Evidence for God from Science

I finished Psychology and I did question my teachers a lot of times. Unfortunately few of them provided a challenge in the first place.

You said that we can't we exist without an analogy or empirical proof (or at least you THINK so) and that a demonstration would require humans to access a "divine power" (or at least PROBABLY it does).

Well, I didn't say that. I just said that you can't prove that you exist without using an analogy or empirical proof. I didn't question the existence itself, but mainly that you can't offer proof for it.

Who is doing the doubting?

I am of course, but that doesn't mean that I can prove that I am actually doing that.
So you see that is why I was talking about the "BIG PICTURE".

Let's try another example: Let's imagine this time that you are horse rider in a "live painting". Can you describe the painting without leaving the painting? But first of all? Do you actually know that you are in a "live painting"?

My opinion is that at this point, we have reached a point in time where we do realize that we are part of a painting. Now getting out of it might be the hard part. It is very similar to the concept presented in the "Matrix" movie if you have seen it, but of course, more complex...

Bryan,
Are you going to answer the challenges levied by Dom?

Bryan,
Are you going to answer the challenges levied by Dom?

I am doing that as much as I can and I already answered his challenge related to TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE.

BryanH wrote:

BryanH,

Does life and death exist?

As I said to you before: from an empirical point of view life and death exist, but it might be a relative concept.

But the issue remains: we have little knowledge about life and death at this point so saying that L&D exist, well, it's relative at this point in time.

Again we come back at the same example with the swans: counting 1 millionw white swans doesn't mean that all swans are white.

Really?? - little knowledge about life and death at this point.

This is not about swans - it is about you...

Are you alive or dead?

The answer is either an absolute YES or an absolute NO...

Next, bryanH - if you are correct - you cannot trust or believe in what your professors / teacher teach you and grades do not matter either.
-
-
-

Bryan,

Few professors provided challenge to what? Your relativist view? That doesn't surprise me. Relativism is a view that is widely accepted in various academic fields for the past 50 years. Clearly, you've been left uncontested until you came here.

You then say that you can't prove existence without an analogy or empirical proof. You don't question existence, just that you can't offer proof for it.

I then ask you
"Who is doing the doubting?"

And you answered
"I am of course, but that doesn't mean that I can prove I am actually doing that"

Are you actually reading your own words?

What are you even saying? Are you now contending that we don't have free will? We're in the matrix you say?

Well, that's an interesting claim, Bryan.
Is that objectively true?
How do you KNOW that?

You analogy unfortunately self destructs itself, Bryan. How do you know we're in a "live painting"? How do you KNOW we are in a complicated "matrix"? Please enlighten us. Where is Morpheus? Do I take the red pill or the blue pill?

I am eager to hear this.

Is that objectively true?
How do you KNOW that?

You analogy unfortunately self destructs itself, Bryan. How do you know we're in a "live painting"? How do you KNOW we are in a complicated "matrix"? Please enlighten us. Where is Morpheus? Do I take the red pill or the blue pill?

I am eager to hear this.

I understand that you want answers, but I have already given you my answer. You are asking me about how I know certain things? Again please read my words and don't interpret them the way you want them to be.

I didn't say we were in a matrix. That was a simple metaphor of expressing the BIG PICTURE. I didn't say I have any answers and I didn't say you have to agree with me.

Can you demonstrate otherwise? You keep asking me for answers, but you don't provide any yourself. So as I said before: I don't have any answers, you don't as well.
But I may be wrong and you might have some answers after all.

But anyways I think that the discussion has managed to go into a very Dark/Abstract area. Let's make it more simple.

You seek absolute truth and knowledge right?

1) How was the universe created?
2) What is time?
3) When you die, do you really die and pass out of existence?

Please provide a detailed answer for each of the 3 questions.

Bryan,

Yes, I'm asking you how you know "things". You're confused, Bryan. I'm not taking your words and interpreting them in ways I want them to be. I and reading them exactly how you want to me to read them. With skepticism. Surely, you can't expect me to indiscriminately accept your ideas as truth, do you? I wouldn't expect you to do so, either.

Let me just get this out of the way. Your metaphors are awful and not well thought out at all. Sorry.

Then you say "I didn't say I have any answers and I didn't say you have to agree with me."

Thats exactly my point, Bryan. You don't have any answers, yet here you are challenging that the answers are relative/plural. Then when I challenged, you got destroyed philosophically. Also, I don't agree with you because I KNOW its wrong before you even came here. Every single thing you said was perfectly telegraphed by me every single step of the way. Truth and Knowledge is OBJECTIVE and its logically impossible to be relative/plural/subjective in our mind AND in physical reality. It is OBJECTIVELY true, and I KNOW it.

"Can you demonstrate otherwise?"

Demonstrate what? That Truth and knowledge is objective? I already did.

"I don't have any answers," I know you don't. "you don't as well." How do you KNOW that?
"But I may be wrong and you might have some answers after all." I'm glad we agree. I can provide you answers, so can many of us here on this message board.

You seek absolute truth and knowledge right?

I don't seek it. I know absolute truth ONLY exists, and my mind could provide me knowledge that goes beyond the reach of science. You want to know more?

1) How was the universe created?

This is the philosophy section of the website. You would do best to ask this question in another thread where this is the main point to the discussion. However, I will leave you with the most devastating cosmological proof for the existence. First, I want you to acknowledge that you just said by your own admission that the universe was created. I want to point it out to you that right off the bat. You already affirmed that the universe cannot come into existence self caused. The universe has a creator.

The Kalam Cosmological arguement
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

2) What is time?

