Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: Whatever her worldview is, it is important for you to recognize that it is not an atheist worldview, but rather just her worldview.

Ken

A red tinted glass, may be just glass, but that doesn't mean it's also not red tinted.

The word is tinge, and I aint the one with a tinge.

Do you believe that Zimbabwean Kickball is the most fascinating and important human activity?

If not, does that mean you have aZimbabwean Kickballist tinted glasses?

Poor analogy. They may at least play kick ball in Africa. Your religion is all from the realm of fantasy.

Perhaps I had the intention of tint, Ms. Smarty Pants?

The idea being not solid red, but tinted to a certain degree.
You have a deep red tint. I've had many discussions with you. You can't lie to me about it.
The red tinge is Atheism, and you are tinted quite highly with such.
It's not a solid red, but rather tinted.

And this is also what you see the world through.

On the other hand, you could say I'm tinted deeply blue with my Christian beliefs.
And again, that I see the world through such. I'm sure you have no problems there, except maybe you'd assign a pooey-brown tinge of sorts, eh?

To the person who says they have no colour, they are blinded to their bias.

So howdoes a akickballist see the world?

To answer your question in its nonderivative ie.., "So how does a atheist see the world?"

Well, we're all Atheists not believing in this or that representation of God.
Christians were considered more-so than others once upon a time in Rome.
JWs, Mormons and many other cults of Christianity are Atheists to the God I believe, and me vice-versa.

What often gets termed "Atheism" today, is the absence of belief in the all-existing something that has always existed being an intelligent and powerful personal entity i.e., like Christians believe God to be.

Given this, the only alternate belief (let me know if you see another alternative), is that this all-existing something that has always existed upon which everything else derives its existence is a non-personal unintelligent entity.

I assert that when broken down like this, it actually belies Atheism.
That is, while we are all Atheists here and there, we're all to a degree Theists also -- believing in some kind of "God" representation that we do personally acknowledge.

All "Atheists" believe in some sense of God. Christian so-called Atheists believed in the One True God of Abraham as revealed in Christ over and above any pagan god/s such that they refused to play ball with Rome.

Your modern Atheist, even your New Atheist variety such as Dawkins, believe God -- the all-existing, all-compassing something upon which all else has its existence -- is non-intelligent.

Audie: Trying to settle the matter of catfood or god-coz-nothing- from- nothing and so forth, it evidently amuses some and convinces others. Not me.

Philip: So, Audie, you are unconvinced of God's existence. Are you convinced a universe could "pop" into existence by itself, uncaused, without any intelligent source behind it? I mean, mathematically, probability-wise, the exponential improbabilities involved are beyond anything we can comprehend, beyond any known scientific cause, origin or process - so, are you also convinced of THAT being possible - or don't you care? If you DO believe in an uncaused first cause - WHY? As these are the only alternatives - a powerful entity of unfathomable intelligence and purpose vs. nothingness produced all we know. As if that something was not a great, powerful and purposeful intelligence, then randomness in some non-physical realm eventually was able to create these massively complex building blocks of all that physically exists. Really, Audie, I'm more interested in WHY you think belief in an uncaused first cause is more convincing than an actual Cause? Is that because you believe much more in the possibility of unscientific metaphysics? Because NO science can possibly buttress such a belief.

Audie: Im not into binary thinking.

While that SOUNDS like an open-minded answer - as opposed to supposedly an either/or possibility, that reasoning fails because amongst ALL possible non-theist FIRST causes, NOT ANY of them 1) could have created itself, 2) The actual one MUST be eternally existing, and 3) that actual first cause MUST have unfathomable intelligence and immense power beyond comprehension – which means it MUST be timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial - as IT created time, space, and matter, it thus must stand outside of these.

So, no matter how MANY First Causes there might potentially be, there can only have been ONE, and that one MUST have the attributes listed in numbers 1, 2 and 3, above. For ALL things that exist, A) it either has ALWAYS existed (and thus, uncaused) OR B), it had a beginning that was caused by something else.

So, Audie, do you think there is a potentially large range of choices to explain the origins of the universe? Amongst unknown gods? Or amongst uncaused causes?

