Evidence for God from Science

Justhuman wrote:It's not about caring for another one's opinion or choices, it's about understanding. That's what this forum is about(?). Though this forum is also meant for theists, and not for an atheist. So here I'm way 'underreasoned', and maybe on the wrong forum, though it's mostly good to broaden one's personal view by other viewpoints and believes.

I watched the video's pointed out, agree with the contents up to several or a certain point(s), but cannot follow their deeper conclusions and/or reasonings, where fundamental issues are sometimes brought down to one simple comparison.

Maybe it should not be the point whether it's God or a mere materialistic universe, but whether the arguments given are sound and logical. That requires thinking outside one's boundaries and believes, which is really hard to do. As for me, I often find my thoughts are 'blocked' to take such a step, but given time things become more clear.

Unfortunately I can't express or explain my reasoning well enough in the written word, nor grasp the way of thinking handed to me here. Maybe it's my shortcomming, maybe a mutual non-understanding. I don't know.

Re: Caring for another's opinion or choices, it's more that I don't feel a need to convince others. All I can do, is present reasons for why I believe what I do, or in the case of a person who adheres to a strictly Material/Physical worldview, why I reject such and even personally consider it foolishness.

Many non-Christians/Atheists (or Atheist leaning) try to pin Christians into a dialogue where the Christian must convince them of God's existence and the like. Yet, if a man doesn't believe that he himself even exists (to use as an example), then how can one offer proof to the man that he does in fact exist? Maybe when faced with death, such a person might actually in their fear that they can die and so must exist.

So then, the best one can do is try serve as a guide, sign posts of truth, via presenting their own beliefs and reasons thereof and even with their lived life. Yet, we are each our own judges it seems. We all go through our own journey in life, like the guy in that video, and we may change in our ideas and beliefs over such a journey ultimately climaxing with who we are when we die.

Neither is my intention to 'convince' anyone to anything else. I joined this post because I'm not an irrationalist. Yes, still...
I think it is impossible to prove an atheistic wrong using theistic viewpoints, and v.v. Like using an apple to prove a banana cannot exist.
To ponder over the possibility of an theistic universe or atheistic (material) universe, and how that could be or work, in relation to us humans, has nothing to do wich side one is on. That just requires a free mind.

JustHuman: "...though this forum is also meant for theists, and not for an atheist."

NO! This forum is very much for atheists. We are not in business on this forum to simply "preach to the choir." Most Christians here have very deep and evidence-based reasons for their faith in Christ, belief in God. And I've not seen one question or assertion floated by an atheist or agnostic on this forum that didn't include some aspect of the many hard questions most of us have typically struggled with in coming to faith. So many unbelievers appear to believe the Christians here are naive and haven't considered this or that complex issue. My experience is, much the opposite.

JustHuman - you just simply must admit that your universe had an eternal cause. That's the bottom line - that some eternal source, of incredible power, produced a suddenly appearing physical universe from a non-physical realm. It shows ups with just the right elements, instantly showing precision in function and design, and with untold power. Those are facts that almost every scientist accepting the Big Bang believes. They might disagree upon what the mechanism behind things was, or the Identity of that eternal source, but they agree upon what CRUCIAL things IMMEDIATELY showed up, the design, the order and functionality they instantly revealed. This means your answer to things are from a non-physical realm. So, you must realize that your answers as to the ultimate Cause behind what exists is non-physical, eternal, immensely powerful and intelligent. Reasonable debate can be had about the Identity of this Source. You can deny that we truly are rational and can understand things - that we're not just delusional or perceiving illusions. But if you do that, why care about the debate at all? Why think you can truly deduce even basic understandings which drive your accusations or assertions? I'm a rationalist. I don't believe in Pop Metaphysics - that a universe of great sophistication just "popped" into existence uncaused, unplanned, without a Super Intelligence of great power. So, for me, that means that I must sift through the possible candidates for that "Ultimate Cause."

The other thing is - so silly to say that whatever the source of the universe must be eternal, and has such characteristics as I've described, but to assert that God could not. WHATEVER the Source was and is, it has a particular truth - and we don't get to define it - it defines Itself. What we do or don't think about that Source does not change whatever Its actual reality. Even more ridiculous is to think that NOTHING produced ANYTHING!

By no means I think anyone here is naive or haven't thought things thru. Though there are always subjects and indiscrepancies that need clarification.

Like the materialistic pop-metaphysic problem "where did all the material come from?"
Of which the theistic counterpart is "where did God come from?".
And please, please, please, do not answer that with "God is eternal." For that is just as 'unexplainable'.

