Evidence for God from Science

Hi Fruitloops,

Well I appreciate you putting up some reasons for your disbelief in God. That's more than most are willing to do. I think all of them are rather poor reasons, but you seem pretty set in your convictions, so that's fine. If you stick around very long and want to put your reasoning through the ringer to see if it holds water, it's as easy as starting a thread on the matter.

As for you finding my comments distasteful, I would suggest, with all due respect, that you look past whether or not they are tasteful and ask whether or not they are correct. My four year old doesn't like her veggies. She finds them rather distasteful, but Daddy knows she has to eat them. As she matures, she'll realize that for herself. And on that point, however politically correct you would like me to be, the point still stands. You present yourself as very unwilling to consider the validity of your own assumptions. Now if the stories I told are true, then your reasoning is at fault somewhere. Of course, if your reasoning is not faulty then the stories I told are not true, so that gets back to warrant. The question is whether or not you are willing to examine your reasoning to see how strong it is, or in this case, it isn't.

Anyway, you'll get out of these conversations whatever you will. If you're dead set on shooting down arguments for God and proving He doesn't exist, no amount of discussion will do anything other than validate your own position. That's just what human beings do, after all. I mean, shoot, turn on the news and watch the coverage of the next political debate and see how satisfied each side is that they've destroyed the other's position. So I'm not making any comments on you in particular. I simply say what I said in my first post in this thread: what is your warrant? Is that warrant reasonable? Are you interested in truth or just in defending your own position?

If you bother responding to K, I suppose we'll find out the answers to those questions in the very near future.

Kurieuo wrote:I'd appreciate it if you could kindly detail exactly where this nebula that caused the existence of our universe came from? You'd also be helping to answer the crux of 1over137's own questions, which I think you might perhaps be avoiding in your response here.

If matter, energy, space and time are bound to our universe, and our universe had a beginning, then I really don't see how you are answering the main point to 1over137's questions. Where was this nebula that existed outside of our universe? Are you proposing some nebula within our universe caused our universe, or some form of multiverse idea?

Finally, whatever you are proposing, can you please provide some evidence for Multiverse as I am very interested in hearing it. I personally don't have much faith is such a scenario due to the absence of evidence. However, maybe you can demonstrated any evidence I may have missed?

I did not mean to imply that our solar system came from some special nebula outside our observable universe. The nebula that birthed the solar system is just like any other ordinary nebula in the universe. Also, it doesn't make sense to say a nebula (which is just a cloud of gas and dust) caused a universe. Nebulae are products of the universe. In quoting an astrophysics textbook, I already gave the timeline that showed the start of the universe to the formation of nebulae.

The multiverse hypothesis is very interesting indeed! There are actually many different kinds of multiverse models proposed by different theories. The multiverse proposed from Inflationary Theory is quite different from the multiverse proposed by M-Theory. However, all hypothetical multiverses have in common is that they are a set of infinite or finite possible universes that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. Until just recently, the only reason why physicists even consider the idea of the multiverse is because that is where the mathematics is leading towards. But, we are living in exciting times!! Just in the last year, the Planck Mission just revealed actual evidence of the multiverse! The Planck Space Mission released the most accurate and detailed map ever made of the oldest light in the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background. In this map, there are irregularities not predicted by the Big Bang Inflationary Model. One explanation for these anomalies is that they were caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.

However, remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. The multiverse is definitely a remarkable claim. Physicists need more evidence for the multiverse before the concept is considered credible. That's my opinion. Nevertheless, there are cosmologists that consider the multiverse completely credible now.

1over137 wrote:I plan to ask God how he made the universe, and how he invented physical laws. What is behind them. Which principles. So curious about it.

If I did ever meet God, I would ask those same questions. Epic science discussion!

Jac3510 wrote:Hi Fruitloops,

Well I appreciate you putting up some reasons for your disbelief in God. That's more than most are willing to do. I think all of them are rather poor reasons, but you seem pretty set in your convictions, so that's fine. If you stick around very long and want to put your reasoning through the ringer to see if it holds water, it's as easy as starting a thread on the matter.

Hmmmm, I'm a little hesitant of starting an entire thread about the evidence against God on a Christian forum.

Jac3510 wrote:And on that point, however politically correct you would like me to be, the point still stands.

Its not about political correctness. Its about respectfulness.

Jac3510 wrote:Are you interested in truth or just in defending your own position?

I care about the truth. If I'm wrong about my position, so be it.

