Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:11 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:12 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

Of course it’s easy for you to believe it, you’re Christian! I know of a Rastafarian who believes Halle Selassie waved his arm across the sky while getting off the airplane, and caused it to rain ending the drought! Are you going to believe that? Neither will I.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring! It is not appealing to me at all and I'd never agree to just die over what Jesus offers.It is a no-brainer for me if I compare what other religions offer and what atheism offers you.Why do you find just dying so appealing? Because it is exactly what atheism offers you. I truly long for all of the evil,sin,death,suffering,etc we experience in this world to be put in hell where it belongs and there be ultimate justice from God and the evil people in our world being put down and the world being restored to the way it always should have been. I mean are'nt you tired of seeing people suffer in this world? Well only Jesus Christ is going to put it all down.I love that.

Interesting perspective. So why not just martyr yourself right now? You can take the next plane to Iraq, Iran, or one of those countries that employ Sharia law; and preach the Gospel with Bible in hand, blaspheming the prophet Mohammad all the way! Not only would your death be quick, but you would no longer have to be bothered with the evil, death, and suffering of this world. Sounds like the logical conclusion of your world view; so what's stopping you?

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:38 pm

Ken wrote:
So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Acb wrote:
Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring!

With that kind of logic, I think I'll stick to Islam, and die a martyr. That way, I'd get eternal happiness, and 72 virgins. Beat that Christianity!

(LOL) Excellent point!

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:00 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:56 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

If empirical verifiability is the only criteria that counts as valid proof, then there is no way I can rationally accept anything beyond the reach of such verification. That would include anything historical or events that happen which I'm not directly privy to.

What you have demonstrated above, if you believe "Napoleon" even existed, is that for you, you are accepting some other sort of reasons or justifications that aren't empirically based.

Your "proofs" for such clearly aren't by means of your seeing Napoleon or being present at the time of his supposed great military accomplishments, but due to... it'd seem... your subjective feelings on the matter and how well the story fits in with a worldview you have been conditioned with. But, such doesn't make it true.

Consider this. If I say I walked across the road today, rather than levitated across or flapped my arms and flew across. Just because the latter two are at odds with a more natural and believed method of crossing, it doesn't mean I did therefore across walk the road today. In fact, none of them have happened. I know, shocking right?

If you tell me you walked down the road today, I would likely accept that claim without question because people walk down roads everyday so for you to claim to have done it (whether you did it or not) is all the evidence I need to believe you.
However, if you tell me you traveled down the road today in a way that defies the laws of nature, using a method that is humanly impossible, now your word isn’t good enough; I am going to require more evidence; perhaps even a demonstration.

Forgive my pointing this out, but your statements here tend to show that you are not so much concerned with knowing the truth of a matter, but rather that your view of the world not be challenged or threatened.

I mean why not care if I lied about walking across the road, to then care if I tell you I levitated across? Both are lies, and if one is concerned with truth then both are equally to be rejected.

To spin this an opposite way around, consider the worldview of many religious folk who accept supernatural events can/do happen. Perhaps you can understand when they consider it possible that some Mary statue cried, or person was healed. In their minds such things, while unlikely and not ordinary, are possible.

It does open up such a person to possibly believing a greater amount of lies if they don't verify such things first hand, but no more than say you being accepting for said things provided they're put in natural terms you yourself are accepting of.

So then, this brings us back to the topic of justification. Indeed, one thing empirical verification has going for it is that verification can be had first hand. Yet, then not every truth claim can be verified via such methods. This doesn't mean such truths aren't true or can't be gotten at via other methods of enquiry, but rather empirical verification has limits to what truths it can/can't prove.

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:38 pm

Ken wrote:
So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Acb wrote:
Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring!

With that kind of logic, I think I'll stick to Islam, and die a martyr. That way, I'd get eternal happiness, and 72 virgins. Beat that Christianity!

Well if you have not noticed even muslims beat atheists in debates.However when you try to defend the Islam afterlife to Christianity then I'd have to ask you what Allah did about man's sin? Is he a Holy God? Does he just overlook sin and allow in sinners?Because God did something about sin through Jesus Christ and I don't want to go to an afterlife where sinners and evil is still going to be there,as it would be no different than this world.You see I have not only debated atheists but people in other religions also and so I know how to defeat them. By the way Muslims may beat atheists in debates but Christians beat Muslims in debates.
My point stands that Christianity has the best afterlife out of all other religions and atheism,which just offers you death.This is not the only reason I believe in Jesus but it is a good one.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:50 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:11 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:12 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