The reality is it DOESN'T MATTER however MANY possibilities you MIGHT think exist, because EVERY single one of them must fall under the limitations noted in inescapable attributes 1-3 and B and C, above. This is not binary thinking, but are the ONLY possibilities covering a whatever wide range of whatever number of POSSIBLE first causes you think might exist. There was either some entity that was eternal, uncaused, of incredible intelligence, power and purpose, that stood outside of all things it created, OR the first things were eternal or created and then guided themselves (an impossibility) – which, without a God, is belief that does not rely on rational thought, but upon belief that metaphysical things, BESIDES God, could either self create (an impossibility, as there would be nothing to create itself) or always existed. I would say what you think is rational open-mindedness of that there is likely a large range of potential first causes, is actually belief that unknown, uncaused, eternal metaphysics are why anything exists. Which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with science or rational thinking, but a belief in a philosophy of unknown metaphysical causes.

I think one thing to keep in mind when talking about the Universe, 73% of the Universe consists of Dark Energy, 23% consists of Dark matter; that’s a total of 96% of the Universe astronomers have no clue about. That leaves only 4% of the Universe science knows about (normal matter). We can’t assume the 96% that astronomers have no clue about is consistent with the 4% that they do know about.

http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter- ... panek.html


Ken

I think one thing to keep in mind when talking about the Universe, 73% of the Universe consists of Dark Energy, 23% consists of Dark matter; that’s a total of 96% of the Universe astronomers have no clue about.

I've thought this since the fairly recently discovered dark matter and dark energy were some what analogous of a natural growth or culture medium. It takes up most of the space but the microorganism captured within it's “gel” is the stuff of interest. This is not to say it does not have unique and discoverable qualities of it's own, but if history, consistency in science shows uniformity, then the 96% of space we know little of probably has less to explore … like the medium in regards to the microorganisms.

We can’t assume the 96% that astronomers have no clue about is consistent with the 4% that they do

Ken, i'm not sure I understand how this relates to God's presence. it doesn't matter to us what % is known or not, by astronomers or not, matter or not … it was all created by God and just because they/we don't get it assuredly does not mean He doesn't. I am comfortable guaranteeing there's a lot more to this “fish bowl” that we haven't learned yet that will further confound for some time, until we learn and then move forward again.

That leaves only 4% of the Universe science knows about (normal matter). know about.

Amazing isn't it? Even with all the wonders we know of our universe and it only reflects 4% of His glory !

Ken: I think one thing to keep in mind when talking about the Universe, 73% of the Universe consists of Dark Energy, 23% consists of Dark matter; that’s a total of 96% of the Universe astronomers have no clue about. That leaves only 4% of the Universe science knows about (normal matter). We can’t assume the 96% that astronomers have no clue about is consistent with the 4% that they do know about.

And yet this changes absolutely nothing in relations to the the ONLY possibilities as to the origins of ANY of the universe, per the hard parameters I have listed above - that some super powerful, eternally existing intelligence is the source of all things, and that EVERYTHING else had to be created. What is strange is to not realize that SOME all-powerful, super intelligent source HAD to pre-exist everything else. How anyone could rule out this being God is illogical, as what resulted from THE Source of creation can only be referred to as miraculous and God-like, and that the precision, the awesome design, the functionality, synergy and comprehensive complementary and necessarily perfect interactions of these many complexities, and the scale of them, their trajectories, were anything but random, and were purposeful in their collective functions. Let's not forget that, one moment, ALL physical things did not exist, and in the very next moment they did! WHATEVER one calls what happened at the universe's beginnings, it can only be considered of God-like intelligence and power.

ANYTHING that could have functioned with such immense ability, design, power and purpose, WHATEVER that was, it surely has all of the attributes one would surmise a God would have - even if one doesn't call it that.

ES and Philip. What you guys are saying will make perfect sense to a believer who presupposes the existence of your concept of God. But if you are trying to understand things from Audie’s POV; a non believer who does not operate from the same presuppositions you guys do, your argument will not work. The claims you made may work for normal matter, but how do you know it will work for dark matter or dark energy? Science doesn’t even make such a claim; why would you assume a non believer is going to take your word for it?s Perhaps the answer to the Universe lies in the 96% that we know nothing about. That will make more sense to a non believer than anything you guys are claiming.

Ken

That will make more sense to a non believer .. you .. than anything you guys are claiming.

belief or non-belief is of no significant value, any more than a belief or non-belief in the significance (96%) of the "unknown" universe having any relevance to the possibility of God.

