Evidence for God from Science

Kenny's view of the lack of evidence for God reminds me of ABC's view of the lack of evidence for evolution.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

This is not the argument ACB presented, (even though I find more holes in it than swiss cheese) but even if he did, the men in the video themselves don’t claim the points discussed as proof of God, they simply call it “a good reason to believe God exists.

Ken

I'm glad you actually watched the video.

I'd love to hear the holes you see in it.

He basically makes the point (via deduction) that when determining how the Universe began, you eventually get to a single (uncaused) being who has to be non physical, non material, (because he created those things) powerful, personal, etc. etc. IOW has all the attributes of the God he worships.
Now to a person who presupposed the existence of God, it will make sense that God created the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the Big Bang, which resulted in what we now know as the Universe; which is the point he is trying to make (I believe even the Pope made that point). He isn’t claiming this as proof of God, he just claims it as a good reason to believe, and I’m sure believers will see this as a good conformation of what they already believe to be true.

Now obviously to someone who does not presuppose the existence of God, this deduction isn’t going to work. To deduce that only one thing can be uncaused, and this one thing has to be a being that is non material (what ever that means), personal, powerful, etc. etc. especially when there is no evidence (other than personal deduction) that leads one to believe this, its not going to go very far with a non believer. The non believer is going to remain unconvinced, forced to remain content with having to admit that he doesn’t have an answer to the Universe, because he is unwilling to accept this one.

Ken

Kenny,

You may need to reread this thread.

Presupposing God or not presupposing God, has no relevance to the logic.

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote: I think you mean blind faith.

We don't believe God is eternal because of blind faith. We believe God is eternal because of logic.

See Aquinas' Five ways, for example.

Yes, fate/faith, silly mistake, haven't seen that.

Logic and truth are not necessarily the same. You cannot deduct truth from what seems to be logical statements. To accept those statements as truth needs faith.
To accept something just because someone said so needs blind faith.

You seem to have the same problem that Kenny has. You need to understand what you're arguing against, before you argue against it.

Saying that those that believe in Aquinas' 5 ways, believe because of blind faith, shows you have no idea what you're arguing against. If you can't be honest enough to make an attempt to understand the other side's argument, you're just wasting our time.

Aquinas made his points based on assumptions. Thus his assumptions need to be right. If the assumptions are wrong, the conclusions are wrong.
The same goes for making a wrong twist to some seemingly logical conclusions. That's stacking the deck.
Since his 5 ways are philosophical of nature, believing it takes faith. Believing it without questioning whether he is right takes blind faith.

I wonder, do you attempt to understand the materialistic worldview? Can you understand it?

Then simply show where they are wrong.

While I'm busy trying to do that... Have you no doubts of any kind about Aquinas reasonings and conclusions? Are those 5 ways all and completely correct?

RickD wrote:Kenny,

You may need to reread this thread.

Presupposing God or not presupposing God, has no relevance to the logic.

Ah yes... I remember that thread. I was asking why assume a single first cause rather than multiple first causes. If I recall correctly, we spent too much time on distractions like whether or not it is possible for two separate things to be identical or not; time that should have been spent on the question at hand.
If I recall correctly, after much digging and prying, the closest I got to an actual answer was something like "because a single first cause makes more sense, and is more logical" obviously I disagreed and the thread ended without me getting an answer I found convincing.

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny's view of the lack of evidence for God reminds me of ABC's view of the lack of evidence for evolution.

We should discuss it sometimes then because my overall point is there is no credible mechanism for how life evolves and no real evidence of speciation.So when I say there is no evidence I'm referring to this.I know there are mountains of evidence behind evolution but without a credible mechanism and it does'nt mean much to have mountains of evidence for a theory you don't even know is true based on the examples given for evidence life evolves. I really believe that a serious and honest debate needs to be had amongst biologists when it comes to speciation.And until I see a credible mechanism I'm going to continue to claim that based on the evidence that has been dug out of the earth two different worlds better represents what the evidence is telling us.And that the life that lived in the former world is not related to the life in this world because the former world perished completely until God made this world and produced the life for this world we live in now.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

This is not the argument ACB presented, (even though I find more holes in it than swiss cheese) but even if he did, the men in the video themselves don’t claim the points discussed as proof of God, they simply call it “a good reason to believe God exists.

