Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:28 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:47 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:39 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:43 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:46 am

With "X" being cells, there is empirical evidence concerning the existence of Cells.

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:28 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:47 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:39 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:43 am

But that's not what you said. You said there was empirical evidence that cells always existed.

You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:25 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:28 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:47 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:39 am
You've obviously misunderstood me. That's not what I said. Go back and read what I wrote.

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:10 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:25 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:28 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:47 am

Come on Kenny!

You said that X equals cells, and Y equals God.

And you said that there's scientific empirical evidence that X always existed.

You might want to go back and read what you wrote.

From post #82

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:55 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:10 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:25 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:28 am

From post #82

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”
My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Now in this scenario, “X” represents the cell, and “Y” represents God. I never said I had proof (or even believed) that “X” (cells) had an eternal existence, I was just saying the likelihood of them having such an existence sounds more practical to me than “Y” (God) creating them. After all, if they did have an eternal existence, how would we know?

How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

How does a rock change? And as far as what is said to be unchanging, I couldn't care less; people say all sorts of things, I'm talking about that which is proven to be unchanging.

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:30 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:55 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:10 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:25 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm



How would we know if cells were eternal? We know they're NOT eternal, because they change. Entropy shows us that they're not eternal.

Something eternal, has to be unchanging. And for the life of me, I cannot think of anything that would be said to be unchanging. Can you think of something that's said to be unchanging?

Dirt? Rocks?

Nope. Just look at what they're both made of, and you'll see they're not unchanging.

You're a smart guy. I bet if you put your mind to it, and honestly look into it, you can come up with something that is said to be unchanging. Search along the lines of something that is pure act. Something without potentiality.

How does a rock change? And as far as what is said to be unchanging, I couldn't care less; people say all sorts of things, I'm talking about that which is proven to be unchanging.

Asking you to accept the immutability of God, is like asking someone to believe that 2+2=4, when he doesn't believe that numbers exist.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:03 am Wow....Geologists are having a fit right now...

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/e ... /rock.html

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:39 am

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:18 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:39 am

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:39 am

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:36 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:18 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:39 am

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

Wow.

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:24 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:36 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:18 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:39 am

Numbers are actually just representative tokens we use when calculating the sum of things that DO exist! So even though 2+2=4, numbers themselves do not exist.

So if I write down the number Two, what do I have?

A thin layer of lead (or ink) on top of a sheet of paper

Wow.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a great example of the bizarro world that is Ken's mind!