Of course it’s easy for you to believe it, you’re Christian! I know of a Rastafarian who believes Halle Selassie waved his arm across the sky while getting off the airplane, and caused it to rain ending the drought! Are you going to believe that? Neither will I.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring! It is not appealing to me at all and I'd never agree to just die over what Jesus offers.It is a no-brainer for me if I compare what other religions offer and what atheism offers you.Why do you find just dying so appealing? Because it is exactly what atheism offers you. I truly long for all of the evil,sin,death,suffering,etc we experience in this world to be put in hell where it belongs and there be ultimate justice from God and the evil people in our world being put down and the world being restored to the way it always should have been. I mean are'nt you tired of seeing people suffer in this world? Well only Jesus Christ is going to put it all down.I love that.

Interesting perspective. So why not just martyr yourself right now? You can take the next plane to Iraq, Iran, or one of those countries that employ Sharia law; and preach the Gospel with Bible in hand, blaspheming the prophet Mohammad all the way! Not only would your death be quick, but you would no longer have to be bothered with the evil, death, and suffering of this world. Sounds like the logical conclusion of your world view; so what's stopping you?

I'm not suicidal, as I have life Jesus gave me when I was born again,also death comes from the Devil Satan so I'm not going to follow anything or any path that leads to death like you do.Cults teach things like you're suggesting I do.Is atheism a death cult? I have heard atheist Sam Harris rant and rave about how there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,and that we just die and that's it. And I thought to myself "death cult" and "very boring"

The question I would hope someone would pose to themself is, what level of probability must I have before I'll accept something as likely being true. Which, of course, is what we conclude about many things that can't be known with 100 percent certainty - because we're willing to settle or very high probabilities as to how we conclude things. So, that is where I really question Ken's personal logic - as he's willing to accept the logical equivalent of a whisp of an imagined vapor, as opposed to the immense mathematical improbabilities that blind, non-intelligent things could just happen to produce the exact needed things and components that they they then assembled and designed with massive complexity and astounding functionalities. But I doubt very seriously if this is how Ken assesses anything else he determines the truth of. I think the reality is, he simply doesn't like where the evidence leads. And his continuous answer is always, "Well, I don't know what might be possible" - which is about the gist of his reasoning on the topic. But he should have some sense of some things being so improbable as to not be seriously considered as possible. But Ken's determination to not believe would seem to exceed the most immense improbability!

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:00 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:56 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

If empirical verifiability is the only criteria that counts as valid proof, then there is no way I can rationally accept anything beyond the reach of such verification. That would include anything historical or events that happen which I'm not directly privy to.

What you have demonstrated above, if you believe "Napoleon" even existed, is that for you, you are accepting some other sort of reasons or justifications that aren't empirically based.

Your "proofs" for such clearly aren't by means of your seeing Napoleon or being present at the time of his supposed great military accomplishments, but due to... it'd seem... your subjective feelings on the matter and how well the story fits in with a worldview you have been conditioned with. But, such doesn't make it true.

Consider this. If I say I walked across the road today, rather than levitated across or flapped my arms and flew across. Just because the latter two are at odds with a more natural and believed method of crossing, it doesn't mean I did therefore across walk the road today. In fact, none of them have happened. I know, shocking right?

If you tell me you walked down the road today, I would likely accept that claim without question because people walk down roads everyday so for you to claim to have done it (whether you did it or not) is all the evidence I need to believe you.
However, if you tell me you traveled down the road today in a way that defies the laws of nature, using a method that is humanly impossible, now your word isn’t good enough; I am going to require more evidence; perhaps even a demonstration.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:48 pmForgive my pointing this out, but your statements here tend to show that you are not so much concerned with knowing the truth of a matter, but rather that your view of the world not be challenged or threatened.

I mean why not care if I lied about walking across the road, to then care if I tell you I levitated across? Both are lies, and if one is concerned with truth then both are equally to be rejected.

They might be equally rejected, but not equally investigated. One has no impact on my life, the other changes everything I know about reality. It would be foolish to treat both claims equally.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:48 pmTo spin this an opposite way around, consider the worldview of many religious folk who accept supernatural events can/do happen. Perhaps you can understand when they consider it possible that some Mary statue cried, or person was healed. In their minds such things, while unlikely and not ordinary, are possible.

It does open up such a person to possibly believing a greater amount of lies if they don't verify such things first hand, but no more than say you being accepting for said things provided they're put in natural terms you yourself are accepting of.