There are several theories why our universe has the exact right qualifications for, amongst others and maybe ultimately, life to evolve. It might be that the chance for those conditions is extremely low, but we are here anyway. Whether God created the universe or by an evolutionary principle, we are here. The problem with these 'calculations' is that it depends on what is defined as the starting conditions. Because we do not know these conditions, no really truly accurate calculations can be made.

Take for example the origin of life. Theists state that it is impossible for life to emerge from the primordial soup, proving it by calculations, which show extremely low chances, so low that even in 13 billion years it is most unlikely/impossible it could ever happen.
See: http://creation.com/origin-of-life

Another article gives complete other results: https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=w ... 140pArjqXg

There can be many such calculations (be it creation or evolution) found on internet.
So, which one to believe?

JustHuman: Like the materialistic pop-metaphysic problem "where did all the material come from?"
Of which the theistic counterpart is "where did God come from?"

I don't believe you are getting it. Let's drop the "where the universe's source or God came from" question, for a moment.

The first thing to consider is the absolutes involved in the question. The fact is, NOTHING comes from a non-existing thing. EVERYTHING came from or is derived from something other existing thing, as EVERY existing thing has this necessity of origin - EXCEPT that first thing. There is only one option for how that first thing exists: As there were no previously existing things to create that first thing or Source: As it could not create itself (a logical impossibility). Therefore, that "thing" had to have been eternal - that is the only solution. Part of why this is hard to fathom is because we are finite beings - and we and every other physical thing that exists had a beginning and a cause. We can't conceive of anything that did not - because there is nothing that did not.

This "thing" or Source of the universe has characteristics: OK, I've covered why it is necessary it be eternal. It was also not physical. As before the universe, science asserts that nothing physical existed - not even space. Yes, space is also a thing. So, this first thing existed in another realm - another dimension, that wasn't physical. What else? Well, we know that what instantly arrived, at the moment of the Big Bang, was all matter and energy, in an unfathomable burst of energy - but it wasn't some chaotic, big explosion - as the name would suggest. Astronomer Hugh Ross describes it:

"This “bang” represents an immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions.4 The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude."

Ross continues: "The space-time theorem of general relativity states that matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with the universe began in finite time, and that the Cause of the universe brings all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe into existence from a reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time. The extreme fine-tuning of the big bang parameters that are necessary for physical life to be possible in the universe exceeds by many orders of magnitude the design capabilities of human beings."

The above leads to other characteristics of the Source of the universe. It immediately revealed itself to be supremely powerful and intelligent.

From CERN / the European Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe:

"In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei."

So, RANDOM things did not show up, but precisely the things needed for all that now exists. This source had the intelligence and power to instantly create all of the building blocks of all that exists, with the instantly existing quarks and electrons, and subsequently (not even a second long), these combined to created protons and neutrons - minutes later, creating nuclei. Anyone believing these things could happen without a Designer of supreme intelligence - who thinks it was just blind chance - really, that makes no sense whatsoever. Every hallmark of what we would consider evidence of a SuperIntelligence, stupendous design, and unparalleled power, immediately revealed itself at the moment the universe - which, mere moments before nothing physical existed - burst forth with just the right complex universe and life-building components, roaring into existence, wit a stunning array of marvels we still can scarcely understand.

So, those are the characteristics and evidences of the non-physical, eternal, all-powerful source of the universe. These are facts - both the necessary characteristics for the Beginner and what He is capable of and what He actually did. Thus, the question concerning where the universe's Beginner came from is truly silly - as the Beginner COULD HAVE NO SOURCE! To thing that some eternal but blind, non-intelligence source has filled all of the astronomy and physics books over the past 100+ - really, how preposterous to believe.

The next question should be, what clues to we have to the identity of the Beginner?

Justhuman wrote:I mean this:

Not if God's will perfectly aligns with His own nature, the two are ultimately one and same. So God is free to express Himself, it's just that His expression aligns 1:1 with who He is.

There is a contradiction in 'free to express Himself' and 'cannot lie'. Can God create us (lying) humans without the possibility to lie himself? Why is it so hard for you (Christians in general) to say/accept that God can/could lie? It's too easy for me to just state it is not in His nature. Does it make Him a lesser God? The abillity to lie is inherrent to intelligence(?). And lying (or not telling the whole truth, which is not lying) is not neccessarilly allways a bad thing.

To re-visit this, you are arguing that it is a contradiction: God being "free to express himself" and "not lying"

Your question isn't "why is it so hard for Christians to accept that God can lie?" (shifting the issue), rather you are declaring that it is a contradiction to say, "An all-powerful God exists who cannot lie." So don't try moving the issue, as it comes across less than sincere.

I asked that you articulate why such is necessarily a contradiction in logical form in syllogistic form (i.e., If A then B, A therefore B), but you didn't. It isn't obvious to me that there is a contradiction, I don't see any. For, if it is God's will not to lie, then He is most certain free to express that will and powerful enough to refrain from lying.

