Evidence for God from Science

Ken: Not quite; it just has to be done in a way that I can recognize and understand.

Or in ways you DEMAND or expect? You see a universe of awesome detail, specificity, and operating all manner of organisms on earth and beyond with razor-thin, mathematically improbable parameters - and yet you see no evidences of God? From some invisible, non-physical realm, a universe suddenly erupted, instantly obeying laws - BY ITSELF, per the blind intelligent equivalence of rocks???!!! As Hugh Ross puts it: "The space-time theorem of general relativity states that matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with the universe began in finite time, and that the Cause of the universe brings all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe into existence from a reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time. The extreme fine-tuning of the big bang parameters that are necessary for physical life to be possible in the universe exceeds by many orders of magnitude the design capabilities of human beings."

Yep, blind random things can cause a non-physical universe to burst into existence, AND THEN, instantly have great sophistication, with, as Ross says, "all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe into existence from a reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time???" The extreme fine-tuning of the big bang parameters that are necessary for physical life to be possible in the universe exceeds by many orders of magnitude the design capabilities of human beings." I don't about you Ken, but I don't have enough faith that non-intelligent things can randomly assemble just the right things, with just the right, mathematically improbable designs and functions, to instantly begin a physical universe. That is why I KNOW that SOMETHING - I call it God, you can call it what you'd like - but SOMETHING had unbelievable intelligence and power, that was eternal. But to deny that there was some agent with these capabilities and attributes is a belief in the abilities of intelligent potential for a pile of rocks. So, while we can't actually see God, His extraordinary designs and functions are found throughout the universe. You don't have to see HIM, to know that He - or at least SOME intelligent entity with His capabilities - exists. It seems to me that you likely realize this, but won't admit there had to be some such Agent, as you don't like the asserted choices of which Agent that actually is. But the evidence is there, ignore it if you wish.

Philip wrote:

Ken: Not quite; it just has to be done in a way that I can recognize and understand.

Or in ways you DEMAND or expect? You see a universe of awesome detail, specificity, and operating all manner of organisms on earth and beyond with razor-thin, mathematically improbable parameters - and yet you see no evidences of God? From some invisible, non-physical realm, a universe suddenly erupted, instantly obeying laws - BY ITSELF, per the blind intelligent equivalence of rocks???!!! As Hugh Ross puts it: "The space-time theorem of general relativity states that matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with the universe began in finite time, and that the Cause of the universe brings all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe into existence from a reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time. The extreme fine-tuning of the big bang parameters that are necessary for physical life to be possible in the universe exceeds by many orders of magnitude the design capabilities of human beings."

Yep, blind random things can cause a non-physical universe to burst into existence, AND THEN, instantly have great sophistication, with, as Ross says, "all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe into existence from a reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time???" The extreme fine-tuning of the big bang parameters that are necessary for physical life to be possible in the universe exceeds by many orders of magnitude the design capabilities of human beings." I don't about you Ken, but I don't have enough faith that non-intelligent things can randomly assemble just the right things, with just the right, mathematically improbable designs and functions, to instantly begin a physical universe. That is why I KNOW that SOMETHING - I call it God, you can call it what you'd like - but SOMETHING had unbelievable intelligence and power, that was eternal. But to deny that there was some agent with these capabilities and attributes is a belief in the abilities of intelligent potential for a pile of rocks. So, while we can't actually see God, His extraordinary designs and functions are found throughout the universe. You don't have to see HIM, to know that He - or at least SOME intelligent entity with His capabilities - exists. It seems to me that you likely realize this, but won't admit there had to be some such Agent, as you don't like the asserted choices of which Agent that actually is. But the evidence is there, ignore it if you wish.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the Universe that I do not.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Yes it would be.

K

Personal revelation is a viable form of evidence to you? not anecdotal?

Did you just ask Kenny, the king of "nothing is objective", if it's anecdotal?

Ive never claimed nothing was objective, I've always said some things are objective, and some things are subjective. The disagreement I and many on this forum have had was based on what is objective or subjective.

What things are objective?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes. When gravity pulls something to the surface of the Earth, the impact will cause an audible sound, and witnesses are not necessary for this to take place. that is an example of an objective truth.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: So personal revelation is proof to you?

Yes it would be.

K

Personal revelation is a viable form of evidence to you? not anecdotal?

According to my understanding, anecdotal evidence is generally considered the least reliable type of evidence because it is often based upon heresy or faulty reasoning. For me a personal experience would be more convincing.

