Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:51 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:37 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:02 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:24 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:03 pm
Looks pretty clear to me. Why is it that you're the only one who can't see clearly?

If it were really as clear as you guys say it is, I'm sure somebody would have provided an answer by now.

That's the thing Kenny, the answer was provided, in past discussions. But as is your modus operandi, you either ignore it, or just don't care.

No it was not. I've asked that question a million times already and I never get a straight answer from you guys. Again; provide the FACTS that prove material cannot be eternally existing.

Kenny,

That's not what Paul said. He said:

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Do you see the difference?

There is no way to prove that material/matter isn't eternally existing. But even if it is, it still must be contingent, as Byblos has already explained to you in this thread.

But, material things, the things made up of matter, are changing, and cannot be eternal.

See the difference?

So he is not denying the possibility that material could be eternal?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:10 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:51 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:37 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:02 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:24 pm

If it were really as clear as you guys say it is, I'm sure somebody would have provided an answer by now.

That's the thing Kenny, the answer was provided, in past discussions. But as is your modus operandi, you either ignore it, or just don't care.

No it was not. I've asked that question a million times already and I never get a straight answer from you guys. Again; provide the FACTS that prove material cannot be eternally existing.

Kenny,

That's not what Paul said. He said:

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Do you see the difference?

There is no way to prove that material/matter isn't eternally existing. But even if it is, it still must be contingent, as Byblos has already explained to you in this thread.

But, material things, the things made up of matter, are changing, and cannot be eternal.

See the difference?

So he is not denying the possibility that material could be eternal?

Reread post #116 of this tread.

Honestly, I am done.
No I have to explain physics 101??

Come on..

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:39 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:10 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:51 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:37 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:02 pm

That's the thing Kenny, the answer was provided, in past discussions. But as is your modus operandi, you either ignore it, or just don't care.

No it was not. I've asked that question a million times already and I never get a straight answer from you guys. Again; provide the FACTS that prove material cannot be eternally existing.

Kenny,

That's not what Paul said. He said:

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Do you see the difference?

There is no way to prove that material/matter isn't eternally existing. But even if it is, it still must be contingent, as Byblos has already explained to you in this thread.

But, material things, the things made up of matter, are changing, and cannot be eternal.

See the difference?

So he is not denying the possibility that material could be eternal?

Reread post #116 of this tread.

On post 116 I was discussing with someone else who does not deny the possibility that material could be eternal. If that's what you are saying, then we have no disagreement here.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:48 am Honestly, I am done.
No I have to explain physics 101??

Come on..

Nobody is asking you to explain Physics, all I asked was that you back up a claim that you made. Apparently that is too much to ask.
Good day sir!

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:52 am

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:39 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:10 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:51 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:37 pm
No it was not. I've asked that question a million times already and I never get a straight answer from you guys. Again; provide the FACTS that prove material cannot be eternally existing.

Kenny,

That's not what Paul said. He said:

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Do you see the difference?

There is no way to prove that material/matter isn't eternally existing. But even if it is, it still must be contingent, as Byblos has already explained to you in this thread.

But, material things, the things made up of matter, are changing, and cannot be eternal.

See the difference?

So he is not denying the possibility that material could be eternal?

Reread post #116 of this tread.

On post 116 I was discussing with someone else who does not deny the possibility that material could be eternal. If that's what you are saying, then we have no disagreement here.

So, you agree with Byblos' entire post #116?

you know, contingency, prime mover, etc.?

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:42 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:52 am

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:39 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:10 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:51 pm
Kenny,

That's not what Paul said. He said:


I think this is where the confusion lies. Do you see the difference?

There is no way to prove that material/matter isn't eternally existing. But even if it is, it still must be contingent, as Byblos has already explained to you in this thread.

But, material things, the things made up of matter, are changing, and cannot be eternal.

See the difference?

So he is not denying the possibility that material could be eternal?

Reread post #116 of this tread.

On post 116 I was discussing with someone else who does not deny the possibility that material could be eternal. If that's what you are saying, then we have no disagreement here.

So, you agree with Byblos' entire post #116?

you know, contingency, prime mover, etc.?

That’s not what I said. My argument was about this idea that material cannot be eternal.
As far as that other stuff; about pure actuality, contingency, etc. the only reason I discussed it was you guys are conceding the possibility that material can be eternal, I have nothing to disagree with for now.

Rick,
In #159 you said; "I don't believe unicorns exist." Is the same as saying, "I believe unicorns don't exist."

This may be restated as:

1) X don’t believe that Y exists
2) X believes that Y doesn’t exist

If we are talking about what was the case yesterday and X is myself and Y is Stegosauria (a dinsour) then 1) is true but 2) is false because at that time I didn’t knew about Stegosauria, I found it in Wikipedia some minutes ago.