Fruitloops007 wrote:The multiverse hypothesis is very interesting indeed! There are actually many different kinds of multiverse models proposed by different theories. The multiverse proposed from Inflationary Theory is quite different from the multiverse proposed by M-Theory. However, all hypothetical multiverses have in common is that they are a set of infinite or finite possible universes that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. Until just recently, the only reason why physicists even consider the idea of the multiverse is because that is where the mathematics is leading towards. But, we are living in exciting times!! Just in the last year, the Planck Mission just revealed actual evidence of the multiverse! The Planck Space Mission released the most accurate and detailed map ever made of the oldest light in the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background. In this map, there are irregularities not predicted by the Big Bang Inflationary Model. One explanation for these anomalies is that they were caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.

The Multiverse theories are definitely interesting although I have some issues with them.

The first issue is if it is finite then it must have a first cause, so really the Multiverse theory has just kicked the can down the proverbial road another step and is still in need of an unmoved mover.

The second is if it is infinite then there must be an infinite chain of events before ours was created meaning we shouldn't be here because there are an infinite amount of events before us.

The third is if it is infinite with infinite possible universes then there must be a universe where the Multiverse doesn't exist creating a logical paradox.

Fourth is if it is infinite with infinite possible universes then in one possible universe there is an all powerful, all knowing, all present etc... creative being, since he is all powerful and all present then by definition he must exist in all possible universes, hence God exists.

Whether the Multiverse exists or not has no bearing on a first cause argument or even on the existence of God, all possible scenarios still require the existence of God at some point.


Dan

To an atheist, how is the multiverse hypothesis any less silly than the idea of God?

FL

Fruitloops007 wrote:Hmmmm, I'm a little hesitant of starting an entire thread about the evidence against God on a Christian forum.

I don't know why that would be. I've started threads on evidence for God on strictly atheist forums. So long as you demonstrate a willingness to be open to the truth and are respectful in your disagreements, you can keep things within the board guidelines. As an aside, I would recommend you read them.

Its not about political correctness. Its about respectfulness.

No it's not. It's about political correctness. You take an idea you don't like and label it as disrespectful so as to shut down disagreement. It's a common tactic. So, again, I would invite you to reconsider the question of taste and focus on the truthfulness of the propositin.

But all the same, it's good to see that you are particularly interested in respectful discourse. We'll have to keep that in mind, won't we?

I care about the truth. If I'm wrong about my position, so be it.

The question was rhetorical. I don't expect you to come out and say, "Of course I don't care about the truth!" I suspect you even believe that is your concern. I'm more interested in what you actually do and what your actual words say about you. If we're using the JoHari Window, I'd say I'm way more interested in the blind and unknown quadrants.

I'd suggest that in a totally deterministic, naturalistic world, the fact animals (us) can conceive of something supernatural is evidence for God. It's not a slam dunk, as the evolutionist would say we can conceive of it by the creativity that we have gained by evolution. But think, where did creativity come from in a completely deterministic, material, natural world? We're just a bunch of atoms, so how did those atoms conceive anything outside of the material world?

No scientific work has ever shown that other animals have imagination, symbolism, spirituality, etc. yet humans do. This is because we are made in Gods image. That's the best explanation for that human behavior, not the scientific explanation.

Along the same lines, why do we have a desire for eternal life? In a naturalistic deterministic world, death should be simply accepted. Not given even a thought.

ryanbouma wrote:I'd suggest that in a totally deterministic, naturalistic world, the fact animals (us) can conceive of something supernatural is evidence for God. It's not a slam dunk, as the evolutionist would say we can conceive of it by the creativity that we have gained by evolution. But think, where did creativity come from in a completely deterministic, material, natural world? We're just a bunch of atoms, so how did those atoms conceive anything outside of the material world?

No scientific work has ever shown that other animals have imagination, symbolism, spirituality, etc. yet humans do. This is because we are made in Gods image. That's the best explanation for that human behavior, not the scientific explanation.

Forget creativity, think about, well for lack of a better word, aboutness. How are a bunch of chemicals able to 'think about' other chemicals? If anyone thinks that's a trivial question I'd suggest you look it up.

Evidence for God:

Countless near death experiences that are generally similar with only some unique outliers.
Ability to think "about", creativity, concept of supernatural, desire for eternal life, beauty, etc.
Unexplainable medical healing.
The beginning of the universe.
The beginning of life.
Archeological confirmation of many biblical stories.
Geological evidence of the flood (no, not an Everest topping flood, I'm talking about a worldwide flood).
Fine tuning of the universe.
Fine tuning of the solar system.
Fine tuning of earth.
Fine tuning of biological systems. (Fine tuning isn't proof, but it is certainly evidence)
Cosmological timeline.


