Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

God by His very nature of BEING God can NOT change because to suggest God can change is to state that God there is something incomplete or imperfect or some NEED that God has that requires Him to change.
It isn't a question of CAN God change, it is a question of WHY would God change? into what? to do what? that He can't already do or be?
It doesn't make any sense to suggest God can change.
As for energy, we know that energy is not God because energy has no intellect or will or intention other than what it is given.
God has energy, can even BE energy but is NOT JUST energy anymore than He is just intention or just spirit.

Mazzy wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

I agree. How silly to suggest God cannot change form!

It is not a suggestion, it is a statement based on reason due to God's nature.
You are thinking that God can do anything, why not change, right?
The problem is that for God to change it would mean that He would be required to change or that there is something that He, in His CURRENT existence, would not be able to do unless He changes. Which would mean that He is not God.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

God by His very nature of BEING God can NOT change because to suggest God can change is to state that God there is something incomplete or imperfect or some NEED that God has that requires Him to change.
It isn't a question of CAN God change, it is a question of WHY would God change? into what? to do what? that He can't already do or be?
It doesn't make any sense to suggest God can change.
As for energy, we know that energy is not God because energy has no intellect or will or intention other than what it is given.
God has energy, can even BE energy but is NOT JUST energy anymore than He is just intention or just spirit.

God's form can change and I have given examples of it. That is not the same as suggesting Gods strandards change etc.

I can actually back what I have to say and have. You are just saying what you feel is a refute, but isn't.

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:A SOURCE of energy, yes, NOT energy.

You don't know that. Indeed describing Gods being as light and energy, not only addresses Moses not being able to look at God and live, it also reconciles with everything we know about energy, and the fact that God was in the beginning and created the universe, made of matter.

The issue with Moses not being able to see God ( and the many preparations that the priests how to do when they entered the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle) is one of radiation (probably) and not energy.
Some have argued that the reason gold was used on the Ark and in the wardrobe of the priest is that gold is an excellent insulator against radiation.
It may be that God in His "pure form" gives off intense radiation ( this may be why Moses face shinned after seeing God).
Note the the Son of Man image ( the transfiguration) is one that describes an intense radiance around Jesus.

If God is energy then God would have a cause or be able to be "moved", He would be changeable and all these things would mean that He would NOT be God because if He were those things it means that another being could exist that was "greater" than God.

Please read the link re Conservation of Energy and how energy can change form.

Radiation is a form of energy. Heat energy is a form of kinetic energy because heat is related to the motion of
particles. This means heat is a form of kinetic energy.

And all those FORMS of energy have a cause.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

I agree. How silly to suggest God cannot change form!

It is not a suggestion, it is a statement based on reason due to God's nature.
You are thinking that God can do anything, why not change, right?
The problem is that for God to change it would mean that He would be required to change or that there is something that He, in His CURRENT existence, would not be able to do unless He changes. Which would mean that He is not God.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is probably a duck that one is describing.

If God fits all known descriptions of energy, stating His substance is made of energy is better than anything you have put forward so far.

My goodness, any atheist may think you think God does not have the power or knowledge of physics to multiply bread, let alone create the universe. Perhaps it was magic!

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:A SOURCE of energy, yes, NOT energy.

You don't know that. Indeed describing Gods being as light and energy, not only addresses Moses not being able to look at God and live, it also reconciles with everything we know about energy, and the fact that God was in the beginning and created the universe, made of matter.

The issue with Moses not being able to see God ( and the many preparations that the priests how to do when they entered the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle) is one of radiation (probably) and not energy.
Some have argued that the reason gold was used on the Ark and in the wardrobe of the priest is that gold is an excellent insulator against radiation.
It may be that God in His "pure form" gives off intense radiation ( this may be why Moses face shinned after seeing God).
Note the the Son of Man image ( the transfiguration) is one that describes an intense radiance around Jesus.

If God is energy then God would have a cause or be able to be "moved", He would be changeable and all these things would mean that He would NOT be God because if He were those things it means that another being could exist that was "greater" than God.

Please read the link re Conservation of Energy and how energy can change form.

Radiation is a form of energy. Heat energy is a form of kinetic energy because heat is related to the motion of
particles. This means heat is a form of kinetic energy.

And all those FORMS of energy have a cause.

Not the first cause, if it was God.

Mazzy wrote:Have I inadvertently offended you? I was responding to Audie.

Why would you think you offended me? On the contrary, I enjoy very much reading your posts. It's just that, even if unintentionally, when you propose that God is energy you are actually undermining the strongest argument for God (i.e. that he is changeless). I am merely suggesting that you read up on the subjects I mentioned, if you're not familiar with them already.

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

God by His very nature of BEING God can NOT change because to suggest God can change is to state that God there is something incomplete or imperfect or some NEED that God has that requires Him to change.
It isn't a question of CAN God change, it is a question of WHY would God change? into what? to do what? that He can't already do or be?
It doesn't make any sense to suggest God can change.
As for energy, we know that energy is not God because energy has no intellect or will or intention other than what it is given.
God has energy, can even BE energy but is NOT JUST energy anymore than He is just intention or just spirit.

God's form can change and I have given examples of it. That is not the same as suggesting Gods strandards change etc.