Another way to explain the difference if that believing is some kind of mental activity. In 1) you have a mental activity of that kind, in 2) you don’t.

So when I say that I’m an atheist it could be that I don’t believe that Gods don’t exist. For instance, assume that I was brought up in an isolated community where nobody believed in any God and never talked about the possibility that there might be a God. Then I would be an atheist and it would be true that I didn’t believe that God exists but it would be false that I believed that God doesn’t exist.

The conclusion is that what you write is wrong, the two statements aren’t identical. The atheist only has to embrace 1) even if many including myself also agrees on 2).

An atheist may take the position that she as being an atheist don’t have do explain why she is an atheist, that the burden of proof rests only on the theist. If there were only a few theist I would agree. For instance when discussing with persons that believe in Zeus or Odin it is reasonable to say that I don’t believe in them and I don’t have to argue, it’s up to the believers to argue for the existence. But I think it is different if you argue that no God exists because the majority of men believes in a God. You can’t just discard a majority view, and the burden of proof is on you as well as on the believers. You have to answer the question why do all these people believe in God and why are they wrong. That is why I think that atheist should explain why they think God(s) don’t exist.

Nils

Nils,

Take these two statements:

1) I don't believe unicorns exist.

2) I believe unicorns don't exist.

In order for me to make either of those statements, I have to have some idea of what a unicorn is, correct?

If you had never heard of Stegosauria yesterday, how could you make the statement:
"I Nils, don't believe that Stegosauria exist"?

I'm talking about atheists that claim #1, but deny #2.

These atheists obviously have an idea of what God is said to be, right?

So, for an atheist that declares:

1) I don't believe that God exists.

This is equally true:

2) I believe God doesn't exist.

Because he has an idea of who God is said to be.

An atheist that claims 1, yet denies 2, is trying to get out of making a claim, so he doesn't have to give reasoning for that claim.

Understand?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 pm An atheist may take the position that she as being an atheist don’t have do explain why she is an atheist, that the burden of proof rests only on the theist.

Which is true. Nobody has to explain what or why they believe the way they do unless they are trying to convince others to believe like them.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 pmIf there were only a few theist I would agree. For instance when discussing with persons that believe in Zeus or Odin it is reasonable to say that I don’t believe in them and I don’t have to argue, it’s up to the believers to argue for the existence. But I think it is different if you argue that no God exists because the majority of men believes in a God.

Wait a minute; Zeus and Odin are Gods that people believe in. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 pmYou can’t just discard a majority view, and the burden of proof is on you as well as on the believers.

Why can’t you just discard a majority view? Unless you are trying to convince someone else, why is the burden of proof on you also? What happens if you are unable to provide sufficient evidence to make your case? Does that mean you are not allowed to believe that way anymore? What happens if you are unable to defend ANY position? Does that mean you are not allowed to believe anything? What are you saying here?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 pmYou have to answer the question why do all these people believe in God and why are they wrong.

How many people are you allowed to disagree with before you are required to justify your skepticism? A million? A billion?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 pmThat is why I think that atheist should explain why they think God(s) don’t exist.

Nils

Just because you are an atheist doesn’t mean you believe what people call God, does not exist.

Kenny wrote:
Just because you are an atheist doesn’t mean you believe what people call God, does not exist.

Of course it does!


If you don't believe that God doesn't exist, then you're not an atheist, you're agnostic.

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:44 am

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

If the second part, the underlined part, applies to you, then yes I would call you an agnostic.

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

What do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:44 am

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:50 amIf the second part, the underlined part, applies to you, then yes I would call you an agnostic.
Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If to claim “disbelief” means to claim to not believe, then #2 does not apply to me either because I do claim to not believe.

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:50 am Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

What do you believe is known of the existence of God.

When you speak of God, I am going to assume you are referring to the God of the Bible only.
If you tell me you have a friend who is capable of preforming acts outside the laws of nature, does the impossible; but I can’t see, hear, or experience him in any way using my 5 senses because he is not of this world, I will be convinced that you are either lying or misguided and that your friend does not exist.

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:58 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:44 am

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:50 amIf the second part, the underlined part, applies to you, then yes I would call you an agnostic.
Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If to claim “disbelief” means to claim to not believe, then #2 does not apply to me either because I do claim to not believe.

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:50 am Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

What do you believe is known of the existence of God.

When you speak of God, I am going to assume you are referring to the God of the Bible only.
If you tell me you have a friend who is capable of preforming acts outside the laws of nature, does the impossible; but I can’t see, hear, or experience him in any way using my 5 senses because he is not of this world, I will be convinced that you are either lying or misguided and that your friend does not exist.

Again Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

And I asked you what do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Your answer didn't address your statement, nor my question regarding your statement.

So again, what do you believe is known of the existence of God?