Evidence for God from Science

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:There is nothing wrong with debate of any kind. The title of this forum is 'Does quantum physics point to god' So the inflection is in the title. My point is simply that because we don't yet understand something does not mean it is god. That is all. It is not an attack on anyone it is my point of view. I am not the kind of person to attack anothers beliefs. Some of the best people I know are religous. This does not mean I have to agree with them. The must accept my views as I accept theirs and if we have a friendly debate along the way then great. Maybe we both learn something.

Of course, and likewise because we do not yet know or understand something does not mean we will in the future through the scientific process. There is much that is beyond the reach of science. There is also what Kant called the "noumenon" and of this we can know nothing; this is the difference between our experiences of reality and reality itself.

The title of the thread is merely asking the question. I know not one Christian who has ever sought to attribute something to God while simultaneously abandoning the scientific process. This is a myth put out by others and vhas no basis whatsoever. The Christian is searching as much if not more than the atheist.

Dan

DannyM wrote: I see nothing but honest investigation on this thread

I don't. In any discussion about God or his workings, atheists will be about throwing a SweetMonkeyWrench* into the works. You will never, ever, hear an atheist say «Yeah! that could be evidence for God! WOW!»

Another thing: atheists keep giving us clues that they hate God but few of us pick up on them. Here are some examples:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:It just seems that whenever humanity is at the limit of our current understanding of any issue we attribute it to god.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:The title of this forum is 'Does quantum physics point to god'

Notice that in both cases the word «God» is deliberately spelled with a lower-case G even though the author is clearly refering to the God of the Bible, which takes an uppercase G. I'm no Muslim but I'd never write «allah» because I know that it takes an uppercase A.

So, DannyM, just be aware that your friends here are not really playing fair and looking for answers.

FL

*I couldn't resist this play on words!

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DannyM wrote: I see nothing but honest investigation on this thread

I don't. In any discussion about God or his workings, atheists will be about throwing a SweetMonkeyWrench* into the works. You will never, ever, hear an atheist say «Yeah! that could be evidence for God! WOW!»

Another thing: atheists keep giving us clues that they hate God but few of us pick up on them. Here are some examples:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:It just seems that whenever humanity is at the limit of our current understanding of any issue we attribute it to god.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:The title of this forum is 'Does quantum physics point to god'

Notice that in both cases the word «God» is deliberately spelled with a lower-case G even though the author is clearly refering to the God of the Bible, which takes an uppercase G. I'm no Muslim but I'd never write «allah» because I know that it takes an uppercase A.

So, DannyM, just be aware that your friends here are not really playing fair and looking for answers.

FL

*I couldn't resist this play on words!

I cannot hate that which i do not believe. Is an attack really neccesary? I have read your views on athiesm in other posts so it is obvious to me that we will never get along. Nice play on words with monkeywrench though. I will use that sometime. Oh and btw this kind of animosity towards people with different beliefs only strengthens the opposing argument. Also, you are correct where you say 'you will never hear an athiest say 'yeah! that could be evidence for God! WOW!' when it is not evidence it is conjecture based on lack of understanding.

sorry danny it will take me a bit to respond to you as you have given me reading material -'noumenon' is a new subject for me.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DannyM wrote: I see nothing but honest investigation on this thread

I don't. In any discussion about God or his workings, atheists will be about throwing a SweetMonkeyWrench* into the works. You will never, ever, hear an atheist say «Yeah! that could be evidence for God! WOW!»

I was referring to the Christians on this thread.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Another thing: atheists keep giving us clues that they hate God but few of us pick up on them. Here are some examples:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:It just seems that whenever humanity is at the limit of our current understanding of any issue we attribute it to god.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:The title of this forum is 'Does quantum physics point to god'

Notice that in both cases the word «God» is deliberately spelled with a lower-case G even though the author is clearly refering to the God of the Bible, which takes an uppercase G. I'm no Muslim but I'd never write «allah» because I know that it takes an uppercase A.

So, DannyM, just be aware that your friends here are not really playing fair and looking for answers.

I understand the lower-case G thing and see this purely as deliberate disrespect, which no longer bothers me- I'm not sure this means that they hate God. I'm absolutely positive that *some* atheists hate God, but do not detect this from Sweet Monkey just yet.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:Also, you are correct where you say 'you will never hear an athiest say 'yeah! that could be evidence for God! WOW!' when it is not evidence it is conjecture based on lack of understanding.

There is ample evidence for God's existence. I'm thinking of the ontological argument, the morality argument, the argument of altruism, the argument from physics, personal witness... This has nothing to do with conjecture or lack of understanding; what is "lacking" here as far as understanding? I understand as much as you regarding every one of these topics; Whatever information is out there, you and I *both* have access to this information. What do I "lack" that you do not? What do you know that I don't? There is stacks of evidence for the existence of God. Now you may argue that this evidence does not constitute *proof* of God's existence, but this takes nothing away from the *fact* that evidence is evidence.