Ken

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Yes it would be.

K

Personal revelation is a viable form of evidence to you? not anecdotal?

According to my understanding, anecdotal evidence is generally considered the least reliable type of evidence because it is often based upon heresy or faulty reasoning. For me a personal experience would be more convincing.

Ken

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

I'm not sure what you mean by my personal revelation but one thing that people overlook or fail to understand about Christianity is that it is a personal revelation from God when a person is born again.The problem is people not understanding other religions and in their ignorance they assume Christianity is just like another religion not realizing that salvation in Christianity is a miracle.Salvation is not seen as a miracle of God by people who don't understand God's word and assume in ignorance but salvation is a miracle inwhich a person is changed on the onside to serve God.I mean God takes a man and totally changes him to serve him and that man is totally changed from the moment he is saved.But people just assume because of religion that the person changed theirself like people in all other religions do but that is not how it works in Christianity.In Christianity a person acting like he/she is a Christian is a hypocrite.This is why in Christianity no man can really boast about what he/she has done because it was God who not only saved them and changed them to be a Christian but he even gave them the faith to believe to be saved.Therefore no man/woman in Christianity can brag about the things they may have done for the kingom of God.Salvation removes ALL human effort to save himself,etc.Oh there might be certian Christians that brag or think they are better than other Christian's,etc but they are wrong to do so.The only thing anyone of us can say is thank you Jesus for what you did so that I can be saved.This is why Jesus said "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. It is because nothing about God really becomes truth until that person is born again then and only then does it become truth. This is also why the bible cannot fully make sense to people who do not have the Holy Spirit.John 3:3-8. This is also why I tell atheists that if you want proof God is real then get saved by Jesus because they'll see the light too.

I saw the Light
https://youtu.be/zndKvAVUHl0

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
Personal revelation is a viable form of evidence to you? not anecdotal?

According to my understanding, anecdotal evidence is generally considered the least reliable type of evidence because it is often based upon heresy or faulty reasoning. For me a personal experience would be more convincing.

Ken

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

I'm not sure what you mean by my personal revelation but one thing that people overlook or fail to understand about Christianity is that it is a personal revelation from God when a person is born again.The problem is people not understanding other religions and in their ignorance they assume Christianity is just like another religion not realizing that salvation in Christianity is a miracle.Salvation is not seen as a miracle of God by people who don't understand God's word and assume in ignorance but salvation is a miracle inwhich a person is changed on the onside to serve God.I mean God takes a man and totally changes him to serve him and that man is totally changed from the moment he is saved.But people just assume because of religion that the person changed theirself like people in all other religions do but that is not how it works in Christianity.In Christianity a person acting like he/she is a Christian is a hypocrite.This is why in Christianity no man can really boast about what he/she has done because it was God who not only saved them and changed them to be a Christian but he even gave them the faith to believe to be saved.Therefore no man/woman in Christianity can brag about the things they may have done for the kingom of God.Salvation removes ALL human effort to save himself,etc.Oh there might be certian Christians that brag or think they are better than other Christian's,etc but they are wrong to do so.The only thing anyone of us can say is thank you Jesus for what you did so that I can be saved.This is why Jesus said "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. It is because nothing about God really becomes truth until that person is born again then and only then does it become truth. This is also why the bible cannot fully make sense to people who do not have the Holy Spirit.John 3:3-8. This is also why I tell atheists that if you want proof God is real then get saved by Jesus because they'll see the light too.

I saw the Light
https://youtu.be/zndKvAVUHl0

So the only way I can get proof and this personal revelation is by getting saved. But if I were truly saved, would I really still need proof? Sounds kinda like a catch 22.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
According to my understanding, anecdotal evidence is generally considered the least reliable type of evidence because it is often based upon heresy or faulty reasoning. For me a personal experience would be more convincing.