Perhaps the answer to the Universe lies in the 96% that we know nothing about.

this is no more known than any claim of God made by any believer. imo, science and God have gained closeness the more intelligent we become.

but how do you know it will work for dark matter or dark energy? Science doesn’t even make such a claim; why would you assume a non believer is going to take your word for it?s

we wish no one to take our word for it, we have 5000 years of Jewish and Christian written word demonstrating the will and power of God.( just because some don't care to see it, never the less make it no less true)

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one lives in a bubble and everything we believe in or choose not to believe, affects our view on everything else to one degree or another.

One can not disassociate something like theism or atheism from how they view the world.

Not entirely, but then, do you believe in nessie? How much does annessism affect your view of the world?

Do you not feel that the existence of god is the central concept of all reality?

Whatever you choose to believe or not believe, affects your worldview, always.

Ken: ES and Philip. What you guys are saying will make perfect sense to a believer who presupposes the existence of your concept of God.

My argument for SOME God-like force has NOTHING to do with my particular view of precisely WHO I believe that force to be, but merely to show the hard parameters of what ALL possible options which ANY source must lie within. And that is something either eternally existing or that was originated and thus caused by some force that was eternal, all powerful, and unfathomably intelligent, and of specific purposes. As for whatever DETAILS of what we don't know of this source, NO MATTER what or who that is, would still lie within my stated hard parameters.

Ken: But if you are trying to understand things from Audie’s POV; a non believer who does not operate from the same presuppositions you guys do, your argument will not work. The claims you made may work for normal matter, but how do you know it will work for dark matter or dark energy?

So, Ken, was dark matter always eternally self-existing, non-physical, and supremely powerful and intelligent, and purposeful? As either dark matter, it's source, or WHATEVER source, HAS to be eternal, stand outside of time, space, matter and dimension, or it was created by something outside of those - as there are NO other possibilities!? So, WHATEVER the source, it has God-like properties that are metaphysical and miraculous - and yes, God-like. It could not create itself! And, if you insist this FIRST eternally existing entity of such power and intelligence existed, because it HAD to exist (as SOMETHING did), then you cannot rule out God's existence. It certainly could not be SELF-created or RANDOM, being capable of such tremendous design, functionality and purpose. What is clear is 1) You believe in such a force because 2) such a force is logically necessary, but 3) you have no idea as to whom or what that force might be. But this is belief in not astrophysics or some science, but in M E T A P H Y S I C S!

Ken: Science doesn’t even make such a claim;

You mean, as to what preceded the physical universe? Of COURSE not, because science doesn't have a clue. And THEORIES are not science, but at BEST, educated yet wildly mathematically improbable speculation. Because science itself has absolutely NO ability to measure or assess the non-physical or invisible, unknown things, especially as science asserts that before the big bang there was NOTHING physical in existence. Therefore, the NECESSARY attributes - the hard parameters of key characteristics of that first force / first source - are not debatable, even though exactly what or Who that was, is and are.

Ken, if you deny God or some God-like, intelligent power is responsible for the universe, then whatever you believe will necessarily lie within the METAPHYSICAL realm, as it MUST transcend all parameters, measures and abilities of the scientific method. For you and others, that first Force has ALL of God's descriptive abilities, and yet you don't call it /Him that. The idea of unguided random processes instantly doing and inhabiting what occurred within moments of the Big Bang beginning is totally laughable, and certainly not descriptive of what occurred. The incalculable power, intelligence, design, functionality - these were ALL there within moments of the Big Bang starting, with precision beyond our wildest imagination - actually the polar opposite of anything one might call random.

Asserting that random, unguided forces made the non-physical become physical, with all of the extraordinary attributes that immediately came into physical existence along with it - all IMMEDIATELY perfectly functioning according to precise, mind-blowing precision - well, that is as delusional an assertion as it is laughable. Really, I don't have that kind of tremendous faith.

Strawmen do have a way of sounding dumb, I will give you that.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one lives in a bubble and everything we believe in or choose not to believe, affects our view on everything else to one degree or another.

One can not disassociate something like theism or atheism from how they view the world.

Not entirely, but then, do you believe in nessie? How much does annessism affect your view of the world?