Ken

I'm glad you actually watched the video.

I'd love to hear the holes you see in it.

He basically makes the point (via deduction) that when determining how the Universe began, you eventually get to a single (uncaused) being who has to be non physical, non material, (because he created those things) powerful, personal, etc. etc. IOW has all the attributes of the God he worships.
Now to a person who presupposed the existence of God, it will make sense that God created the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the Big Bang, which resulted in what we now know as the Universe; which is the point he is trying to make (I believe even the Pope made that point). He isn’t claiming this as proof of God, he just claims it as a good reason to believe, and I’m sure believers will see this as a good conformation of what they already believe to be true.

Now obviously to someone who does not presuppose the existence of God, this deduction isn’t going to work. To deduce that only one thing can be uncaused, and this one thing has to be a being that is non material (what ever that means), personal, powerful, etc. etc. especially when there is no evidence (other than personal deduction) that leads one to believe this, its not going to go very far with a non believer. The non believer is going to remain unconvinced, forced to remain content with having to admit that he doesn’t have an answer to the Universe, because he is unwilling to accept this one.

Ken

I realize WLC's argument is alittle different than the one I used that is a simplified version of Aquinas's arguments for God. I have always kind of wondered why WLC uses the Kalam argument instead of Aquinas's because I think Aquinas's packs more of a punch because it is based on evidence.So that when you claim these kinds of arguments are only convincing to a person who presupposes God you must ignore evidence while having none to think otherwise,yet still do it anyway.So even if you admit that you don't have an answer to the Universe you are still ignoring evidence in order to think like that.I mean a person can choose to believe anything they choose to,but if it is not based on evidence? The person is choosing to disregard evidence which makes it impossible to get to the truth. I mean even if you say you don't know about the Universe you're ignoring the facts of our world as we know it now in order to claim that you have no answer. It still is not based on evidence to look at it that way but even worse is because you're denying evidence waiting for another answer besides the idea of a God will never be answered because man cannot alter reality and facts and change reality. So don't expect an answer to come even if you reject the God answer.It is a state of denial of facts and reality that cannot change based on the facts.In other words science may ignore philosophy but it cannot get around the facts that will remain in their way.

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote: I think you mean blind faith.

We don't believe God is eternal because of blind faith. We believe God is eternal because of logic.

See Aquinas' Five ways, for example.

Yes, fate/faith, silly mistake, haven't seen that.

Logic and truth are not necessarily the same. You cannot deduct truth from what seems to be logical statements. To accept those statements as truth needs faith.
To accept something just because someone said so needs blind faith.

You seem to have the same problem that Kenny has. You need to understand what you're arguing against, before you argue against it.

Saying that those that believe in Aquinas' 5 ways, believe because of blind faith, shows you have no idea what you're arguing against. If you can't be honest enough to make an attempt to understand the other side's argument, you're just wasting our time.

Aquinas made his points based on assumptions. Thus his assumptions need to be right. If the assumptions are wrong, the conclusions are wrong.
The same goes for making a wrong twist to some seemingly logical conclusions. That's stacking the deck.
Since his 5 ways are philosophical of nature, believing it takes faith. Believing it without questioning whether he is right takes blind faith.

I wonder, do you attempt to understand the materialistic worldview? Can you understand it?

Then simply show where they are wrong.

Well, first of all... his original text is difficult to grasp. He clearly didn't write that overnight and must have taken a lot of time to get that on paper. Luckily there are many 'translations' that are easier to understand.

