Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
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

Well based on you bringing up energy outside our universe that could somehow cause the world/universe you are feeling in the gaps of our knowledge with "materialism of the gaps" so now you realize it you say I don't know. It is you trying to get back to that default position not caring about if you are right or wrong.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: So you're redefining "universe"?

Definition of universe, From Wikipedia:

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

abelcainsbrother wrote: Well based on you bringing up energy outside our universe that could somehow cause the world/universe you are feeling in the gaps of our knowledge with "materialism of the gaps"

I've made it clear that is not what I believe. I only said that as a rebuttal to your claim.

abelcainsbrother wrote: so now you realize it you say I don't know. It is you trying to get back to that default position not caring about if you are right or wrong.

I said I don't know! How does that equate to not caring if I am right or wrong? That makes no sense.


Ken

You only think that it is a "god of the gaps" argument because you don't understand the argument ( which is clear from all your posts).

PaulSacramento wrote:You only think that it is a "god of the gaps" argument because you don't understand the argument ( which is clear from all your posts).

My response was due to the way the argument was presented by the person I was responding to

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You only think that it is a "god of the gaps" argument because you don't understand the argument ( which is clear from all your posts).

My response was due to the way the argument was presented by the person I was responding to

Ken

If that was the case, my bad.
But to be honest, I don't recall a post you have made that shows you understand the argument correctly.
I made be mistaken.
Can you tell me how you understand what the argument is and what issues you have with it?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You only think that it is a "god of the gaps" argument because you don't understand the argument ( which is clear from all your posts).

My response was due to the way the argument was presented by the person I was responding to

Ken

If that was the case, my bad.
But to be honest, I don't recall a post you have made that shows you understand the argument correctly.
I made be mistaken.
Can you tell me how you understand what the argument is and what issues you have with it?

It doesn't matter because I do not go around promoting the argument. When someone uses the argument against me, whether their interpretation is right or wrong, I respond according to the interpretation they present to me; not according to how I interpret it.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You only think that it is a "god of the gaps" argument because you don't understand the argument ( which is clear from all your posts).

My response was due to the way the argument was presented by the person I was responding to

Ken

If that was the case, my bad.
But to be honest, I don't recall a post you have made that shows you understand the argument correctly.
I made be mistaken.
Can you tell me how you understand what the argument is and what issues you have with it?

It doesn't matter because I do not go around promoting the argument. When someone uses the argument against me, whether their interpretation is right or wrong, I respond according to the interpretation they present to me; not according to how I interpret it.

Ken

That's not what I asked you Ken.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You only think that it is a "god of the gaps" argument because you don't understand the argument ( which is clear from all your posts).

My response was due to the way the argument was presented by the person I was responding to

Ken

If that was the case, my bad.
But to be honest, I don't recall a post you have made that shows you understand the argument correctly.
I made be mistaken.
Can you tell me how you understand what the argument is and what issues you have with it?

It doesn't matter because I do not go around promoting the argument. When someone uses the argument against me, whether their interpretation is right or wrong, I respond according to the interpretation they present to me; not according to how I interpret it.

Ken

That's not what I asked you Ken.

I've never read the actual argument, I've only read what various people have said about the argument. What people have said about the argument is all I know about it.

Ken

Fair enough, would you be interested in learning the argument?

PaulSacramento wrote:Fair enough, would you be interested in learning the argument?

What is your take on the argument?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Fair enough, would you be interested in learning the argument?

What is your take on the argument?

Ken

It is the classical version:

All things that come into being ( existence) have a cause or if you prefer, what is contingent has a cause.
Since we can't have infinite regression, we must arrive at the First Cause and this First Cause must be uncaused.
This Fist Cause we call God.

It goes inline and hand-in-hand with the Unmoved mover argument:

Things move. Since nothing moves itself, everything that is moved must be moved by another. If that which causes the motion is itself being moved, then it must be moved by another. This process cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must exist a first unmoved mover, which we call God.

By move we mean change of ANY kind, so more correctly put:
The transition from potency to actuality.
In short the unmoved mover must be pure actuality with no potentiality at all.

Something MUST be uncaused and the first cause of all that comes into being and it must be pure actuality, the Unmoved, first mover of all that moves, this we call God.

To help clarify one (of many) points about the unmoved mover argument, we don't call the unmoved mover "God" on account of Him being the first mover but on the fact that He is the unmoved mover. He is the first mover, but that is on account of His immovability. It would be wrong to say He is immovable because He is first, but rather we say He is first because He is immovable. Put a little differently, it's really important to acknowledge/recognize that the argument does less to prove that God exists per se as much as it does to show that the first mover is unmover. That there is a first mover is not the conclusion--that's part of the fourth premise. The conclusion is about the nature of the first mover. Put still differently, all will acknowledge a first mover must and does exist. What all may not acknowledge is the nature of that first mover. The argument is showing something about that, namely, that this mover is itself absolutely unmoved. And it is on account of that--its immovability--that it demands the term "God."