Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:12 pm**

RE: "Saying this shows someone failed to understand the argument of the necessity of a first causer. Or prime mover, or principle cause. They aren't addressing the argument."

Again, I am not an atheist. But being the devil's advocate for the sake of argument, I've heard it argued by atheists that there is no necessity for a first causer. You are just claiming there needs to be one. The very idea of a "prime mover" or "principle cause" presumes there needs to be one. So this would be claimed to be a circular argument. I've seen thatclaim many times. Again, it's a pretty strong argument to claim nothingness does not exist in reality because there
is no evidence for it. Even if you were holding nothingness you would not be able to tell!

RE: "Again, this shows the atheist doesn't understand the argument presented. So to enable him in this thinking is doing him disservice and not speaking truth. And making him believe he does understand what he is talking about. When he doesn't. "

From the atheist perspective, you are expressing opinions. Not everyone shares your way of thinking. That's why atheists insist on having objective evidence in reality as being more important than your passionate claims that you are speaking an absolute truth.

"Why do you say you are a Christian when you are referring to God as 'herself' and 'her'? That is insulting God by not using the terms He chooses to use for Himself and the reflection that portrays of our relationship to Him."

Please lighten up. I just thought it was funny to imagine if God breaking threw the heavens revealing an undeniable truth to all who witness it and it turns out God was a woman. Of course an omnipotent God is both male, female, and infinite all the same time. An omnipotent God transcends all boundaries. That is
the nature of omnipotence. Being omnipotent means being every possible way all at once.

RE: "There is evidence for God. And faith is trust based off of reason. I trust God = I have faith in God and that faith comes from evidence that cannot be unseen but is most commonly misunderstood. Science is a superficial way to understand reality. You need to talk philosophy and metaphysics if you want to know the evidence which is the foundation of science (which could not exist without the foundation of reality revealed through the study of metaphysics and philosophy). "

Everything you wrote is a judgement about your experiences. I'm not sure it qualifies as "evidence" based on the normal definition of the word. Philosophy and metaphysics are not evidence but commentary. There is no doubt in my mind that your belief in the existence of God is an absolute truth. But your evidence and truth is all about your beliefs. If you are going to prove the existence of God you need to have God standing next to you shaking hands with people you meet. Then as God is shaking hands you say, "Here's God just like I told he exists."

It seems to me what people claim as evidence for existence of God is their judgements about their own experiences. These judgements are purely subjective and are not shared by atheists. But the lack of evidence for God's existence should not degrade our faith. If you need to declare your subjective experiences as proof for the existence of God then I think it indicates your faith is weak. Who are you really trying to convince other than yourself at that point. I have never met anyone having a deep sense of faith claiming the basis of their beliefs came from other people's commentaries.

RE: "I don't know if you believe this or not and I won't assume. But it's obviously false to claim 'there's no evidence to support the existence of God'. The problem is the evidence hasn't been seen. And many things will prevent one from seeing what is obvious."

I thought I was clear that I was conveying what atheists would say. Sorry to split hairs here but if "evidence hasn't been seen" kind of strains the meaning of the word evidence.

If I take an apple and smash on the ground in front of you, it does not require much effort on your part to see the existence of the crushed apple. Most people would claim "evidence" is of this type and does not require effort to experience it or believe it. What you claim as evidence is more like conjecture. If you are going to make an extoridinary claim then you must be able to product extrordinary evidence. Words are just words and nothing extrordinary. And again, it seems to me a person rooted in faith does not need or talk about evidence. They just believe in their convictions without conditions.

RE: "The main one today is how the minds of people have been raised in the end of this age. Which stems from pride, the gateway to destruction."

Well, I hope you don't think I lack humility. I read a very interesting quote that has always haunted me since I read it: "You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character." This is why I don't like to criticize other people but just what they are saying.

Many people claim to be an expert on knowing the mind of God. In terms of hubris, I would argue it is probably the height of human hubris for someone to be pretending to speak for God. I tend to think God's mind is infinite and well beyond comprehension of our limited consciousness.

RE: "Regardless, there is evidence, proof exists. And it's waiting to be seen."

Again, you are straining the definition of what it means to be "seen". If I use my eyes to experience reality, that is the act of seeing. Your own personal experiences have nothing to do with the act of "seeing". Although, many people use the word "seeing" as a metaphor for understanding or knowing. But it is not the same thing as looking at something when it is used as metaphor. You can't just flip the metaphor around and say therefore what you "see" is real evidence for the existence of God. You can but no one is going to believe you because nobody can truly know all that is going on inside your mind.

RE: "You are right to think of what the first cause is before the first cause of our temporal existence. As that is to understand God better. As He is beyond time and time is within Him. He is the first cause of this temporal realm as He is Existence. He always has existed and existence springs from Him, aka the prime over, the first cause of an infinity of causes. Get it?"

