Evidence for God from Science

Hortator wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:I know (more or less) the definition of God, 'I grasp that'. Kurieo wrote some very enlightening posts about that.
To accept 'your' God is accepting it with a BIG leap of faith. There is no science involved in that leap. Just the concept of God. Whether it's logical, whether it makes sense, that all seem to not matter. And I will not accept explanations like 'beyond our understanding' or 'it's to incomprehensible for our human minds'. Even besides our limit in understanding, we also have our imagination, which can transcend understanding.

Dear Lord man (or woman, sorry, I don't know your gender) you are all over the place. So which one do you want, logic, science, or faith? If you're looking for a proof, then you'd better steer clear of science since science is not in the business of proving anything, but in the business of providing evidence. There are plenty of evidence-based (scientific that is) material we can quote in support of the existence of God but they would be just that, evidence, not proof. If proof you're looking for then it MUST be the metaphysical kind, and that, my dear friend, is nothing but logic. Nowhere you will find in those proofs anything remotely resembling a conclusion in the form of 'beyond our understanding'.

So again, what is it exactly that you're looking for? We aim to please.

The discussions.godandscience.org way.

I think you're looking for the validate my world view way.

In which case, there are many other websites to choose from for that.

I have to say though, I'm surprised you're still here. Most atheists are aware of when they are getting beaten up very badly in debate.

Btw, name one evidence based thing that supports God's existence.

JustHuman: No. You keep repeating that "...the universe had to have an all-powerful, immensely intelligent, and ETERNAL Source.", like there is and cannot be any alternative. And ok, maybe in your view there isn't any other alternative possible.

What showed up IMMEDIATELY, in an instant, were marvelous things of design, obeying highly specific laws, interacting perfectly, and on a scale and with power we can't even imagine. And a moment before, there was NOTHING physical. A mere second after the BB began, there came into existence a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos - marvelous creations - the very building blocks of the universe. Such immense power, awesome designs and functionality, perfectly timed and produced elements - and NOT random, unuseful things that would take billions of years to form (IF such were possible, unguided). Every aspect of this shows a super Intelligence of great power! Invisible rocks in some unseen dimension don't go to some "universe design school" and become brilliant at quantum physics. As for the Source itself - it HAD to be eternal - why? Because without anything else existing, the universe's Source itself would not have had a derivative sour to come from. And, it could not created Itself, as it would not have previously existed. These are all facts about the Source and what showed up. Secular science overwhelmingly believes the description I've given of what immediately came into existence - when just a moment before, there was NOTHING physical in existence. Even space did not yet exist, prior to the Big Bang.

Just Human: But have you even tried to understand the evolutionary version of the universe? I mean really grasp the theory and science behind it? And of course there are questions, gaps and unknown issues that need further exploration and explanation, like the ones I ask about Gods world.

And do YOU understand that you are dodging the questions as to what FIRST showed up during the BB event! Evolution??? Yes, there was evolving of things - I'd argue against microevolution - but that's no argument against God - not if you understand what it would have FIRST required. And what if first required showed up over 13 billion years before, at the very beginning. Do you not realize that Darwinian evolution is NO argument against God - because it would have been entirely dependent upon what first occurred. We're talking of existence itself, the building blocks of the universe that would one day support life itself - ALL of those things came into existence in a single second - changing of course, but CRUCIAL things with necessary designs, all obeying highly specific laws. Please don't bring up the irrelevance of evolution when it comes to the source of ALL physical things. And please be honest and admit the characteristics of the BB showed great intelligence and power - checking every possible description for the word "intelligence." Please explain how the Source of the universe would not have to be supremely intelligent. That is, unless you believe in some awesomely lucky "invisible rocks" figured out how to make a universe, and them physically put it into play.

Justhuman wrote: Btw, name one evidence based thing that supports God's existence.

You mean one that you'll accept? I can't.

You can take a horse to water, can't make them drink, etc.

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:I know (more or less) the definition of God, 'I grasp that'. Kurieo wrote some very enlightening posts about that.
To accept 'your' God is accepting it with a BIG leap of faith. There is no science involved in that leap. Just the concept of God. Whether it's logical, whether it makes sense, that all seem to not matter. And I will not accept explanations like 'beyond our understanding' or 'it's to incomprehensible for our human minds'. Even besides our limit in understanding, we also have our imagination, which can transcend understanding.