Ken

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

I'm not sure what you mean by my personal revelation but one thing that people overlook or fail to understand about Christianity is that it is a personal revelation from God when a person is born again.The problem is people not understanding other religions and in their ignorance they assume Christianity is just like another religion not realizing that salvation in Christianity is a miracle.Salvation is not seen as a miracle of God by people who don't understand God's word and assume in ignorance but salvation is a miracle inwhich a person is changed on the onside to serve God.I mean God takes a man and totally changes him to serve him and that man is totally changed from the moment he is saved.But people just assume because of religion that the person changed theirself like people in all other religions do but that is not how it works in Christianity.In Christianity a person acting like he/she is a Christian is a hypocrite.This is why in Christianity no man can really boast about what he/she has done because it was God who not only saved them and changed them to be a Christian but he even gave them the faith to believe to be saved.Therefore no man/woman in Christianity can brag about the things they may have done for the kingom of God.Salvation removes ALL human effort to save himself,etc.Oh there might be certian Christians that brag or think they are better than other Christian's,etc but they are wrong to do so.The only thing anyone of us can say is thank you Jesus for what you did so that I can be saved.This is why Jesus said "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. It is because nothing about God really becomes truth until that person is born again then and only then does it become truth. This is also why the bible cannot fully make sense to people who do not have the Holy Spirit.John 3:3-8. This is also why I tell atheists that if you want proof God is real then get saved by Jesus because they'll see the light too.

I saw the Light
https://youtu.be/zndKvAVUHl0

So the only way I can get proof and this personal revelation is by getting saved. But if I were truly saved, would I really still need proof? Sounds kinda like a catch 22.

Ken

Yes it would be proof especially when next thing you know Kenny is off to bible college,etc to become a minister,etc to reach lost atheists,etc.Salvation is not contingent on there being evidence for God or his word being shown true based on evidence.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Yes it would be.

K

Personal revelation is a viable form of evidence to you? not anecdotal?

According to my understanding, anecdotal evidence is generally considered the least reliable type of evidence because it is often based upon heresy or faulty reasoning. For me a personal experience would be more convincing.

Ken

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

You assume others senses and reasoning would be?

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the Universe that I do not.

Ken

Assumptions - or observations of stated scientific facts? You either believe there is a source with the capability to create the things that instantly came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, or that it happened by unplanned, random and blind MAGIC. What showed up didn't physically evolve or require time to do so - those amazing things in that first moment simply appeared with enormous power. Everything that we would call beyond the capabilities of the designs and power of men, happened in an instant. That this happened isn't a question by scientists. That source HAD to be eternal, with untold power, unbelievable intelligence, and had the ability to bring such remarkable non-physical things into a physical reality - you apparently believe in magic? A universe just happens to pop into existence with such awesome details and design? Anyone who believes that possible, I either consider them irrational or that they wish to ignore the obvious implications. Ken, I suspect you are in the latter category, as this is why you won't believe: You don't WANT to.

Because if you did want to know if God has touched anything we can examine, you would, at the very least, admit that SOME such eternal Source with those basic, amazing attributes existed prior to all physical things - SOMETHING eternal, beyond our intelligence, with power we cannot comprehend. As that instant beginning and all of its necessary and mathematically improbable building blocks are so astounding that scientists for centuries have pondered, studied and contemplated them. And all of that DNA, the very Language of Life, of every creature and organism that has ever existed, has brought about countless related fields of study around the world - really, things that we scarcely have begun to grasp the functions of and how it works - amazement that fills books and research around the world. "No evidences of God" - really???!!! But if you were serious, you would realize that there had to be something with such God-like abilities - that or magic happens on its own.

Read this about protein structures and biochemical design: http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-perio ... cal-design - there is a specific order to their formations.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the Universe that I do not.

Ken[/quote]

Philip wrote: Assumptions - or observations of stated scientific facts?

Asumptions.

Philip wrote: You either believe there is a source with the capability to create the things that instantly came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, or that it happened by unplanned, random and blind MAGIC.

Or you can do as science does; that you don’t know what happened prior to the big bang

Philip wrote: What showed up didn't physically evolve or require time to do so - those amazing things in that first moment simply appeared with enormous power. Everything that we would call beyond the capabilities of the designs and power of men, happened in an instant. That this happened isn't a question by scientists. That source HAD to be eternal, with untold power, unbelievable intelligence, and had the ability to bring such remarkable non-physical things into a physical reality

Just to be clear, this is your OPINION right? All this stuff you spittin’ out is not based on scientific theory, because again; science doesn’t know what happened prior to the big bang. Yeah some individual scientists may speculate on this or that, but that’s all it is, speculation; not theory.

Philip wrote: - you apparently believe in magic? A universe just happens to pop into existence with such awesome details and design? Anyone who believes that possible, I either consider them irrational or that they wish to ignore the obvious implications. Ken, I suspect you are in the latter category, as this is why you won't believe: You don't WANT to.

Okay; so now I believe the entire Universe just popped into existence? From nothing? (LOL) where are you getting this stuff???

