Evidence for God from Science

trulyenlightened wrote:If you are going to comment of the late Professor S-T-E-N-G-E-R(Victor), at least spell his name correctly. He held a Professorship in Physics, Astronomy and Philosophy. He was a Particle Physicist who contributed to the groundbreaking work on gamma rays, quarks and gluons. His last project was working on an underground experiment, that proved that neutrinos have mass. He was considered in the same ranks as Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, thus the "fifth horseman" of the New Atheists. He was best known for his remark that, "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".

Don, why so much fuss because I happened to write an i instead of an e?
But it was interesting to listen to his speech. Tunneling on a cosmic scale was new to me.

Nils , I agree with everything but your conclusion. Maybe I miss something from your train of logic. "Stinger asks the question: Is there anything in the Bible that people didn't know at the time the Bible was written?" Are you saying that at the time the Bible was written, that people know the same that we know today about medicine, cosmology, and biology? How could they know anything before those things even existed, let alone understood them? Are you suggesting that if someone from Biblical times were somehow transported into our time, that they would not be surprised by what they see? Again, maybe I misunderstand what you were trying to say. Don

Sorry for being unclear. At the time the Bible was written there were some (very little, I agree) knowledge of science. If God inspired the writing of the Bible we could (or even should) expect that some extra knowledge would be found in the Bible, but there is no extra knowledge. It's just as there were no godly inspiration, at least on issues related to science.

Nils

Nils wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:If you are going to comment of the late Professor S-T-E-N-G-E-R(Victor), at least spell his name correctly. He held a Professorship in Physics, Astronomy and Philosophy. He was a Particle Physicist who contributed to the groundbreaking work on gamma rays, quarks and gluons. His last project was working on an underground experiment, that proved that neutrinos have mass. He was considered in the same ranks as Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, thus the "fifth horseman" of the New Atheists. He was best known for his remark that, "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".

Don, why so much fuss because I happened to write an i instead of an e?
But it was interesting to listen to his speech. Tunneling on a cosmic scale was new to me.

Nils , I agree with everything but your conclusion. Maybe I miss something from your train of logic. "Stinger asks the question: Is there anything in the Bible that people didn't know at the time the Bible was written?" Are you saying that at the time the Bible was written, that people know the same that we know today about medicine, cosmology, and biology? How could they know anything before those things even existed, let alone understood them? Are you suggesting that if someone from Biblical times were somehow transported into our time, that they would not be surprised by what they see? Again, maybe I misunderstand what you were trying to say. Don

Sorry for being unclear. At the time the Bible was written there were some (very little, I agree) knowledge of science. If God inspired the writing of the Bible we could (or even should) expect that some extra knowledge would be found in the Bible, but there is no extra knowledge. It's just as there were no godly inspiration, at least on issues related to science.

Nils

The late Professor Stenger was one of the scientist that inspired me into my chosen vocation. I have the utmost respect for his groundbreaking works, including he and his team's contribution towards advancing our understanding of science. So, I apologize for being a bit sensitive to how the late Professor's name is spelled. There are NO scientific explanations written in the Bible. And as you say, IF God inspired the writing of the Bible, how could man have been scientifically inspired?

Until you can distinguish between what is Godly inspiration and what is Natural inspiration, I can only go with necessity as being the "mother of all inventions". That is, "when the need for something becomes essential, you are forced to find ways of getting or achieving it". Therefore, inspiration without prior or related knowledge is otiose and useless. Knowledge begins with the understanding of simply relationships, observations, and ideas first. It then takes time to evolve into an understanding of the more complex ideas second. It is based on a pattern of trial and errors, successes and failures, and perseverance and sacrifice. Just because you are inspired to become wealthy, doesn't mean that you will(like 90% of the world's population). Don

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul, I don't need to have a 100% understanding of Christianity, to be able to read english.

By the very same logic, our friend Abel, the proponent of the gap theory can say this:

I don't need to have a 100% understanding of evolution, to be able to read english

.

Touché. Since neither is possible or achievable(100% understanding of anything), you can apply this logic in any way you like. It was not my claim to have 100% understanding of the behavior of Christians, or Scripture. It was a claim made of me, not by me. Just another intellectually dishonest straw man argument. Would you like to address any of the other comments I made, other than the only statement that you apparently chose to read? But why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a good story? Don

PaulSacramento wrote:So, by me stating and showing that people are the issue and NOT science or religion, what I was doing was "rationalizing" a difference between what is done in the name of science compared to religion?