Dear Lord man (or woman, sorry, I don't know your gender) you are all over the place. So which one do you want, logic, science, or faith? If you're looking for a proof, then you'd better steer clear of science since science is not in the business of proving anything, but in the business of providing evidence. There are plenty of evidence-based (scientific that is) material we can quote in support of the existence of God but they would be just that, evidence, not proof. If proof you're looking for then it MUST be the metaphysical kind, and that, my dear friend, is nothing but logic. Nowhere you will find in those proofs anything remotely resembling a conclusion in the form of 'beyond our understanding'.

So again, what is it exactly that you're looking for? We aim to please.

The discussions.godandscience.org way.

What on God's green earth does that even mean? I am honestly trying to help you see things from our perspective, through nothing else but pure logic and reason. If you are in fact intetested in such a discourse I am willing to go the distance with you. But if you're not interested or you just want to play word games then please, I beg of you, don't waste my time.

Hortator wrote:

Justhuman wrote: Btw, name one evidence based thing that supports God's existence.

You mean one that you'll accept? I can't.

You can take a horse to water, can't make them drink, etc.

It's not so much as to what's right, or who's right, but more for the possibility of what and how might also be right or work. So, not why something (you don't believe in) can't be, but how that something could be.
For somethings that might be more philosophical than science, for others vv.

When I give my view on how God could be, that of course doesn't result in your God (surprise!). But does 'my' God-view deminish Him so much that He isn't God-worthy anymore?

Hey, and I'm just an 'average' electronics engineer man, no degree in science or philosophy...

You can take a horse to water, can learn them to drink.

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:I know (more or less) the definition of God, 'I grasp that'. Kurieo wrote some very enlightening posts about that.
To accept 'your' God is accepting it with a BIG leap of faith. There is no science involved in that leap. Just the concept of God. Whether it's logical, whether it makes sense, that all seem to not matter. And I will not accept explanations like 'beyond our understanding' or 'it's to incomprehensible for our human minds'. Even besides our limit in understanding, we also have our imagination, which can transcend understanding.

Dear Lord man (or woman, sorry, I don't know your gender) you are all over the place. So which one do you want, logic, science, or faith? If you're looking for a proof, then you'd better steer clear of science since science is not in the business of proving anything, but in the business of providing evidence. There are plenty of evidence-based (scientific that is) material we can quote in support of the existence of God but they would be just that, evidence, not proof. If proof you're looking for then it MUST be the metaphysical kind, and that, my dear friend, is nothing but logic. Nowhere you will find in those proofs anything remotely resembling a conclusion in the form of 'beyond our understanding'.

So again, what is it exactly that you're looking for? We aim to please.

The discussions.godandscience.org way.

What on God's green earth does that even mean? I am honestly trying to help you see things from our perspective, through nothing else but pure logic and reason. If you are in fact intetested in such a discourse I am willing to go the distance with you. But if you're not interested or you just want to play word games then please, I beg of you, don't waste my time.

God's earth is mostly 'blue'...

Justhuman wrote: God's earth is mostly 'blue'...

Thank you at least for not wasting my time. Clearly you have no interest in learning why we believe what we do. I just wish you don't pretend that you are interested by posing illogical scenarios like God not knowing his future or demanding theistic proof, whatever that means.

Good day to you sir.

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote: God's earth is mostly 'blue'...

Thank you at least for not wasting my time. Clearly you have no interest in learning why we believe what we do. I just wish you don't pretend that you are interested by posing illogical scenarios like God not knowing his future or demanding theistic proof, whatever that means.

Good day to you sir.

I have learned much from Kurieo, and I accept what I have learned from (amongst) him. So, there is no argument in how you perceive 'your' God. I hope I have made that clear along my posts.
Besides that, I don't see any problem in asking whether God knows His own future. It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. The answers were, btw: "Yes, He does."

Though the reasoning behind that answer is logical (because He is God), I still can't help to not being satisfied by that. It's a too easy answer to me. And that's personal.

I wonder if you noticed I write all references to God with a capital. I have not only learned it that way, but I do that also out of respect to the concept of God.

And the earth is mostly water, therefore it is called the blue planet. If you failed to notice that reference.

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote: God's earth is mostly 'blue'...