DannyM wrote:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:Also, you are correct where you say 'you will never hear an athiest say 'yeah! that could be evidence for God! WOW!' when it is not evidence it is conjecture based on lack of understanding.

There is ample evidence for God's existence. I'm thinking of the ontological argument, the morality argument, the argument of altruism, the argument from physics, personal witness... This has nothing to do with conjecture or lack of understanding; what is "lacking" here as far as understanding? I understand as much as you regarding every one of these topics; Whatever information is out there, you and I *both* have access to this information. What do I "lack" that you do not? What do you know that I don't? There is stacks of evidence for the existence of God. Now you may argue that this evidence does not constitute *proof* of God's existence, but this takes nothing away from the *fact* that evidence is evidence.

The ontological, moral and altruistic argument are the same in that they have no real scientific basis, they use intuition and reason alone. As far as the argument from physics is concerned I would say the verdict is still out. But the model we have of the universe can work with or without a God so far. To my basic understanding. I am a horticulturalist not a physisist. I do not claim all knowledge. From what I have read so far noumenon is a similar concept. I could be mistaken. I have been before. It's a human condition. There is no proof there is not a God just as there is no proof there is one. Otherwise this conversation would be moot. What is lacking as far as understanding goes is yet to be determined. All we know for sure is that there are things we cannot explain as of yet. This is not evidence of God it is just discoverys waiting to happen. Who knows. Maybe we will hit a wall and say 'Well I'll be there is a God' or IT but what is the likely hood that God resembles in any way the parameters we have set out for Him. There are many manmade descriptions of God and they all seem to differ from one another. The idea that one is correct and another not to me is ridiculous. Cristians and Muslims both claim one true god and all others idolitry. Both religions have devout worshippers who feel they know the truth. How can one be right and another not? Both have billions of followers and both do good works (and some bad). I do not claim to know the truth. I only claim that from what I have seen the options offered as truth have many flaws and no proof. This is why I joined this site. To see what the other side says about God and science, not to put down peoples beliefs. We do not have to agree but I think we can agree to disagree, respectfully. Your views are no better or worse than mine. No-one can truly know the origins of 'life, the universe and everything'. (ya i know I stole that from uhhhhhh Douglas Adams I think) (montey python?) lol can't remember

DannyM wrote: I'm absolutely positive that *some* atheists hate God, but do not detect this from Sweet Monkey just yet.

All atheists hate God. All. Do you need any biblical verses to back up my assertion?

All atheists are irrational. All. Do you need any biblical verses to back up my assertion?

Forget the Bible for the moment. For an atheist to say «There is no God» is to affirm an absolute negative. To know this as Truth requires that the atheist possess absolute knowledge. From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.

Discuss with them if you must; just be aware of where they are coming from. Matthew 10:16b.

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DannyM wrote: I'm absolutely positive that *some* atheists hate God, but do not detect this from Sweet Monkey just yet.

All atheists hate God. All. Do you need any biblical verses to back up my assertion?

All atheists are irrational. All. Do you need any biblical verses to back up my assertion?

Forget the Bible for the moment. For an atheist to say «There is no God» is to affirm an absolute negative. To know this as Truth requires that the atheist possess absolute knowledge. From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.

Discuss with them if you must; just be aware of where they are coming from. Matthew 10:16b.

FL

Why do you feel the need to antagonise me? If you think I am so wrong why do you resort to slander rather than discussion. This comment is both offensive and uneccesary 'From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.'
If you do not like what I have to say either dispute it rationally without name calling or keep your peace. Also I do not feel you are correct in painting all athiest with the same broad stroke. ie. All athiest's are this and that. In your previous post you mention that you feel that I disrespect you with my use of lower case in reference to God. If you look at my posts since then you will find that I have changed that so as not to offend. Why don't you so the same and either join the discussion or stop with the name calling. I deserve the same respect you insist on.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: All atheists hate God. All.
...
All atheists are irrational. All.

Ahem. What was that about absolute knowledge again?

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:Why do you feel the need to antagonise me? If you think I am so wrong why do you resort to slander rather than discussion.

You are reading me wrong. I was simply warning Danny about atheists and their motives. By «slander» I think you meant «insult». It is not my intention to insult you; indeed, I think there must be something well with you if you are here instead of on an atheist website. This is all to your credit.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote: This comment is both offensive and uneccesary 'From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.'

My comment had to do with absolute knowledge. To take it out of context is dishonest at worst. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were blinded by emotion. Here is my comment again, in context:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: For an atheist to say «There is no God» is to affirm an absolute negative. To know this as Truth requires that the atheist possess absolute knowledge. From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote: Why don't you so the same and either join the discussion or stop with the name calling. I deserve the same respect you insist on.

Sorry, it is nothing personal: I was only warning Danny about atheists. I noticed that you started using the uppercase G for God. Good...it is foolish - especially for an intelligent atheist - to keep writing «god» when «God» is more appropriate.

Carry on with your discussion. Like God, I'll be watching!

