Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:58 pm**

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
Jac3510 wrote: Thomas never claimed this.
Apart from God, of course. He doesn't specifically claim it, but he does assume it. His Argument of the First Cause begins "In the world we can see that things are caused" and implies that this applies to everything. He links everything in a long chain of causes, and arbitrarily claims that this long chain cannot be infinite. But there is no justification for that either. Those who think the Universe is eternal think that no first cause is necessary, because the long chain actually is infinite.
Then if you disagree that all things don't have a cause then it is up to you to give evidence of something it doesn't apply to and you cannot because it is a fact of our world/universe all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression. This is a fact of our world universe based on the evidence around us. If you disagree then it is up to you to provide evidence that not all things have a cause and you cannot. There is absolutely no evidence the universe is eternal and the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is one of the most tested laws in science makes it impossible for the universe to be eternal.
All things don't have causes, ACB. Don't try to defend the claim, "All things have a cause," because that statement is false.
Then point out something that does not have a cause in our world then.You cannot.St. Thomas Aquinas cannot and has never been refuted only ignored but its still just as true as when he came up with it and it is better than the KCA imo

The number 3 doesn't have a cause. The color red doesn't. Take any given quantum particle. The popping into existence itself has a cause, but the defined part of what was formerly merely a probability wave, does not. In fact, any bit of randomness in the entire universe--and there's a lot of it--is fundamentally uncaused: the mutation of a gene, the shape of snowflake, every free choice you have ever made, etc. The thing itself might be caused, but the formerly indetermined part means that once determined, the determination was uncaused in the sense you are using the word (otherwise it would never have been indeterminate in the first place). What you don't understand is that you are implying an absolutely mechanistic universe. So stop it. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

And further, I think Aquinas was right. I'm telling you that you don't understand him. You, like hugh, have misunderstood his argument. He isn't saying what you think he is. What he is saying is far more important and persuasive than the garbage you are suggesting.

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:21 pm**

Jac3510 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
hughfarey wrote:Apart from God, of course. He doesn't specifically claim it, but he does assume it. His Argument of the First Cause begins "In the world we can see that things are caused" and implies that this applies to everything. He links everything in a long chain of causes, and arbitrarily claims that this long chain cannot be infinite. But there is no justification for that either. Those who think the Universe is eternal think that no first cause is necessary, because the long chain actually is infinite.
Then if you disagree that all things don't have a cause then it is up to you to give evidence of something it doesn't apply to and you cannot because it is a fact of our world/universe all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression. This is a fact of our world universe based on the evidence around us. If you disagree then it is up to you to provide evidence that not all things have a cause and you cannot. There is absolutely no evidence the universe is eternal and the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is one of the most tested laws in science makes it impossible for the universe to be eternal.
All things don't have causes, ACB. Don't try to defend the claim, "All things have a cause," because that statement is false.
Then point out something that does not have a cause in our world then.You cannot.St. Thomas Aquinas cannot and has never been refuted only ignored but its still just as true as when he came up with it and it is better than the KCA imo
The number 3 doesn't have a cause. The color red doesn't. Take any given quantum particle. The popping into existence itself has a cause, but the defined part of what was formerly merely a probability wave, does not. In fact, any bit of randomness in the entire universe--and there's a lot of it--is fundamentally uncaused: the mutation of a gene, the shape of snowflake, every free choice you have ever made, etc. The thing itself might be caused, but the formerly indetermined part means that once determined, the determination was uncaused in the sense you are using the word (otherwise it would never have been indeterminate in the first place). What you don't understand is that you are implying an absolutely mechanistic universe. So stop it. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

And further, I think Aquinas was right. I'm telling you that you don't understand him. You, like hugh, have misunderstood his argument. He isn't saying what you think he is. What he is saying is far more important and persuasive than the garbage you are suggesting.

All of them things do have a cause that are caused by something else.Why do I have to understand him to know he has never been refuted? I have often wondered why William Lane Craig does not use Aquinas and instead uses the KCA. Aquinas's philosophy is stronger than the KCA. The things is though is looking at it from all four point and not just the first one - all things have a cause,it is best to use all four - all things have a cause,and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression. You must include all four points and not focus just on the first one,but all of them. And they apply to the examples you tried to give - the color red,snow flakes,mutation of a gene,evolution,cups,plates,stars,etc I could go on and on.

