Evidence for God from Science

The assertion that everything that comes into being (existence) has a cause, as it relates to mass, comes from the OBSERVABLE fact that everything that has mass AND comes into existence ( that can be observed), has a cause.

MBPrata wrote:1over137, I'm not sure I got what you meant with the link you showed here. I mean, it's a nice article, and all...but what's teh conclusion? That intelligence can form some cool-looking "pictures"? If it is, I'll give you that, but that doesn't eliminate the coincidences that showed incredible "pictures" with no intelligent intervention.

About those Bible parts...that's funny, I've actually read them when I believed in the God of the Bible. Now you bring them back to me in a different context...but...does that mean that only after the fall did God allow all those strange rules I mentioned which can lead humans to think we're just animals?
That could actually make sense. Altough it would still sound really unbalanced that God would give Adam and Eve so many reasons to believe in Him and so few for the future men to do the same...

Not that I think that God must be totally balance towards us. Just saying...

To be honest, I do not really myself see a problem in the face-looking hills. How the hills should be spread for the human brain not to find some shape in it and entertain it?

Well, Adam and Eve though being with God, did not appreciate him fully as it seems. They wanted to be like him, maybe even autonomous and without him. Now we have it what they wanted. But now we can see where it leads. To corruption, to pain, to suffering. Creation cries for God. So, I want to reason that we can reason that if man rules then there is corruption.

(P.S.: so many chats within one thread.)

1over137 wrote:

MBPrata wrote:1over137, I'm not sure I got what you meant with the link you showed here. I mean, it's a nice article, and all...but what's teh conclusion? That intelligence can form some cool-looking "pictures"? If it is, I'll give you that, but that doesn't eliminate the coincidences that showed incredible "pictures" with no intelligent intervention.

About those Bible parts...that's funny, I've actually read them when I believed in the God of the Bible. Now you bring them back to me in a different context...but...does that mean that only after the fall did God allow all those strange rules I mentioned which can lead humans to think we're just animals?
That could actually make sense. Altough it would still sound really unbalanced that God would give Adam and Eve so many reasons to believe in Him and so few for the future men to do the same...

Not that I think that God must be totally balance towards us. Just saying...

To be honest, I do not really myself see a problem in the face-looking hills. How the hills should be spread for the human brain not to find some shape in it and entertain it?

Well, Adam and Eve though being with God, did not appreciate him fully as it seems. They wanted to be like him, maybe even autonomous and without him. Now we have it what they wanted. But now we can see where it leads. To corruption, to pain, to suffering. Creation cries for God. So, I want to reason that we can reason that if man rules then there is corruption.

(P.S.: so many chats within one thread.)

Hi Hanna,
Can you comment on the mass/energy thing that I replied to.
I am not a physicist and you are, so I am not sure if what I meant to say, made any sense, LOL !

How the hills should be spread for the human brain not to find some shape in it and entertain it?

Well...as regular hills! That would be enough, right? Anything that didn't look like an intelligent design which needed no intelligence to be built would be enough...

Well, Adam and Eve though being with God, did not appreciate him fully as it seems. They wanted to be like him, maybe even autonomous and without him. Now we have it what they wanted. But now we can see where it leads. To corruption, to pain, to suffering. Creation cries for God. So, I want to reason that we can reason that if man rules then there is corruption.

Hmm...you didn't really answer my question. No biggie, but...you claim that the way they wanted lead to pain, suffering and all that. Maybe. However, keep in mind: according to mr. Deem himself, a big part of crimes on "recent" times are commited by atheists. I'm not saying that it's clearly their atheism that leads to crime, but still...the world would appreciate the evidence of Gpd that Adam and Eve had and that we don't have nowadays. Or the lack of evidence against Him, at least...

(P.S.: so many chats within one thread.)

Normal. I've been around forums like these. It happens regularly.

PaulS wrote: Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.

Mass could come from energy. From particles with zero rest mass (photons, gluons) you can get particles and antiparticles with nonzero rest mass. Add to that CP violation and some other mysterious asymmetry in particle interaction laws so that not all particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate and viola, you have mass.

Question now is where the energy is from. Was it always here? Or it was caused?

To complicate it even more. There is also gravitational energy that has negative value. And maybe total energy of our universe is zero.

But still, what caused the energy to be split into negative and positive ones?

1over137 wrote:

PaulS wrote: Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.

