Evidence for God from Science

Your link didn't answer the question either. But I'm not asking the link. And I'm not asking Google. Its been a very common philosophical position since time immemorial that the universe had a First Cause. You have something when, in reality, there ought not to be anything, because there is a chain of cause and effect that people see in the universe that trends back to some first point. We call it the Big Bang today, but it is the 'first' moment nonetheless.

You seem to have trouble understanding a universe without time, but it has been a theological position for a long time with a lot of information on it. Have you ever investigated this area? It is not impossible to have a reality without time and matter as we know it. Clearly, if our universe exists and runs on the princples of cause and a effect, something beyond those laws had to be its initiator. You don't have to agree its God, but at this point you acknowledge the universe exists, has natural laws, and follows a chain of cause and effect, but deny that there was a First Cause. It, far more than anything I have said, is an illogical position.

I'm afraid you are mistaken, a hypothesis attempts to explain facts, a theory is a hypothesis proven to actually explain the facts. For example, we no longer question the validity of the theory of gravity.

Are you educated? Have you never read that Aristotle theory of gravitation was being taught for almost 1600 years until Galileo challenged it and proved wrong.

As for evolution, you are badly deluded. It is not a fact, it is a good model to explain some parts of us being here. For a theory to be proven it needs to be tested and since evolution can not be tested not by current technology anyways. It is still un-proven. Like it or not but that how it is buddy.

Have you never read that Aristotle theory of gravitation was being taught for almost 1600 years until Galileo challenged it and proved wrong.

Because theory is in the title of something it does not make it a scientific theory. We have since then raised our expectations quite a bit. It's a little harder to make a theory (if it is so easy, you're more than welcome to make one to counter evolution yourself).

Like it or not but that how it is buddy.

Examples of speciation:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

It, far more than anything I have said, is an illogical position.

No you're illogical.
Sorry, it's just getting old. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Can we all just end this discussion? There comes a point where one must walk away and leave someone to their beliefs. We won't convince this guy over the Internet, and we can't even get him to listen to us. All he does is accuse us of intellectual laziness and God-of-the-Gaps arguments, he has this thing going with the word "illogical," I asked him what naturalistic basis he has to say that anything has logical value, seeing as the laws of logic are transcendental absolutes... all he had to say was "I already explained myself," which he hadn't.
Something tells me he's just making fun at our expense, shouldn't we just drop this? He isn't coming here out of a sincere desire to learn and discuss, if you look at his replies to me that's clear. He's just making trouble, but he can't do it if no one plays along. I'm ending this discussion with him because when I actually presented facts to him he shied away. You guys can keep it up but know that he won't have anything to fight with if we just leave him be.

I tried my best to reply to all requests. I did get to yours on logic...you don't have to lie about me not responding, you could have just said you didn't like the answer I gave. I'm afraid I don't have a better one, it is the basis of how we think. If you don't like it, don't use it. We'll argue using dead chickens next time.

The fact is, it is rational to assume logic is valid (given its track record) and therefore apply it to all questions we do not fully know the answer to. Compared to say, random guesses, or supernatural entities. If you meant to focus more on the validity/practicality of the scientific method, you'd have to suggest another method that can be more accurate in its results and replace it.

But yes, I think everyone is quite convinced they are right and the other is blinded. If I were a little more patient I think I'd continue arguing, but I'd rather play the BF3 alpha.

I tried my best to reply to all requests.

"It is illogical", That was your best.

But yes, I think everyone is quite convinced they are right and the other is blinded.

Does this include you as well or its just us "ignorant believers...who worship unicorns"?

aimforthehead wrote:I tried my best to reply to all requests. I did get to yours on logic...you don't have to lie about me not responding, you could have just said you didn't like the answer I gave. I'm afraid I don't have a better one, it is the basis of how we think. If you don't like it, don't use it. We'll argue using dead chickens next time.

The fact is, it is rational to assume logic is valid (given its track record) and therefore apply it to all questions we do not fully know the answer to. Compared to say, random guesses, or supernatural entities. If you meant to focus more on the validity/practicality of the scientific method, you'd have to suggest another method that can be more accurate in its results and replace it.

But yes, I think everyone is quite convinced they are right and the other is blinded. If I were a little more patient I think I'd continue arguing, but I'd rather play the BF3 alpha.

No reason to reply. You know that wasn't the point of my posts. I already ended the discussion. Thanks for your time, sir.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote: "There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," he says.
Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

There's the blunder right there. Trying to ascribe attributes to "nothingness" is ridiculous

Usually when people are talking about "something coming from nothing," they're not talking about absolute "nothing".
(For further debate, pm me.)

aimforthehead wrote:I tried my best to reply to all requests. I did get to yours on logic...you don't have to lie about me not responding, you could have just said you didn't like the answer I gave. I'm afraid I don't have a better one, it is the basis of how we think. If you don't like it, don't use it. We'll argue using dead chickens next time.