I understand that you are pointing out other things Aquinas thought and said but he has never been refuted,not even scientifically.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:47 am**

All things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression. Everything in our world/knowable universe applies to these facts and not to things outside our universe like heaven where God is.

Singularity,stars,planets,the earth,life,trees,atoms,cells,plants,atmosphere,clouds,storms,hurricanes,tornadoes,oceans,rivers,lakes,planes,trucks,cars,houses,the number 3,all colors,rainbows,streams,tigers,lions,bears,cups,plates,chairs,couches,computers,TV's,cell phones,light,darkness,guitars,aging,children,death,thinking,reasoning,breeding, I could go on and on and everyone of these things apply to these 4 principles - all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

Now this is just a short list of things but if you disagree then it is up to you to come up with something in our world and knowable universe and point out something these principles do not apply to. I don't think you can and so if you reject these principles? You are outside of logic,reason,our world and knowable universe and have only speculation,no logic and only imagination and are intentionally rebelling against truth.You should not just use imagination and speculate.

No matter how hard you try you cannot change the truth,you can run from it and avoid it though,but you'll never be able to get around truth no matter how much imagination and rebellion to the truth you choose.A myth is a myth no matter how hard you try to make it truth.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:57 am**

abelcainsbrother wrote:All things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression. Everything in our world/knowable universe applies to these facts and not to things outside our universe like heaven where God is.

Singularity,stars,planets,the earth,life,trees,atoms,cells,plants,atmosphere,clouds,storms,hurricanes,tornadoes,oceans,rivers,lakes,planes,trucks,cars,houses,the number 3,all colors,rainbows,streams,tigers,lions,bears,cups,plates,chairs,couches,computers,TV's,cell phones,light,darkness,guitars,aging,children,death,thinking,reasoning,breeding, I could go on and on and everyone of these things apply to these 4 principles - all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

Now this is just a short list of things but if you disagree then it is up to you to come up with something in our world and knowable universe and point out something these principles do not apply to. I don't think you can and so if you reject these principles? You are outside of logic,reason,our world and knowable universe and have only speculation,no logic and only imagination and are intentionally rebelling against truth.You should not just use imagination and speculate.

No matter how hard you try you cannot change the truth,you can run from it and avoid it though,but you'll never be able to get around truth no matter how much imagination and rebellion to the truth you choose.A myth is a myth no matter how hard you try to make it truth.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 3:41 am**

Jac3510 wrote:You're making several mistakes, actually. [and all the explanations]

Gosh! Well, I'm indebted to you for prompting a deeper study of St Thomas's works than I have made since I was a teenager! And you're right, my interpretation was indeed far too simplistic. However, I'm not wholly sure that the original point is changed, except that I think I and St Thomas are in better agreement than I thought! The point was, I think, that it is not irrefutable to believe that the universe (in the sense of everything there ever was, not in the more recent sense of our observable universe) did not have a beginning, at the Big Bang or anywhen else. The question does not then become "who (or what) started it?", but "why is it the way it is?" And that question applies whether the universe had a beginning or not. Atheists, I think, choose one of two possible answers: either all possible universes do in fact exist, or that ours is the only possible universe. In both cases the question "why just us?" becomes meaningless, and any kind of 'prime mover' seems irrelevant. I find that unsatisfactory, however. Perhaps it's God talking to me!

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:57 am**

Jac: The number 3 doesn't have a cause.

Sure it does! The things that are ever numbered have a cause. So the THING that once did not exist, or that is derivative of another thing (if in three parts) has been assigned an certain number by what? By a human being, and so both thing numbered and the one numbering it had a first cause.

Jac: The color red doesn't.

Absurd! Until some THING was created by God that was red, that color did not exist!