Wow...I think we have our answer guys.

It was YOU that was caught out trying to appeal to the emotions(pathos) of others, by introducing a site depicting the "7 evil medical experiment" by science. You were caught out implying that these depictions are not the exception in science, but the rule. You were just being intellectually dishonest, why can't you just admit it and move on? Instead I have to listen to a lot of unrelated, dishonest, philosophical mumbo claptrap. Don

Talk about the New atheist - well these folks are rude and utterly cruel with no mercy in their hearts, no compassion, and blind to the ability to actually reason...by claiming they can reason... they are bigots, bullies, and narcissistic to the extreme and some are even psychopathic anti -social and some even schizoidtypal... their need for acclaim and accolades is astounding.

But the fact remains, they will all die someday and all they did for themselves is for nothing... a real tragedy - their life has utterly no meaning whatsoever, nothing... all they do and say and all the science - worthless - all is nihilism. Wife, kids, family friends, peers all meaningless...

Just a matter of time when the killer asteroid hits the earth and boom all gone...
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote:

Your academic accreditations are irrelevant,

One imagines the response if that comment was directed to a person with a masters degree in biology discussing evolution...

Ah the sheer bias of it all...and he wonders why we take what he says with a grain of salt.

Don, you have NOT demonstrated a desire, a will, to actually learn our views since, quite obviously, you are truly enlightened and we are mere mortals who's education and experiences are, and I quote, irrelevant.

I wouldn't need to direct that comment to anyone with those credentials. And, yet it is you that champion the credibility of your belief behind those credentialed scientist that share your similar narratives and beliefs. Ah, the hypocrisy of it all! What makes you think that knowledge is exclusive, and only for the educated? Since all you have done so far is insult, demean, deny, dismiss, make accusations, avoid, criticized, misrepresent, threaten, or make fallacious arguments, I have heard very little about your particular views. I have been too busy addressing all these non-Christian-like responses. You can always hide behind your own self-serving accusations. At least in that way you can maintain the perception of truth, and avoid intellectual exposure. Don

B. W. wrote:Talk about the New atheist - well these folks are rude and utterly cruel with no mercy in their hearts, no compassion, and blind to the ability to actually reason...by claiming they can reason... they are bigots, bullies, and narcissistic to the extreme and some are even psychopathic anti -social and some even schizoidtypal... their need for acclaim and accolades is astounding.

But the fact remains, they will all die someday and all they did for themselves is for nothing... a real tragedy - their life has utterly no meaning whatsoever, nothing... all they do and say and all the science - worthless - all is nihilism. Wife, kids, family friends, peers all meaningless...

Just a matter of time when the killer asteroid hits the earth and boom all gone...
-
-
-

I am neither a new or old Atheist. I am an open-minded honest skeptic, that follows the facts wherever they lead. I can accept that my comments could be interpreted as rude, uncompassionate, or even narcissistic. But a bigoted bully is a bit of a stretch. Since people without any religious affiliation represent a mere 16% of the entire global population, it is the other affiliated 84% of psychopaths, schizophrenics, sociopaths, that I would be worried about. What people believe in may be the source of their strength. I have tried to avoid commenting on beliefs, but have constantly been drawn into it. So again, I have my own beliefs, which also gives me strength, purpose, and direction. I have no right to comment on anyone's beliefs. I could be 100% wrong. My thread was only to explain natural phenomenon from a scientific perspective, for those that are interested.

I think when the global population reaches 12 Billion people, the Asteroid will be the least of your worries. Don

Since people without any religious affiliation represent a mere 16% of the entire global population, it is the other affiliated 84% of psychopaths, schizophrenics, sociopaths, that I would be worried about.

Wow, enough said.
16% have no religious affiliation
84% are affiliated "psychopaths, schizophrenics, sociopaths".
Nice.

Honestly, I don't think that when someone makes a statement like that (Since people without any religious affiliation represent a mere 16% of the entire global population, it is the other affiliated 84% of psychopaths, schizophrenics, sociopaths, that I would be worried about.), it speaks volumes.

