Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

There is so much about the Universe that you guys are unaware of I don’t think any of you guys are qualified to claim a better explanation does not exist, If you wanna say God did it

So, Kenny, tell us, what we are unaware of that you are aware of?

I am aware there is a lot about the Universe that nobody knows. In order to say "there is no better explanation than God" you have to know all the other possible explanations; otherwise you are not qualified to make such a statement. Nobody knows all the other possible explanations; cosmologists don't know, I don't know, nobody knows! Not even you guys.

Ken

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Kenny wrote:Flawed intellect
In other words, you're assuming that God doesn't exist, therefore the cause of the universe can't be God. That's circular reasoning.

Ken
My reasons for believing God does not exist is because I see more evidence for his non-existence than I see for his existence. Therefore, if you are going to insert God into the picture, you need to provide evidence that he exists. That is not circular, it starts with you bring evidence of God to the table.

That's nonsense and you know it. There's no such evidence for his "nonexistence." I already pointed out that people have provided evidence in this thread, and I'm pretty sure the others have already pointed out that you're "moving the goalposts."

Kenny wrote:Flawed intellect
"Because they can't think of a better explanation"? Really? You call that a refutation? That's a worthless response, since it doesn't explain any reason on why God ought not be the explanation.

Ken
Modern cosmologists spend their lives studying the Universe and they do not see any evidence that leads to your idea of God. In order for your God to be an explanation, there has to be evidence that leads there. What evidence do you have that they don’t?

Again, you're moving the goalposts. ¬_¬
You're also completely missing the point.

Kenny wrote:Flawed intellect
Their explanation is the better one, since you've failed to actually provide an explanation that stands to scrutiny, and you never even pointed out any flaws in their position. You're working from your biases. So what if you disagree? Doesn't matter if you're not going to back it up.

Ken
I have said countless times I don’t have an answer; I provided guesses. You guys act as if you have the answers, and act as if by refuting my guesses it somehow confirms your claims! It does not. Your claims need to stand on their own and thus far they have not presented any cosmological evidence that leads to their idea of God. If you want be to believe you, quit asking me questions I don’t have answers to and provide cosmological evidence that confirms your POV

This is PHILOSOPHY here, Ken! You can't respond with "oh, I don't know" and still try to argue against other peoples' positions! That's arguing from ignorance! And what do you mean that the cosmological evidence doesn't lead to God? It necessitates a first cause and pokes holes in alternate explanations. There's not many other options than "God exists", Ken. Go back and reread. And stop moving the goalposts.

Kenny wrote:Flawed intellect
Have you been paying any attention to a single thing that's been said to you and given it any serious thought? Nope. You've been smacking your fingers against the keyboard coming up with "responses" that don't even deal with the subject matter.

Ken
I’ve responded to each point you guys made, line by line. You just don’t like my responses.

Your responses were a parade of logical fallacies and ignorance.
We're not rejecting your responses because of disliking them. We're rejecting your responses because they don't even provide anything logically sound. There's a huge difference.

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect:
No, the original post of this thread was concerned with both cosmology and philosophy.
Um, yes we have done that. You've just been ignoring it. The Big Bang. Cosmic Expansion. Dark Energy. Extreme Fine Tuning.

Ken
Big bang, cosmic expansion, dark energy, etc. I have no problem with that because there is evidence that leads there. When you bring your creator into the picture, you need to bring evidence that leads there as well and thus far you have not.

Again, moving the goalposts. Go back and reread.

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect:

You've also ignored what's been said about the problems with what you've proposed. The impossibility of an eternal singularity spontaneously forming the Big Bang. The problem with an oscillating universe model. (Namely the problem that the universe's entropy will increase with each oscillation and not reset.)

Ken
I’ve said countless times I do not have answers to what happened prior to the singular that led to the big bang; cosmologists don’t either! If you guys are gonna claim to have all the answers, you need to quit refuting my guesses and present evidence that confirms your claims.

... Moving the goalposts. Again. Evidence has been provided. You're just arbitrarily dismissing it and demanding more of it.
And the refutations of your guesses aren't even the main event! They're the frosting on the cake! They're the side-dish to the dinner plate! These are delivered alongside the evidence, and they strengthen the main point.

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect:

I'm pretty sure someone earlier pointed out that you're "moving the goalposts", which basically means that you're arbitrarily changing the standard and demanding more evidence than what has already been given, and casually dismissing the evidence you've already been given.

