Evidence for God from Science

Listen, no offense, but Kenny's comments demonstrate he does not possess the acumen to discuss a first cause. His statements are just bald assertions with no supportive argument. They don't even merit a response. from what i've read he has essentially discared 2500 years of philosophical and metaphysics scholarship and rendered the establisbed terminology meaningless.
I don't visit physics forums and discuss quantum theory, because I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. Kenny would be wise to do the same.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Go back and reread what I wrote re: the absurdity of having more than one uncaused cause. If you have questions, ask them, instead of offering unsubstantiated, subjective opinions (see how I keep interjecting the word 'subjective' in the correct context! ).

You take for granted that the first cause as a creator which requires intelligence. My point is, the first cause doesn’t have to create; it can become responsible for the existence of something else in other ways than creating.

Then let's explore the idea of who (or what, if you wish) can stand in causal relations to others but itself be uncaused. Before we do that, even, let's see if we can agree on some obvious principles:

1) From nothing, nothing comes. And by nothing, I don't mean gravity or a vacuum or some kind of quantum fluctuation or field. I mean really and truly nothing. The kind that's indefinable/ Why? Well, because it's ... nothing. You get the point.

2) From the Kalam cosmoligical argument we can state the following:
2.1 Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2.2 The universe began to exist
2.3 The universe must have a cause

I honestly don't want to argue the merits of the KCA, that's not why I stated it. The reason I included the KCA is simply to emphasize the fact that matter cannot stand in causal relation to itself, which brings me to the third point.

3) If the universe (or multi-verse or what-have-you) had a cause, then that cause, by definition, must be outside of the universe.

What, then, can we say about the cause?

Since the universe and all that it contains, including all of matter, space-time field, the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc, came to exist with the universe, then the cause of the universe must be timeless (outside of time), spaceless (outside of space), immaterial (not formed of matter), enormously powerful, and possess freedom of the will. You may very well object to that last one but that can very easily be proven from the arguments of necessity and contingency, or the principles of motion. But read on for now.

Well what kinds of things can we think of that fit the above criteria? I can think of only 2:

i) An abstract object such as any number (say number 3), or
ii) An unembodied mind/consciousness

We all know very well that abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to anything, in fact that's the very definition of what it means to be abstract. So the only logical conclusion we can draw is that the cause must be an unembodied mind/consciousness. Why must this unembodied mind possess freedom of the will? Because without it it becomes yet another abstract object and nothing can get started.

And I've already explained why there can be one and only one uncaused caused.

If you disagree with any of the above, please state specifically why. Don't just tell me you disagree and offer a silly counter-example like a rock being the first cause. Now I would tend to agree with Jlay's post above that this is simply a waste of time but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere in wanting an honest dialogue. Please think about what I've taken the time to lay out for you and ask questions or give me your counter-reasoning.

jlay wrote:Listen, no offense, but Kenny's comments demonstrate he does not possess the acumen to discuss a first cause. His statements are just bald assertions with no supportive argument. They don't even merit a response

Wow! talking about bald assertions with no supportive arguments that don't even merit a response....... Tea pot; meet Kettle!

jlay wrote:from what i've read he has essentially discared 2500 years of philosophical and metaphysics scholarship and rendered the establisbed terminology meaningless.
I don't visit physics forums and discuss quantum theory, because I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. Kenny would be wise to do the same.

Perhaps you should stay away from "God and Science" fourms unless you have something constructive to say! Your mudslinging just ain't cutting it my friend!


Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Go back and reread what I wrote re: the absurdity of having more than one uncaused cause. If you have questions, ask them, instead of offering unsubstantiated, subjective opinions (see how I keep interjecting the word 'subjective' in the correct context! ).

You take for granted that the first cause as a creator which requires intelligence. My point is, the first cause doesn’t have to create; it can become responsible for the existence of something else in other ways than creating.

Then let's explore the idea of who (or what, if you wish) can stand in causal relations to others but itself be uncaused. Before we do that, even, let's see if we can agree on some obvious principles:

1) From nothing, nothing comes. And by nothing, I don't mean gravity or a vacuum or some kind of quantum fluctuation or field. I mean really and truly nothing. The kind that's indefinable/ Why? Well, because it's ... nothing. You get the point.

