Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:07 pm

Ken likes football!

C'mon, Paul - how dare you suggest that there was nothing materially existing before the universe existed. How dare we deny eternally existing cells or matter.

You're obviously under the impression I've "moved the Goal Posts" with my responses. Please explain.

K

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:23 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:44 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:23 am

I wouldn't call them things, they are descriptions of things that exist. Consider a human. He is described as a man because he has male sex organs, he is considered a conscious being because he is aware of his surroundings, he is considered omnivore because he eats meat and vegetables, and he is considered intelligent because he has the ability to obtain knowledge and apply it to his life. These are all descriptions of the human; these descriptions only exist in the context of describing him.

yes, he is considered all those things because those things exist, they are concrete things.
So, where did they come from?
We already agreed that those properties have to exist in the universe since something can't come from nothing, so where did they come from?

Where did they come from? Because they are a part of him, they came from the same place HE came from; he evolved that way. If cells evolved to become him, those things were a part of the eternally existing cells that became him.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am Conscience, Consciousness and Intelligence evolved?
From what?
We know the material base from which man evolved of course,

We do? I don't! What is this material base from which man evolved?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am but those things are NOT material so where did they evolve from?

So this material base from which man evolved is not material? So what is it?

Did you mean conscience etc are not material, Paul?

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:23 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:44 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:23 am

I wouldn't call them things, they are descriptions of things that exist. Consider a human. He is described as a man because he has male sex organs, he is considered a conscious being because he is aware of his surroundings, he is considered omnivore because he eats meat and vegetables, and he is considered intelligent because he has the ability to obtain knowledge and apply it to his life. These are all descriptions of the human; these descriptions only exist in the context of describing him.

yes, he is considered all those things because those things exist, they are concrete things.
So, where did they come from?
We already agreed that those properties have to exist in the universe since something can't come from nothing, so where did they come from?

Where did they come from? Because they are a part of him, they came from the same place HE came from; he evolved that way. If cells evolved to become him, those things were a part of the eternally existing cells that became him.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am Conscience, Consciousness and Intelligence evolved?
From what?
We know the material base from which man evolved of course,

We do? I don't! What is this material base from which man evolved?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am but those things are NOT material so where did they evolve from?

So this material base from which man evolved is not material? So what is it?

I'm sorry, did you just ask me from what material base matter man evolved from ???

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:15 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:23 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:44 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:23 am

I wouldn't call them things, they are descriptions of things that exist. Consider a human. He is described as a man because he has male sex organs, he is considered a conscious being because he is aware of his surroundings, he is considered omnivore because he eats meat and vegetables, and he is considered intelligent because he has the ability to obtain knowledge and apply it to his life. These are all descriptions of the human; these descriptions only exist in the context of describing him.

yes, he is considered all those things because those things exist, they are concrete things.
So, where did they come from?
We already agreed that those properties have to exist in the universe since something can't come from nothing, so where did they come from?

Where did they come from? Because they are a part of him, they came from the same place HE came from; he evolved that way. If cells evolved to become him, those things were a part of the eternally existing cells that became him.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am Conscience, Consciousness and Intelligence evolved?
From what?
We know the material base from which man evolved of course,

We do? I don't! What is this material base from which man evolved?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am but those things are NOT material so where did they evolve from?

So this material base from which man evolved is not material? So what is it?

I'm sorry, did you just ask me from what material base matter man evolved from ???

Yes; the material base that you said was not material.

Yes; the material base that you said was not material.

I said that we KNOW THE MATERIAL base from which MAN evolved, where did I say it was non-material ??

What I said had NO MATERIAL base to evolve from was Conscience, Consciousness and Intelligence.

Yes; the material base that you said was not material.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:38 am I said that we KNOW THE MATERIAL base from which MAN evolved, where did I say it was non-material ??

Post #223.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:38 am What I said had NO MATERIAL base to evolve from was Conscience, Consciousness and Intelligence.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. What I'm saying is consciousness and intelligence are not actual things by themselves, they are just labels we give to things that do exist by themselves. Does this make any sense?