Mass could come from energy. From particles with zero rest mass (photons, gluons) you can get particles and antiparticles with nonzero rest mass. Add to that CP violation and some other mysterious asymmetry in particle interaction laws so that not all particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate and viola, you have mass.

Question now is where the energy is from. Was it always here? Or it was caused?

To complicate it even more. There is also gravitational energy that has negative value. And maybe total energy of our universe is zero.

But still, what caused the energy to be split into negative and positive ones?

But mass and energy are not the same thing, right?

MBPrata wrote:

How the hills should be spread for the human brain not to find some shape in it and entertain it?

Well...as regular hills! That would be enough, right? Anything that didn't look like an intelligent design which needed no intelligence to be built would be enough...

Give me regular hills across all our planet and I will find there some intelligent shape

MBPrata wrote:

Well, Adam and Eve though being with God, did not appreciate him fully as it seems. They wanted to be like him, maybe even autonomous and without him. Now we have it what they wanted. But now we can see where it leads. To corruption, to pain, to suffering. Creation cries for God. So, I want to reason that we can reason that if man rules then there is corruption.

Hmm...you didn't really answer my question. No biggie, but...you claim that the way they wanted lead to pain, suffering and all that. Maybe. However, keep in mind: according to mr. Deem himself, a big part of crimes on "recent" times are commited by atheists. I'm not saying that it's clearly their atheism that leads to crime, but still...the world would appreciate the evidence of Gpd that Adam and Eve had and that we don't have nowadays. Or the lack of evidence against Him, at least...

Who wants some more evidence, he should call to God, ask for forgiveness, trust him and observe the evidence in life-transforming changes. Recently I have started to read old posts and I really enjoy the testimonies so far.

PaulSacramento wrote:

1over137 wrote:

PaulS wrote: Yes, the whole point is that Aristotle or Aquinas NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause, they said ( paraphrasing) all things that come into being has a cause.
Mass is material, as such, it must "come into being" as any other material thing ( unless you know of some material things that does not come into being...).
Energy is more tricky of course.
Some energy comes into being (kinetic for example) and for that, it requires a cause.

Mass could come from energy. From particles with zero rest mass (photons, gluons) you can get particles and antiparticles with nonzero rest mass. Add to that CP violation and some other mysterious asymmetry in particle interaction laws so that not all particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate and viola, you have mass.

Question now is where the energy is from. Was it always here? Or it was caused?

To complicate it even more. There is also gravitational energy that has negative value. And maybe total energy of our universe is zero.

But still, what caused the energy to be split into negative and positive ones?

But mass and energy are not the same thing, right?

No, they are not the same.

good ol wiki

Alternate title: mass-energy equation

View All (2)
Read More:
matterrelativityentropytimesolar energyenergyrenewable energystring theory
Einstein’s mass-energy relation, relationship between mass (m) and energy (E) in the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein, embodied by the formula E = mc2, where c equals 300,000 km (186,000 miles) per second—i.e., the speed of light.

In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities. Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value. In special relativity, however, the energy of a body at rest is determined to be mc2. Thus, each body of rest mass m possesses mc2 of “rest energy,” which potentially is available for conversion to other forms of energy. The mass-energy relation, moreover, implies that if energy is released from the body as a result of such a conversion, then the rest mass of the body will decrease. Such a conversion of rest energy to other forms of energy occurs in ordinary chemical reactions, but much larger conversions occur in nuclear reactions. This is particularly true in the case of nuclear-fusion reactions that transform hydrogen to helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy.

Although the atomic bomb proved that vast amounts of energy could be liberated from the atom, it did not demonstrate the precision of Einstein’s equation. As knowledge of the atom developed in the 20th century, it was discovered that the protons and neutrons that form its nucleus are themselves formed from the more elementary subatomic particles known as quarks, bound together by massless gluons, in the theory of quantum chromodynamics. However, quarks account for only about 5 percent of an atom’s mass, leaving the vast remainder of its mass to be explained. In 2008, following intense computations led by Laurent Lellouch of France’s Centre for Theoretical Physics on various supercomputers, the missing mass was shown to reside in the energy associated with the subatomic particles’ motions and interactions—in other words, Einstein’s equation was verified at the subatomic scale.