Religion has given us some of the worlds greatest thinkers, healers, scientists and moralists and Mr "trulyenlightend" believes they are "psychopaths, schizophrenics, sociopaths".

Nice.

And yet:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... gy-atheism

And:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ps ... ad-atheism

TrulyE was only here to argue against Christianity in a very arrogant manner - he couldn't be civil and not unnecessarily and deliberately offensive. It's OK to disagree, but it is NOT OK to spam up the site with constant, arrogantly made, sarcastic-filled assertions, as per one only here to argue against Christianity. This is a guy who would never concede the slightest point when shown he was wrong - I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to argue something black was actually white. Byblos took him to school with what he didn't understand about Aquinas, but he was too prideful to concede even his slightest error.

As for the necessary origins of all contingent things, he believed in the equivalent of magic - in some unproven to be possible eternal chain of things in which the magic ingredient of limitless time could create what only a massive intelligence could - an intelligence so unfathomable that we barely have been able to understand countless complex marvels of the universe and earth. He admited that what he asserted of the pre-physical past could not be validated by a methodology (science!) that is not equipped to measure such, and yet he irrelevantly regurgitated lengthy posts of meaningless "science talk" - as if it could explain the eternal, pre-physical chain he insisted existed. Even more ridiculous was his constant assertions about evolution - a WAY secondary and entirely dependent series of supposed events - AS IF they in any way explained the origins of the physical world and life or refuted the necessity for God. And in the height of his cluelessness, he tried to apply his science babble to his obviously enormous ignorance of Scripture and theology.

To me, perhaps saddest, is a person who claims to be open-minded refuses to seek God. He, at points, admitted that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and yet he was unwilling to do a simple personal test that has the potential to answer that question. That tells me he's closed in heart and mind and is uninterested in any truth of the matter beyond what he's already declared it to be. One day he'll stand before God without excuse!

Did I miss anything???

This is the guy that ,when pointed out that Aquinas NEVER said that everything has cause, that he said that only things that are contingent ( need a cause to exist) have causes replied that, since everything is contingent then everything has a cause and that Aquinas means that and that, of course, leads to "who caused God"?

The sheer silliness of the whole thing...

Ah! I see he got banned.I was actually wanting to continue and I know some of you doubt me but when it comes to The Gap Theory vs The Theory of Evolution but I can feel it coming.It is coming and evolution is going to be destroyed.I reduced Truly from a scientific mind to somebody who just preaches and declares evolution is true.I actually can do it with or without the Gap Theory but I think it is better to present an alternative theory to evolution using much of the same evidence and this is the case because Charles Darwin came along and hyjacked the evidence that had been discovered by Christians who started modern science like Geologists Lyell and William Buckland who believed the Gap Theory before Charles Darwin came along and so the evidence is much of the same evidence and evolutionists are just looking at it from an evolution perspective instead of a lost world perspective.

I mean go back and read the beginning post he made all about evolution,yet when confronted with the facts about the lack of a credible mechanism he did not want to get into the evidence and so he hides behind his belief life evolves.Also my argument about speciation was true and a Great Dane and Chiuahuah cannot breed and yet we do not claim they evolved into a new species and there are many more examples I could've got into and scientists already know this too but still choose to make believe when it comes to evolution.I mean not being able to breed still produces normal variation amongst the population too,not evolution.I would not call the normal variation amongst the populations that we all see and observe micro-evolution.Because it is just the normal variation we get in all populations through reproduction,so to call this micro-evolution is giving evolution too much benefit of the doubt.Next I was going to get into DNA but he is gone now.So I'll save it for another time.

In The Air Tonight.
https://youtu.be/u1_OfmrPAfo

PaulSacramento wrote:

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

All we know is that some fluctuation or movement at the quantum level sparked it. Quantum mechanics/physics is currently hard for people to understand, but it doesn't rule out God. I forget how they demonstrated it, but it makes sense to me.
What if we're a balloon inside heaven?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

All we know is that some fluctuation or movement at the quantum level sparked it. Quantum mechanics/physics is currently hard for people to understand, but it doesn't rule out God. I forget how they demonstrated it, but it makes sense to me.
What if we're a balloon inside heaven?

My point is the issue of definitions.
A miracle, by definition, is an even that is not explainable by natural or scientific laws.

What natural or scientific laws explain the big bang?

None.