Jac: Take any given quantum particle. The popping into existence itself has a cause, but the defined part of what was formerly merely a probability wave, does not. In fact, any bit of randomness in the entire universe--and there's a lot of it--is fundamentally uncaused

Again, absurd! Whatever is randomized FIRST has a cause. And it is what came first that did not previously exist that truly matters - at least to our conversation.

Jac: the mutation of a gene, the shape of snowflake,

Uh, which came first, the mutation or the shape, or the gene and the snowflake? Who made those mutations possible - where did these things unfixed abilities/possibilities come from? They had both a Source and a Cause!

Jac; every free choice you have ever made, etc.

Who made your free choices possible? Who made YOU, a person who could make choices? And can you fly? Can you de-materialize and walk through a wall? No! So these abilities were created with hard parameters - randomness has PARAMETERS! And those parameters are locked - they are not unlimited. So both the things with randomness and their allowed parameters were ultimately caused, and they are all ultimately inherent and derivative from some first thing that previously did not exist.

For our discussion of theism, this is not a productive discussion. Because EVERY thing and possibility had to have an Origin that made it possible - and THAT is what really matters!

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:55 am**

hughfarey wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:You're making several mistakes, actually. [and all the explanations]
Gosh! Well, I'm indebted to you for prompting a deeper study of St Thomas's works than I have made since I was a teenager! And you're right, my interpretation was indeed far too simplistic. However, I'm not wholly sure that the original point is changed, except that I think I and St Thomas are in better agreement than I thought! The point was, I think, that it is not irrefutable to believe that the universe (in the sense of everything there ever was, not in the more recent sense of our observable universe) did not have a beginning, at the Big Bang or anywhen else. The question does not then become "who (or what) started it?", but "why is it the way it is?" And that question applies whether the universe had a beginning or not. Atheists, I think, choose one of two possible answers: either all possible universes do in fact exist, or that ours is the only possible universe. In both cases the question "why just us?" becomes meaningless, and any kind of 'prime mover' seems irrelevant. I find that unsatisfactory, however. Perhaps it's God talking to me!

As far as other scientific hypothesis's like the multi-verse,it is just speculation and based on our world/universe we should not assume if there are other universes that these principles don't apply to them too,so they are not getting away from a first cause at all because they would apply to these principles also and so they had a cause also.

Atheists either play dumb and say I don't know and avoid the "why"question like the plague,they are not concerned with "how" or "why" we have a universe or they go with nothing, others try to exxagerate the possibility of other hypothesis's in science that are no where near as tested as the big bang,but it seems to give them possibilities besides God,but even they have no answer,and wait until science gives them an answer instead of just accepting the science we have now.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:05 pm**

hughfarey wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:You're making several mistakes, actually. [and all the explanations]
Gosh! Well, I'm indebted to you for prompting a deeper study of St Thomas's works than I have made since I was a teenager! And you're right, my interpretation was indeed far too simplistic. However, I'm not wholly sure that the original point is changed, except that I think I and St Thomas are in better agreement than I thought! The point was, I think, that it is not irrefutable to believe that the universe (in the sense of everything there ever was, not in the more recent sense of our observable universe) did not have a beginning, at the Big Bang or anywhen else. The question does not then become "who (or what) started it?", but "why is it the way it is?" And that question applies whether the universe had a beginning or not. Atheists, I think, choose one of two possible answers: either all possible universes do in fact exist, or that ours is the only possible universe. In both cases the question "why just us?" becomes meaningless, and any kind of 'prime mover' seems irrelevant. I find that unsatisfactory, however. Perhaps it's God talking to me!

I hope you find it an interesting and helpful study. If you are interested, I would suggest starting with this paper. Beyond that, I would say that you and Aquinas are actually in a fair bit of agreement. You are correct that you cannot prove that the universe did not have a beginning, at least, not with shear reason or science. Of course, if you believe Scripture, then you can prove that the universe had no beginning. Genesis 1 speaks of an absolute beginning, and so if it is true, then we would expect an absolute beginning. So the beginning can be known and held by faith, but not reason alone. On the other hand, if we know by divine revelation that there was a beginning, then we should expect science to strongly suggest (not prove) a beginning. And that, of course, is exactly what we do see. And thus the well known quote by Robert Jastrow:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

So the power of presently held theories of modern cosmology in arguing for God isn't in the god of the gaps styled Kalam arguments but rather serve in a way analogous to verified predictions of any good scientific theory. If A, we ought to see B. We do, in fact, see B, and that suggests that A could well be true. (To be clear, you can't say that if we see B then A is therefore true--that's a fallacy called affirming the consequent, but this is also the power of the scientific method, because at its core, it is built on a proper modus tollens: if A then B, but where we don't observe B, that means A is false (so the failed predication falsifies the theory)).