FL

PS for Touchingcloth: God provides Absolute knowledge in his word...doh!

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:Why do you feel the need to antagonise me? If you think I am so wrong why do you resort to slander rather than discussion.

You are reading me wrong. I was simply warning Danny about atheists and their motives. By «slander» I think you meant «insult». It is not my intention to insult you; indeed, I think there must be something well with you if you are here instead of on an atheist website. This is all to your credit.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote: This comment is both offensive and uneccesary 'From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.'

My comment had to do with absolute knowledge. To take it out of context is dishonest at worst. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were blinded by emotion. Here is my comment again, in context:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: For an atheist to say «There is no God» is to affirm an absolute negative. To know this as Truth requires that the atheist possess absolute knowledge. From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote: Why don't you so the same and either join the discussion or stop with the name calling. I deserve the same respect you insist on.

Sorry, it is nothing personal: I was only warning Danny about atheists. I noticed that you started using the uppercase G for God. Good...it is foolish - especially for an intelligent atheist - to keep writing «god» when «God» is more appropriate.

Carry on with your discussion. Like God, I'll be watching!

FL

PS for Touchingcloth: God provides Absolute knowledge in his word...doh!

most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.[/quote]

This is slander and as you said is probably based on emotion. I can forgive that. I am sure I did not take 'most of them have trouble spelling correctly' and 'Hence they are windbags' out of context. I am sure I understood you correctly the first time. I hardly feel that being called an illiterate windbag (to paraphrase) is taking your post out of context.

As far as your claim that I claim there is no God read back a bit and you will find I say that 'the present model of the universe works with or without a God'. But that I am not convinced. Or something to that effect. I do not make claim that God's existence is impossible, only that I do not believe there is a God. I do not claim absolute knowledge, on the contrary from where I am sitting it would seem that you do.

Philosophic burden of proof - wiki

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on those making any kind of claim. This is not a mathematical or logical proof, but rather a conventionally acceptable amount of evidence that will warrant the claim. This burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge. wiki - burden of proof

"Burden of proof" in philosophic or scientific contexts means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to provide warrant for the claim. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance). wiki - burden of proof

It is possible to debate without name calling.

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:What is lacking as far as understanding goes is yet to be determined. All we know for sure is that there are things we cannot explain as of yet. This is not evidence of God it is just discoverys waiting to happen.

I've shortened your post and limited my concern to the above despite the temptation to go wild on the subjects of ontology, moral order, morality, altruism, physics et cetrera. Alas this thread is moving away from its intended purpose so I'll just say that, indeed, there is ample evidence for God and, in my opinion, very little evidence for His nonexistence. What is utterly irrational is for you to say that things we cannot "yet" explain are "just discoveries waiting to happen." This is an ultimate leap of faith. If this is what you believe, then so be it, but I do hope you do not think this gives you the rational high ground...

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:All atheists hate God. All. Do you need any biblical verses to back up my assertion?

Not necessaary.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:All atheists are irrational. All. Do you need any biblical verses to back up my assertion?

I'm totally with you- atheism is irrational.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Forget the Bible for the moment. For an atheist to say «There is no God» is to affirm an absolute negative. To know this as Truth requires that the atheist possess absolute knowledge. From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.

Discuss with them if you must; just be aware of where they are coming from. Matthew 10:16b.

FL

I honestly appreciate your concern. I know how irrational their position is and how devious many atheists can be.

DannyM wrote:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:What is lacking as far as understanding goes is yet to be determined. All we know for sure is that there are things we cannot explain as of yet. This is not evidence of God it is just discoverys waiting to happen.

I've shortened your post and limited my concern to the above despite the temptation to go wild on the subjects of ontology, moral order, morality, altruism, physics et cetrera. Alas this thread is moving away from its intended purpose so I'll just say that, indeed, there is ample evidence for God and, in my opinion, very little evidence for His nonexistence. What is utterly irrational is for you to say that things we cannot "yet" explain are "just discoveries waiting to happen." This is an ultimate leap of faith. If this is what you believe, then so be it, but I do hope you do not think this gives you the rational high ground...

It is also an ultimate leap of faith as you put it to assume a purpose to everything. I feel it stems from mankinds inherit fear of death. And fair enough we all need comfort on some level be it human interaction or belief in God. In no way do I claim a higher ground I am just very interested in what makes people tick (so to speak). I hold no malicious intent for anyone who does no intentional harm to others. I am no better than the next person. I like speaking with you Danny in no way are you condescending or closed minded. If more people carried themselves like you have here I think the church would grow in leaps and bounds and start on the path of tolerance of all people. Thats what I am intersted in - not the abolishment of religion but the growth of tolerance within it. Religion isn't going anywhere. Whether God exists or not is not the point IMO the point is that people seem to like killing each other over beliefs. Many justify the deaths of people in non Christian countrys as punishment from God as a result of idolitry or infidelity. This closed minded approach breeds apathy and hatred.
ty for the discussion DannyM