Ken
I haven’t dismissed evidence; I’ve dismissed claims presented without evidence.

Uh, yes you /have/ dismissed evidence. People in this thread have presented cosmological evidence that strongly implies the existence of a creator.

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect
[Nevermind that you haven't provided any reasons or explanations as to why the evidence doesn't work. From the look of things, it appears that you just dismiss it because you don't like it.]

Ken:
See above

Why? There's nothing to see there.

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect:
Your position has already been shown to not be scientifically sound, and yet you still act like everyone else's position on the matter is inferior to yours, even going so far as to deny that the evidence implicitly supports the position that you "disagree with", even though it's already been shown how the evidence implies this position.

Ken
Do you have an example of me doing this?

... How about every single page of every single thread you've ever posted in? Is that enough evidence for you?
I'm dead serious.

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect:
I am not suggesting that I know more about the universe than cosmologists. Instead, the entire time, people here have been pointing out what cosmologists have to say on the matter. Big Bang. Cosmic Expansion. Dark Energy. Fine Tuning of the laws of physics.

Ken
But they also bring stuff to the table cosmologists DONNOT say on the matter, such as a creator; that is what I take issue with.

In other words, you've got a personal bias on this matter and are deliberately choosing to not be rational.
They're pointing out that the stuff Cosmologists put on the table strongly implies a Creator. It's not a tremendous leap in logic. It's just the next logical step.

Or would you like a series of quotes from cosmologists on the likeliness of God's existence?

Kenny wrote:Flawed Intellect
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Your "objections" are nothing more than your personal, biased opinion, which matters nothing since you can't even provide any rational explanations on why you reject their position. All you've said is that you "disagree with it because it says God bla bla bla." So what? Get serious.

Ken
You obviously have not been listening to what I have been saying.

I've read through your every word. Everyone in this thread has.
You've been shown repeatedly that you're making serious errors and that you're not playing by the rules of this sort of discussion.

You've been attacking everyone else's claims with pure nonsense in almost every single post you've made on this forum. Don't believe me? Go back and reread EVERYTHING you've posted.

Why should WE jump through hoops for someone who can't even get serious on the subject matter?

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

There is so much about the Universe that you guys are unaware of I don’t think any of you guys are qualified to claim a better explanation does not exist, If you wanna say God did it

So, Kenny, tell us, what we are unaware of that you are aware of?

I am aware there is a lot about the Universe that nobody knows. In order to say "there is no better explanation than God" you have to know all the other possible explanations; otherwise you are not qualified to make such a statement. Nobody knows all the other possible explanations; cosmologists don't know, I don't know, nobody knows! Not even you guys.

Ken

Kenny, you're arguing from ignorance here. And you're moving the goalposts again.
So what if there's much about the universe that no one knows? We know it exists, and we know that it's comprehensible. And we know enough about the universe to state that it implies the existence of a creator.

What more do we need than:
The Big Bang makes it almost completely clear that the universe has a beginning.
The laws of physics are extremely precise and minor deviations could mean that we wouldn't be here. (Fine Tuning.) The universe is constantly expanding, and such is necessary for the existence of life. (Thank-you, Byblos, for correcting me and clarifying that the Average Hubble Expansion Rate of the Universe needs to be greater than 0 for there to be a beginning.)
There appears to be a repulsive gravity force called "Dark Energy" that is responsible for accelerating the expansion of the universe to the point where it appears that some trillions of years from now, the universe will succumb to maximum entropy. (Meaning that it's very unlikely for there to be a "big crunch" and a subsequent oscillation.)

With evidence pointing to the universe having a beginning, the laws of physics being just what they need to be for us to even exist, the expansion of the universe, and dark energy, which makes it unlikely that the universe will oscillate, it's pretty clear that the majority of other models for the existence of the universe fall flat because most of them contradict the evidence or even logic itself.

The evidence leaves very little room for other options and God simply appears to be the most likely explanation.

Oh, by the way: the mention of God or a Creator does not automatically render all evidence null, like you pretend it to be. Evidence has been provided. You're just denying that it fits because you don't like it.
Everyone else has been trying to be extremely patient with you and try to show you what's wrong with what you're saying, but you won't listen and you keep resorting to the same exact logical fallacies over and over and over and over and over again, making the entire thing a futile exercise.

