Evidence for God from Science

But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation

Forgive the intrusion here Ken, but it seems whether it's credible or not .... you will not accept an explanation, if it's not yours.

edwardmurphy wrote:

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)

Meh, more games. It's really important to some Christians that atheism be defined as "The belief that gods don't exist" because they think it will let them evade, or at least share, burden of proof. I think that the argument misses the point because it takes atheism - a belief about an unverifiable claim made by theists - and tries to turn it into a belief about gods. Theists have beliefs about gods. Atheists have beliefs about theism.

Actually using some of your own logic, Theists don't have beliefs about gods, but about God.
In the past, during the times of Rome, Christians were once called Atheists.

If you define an Atheist as a person who does not accept Theism (which is really not accepting that a personal God exists).
Then Christians are Apolytheists who do not accept Polytheism (that gods exists).

Ken wrote:
Perhaps eternal matter has always been in a state of motion; thus nothing caused it to contract and expand. The real answer is I do not know. I am just making stuff up that I feel could be possibilities. But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation if it doesn't sound credible.

Ok Kenny,

I won't press the issue. I believe I got you to think about what you were proposing. And seeing how the rest of the discussions have gone, I think it's a step in the right direction.

Philip wrote:

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.

Yes, and bats my fly out of my butt - that doesn't mean it's possible in the REAL world/universe! All scientific observation and analysis is based upon what is KNOWN to exist - not as to what MIGHT exist. Theoretical, unobserved things make fun chat, sell comic books, etc., but let's please stick to what we KNOW, not what we THINK is THEORETICALLY possible.

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.

But this is also theoretical and without the slightest proof or data. It's like belief in the Tooth Fairy. And IF the multi-verse exists, it in no way solves the problem for non-theists, as even a chain of universes had to start with the first link/universe in that chain - and so, pray tell, WHAT started THAT theoretical first link in the chain, and all of the incredible complexity that would entail. So, with the multiverse, you've merely kicked the theological debate further back in time. It's like people that assert life on earth came from ancient aliens or from other worlds. But WHERE did the ORIGINS of such life come from. There HAS to be a beginning to EVERYTHING - or it has to spring from something else - and so, EVERYTHING also has to have a CAUSE.

Are you talking to me?

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote: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.

I'm wondering what is it that defines religion to you?
Does one need to subscribe to a particular authority such as a church.
Dictionary definition is belief and worship of God, but I don't really consider myself religious.
I do believe in Christ, but that said, I don't subscribe to any religious body and consider myself quite free thinking.

The main point of difference I see between an Atheist and myself is that I believe in the truths Christ revealed.
Hmm, now I think on it that's not entirely true, because there's so much I believe points to God that I couldn't possibly believe God doesn't exist.
At the same time, short of Christ, I'd be lost about who the heck this God is.

In any case, just offering some further reflection here.
There seems to be a lot of baggage that I don't see of myself attached to the word "religion".
What are your thoughts?

I think that a religion is best described as a system of beliefs based on the worship of a supernatural entity/entities. I don't know that one necessarily has to attend church to be religious, but I think they have to have some sort of consistent belief system. If they don't then they'd be more spiritual than religious, no? Then again, maybe not. Who knows. "Religion" is one of those words that gets used and abused quite a bit and it means different things to different people. I'm hardly an authority, you know?

I think the beliefs that you're describing are what people mean when they say they're "spiritual but not religious."

Where you write, "Religion" is one of those words that gets used and abused quite a bit and it means different things to different people, I'd agree with this statement.

I'd reject just being "spiritual", as though I just pick and choose my spiritual beliefs.
I've met New Age-like people who consider themselves spiritual but not religious. They often seem confused.
Still, neither do I consider myself "religious".

Catholics I see as religious. Their practices are very elaborate and ritualised.
Likewise Protestants who develop a lot of "religious language" and "practices" that those on the in understand.
Sometimes I think certain Atheists are more religious than myself, but really by that I mean overtly zealous.

In any case, I've studied a little philosophy of religion.
By and large, out there "religion" is about God, since really that topic is do with reasoning and arguments for/against God.
SO whatever I feel religion is or isn't has been largely coloured by my own life experiences.

That said, for some reason I feel just as insulted to be called religious as you'd probably be.
It's a feeling that I just can't shake. Religious people follow. They accept and don't challenge. That's the perception.
Luther challenged religion. He could be called religious, but broke away from it there.
Jesus challenged the religious authorities of his day who had added to the Mosaic Law. Now, you might call Jesus religious but he doesn't appear to me as such. Christ is about freedom. Religion is chains and shackles.

What I feel about what it is, is very different from what it might be though.
It's an interesting contradiction.

As for why I was asking you? I wanted to see how you would respond.
Whether claws would be out to try and make some point, or you'd be more tempered.
You were the latter.

Kurieuo: Are you talking to me?

Sorry, K-Man, I just get rowdy when people throw out unsubstantiated theoreticals into a debate.

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:
Perhaps eternal matter has always been in a state of motion; thus nothing caused it to contract and expand. The real answer is I do not know. I am just making stuff up that I feel could be possibilities. But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation if it doesn't sound credible.

Ok Kenny,

I won't press the issue. I believe I got you to think about what you were proposing. And seeing how the rest of the discussions have gone, I think it's a step in the right direction.

