Evidence for God from Science

trulyenlightened wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So, why does ice freeze a below zero instead of turning into a flower or catching fire?
Why does a seed from an oak produce an oak instead of a pine? instead of rock?
Why do two humans reproducing, produce a human and not a ape or a goat?
Why do hurricanes happen around the same time? everywhere? all the time?
And no, the answer is not "design".

I'm not sure if these questions are directed at me. I also don't see their connection with my comments on the ToE. With all due respect, I think that any 2nd year high school science student could answer your questions. My only question is, WOULD IT MATTER? However, if your questions ARE directed at me, and you really want to know(not fishing), I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)? Don

He's not asking from a scientific point of view but from a metaphysical one.

TrulyE: I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)?

Yes, and your answers will all necessarily derive from previously existing things and processes - meaning, per this thread, you must be able to explain things showing design and massive intelligence coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things. Else, you've merely "kicked the can down the road!" Connecting the dots of things is not enough - you must explain how the dots exist to begin with, and why they have the abilities they do/why they obey very strict, complex laws - with all first things immediately showing precision and order, at the root of any perceived "chaos."

Byblos: He's not asking from a scientific point of view but from a metaphysical one.

Exactly, but TrulyE doesn't seem to realize that is where the answers ultimately lie.

Philip wrote: You are merely upset because you think such things should break down via your unproven science views, as if it is illogical for God to do this or that. You and I have the brains of worms, in comparison to God. It is arrogant to think YOU know how God would or had to do this or that. It is YOU who is illogical, because you suppose to understand how a Creature of infinite capabilities and intellect should logically do things - but by WHOSE logic? Yours.

On the contrary, my opinion is that the evidence shows how God may have done it, not what he can or can't do. You are portraying my stance from the wrong end.

And I think it's rather an unfair point that you are questioning our brains or ability to think, as I don't think there is anything else which might help us tell a difference between one true God or the rest.

I've also used the analogy - a man builds a house. There is chaos in the building process, materials randomly everywhere, strewn across a building site. There is a garbage pile for leftover materials - unorganized, messy, chemicals and paints intermixed with scrap wood, etc. Does the GARBAGE pile matter - or is not the intended focus planned for what comes out of it, the intended use and period of use? Later, house garbage goes to a chaotic dump somewhere - far away from homes and neighborhoods, so as to not pose a hazard. Such dumps sometimes catch fire, create chemical hazards, etc. - all as a result of homes being built and people living in them. The focus is not the chaos of the garbage dumps - it's the homes people live in. And the homes were never expected to last forever - only for whatever projected time length they would be useful and livable. Even WE realize that nothing we create is expected to last forever, nor how long exactly. But God sees the future. He knows whether or not it matters IF the universe were to continue, that our galaxy will experience catastrophe - because IT'S IRRELEVANT as to His purposes for our galaxy. Why? Because He also tells us that He has PLANNED an ending - one replaced by something far grander - perfectly ending as PLANNED by God. So, your argument falls apart, because YOU don't know the purposes for things, nor their orchestrated time lengths. Do YOU know the things God does? Doe you know His precise purposes and timings for what He has created? Course not! Which means your logical analysis of how God would do this or that is pointless.

God is not a man. The normal logic doesn't apply. I get what you are trying to say Phil. However, God doesn't know the future, because to God there is no future, he is outside of time. Surely you agree to that?

The semantic problem aside. In your view, does God knows the future or HE wills the future?
My second question, where the new earth and new Jerusalem will be, and are they eternal? How does that fit in your view?

But if you fail to accept what Scripture teaches, if you continue to think what YOU know negates it, none of it will make much sense to you. Again - a Messiah is necessary, God must become man and be tortured and crucified, be resurrected, and our eternal destinies rest upon believing these - HOW is that logical, from our perspective. Why wouldn't God have done things more logical, less painful, have explained things more clearly, etc., etc? It's only logical from God's way of thinking, correct? While we can logically follow the historical and prophetic markers that show Jesus and the NT must be true, and Jesus Who He claimed to be - it's still not logical that an all-powerful God would do things in such a way. And so neither should you assess things based purely upon man's best logic. What does Scripture say? "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." So, don't think that science or man has refuted Scripture - it's a very dangerous approach to truth.