2) From the Kalam cosmoligical argument we can state the following:
2.1 Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2.2 The universe began to exist

Here is where I disagree with you. Just for the record, there are no scientific claims that support neither my claims nor yours. Science does not support your claim that an infinite being created the singular that expanded to become the Universe;(I am assuming that is your claim; if it isn’t I apologize but I will bet I will bet dollars to donuts that whatever your claim is, it isn’t confirmed by science), and science does not support my claim the singular that eventually expanded to be what is known as the Big Bang has always existed.

Now if you define the Universe as what the singular became once it began to expand, then the answer is simple; the Universe was caused by the infinite singular when it expanded.

If you define the Universe as all that ever existed; which includes the singular pre expansion and post expansion; then you have no justification to claim the Universe began to exist.

The rest of your arguments are under the assumption that the Universe began to exist; which I believe has now been refuted. If you disagree, please explain why.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Listen, no offense, but Kenny's comments demonstrate he does not possess the acumen to discuss a first cause. His statements are just bald assertions with no supportive argument. They don't even merit a response

Wow! talking about bald assertions with no supportive arguments that don't even merit a response....... Tea pot; meet Kettle!

Accusing Jlay of hypocrisy in this case is uncalled for, Kenny. You're playing games. If you're not going to take this seriously, then leave. You're wasting everybody's time!

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:from what i've read he has essentially discared 2500 years of philosophical and metaphysics scholarship and rendered the establisbed terminology meaningless.
I don't visit physics forums and discuss quantum theory, because I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. Kenny would be wise to do the same.

Perhaps you should stay away from "God and Science" fourms unless you have something constructive to say! Your mudslinging just ain't cutting it my friend!


Ken

Jlay wasn't attacking you, Kenny. He was pointing out that the entire time people have been answering your questions, you've been doing nothing but ignoring them and acting like they're irrelevant simply because you don't want to hear them. ¬_¬

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Go back and reread what I wrote re: the absurdity of having more than one uncaused cause. If you have questions, ask them, instead of offering unsubstantiated, subjective opinions (see how I keep interjecting the word 'subjective' in the correct context! ).

You take for granted that the first cause as a creator which requires intelligence. My point is, the first cause doesn’t have to create; it can become responsible for the existence of something else in other ways than creating.

Then let's explore the idea of who (or what, if you wish) can stand in causal relations to others but itself be uncaused. Before we do that, even, let's see if we can agree on some obvious principles:

1) From nothing, nothing comes. And by nothing, I don't mean gravity or a vacuum or some kind of quantum fluctuation or field. I mean really and truly nothing. The kind that's indefinable/ Why? Well, because it's ... nothing. You get the point.

2) From the Kalam cosmoligical argument we can state the following:
2.1 Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2.2 The universe began to exist

Here is where I disagree with you. Just for the record, there are no scientific claims that support neither my claims nor yours. Science does not support your claim that an infinite being created the singular that expanded to become the Universe;(I am assuming that is your claim; if it isn’t I apologize but I will bet I will bet dollars to donuts that whatever your claim is, it isn’t confirmed by science), and science does not support my claim the singular that eventually expanded to be what is known as the Big Bang has always existed.

Science can't touch upon whether or not an infinite being created the universe or not, as that is beyond the reach of science. It can only touch upon the matter of whether or not the universe came into existence, and so far the evidence points that the universe came into existence.

Kenny wrote:Now if you define the Universe as what the singular became once it began to expand, then the answer is simple; the Universe was caused by the infinite singular when it expanded.

Wait, what? If the universe was infinitely a singular, what reason would it have to expand? Wouldn't it follow that it would simply stay in whatever state it was even up 'till now, and all that presently exists wouldn't be here?

Kenny wrote:If you define the Universe as all that ever existed; which includes the singular pre expansion and post expansion; then you have no justification to claim the Universe began to exist.

The rest of your arguments are under the assumption that the Universe began to exist; which I believe has now been refuted. If you disagree, please explain why.