I wasn't going to continue my exchange with you on this. However, another way of looking at it came to me (perhaps in light of Pat's previous post), which might make better sense to you. That is this:

• It is possible for God to lie, but He always decides to be honest.

Do you see any contradiction in that? I don't. This really amounts to the same to my first reasoning, but is articulated from a more simple perspective that doesn't factor in deeper thoughts on God's nature.

As an aside, I think what makes rational discussions between rational Christians and Atheists difficult, is perhaps the actual amount of reading, thinking and reasoning such a Christian has done on God.

So say an Atheist is starting from ground zero (0) in their thinking about God. A rational Christian might have read Aristotelian theology, Platonic/Neo-Platonic concepts on the nature of reality, read Aquinas, thought about God's nature, answers to common critiques of God, thought about arguments for His existence, what makes God necessary, how we can know what God's attributes or character is like, etc...

Why should an Atheist bother with such thinking, especially when just living life often takes priority. Belief in God seems unimportant to many in scheme of their lived life, family and what-have-you. Maybe they will perhaps dabble in for interests sake, but there's no real motivation for many Atheist to really entertain or think deeply on God's nature. If anything, it just becomes about winning an argument in the moment.

Christians on the other hand, especially if they're the rational type (like you'll find on this board), will have thought rather deeply about many questions to do with God, His nature, character and why we believe what we do about God.

So then, if we number thinking about God on a scale of 0 to 10, if an Atheist is starting out thinking about God, then they'd be at 0. Christians on the other hand, many of the kind you'll find here, might be at a 5, 6 or possibly 7 (there is just always so much to actually chew on and learn, and I doubt even the brightest theologians even get past an 8 on my scale.) Now picture teaching algebra or physics to someone just starting out learning math. There's a few to many years gap in schooling required before they can seriously entertain such matters.

Questions are often easy to ask, but the answers are often complex and require a certain knowledge to be had. That said, if too simple a response is given, then it opens up additional critique which a more full and advanced answer would have prevented being raised. Perhaps, we as Christians, might learn to take steps progressively. It is hard though, when you learn to predict the next question asked, and question after that, so you just give one big response that nips it all in the bud. But then, such a response will often go over people's heads and not be understood anyway, hence the importance of trying to work with where people are at.

Justhuman wrote:Like the materialistic pop-metaphysic problem "where did all the material come from?"
Of which the theistic counterpart is "where did God come from?".
And please, please, please, do not answer that with "God is eternal." For that is just as 'unexplainable'.

From my perspective and what I know, there is either something from nothing or something from something (let me know if you know of any alternatives). All reason in all forms shows something from something. Nothing is actually a negative to help give definition to 'something' (does 'nothing' actually exist?). So think less about trying to defend Gods existence, instead what is the genesis (if there even is one) from which everything comes? Think multiverse theory (for a preposterous example IMO), vs creation, vs theistic evolution.

Justhuman wrote: There are several theories why our universe has the exact right qualifications for, amongst others and maybe ultimately, life to evolve. It might be that the chance for those conditions is extremely low, but we are here anyway. Whether God created the universe or by an evolutionary principle, we are here. The problem with these 'calculations' is that it depends on what is defined as the starting conditions. Because we do not know these conditions, no really truly accurate calculations can be made.

Take for example the origin of life. Theists state that it is impossible for life to emerge from the primordial soup, proving it by calculations, which show extremely low chances, so low that even in 13 billion years it is most unlikely/impossible it could ever happen.

I think we can know a lot about the conditions, like mapping back footprints to their beginning. There are things we can know for certain, there are a lot we cant from known ignorance, and there is probably (and hopefully) an infinite amount of knowledge we are unaware of and will progressively find. I agree that primordial soup is not anything close to a working theory (and for a lot of reasons), but I think the question is misplaced in what you're trying to ask. Evolution doesn't matter, nor the big bang, nor even the multiverse theory. Those questions don't really relate to knowing if God exists or not.

Am I the only atheist here?

Atheists think they can make up a straw man god that we don't believe in like a non-eternal God and think they are refuting God.They might be refuting a non-eternal god but not the God we believe in. This is why our eternal God is the reason or cause for this vast universe.It is because we have an eternal God and we know our universe had a beginning and so we have a perfect God for the cause unlike other god's people believe in.How does an atheist honestly think they can replace the god we believe in with a god we don't believe in and come to the conclusion they have refuted us? But also how can they ignore that we are making a logical choice based on the things we know about in our world/universe? This is not God of the gaps.Atheists accuse us of what they are doing using "materialism of the gaps" with no philosophy behind it or proof and it takes more faith to believe too.