Thank you at least for not wasting my time. Clearly you have no interest in learning why we believe what we do. I just wish you don't pretend that you are interested by posing illogical scenarios like God not knowing his future or demanding theistic proof, whatever that means.

Good day to you sir.

I have learned much from Kurieo, and I accept what I have learned from (amongst) him. So, there is no argument in how you perceive 'your' God. I hope I have made that clear along my posts.

The argument is not how WE perceive God, it is how you are mis-perceiving Him. And it is very clear from your responses below that you have learned nothing from what K said to you. Let's see why.

Justhuman wrote:Besides that, I don't see any problem in asking whether God knows His own future. It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.

First, the problem with the question you are posing is that it is not even a question for it is literally nonsense. Don't be insulted by that, nonsense is easily provable. Asking if being itself has a future is tantamount to asking how many married bachelors there are in the room. It is an oxymoron, a logical contradiction, nonsense. You might as well ask kjsdhfkjsdhfkjsdfhksh and expect an answer.

Justhuman wrote:The answers were, btw: "Yes, He does."

Really? Who gave you that answer? I have known K for years now and can safely say with virtual certainty it wasn't him that gave that reply. The answer is most certainly NOT that God knows His future, because, yet again, the question itself is unanswerable because, yet again, it is a meaningless, nonsensical string of words.

Justhuman wrote:Though the reasoning behind that answer is logical (because He is God), the reasoning behind that I find not satisfying.

Whether or not you find any answer satisfying depends on whether or not you're capable of understanding logical arguments in the form of a set of premises and a conclusion that follows from the premises. Given that your an engineer, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to grasp that concept. So when you are presented with a set of premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows, there are only two ways to find the argument unsatisfying: 1) either you show that one or more of the premises are not true, or 2) you show that the conclusion does not follow from the set of premises. In the absence of either, you can claim unsatisfying answers all day long and your claims would be as meaningless as your question about God knowing his future.

Justhuman wrote:I wonder if you noticed I write all references to God with a capital. I have not only learned it that way, but I do that also out of respect to the concept of God.

Thank you for being respectful.

Justhuman wrote:And the earth is mostly water, therefore it is called the blue planet. If you failed to notice that reference.

No I noticed. It's just that, green or blue, it was just an expression. The point was that you did not address the point.

One thing, JustHuman - have you ever personally sought God to see if He's there? Have you ever prayed to Him to show Himself to you. Because most who have not done so, DON'T WANT to know the answer to that question. I would challenge you to simply ask God: "God - I'm not even sure there's anyone there to hear this, but IF you exist, if there are things you want me to know about, please show me, and clearly so." Two things about that: It is important that you sincerely seek God with a true desire to know of His existence and truths, as well as His desires for you. Also, don't expect a lightening bolt, or a sudden revelation - God will show Himself as He sees fit - which may not be on YOUR expected time schedule or in a way that you might expect. But make no mistake, IF you sincerely seek Him, He WILL definitely make Himself known to you. The question you should ask yourself is, do you sincerely want to know. And are you prepared to accept that God may not match up with your misperceptions of what He is like? No one need know of your quest - of your experimental prayer. But IF you are serious about not just pointless debating, put your doubts to the ultimate test. But will you?

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote: God's earth is mostly 'blue'...

Thank you at least for not wasting my time. Clearly you have no interest in learning why we believe what we do. I just wish you don't pretend that you are interested by posing illogical scenarios like God not knowing his future or demanding theistic proof, whatever that means.

Good day to you sir.

I have learned much from Kurieo, and I accept what I have learned from (amongst) him. So, there is no argument in how you perceive 'your' God. I hope I have made that clear along my posts.

The argument is not how WE perceive God, it is how you are mis-perceiving Him. And it is very clear from your responses below that you have learned nothing from what K said to you. Let's see why.

Justhuman wrote:Besides that, I don't see any problem in asking whether God knows His own future. It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.

First, the problem with the question you are posing is that it is not even a question for it is literally nonsense. Don't be insulted by that, nonsense is easily provable. Asking if being itself has a future is tantamount to asking how many married bachelors there are in the room. It is an oxymoron, a logical contradiction, nonsense. You might as well ask kjsdhfkjsdhfkjsdfhksh and expect an answer.