I appreciate the words Phil, but at this moment I am not negating or refuting scripture of any kind. I am simply questioning the viability of the fine-tuned argument you presented. The scripture and that argument are not the same.

Sorry, Neo, you're my brother, but I just see huge flaws in your thinking.

The feeling is mutual, I mean that in a good way.

trulyenlightened wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So, why does ice freeze a below zero instead of turning into a flower or catching fire?
Why does a seed from an oak produce an oak instead of a pine? instead of rock?
Why do two humans reproducing, produce a human and not a ape or a goat?
Why do hurricanes happen around the same time? everywhere? all the time?
And no, the answer is not "design".

I'm not sure if these questions are directed at me. I also don't see their connection with my comments on the ToE. With all due respect, I think that any 2nd year high school science student could answer your questions. My only question is, WOULD IT MATTER? However, if your questions ARE directed at me, and you really want to know(not fishing), I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)? Don

They were directed at those that understand "goal directedness".

Neo: God is not a man. The normal logic doesn't apply. I get what you are trying to say Phil. However, God doesn't know the future, because to God there is no future, he is outside of time. Surely you agree to that?

Absolutely God is outside of time. But He created OUR time, which does have a future He perfectly knows.

Neo: The semantic problem aside. In your view, does God knows the future or HE wills the future?

BOTH - per our time, universe and world's future events. Does He allow for truly free will decisions and actions. Absolutely - without which, we could not sin. Will He end things exactly when and precisely upon His terms - that is what Scripture says. It's why prophecy is possible, and why it describes God ending things exactly when an as He desires. As Scripture tells us this - the very same Scriptures that tell us of Christ - reveal this.

Neo: My second question, where the new earth and new Jerusalem will be, and are they eternal? How does that fit in your view?

I believe that Scripture teaches the New Heaven/New Jerusalem/the future earth is a restoration and purging of all of the corruption, evil and evil people, and all bad things - of THIS earth - and a merging with the New Heaven/New Jerusalem. I believe it is a physical place we will reside in, but with new and extraordinary new characteristics - however that all works, I do not know - but Scripture has many hints and descriptive passages.

1 Corinthians 7:31: "For the present form of this world is passing away."

God’s dwelling place won't be replaced, but will be changed (in extraordinary ways) and then relocated, when the New Jerusalem is brought down to the New, purged/restored/FAR better Earth. There will no longer be a separation between God and His redeemed ones, because all corrupt physical things and people will be healed/changed forever. We are told God/Jesus will live amongst us forever in our eternal home. And we're told Heaven is the abode of God. Of course, God can be in our dimension and all dimensions, simultaneously - He cannot be contained. But His special abode is Heaven - the PRESENT/Intermediate Heaven - as the eternal Heaven is to come at the end of the age:the new earth/new heaven/new Jerusalem merged that will be our eternal abode with the Lord.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth....I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God....And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’” (Revelation 21:1-3).

Philip wrote:

TrulyE: I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)?

Yes, and your answers will all necessarily derive from previously existing things and processes - meaning, per this thread, you must be able to explain things showing design and massive intelligence coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things. Else, you've merely "kicked the can down the road!" Connecting the dots of things is not enough - you must explain how the dots exist to begin with, and why they have the abilities they do/why they obey very strict, complex laws - with all first things immediately showing precision and order, at the root of any perceived "chaos."

Byblos: He's not asking from a scientific point of view but from a metaphysical one.

Exactly, but TrulyE doesn't seem to realize that is where the answers ultimately lie.

Firstly, I can only answer questions based on the my understanding of the words that are used. I can't answer questions based on my understanding of the mind of the person asking the question. That would require the ability to mind-melt with the person asking. Secondly, I'm not sure if the questions were even directed towards me in the first place. Thirdly, and with all due respect, it is arrogant for anyone to place conditions on, or suggest HOW I should connect the dots in my response to any question. Finally, your continued chanting of creationist dogma as mantras for absolute truth, only demonstrates a new level of intellectual dishonesty and avoidance. Asking me to only answer questions in such a way to prove your own belief assertions, is deceptive, manipulative, and dishonest. And, since any answers using "design'' was off the table, so would be any "metaphysical" answer. By stating, "you must be able to explain things showing design and massive intelligence coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things", you are simply being deceptive. You have not established the truth in any of your belief assumptions. The standard of proof works both ways. Simply asserting your belief, does not automatically make your assumptions true. Simply asserting your beliefs, does not simply make the evidence against your assumptions go away. Let me explain by example.