Evidence against God:

Problem of evil
Evolution
Lack of outright disclosure of Himself

I'm not sure there's anything else. And even evolution is only included as evidence against God because with it, you can say diversity of life can occur without God. But there are many people who hold a theistic evolution view. And there are others (myself included) who feel the evidence for evolution is weak.

I'm not sure if others experience this... but I don't find many Atheists who esteem "Science" tend to virtue Philosophy and the logical reasoning and arguments therein.

A lot of arguments for God's existence are rationally logical and based upon circumstantial evidence. Given the priority science places upon direct experience through five physical senses -- sight, touch, sound, taste and smell -- it seems an unreasonably biased burden of proof to ignore any rational arguments and expect nothing short of a direct physical experience with God.

Consider that this also places demands on God, as though we are God's Sovereign when in fact God is sovereign over us. Imagine some peasant demanding a King to prove himself. It is simply out of place, and why the King may just order the peasant beheaded. The difference between "us" and "God" though is infinitely more and yet we ask God to get beneath us and show Himself without any reverence. Isn't that the slightest bit insulting? Why should God reveal Himself to any of us who demand Him to.

So I believe asking for direct physical experience of God before belief is actually an informal fallacy that is unreasonable to ask of Christians. That is, a direct physical revelation of the divine is an unreasonable burden of proof, especially since it is not something to be expected if say the God of Christianity, Judaism or especially Islam is true (especially Islam, Insha'Allah). While God may have intervened throughout history, and may intervene according to His own purpose, generally 1000s of years passed between events recorded in the Old Testament and such contact is actually minimal rather than general.

Additionally, the very fact that one needs to be convinced in such a manner on their own terms, to me also shows the hardness of heart. The fact that they do not already see God clearly shows a blinded spirit. And theologically, if one reads Scripture, those whose hearts are hard become hardened all the more as God acts just like clay hardens in the Sun.

And yet, there are many powerful logical arguments for God's existence. Some very strong ones that we always mention in discussions here like Danieltwotwenty, ruanbouma and Byblos scrape upon. These seem easy to ignore though, because unlike direct physical experience they take some thinking to follow. Even those like the Kalam Cosmological argument which are supported by scientific facts still gets ignored or shoved away without truly reflecting upon the absurdities or issues if the Aseity is not intelligent and powerful.

I believe Jesus was clearly right when He said: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Ironically Fruitloops, you challenged the historicity of Israel saying it lacks any evidence. This completely ignores the books we call Scripture even within a historical critical context, or perhaps even that the nation of Israel was clearly a dominant nation throughout history (however they came to be if one ignores their own accounting). Yet, people even during the resurrection remained hardened. With a minimal facts approach, unless one rules out God's intervention from the get go, Jesus' resurrection would best account for all the circumstantial historical evidence that scholars on both sides largely accept.

Now I do not believe Christianity teaches that God reveals Himself in a spiritual way let alone physical to anyone who believes God does not exist and is closed up. While God may have intervened throughout history at times with certain persons, and may intervene according to His own purpose, generally 1000s of years passed between events recorded in the Old Testament and people who are hardened God generally gives them over to their own closed hearts. Technically a righteous God doesn't want to associate with us on any level, and yet a loving God has compassion.

God only reveals Himself to those who seek. Have you truly sought God? Ironically while we are to seek God, I believe there is no one who truly seeks after God (Romans 3:11). God's moving in our lives and the world somehow softens many of us -- quite a feat if we're clay and God is the Sun. God may have to remove Himself from our picture, and hope we soften to a point that He can place some truth about Him on our path. Here then we start seeing glimpses of light which we perhaps become intrigued by. As we are more and more drawn towards God His existence becomes more and more obvious. Then in a twinkling of the eye the truth dawns and the hardness evaporates. At least, this is how I perceive it works.

So the question I ask to you, is whether the direct physical experience you seem to seek is a reasonable burden of proof for the God that I believe in? I've offered many words above which lead me to believe I don't think it is reasonable. It is even an informal fallacy of an unreasonable burden of proof. You can accept that for what it is, or reject it. Aside from a direct physical encounter, there are nonetheless many powerful arguments for God's existence.

If you ever read one book, CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is a great 101 start. It can also be found freely online to read. Anyone truly interested in knowing if God exists would make it one of their top books.