Ken

You didn't refute a dang thing. You haven't illustrated what would cause an infinite singular to suddenly expand.

If it were eternally in that singular state, then it wouldn't expand unless some force made it expand. And it would have to be an outside force, since if it were eternally in that singular state, then it would not have had the force within itself to expand in the first place.

Flawed Intellect
Jlay wasn't attacking you, Kenny. He was pointing out that the entire time people have been answering your questions, you've been doing nothing but ignoring them and acting like they're irrelevant simply because you don't want to hear them. ¬_¬

Ken
Thus far I’ve had 88 posts. I challenge you to list 1 time when I have done this.


Flawed Intellect
.Science can't touch upon whether or not an infinite being created the universe or not, as that is beyond the reach of science. It can only touch upon the matter of whether or not the universe came into existence, and so far the evidence points that the universe came into existence.

Ken
Ummm this is the God and Science fourm; right? So unless I am mistaken this conversation is about science.

Flawed Intellect
Wait, what? If the universe was infinitely a singular, what reason would it have to expand? Wouldn't it follow that it would simply stay in whatever state it was even up 'till now, and all that presently exists wouldn't be here?

Ken
I don’t know. Why would God create a singular then have it expand into what we call the universe? Why not just create the Universe?
My point is; it is easy to ask questions nobody has an answer to, the trick is to admit when you don't have an answer rather than makin stuff up.

Flawed intellect
You didn't refute a dang thing. You haven't illustrated what would cause an infinite singular to suddenly expand.

Ken
I never said I would!


Flawed Intellect
If it were eternally in that singular state, then it wouldn't expand unless some force made it expand. And it would have to be an outside force, since if it were eternally in that singular state, then it would not have had the force within itself to expand in the first place.

Ken
There could lots of explanations. Maybe the Universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction; when it expands to a specific amount an unknown law of the Universe causes it to contract to a singular then it expands again..... I don’t have an answer for you, and I never claimed I did.



Ken

I don't have to list even one time you've completely ignored what someone has to say, Kenny. The first page of this very thread is ample evidence.

There could lots of explanations. Maybe the Universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction; when it expands to a specific amount an unknown law of the Universe causes it to contract to a singular then it expands again..... I don’t have an answer for you, and I never claimed I did

Ken, if BICEP observations are confirmed then such a cyclic model proposed by Steindhart and Turok will be refuted.
But yes, you can always say there is some unknown law doing this or that. That is not a scientific approach though.

FlawedIntellect wrote:I don't have to list even one time you've completely ignored what someone has to say, Kenny. The first page of this very thread is ample evidence.

When somebody gives a response I reply to that repsonse. When someone directs me to a book, website, or some other source, I will often ask them to read their source and get back with me. I've explained multiple times why I do this. It is not that I am ignoring the person, it's just that I've never gotten a straight answer that way and it has always wound up being a complete waste of time.

Ken

1over137 wrote:

There could lots of explanations. Maybe the Universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction; when it expands to a specific amount an unknown law of the Universe causes it to contract to a singular then it expands again..... I don’t have an answer for you, and I never claimed I did

Ken, if BICEP observations are confirmed then such a cyclic model proposed by Steindhart and Turok will be refuted.
But yes, you can always say there is some unknown law doing this or that. That is not a scientific approach though.

Like I said, it is easy to ask questions nobody has answers to, the trick it to admit when you don't know.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Go back and reread what I wrote re: the absurdity of having more than one uncaused cause. If you have questions, ask them, instead of offering unsubstantiated, subjective opinions (see how I keep interjecting the word 'subjective' in the correct context! ).

You take for granted that the first cause as a creator which requires intelligence. My point is, the first cause doesn’t have to create; it can become responsible for the existence of something else in other ways than creating.

Then let's explore the idea of who (or what, if you wish) can stand in causal relations to others but itself be uncaused. Before we do that, even, let's see if we can agree on some obvious principles:

1) From nothing, nothing comes. And by nothing, I don't mean gravity or a vacuum or some kind of quantum fluctuation or field. I mean really and truly nothing. The kind that's indefinable/ Why? Well, because it's ... nothing. You get the point.