We KNOW that the Universe is not only expanding, but is accelerating as well. In billions of years from now, it will be expanding at the speed of light. At this speed, matter loses all cohesion and will break apart. There will be nothing left but what was present in the Universe's early beginnings, where 2-dimensional space was moving faster than light. To suggest that there will be some kind of spiritual intervention, or that another reality may exist, IS A BELIEF. There is no evidence to support this belief.

Everything that we observe or detect in our universe is based in the past. This is because nothing of mass can travel faster than the speed of light(photons, which are massless). All events that happen require time(time stops, events stop). Without time, no events can happen(temporal). At least not within our 4-dimensional reality(3-spacial, and 1-time). What does this all mean? We need light to observe both mass and events, and events need time to be observed, therefore we can only see events that have already happened. In fact, we all live less than a millisecond in the future, and can only see what has already happened. This also means that many events in the future have already happened from our perspective, since light and time have been traveling for over 14.8 billions years. To suggest that overpopulation, a collision with Andromeda, or the death of our Universe may or won't happen, IS ALSO A BELIEF. Again, no evidence to support this belief.

Please understand that science is science and faith is faith. One requires evidence, the other does not. I have faith in my own personal spiritual beliefs, but I know that it is NOT science. So I don't need to tweak any scientific understanding to justify my religious or personal beliefs. I simply need to learn BOTH. Even after many years of teaching the Bible and science, I agree with Carl Sagan in matters of science and the Universe,

“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why’s he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business, if there was any competition.” Don

PaulSacramento wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So, why does ice freeze a below zero instead of turning into a flower or catching fire?
Why does a seed from an oak produce an oak instead of a pine? instead of rock?
Why do two humans reproducing, produce a human and not a ape or a goat?
Why do hurricanes happen around the same time? everywhere? all the time?
And no, the answer is not "design".

I'm not sure if these questions are directed at me. I also don't see their connection with my comments on the ToE. With all due respect, I think that any 2nd year high school science student could answer your questions. My only question is, WOULD IT MATTER? However, if your questions ARE directed at me, and you really want to know(not fishing), I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)? Don

They were directed at those that understand "goal directedness".

I'm afraid your answer is far too cryptic for me. Don

Welcome to Metaphysics.
Welcome to the question of "why" over the question of "how".

People ( skeptics typically) don't understand that when they make certain comments that can't be proven by (direct) observation ( Like an absolute negative comment such as "no such thing as God"), that they are making a metaphysical comment.
When you open the door to metaphysics then you must now discuss things in THAT area.

TrulyE: Finally, your continued chanting of creationist dogma as mantras for absolute truth, only demonstrates a new level of intellectual dishonesty and avoidance.

Ah, but only if what I assert is not true is it dishonest. And you have massive problems of explaining what came into existence, if not by some immensely powerful intelligence, if instead by blind things that didn't previously exist. Or even energy - which isn't an intelligence. So, SOMETHING with massively intelligence, incredibly powerful capabilities existed. But you just don't know what that "thing" is.

TrulyE: Asking me to only answer questions in such a way to prove your own belief assertions, is deceptive, manipulative, and dishonest.

Truly, how else is on to ask the questions that matter - even if highly inconvenient to your beliefs?

TrulyE: And, since any answers using "design'' was off the table, so would be any "metaphysical" answer. By stating, "you must be able to explain things showing design and massive intelligence coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things", you are simply being deceptive.

HOW is that deceptive??? No, it's a direct and obvious question, because massively complex designs and engineering so they could precisely obey laws AND be perfectly interactive, are all impossible without intelligence. You don't like the questions because you don't have an answer. Truly, I'm a rationalist - I don't believe the impossible, the never observed, can occur. You do, apparently.

Look, this is not a adversarial thing for me - it's a quest for truth. And I want you to discover it! But PHYSICAL answers will get you absolutely nowhere.