Justhuman wrote:The answers were, btw: "Yes, He does."

Really? Who gave you that answer? I have known K for years now and can safely say with virtual certainty it wasn't him that gave that reply. The answer is most certainly NOT that God knows His future, because, yet again, the question itself is unanswerable because, yet again, it is a meaningless, nonsensical string of words.

Justhuman wrote:Though the reasoning behind that answer is logical (because He is God), the reasoning behind that I find not satisfying.

Whether or not you find any answer satisfying depends on whether or not you're capable of understanding logical arguments in the form of a set of premises and a conclusion that follows from the premises. Given that your an engineer, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to grasp that concept. So when you are presented with a set of premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows, there are only two ways to find the argument unsatisfying: 1) either you show that one or more of the premises are not true, or 2) you show that the conclusion does not follow from the set of premises. In the absence of either, you can claim unsatisfying answers all day long and your claims would be as meaningless as your question about God knowing his future.

Justhuman wrote:I wonder if you noticed I write all references to God with a capital. I have not only learned it that way, but I do that also out of respect to the concept of God.

Thank you for being respectful.

Justhuman wrote:And the earth is mostly water, therefore it is called the blue planet. If you failed to notice that reference.

No I noticed. It's just that, green or blue, it was just an expression. The point was that you did not address the point.

Well, I see we do not get along, so indeed...

Justhuman wrote:Well, I see we do not get along, so indeed...

Lol, I figured as much. I said nothing disrespectful but oh well ... Grateful I didn't waste more of my time.

Philip wrote:

JustHuman: No. You keep repeating that "...the universe had to have an all-powerful, immensely intelligent, and ETERNAL Source.", like there is and cannot be any alternative. And ok, maybe in your view there isn't any other alternative possible.

What showed up IMMEDIATELY, in an instant, were marvelous things of design, obeying highly specific laws, interacting perfectly, and on a scale and with power we can't even imagine. And a moment before, there was NOTHING physical. A mere second after the BB began, there came into existence a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos - marvelous creations - the very building blocks of the universe. Such immense power, awesome designs and functionality, perfectly timed and produced elements - and NOT random, unuseful things that would take billions of years to form (IF such were possible, unguided). Every aspect of this shows a super Intelligence of great power! Invisible rocks in some unseen dimension don't go to some "universe design school" and become brilliant at quantum physics. As for the Source itself - it HAD to be eternal - why? Because without anything else existing, the universe's Source itself would not have had a derivative sour to come from. And, it could not created Itself, as it would not have previously existed. These are all facts about the Source and what showed up. Secular science overwhelmingly believes the description I've given of what immediately came into existence - when just a moment before, there was NOTHING physical in existence. Even space did not yet exist, prior to the Big Bang.

Phil, now that the discussion has died, on a side note, how do you percieve a supermassive black hole, 1.5 million times larger than our sun, devouring worlds, suns, stars, comets, may be life itself somewhere, is a perfect or marvelous creation?

EDIT:
I appreciate what you are trying to say but I can't help but notice that the bolded is just a passionate choice of words. Show me awesome design or a perfectly timed element, no one has any idea what a perfect timed element is as there's no element to compare it to. Who knows what would have been a perfect timed element? You only say this because you have only seen this. It's like saying I was the fastest in a race but also the only contestant. Ofcourse you were the fastest.

Most of the heavier elements didn't exist when the BB happened.

The awesome designs you talk about have massive black holes orbiting other awesome things, devouring everything in their paths. From the near shave of a hit that we'd be getting from 1200 sq ft comet in 2029 to the Andromeda heading our way, not to say our own galaxy has a black hole at its centre. And the vastness of meaningless space and objects we see or reach or detect. So there are useless things and unguided ones as well.

And scientists would not agree with you completely as they'd tell you that before the big bang happened, the initial singularity existed.

So like I said, I understand what you are trying to convey, I agree with the idea that God created and is necessary for creation to happen. But there is some misrepresentation in what you said.

While they can be useful as evidence for God, what keeps me from using such arguments as Phil's something-from-nothing is simply that, what if, just what if one day it was shown beyond reasonable doubt that matter and energy always existed in one form or another. What then?

Evidence for God's existence?
Ok, the Christian theist view of GOD you mean?

Well:

Why is it that when you strike a match fire is produced instead of ice?