Evidence for God from Science

I'm glad my plan is working. I've gotten you two to stop arguing with each other. And instead you're working together to attack me. Now only if you can work together in this thread, instead of ripping into each other.

Melanie,

Please calm Mazzy down. Remember when you were new here, and you got all offended by me?

Mazzy,

I'm using a technique that all mothers should be familiar with. When their children start throwing tantrums, parents need to distract the children just enough that they'll forget why they were throwing a fit.

That is all. Now I will take my ego that you completely crushed, and go to bed and cry. Men have feelings too...

Rick, I know your not being serious, and just klowning around.
I wasnt being serious either.
I had no intention of arguing with Mazzy.
This was a pointless, verging on nasty interaction that had been going on back and forth for long enough, with no input from me.
I observed.
I gave my opinion through one post.
That was the start and end of it on my part.
There was to be no arguing on my behalf, that would be hypocrisy and contradict the very crux of what I was actually getting at in the first place.

Ok Rick. Now you've absolutely taken the thread off track... insulted women (and men who work the kitchen), and encouraged me into offending my wife who I stupidly showed my post to thinking she'd find it funny... (I can't hide anything!) I think you need to step down as a moderator!

You're what? On your 666th chance now?

RickD wrote:I'm glad my plan is working. I've gotten you two to stop arguing with each other. And instead you're working together to attack me. Now only if you can work together in this thread, instead of ripping into each other.

Melanie,

Please calm Mazzy down. Remember when you were new here, and you got all offended by me?

Mazzy,

I'm using a technique that all mothers should be familiar with. When their children start throwing tantrums, parents need to distract the children just enough that they'll forget why they were throwing a fit.

That is all. Now I will take my ego that you completely crushed, and go to bed and cry. Men have feelings too...

I am trying to have a discussion but I can't get past the clowns or the venom. You fail as a mother. Sorry! There is no need for me to calm down RickD. I like this topic and would appreciate a sensible reply. I have been trying to have this discussion all day.

In relation to the thread topic, there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is, can produce matter in an instant. This has been achieved in the matter accelerator. If it is theoretically possible to teleport matter, and matter can be created by a huge source of energy/light, then I suggest it is theoretically possible for a superior being to use matter to make, not only the universe, but also plants and animals.

Here is a link that speaks to some work being done at the US air force base on teleportation.

http://fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

To add to my stance on Gods ability to create in an instant, I argue that all current theoretical hypothesis in relation to abiogenes are not plausible given that DNA, RNA and the current one, proteins first, require a host. It appears to be plausible that God created instantly. We have the physics and the theoretical framework already. The Host must come first, not an imagined 'primitive' cell. There is nothing primitive about even single celled life, a complex factory of reproduction. IOW life arising without the hand of God, or life arising by natural processes that does not require a designer appears to be impossible.

For theists, we also have testimony that Jesus was able to create/multiply bread and fish as well as bring the dead to life. So even in an earthy form, Jesus was able to call on an amazing knowledge of physics.

Kurieuo wrote:Ok Rick. Now you've absolutely taken the thread off track... insulted women (and men who work the kitchen), and encouraged me into offending my wife who I stupidly showed my post to thinking she'd find it funny... (I can't hide anything!) I think you need to step down as a moderator!

You're what? On your 666th chance now?

Seriously Kurieuo, what were you thinking?? Showing your wife
Guess it doesn't even matter in your case if my teasing was correct

Mazzy wrote:In relation to the thread topic, there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is, can produce matter in an instant. This has been achieved in the matter accelerator. If it is theoretically possible to teleport matter, and matter can be created by a huge source of energy/light, then I suggest it is theoretically possible for a superior being to use matter to make, not only the universe, but also plants and animals.

Here is a link that speaks to some work being done at the US air force base on teleportation.

http://fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

To add to my stance on Gods ability to create in an instant, I argue that all current theoretical hypothesis in relation to abiogenes are not plausible given that DNA, RNA and the current one, proteins first, require a host. It appears to be plausible that God created instantly. We have the physics and the theoretical framework already. The Host must come first, not an imagined 'primitive' cell. There is nothing primitive about even single celled life, a complex factory of reproduction. IOW life arising without the hand of God, or life arising by natural processes that does not require a designer appears to be impossible.

For theists, we also have testimony that Jesus was able to create/multiply bread and fish as well as bring the dead to life. So even in an earthy form, Jesus was able to call on an amazing knowledge of physics.

Another attempt to get past the spam. I guess I'm just going to have to pat myself on the back and take the point that I have left those here totally gobsmacked and lost for words.

Mazzy wrote: ... there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is ...

Mazzy, you have to be extremely careful making such claims (that God is energy) for the following reasons:

1. Energy is matter (and matter is energy), ergo contingent
2. If God is contingent then necessarily He would depend on something else for his being
3. God does not depend on anything for his being. As the uncaused cause, God cannot be contingent, therefore He cannot be energy or matter.

Byblos wrote:

Mazzy wrote: ... there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is ...

Mazzy, you have to be extremely careful making such claims (that God is energy) for the following reasons:

1. Energy is matter (and matter is energy), ergo contingent
2. If God is contingent then necessarily He would depend on something else for his being
3. God does not depend on anything for his being. As the uncaused cause, God cannot be contingent, therefore He cannot be energy or matter.

Also of course, nothing in science is ever proved.

This thread is like chatting room.

Audie, i will pm you.

Mazzy, sure that God could use energy together with CP violation to create matter. Without CP violation matter would react with antimatter and annihilate into energy/photons again.

Byblos wrote:

Mazzy wrote: ... there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is ...

Mazzy, you have to be extremely careful making such claims (that God is energy) for the following reasons:

1. Energy is matter (and matter is energy), ergo contingent
2. If God is contingent then necessarily He would depend on something else for his being
3. God does not depend on anything for his being. As the uncaused cause, God cannot be contingent, therefore He cannot be energy or matter.

1. God is so bright that Moses was told he could only see Gods shadow and live. Light behaves like a wave and cannot be explained by a strictly particle view of light.

2. If God was in the beginning then God was not dependent on something else for his being or existence.

3. You have contradicted your point 2.

Mazzy wrote:3. You have contradicted your point 2.

Where? How?

1over137 wrote:This thread is like chatting room.

Audie, i will pm you.

Mazzy, sure that God could use energy together with CP violation to create matter. Without CP violation matter would react with antimatter and annihilate into energy/photons again.

CP symmetry was violated at the Big Bang, or rather Big Fluff, because it should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The end result should have been no matter, no universe. Given we are here and there is a universe this did not happen. Hence current physical laws must have been different after the BB.

As a theist that believes in the beginning God, then God is responsible for the creation of the universe, even though we do not understand the physics behind it and even though the laws of physics as we know them break down after the singularity.

We know matter can be produced from energy. A living being, mind and all, is just matter arranged in a particular template. This is a more plausible explanation than protiens first.

If God is energy then He can't be God because energy is either produced or changed and that would means that God something produced God or that God can change, which means He is Not God.

Byblos wrote:

Mazzy wrote:3. You have contradicted your point 2.

Where? How?

1. Energy is matter (and matter is energy), ergo contingent
2. If God is contingent then necessarily He would depend on something else for his being
3. God does not depend on anything for his being. As the uncaused cause, God cannot be contingent, therefore He cannot be energy or matter.


I just got up and only had one coffee. I should have said premise No 1 is erroneous, ie false. This is because behaviour is a 'result' of the nature of energy (behaves like a wave [energy] or particle [matter]) which does not define contingency. IOW The nature of how God's being behaves does not detract from His being the uncaused cause.