I must ask you, what's your purpose in being here, if you're not even going to discuss this seriously?

jlay wrote:Kenny is wrongly assuming what these arguments intend to communicate.
The actual argument is that God (a trancendent, powerful, intelligent being) is the best possible explanation.
Kenny is presenting an argument from ignorance as well as a science of the gaps. You could turn Kenny's argument around and say the same things about God.

The Kalaam is an argument regarding the evidence. Specifically the evidence of what we KNOW about the universe.

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

There is so much about the Universe that you guys are unaware of I don’t think any of you guys are qualified to claim a better explanation does not exist, If you wanna say God did it

So, Kenny, tell us, what we are unaware of that you are aware of?

I am aware there is a lot about the Universe that nobody knows. In order to say "there is no better explanation than God" you have to know all the other possible explanations; otherwise you are not qualified to make such a statement. Nobody knows all the other possible explanations; cosmologists don't know, I don't know, nobody knows! Not even you guys.

Ken

I am aware of that Universe is vast and we do not know everything about it. In fact, we do not know more than we know. It is mostly comprised of dark energy (68%), dark matter (27%) and we still do not know what that is really. Ordinary matter is less than 5%.

I do not think I need to know all other possible explanations. Once I know there is God, well, does it make sense to think He did not create it?

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

There is so much about the Universe that you guys are unaware of I don’t think any of you guys are qualified to claim a better explanation does not exist, If you wanna say God did it

So, Kenny, tell us, what we are unaware of that you are aware of?

I am aware there is a lot about the Universe that nobody knows. In order to say "there is no better explanation than God" you have to know all the other possible explanations; otherwise you are not qualified to make such a statement. Nobody knows all the other possible explanations; cosmologists don't know, I don't know, nobody knows! Not even you guys.

Ken

I am aware of that Universe is vast and we do not know everything about it. In fact, we do not know more than we know. It is mostly comprised of dark energy (68%), dark matter (27%) and we still do not know what that is really. Ordinary matter is less than 5%.

I do not think I need to know all other possible explanations. Once I know there is God, well, does it make sense to think He did not create it?

I think that makes perfect sense; for those who know there is a God. How about those of us who do not know there is a God?

Ken

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I agree with you. It doesn't make any sense without God. It's about time you've come to that conclusion.

Kenny wrote: Is there an infinite amount of space between point A & B if they were a part of a circle?

Kenny wrote: I never claimed there was an infinite amount of events between point A and point B.

If you are going to continue with your line of reasoning, that is perfectly fine! I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am simply stating why I disagree with your line of reasoning. You keep bringing a Creator to the table but you haven’t provided any evidence that leads to this creator; that’s why I reject it.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote: Is there an infinite amount of space between point A & B if they were a part of a circle?

A circle is not infinite, you can start drawing a circle and come back to the start but when you get back to the start you can't keep going because you would be creating a new circle over the first one which then would be infinite and you would run into the same problem I described earlier, that is there are past events that go off into infinity and we should never have got to this point in time because we have to go through an infinite amount of past events before this one, and since infinity has no beginning or end we cannot get here.

Kenny wrote: I never claimed there was an infinite amount of events between point A and point B.

Ken you made claims that the universe could be constantly expaning or contracting or it could possibly be in it's singularity state for an infinte amount of time. You need to back up your assertions with logic and reason. I have given you a reason why you can't have infinite past events because you will never get to the present. If you say today is the 0 point and you count backwards into infinity then you can tell me when you reach the start point, tell me what number you come up with, if you can do that then I will accept your assertions, until that time I reject what your saying.

If you are going to continue with your line of reasoning, that is perfectly fine! I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am simply stating why I disagree with your line of reasoning. You keep bringing a Creator to the table but you haven’t provided any evidence that leads to this creator; that’s why I reject it.

You haven't stateted why you disagree all you have said is you disagree. We have provided loads of "evidence", which you havent even begun to refute or make a counter argument, so our arguments are still valid. If you are not here to discuss, learn or convince anyone of anything, why are you here Kenny, this whole conversation seems rather pointless.

I think that makes perfect sense; for those who know there is a God. How about those of us who do not know there is a God?

Ken

ken wrote:
That’s what you believe! Those who study cosmetology don’t even make such a leap; why do you?

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)