Secondly, Aquinas first (pre)assumption is that God exists. The conclusions he brings then forward are then already tainted by that first assumption.
Like using the word "mover", which is 'leading' towards an intelligent cause.

As for the first way: he concludes that there has to be a first mover, 'something' that is stationary in it's unchanging state, which he identifies by being God.

Aquinas wrote:... If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

In fact, this is a strong case against God. For God is said to be without cause, to be forever, infinity. That is impossible by Aquina's first way. (surely God will be an exeption in this)
But the most relevant question is "How does he come to the conclusion that the first mover has to be God? He summes up a series of logical situations/conclusions, and then, suddenly, at the end, it is God!

As for the second way: the same problem with the first cause is that it is indeterminable to theorize that first cause, since we humans have not enough data to determine it. Any absolute conclusion ignores therefore all other possibilities.
He concludes that since there can be no inifinit causes:

Aquina wrote:... But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause,...

he only sees that from our current present day. How old can the universe become? Another 13 billion years? Infinity? Will the second way hold true through all our universes coming history?

As for the third way: it is about the origin of life. Is life God givven or can it also come into existence by evolution? Since none can be ferivied as yet, any ultimate conclusion is prejudiced and possibly wrong.
If you believe that the origin of life cannot come through evolution, well, yes, then God is the only solution.

The fourth way is ignorant to the possibility we humans might have developped the qualities of "good, true and noble" by ourselves.

As for the fifth way: one has to believe that things have a goal. But do they? Does the lack of life having a goal makes life useless? Accepting that is like digging at the very foundation of our existence.
I can imagine Aquina couldn't, thus his only alternative was... God.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

This is not the argument ACB presented, (even though I find more holes in it than swiss cheese) but even if he did, the men in the video themselves don’t claim the points discussed as proof of God, they simply call it “a good reason to believe God exists.

Ken

I'm glad you actually watched the video.

I'd love to hear the holes you see in it.

He basically makes the point (via deduction) that when determining how the Universe began, you eventually get to a single (uncaused) being who has to be non physical, non material, (because he created those things) powerful, personal, etc. etc. IOW has all the attributes of the God he worships.
Now to a person who presupposed the existence of God, it will make sense that God created the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the Big Bang, which resulted in what we now know as the Universe; which is the point he is trying to make (I believe even the Pope made that point). He isn’t claiming this as proof of God, he just claims it as a good reason to believe, and I’m sure believers will see this as a good conformation of what they already believe to be true.

Now obviously to someone who does not presuppose the existence of God, this deduction isn’t going to work. To deduce that only one thing can be uncaused, and this one thing has to be a being that is non material (what ever that means), personal, powerful, etc. etc. especially when there is no evidence (other than personal deduction) that leads one to believe this, its not going to go very far with a non believer. The non believer is going to remain unconvinced, forced to remain content with having to admit that he doesn’t have an answer to the Universe, because he is unwilling to accept this one.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: I realize WLC's argument is alittle different than the one I used that is a simplified version of Aquinas's arguments for God. I have always kind of wondered why WLC uses the Kalam argument instead of Aquinas's because I think Aquinas's packs more of a punch because it is based on evidence.

Why don’t you provide Aquinas argument, or whatever argument you feel packs more punch, and I will either accept it, or explain why it doesn’t pack any punch thus reject it.

abelcainsbrother wrote: So that when you claim these kinds of arguments are only convincing to a person who presupposes God you must ignore evidence while having none to think otherwise,yet still do it anyway.So even if you admit that you don't have an answer to the Universe you are still ignoring evidence in order to think like that.

No; present the argument, I will not ignore it but will explain why I accept it or reject it. Now don’t give me a book to read, or a link that is 100 pages long, I am asking you to explain this argument, or any argument you find convincing in your own words; and I will respond; not ignore. Agree? I will be looking foreword to your argument.

Ken

All this certainty God doesn't exist is just proving my beliefs surrounding Atheists. If one doesn't see the first line of evidences such the orderly world as requiring some super intelligence, then chances are nothing else presented will change their minds.