Ken: What I'm saying is consciousness and intelligence are not actual things by themselves, they are just labels we give to things that do exist by themselves. Does this make any sense?

I'm not sure your point. Because although consciousness and intelligence aren't physical things - like an arm or a leg - they are, however, dependent upon / could not otherwise exist, without a material body wired for such things existing. And such physical / material things did not exist pre-Big Bang!

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:09 pm

Ken: What I'm saying is consciousness and intelligence are not actual things by themselves, they are just labels we give to things that do exist by themselves. Does this make any sense?

I'm not sure your point. Because although consciousness and intelligence aren't physical things - like an arm or a leg - they are, however, dependent upon / could not otherwise exist, without a material body wired for such things existing. And such physical / material things did not exist pre-Big Bang!

How do you know they weren't a part of the Singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang?

Ken: How do you know they weren't a part of the Singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang?

Please tell me that you don't think material beings existed pre-Big Bang? Or from the beginning to even billions of years later before conditions could have supported the first early earth life? Because NO scientist believes that. No such data would support it - in fact, quite the opposite. Either you don't understand what science asserts about the universe's beginning and immediate conditions upon doing so, or you don't believe it. Which? And if you don't believe it - WHY?

Ken: How do you know they weren't a part of the Singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang?

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:18 amPlease tell me that you don't think material beings existed pre-Big Bang? Or from the beginning to even billions of years later before conditions could have supported the first early earth life? Because NO scientist believes that. No such data would support it - in fact, quite the opposite.

Please don’t tell me you don’t believe a supreme being existed pre-big bang, because NO scientist believes that. No such data would support it- in fact quite the opposite.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:18 amEither you don't understand what science asserts about the universe's beginning and immediate conditions upon doing so, or you don't believe it. Which? And if you don't believe it - WHY?

The same applies to you; if you don’t believe it - WHY??? (two can play that game you know)

Ken, you have redundantly been told the reasons why I believe in God. You, however, assert a belief about the material - and I merely asked you for the reasons behind it, because it appears to line up with nothing I've previously come across. Your response is an obvious dodge. Now, you are free to not agree with why I believe as I do. But at least offer up an explanation for YOUR belief. Because I'm sensing it's based only upon what you desire to believe.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:36 pm Ken, you have redundantly been told the reasons why I believe in God. You, however, assert a belief about the material - and I merely asked you for the reasons behind it, because it appears to line up with nothing I've previously come across. Your response is an obvious dodge. Now, you are free to not agree with why I believe as I do. But at least offer up an explanation for YOUR belief. Because I'm sensing it's based only upon what you desire to believe.

No Philip I’m not trying to dodge your question; it’s just that you seem to be insisting on a standard for me that you do not apply to yourself. You seem to be happy to go along with science when it fits your agenda, but are free to have beliefs that are outside of science when you deem necessary. My point was if you aren’t going to keep your responses within that which has been verified by science, you shouldn’t insist I do it either.
With that said, I’ve been very clear; I do not have answers to these questions you guys are asking, all I am doing is speculating, and considering what sounds reasonable/possible.

Ken: I do not have answers to these questions you guys are asking, all I am doing is speculating, and considering what sounds reasonable/possible.

Christians reason that a universe of great sophistication and immense complexity cannot create itself, happen to produce just the right and entirely necessary things to do so, or organize itself and its insanely specific functionalities and continuous operation. And why is that reasonable to assume? Because of its unfathomable mathematical improbabilities and total lack of any observation that non-intelligent things have ever exhibited any such abilities even at the micro levels. These are all things requiring some massive intelligence and ability. We don't SPECULATE that A) blind things don't have ANY intelligence or that B) things of incredible engineering, design and function require intelligence - because there is zero evidence showing it otherwise possible.