2) From the Kalam cosmoligical argument we can state the following:
2.1 Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2.2 The universe began to exist

Here is where I disagree with you. Just for the record, there are no scientific claims that support neither my claims nor yours. Science does not support your claim that an infinite being created the singular that expanded to become the Universe;(I am assuming that is your claim; if it isn’t I apologize but I will bet I will bet dollars to donuts that whatever your claim is, it isn’t confirmed by science), and science does not support my claim the singular that eventually expanded to be what is known as the Big Bang has always existed.

Now if you define the Universe as what the singular became once it began to expand, then the answer is simple; the Universe was caused by the infinite singular when it expanded.

If you define the Universe as all that ever existed; which includes the singular pre expansion and post expansion; then you have no justification to claim the Universe began to exist.

The rest of your arguments are under the assumption that the Universe began to exist; which I believe has now been refuted. If you disagree, please explain why.

Ken

Kenny, you are all over the map my friend. First, do yourself a favor and stop using words like 'refute' so nonchalantly. You can refute an argument by either presenting a contradiction in one of its premises and thereby falsifying its conclusion, or by offering evidence to the contrary. You have done neither. What you have done is offer a bunch of claims, unsubstantiated claims at that, unsubstantiated claims that are not even on the subject matter (of my post) to boot. I presented a philosophical argument and the only thing you came back with as a supposed refutation is well 'there's no scientific proof so there ...'

Look, I'm not going to answer your post point for point, others have done that. What I want to do is try to narrow down the discussion somewhat. Now we can take one of two major tracks and it's up to you which one. There's the metaphysical track in which we can offer absolute proof of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal first agent of causation. Or we can go the scientific track and offer very compelling evidence in support of the existence of God. And you are dead wrong, by the way, science has plenty to say on the subject, in the way of corroborating evidence, not proof, since we all know science is not in the business of proving anything, right?

Now I have a feeling you should choose the scientific track because, to be honest, you're not ready to go the metaphysical route. But it is entirely up to you. Let me know which way you want to continue, if any.

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:I don't have to list even one time you've completely ignored what someone has to say, Kenny. The first page of this very thread is ample evidence.

When somebody gives a response I reply to that repsonse. When someone directs me to a book, website, or some other source, I will often ask them to read their source and get back with me. I've explained multiple times why I do this. It is not that I am ignoring the person, it's just that I've never gotten a straight answer that way and it has always wound up being a complete waste of time.

Ken

That is only your opinion that you NEVER have got response. In the other thread I responded to you even directly. Yet, I received no reaction from you.

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

There could lots of explanations. Maybe the Universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction; when it expands to a specific amount an unknown law of the Universe causes it to contract to a singular then it expands again..... I don’t have an answer for you, and I never claimed I did

Ken, if BICEP observations are confirmed then such a cyclic model proposed by Steindhart and Turok will be refuted.
But yes, you can always say there is some unknown law doing this or that. That is not a scientific approach though.

Like I said, it is easy to ask questions nobody has answers to, the trick it to admit when you don't know.

Ken

Sure , you can ask questions no one has an answer to.

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:I don't have to list even one time you've completely ignored what someone has to say, Kenny. The first page of this very thread is ample evidence.

When somebody gives a response I reply to that repsonse. When someone directs me to a book, website, or some other source, I will often ask them to read their source and get back with me. I've explained multiple times why I do this. It is not that I am ignoring the person, it's just that I've never gotten a straight answer that way and it has always wound up being a complete waste of time.

Ken

That is only your opinion that you NEVER have got response. In the other thread I responded to you even directly. Yet, I received no reaction from you.

Which thread and post number did I neglect to respond to?

Ken

Byblos wrote: Look, I'm not going to answer your post point for point, others have done that. What I want to do is try to narrow down the discussion somewhat. Now we can take one of two major tracks and it's up to you which one. There's the metaphysical track in which we can offer absolute proof of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal first agent of causation. Or we can go the scientific track and offer very compelling evidence in support of the existence of God. And you are dead wrong, by the way, science has plenty to say on the subject, in the way of corroborating evidence, not proof, since we all know science is not in the business of proving anything, right?

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

Ken