If you truly believe in the infinite nature of God, then words like "first cause" and "prime mover" are just anthropomorphic constructs from your imagination. God's infinite nature exist outside the boundaries of time. It just seems to me an infinite God is not only beyond our comprehension but words do not even come close to touching what they are supposed to be representing.

I would like to reiterate that scripture is not solely about the nature of God but primarily about the the basic message that being a good person and living a moral life is important. Too much talk about nature of God detracts from the strength of the primary message.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:26 am**

Your a little intriguing dfnj.
I'm sure others would disagree but you tick a couple of boxes, your clearly intelligent and you think outside the box!
I think God cannot be so easily proven, not in the way, we accept or understand. I think though the endeavour to do so is done with the absolute best intentions. But as you stated the finite cannot, logically ever explain the infinite.
So where does that leave us?
If we cannot 'prove' God beyond reason, if our personal experience is really nothing but a subjective experience, if the bible is for the most part a divine instruction towards goodness and morality then where does the absolute of our faith derive?
The no questions asked, no holds barred, faith beyond question, love beyond reason lie?

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:00 am**

MBPrata wrote:
These are essentially all philosophical questions on why, and not on the how, which indicates they aren't scientific questions at all.
Allow me to disagree: not philosophical questions; questions on logic. Besides...so what? Did I say I wanted to question on science?

One must presume logic to ask these questions.
If we don't assume that God has a logical thought, then no Bible will save us; He will choose who goes to Heaven or Hell with no logic whatsoever. We're absolutely helpless.

Just because someone can ask 'why' and question the logic of something, doesn't mean there isn't a compatibly logical answer.
Yes, but if the answers were that logical, it's likely that we would have no problem on guessing these answers, right?

Maybe the point was that there is logic so God must have made the world logical.

Regarding your previous questions - my first thought about the cannibalism one was that I'm pretty sure God doesn't want us to do that, but we have free will. You seem to be thinking though that God should have made people to be completely different from animals. My only answer to that is it doesn't seem necessary to me - I'm even open to the idea of having evolved from lesser creatures. I think however it came about we're just God's most special creatures, the ones he made capable of thinking consciously about him and even communicating with him.

And the coincidences - well, I think God made nature capable of interesting things, to say the least.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:06 am**

You can't deny that anything that comes into being requires a first cause, it is impossible for something that comes into being to NOT have a cause.
There is no way to prove that something that comes into being, does so without a cause.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:42 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:You can't deny that anything that comes into being requires a first cause, it is impossible for something that comes into being to NOT have a cause.
There is no way to prove that something that comes into being, does so without a cause.

The key to that is "come into being", defined as having had a cause. God, they say, had no cause and was always there.

I dont think there is a way to prove that mass / energy ever came into being, any more than said god did or could be proved to have. Or not have.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:52 am**

Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:You can't deny that anything that comes into being requires a first cause, it is impossible for something that comes into being to NOT have a cause.
There is no way to prove that something that comes into being, does so without a cause.
The key to that is "come into being", defined as having had a cause. God, they say, had no cause and was always there.

I dont think there is a way to prove that mass / energy ever came into being, any more than said god did or could be proved to have. Or not have.

Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:23 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:You can't deny that anything that comes into being requires a first cause, it is impossible for something that comes into being to NOT have a cause.
There is no way to prove that something that comes into being, does so without a cause.
The key to that is "come into being", defined as having had a cause. God, they say, had no cause and was always there.

I dont think there is a way to prove that mass / energy ever came into being, any more than said god did or could be proved to have. Or not have.
Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.

The distinction between "everything' and, "all things" ?

The assertion that mass must come into being is based on...?

The assertion that a god doesnt have to have come into being is based on..?

The distinction between mass and energy is for the physicists, its two aspects of the same thing.

Aristotle was under the impression that there were four elements, earth air fire and water. Playing with half a deck, you might say. Playing with a stacked deck.

Aquinas for his part was not exactly doing science when he set out to find ways to prove what he already had concluded.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:28 am**

Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:You can't deny that anything that comes into being requires a first cause, it is impossible for something that comes into being to NOT have a cause.
There is no way to prove that something that comes into being, does so without a cause.
The key to that is "come into being", defined as having had a cause. God, they say, had no cause and was always there.

I dont think there is a way to prove that mass / energy ever came into being, any more than said god did or could be proved to have. Or not have.
Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.
The distinction between "everything' and, "all things" ?

The assertion that mass must come into being is based on...?

The assertion that a god doesnt have to have come into being is based on..?

The distinction between mass and energy is for the physicists, its two aspects of the same thing.

Aristotle was under the impression that there were four elements, earth air fire and water. Playing with half a deck, you might say. Playing with a stacked deck.

Aquinas for his part was not exactly doing science when he set out to find ways to prove what he already had concluded.

You do realize that this has very little to do with science ( observation) and more to do with philosophical reasoning, right?