Do you not feel that the existence of god is the central concept of all reality?

Whatever you choose to believe or not believe, affects your worldview, always.

So how would you characterize the effect that anessieism has on your worldview? Is it different from the effect of abotboyism?

And...

I DONT "CHOOSE" TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE. If you are into self deception fine. I cant fool myself by deciding to be a batboyist.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:That will make more sense to a non believer .. you .. than anything you guys are claiming.

belief or non-belief is of no significant value, any more than a belief or non-belief in the significance (96%) of the "unknown" universe having any relevance to the possibility of God.

Perhaps the answer to the Universe lies in the 96% that we know nothing about.

this is no more known than any claim of God made by any believer. imo, science and God have gained closeness the more intelligent we become.

but how do you know it will work for dark matter or dark energy? Science doesn’t even make such a claim; why would you assume a non believer is going to take your word for it?s

we wish no one to take our word for it, we have 5000 years of Jewish and Christian written word demonstrating the will and power of God.( just because some don't care to see it, never the less make it no less true)

Thanks, that is pretty much how I see it. Just add on "any more, either".

Philip wrote:

Audie: Trying to settle the matter of catfood or god-coz-nothing- from- nothing and so forth, it evidently amuses some and convinces others. Not me.

Philip: So, Audie, you are unconvinced of God's existence. Are you convinced a universe could "pop" into existence by itself, uncaused, without any intelligent source behind it? I mean, mathematically, probability-wise, the exponential improbabilities involved are beyond anything we can comprehend, beyond any known scientific cause, origin or process - so, are you also convinced of THAT being possible - or don't you care? If you DO believe in an uncaused first cause - WHY? As these are the only alternatives - a powerful entity of unfathomable intelligence and purpose vs. nothingness produced all we know. As if that something was not a great, powerful and purposeful intelligence, then randomness in some non-physical realm eventually was able to create these massively complex building blocks of all that physically exists. Really, Audie, I'm more interested in WHY you think belief in an uncaused first cause is more convincing than an actual Cause? Is that because you believe much more in the possibility of unscientific metaphysics? Because NO science can possibly buttress such a belief.

Audie: Im not into binary thinking.

While that SOUNDS like an open-minded answer - as opposed to supposedly an either/or possibility, that reasoning fails because amongst ALL possible non-theist FIRST causes, NOT ANY of them 1) could have created itself, 2) The actual one MUST be eternally existing, and 3) that actual first cause MUST have unfathomable intelligence and immense power beyond comprehension – which means it MUST be timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial - as IT created time, space, and matter, it thus must stand outside of these.

So, no matter how MANY First Causes there might potentially be, there can only have been ONE, and that one MUST have the attributes listed in numbers 1, 2 and 3, above. For ALL things that exist, A) it either has ALWAYS existed (and thus, uncaused) OR B), it had a beginning that was caused by something else.

So, Audie, do you think there is a potentially large range of choices to explain the origins of the universe? Amongst unknown gods? Or amongst uncaused causes?

The reality is it DOESN'T MATTER however MANY possibilities you MIGHT think exist, because EVERY single one of them must fall under the limitations noted in inescapable attributes 1-3 and B and C, above. This is not binary thinking, but are the ONLY possibilities covering a whatever wide range of whatever number of POSSIBLE first causes you think might exist. There was either some entity that was eternal, uncaused, of incredible intelligence, power and purpose, that stood outside of all things it created, OR the first things were eternal or created and then guided themselves (an impossibility) – which, without a God, is belief that does not rely on rational thought, but upon belief that metaphysical things, BESIDES God, could either self create (an impossibility, as there would be nothing to create itself) or always existed. I would say what you think is rational open-mindedness of that there is likely a large range of potential first causes, is actually belief that unknown, uncaused, eternal metaphysics are why anything exists. Which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with science or rational thinking, but a belief in a philosophy of unknown metaphysical causes.

Just fyi, when you start yelling with ALL CAPS, I stop reading.

And I am not into binary thinking You are. East is East, West is West, and I dont think the twain are going to meet.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: A red tinted glass, may be just glass, but that doesn't mean it's also not red tinted.

The word is tinge, and I aint the one with a tinge.

Do you believe that Zimbabwean Kickball is the most fascinating and important human activity?

If not, does that mean you have aZimbabwean Kickballist tinted glasses?