So then, this brings us back to the topic of justification. Indeed, one thing empirical verification has going for it is that verification can be had first hand. Yet, then not every truth claim can be verified via such methods. This doesn't mean such truths aren't true or can't be gotten at via other methods of enquiry, but rather empirical verification has limits to what truths it can/can't prove.

I agree!

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:50 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:11 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:12 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am
If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

Of course it’s easy for you to believe it, you’re Christian! I know of a Rastafarian who believes Halle Selassie waved his arm across the sky while getting off the airplane, and caused it to rain ending the drought! Are you going to believe that? Neither will I.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring! It is not appealing to me at all and I'd never agree to just die over what Jesus offers.It is a no-brainer for me if I compare what other religions offer and what atheism offers you.Why do you find just dying so appealing? Because it is exactly what atheism offers you. I truly long for all of the evil,sin,death,suffering,etc we experience in this world to be put in hell where it belongs and there be ultimate justice from God and the evil people in our world being put down and the world being restored to the way it always should have been. I mean are'nt you tired of seeing people suffer in this world? Well only Jesus Christ is going to put it all down.I love that.

Interesting perspective. So why not just martyr yourself right now? You can take the next plane to Iraq, Iran, or one of those countries that employ Sharia law; and preach the Gospel with Bible in hand, blaspheming the prophet Mohammad all the way! Not only would your death be quick, but you would no longer have to be bothered with the evil, death, and suffering of this world. Sounds like the logical conclusion of your world view; so what's stopping you?

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:32 pmI'm not suicidal, as I have life Jesus gave me when I was born again,

I didn't say anything about suicide, I said martyr. If you mean what you say, you should be eagerly anticipating your death day.Ya see for me I have reason to want to live; knowing this life is all there is, that is my motivation to want to create and accomplish now. The fact that my existence is limited is what gives me the drive to get out of bed everyday and get things done before it's too late! Because if I could always put off for tomorrow what I could do today, nothing will ever get done; and what kind of life is that? No thank-you.

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:34 pm The question I would hope someone would pose to themself is, what level of probability must I have before I'll accept something as likely being true. Which, of course, is what we conclude about many things that can't be known with 100 percent certainty

I don’t judge claims in levels of probability, I judge them based on how well an argument can be made in its favor; whether that argument comes from myself, or somebody else.

Ken: I don’t judge claims in levels of probability, I judge them based on how well an argument can be made in its favor; whether that argument comes from myself, or somebody else.

Ken, you just contradicted yourself. Because you dismissed probability as an indicator of likely truth while asserting that "how well" an argument can be made in favor of something is your determinate of accepting it. But HOW WELL is a matter of perceived degree and thus is in itself a matter of probability in which you personally are assigning value to a particular thing. However, as opposed to statistical probabilities, which are a matter of statistical science, you assign the arbitrary, constantly shifting goalposts of your own personal assignment as to the likelihood / probability of something being probable - which basically is an assessment of your feelings vs. one of statistical science. So, you DO use a probability approach, just not one that is objectively quantifiable.

Now, to be fair, everyone applies their personal assessment to evaluating truth. But to ignore the immense statistical improbabilities of what the universe required to come into existence - of just the right things appearing, instantly and with unfathomable precision, order, incredible designs, functionalities, and necessary interdependencies and cross-functional interactivities on a unfathomable scale - well, choosing to ignore the statistical improbabilities of all of this when assessing the truth of whether it would have been possible without an intelligent Cause or of it just occurring - well, that's ignoring one of the most powerful tools of assessing truth that is available to us. So, what intelligent person wishing to apply good logic to the question would dismiss considering what probabilities applied statistics reveal about the question. Especially, mind you, when considering that the improbabilities have staggering numbers. Why would you choose to ignore this?

Ken: I don’t judge claims in levels of probability, I judge them based on how well an argument can be made in its favor; whether that argument comes from myself, or somebody else.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:19 amKen, you just contradicted yourself. Because you dismissed probability as an indicator of likely truth while asserting that "how well" an argument can be made in favor of something is your determinate of accepting it.

No; I never dismissed probability as an indicator of truth, I was just pointing out when I determine if something is true or not, the level of probability doesn’t come to mind; how well an argument is made is my way of determining.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:19 amBut HOW WELL is a matter of perceived degree and thus is in itself a matter of probability in which you personally are assigning value to a particular thing. However, as opposed to statistical probabilities, which are a matter of statistical science, you assign the arbitrary, constantly shifting goalposts of your own personal assignment as to the likelihood / probability of something being probable - which basically is an assessment of your feelings vs. one of statistical science. So, you DO use a probability approach, just not one that is objectively quantifiable.

