Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Ken: How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe?

That is irrelevant to the question of origins, because WHATEVER exists and WHEREVER it does, there must be an origin that is eternal! Shifting the question beyond our universe doesn't solve the problem. But I would agree, there MAY be physical realities beyond our universe, unconnected, that still exist, or used to exist, that we cannot detect, due to the immense distance or gaps between. But that is all theoretical, and such things still need an eternal origin!

It may be irrelevant concerning the question of origins, but it is completely relevant concerning the point he made. He made God an exception to the logic he presented because God is outside the Universe, and the rules only apply to that within the Universe.

Ken

Wow.
For the last time, the argument does NOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause.

It states that whatever comes into being has a cause.
Do you see the difference?
NOT everything has a cause but something that comes into being has a cause.
This is a scientific fact.
We know that something that comes into being must have a cause, we know this by the scientific methods of observation, experimentation, falsification and so forth.

The argument is based on what is know and observable and undeniable about the universe we know.

Anything other than that is NOT applicable to the argument and does not refute it.

Same thing thing for the unmoved/first mover version of the argument.
It does NOT say that ALL things move, it says that things that DO MOVE, are moved by something else.

Stop trying to refute the argument by saying things it doesn't say.

PaulSacramento wrote:Wow.
For the last time, the argument does NOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause.

It states that whatever comes into being has a cause.
Do you see the difference?
NOT everything has a cause but something that comes into being has a cause.
This is a scientific fact.
We know that something that comes into being must have a cause, we know this by the scientific methods of observation, experimentation, falsification and so forth.

The argument is based on what is know and observable and undeniable about the universe we know.

Anything other than that is NOT applicable to the argument and does not refute it.

Same thing thing for the unmoved/first mover version of the argument.
It does NOT say that ALL things move, it says that things that DO MOVE, are moved by something else.

Stop trying to refute the argument by saying things it doesn't say.

Who are you talking to?

Ken

Pretty much anyone that keeps saying "everything has a cause" or "what caused God" or bring up "time", etc...
The only way to refute the argument is to show that things that come into being are NOT caused by something else, to show that things that "move" ( change state) are not changed by something else.

PaulSacramento wrote:Pretty much anyone that keeps saying "everything has a cause" or "what caused God" or bring up "time", etc...
The only way to refute the argument is to show that things that come into being are NOT caused by something else, to show that things that "move" ( change state) are not changed by something else.

Or, just to be pedantic, to show that nothing at all comes into being and that nothing at all changes. The simple fact is that if anything changes, then God (in the Christian, or at least classical theist, sense of the word) must exist.

PaulSacramento wrote:Pretty much anyone that keeps saying "everything has a cause" or "what caused God" or bring up "time", etc...
The only way to refute the argument is to show that things that come into being are NOT caused by something else, to show that things that "move" ( change state) are not changed by something else.

I don't think anybody said anything like that; but that's okay because this way if somebody WERE going to say something like that, they now know better. (LOL)

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Pretty much anyone that keeps saying "everything has a cause" or "what caused God" or bring up "time", etc...
The only way to refute the argument is to show that things that come into being are NOT caused by something else, to show that things that "move" ( change state) are not changed by something else.

I don't think anybody said anything like that; but that's okay because this way if somebody WERE going to say something like that, they now know better. (LOL)

Ken

When you (or whoever) make God an exception that's the implication. The fact is with CA and many other similar arguments, God is not the exception, He is the necessary conclusion to a set of premises. In order to not accept the conclusion you must either show one or more of the premises to be wrong or show how the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Pretty much anyone that keeps saying "everything has a cause" or "what caused God" or bring up "time", etc...
The only way to refute the argument is to show that things that come into being are NOT caused by something else, to show that things that "move" ( change state) are not changed by something else.