What I see is first needed, is a changing life experience, one that can remove the tough outer shell from around their hearts. Then, after being shocked, they might have a chance to see the world more clearly and a truer meaning and purpose in their own lives.

Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to debate evidences, don't forget everyone has positions. Those who disagree have much must to prove themselves with their beliefs. Don't let them keep asking you to put something on the table to swipe off, while they put nothing on in return. Such is just being played a fool by a fool imo.

K: If one doesn't see the first line of evidences such the orderly world as requiring some super intelligence, then chances are nothing else presented will change their minds.

Absolutely! Because the only alternative is that some blind, random, non-God, non-intelligent, eternal cause or causes created stupendous design, order and incredible interactive precision on a galactic scale as well as on the microscopic and sub-atomic scales - things that exhibit every known criteria requiring massive intelligence - to the point that mankind's greatest minds have barely scratched the surface of what can be understood of what exists and how it came to. And that's just not rational. We have ZERO indications of real/material-world examples of this being possible. It's a fantasy of those desperate to assert God does not exist!

Kurieuo wrote:All this certainty God doesn't exist is just proving my beliefs surrounding Atheists. If one doesn't see the first line of evidences such the orderly world as requiring some super intelligence, then chances are nothing else presented will change their minds.

What I see is first needed, is a changing life experience, one that can remove the tough outer shell from around their hearts. Then, after being shocked, they might have a chance to see the world more clearly and a truer meaning and purpose in their own lives.

Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to debate evidences, don't forget everyone has positions. Those who disagree have much must to prove themselves with their beliefs. Don't let them keep asking you to put something on the table to swipe off, while they put nothing on in return. Such is just being played a fool by a fool imo.

This is why I no longer present evidence to atheists to try to convince them God exists and instead I tell them if you want proof God is real then get saved by Jesus because once you're born again it will become clear.I only present evidence to show I can give evidence.

Kurieuo wrote:
Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to debate evidences, don't forget everyone has positions. Those who disagree have much must to prove themselves with their beliefs. Don't let them keep asking you to put something on the table to swipe off, while they put nothing on in return. Such is just being played a fool by a fool imo.

The problem is when there is someone who insult me by accusing me of ignoring evidence, that I have no interest in the truth, and that I choose to remain in a state of denial because I reject his claims. I will never put anything on that table (because I don’t claim to have the answers to the Universe), and I will continue to swipe off anything he puts on the table as long as his evidence is as faulty as has been.
If he refrained from insulting me this way, things would be much easier for him, (but he can’t stop being himself) so as long as he does; I will continue to hold his feet to the fire by insisting he provides evidence, (put something on the table to back up his claim) without providing any myself, and in doing this he will always be at the disadvantage, and he will always lose, walk away from the discussion without making his case, then return in a few months and make the same empty claims all over again. Kinda like bubble gum on the bottom of your shoe; just never goes away ya know?

Because Kenny doesn't understand first cause, he things that multiple first causes ( a logical contradiction like a square circle) are possible.

ACB: This is why I no longer present evidence to atheists to try to convince them God exists and instead I tell them if you want proof God is real then get saved by Jesus...

You should rethink that a bit. Because there ARE some atheists and agnostics who are willing to change their minds, presented the right evidences - particularly the younger they are, because they often haven't been exposed to it. Look at Sir Anthony Flew - a famous atheist who, late in life, finally realized the evidenced showed there must be a god - even though he never embraced the Christian God, he realized that what exists on such a scale of immense complexity necessitated a Creator. But what I would NOT do is go much beyond giving some basic powerful evidences - and challenging them to experiment: To sincerely ASK God to reveal himself to them. But I would not continue a long dialogue with one obviously intent upon their on disbelief - and I'd point that out to them: Meaning, if a person is determined to not believe, he cannot. And then I'd only respond to sincere questions.