So all well and good. But having said all of that, none of this applies to Aquinas' argument as he actually holds it. The First, Second, and Third ways are true and can be defended whether you have a true beginning in the Big Bang or whether there is some purely natural cause behind it that justifies an infinitely old universe or even if there were an infinite number of universes in existence right now. In any and all of these cases, Aquinas' argument still leaves us, necessarily, with a God as described in Scripture.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:33 pm**

Philip wrote:
Jac; every free choice you have ever made, etc.
Who made your free choices possible? Who made YOU, a person who could make choices? And can you fly? Can you de-materialize and walk through a wall? No! So these abilities were created with hard parameters - randomness has PARAMETERS! And those parameters are locked - they are not unlimited. So both the things with randomness and their allowed parameters were ultimately caused, and they are all ultimately inherent and derivative from some first thing that previously did not exist.

Every point you made is incorrect, Phil. But unless you want to get into a significant conversation about universals and how they are to be best understood (e.g., nominalism, realism, moderate realism) and then particularly how that plays out with what kind of existence mathematical objects can be said to have (e.g., realism and its versions, formalism (and then psychologism vs conceptualism), absolute creationism, or classical platonism; arealism (aka conventionalism); or anti-realism (and then free logic, figuralism, neutralism, fictionalism, pretense theory, modal structuralism, etc.)--so a lot of highly technical stuff there) which in turn would require a discussion of ontological commitments involved in various existentially quantifying statements . . . yeah, I don't think we want to do all of that.

No, I want to just address the point you've made here, because I think it's the one we can talk about in a meaningful way without getting too technical.

Let me just make a blanket statement to help you see why this isn't merely academic. You're argument proves too much. If free choices have causes in the sense you are saying they do (by insisting everything has a real cause (though I presume you exempt God . . . note the special pleading) then there is no such thing as free will at all, which is to say, your argument necessarily entails absolute determinism. Since I know you don't want to give up free will, I'm going to ask you to reconsider the position you are taking. Not only is it dangerous in the way just stated, but while your intentions are good--you're trying to preserve an important argument for God's existence--the entire enterprise is wholly unnecessary. As I just said to hugh, God's existence can be proven on a much looser (and, perhaps a bit ironically, more precise) understanding of "cause."

Anyway, so much for preamble. Let me just address your point directly.

Just because I am the one who makes the choice, it does not follow that there is an absolute cause as you are insisting. Let me try to offer something of a visual illustration. In a "normal" cause/effect relationship, A directly causes B, such that B is determined by A. We could "draw" it like this:

Code: Select all

A -> B

Imagine a cue ball hitting a billiard ball, a hammer driving a nail, the gravitational force exerted upon some object given all the related variables (mass, distance, velocity, vector, etc.). That's all pretty standard. These are what we would call determinate effects. The effect is completely and totally determined by the cause.

But on the other hand, think about indeterminate effects. We can visualize them like this:

Code: Select all

B C D
\ | /
  A

in this case, A may cause B, C, or D. The cause is not determined to the effect. Free choice works exactly like this. You could choose to respond to this post of mine or not. Your will is the cause (A) and one effect is a post your write (B) and another effect is you not writing a post at all (C). So A could cause B OR C. So this is where we get into probability theory. In a standard determinate effect, the probability of some effect given some cause is 1. With an indeterminate effect, the probability will be less than 1. It may be 50/50 (or in proper notion, .5/.5, if you care to get technical). There may be more options--say four options, each with an equal chance of being the result (25/25/25/25). Or some may be more or less probable than others (50/10/15/25).