I can actually back what I have to say and have. You are just saying what you feel is a refute, but isn't.

Its metaphysics 101, sorry.
Saying God's FORM can change is way different than stating that God IS energy.

Mazzy wrote:
Please read the link re Conservation of Energy and how energy can change form.

Radiation is a form of energy. Heat energy is a form of kinetic energy because heat is related to the motion of
particles. This means heat is a form of kinetic energy.

And all those FORMS of energy have a cause.

Not the first cause, if it was God.

[/quote][/quote]

Then God would NOT be energy if He is the first cause (which He is ).

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder how a person can really say what God can or cannot do?

As for matter and energy, the law that they cannot be created or destroyed is a human construct, based on observation and calculations.

It cannot be proved to be true. Possibly, it will be disproved.

God by His very nature of BEING God can NOT change because to suggest God can change is to state that God there is something incomplete or imperfect or some NEED that God has that requires Him to change.
It isn't a question of CAN God change, it is a question of WHY would God change? into what? to do what? that He can't already do or be?
It doesn't make any sense to suggest God can change.
As for energy, we know that energy is not God because energy has no intellect or will or intention other than what it is given.
God has energy, can even BE energy but is NOT JUST energy anymore than He is just intention or just spirit.

God's form can change and I have given examples of it. That is not the same as suggesting Gods strandards change etc.

I can actually back what I have to say and have. You are just saying what you feel is a refute, but isn't.

Its metaphysics 101, sorry.
Saying God's FORM can change is way different than stating that God IS energy.

You are now posting for the sake of it and making absolutely no sense. Gods form can change and unless you are suggesting the bible is rubbish, I have actually given you examples of it.

I have stated God is energy, you cannot refute it, but I can give excellent desriptors of energy that also describe God.

Even if God is not energy but can only manipulate and use energy at will, my substantive post stands so I will repost it with alterations.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Mazzy wrote:
Please read the link re Conservation of Energy and how energy can change form.

Radiation is a form of energy. Heat energy is a form of kinetic energy because heat is related to the motion of
particles. This means heat is a form of kinetic energy.

And all those FORMS of energy have a cause.

Not the first cause, if it was God.

[/quote]

Then God would NOT be energy if He is the first cause (which He is ).[/quote]

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then God, the first cause, can only be energy!!!!

In relation to the thread topic, there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is able to manipulate, and therefore, 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 as life consists of arranged particles/elements.

Here is a link that speaks to some work being done at the US air force base on teleportation. This work looks into matter being the sum total of its elements and being able to be reconfigured at another point.

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

To add to my stance on Gods ability to use energy to create matter 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.

That you don't understand what I am saying does NOT mean I am not making any sense.
I suggest you read what I am saying, watch the tone and be more open to the fact that someone of us have actual training in Theology and Philosophy and IF we are making statements that you don't understand, just say so and ask for clarification rather than being rude and implying that a person is just posting "for the sake of it".
Understood?

No one is suggesting that God's FORM can't change.
What is being stated is that God CAN'T change.
If you don't comprehend that VERY BASIC point and can't grasp the distinction, then what are we debating here at all? and why?

To say that God is energy is to male a statement on His NATURE and to say that His nature is energy is to LIMIT God to being JUST ENERGY.
Do you not understand that the vary fact that you just LIMITED God means that your view of God means that He is NOT God?

What is being stated is that God CAN'T change.

Do you not understand that the vary fact that you just LIMITED God...........

huh?

Mazzy wrote:

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote: ... "This half-life value implies a higher initial 146Sm abundance in the early solar system," This statement is from this research article. ...

Again, where in the paper, or in your imagination, is the link between a 30% error in 146-Samarium half-life and a roughly comparable huge error in scientists' estimation of the age of the solar system? Nothing in the paper seems to even remotely link the two.

As far as I can tell from reading the paper, the 30% correction in 146-Samarium half-life (although nice to know by itself) is useful for explaining small anomalies in the independent isochron datings of several meteorites.

[...] "The Sikhote-Alin meteorite from eastern Siberia, "offers us a snapshot of the original composition of the entire solar system before the planets formed," said Michael Zolensky, a scientist at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). "It tells us what the initial materials were like that went into making up the Earth, the Moon and the Sun.“ It is a carbonaceous chondrite, which accounts for only 2 percent of all meteorites, but they are rich in organic materials and this was dated at 4.5-billion-years-old. But if the half-life is 34% different, it may also be 34% younger and our solar system may have taken a billion years longer to form."

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... form-89594

Evidence please.

The quote from Zolensky (the scientist) ends before your bolded text that suggests a much younger solar system. So your science20.com blogger seems to have the same confusion that you have about linking Zolensky's 30% correction in 146-Samarium half-life with a corresponding huge error in the age of the solar system. Maybe this blog entry is the source of your confusion.

Tellingly, your blogger also incorrectly says that the Sikhote-Alin meteorite is a chondrite meteorite, instead of an iron meteorite. A whopper of an error.

Neither you, nor your 2 references I've read, support the claim of a significantly younger solar system age. Explain specifically how the 30% half-life correction for 146-Samarium changes the solar system age by anywhere close to a billion years.