You, however, only speculate about, in opposition to, what even scientific observation has, every since the early 20th century revealed, a beginning to all material things. And thus, it is illogical for you to even speculate that material things pre-existed the universe - and especially that INTELLIGENT material things did. So, as opposed to the belief Christians have upon what science and all observation has revealed, you aren't basing your belief upon anything more than that is what you desire to believe. It's like Byblos says, your materialist beliefs aren't anchored to anything. And that is why I asked. And you finally admit, it's based upon nothing but personal desire to believe in something being possible that there is zero evidence for. Christians, however, believe in basic logic based upon countless years of human observation, testing, and mathematical / statistical probabilities. This is why the Bible tells us there are two revelations about God that are mutually supportive and rational.

Ken: I do not have answers to these questions you guys are asking, all I am doing is speculating, and considering what sounds reasonable/possible.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:49 amChristians reason that a universe of great sophistication and immense complexity cannot create itself, happen to produce just the right and entirely necessary things to do so, or organize itself and its insanely specific functionalities and continuous operation. And why is that reasonable to assume? Because of its unfathomable mathematical improbabilities and total lack of any observation that non-intelligent things have ever exhibited any such abilities even at the micro levels. These are all things requiring some massive intelligence and ability. We don't SPECULATE that A) blind things don't have ANY intelligence or that B) things of incredible engineering, design and function require intelligence - because there is zero evidence showing it otherwise possible.

Just because in our daily lives everything that exists seems to have been created and therefore has to have had a creator, doesn’t mean that is the case for all entities within the Universe, including the Universe itself. You do not know this, science does not claim this, and for you to make such a claim is pure speculation on your part; something not backed up by science.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:49 amYou, however, only speculate about, in opposition to, what even scientific observation has, every since the early 20th century revealed, a beginning to all material things.

I disagree. Science does not claim a point in history when no material existed. Science goes back to the a Singularity and that singularity was material and energy, so your claim that all material and energy had a beginning is pure speculation on your part; not backed up by science.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:49 amAnd thus, it is illogical for you to even speculate that material things pre-existed the universe - and especially that INTELLIGENT material things did.

It is illogical for you to speculate that anything pre-existed the singularity that expanded to become the Universe - and especially that an INTELLIGENT spiritual being did.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:49 amSo, as opposed to the belief Christians have upon what science and all observation has revealed, you aren't basing your belief upon anything more than that is what you desire to believe.

No, You are the one claiming to have all the answers remember? So all of these answers you have that science does not, aren’t based on anything more than what you desire to believe.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:49 amIt's like Byblos says, your materialist beliefs aren't anchored to anything.

As I said before, your spiritual beliefs aren’t anchored to anything but faith; definitely not science.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:49 amChristians, however, believe in basic logic based upon countless years of human observation, testing, and mathematical / statistical probabilities.

Yeah as long as it supports their agenda; but the minute all of that basic logic based upon countless years of human observation, testing, and mathematical / statistical probabilities refuses to support their agenda, they are all too quick to kick it aside and claim the ignorance of science concerning spiritual matters/the spiritual world. IOW you guys only seem to use the part of science that supports your predetermined answers. When science and your pre-determined answers venture in different directions; rather than discarding those answers, you discard science.

Ken: Science does not claim a point in history when no material existed. Science goes back to the a Singularity and that singularity was material and energy, so your claim that all material and energy had a beginning is pure speculation on your part; not backed up by science.

Ken, this is where you are not honest with yourself. Consciousness and intelligence does not reside outside of a material, living being wired for such capabilities. And so are you asserting intelligent physical beings existed before the Big Bang? Whether particles or just energy existed before the BB, no lifeforms yet existed (not for nearly 11 billion years after the Big Bang began - according to scientists - nor could they have existed. So as intelligence and consciousness require a lifeform to exist, again, you have no intelligent being to produce such. As only some massive Intelligence could have created and designed such material beings so capable. And this is true, even if the extraordinarily specific basic elements and conditions just happened to pre-exist that all life depends upon (and do you know the enormous mathematical improbability of this?). Else, you are back to absurd belief in what Blind things are capable of. So, as there were no beings before the Big Bang, where did that intelligence come from or reside, before physical beings existed? Was there something intelligent that preceded the Big Bang or not?