Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote: It's a positive assertion, therefore requiring evidence. Just because you have none doesn't somehow validate the claim.

No! Proving something DOES exist is a positive assertion; proving something does not exist is proving a negative. Can you prove Santa Clause, or Easter Bunny does not exist? No; proving so requires you to prove a negative.

Ken

The burden of proof lies with whomever makes a claim. 'There is no God/Unmoved Mover is a claim. That requires evidence.

Let me illustrate. There is a lot of evidence that Santa and the rabbit don't exist. This is a reasonable argument here. Do I need to make the argument regarding the bunny?

To make the claim that there is no Unmoved Mover/God requires the same submission of evidence. To deny so implies a lack of evidence.

1over137 wrote:How you can claim Kenny that faith is not required to conclude he does not exist?

Because faith is a positive assertion of belief.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote: It's a positive assertion, therefore requiring evidence. Just because you have none doesn't somehow validate the claim.

No! Proving something DOES exist is a positive assertion; proving something does not exist is proving a negative. Can you prove Santa Clause, or Easter Bunny does not exist? No; proving so requires you to prove a negative.

Ken

SoCalExile wrote:The burden of proof lies with whomever makes a claim.

I agree!

SoCalExile wrote:'There is no God/Unmoved Mover is a claim. That requires evidence.

I never said “there is no God” I said I don’t believe in God. I believe I was even specific to the point of saying “of all the God claims I’ve heard, none of them sound credible” That is what I am saying doesn’t require faith.

SoCalExile wrote:Let me illustrate. There is a lot of evidence that Santa and the rabbit don't exist. This is a reasonable argument here.

That argument assumes Santa is subject to the same laws of nature everybody else is; he is not thus that argument fails.

SoCalExile wrote:Do I need to make the argument regarding the bunny?

[/quote]
Yes. Prove the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist....unless you are willing to admit it doesn't require an act of faith to not believe in the Easter Bunny.

Ken

A couple logical issues with your argument Kenny (forgive me for not quoting, but I'm on my mobile and editing forum code on this little screen is a pain):

1. All professed atheists have stated, to themselves or others, that there is no God/Unmoved Mover. Many try to play little debate games to avoid it, but the worldview does require an assertion of belief, if only to oneself.

2. Well that is an assertion, and requires evidence. So please post some.

3. You argue from the fallacy that atheism is not an assertion. It is, and one that requires faith in materialist philosophy.

SoCalExile wrote:A couple logical issues with your argument Kenny (forgive me for not quoting, but I'm on my mobile and editing forum code on this little screen is a pain):

1. All professed atheists have stated, to themselves or others, that there is no God/Unmoved Mover. Many try to play little debate games to avoid it, but the worldview does require an assertion of belief, if only to oneself.

2. Well that is an assertion, and requires evidence. So please post some.

3. You argue from the fallacy that atheism is not an assertion. It is, and one that requires faith in materialist philosophy.

Have you spoken to ALL professed Atheists? No! So what makes you qualified to make claims to what they’ve said?
I do not speak for all professed atheists, I only speak for myself.

When you say “God” I am going to assume you are referring to the God described in the Bible, and I have stated that I do not believe this concept of God exists.
When you say “unmoved mover”, I have never said I don’t believe an unmoved mover exists; as a matter of fact I can consider the possibility of the singularity that eventually expanded to become the Universe during the Big Bang as being an Unmoved mover, obviously I would not consider this God.

Even though I do not believe in the God as described in the Bible, I do realize he has been described in ways that makes it impossible for me to disprove his existence, (BTW the same applies to Santa Clause) thus it would be foolish to claim I have evidence to prove his non existence, even if I wanted to. The only way such evidence could possibly interest me is if I were in the business of converting Christians into becoming ex-christians. I can assure you I have no interest in doing that; as a matter of fact I have on many occasions encouraged some christians to never let go of their faith after they assured me that they would gleefully commit every atrocity imaginable if it weren’t for their faith in God; and that this faith is barely holding them back.

So to answer your questions, I cannot prove your God does not exist, but even though I can’t disprove his existence it doesn’t mean I should assume that he does. I hope that answers your questions.

Ken

It takes a LOT of determination to remain an atheist or agnostic. And IF there is no God (or god(s) of any kind, then one must explain what exists without One. And to do that one is right back to "Pop Metaphysics," as the ONLY other possibilities all involve the unfathomable and extensively impossible uncaused things self existing and organizing with awesome detail, scale, design, purpose and functionality - and, of course, mere wild, unprovable theories that have absolutely NO evidence to support them. Of course, a non-theist could also employ the tactics of either ignoring the question, pretending it doesn't really matter, or simply shrugging with the assertion that the question as to whether there is a God behind the universe is forever unknowable. But not one of those is a real answer.

Philip wrote:It takes a LOT of determination to remain an atheist or agnostic. And IF there is no God (or god(s) of any kind, then one must explain what exists without One. And to do that one is right back to "Pop Metaphysics," as the ONLY other possibilities all involve the unfathomable and extensively impossible uncaused things self existing and organizing with awesome detail, scale, design, purpose and functionality - and, of course, mere wild, unprovable theories that have absolutely NO evidence to support them. Of course, a non-theist could also employ the tactics of either ignoring the question, pretending it doesn't really matter, or simply shrugging with the assertion that the question as to whether there is a God behind the universe is forever unknowable. But not one of those is a real answer.

What's wrong with admitting you do not have an answer? Why is that so difficult to you guys?

K

The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it? Eventually you must arrive at an uncaused cause, I.e. the Unmoved Mover. The regularity and precision of the cosmos requires that this Unmoved Mover be intelligent and concious. That's not me, that's Aristotle. St. Thomas Aquinas expanded on this in Summa Theologica.

That's a heavily abriged logical basis for our belief in God.

SoCalExile wrote:The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it?

By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so what makes you so sure that it does?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it?

By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so what makes you so sure that it does?

Ken

Kenny,

If the singularity is the unmoved mover, what caused it to expand?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it?

By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so what makes you so sure that it does?

Ken

Kenny,

If the singularity is the unmoved mover, what caused it to expand?

There are a million possibilities, but the only honest answer I can give you is to admit I do not know.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it?

By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so what makes you so sure that it does?

Ken

Kenny,

If the singularity is the unmoved mover, what caused it to expand?

There are a million possibilities, but the only honest answer I can give you is to admit I do not know.

Ken

Logically, by definition, whatever the first cause is; I.e., the Unmoved Mover, is the Creator, and is God.

Given His creation, He must be concious, consisting of pure actuality and no potentiality (more Aristotle/Aquinas terms), and perfectly good.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it?

By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so what makes you so sure that it does?

Ken

Kenny,

If the singularity is the unmoved mover, what caused it to expand?

There are a million possibilities, but the only honest answer I can give you is to admit I do not know.

Ken

Kenny,

It can't be the unmoved mover if something caused it to expand(move).

I think you guys are wasting your time over semantic quibbles.

There are infact some atheists who do believe atheism is a worldview,a philosophy to live life etc but they are in minority. Not all atheists have to believe that God doesn't exist. Infact to some people the idea is quite foreign. I used to believe that all atheists believe that God don't exist that they must believe it but experience has taught me that is not so.

SoCalExile wrote: Logically, by definition, whatever the first cause is; I.e., the Unmoved Mover, is the Creator, and is God.

Given His creation, He must be concious, consisting of pure actuality and no potentiality (more Aristotle/Aquinas terms), and perfectly good.

No that does not follow. First cause only means one thing; first cause. All that other stuff you added on does not necessary follow; that's your agenda talking.

Ken