Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Ken: How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

But that is not the testimony of science and an enormous amount of scientific verification and data. Before the Big Bang, there was ZIP! Einstein even acknowledged that his former belief in the Steady State Theory was his greatest embarrassment and mistake. NO scientific observation or data supports ANYTHING that did not spring from something prior or have a prior cause. Ken, if you believe that, it's only based upon what you believe, and not on the extensive observations and tests that all agree that what you say is totally impossible! Before the Big Bang, NOTHING existed to SUBSEQUENTLY begin moving, and THEN (only AFTERWARD) to immediately begin organizing.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Let's see...

1) eternal matter
Still have to answer what caused this eternal matter to become the Big Bang. Something cannot cause itself.

RickD wrote:2) matter that's not just eternal, matter that's always been organized(with no organizer), and had design(with no designer)

Eternal, uncaused, organized, designed matter. That makes sense, but an eternal uncaused cause is less logical?

RickD wrote:3) matter that was never created(same as #1)

So...the Big Bang, in which all time, space, and matter came into existence, was created by eternal matter?

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

Ken: How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

But that is not the testimony of science and an enormous amount of scientific verification and data. Before the Big Bang, there was ZIP! Einstein even acknowledged that his former belief in the Steady State Theory was his greatest embarrassment and mistake. NO scientific observation or data supports ANYTHING that did not spring from something prior or have a prior cause. Ken, if you believe that, it's only based upon what you believe, and not on the extensive observations and tests that all agree that what you say is totally impossible! Before the Big Bang, NOTHING existed to SUBSEQUENTLY begin moving, and THEN (only AFTERWARD) to immediately begin organizing.

Science does not claim there was a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. They go back to the singularity that expanded aka the Big Bang to become the Universe as we currently know it.There may be a few people who guess this or that, but there isn't any scientific theory that claims a point when nothing existed.

Ken

Mallz wrote:Sorry Kenny, my reply was before I read what was after what you addressed to me.

I get it. I'm pretty sure. It's kinda cool, actually. Your every being lives in reality where all reality is, is what is. Which is composed of our experiences and physical surroundings and their interconnections. All that is is expressed through mechanical expressions of this material universe unfolding it's existence. I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Am I close? Could you expound for me?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Laws are contingent.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Let's see...

1) eternal matter
Still have to answer what caused this eternal matter to become the Big Bang. Something cannot cause itself.

And if we don't have an answer, God did it right?
There's nothing wrong with not knowing an answer. The problem comes when the answer is far less logical than another answer that is possible.

RickD wrote:2) matter that's not just eternal, matter that's always been organized(with no organizer), and had design(with no designer)

Eternal, uncaused, organized, designed matter. That makes sense, but an eternal uncaused cause is less logical?

An eternal uncaused cause is what you just described!
Matter cannot be an uncaused cause. We've been over this ad nauseum. You basically said that eternal matter, which is organized, and designed(without an organizer and designer) is an uncaused cause of the universe. But you're still not saying any possible reason to what caused this eternal matter to act, thereby creating the universe.

RickD wrote:3) matter that was never created(same as #1)

So...the Big Bang, in which all time, space, and matter came into existence, was created by eternal matter?

The big bang is not when all time space and matter came into existence, it is when all that existed (the singularity) expanded to become what we currently know as the Universe. Prior to the Big bang, science has no way of knowing. Science doesn't know everything ya know.

K
Actually Kenny, science doesn't "know" anything.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Laws are contingent.

All laws in the Universe? Or just the laws that we know of.

Kurieuo: The fact physics can be tweaked in virtual worlds like computer games (e.g., FPS, RPGs, Minecraft, etc), shows that they could be other than what they are.

Kurieuo: Of interest are many physicists, in particular those who posit multiple universes, note that other universes may contain very different physical laws and properties thereof.

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

How do you know it was sitting there for eternity? Perhaps everything\ contracted to become the singularity, then expanded. The Universe could be in a constant state of contracting and expanding.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:I wonder what edwardmurphy would make of the following argument I happened to stumble upon Ed?

1) Lack of belief on a subject entails one is unaware to that subject of belief.
2) The moment one becomes aware to a subject of belief, they conceive of something about that subject of belief.
3) If you conceive something about a subject, then that something counts as a belief about that subject.
4) Therefore, one has a belief on any subject that they become aware to. (from 1, 2, 3)

Let's extend this argument...

5) The person who claims "to lack a belief in the subject of a belief" shows an awareness of that subject of belief.
6) It is not possible for a person to lack a belief in a subject that they are aware to (from 4).
7) Therefore, it is a contradiction to say "I lack a belief on some subject" since such presupposes an awareness to that subject.

And finally...

Atheists who claim that they lack a belief of God are full of doodoo. (from 7)

Kurieuo wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:I'm not sure why you get to define what it means to be an atheist, but I'm not inclined to accept it.

Have you defined what it means to be an Atheist?

atheist - a person who does not accept the theistic proposition (that gods exist)

What would that look like?
For example, to someone who says to an Atheist: "I believe God exists as revealed in Israel and via Jesus."
The Atheist as you define would respond, "I do not accept... [insert words]"

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:Also, atheism isn't a belief system. Religions are vast and complex belief systems. Atheism is the rejection of religions and the gods they're founded on. Calling atheism a belief system is akin to calling bald a hair color.

Is mere belief in God a belief system?
Does that count as religion?

1) No. A system is a bunch of parts that, together, form a whole.
2) It would be ridiculous, but I believe in freedom of religion so I if someone were to tell me that "I believe in god" was their entire religion I'd take their word for it.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

How do you know it was sitting there for eternity? Perhaps everything\ contracted to become the singularity, then expanded. The Universe could be in a constant state of contracting and expanding.

Ken

I won't even get into how something eternal, and uncaused has to be unchanging as well.

So put that aside for now.
Kenny,
If everything contracted to become the singularity, you're still not answering what was the cause of its contracting.
I'm not necessarily arguing against a contracting and expanding universe. But even if we assume it is contracting and expanding, we need to address the little issue you keep avoiding! WHAT IS CAUSING THE UNIVERSE TO CONTRACT AND EXPAND?
Is the light coming on up there yet?