The only thing I was proposing what that it is not irrational, nor does it go against science to dismiss the claim God did it as an explanation for the Universe; which is what Philip claimed

Ken

Ken: The only thing I was proposing what that it is not irrational, nor does it go against science to dismiss the claim God did it as an explanation for the Universe; which is what Philip claimed

Ken

But what you are saying goes against established science, common sense, and ALL known observations: NOTHING physical can simply POP into a physical realm, UNCAUSED and then immediately begin organizing itself with immense power, direction and purpose, and according to the incredible and comprehensive manner in which they necessarily did! Call it mere belief or even faith that this is possible, much less that it actually happened is believe in metaphysics - "POP Metaphysics. But Ken apparently believes THAT is possible (call it the Great UNCAUSED, Miraculous Force, if you must), but that the same results coming from an UNCAUSED God, with the very same abilities and results, is impossible. that seems highly inconsistent and irrational. Why would you think one is even possible but that the other is not?!!!

Ken: The only thing I was proposing what that it is not irrational, nor does it go against science to dismiss the claim God did it as an explanation for the Universe; which is what Philip claimed

Ken

But what you are saying goes against established science, common sense, and ALL known observations: NOTHING physical can simply POP into a physical realm, UNCAUSED, and then immediately begin organizing itself with immense power, direction and purpose, and according to the incredible and comprehensive manner in which things necessarily did! Call it mere belief or even faith that this is possible, much less to believe it actually happened, but this is to believe in and embrace metaphysics - "POP Metaphysics." But Ken apparently believes THAT is possible (call it the Great UNCAUSED, Miraculous Force, if you must), but that the same results coming from an UNCAUSED God, with the very same abilities and results, are impossible. But that seems highly inconsistent and irrational. Why would you think one is even possible but that the other is NOT???!!!

Philip wrote:

Ken: The only thing I was proposing what that it is not irrational, nor does it go against science to dismiss the claim God did it as an explanation for the Universe; which is what Philip claimed

Ken

But what you are saying goes against established science, common sense, and ALL known observations: NOTHING physical can simply POP into a physical realm, UNCAUSED and then immediately begin organizing itself with immense power, direction and purpose,

Did you even read what I wrote? Read what I wrote and you will see I said nothing of the sort.

Ken

oooh so kenny is kenny....so simple

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:
Perhaps eternal matter has always been in a state of motion; thus nothing caused it to contract and expand. The real answer is I do not know. I am just making stuff up that I feel could be possibilities. But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation if it doesn't sound credible.

Ok Kenny,

I won't press the issue. I believe I got you to think about what you were proposing. And seeing how the rest of the discussions have gone, I think it's a step in the right direction.

The only thing I was proposing what that it is not irrational, nor does it go against science to dismiss the claim God did it as an explanation for the Universe; which is what Philip claimed

Ken

Kenny,
Of course it's irrational for you to dismiss the claim that "God did it", because you have no proof that God didn't do it. Unless you want to hold to blind faith that God didn't do it.

You'd be better off playing the "I don't know" card.

Try as you will, coming up with "eternal matter" theories, you still haven't come up with anything more remotely logical than God did it.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation

Forgive the intrusion here Ken, but it seems whether it's credible or not .... you will not accept an explanation, if it's not yours.

No; if I found his explanation credible, I would accept it. Fact is, I find it flawed.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:
Perhaps eternal matter has always been in a state of motion; thus nothing caused it to contract and expand. The real answer is I do not know. I am just making stuff up that I feel could be possibilities. But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation if it doesn't sound credible.

Ok Kenny,

I won't press the issue. I believe I got you to think about what you were proposing. And seeing how the rest of the discussions have gone, I think it's a step in the right direction.

The only thing I was proposing what that it is not irrational, nor does it go against science to dismiss the claim God did it as an explanation for the Universe; which is what Philip claimed

Ken

RickD wrote:Kenny,
Of course it's irrational for you to dismiss the claim that "God did it", because you have no proof that God didn't do it.

Really??? If that’s the game you wanna play, I have no proof Bugs Bunny, Easter Bunny, or Marvin the Martian didn’t do it either! Is that irrational?

RickD wrote:Unless you want to hold to blind faith that God didn't do it.

Am I holding on to blind faith that Bugs bunny, Santa Clause, and Easter Bunny didn’t do it?

RickD wrote:You'd be better off playing the "I don't know" card.
Try as you will, coming up with "eternal matter" theories, you still haven't come up with anything more remotely logical than God did it.

How many times must I say I don’t have an answer? I was not trying to come up with something more logical than God did it, I was coming up with an alternative to God did it.

Ken

RickD wrote:
Kenny,
Of course it's irrational for you to dismiss the claim that "God did it", because you have no proof that God didn't do it.

Ken wrote:
Really??? If that’s the game you wanna play, I have no proof Bugs Bunny, Easter Bunny, or Marvin the Martian didn’t do it either! Is that irrational?
RickD wrote:
Unless you want to hold to blind faith that God didn't do it.

Ken wrote:
Am I holding on to blind faith that Bugs bunny, Santa Clause, and Easter Bunny didn’t do it?

kenny,

My point is that usually when someone dismisses a claim, in this case, the claim that God created the universe, one needs to show a reason why they dismiss the claim. And you've shown no reason. That's why you'd be better of saying that you don't know how the universe began, instead of dismissing a possibility that you have no way of logically dismissing.

ken wrote:
How many times must I say I don’t have an answer? I was not trying to come up with something more logical than God did it, I was coming up with an alternative to God did it.

Well, if you were trying to avoid logic, I'd say you succeeded!

This actually tells me a lot about your motives Kenny. You have no logical reason to dismiss the claim that God created the universe. So instead of coming up with a logical alternative idea about how the universe came into existence, you just come up with an illogical idea, just to avoid "God did it".

Why is that Kenny?