Evidence for God from Science

Paul: BUT from that very same ( scientific evidence based on observation), to believe that the universe "just happened" is irrational ( since there is no evidence that things just come into be from nothing)

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:05 amI don't think a lot of atheists have thought out the issue that all things have to have a source.

How can everything require a source? There must be at least one thing that is uncaused (without a source) that causes everything else don’t cha think?

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:05 amOr that blind, non-intelligent things can't develop intelligence or staggering abilities - no matter how long they exist.

What do you base this on?

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:05 amI think some atheists obviously realize SOMETHING had to have first existed and that the only way it could was for that "Something" to be eternal.

Some thing, or some things.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:05 amAnd one would think they'd also have to conclude that that eternal "Something" also had to be unfathomably intelligent and powerful.

Again; what do you base this on?

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:05 amAnd so they should see these basic characteristics/capabilities of the universe's Source, even before pondering the Source's identity - which is a logically connected question they should be asking themselves.

Perhaps they don’t make the assumptions you seem to be making about the Universe.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:05 amSo, for atheists, how are the staggering scientific observations of the things on the list in my initial post above possible without their common Source being eternal, astonishingly intelligent and powerful? Especially the Big Bang, in which nothing physically existed in one moment, and mere moments later awesome things of incredible designs and incredible, precise functionalities were perfectly interacting on a unbelievable scale?

Again; perhaps they don’t make the same assumptions you seem to be making about the Universe.

How can everything require a source? There must be at least one thing that is uncaused (without a source) that causes everything else don’t cha think?

You have been here MORE than long enough to know that NO ONE here believes or has said that EVERYTHING has a source.
We have said and science shows us, that ALL THINGS that COME INTO being, have a source.
But you are correct that AT LEAST ONE THING is uncaused, that ONE THING is unmoved and unchanging.

How can everything require a source? There must be at least one thing that is uncaused (without a source) that causes everything else don’t cha think?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:24 amYou have been here MORE than long enough to know that NO ONE here believes or has said that EVERYTHING has a source.

You said everything. (obviously a typo) I was correcting you on what you said; not on what everybody believes.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:24 amWe have said and science shows us, that ALL THINGS that COME INTO being, have a source.
But you are correct that AT LEAST ONE THING is uncaused, that ONE THING is unmoved and unchanging.

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

If I had any hope whatsoever that yet another conversation with kenny can be had, even without the prospect of a resolution, just a rational discourse, I would try again. Alas, no such hope exists.

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

I was being CLEAR, so as to NOT have a typo...

We can say "at least one thing" but logically, if more than one thing can be "uncaused", then we have a logical problem and no explanation.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:10 am

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

I was being CLEAR, so as to NOT have a typo...

We can say "at least one thing" but logically, if more than one thing can be "uncaused", then we have a logical problem and no explanation.

Why is at least one a necessity, but more than one a logical problem?

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:47 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:10 am

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

I was being CLEAR, so as to NOT have a typo...

We can say "at least one thing" but logically, if more than one thing can be "uncaused", then we have a logical problem and no explanation.

Why is at least one a necessity, but more than one a logical problem?

You don't see the logical problem of having more then one uncaused being?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:47 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:10 am

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

I was being CLEAR, so as to NOT have a typo...

We can say "at least one thing" but logically, if more than one thing can be "uncaused", then we have a logical problem and no explanation.

Why is at least one a necessity, but more than one a logical problem?

You don't see the logical problem of having more then one uncaused being?

Being? So we’re going from an uncaused “thing” to an uncaused “Being” now? When did that happen? I didn’t agree to this. Let’s stick with “uncaused thing” for now till we get an understanding before we make the leap of assuming this thing has to be conscious, aware of his surroundings, intelligent, etc. etc. (AKA a Being) Fair enough?
Again; so why is an uncaused “thing” necessary, but multiple uncaused things a Problem?

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:40 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:47 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:10 am

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

I was being CLEAR, so as to NOT have a typo...

We can say "at least one thing" but logically, if more than one thing can be "uncaused", then we have a logical problem and no explanation.

Why is at least one a necessity, but more than one a logical problem?

You don't see the logical problem of having more then one uncaused being?

Being? So we’re going from an uncaused “thing” to an uncaused “Being” now? When did that happen? I didn’t agree to this. Let’s stick with “uncaused thing” for now till we get an understanding before we make the leap of assuming this thing has to be conscious, aware of his surroundings, intelligent, etc. etc. (AKA a Being) Fair enough?
Again; so why is an uncaused “thing” necessary, but multiple uncaused things a Problem?

Ok, fair enough, thing it is.
So, so something to be uncaused would mean that it has always existed, correct? Unless you can point to something that is uncaused that came to exist by itself.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:48 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:40 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:47 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:10 am

Oh! So are we going from “at least one thing” to “only one thing” now? Or is this just another typo.

I was being CLEAR, so as to NOT have a typo...

We can say "at least one thing" but logically, if more than one thing can be "uncaused", then we have a logical problem and no explanation.

Why is at least one a necessity, but more than one a logical problem?

You don't see the logical problem of having more then one uncaused being?

Being? So we’re going from an uncaused “thing” to an uncaused “Being” now? When did that happen? I didn’t agree to this. Let’s stick with “uncaused thing” for now till we get an understanding before we make the leap of assuming this thing has to be conscious, aware of his surroundings, intelligent, etc. etc. (AKA a Being) Fair enough?
Again; so why is an uncaused “thing” necessary, but multiple uncaused things a Problem?

Ok, fair enough, thing it is.
So, so something to be uncaused would mean that it has always existed, correct? Unless you can point to something that is uncaused that came to exist by itself.

I would assume so.

If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:10 pm If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:19 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:10 pm If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Kenny,

As Byblos explained to you before, there cannot be more than one uncaused cause.

Here's the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=166030#p166030

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:51 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:19 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:10 pm If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Kenny,

As Byblos explained to you before, there cannot be more than one uncaused cause.

Here's the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=166030#p166030

I actually looked over the entire thread. Yeah he tried to explain why there can’t be more than one uncaused cause, but IMO he didn’t do a very good job of it. He made a bunch of claims that weren’t backed up, then everybody and their mother jumped into the conversation and everything went off topic and we spent most of the thread talking and arguing about something else. Eventually everybody gave up and quit responding and the original claim was never answered to my satisfaction.

About the existence of necessary being(s): see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

I haven’t read that entry in detail and certainly not grasped it fully. The subject isn’t quite simple and there is evidently not any widely accepted conclusion.

NIls