Time is a complicated issue. However, this is best suited to ask in the science section of the message board. However, let me refer you to who I consider to be the LEADING philosopher in the world on the subject of time.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
His leading book is Time and the Metaphysics of relativity
http://apps.biola.edu/apologetics-store ... ivity_Book
A cheaper alternative
http://apps.biola.edu/apologetics-store ... ctive_Book

3) When you die, do you really die and pass out of existence?

Question is best suited to another thread here on the philosophy forum for mind-body theory.

Thats exactly my point, Bryan. You don't have any answers, yet here you are challenging that the answers are relative/plural. Then when I challenged, you got destroyed philosophically. Also, I don't agree with you because I KNOW its wrong before you even came here. Every single thing you said was perfectly telegraphed by me every single step of the way. Truth and Knowledge is OBJECTIVE and its logically impossible to be relative/plural/subjective in our mind AND in physical reality. It is OBJECTIVELY true, and I KNOW it.

Well, one thing I did learn is that you have to know when to quit. Ok Dom, you are right and I am wrong...
The best of luck with truth and knowledge.

Is this really that hard to understand?

You essentially say we can't know truth.
But to make that statement, you are in fact saying that YOU alone know the truth. And the truth is that we can't know it. To say that we can't know truth, is to in fact make a truth statement. It is contrdictory and self-defeating. nd thus the question, "Is that statment true?"
If the statement, "you can't know truth," is true, then you can in fact know truth, and the statement defeats itself.
If we can't know truth, then we could never even get to the point of being able to TRULY know, "you can't know truth."

If you can't know you even exist, then how do you propose we provide answers? All Dom is trying to do is show you the futility of this kind of relative thinking.
If you are going to be that skeptical, then you ought to at least be consistent in your skepticism of your own beliefs.

You essentially say we can't know truth.
But to make that statement, you are in fact saying that YOU alone know the truth. And the truth is that we can't know it. To say that we can't know truth, is to in fact make a truth statement. It is contrdictory and self-defeating. nd thus the question, "Is that statment true?"
If the statement, "you can't know truth," is true, then you can in fact know truth, and the statement defeats itself.
If we can't know truth, then we could never even get to the point of being able to TRULY know, "you can't know truth."

The fact that you can't prove something doesn't mean that it isn't actually true. I think that is one of the problems that people have with relativity.

And again and again the same thing: I didn't actually say that you can't know truth. I just said that you can't know absolute truth, anyways not at this point in time.

The fact that Dom accepts only absolute and objective truth, well, that's his problem, not mine.
Dom also says that truth and knowledge can be only absolute and objective. Well I am looking around me and I see that truth is not always objective and absolute.

If you can't know you even exist, then how do you propose we provide answers? All Dom is trying to do is show you the futility of this kind of relative thinking.

Well, you can't prove that you exist. So what? Does that change the fact that we talk here and try to find some answers? Well, I don't see anything happening. So the fact that you want some objectivity it's ok, but as I said to Dom: logic has its purpose, but it can't be used in all areas.

For example, why would I use logic in the first place to demonstrate the futility of relativity?
Relativity is not a logical concept in the first place. Relativity doesn't work with TRUE and FALSE values. It works with possibility.

You eat soup with a spoon, don't you? You don't try eating soup using a fork, right?
Same thing about relativity and logic. They don't go together.
So you see this is an error.

It's like psychology from one point of view: many psychological tests offer numbers and based on that you offer an interpretation for someone's personality. People are not numbers. Such tests can help of course, but I say it again: people are not numbers.

Anyways, as DOM assumes that relativity defeats itself by its own contradiction, I can apply the same statement to him as well.

He defeats himself as well because we live in a relative world and his absolute logic is relative.

Here we are again from where we started.

BryanH wrote:logic has its purpose, but it can't be used in all areas.

Once you say something like this you give up the right to argue anything. Your arguments become unintelligible. You might as well argue kjhkjgkjhlkhkljhlkjl;kj and try to make sense of it.

Once you say something like this you give up the right to argue anything. Your arguments become unintelligible. You might as well argue kjhkjgkjhlkhkljhlkjl;kj and try to make sense of it.

I am sorry but I don't get your point. Please elaborate.

BryanH wrote:

Once you say something like this you give up the right to argue anything. Your arguments become unintelligible. You might as well argue kjhkjgkjhlkhkljhlkjl;kj and try to make sense of it.

I am sorry but I don't get your point. Please elaborate.

Logic and reason is the only tool at our disposal to understand not only the world around us but to understand pretty much ANYTHING. To say that logic (and by extension reason) is needed only sometimes is to give up all reason and make everything unintelligible. Without logic and reason you cannot possibly know why soup is better consumed with a spoon than a fork (let alone why you have a fork, a spoon, and soup to begin with).

Logic and reason is the only tool at our disposal to understand not only the world around us but to understand pretty much ANYTHING. To say that logic (and by extension reason) is needed only sometimes is to give up all reason and make everything unintelligible. Without logic and reason you cannot possibly know why soup is better consumed with a spoon than a fork (let alone why you have a fork, a spoon, and soup to begin with).

I just said you can't use logic all the time. I didn't say that you shouldn't use it when eating soup.

Logic and reason is the only tool at our disposal to understand not only the world around us but to understand pretty much ANYTHING

May be, but please watch a baby. Do you see a baby learning using logic and reason? A small baby doesn't use logic and reason to understand pretty much anything. He just uses experience that stacks up, imitation of others around him and environment conditioning.

Logic and reason is good in our lives but to what extent?

Anyways, what I was trying to point out is that Dom was using relativity to disprove my own arguments, but he didn't use relativity when he presented his arguments. It doesn't work that way. It's using a double standard in the first place.

And again and again the same thing: I didn't actually say that you can't know truth. I just said that you can't know absolute truth, anyways not at this point in time.

Is that absolutely true? Yes or no?