Then your "best try" has been woefully inadequate. Answering the problem of universal abstracts such as laws of logic by saying, "...it is the basis of how we think. If you don't like it, don't use it...", is just begging the question. No-one's after an example of the mechanics of laws of logic. people just want a naturalistic explanation of why there are universal, abstract, unchanging laws of thought. If naturalism has a naturalistic account for everything then you should have no problem here. Saying, effectively, that "they just are" is no explanation at all and begs the question.

1over137 wrote:

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote: "There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," he says.
Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

There's the blunder right there. Trying to ascribe attributes to "nothingness" is ridiculous

Usually when people are talking about "something coming from nothing," they're not talking about absolute "nothing".
(For further debate, pm me.)

Then these people ought to stop, as if nothing were not really nothing but instead some form of some already existent thing.

I like C.S. Lewis

indirect but nonetheless a very good argument.

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."–C.S. Lewis

aimforthehead wrote:

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote:

aimforthehead wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:The universe is the prime example, as I already stated. Please explain how the universe came to be, using only natural phenomenon in your reasoning.

That is an illogical question. It is inherently flawed. (Prior to the big bang, that is.)

Oh my gosh. I am astounded. All he asks is for you to explain your position, and you say "your question is illogical?"
It wasn't even a question! I am just blown away. Do you really think that you can dominate any debate by shutting your ears and just calling the other side illogical?
The fact that this is over the Net makes no difference. Have some respect, sir, for the people you challenge. Otherwise no one will want to speak with you, and you won't have that wonderful victory you've been dreaming of over the "delusion of religion."

A belief in god is not necessarily illogical. A belief in god on the basis that we do not know something that is inherently nonsensical, is what is illogical.

I'll try and play ball a little more, so, "what happened before the universe", assuming something could have, I'd have to say God is a possibility (mostly because I am not 100% sure of anything). But a reasonable, natural cause is more likely given that is generally the case (by generally, I mean always). I hope this was a more acceptable answer.

Illogical, as you keep saying. "A reasonable, natural cause" to the natural universe is a contradiction. You are saying that a system caused itself. How is that logical? All I've been trying to get across is that whatever began the natural universe, whatever initiated it, whatever caused it, must be beyond the natural because naturally, all of reality can't spontaneously exist. As others have said elsewhere, it would blow away all scientific ideas, as well, because at any moment, what is to stop matter/energy/laws from spontaneously and rapidly changing everywhere? There isn't, in that case.

Aimforthehead, the point that I can see here through all of this is that you need to think about things like logic, love, hate, how human thought originates, mathematic truths, etc. You need to reconcile those things to your worldview. How does your worldview explain those things? You don't need to debate here about this, but you should know the origin and explanation to be able to successfully defend atheism. You need to be able give a VALID explanation for them.

RickD wrote:Aimforthehead, the point that I can see here through all of this is that you need to think about things like logic, love, hate, how human thought originates, mathematic truths, etc. You need to reconcile those things to your worldview. How does your worldview explain those things? You don't need to debate here about this, but you should know the origin and explanation to be able to successfully defend atheism. You need to be able give a VALID explanation for them.

Most of these can be explained through evolution. (which I don't care to get into, seeing as I'm pretty sure most people here only accept what would fit their worldview).
As for logic, it was a found method, more than a created one, was the point I was getting at (I did find it difficult to defend logic using anything other than logic, I was giving this one up when I said if you don't like it use it, you don't have to be ***** about it). I've given several outside sources and evidence to back up near every claim I did make, and I'm certain not one of you bothered to look through them as you just kept asking the same questions that I have already answered. I've really wasted enough time already.

The fact is, without taking the affirmative (god doesn't exist I can prove it!) the burden of proof is not on me...this is a horrible understanding of some basic lessons in logic. You guys seems to think god is by default the logical choice and anyone who disagrees needs to defend themselves (somehow prove a negative). This entire thread has been me defending a position which is the default position which needs no defending, to people who frankly, remind me of being in high school (seriously? You say let's end the argument, and when I say okay, you say "you didn't need to post anything just stop talking" in order to have the last word? How old are you kids?) So yeah, I'm going to find a college science forum and leave this problem behind lol.

Your response leads me to believe you never read what I wrote. Instead of merely calling your claims illogical and moving on, I gave reasons for my statement. I never in my posts claimed there to be a god of any kind. I only asked for consistency on your part with regards to the origins of the universe. You are free to stay just as you are free to leave, but if your interest truly is in truth, you would do well to stop presuming your own innocence and objectivity of thought. Besides leaving no room for being proven wrong, you leave know room for being shown what is right. Besides that it is a bit tiresome to consistently be attacked with claims of illogical statements only to be provided with illogical responses.

Feel free to leave I you wish, but if you stay and want it to be meaningful, respond with thought instead of links and unsubstantiated claims of logical malpractice.