The distinction between "everything' and, "all things" ?
Doesn't matter since we are not talking about either, only about things that do come into being.

The assertion that mass must come into being is based on...?
By mass you mean material mass, correct? A substance that has "solidity" and or "weight" ?

The assertion that a god doesnt have to have come into being is based on..?
Reasoning, if God came into being then He would not be God ( as Christians define God of course).

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:50 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:You can't deny that anything that comes into being requires a first cause, it is impossible for something that comes into being to NOT have a cause.
There is no way to prove that something that comes into being, does so without a cause.
The key to that is "come into being", defined as having had a cause. God, they say, had no cause and was always there.

I dont think there is a way to prove that mass / energy ever came into being, any more than said god did or could be proved to have. Or not have.
Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.
The distinction between "everything' and, "all things" ?

The assertion that mass must come into being is based on...?

The assertion that a god doesnt have to have come into being is based on..?

The distinction between mass and energy is for the physicists, its two aspects of the same thing.

Aristotle was under the impression that there were four elements, earth air fire and water. Playing with half a deck, you might say. Playing with a stacked deck.

Aquinas for his part was not exactly doing science when he set out to find ways to prove what he already had concluded.

You do realize that this has very little to do with science ( observation) and more to do with philosophical reasoning, right?
Ive noticed this forum, despite its name, is light on the science.

The distinction between "everything' and, "all things" ?
Doesn't matter since we are not talking about either, only about things that do come into being.
You made a distinction, why? And I dont happen to agree that its anything but an assertion that mass /energy "came into being".

The assertion that mass must come into being is based on...?
By mass you mean material mass, correct? A substance that has "solidity" and or "weight" ?
I mean what the dictionary says. What is the basis for the assertion that it "must" come into being?

The assertion that a god doesnt have to have come into being is based on..?
Reasoning, if God came into being then He would not be God ( as Christians define God of course)
Ok but that will convince only those who start with a conclusion.

.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:52 am**

Watch your quote function, that is a bit messy up there...

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:54 am**

I mean what the dictionary says. What is the basis for the assertion that it "must" come into being?

Mass:
noun
1.
a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size:
a mass of dough.
2.
a collection of incoherent particles, parts, or objects regarded as forming one body:
a mass of sand.
Synonyms: assemblage, heap, congeries.

Please show me an example of "mass" that does NOT come into being?

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:23 am**

Ha. No deal, You said it "has" to come into being. I want to know the basis of this assertion.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:30 am**

Audie wrote:Ha. No deal, You said it "has" to come into being. I want to know the basis of this assertion.

The basis of my assertion that all things with mass that come into being have a cause?

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:40 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:Ha. No deal, You said it "has" to come into being. I want to know the basis of this assertion.
The basis of my assertion that all things with mass that come into being have a cause?

No, the basis of the assertion that mass / energy etc "has to (have) come into existence".

If something does come into existence it rather obviously must have a cause.

Im not remotely satisfied that anyone knows that mass / energy somehow were caused to come into existence, or what time is, for that matter.

Going back to Aristotle for such things isnt going to cut it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:53 am**

Audie wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Audie wrote:Ha. No deal, You said it "has" to come into being. I want to know the basis of this assertion.
The basis of my assertion that all things with mass that come into being have a cause?
No, the basis of the assertion that mass / energy etc "has to (have) come into existence".

If something does come into existence it rather obviously must have a cause.

Im not remotely satisfied that anyone knows that mass / energy somehow were caused to come into existence, or what time is, for that matter.

Going back to Aristotle for such things isnt going to cut it.

You keep saying mass/energy as if they are the same thing, they aren't.
Note the defintion of mass above.

Note energy:
en·er·gy
ˈenərjē/Submit
noun
1.
the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.
"changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"
synonyms: vitality, vigor, life, liveliness, animation, vivacity, spirit, spiritedness, verve, enthusiasm, zest, vibrancy, spark, sparkle, effervescence, ebullience, exuberance, buoyancy, sprightliness; More
a person's physical and mental powers, typically as applied to a particular task or activity.
plural noun: energies
2.
power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resource.

Now, in physics we have the mass-energy equivalence, but that does NOT mean that mass and energy are the same, only that:
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of an object or system is a measure of its energy content. For instance, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram (and, accordingly, its inertia and weight) even though no matter has been added.

A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another. Mass–energy equivalence arose originally from special relativity, as developed by Albert Einstein, who proposed this equivalence in 1905 in one of his "Annus Mirabilis" papers entitled "Does the inertia of an object depend upon its energy content?"[1] The equivalence of energy E and mass m is reliant on the speed of light c and is described by the famous equation:

E = mc^2
Thus, this mass–energy relation states that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. This also serves to convert units of mass to units of energy, no matter what system of measurement units is used.

None of that means that mass is the same THING as energy.

Evidence for God from Science

Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X

Re: Non-intelligent supreme X