Give me regular hills across all our planet and I will find there some intelligent shape

Yeah, I know...human's imagination is amazing and blah blah blah. But do you really believe what you wrote or you're pretending the degree doesn't make any difference? Personally, I think it does. I mean...a mountain who resembles a pyramid is one thing. Now, a whole bunch of underwater structures whose "wonders" include stuctures which really look like shapes that are so different from each other, such as stairs, pillars and an amphitheater...that's a great degree of apparent design! It's not about human imagination; it's about the degree of apparent design. A pyramid-like mountain may be a level 2 or 3 degree...but Yonaguni seems to be something like 7 or 7,5! Just like in some debates on polemic themes, the degree of the act matters! Some people like to pretend it doesn't - and that's when the extremist opposites come - but the degree of something does make a difference, right?

Also, human imagination is great, but not very great. After all, we can hardly imagine a living creature which doesn't resemble an animal...

Again, I am not an atheist. But being the devil's advocate for the sake of argument, I've heard it argued by atheists that there is no necessity for a first causer. You are just claiming there needs to be one. The very idea of a "prime mover" or "principle cause" presumes there needs to be one. So this would be claimed to be a circular argument. I've seen thatclaim many times. Again, it's a pretty strong argument to claim nothingness does not exist in reality because there
is no evidence for it. Even if you were holding nothingness you would not be able to tell!

Reality presumes the need for a principle cause, I don't. People live blinded in relativity. And I wasn't putting you into the pride camp in how you read it. We all have pride issues which fuels relativistic delusional world views. I was just pointing out a major problem influencing people around the world like a plague. People believe in relativism and live in it. Relativism is false. People need that to be demonstrated that in order for it to be seen. The tools we learn to come to God are all necessary as they are all real. If people don't see reality, something is clouding them. And that something can be many things, but it stems from pride. Classical philosophical arguments for God are real and only rejected through blindness. Which means we need to figure out different ways to demonstrate God has always has been here, or better put, we have always been with Him. Peoples blindness stems from an uncountably witty darkness. Learning how to approach everyone differently will only mean you care to try to talk in their language and live in their state of darkness to draw them out of it, as with a helping hand.

Please lighten up. I just thought it was funny to imagine if God breaking threw the heavens revealing an undeniable truth to all who witness it and it turns out God was a woman. Of course an omnipotent God is both male, female, and infinite all the same time. An omnipotent God transcends all boundaries. That is
the nature of omnipotence. Being omnipotent means being every possible way all at once.

I understand what you are saying. But as Christians we should not add to the confusion already around. Which is why I asked you for an explanation. It was not clear to me you were joking. And even so, I think it's good to be considerate to those unseeing eye's that are searching for truth. I don't want hem to be hindered, especially when a Christian is talking from a sound mind (you). I take the image we are supposed to portray seriously, and in public eye even more so. And that starts with verifying that each other is holding up to true beliefs. Now I know where you are coming from, and have given you now why I asked

Again, you are straining the definition of what it means to be "seen".

My definition to see is to perceive reality for what it is. And reality can be seen in many ways.

If you truly believe in the infinite nature of God, then words like "first cause" and "prime mover" are just anthropomorphic constructs from your imagination. God's infinite nature exist outside the boundaries of time. It just seems to me an infinite God is not only beyond our comprehension but words do not even come close to touching what they are supposed to be representing.

God is unknowable, but we can know about Him in many ways as being created in His image. God is also fully human, and infinitely beyond that nature. In the nature of who we are, we have the ability to communicate to discern and live in the part of existence that is our reality. We are the anthropomorphic constructs of God, reflections of Him. That is how we can know that sight has more to do beyond eyes and that we can truly perceive truth. The language we use and the words in which we use them are not meaningless in knowing God.

Regardless, I like you. Welcome to the forums

edited: for sloppy grammar

Audie, Paul.

Depends on what one has in mind when he says that a and b are/are not the same thing.

1over137 wrote:Audie, Paul.

Depends on what one has in mind when he says that a and b are/are not the same thing.

Is that the Vice of Relativism that I so recently heard was a world wide plague?

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Audie, Paul.

Depends on what one has in mind when he says that a and b are/are not the same thing.

Is that the Vice of Relativism that I so recently heard was a world wide plague?

Is electricity and magnetism the same thing?

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Audie, Paul.

Depends on what one has in mind when he says that a and b are/are not the same thing.

Is that the Vice of Relativism that I so recently heard was a world wide plague?

Is electricity and magnetism the same thing?

The actual topic was the unevidenced assertion that any of those had (been caused to) come into existence.