Evidence for God from Science

I agree with David Wood that Schermers "final argumen" isn't good.

Assume that the following happened:

One sunny Sunday morning with clear sky, a big cloud appeared with lot of lightning and a voice was heard saying "Go to the sermon and listen to my word". I would check with others that I am not crazy and if they confirmed what I had seen I would continue and check a meteorological site. If I saw that there had been a lot of lightning at the same time around the country and could read about in the newspapers the day after I would be convinced.

In that scenario it would be foolish of me not to believe in God and still more foolish to think that the cause of all this was probably aliens. So I agree with Wood on this, but I disagree in much of the other thing he says (but we can leave that aside by now).

The problem for Christians like Kurieuo and Paul is that they are astonished that atheist do not believe in God and at the same time admits that there is little evidence for God, and as Kurieuo says:
"Certainly in times past, and even today, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't wished God was physically present Himself. He made Himself known at various times to the Israelites and various prophets in the past, yet I often desire to see, feel and touch.".

Further:
"Given this, the God of Christianity isn't one out to prove His own existence. He doesn't coerce or force people to believe in His existence. Rather, the end goal is something more, the heart of people. And for that, it seems God is interested in knowing those who don't try to deny what I think is obvious, namely that all the structured and orderly world around us and things within were created rather than just being there and happening by chance. If you deny such, than chances are your heart isn't in the right place anyway such that knowing whether God exists plays second fiddle."

You say that if one doesn 't think that it is obvious that the world is created then God is not interested to prove his existence. Now, I and probably most atheist do not think that it is obvious, in fact the opposite. The conclusion is that God is not interested to convince me, for example by calling me from a cloud, so the probability seems to be very low that I will be convinced.

But I am still curious to understand how it can be that some persons that apparently are not fools are convinced that a Christian God exists and others like me are equally convinced that such a God doesn't exist (Here I disregard that you call us fools). That implies that I am open for arguments. I'm not in denial, just astonished and sceptic.

Nils

You're jumping to some conclusions that are wrong Nils,

1) I'm not surprised there are Atheists, for I believe a person's heart influences what they believe. As such, a person can be blinded to much evidence for God leading to a denial of God's existence. (I believe this also answers the question in your last paragraph)

2) I see plenty of evidence for God which makes Atheism untenable for me. Even if I didn't want to believe, I couldn't force myself not to. The fact that God isn't physically present in the same way a loved one might be, isn't the same thing as saying there is no evidence.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:So you see me as being inconsistent because I acknowledge the existence of thoughts and other things that exist in our heads which is non material, but I don’t acknowledge the existence of God and spirits which is also non material. Is this correct?

Byblos wrote: It may lead to that but it's much more basic than that. It is that you acknowledge the existence of the immaterial without even giving a single thought to its implications.

What are these implications? I’m not being facetious, others have asked me to consider the implications when I’ve expressed how I perceive things, but they don't seem do a good job of expressing what these implications are! So by all means, what are these implications that you speak of?

One step at a time.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: If you're really interested in having a discussion on the topic of immateriality I would suggest that you read the below link first then come back with questions/rebuttals. And if not, I really have neither the time nor the inclination to have yet another fruitless discussion with you.

The mind-body problem.

Fruitless discussions? Wow! Well its not like I just came up and began imposing my unsolicited ideas and perspectives upon you, If I recall correctly, I was having a conversation with someone else when you began offering your perspective. I was pretty much just replying to the questions you asked me. If you see our conversations as fruitless, perhaps this is something you should keep in mind next time you are tempted to ask me questions.

Ken

You know very well I am referring to the countless discussions we've had over the years. I'm just not very hopeful this one will lead anywhere either and that's certainly not because we've somehow reached a stalemate.

And you didn't answer my question. Are you really interested in having a fruitful discussion about immateriality? If yes, start with the link and come back to me. If not, please go ahead and carry on with your diversions, err discussions with others.

I read your link, and there really wasn't anything in there that I disagreed with.

Ken

SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

PaulSacramento wrote:SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

Give him a chance to Google that first!











Edit: I had to google it myself.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

Give him a chance to Google that first!