@Mallz:
You left out a comment about the last part of my post (the links), being the explanations.

@Kurieuo:
I have to think about your replies, and the syllogistic (learned a new word here again, had to look that up too) form. It's not forgotten.

@Philip:
It take's some time to reflect upon comments, to let it sink into ones thoughts what's (really) meant.
Though from this part:

"This “bang” represents an immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions.4 The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude."

I have a problem with the presumption of the (unknoweable) bold part. It already presumes a fact while at this stage it is not yet proven. (But then I also haven't read the complete text, only as you quote it here).
And the underlined part, which is more than obvious, why does he state that?

I wasn't ready with editing Mallz reply...

@Mallz:
You left out a comment about the last part of my post (the links), being the calculations. These calculations are, among others, used as (the) scientific proof against or for creation/evolution, and give as such at least some tangible indication of probability, ranging: utterly impossible, more or less (im)possible, very likely.

Philip wrote:

... The first thing to consider is the absolutes involved in the question. The fact is, NOTHING comes from a non-existing thing. EVERYTHING came from or is derived from something other existing thing, as EVERY existing thing has this necessity of origin - EXCEPT that first thing. There is only one option for how that first thing exists: As there were no previously existing things to create that first thing or Source: As it could not create itself (a logical impossibility). Therefore, that "thing" had to have been eternal - that is the only solution. Part of why this is hard to fathom is because we are finite beings - and we and every other physical thing that exists had a beginning and a cause. We can't conceive of anything that did not - because there is nothing that did not.

I can accept that. Though there still is a hesitation in accepting something we do not fully understand yet, I hope you don't mind that. The problem seems to me that we can deduce about everything up to the Big Bang, but what's before that is unknown. It might be an eternal non-physical something, but it might also be something else. Maybe an eternal physical/non-physical cycle? Of course, I make that up right now, but it is impossible to rule out because it cannot be ferivied. The point I want to make here is that there are alternatives. Are we willing to see alternatives? Are we willing to accept alternatives?
And maybe I shouldn't mingle in discussions of things I do not really understand. So, I try to question and understand the things that I can think and learn about. It's not my intention to doubt you or anyone else who can know, only that I'm not easily convinced, as neither are you, I presume.

As I stated before, I object to including the predefined intelligent part in the explanations, like:

Philip wrote:

So, RANDOM things did not show up, but precisely the things needed for all that now exists. This source had the intelligence and power to instantly create all of the building blocks of all that exists,

Now I understand why you phrase it that way, but putting it this way rules out in advance any other possibility. You would first have to prove the presence of an intelligent creator before making such a statement.

Kurieuo wrote:

To re-visit this, you are arguing that it is a contradiction: God being "free to express himself" and "not lying"

No. I wrote:

There is a contradiction in 'free to express Himself' and 'cannot lie'.

There is an important difference.

Kurieuo wrote:

Your question isn't "why is it so hard for Christians to accept that God can lie?" (shifting the issue), rather you are declaring that it is a contradiction to say, "An all-powerful God exists who cannot lie." So don't try moving the issue, as it comes across less than sincere.

I'm not aware being unsincere, to me it are two different questions.

Kurieuo wrote:

I wasn't going to continue my exchange with you on this. However, another way of looking at it came to me (perhaps in light of Pat's previous post), which might make better sense to you. That is this:

It is possible for God to lie, but He always decides to be honest.

OK, I can live with that. That's a good phrasing it. Maybe I should leave it at such a nice explanation.

Justhuman wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Justhuman wrote:
Now, do you mean that "With the exception of the first act of creation..." the act of creation is (also) not real in the materialist universe? I.e. not happened?

Where did the material come from that made all the entire universe?

I don't know. How do you expect me to explain it? Do I expect you to explain where God got it from?

Justhuman wrote:(1) I don't know. How do you expect me to explain it? .....

Then your adherence to strict materialism falls apart, have you considered that?

Justhuman wrote: (2) Do I expect you to explain where God got it from?

Do you?

This is getting complex...

Why is my 'adherence to strict materialism' falling apart just because I lack the knowledge to explain where all that material came from? Or is that not what you meant?

Simple, you have no material to base to explain where all that material came from which made creation happen...

You have no material evidence to base an explanation that explains that material always existed by which creation randomly happened. In other words, you have faith in your own presupposition not materialism...

Justhuman wrote:[And no, I do not expect from you to explain where God got all that material from, for none can explain that either. I hope you agree with that.

Yes, we can agree with that...

We may never understand everything about God but we can be sure that the material that made creation came from something. It had a beginning. That beginning came from God himself. There is no other logical explanation.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." Romans 1:20 NKJV
-
-
-