Philip wrote: Because if you did want to know if God has touched anything we can examine, you would, at the very least, admit that SOME such eternal Source with those basic, amazing attributes existed prior to all physical things - SOMETHING eternal, beyond our intelligence, with power we cannot comprehend. As that instant beginning and all of its necessary and mathematically improbable building blocks are so astounding that scientists for centuries have pondered, studied and contemplated them. And all of that DNA, the very Language of Life, of every creature and organism that has ever existed, has brought about countless related fields of study around the world - really, things that we scarcely have begun to grasp the functions of and how it works - amazement that fills books and research around the world. "No evidences of God" - really???!!! But if you were serious, you would realize that there had to be something with such God-like abilities - that or magic happens on its own.

Feel free to provide evidence to support any of this stuff you sayin’ tll then I think I will just admit to not having an answer, instead of making stuff up or calling it magic.

Science makes NO STATEMENT about what was "before" the Big Bang.
Science simply states that a singularity expanded and from that, what is called the "big bang", the universe as we know it, came to be.

PaulSacramento wrote:Science makes NO STATEMENT about what was "before" the Big Bang.
Science simply states that a singularity expanded and from that, what is called the "big bang", the universe as we know it, came to be.

Agree!

K

Ken: Feel free to provide evidence to support any of this stuff you sayin’ tll then I think I will just admit to not having an answer, instead of making stuff up or calling it magic.

Ken, then please explain what happened and what exactly appeared at the moment of the Big Bang. And what pre-existed it. NO physical things - not even space itself existed. So ALL physical things came from something other than the physical, as nothing physical yet existed. That says nothing about Singularity or what it was. But that these things burst forth from a single point, all at once, and those things did not evolve - their designs and functionality were in place at the moment of the Big Bang event - refute that. Refute how these things could come from a non-intelligent cause. As the designs and functions of what immediately showed up check every single box, and spectacularly so, for what would involve intelligence.

Ken, please describe the necessary attributes and parameters for whatever had to be the source of the universe. What are the options? I call assigning a non-intelligent, blind, random series of happenstances so statistically improbable as to be considered impossible, as - yes, "magic!" At the very least, you either have to believe in an eternal, all-powerful intelligence, or blind, random luck to created the astounding. I call that belief in the equivalent of "magic." What do you call it? But please, Ken, describe the attributes and necessary parameters - whether assigned to Singularity or whatever ultimately preceded it. Just saying "it's not magic" doesn't describe it - what other words would YOU use?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
Personal revelation is a viable form of evidence to you? not anecdotal?

Did you just ask Kenny, the king of "nothing is objective", if it's anecdotal?

Ive never claimed nothing was objective, I've always said some things are objective, and some things are subjective. The disagreement I and many on this forum have had was based on what is objective or subjective.

What things are objective?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes. When gravity pulls something to the surface of the Earth, the impact will cause an audible sound, and witnesses are not necessary for this to take place. that is an example of an objective truth.

Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from. Things can be objectively true, but you just don't believe morality is objective. Is that accurate?

Would you agree that "my truck is a Chevrolet", is an objective claim? By objective, I mean it's either a Chevrolet, or it's not, and nobody's opinion can change that fact.

Paul: Science makes NO STATEMENT about what was "before" the Big Bang.
Science simply states that a singularity expanded and from that, what is called the "big bang", the universe as we know it, came to be.

Of course it doesn't. But what is DOES prolifically state are what things and what their attributes were that first and immediately came into existence, and how they functioned and interacted. Those are prolifically stated across many studies. And so they HAD to have a source, as they did not previously exist.

But WHATEVER preceded those first things - whatever the reality of it - doesn't change the necessary attributes or bracketed parameters for the source of all that came into being. Describe the range of attributes, first for NO God involved - what must that mean, if there is no intelligence behind those first things? Time, chance, and luck beyond any math known to man! How can intelligent things of staggeringly incredible design and functionality IMMEDIATELY emerge from whatever non-intelligent things that might have pre-existed them? As the first things IMMEDIATELY came into existence with design, functionality, obeying highly specific parameters - this means such things did not evolve physically to appear as they did. It must mean that by whatever processes or Source for them, they took place in some dimension that is not a physical one. Which is why science cannot explain it! People with that level of faith in pure chance and time have far more faith than I ever could!

But please, without an intelligent Source for the universe, how would you describe whatever it was that was capable of producing those first things? What are it's minimal attributes?