Edit: I had to google it myself.

The link actually says those very words and is speaking in that context so if Kenny doesn't disagree with it, then he must agree with it.

PaulSacramento wrote:SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

I’m not going to say I agree with everything they ascribe to, I’m just saying what I read, I didn’t see anything that I could say I disagreed with. Now there may have been some things I’m not familiar with, so I can’t agree nor disagree with, and the article was very long so there may have been some things I accidently overlooked, but from what I read, I didn’t see anything that I disagreed with, but there was a lot that I did agree with.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

I’m not going to say I agree with everything they ascribe to, I’m just saying what I read, I didn’t see anything that I could say I disagreed with. Now there may have been some things I’m not familiar with, so I can’t agree nor disagree with, and the article was very long so there may have been some things I accidently overlooked, but from what I read, I didn’t see anything that I disagreed with, but there was a lot that I did agree with.

Ken

I think you may need to re-read it.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

I’m not going to say I agree with everything they ascribe to, I’m just saying what I read, I didn’t see anything that I could say I disagreed with. Now there may have been some things I’m not familiar with, so I can’t agree nor disagree with, and the article was very long so there may have been some things I accidently overlooked, but from what I read, I didn’t see anything that I disagreed with, but there was a lot that I did agree with.

Ken

I think you may need to re-read it.

No thank-you, I think we’re done here. Reading it once is a 15 minutes of my life I will never get back; something I will definitely keep in mind next someone asks me to read someone else’s words in order to converse with them.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:SO you agree with the Aristotelian and scholastic view of things?

I’m not going to say I agree with everything they ascribe to, I’m just saying what I read, I didn’t see anything that I could say I disagreed with. Now there may have been some things I’m not familiar with, so I can’t agree nor disagree with, and the article was very long so there may have been some things I accidently overlooked, but from what I read, I didn’t see anything that I disagreed with, but there was a lot that I did agree with.

Ken

I think you may need to re-read it.

No thank-you, I think we’re done here. Reading it once is a 15 minutes of my life I will never get back; something I will definitely keep in mind next someone asks me to read someone else’s words in order to converse with them.

Lol, ok kenny. Maybe all conversation ought to be original ideas, springing only from the depths of your intellect.

Kurieuo wrote:You're jumping to some conclusions that are wrong Nils,

1) I'm not surprised there are Atheists, for I believe a person's heart influences what they believe.

If you with "heart" means "feelings" I agree with you. Feelings do influence, the question is how much.

As such, a person can be blinded to much evidence for God leading to a denial of God's existence. (I believe this also answers the question in your last paragraph)

"Blinded". What do you mean? Blinded by who or what. Perhaps you mean: Blinded by their feelings.
"Denial" seems to assume that the person does know what the truth is but denies it contrary to her per conviction.

I don't have any feelings pro or contra a God because I don't think there is any. I don't think you have any feelings relative to Zeus or Thor for example. Why should I have any feelings relative to a Christian God? And without feelings there can't be any "blinded" or "denial".

2) I see plenty of evidence for God which makes Atheism untenable for me. Even if I didn't want to believe, I couldn't force myself not to. The fact that God isn't physically present in the same way a loved one might be, isn't the same thing as saying there is no evidence.

You say that there are lot of arguments that would be valid even if you didn't want to believe. Those arguments should be valid even for me and vice versa. So which are the reasons that are "obvious" to you even if you don't take into account your feelings? They should be obvious to me then but they apparently aren't - I don't see any obvious arguments for the existence of God.

Nils

Nils wrote:I don't see any obvious arguments for the existence of God.

Have you considered Aquinas' Five Ways?

Byblos wrote:

Nils wrote:I don't see any obvious arguments for the existence of God.

Have you considered Aquinas' Five Ways?

No, I have not read or heard about Aquinas' Five Ways before but I checked your reference now. There are five arguments. The first about movement can be seen as equivalent to the first law of thermodynamics about energy. The second is about causation. The third is about creation of something out of nothing. The fourth can be seen as equivalent to the forth law of thermodynamics. The fifth finally is about teleology, that the creation is goal directed.