Kurieuo wrote:And yet, there are many powerful logical arguments for God's existence. Some very strong ones that we always mention in discussions here like Danieltwotwenty, ruanbouma and Byblos scrape upon. These seem easy to ignore though, because unlike direct physical experience they take some thinking to follow. Even those like the Kalam Cosmological argument which are supported by scientific facts still gets ignored or shoved away without truly reflecting upon the absurdities or issues if the Aseity is not intelligent and powerful.

Kalam, whether you're talking the classical formulation or the more recently formulations by Craig, has the problem that it conflates and confuses the empirical and the metaphysical, the infinite and the eternal.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that both of the two first premises...:

P1 - Whatever began to exist has a cause (this is the classical formulation)
P1' - An actual infinite is impossible (this is Craig's)

...make a priori assumptions about the metaphysical nature of things. They're both empirically true in the sense that no observations contradict them (well, there's an argument to be made that P1 is not universally true), but they haven't been demonstrated as metaphysically necessary because they proceed from the assumption that time and causality are uniform - that is, that they were the same before the universe as they are within the universe. It is metaphysically possible that what existed before the big bang^* was a state of timelessness, in which case Craig's definition of "an actual infinite"^** becomes meaningless and/or necessary^***, depending on how you look at it.

* This being the limit of our empirical knowledge of time.
** Craig's definition being "an infinite amount of time".
*** Meaningless because "an infinite amount of time" loses its reference point in a timeless world, necessary because timelessness accords with the idea of eternity, and eternity is conceptually similar to (though quite different from) "an infinite amount of time".

PerciFlage wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And yet, there are many powerful logical arguments for God's existence. Some very strong ones that we always mention in discussions here like Danieltwotwenty, ruanbouma and Byblos scrape upon. These seem easy to ignore though, because unlike direct physical experience they take some thinking to follow. Even those like the Kalam Cosmological argument which are supported by scientific facts still gets ignored or shoved away without truly reflecting upon the absurdities or issues if the Aseity is not intelligent and powerful.

Kalam, whether you're talking the classical formulation or the more recently formulations by Craig, has the problem that it conflates and confuses the empirical and the metaphysical, the infinite and the eternal.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that both of the two first premises...:

P1 - Whatever began to exist has a cause (this is the classical formulation)
P1' - An actual infinite is impossible (this is Craig's)

...make a priori assumptions about the metaphysical nature of things. They're both empirically true in the sense that no observations contradict them (well, there's an argument to be made that P1 is not universally true), but they haven't been demonstrated as metaphysically necessary because they proceed from the assumption that time and causality are uniform - that is, that they were the same before the universe as they are within the universe. It is metaphysically possible that what existed before the big bang^* was a state of timelessness, in which case Craig's definition of "an actual infinite"^** becomes meaningless and/or necessary^***, depending on how you look at it.

* This being the limit of our empirical knowledge of time.
** Craig's definition being "an infinite amount of time".
*** Meaningless because "an infinite amount of time" loses its reference point in a timeless world, necessary because timelessness accords with the idea of eternity, and eternity is conceptually similar to (though quite different from) "an infinite amount of time".

I'm not a fan of the Kalam, but with that said, I don't think your critique works. I'll emphasize: while I think there are critiques that work, this is not one of them.

There is no confusion of metaphysical and empirical observations. Let's take Craig's formulation:

• 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause.

That is not an empirical claim. It is a metaphysical one. You can show in a lab out of ten million events, all ten million had causes, and that does not demonstrate (1) to be true. That's the nature of science and what it can and cannot prove. But the premise can be proven by metaphysics, for to deny it is to ultimately insist that something both exists and does not exist in the same way at the same time, which is absurd.

Moving on . . .

• 2. The universe began to exist

This is not a metaphysical claim, and your discussion of time has no bearing on the situation. This is a scientific claim. And this, by the way, is why Craig and other proponents of the Kalam spend so much time talking about modern scientific theories regarding the Big Bang. You can argue, of course, that science cannot assert this to be true, that, in fact, science knows of no beginning, and therefore the premise is unjustified. That is closer (though still not correct) to a proper and valid criticism of the argument. But in that case, you are still making a scientific claim about science.

Again, there is no metaphysical/empirical confusion. One premise is metaphysical and defended on those grounds. The other is empirical and defended on those grounds. Contra your objection, the Kalam makes no assumptions on what the universe was like "before" the Big Bang, before the universe's origin. You're just wrongly equating "the cause of" with "what came before." The Kalam simply points out that if the universe came into existence, then something other than itself must have brought it into existence, and that "something else" is (by further argument) best understood to be God.