Now this is really important. I know this post is long and boring, but please get this. Suppose you have four possible choices, and the probability you pick B is 50%, C is 10%, D is 15%, and E is 25%. That means that given 100 instances of making that choice, you'll choose B 50 times, C 10 times, D 15 times, and E 25 times (on the average). Notice this is indeterminate. So you can certainly say that you yourself are the cause of choosing B, C, D, or E. But that misses my point. Look at this closely:

What caused you to choose B? You can't say "I did!" because now you're just causing yourself, and you can certainly see that is self-refuting. Notice the language of the question: "what caused you to choose B?" B obviously didn't cause you to choose it, because the effect can cause itself. So what did?

The final answer is, "nothing." And it has to be. If you say that something caused it in the standard (deterministic) sense, what you are actually saying is that B had a 100% chance of being chosen given certain conditions. But if you will choose something 100% of the time given certain conditions, then when those conditions are present, you will necessarily and always make that choice. But then that's no "choice" at all! You're just left with strict determinism. No free will.

All of that applies to everything I already said. I know this is all a bit technical, but I hope you can see the point I'm trying (ineloquently) to make.

fakeedit:

For those who survived that post and don't believe in free will, then I invite you to consider all of the above with respect to the probability wave of a quantum particle. Exactly the same argument.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:04 pm**

Jac: If free choices have causes in the sense you are saying they do (by insisting everything has a real cause (though I presume you exempt God . . . note the special pleading) then there is no such thing as free will at all, which is to say, your argument necessarily entails absolute determinism.

I did not say that our free will choices have a cause. Because if one makes a sinful choice, who caused that? I asked Who or what FIRST made the free will choices POSSIBLE? That is the predecessor of all choices: That first, A) God has made a being, and B) He gave that being the ability to make free will choices as that being so desires. But NO options to choose would be possible without a human being created to begin with - a human which God also gave free will. So both the being's creation and his free will precede ANY choices made - meaning if those two things don't exist, there will be no choices! So, the POSSIBILITY to make choices and the options involve and are dependent upon prior things. AND, the choices of what is possible for that being is limited to the options God allows him - that is, one cannot make choices that are impossible for him to make, as whenever no such options exist. Many options and actions involve choosing some thing that was first created - else even the option would not exist. Options of the heart and mind are different, as they are options of one's intent of the mind, heart, the will. No, I am not a hard determinist or some Five Point loon!

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:44 pm**

The fact that something exists to make the choice is irrelevant to the point I was making and that you objected to. I said, and I will said it again: it is not true that everything has a cause. We should not say that everything that exists has a cause. That is incorrect. Among things that exist that don't have a cause would be our free choices.

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:54 am**

Free choices do have a cause. I think you're getting confused with all of the technical language. In our world/universe all things do have a cause including the ability to choose .Nobody can get around truth,it is impossible to get around the truth.I guess some people think that we cannot really know the truth,but we can.The truth is the truth,a lie is a lie and a theory is a theory.

The bible tells us that God will send great delusion because people did not believe the truth. People often rebel against the truth and come up with all kinds of theories,imaginations,etc to avoid the truth.

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:15 am**

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think you're getting confused with all of the technical language.

Well, not me. I think jac is a model of clarity compared to others, and understand him (or her?) thoroughly. A couple of really well explained comments there, and I thank him. or Her. Although I have no evidence either way: my Western European Judaeo-Christian upbringing inclines my towards the male, but I do have an aunt called Jac (queline)!

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:22 am**

hughfarey wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:I think you're getting confused with all of the technical language.
Well, not me. I think jac is a model of clarity compared to others, and understand him (or her?) thoroughly. A couple of really well explained comments there, and I thank him. or Her. Although I have no evidence either way: my Western European Judaeo-Christian upbringing inclines my towards the male, but I do have an aunt called Jac (queline)!

I was not trying to pick on jac but we don't always agree,but when he is right,he is right.I think he's wrong in this case but not always.I think he is a little too pessimistic about Trump also but hey we still learn from each other and I think it is good.

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:46 am**

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think he's wrong in this case ...

Would you care to say where?

Evidence for God from Science

RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution