknown may be able to do just that ... platypus irregularities kinda thing ... but the truth is, in terms of our Christianity, no matter how you slice it, Christ was born of a Virgin, prophesied to do so from 2000 years before his birth. We were told by God to look for this person and know who He is, by description to look for.. The virgin birth of the living Savior has only a small bit to do with His mission and ministry on earth. That particular portion of His life was more about His mother. Christ could have been born in a test tube if He so desired, but the vessel He chose was and is to remain Virgin, for all eternity. The beauty of the virgin birth is not just in the miracle of it all, although that is what most focus on, it's also about the never ending love and admiration for the daughter, wife and mother of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and preserving her perfection as the One who was found "full of Grace" to birth the Son of man, the Man-God, Jesus.

Ken: The way I see it, the singularity or what ever the matter was prior to becoming a singularity, did not need to be intelligent, all powerful, and creating things with immense attention to detail and purpose.

Wow, Ken, this is staggeringly illogical, not to mention, apparently, grossly ignorant. So, at the Big Bang's beginning, which instantly produced great design, order, specificity of function - both individually and interactively - of the various systems, not in some random chaos, but in power, and specifics so incredible, on such a scale, that every scientist - believer or not - still marvels at what instantly came into being, at how incredible its functionality and design. If you truly believe that these did not happen, then you don't believe what mainstream science and countless studies have validated. These are a FACT! Now, as to from what or Whom, well, that is another question - but as to the abilities, power and intelligence of that "unknown" entity, these are unquestionable!

Ken: The way I see it, if the Universe was created with detail and purpose, it would be much different than it is right now.

Ken, sometimes I really wonder about your ability to be in total denial. HOWEVER the universe was created, it nonetheless produced PRECISELY the universe we see today - how ELSE - WHAT else? Have you ever read much about the physics, etc. of the very early universe, within moments of the Big Bang beginning? If you don't call what INSTANTLY emerged, as to what their IMMEDIATE designs and functions were, on an immense scale of untold power and unfathomable detail and precision, then you don't understand even what science says about it - and, by the way, this is not obscure, religious-driven "science" we're speaking of, but is what universities and researchers around the world have long concluded about the universe as it began. Now, ALL that incredible design and functionality, the laws the elements involved immediately adhered to - these go FAR beyond any intelligence we can yet understand, and yet you declare there was no detail or purpose that sprang from whatever Singularity was or came from. At least gain an understanding of what was immediately there and how the various elements functioned, within mere moments of the Big Bang beginning.

Wow, Ken, just stunningly wow, how you are determined to deceive yourself! It's one thing to say that all of the universe, the elements of Singularity, etc. didn't come from God. But to deny it came from some source of great intelligence, power and purpose is simply delusional - because what IMMEDIATELY emerged was anything but chaotic and random. And chaos and randomness does not immediately (nor does it EVER) produce such awesome, indescribable poetry of such marvelous scale, design and function. To believe that is possible is beyond illogical - it's, well, there just are no words of how absurd that is! What you believe in is your own fantasy of how the universe would otherwise be possible. Just don't deceive yourself concerning the prolifically studied and described details that science asserts about it.

Kurieuo wrote: You've never provided an explanation of the universe, none that I've read. My questions were trying to elucidate such from you, but you say you don't know. If you don't mind, please explain and clarify your explanation of the Universe?

I suspect matter has always existed in one way or another. This means the singularity that expanded to become the Big Bang, either has always existed, or was something else before coming together to become the singularity.

Kurieuo wrote:If science can explain everything (which I see limits to, although you evidently believe it has no boundaries),

No; I have been very clear; science does not have all the answers.

Kurieuo wrote:then we should be able to detect through science when God intervenes and explain what exactly is going on.

This presupposes the existence of God who intervenes; something neither I nor science claims

Kurieuo wrote:You know, just because we get use to a regularity, does not mean irregularities do no occur. So if someone does rise from the dead and science can answer all, then science should be able to work out what happened.

But if nobody has risen from the dead, and science does not know all…..

Kurieuo wrote:Such doesn't go against science necessarily, only one's preconceptions of what ought to be possible.

It goes against scientific claims.

Kurieuo wrote:Without having 100% knowledge of the universe, something you claim to be ignorant of, then you can't say whether a person coming back from being dead is indeed physically impossible.

But I feel confident in believing it to be physically impossible

Kurieuo wrote:Science doesn't work with such certainties, only probabilities, even if such possibilities are very unlikely. However, I will qualify, that if Jesus was just a man, then that itself topples the Gospel.

As a side reflection, I find the pure physicalist position on human life intriguing. Physicalists obviously believe us humans to be entirely physical (although with philosophers the tides have changed who are realising more and more that logically, there is more to us than what can be physically accounted for)... Yet, if we die, we often understand there is no coming back. Although science deals with probabilities, you claim, "it's a scientific certainty, science claims people do not come back to life". Right? And yet, if we are just physical beings, then it should be physically possible to reconstitute someone physically to bring them back even from death. For some reason, we can have the body before us, but can't "reanimate" it, breath life back into it... maybe one day, one day we'll be able to do full body transplants, eh? Or do you think such is beyond science?[/color]

Currently it is beyond science. I don’t think I said “science claims people do not come back to life, I think I said “science makes claims about death and none of them include coming back to life” (or something like that)

Ken

Philip wrote:

Ken: The way I see it, the singularity or what ever the matter was prior to becoming a singularity, did not need to be intelligent, all powerful, and creating things with immense attention to detail and purpose.

Wow, Ken, this is staggeringly illogical, not to mention, apparently, grossly ignorant. So, at the Big Bang's beginning, which instantly produced great design, order, specificity of function - both individually and interactively - of the various systems, not in some random chaos, but in power, and specifics so incredible, on such a scale, that every scientist - believer or not - still marvels at what instantly came into being, at how incredible its functionality and design. If you truly believe that these did not happen, then you don't believe what mainstream science and countless studies have validated. These are a FACT! Now, as to from what or Whom, well, that is another question - but as to the abilities, power and intelligence of that "unknown" entity, these are unquestionable!

So you claim as a fact that the Universe was created by something of intelligence? What are you basing these facts on? Facts are provable, so if this as you say a fact; prove it.

Ken: The way I see it, if the Universe was created with detail and purpose, it would be much different than it is right now.

Philip wrote:Ken, sometimes I really wonder about your ability to be in total denial. HOWEVER the universe was created, it nonetheless produced PRECISELY the universe we see today - how ELSE - WHAT else? Have you ever read much about the physics, etc. of the very early universe, within moments of the Big Bang beginning? If you don't call what INSTANTLY emerged, as to what their IMMEDIATE designs and functions were, on an immense scale of untold power and unfathomable detail and precision, then you don't understand even what science says about it - and, by the way, this is not obscure, religious-driven "science" we're speaking of, but is what universities and researchers around the world have long concluded about the universe as it began. Now, ALL that incredible design and functionality, the laws the elements involved immediately adhered to - these go FAR beyond any intelligence we can yet understand, and yet you declare there was no detail or purpose that sprang from whatever Singularity was or came from. At least gain an understanding of what was immediately there and how the various elements functioned, within mere moments of the Big Bang beginning.

Wow, Ken, just stunningly wow, how you are determined to deceive yourself! It's one thing to say that all of the universe, the elements of Singularity, etc. didn't come from God. But to deny it came from some source of great intelligence, power and purpose is simply delusional - because what IMMEDIATELY emerged was anything but chaotic and random. And chaos and randomness does not immediately (nor does it EVER) produce such awesome, indescribable poetry of such marvelous scale, design and function. To believe that is possible is beyond illogical - it's, well, there just are no words of how absurd that is! What you believe in is your own fantasy of how the universe would otherwise be possible. Just don't deceive yourself concerning the prolifically studied and described details that science asserts about it.

So you claim the Universe was created with purpose? Please explain the purpose of the Universe.

Ken: So you claim as a fact that the Universe was created by something of intelligence? What are you basing these facts on? Facts are provable, so if this as you say a fact; prove it.

Because what instantly emerged could only come from great intelligence. But you seem to believe this was unnecessary to instantly produce unfathomable complexity. The inverse is that random, chaotic, dumb and blind things can produce such complexity. But that is entirely illogical. And because YOU can't prove or show me even ONE thing, just ONE example of random, chaotic, uncontrolled things that have produced great sophistication and complexity? There's my proof!

Ken: So you claim the Universe was created with purpose? Please explain the purpose of the Universe.

What I am saying is that, in the design, complexity and specificity of what was created, all things were PURPOSELY created, as to their functionality, ability, and according to the design of each thing and organism - and that the purposes were to ultimately produce a universe and eventually a world that could and would support life, and where a great diversity of life itself would also be created. For our, yes, purposes, I am only speaking as to the intentional creation and design of what came into existence, as these were the exact inverse of random things, but instead were INTENDED things and organisms of marvelous design and programming. That is not to say that random things don't exist, only to say they don't produce unfathomable complexity, design and function. Again, name me just one instance of such randomness producing anything of complexity. As well, randomness does not follow precise laws of amazingly consistent function and interactivity - the "God of the universe's clock," as Einstein asserted. If you assert something to be caused by randomness, that thing is not going to function in a perfectly predictable manner as paralleled by other supposedly "random" things. When you see massive parallels and astonishing consistency within uncountable examples from physics, chemistry and biology, each showing stunning consistency and perfect parallels in how they function, in both the array of abilities they have, but also in their design limitations, then this is the opposite of the very definition of randomness. This shows purpose of design and intended parameters of functionality!