Jac3510 wrote:

• 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause.

That is not an empirical claim. It is a metaphysical one. You can show in a lab out of ten million events, all ten million had causes, and that does not demonstrate (1) to be true. That's the nature of science and what it can and cannot prove. But the premise can be proven by metaphysics, for to deny it is to ultimately insist that something both exists and does not exist in the same way at the same time, which is absurd.

To prove it through metaphysics would rely on a question begging premise, that is, "coming into existence" and "having a cause" would share definitions. Craig opts for a hybrid metaphysical/empirical definition, and argues against critics who raise arguments based on quantum mechanical observations of non-determinism by saying that, per his definition of "coming into existence", the observations must ultimately have a cause even if it's an unknown one. This is metaphysically possible - though a very strong definition of "cause" which takes atemporal situations into account would be needed to deem it metaphysically necessary - but empirically untrue.

Jac3510 wrote:Again, there is no metaphysical/empirical confusion. One premise is metaphysical and defended on those grounds. The other is empirical and defended on those grounds. Contra your objection, the Kalam makes no assumptions on what the universe was like "before" the Big Bang, before the universe's origin. You're just wrongly equating "the cause of" with "what came before." The Kalam simply points out that if the universe came into existence, then something other than itself must have brought it into existence, and that "something else" is (by further argument) best understood to be God.

Kalam P2 states that the universe did come into existence. Kalam also does make an assumption about what came before the universe, inasmuch as it assumes that the universe began with the big bang as opposed to space and time. It doesn't take into account the possibility that what existed before the big bang was still something best described as the universe, but in which the notions of time and causality as we understand them post-big bang did not exist. In other words, "the big bang created space and time" is the empirical claim assumed in Kalam which is not necessarily equivalent to the metaphysical "the universe began to exist".

PerciFlage wrote:To prove it through metaphysics would rely on a question begging premise, that is, "coming into existence" and "having a cause" would share definitions.

I don't know what you are talking about. They don't share definitions at all. When something comes into existence, it receives being. The cause of that receiving being however, is not the thing receiving being.

Now, I imagine that if you adopt a Humean/Kantian notion of causality you would have a problem here, but it's important to note that the Humean/Kantian notion is still a metaphysical notion. It's also wrong, and we answer the question about whether it is wrong or right on metaphysical grounds.

Kalam P2 states that the universe did come into existence. Kalam also does make an assumption about what came before the universe, inasmuch as it assumes that the universe began with the big bang as opposed to space and time. It doesn't take into account the possibility that what existed before the big bang was still something best described as the universe, but in which the notions of time and causality as we understand them post-big bang did not exist. In other words, "the big bang created space and time" is the empirical claim assumed in Kalam which is not necessarily equivalent to the metaphysical "the universe began to exist".

All you are doing is restating the argument I already made. You're just taking the standard line of debating whether or not P2 is TRUE. Again, I would submit to you that P2 is a scientific premise and it is right or wrong based on science. But, again, you don't get to say that P2 is introducing metaphysical questions and making assumptions about time and what not. That's just not the case, and when you do that, you are just creating a straw man and being dishonest with the argument as it actually stands.

edit:

I should hasten to add, though, that there are some (Craig included) who attempt to prove (2) on metaphysical grounds. If they did that, then the Kalam would qualify as a demonstration of the First Cause. You saw the traditional philosophical argument for P2 already in this thread (if the universe always existed we would not have made it to the present). Craig has other arguments. I don't think they work, so you won't get any argument from me on that point. I think if Kalam advocates are going to continue pushing their argument, then need to do what they claim they are doing. To say, "The Big Bang gives scientific evidence for God!" and then offer the KCA but then refuse to defend P2 on scientific grounds (via the BB) but instead offering metaphysical support is nothing more than a bait and switch. What they need to do is be honest and defend P2 scientifically, which is what I've been saying is the stronger argument that you're critique does not adequately address.

Now, I think that there are other issues with P2, more significant ones, but forgive me for not being willing to do your work for you. I'm just saying that the critique YOU offered is, at best, a critique of a weak form of the KCA. Respectable people don't critique weaker arguments; they critique stronger ones. If all you're trying to do is show that a weaker version of the KCA is unpersuasive, then I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "So what?" In that, you'd just be like Richard Dawkins who, in his philosophical naivety, thinks the argument he puts forward has anything to do with the God of Scripture. I well admit that his arguments works against the physical gods of Mormonism or possibly ancient Greece (depending on how you interpret their mythology), but it has little use beyond any of that.