Evidence for God from Science

Ken: "There is no scientific theory that claims a time in history when absolutely nothing physically existed."

Ken, you don't even seem to know what constitutes as being the physical, nor what science's overwhelming consensus is about when the physical began to exist. As before the big bang, there was NO physical matter - not even particles. You just don't believe what science has widely asserted (From Cornell University): "In the beginning, there was not yet any matter." http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

From LiveScience.com (https://www.livescience.com/46506-states-of-matter.html): "Matter is the “stuff” of the universe — the atoms, molecules and ions that make up all physical substances. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space." And ALL of these did not exist before the BB began!

Ah, but what is matter? Wikipedia: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter": "Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space BY HAVING VOLUME. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but NOT other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having NO volume individually.

(Big Bang's first moments, 0 second to 10-43 second: We know only that point that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of NO volume.

Also, NO atoms, pre-Big Bang! Neither were there quarks, anti-quarks or electrons. And only after the quarks and anti-quarks came into existence and began combining and annihilating each other, did the remaining quarks begin to make up ALL the matter that exists in the universe. No matter, Ken (Wikipedia: "Matter is itself a PHYSICAL substance of which systems may be composed) and you have NOTHING physical - as, pre-BB, "There was not yet any matter." How in denial can you be? It's just that you don't even believe what science states, and many, many studies and tests have correlated to substantiate, with a very high degree of certainty.

So, Ken, what do you call the physical - if it has no volume, no matter, no particles, no atoms???!!! Science says without these things, there is NO physical. And that is the state is also says the universe was in before the Big Bang began!

Philip wrote:

Ken: "There is no scientific theory that claims a time in history when absolutely nothing physically existed."

Ken, you don't even seem to know what constitutes as being the physical, nor what science's overwhelming consensus is about when the physical began to exist. As before the big bang, there was NO physical matter - not even particles. You just don't believe what science has widely asserted (From Cornell University): "In the beginning, there was not yet any matter." http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

From LiveScience.com (https://www.livescience.com/46506-states-of-matter.html): "Matter is the “stuff” of the universe — the atoms, molecules and ions that make up all physical substances. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space." And ALL of these did not exist before the BB began!

Ah, but what is matter? Wikipedia: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter": "Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space BY HAVING VOLUME. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but NOT other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having NO volume individually.

(Big Bang's first moments, 0 second to 10-43 second: We know only that point that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of NO volume.

Also, NO atoms, pre-Big Bang! Neither were there quarks, anti-quarks or electrons. And only after the quarks and anti-quarks came into existence and began combining and annihilating each other, did the remaining quarks begin to make up ALL the matter that exists in the universe. No matter, Ken (Wikipedia: "Matter is itself a PHYSICAL substance of which systems may be composed) and you have NOTHING physical - as, pre-BB, "There was not yet any matter." How in denial can you be? It's just that you don't even believe what science states, and many, many studies and tests have correlated to substantiate, with a very high degree of certainty.

So, Ken, what do you call the physical - if it has no volume, no matter, no particles, no atoms???!!! Science says without these things, there is NO physical. And that is the state is also says the universe was in before the Big Bang began!

Okay; lemme see if I’ve got this straight. You made the claim that before the Big Bang, nothing physical existed; not even matter, and an intelligent first cause is responsible for all that exist.
I replied science doesn’t claim there was a time in history when nothing physical existed (note I said nothing about matter)
You rally back with a scientific link that says “in the beginning there was energy, (note according to physics, light and energy are physical) and this energy caused matter to exist” then it explains how.

And you see this link as proving me wrong, and you right? Am I missing something here?

Ken

Such as? What are these things that didn’t always exist, yet never came into existence?

What??
A contingent thing is one that comes into existence because of ( or owes its existence to) something else.

Actuality being that which brings things into existence, right? So why can’t there be more than one?

Ah, so you don't know what actuality and potentiality are.

EX:
A rubber ball is a rubber ball BUT it also has potential to be other things such as:
a melted pool of rubber, a rolling ball, a bouncing ball, etc.
It's potential to be something other than what it is happens when an outside force acts/moves/causes it to be something else.

Do you understand THIS part?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

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.

Promise? Does this mean you will not come at me again in a few months claiming the same old stuff; that I have no interest in the truth, I choose to remain in a state of denial, or that you present evidence but I just ignore it? And instead just say I need to get saved, then everything will become clear to me? I hope so.

Ken