Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: Look, I'm not going to answer your post point for point, others have done that. What I want to do is try to narrow down the discussion somewhat. Now we can take one of two major tracks and it's up to you which one. There's the metaphysical track in which we can offer absolute proof of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal first agent of causation. Or we can go the scientific track and offer very compelling evidence in support of the existence of God. And you are dead wrong, by the way, science has plenty to say on the subject, in the way of corroborating evidence, not proof, since we all know science is not in the business of proving anything, right?

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: Look, I'm not going to answer your post point for point, others have done that. What I want to do is try to narrow down the discussion somewhat. Now we can take one of two major tracks and it's up to you which one. There's the metaphysical track in which we can offer absolute proof of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal first agent of causation. Or we can go the scientific track and offer very compelling evidence in support of the existence of God. And you are dead wrong, by the way, science has plenty to say on the subject, in the way of corroborating evidence, not proof, since we all know science is not in the business of proving anything, right?

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

Ken

Here you go Kenny:
http://www.godandscience.org
Now don't come back here complaining there's no evidence for God. That page has enough evidence to keep you busy reading for weeks.

Good luck, and we'll see you around the middle of May.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: Look, I'm not going to answer your post point for point, others have done that. What I want to do is try to narrow down the discussion somewhat. Now we can take one of two major tracks and it's up to you which one. There's the metaphysical track in which we can offer absolute proof of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal first agent of causation. Or we can go the scientific track and offer very compelling evidence in support of the existence of God. And you are dead wrong, by the way, science has plenty to say on the subject, in the way of corroborating evidence, not proof, since we all know science is not in the business of proving anything, right?

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

Ken

Here you go Kenny:
http://www.godandscience.org
Now don't come back here complaining there's no evidence for God. That page has enough evidence to keep you busy reading for weeks.

Good luck, and we'll see you around the middle of May.

Nice try! A website is not scientific evidence.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:I don't have to list even one time you've completely ignored what someone has to say, Kenny. The first page of this very thread is ample evidence.

When somebody gives a response I reply to that repsonse. When someone directs me to a book, website, or some other source, I will often ask them to read their source and get back with me. I've explained multiple times why I do this. It is not that I am ignoring the person, it's just that I've never gotten a straight answer that way and it has always wound up being a complete waste of time.

Ken

That is only your opinion that you NEVER have got response. In the other thread I responded to you even directly. Yet, I received no reaction from you.

Which thread and post number did I neglect to respond to?

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: Look, I'm not going to answer your post point for point, others have done that. What I want to do is try to narrow down the discussion somewhat. Now we can take one of two major tracks and it's up to you which one. There's the metaphysical track in which we can offer absolute proof of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal first agent of causation. Or we can go the scientific track and offer very compelling evidence in support of the existence of God. And you are dead wrong, by the way, science has plenty to say on the subject, in the way of corroborating evidence, not proof, since we all know science is not in the business of proving anything, right?

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

Ken

Here you go Kenny:
http://www.godandscience.org
Now don't come back here complaining there's no evidence for God. That page has enough evidence to keep you busy reading for weeks.

Good luck, and we'll see you around the middle of May.

Nice try! A website is not scientific evidence.

Ken

Kenny,

Are you really that obtuse? I'm starting to think any discussion here is completely over your head.

GODANDSCIENCE.ORG IS THE HOMESITE OF THIS FORUM. IT HAS ARTICLES THAT SHOW EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!!!!!

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:I don't have to list even one time you've completely ignored what someone has to say, Kenny. The first page of this very thread is ample evidence.

When somebody gives a response I reply to that repsonse. When someone directs me to a book, website, or some other source, I will often ask them to read their source and get back with me. I've explained multiple times why I do this. It is not that I am ignoring the person, it's just that I've never gotten a straight answer that way and it has always wound up being a complete waste of time.

Ken

That is only your opinion that you NEVER have got response. In the other thread I responded to you even directly. Yet, I received no reaction from you.

Which thread and post number did I neglect to respond to?

Ken

Here is the link http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 79#p154540

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

kenny wrote:
I understood the joke! Like I said; websites do not constitute scientific proof.

K

ryanbouma wrote:This is our understanding based on "modern science". The universe began to exist. All causes such as the multiverse, an infinite singularity, God, worm holes, aliens from another dimension, etc. are all nice suggestions without empirical scientific evidence.

The primary difference is God said it in scripture 3k years ago

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I understood the joke! Like I said; websites do not constitute scientific proof.

K

As Byblos has said before, there is no scientific proof. But that link has plenty of scientific evidence. You asked for evidence. It was given to you. What are you afraid of? Read some of the articles.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I understood the joke! Like I said; websites do not constitute scientific proof.

K

As Byblos has said before, there is no scientific proof. But that link has plenty of scientific evidence. You asked for evidence. It was given to you. What are you afraid of? Read some of the articles.

As I said earlier; I don't have time to read over your entire website. I am sure if you had something you would have presented it by now.

Ken

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I understood the joke! Like I said; websites do not constitute scientific proof.

K

As Byblos has said before, there is no scientific proof. But that link has plenty of scientific evidence. You asked for evidence. It was given to you. What are you afraid of? Read some of the articles.

As I said earlier; I don't have time to read over your entire website. I am sure if you had something you would have presented it by now.

Ken

Kenny,

Earlier in this thread you said:

If you have scientific evidence to support the existence of God, I would love to see it.

I presented you with many articles showing evidence for God's existence. And you don't have time to pick a few and read them?

What is your purpose for being here on this forum?