Poor analogy. They may at least play kick ball in Africa. Your religion is all from the realm of fantasy.

Perhaps I had the intention of tint, Ms. Smarty Pants?

The idea being not solid red, but tinted to a certain degree.
You have a deep red tint. I've had many discussions with you. You can't lie to me about it.
The red tinge is Atheism, and you are tinted quite highly with such.
It's not a solid red, but rather tinted.

And this is also what you see the world through.

On the other hand, you could say I'm tinted deeply blue with my Christian beliefs.
And again, that I see the world through such. I'm sure you have no problems there, except maybe you'd assign a pooey-brown tinge of sorts, eh?

To the person who says they have no colour, they are blinded to their bias.

So howdoes a akickballist see the world?

To answer your question in its nonderivative ie.., "So how does a atheist see the world?"

Well, we're all Atheists not believing in this or that representation of God.
Christians were considered more-so than others once upon a time in Rome.
JWs, Mormons and many other cults of Christianity are Atheists to the God I believe, and me vice-versa.

What often gets termed "Atheism" today, is the absence of belief in the all-existing something that has always existed being an intelligent and powerful personal entity i.e., like Christians believe God to be.

Given this, the only alternate belief (let me know if you see another alternative), is that this all-existing something that has always existed upon which everything else derives its existence is a non-personal unintelligent entity.

I assert that when broken down like this, it actually belies Atheism.
That is, while we are all Atheists here and there, we're all to a degree Theists also -- believing in some kind of "God" representation that we do personally acknowledge.

All "Atheists" believe in some sense of God. Christian so-called Atheists believed in the One True God of Abraham as revealed in Christ over and above any pagan god/s such that they refused to play ball with Rome.

Your modern Atheist, even your New Atheist variety such as Dawkins, believe God -- the all-existing, all-compassing something upon which all else has its existence -- is non-intelligent.

Im not Dawkins, lets leave him out.

I TRY not to view the reality around me with some sort over overlay, if I can hep it. You know how to some, everything is political, every issue turns out to be about the environment, or whatev.

Of my example of the girl with the Trinity leaf.

To the extent that a person can be aware of how they are doing a "reality filter" as one acquaintance termed it, the better off one is.


Lets try this... suppose there is no god, and nobody ever thought about there being one.

Then here comes Joe, who has (like people do) invented one, and interprets everything in terms of what he thinks this god is all about.

Who has a tinge, in this case?

(hint; Joe is you guys)

Audie: Just fyi, when you start yelling with ALL CAPS, I stop reading.

Dear Audie, the caps are merely for emphasis - sorry that mere type on a page is so distracting for you. I could just bold them. However, I don't communicate purely as I do just for any one person. Sorry. You might try concentrating upon the content of what I typed, instead whether they are lower or upper case. I suppose if I saw certain Chinese characters, I might be put off as well.

Audie: And I am not into binary thinking You are. East is East, West is West, and I dont think the twain are going to meet.

This is a meaningless comment as to the necessary parameters of a first cause - unless, what you actually mean is some kind of ancient Asian mysticism - see, metaphysics - transcends the hard parameters of what I asserted - which they most certainly do NOT! If you do not believe in a first cause or causes, then, of course, you are once again at the door of metaphysics and something non-physical of great intelligence and power than could self-exist / is eternal. But, again, this is not belief in science. Also, how things truly work, how they came into reality, has not one thing to do with how any culture - East or West - thinks about it. How one thinks about these things won't change the necessary parameters of what actually happened! And, last time I checked, the physics and science parameters necessary for all things don't change from one culture's science books to another. Neither do the brains of any person, per their genetics. Not to mention the truth stands outside of the method of interpretation - meaning, the truth of things is what actually occurs or is, not what or how you think about them. This is mere smoke and mirrors - a way of simply asserting the answers are all in unprovable, unknowable mysticism - of which logic has not one thing to do with. Thing is, mysticism, metaphysics, New Age mumbo jumbo - they are present in all cultures, of which each has influenced the other, into some mystical soup that give no knowledge except an assertion of "pop metaphysics." But if you believe in such, just don't talk or assert they have anything at all to do with scientific analysis or knowledge. It's merely faith in metaphysics that you know absolutely nothing about, but must have faith to entertain the possibility of.