Agree.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:19 amNow, to be fair, everyone applies their personal assessment to evaluating truth. But to ignore the immense statistical improbabilities of what the universe required to come into existence - of just the right things appearing, instantly and with unfathomable precision, order, incredible designs, functionalities, and necessary interdependencies and cross-functional interactivities on a unfathomable scale - well, choosing to ignore the statistical improbabilities of all of this when assessing the truth of whether it would have been possible without an intelligent Cause or of it just occurring - well, that's ignoring one of the most powerful tools of assessing truth that is available to us. So, what intelligent person wishing to apply good logic to the question would dismiss considering what probabilities applied statistics reveal about the question. Especially, mind you, when considering that the improbabilities have staggering numbers. Why would you choose to ignore this?

You seem to make a lot of presuppositions about the Universe that I do not, (like when you claim the Universe actually came into existence) then you ask a question based under the assumption that your presupposition has merit. If the Universe is all the material that exists, I don’t assume a point in history when matter didn’t exist; based on your question it appears you do.

You seem to make a lot of presuppositions about the Universe that I do not, (like when you claim the Universe actually came into existence)

Are you suggesting that the universe, as it is right now, was ALWAYS this way ??

Ken: You seem to make a lot of presuppositions about the Universe that I do not, (like when you claim the Universe actually came into existence)

To deny the universe had a beginning, you must not know much about the exhaustive studies that confirm this. Edwin Hubble's observations convinced Einstein that his idea of a static, always-existing, infinitely expanding universe was wrong. And discovering it was rapidly expanding made him realize that reverse calculations could show that all the matter in the universe had expanded from a certain point at a specific time in the distant past. Of course, his Theory of General Relativity predicted it - AND, it's a falsifiable theory that has held up to rigorous testing.

Read about Einstein's static universe mistake here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

Read here how Edwin Hubble built upon the observations and input others, using his own data and observations, to realize both that the uninverse was expanding at very rapid rates as well as the implications that has for realizing the universe had a beginning and that something made it begin: https://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1929

Here, Hugh Ross explains how Einstein helped prove the universe had a beginning - and thus a Beginner:

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/au ... he-creator

Ross commented on the vast studies confirming General Relativity and that the universe had a beginning:

"We have about 30 of these theorems. And basically, the conclusion is we indeed are stuck with the implications of those space/time theorems," Ross explained. "In fact, today, General Relativity ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in all of physics."

Ken, you appear to ignore the implications of General Relativity's vast testing and it's many confirmations - that the universe indeed had a beginning! And just saying you don't believe does not invalidate the exhaustive scientific testing that says you are totally wrong!

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:39 pm

You seem to make a lot of presuppositions about the Universe that I do not, (like when you claim the Universe actually came into existence)

Are you suggesting that the universe, as it is right now, was ALWAYS this way ??

No; I'm not saying that, I'm saying I don't think there was a point in time when nothing existed, then the Universe just popped into existence from nothing. I suspect something existed prior that changed into what we have now.

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:17 pm

Ken: You seem to make a lot of presuppositions about the Universe that I do not, (like when you claim the Universe actually came into existence)

To deny the universe had a beginning, you must not know much about the exhaustive studies that confirm this. Edwin Hubble's observations convinced Einstein that his idea of a static, always-existing, infinitely expanding universe was wrong. And discovering it was rapidly expanding made him realize that reverse calculations could show that all the matter in the universe had expanded from a certain point at a specific time in the distant past. Of course, his Theory of General Relativity predicted it - AND, it's a falsifiable theory that has held up to rigorous testing.

Read about Einstein's static universe mistake here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

Read here how Edwin Hubble built upon the observations and input others, using his own data and observations, to realize both that the uninverse was expanding at very rapid rates as well as the implications that has for realizing the universe had a beginning and that something made it begin: https://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1929

Here, Hugh Ross explains how Einstein helped prove the universe had a beginning - and thus a Beginner:

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/au ... he-creator

Ross commented on the vast studies confirming General Relativity and that the universe had a beginning:

"We have about 30 of these theorems. And basically, the conclusion is we indeed are stuck with the implications of those space/time theorems," Ross explained. "In fact, today, General Relativity ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in all of physics."

Ken, you appear to ignore the implications of General Relativity's vast testing and it's many confirmations - that the universe indeed had a beginning! And just saying you don't believe does not invalidate the exhaustive scientific testing that says you are totally wrong!

When you say the Universe had a beginning, are you saying nothing existed then the Universe appeared? Or are you saying something else existed that changed to what we now call the Universe; or something else?