Argument one to four are all about creation of the universe and the laws. It can be discussed if the universe could have been created from nothing or some entity was necessary for creation. Aquina thinks there is a creator and he calls it God. But it is difficult to prove the necessity of a creating entity and it is definitely not necessary to call it God. Note that Aquina says for example "and this everyone understands to be God". If you believe in God, of course you should identify that entity with God, but if you don't believe in God there is no reason to name that entity God. That would be to associate the entity with lot of other characteristics for instance teleology.

The argument of teleology is the most interesting. At the time of Aquina teleology was the only explanation of our world. It seemed that it would be impossible to explain how the world could be as it is without a creator. Since Darwin and the development of natural science it is just as possible that the world has developed without a goal directed creator. Actually, I can argue that there are strong indications that the development is not goal directed. That is a complex argument but I can write about it if you want. (I have not read about it earlier).

Nils

Nils wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Nils wrote:I don't see any obvious arguments for the existence of God.

Have you considered Aquinas' Five Ways?

No, I have not read or heard about Aquinas' Five Ways before but I checked your reference now. There are five arguments. The first about movement can be seen as equivalent to the first law of thermodynamics about energy. The second is about causation. The third is about creation of something out of nothing. The fourth can be seen as equivalent to the forth law of thermodynamics. The fifth finally is about teleology, that the creation is goal directed.

Argument one to four are all about creation of the universe and the laws. It can be discussed if the universe could have been created from nothing or some entity was necessary for creation. Aquina thinks there is a creator and he calls it God. But it is difficult to prove the necessity of a creating entity and it is definitely not necessary to call it God. Note that Aquina says for example "and this everyone understands to be God". If you believe in God, of course you should identify that entity with God, but if you don't believe in God there is no reason to name that entity God. That would be to associate the entity with lot of other characteristics for instance teleology.

The argument of teleology is the most interesting. At the time of Aquina teleology was the only explanation of our world. It seemed that it would be impossible to explain how the world could be as it is without a creator. Since Darwin and the development of natural science it is just as possible that the world has developed without a goal directed creator. Actually, I can argue that there are strong indications that the development is not goal directed. That is a complex argument but I can write about it if you want. (I have not read about it earlier).

Nils

Yeah, I think you need to re-read the arguments again.
Nowhere does he mention the creation of the universe and your grasp of his first way is, well, wrong.
DO you understand actuality and potentiality?
Also, do you understand he is trying to prove the existence of the classical theist God?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Nils wrote:I don't see any obvious arguments for the existence of God.

Have you considered Aquinas' Five Ways?

No, I have not read or heard about Aquinas' Five Ways before but I checked your reference now. There are five arguments. The first about movement can be seen as equivalent to the first law of thermodynamics about energy. The second is about causation. The third is about creation of something out of nothing. The fourth can be seen as equivalent to the forth law of thermodynamics. The fifth finally is about teleology, that the creation is goal directed.

Argument one to four are all about creation of the universe and the laws. It can be discussed if the universe could have been created from nothing or some entity was necessary for creation. Aquina thinks there is a creator and he calls it God. But it is difficult to prove the necessity of a creating entity and it is definitely not necessary to call it God. Note that Aquina says for example "and this everyone understands to be God". If you believe in God, of course you should identify that entity with God, but if you don't believe in God there is no reason to name that entity God. That would be to associate the entity with lot of other characteristics for instance teleology.

The argument of teleology is the most interesting. At the time of Aquina teleology was the only explanation of our world. It seemed that it would be impossible to explain how the world could be as it is without a creator. Since Darwin and the development of natural science it is just as possible that the world has developed without a goal directed creator. Actually, I can argue that there are strong indications that the development is not goal directed. That is a complex argument but I can write about it if you want. (I have not read about it earlier).

Nils

Yeah, I think you need to re-read the arguments again.
Nowhere does he mention the creation of the universe and your grasp of his first way is, well, wrong.
DO you understand actuality and potentiality?
Also, do you understand he is trying to prove the existence of the classical theist God?

Or that the first way has nothing to do with temporal events or that the first way still holds true even if matter/energy were eternal or that the first mover is the necessary conclusion to a set of premises?