I don't think anybody said anything like that; but that's okay because this way if somebody WERE going to say something like that, they now know better. (LOL)

Ken

When you (or whoever) make God an exception that's the implication. The fact is with CA and many other similar arguments, God is not the exception, He is the necessary conclusion to a set of premises. In order to not accept the conclusion you must either show one or more of the premises to be wrong or show how the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

In the context of the conversation ACB and I were having, if God is NOT the exception, that would mean he needs a creator/mover as well. From what I know of you, I don't think that is a position you want to take.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

I did not say energy existed outside the universe,I said that these principles apply to everything in our world/universe and the big bang theory confirms them. Therefore you and those scientists who reject God must replace God with energy because these principles are true. You reject God and so you must consider energy. So we can choose energy or our God of the bible who is eternal if he is real,all powerful but is outside our universe.Either way we go,it would be a miracle but its easier to believe the eternal God of the bible over just random energy somewhere outside our world/universe especially when the big bang theory and the bible say the universe had a beginning.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

I did not say energy existed outside the universe,

No; I suggested the possibility of energy and matter existing outside the Universe (whatever that means)
If you are going to use the argument that God doesn't need a creator because he exists outside the Universe, I could use the same argument for energy and matter.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

I did not say energy existed outside the universe,

No; I suggested the possibility of energy and matter existing outside the Universe (whatever that means)
If you are going to use the argument that God doesn't need a creator because he exists outside the Universe, I could use the same argument for energy and matter.

Ken

So you're redefining "universe"?

Definition of universe, From Wikipedia:

The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

I did not say energy existed outside the universe,

No; I suggested the possibility of energy and matter existing outside the Universe (whatever that means)
If you are going to use the argument that God doesn't need a creator because he exists outside the Universe, I could use the same argument for energy and matter.

Ken

So you're redefining "universe"?

Definition of universe, From Wikipedia:

The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

No. I am simply making a point in the context of what HE believes. He believes it is possible for something to exist "outside the Universe"; I don't. That's why I put in parenthesis ( )whatever that means

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote: How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

I did not say energy existed outside the universe,

No; I suggested the possibility of energy and matter existing outside the Universe (whatever that means)
If you are going to use the argument that God doesn't need a creator because he exists outside the Universe, I could use the same argument for energy and matter.

Ken

So you're redefining "universe"?

Definition of universe, From Wikipedia:

The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

No. I am simply making a point in the context of what HE believes. He believes it is possible for something to exist "outside the Universe"; I don't. That's why I put in parenthesis ( )whatever that means

Ken

Oh, ok. So then, if nothing exists outside the universe, then what caused the universe to come into existence 13 whatever billion years ago?

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just for clarification the argument all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression ONLY applies to the things in our world/universe.God is outside our world/universe by scripture,it is not just made up stuff even if you reject God and he can intervene if he chooses.

The Big Bang Theory confirms this true also but have to try to replace God with energy.There is no other way to argue because these facts are bear this out for all to see. This is why energy must at least be brought up,so they somehow make outside energy replace God.

How do you know matter and energy does not exist outside our Universe? And if those silly scientists don't know what they're talking about when they dismiss the possibility of God, why would you assume they know what they are talking about when they speak of the Big Bang?
Ahh cherry pickin' at it's finest!

Ken

I did not say energy existed outside the universe,

No; I suggested the possibility of energy and matter existing outside the Universe (whatever that means)
If you are going to use the argument that God doesn't need a creator because he exists outside the Universe, I could use the same argument for energy and matter.

Ken

Then explain how that energy/matter can take the place of God who is eternal,all powerful and can cause universes easily. The problem you have right off the bat is to believe your energy/matter outside the universe could be eternal because this defies the laws of physics in our world plus these principles and the big bang theory that apply to our world/universe. I don't have these problems believing in God,he is eternal,is outside our world/universe with totally different physics in heaven. You must choose the option that takes a lot more faith to accept and confirm it.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I did not say energy existed outside the universe,

No; I suggested the possibility of energy and matter existing outside the Universe (whatever that means)
If you are going to use the argument that God doesn't need a creator because he exists outside the Universe, I could use the same argument for energy and matter.

Ken

So you're redefining "universe"?

Definition of universe, From Wikipedia:

The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

No. I am simply making a point in the context of what HE believes. He believes it is possible for something to exist "outside the Universe"; I don't. That's why I put in parenthesis ( )whatever that means

Ken

Oh, ok. So then, if nothing exists outside the universe, then what caused the universe to come into existence 13 whatever billion years ago?

The quick answer would be to admit I don't know. But from my understanding, science only goes back to the singularity that expanded to what is known as the Big Bang. How did the Singularity get there? What led to the Singularity? What caused it to expand? These are all questions science does not have an answer for. It would be easy to say God did it, but there is no scientific evidence that an intelligent being (God) is responsible, so when ACB inserts God as an answer to a question science is forced to shrug it's shoulders at, I see that scientifically unknown answer as a gap, and inserting God as an answer as God of the gap argument

Ken