Truly, how much do you know about the Bible? What is your upbringing, related to spiritual matters? Because you seem not to understand the Christian beliefs surrounding the character and holiness of God, that corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And most atheists suggest God should have made a perfect world so that the fall and redemption would have been silly and unnecessary. That the world would have been optimally created to last forever. But the issue is, FREE WILL. God could have made us robots, incapable of choosing for ourselves, or bad things. But atheism, per the individual, can only have a specific person's view of right and wrong. But as a person is not some god-like authority - morality for the atheist becomes mere opinion - as if they were right - NO God - then no sin, no good or bad, all would just be choices by some happenstance of a nature that somehow came into existence. So, atheists suppose of the kind of world THEY would have made - one without bad stuff. Which requires a world where no one will make bad choices - or that bad choices don't exists, aren't merely subjective. But such a world doesn't exist - ours does.

PaulSacramento wrote:Welcome to Metaphysics.
Welcome to the question of "why" over the question of "how".

People ( skeptics typically) don't understand that when they make certain comments that can't be proven by (direct) observation ( Like an absolute negative comment such as "no such thing as God"), that they are making a metaphysical comment.
When you open the door to metaphysics then you must now discuss things in THAT area.

Are you saying that any statement I make that is not based on direct observational evidence, is a metaphysical statement? Have you any idea how many Scientific Theories would become metaphysical, since their basic principles are not directly observable? I have no idea what I said to have entered into the metaphysical realm of reality. I have no idea why my comments should now be limited to the metaphysical or the make-believe. Maybe you can give my just ONE example of something that is metaphysical, other than your own mental constructs? Maybe you can give me ONE example of something that is directly or indirectly effected by the metaphysical, other than your own mental constructs? Not many Atheist that I know say that there is no such thing as God(s). Most simply state that they have absolutely no rational reason to BELIEVE that a God(s) exist. Maybe you can disprove that assumption.

My problem with all supernatural or metaphysical arguments, is that it would be much easier to simply state that we just don't know. Then to give the perception that we do. Don

What we know about the world, that can be measured and confirmed - its complex mysteries - are mostly and only revealable by science. But the scientific method can only measure physical things and their reactions, so without tools to measure beyond the physical, we are then into the METAphysical - things that transcend the purely physical. So, scientific analysis can only be applied, backwards in time, to the first physical things. And we know that there WAS something in existence before physical things. So we also know that the physical realm emerged from the non-physical. But those first physical things had extraordinary characteristics, and so they have a lot to testify to about what CHARACTERISTICS and CAPABILITIES HAD to have existed before the physical instantly came into existence - and not just those first physical things' amazing designs, and that just the precisely necessary building blocks existed to create all that exists, but also those first amazing things, their functionalities AND their interfunctionalities, reveal certain NECESSARY characteristics and capabilities of "whatever" was in the non-physical realm that produced the physical realm.

And we can argue all day long about whatever that "Thing" or things were in that pre-existing, non-physical realm/dimension - but what can't be logically argued is what characteristics and capabilities HAD to have existed in the non-physical realm, so as to produce what first showed up. This is just basic logic. So, Whatever pre-existed the physical had to be A) eternal (as it could not create itself), B) Immensely intelligent (per what it was capable of and did produce, C) Powerful beyond anything we know. These characteristics (A, B and C) would have been necessary, whether characteristic of the God of Scripture, of some other god, or whatever else, to produce the universe's first moments and beyond, to you, me, and everything that eventually came into existence.

My problem with all supernatural or metaphysical arguments, is that it would be much easier to simply state that we just don't know. Then to give the perception that we do. Don

Enter "Brute facts", which are no explanation at all and the "god of the gaps" of non-believers.

Metaphysics address that WHY's.

Personally, the way many atheists think/describe/view god is so far removed from the classical theist view ( see Aquinas) that it doesn't surprise me that they see no rational reasonable way to believe in god.

trulyenlightened wrote:...limited to the metaphysical or the make-believe...

To equate metaphysics with make-believe (may or may not be your intention but that's how I read it) is to equate cosmology with astrology.

FYI, philosophy in general (and metaphysics in particular) is the bedrock of logic and reason, without which there is no science.

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:...limited to the metaphysical or the make-believe...

To equate metaphysics with make-believe (may or may not be your intention but that's how I read it) is to equate cosmology with astrology.

FYI, philosophy in general (and metaphysics in particular) is the bedrock of logic and reason, without which there is no science.

Byblos,

You're officially assigned the duties as the forum Metaphysics professor.

Your salary and benefits package will be discussed at a later date.