Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.

The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.

But you've never addressed it, despite having been invited to numerous times . . .

The uncaused cause is no problem, I guess, for people who at least belief that SOMETHING had to have been eternal, and that it had the ability (however blindly) to eventually consolidate into immense sophistication, and to harness (or stumble across/lie in the pathway of) untold power that propelled it. But that first something eternal HAD to exist, and the energy had to either come from it, or itself had to have been eternally existing. But there could have never been a point where at least some entity or thing didn't first exist. I would think most atheists recognize that there ultimately HAD to be at least something that pre-existed everything else - whatever they call it and however they theorize about the range of possibilities as to its identity and abilities. OR they somehow believe that things don't need a source and can either create themselves, or somehow pop into existence uncaused, or can exist eternally. There are no other PARAMETERS for the possibilities for what the actual reality was, and those parameters are fixed, whether the truth happened to lie within atheism, theism, Christianity, or whatever other belief or religion.

No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.

The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.

Yeah, I don't think it is bad, but have found it difficult explaining this logical argument to kids. That tells me it is unclear, and certainly the argument isn't clear to all (i.e., Atheists).

I've found better mileage with examples. We're their Mum and Dad, we have our Mum and Dad, they had their ancestors and on and on. But it didn't go on forever, did it? They're quick to jump to God as the starter. (good kids ) Though my son asked once what about God? (heretic! )

But, what I press them towards isn't an uncaused cause, but rather that something has always had to have existed without ever having a start itself. Otherwise there would be no one and nothing.

Whether one believes somehow that's a universe ensemble (which is quite clear to me is rather contingent), or better postulated as an intelligent powerful being (aka God) -- well we know people have different preferences.

Clearly the preference here is to choose to believe in god, and in such philosophical comstructions as can be made to support that belief.

I've read the cosmo arguments through, and I have read the counter arguments, elsewhere dismissed under the fanciful statement that "nobody has been able to dispute" it.

I dont think the cosmos start with valid premises. As presented here by some, it is riddled with
half truths and nonsense, leading to some into rather hilarious absurdities, for all the pomp with which they are delivered.

Cosmo is for preachin' to the choir.

Most convincing? For me, it would be my own (sadly, ex-) father in law,
a man of sterling character and intellect, a man who lives his faith.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.

The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.

But you've never addressed it, despite having been invited to numerous times . . .

Let me know if you ever get your kite out of the sewer and I will then think there could be
some chance of a sensible discussion.

I'm not interested in discussing it with you, Audie. I've no reason to think that anybody so quick to engage in blatant logical fallacies isn't going to blatantly engage in logically fallacies to avoid the conclusions of the argument. So the offer to discuss the matter, at least with me, is off the table. Perhaps Byblos or Paul would engage with you on it. My point wasn't then, nor is it now, that I'd like to discuss it with you. My point is that it is absurd for you to say it's "pretty bad" even as you have a long history of declining to discuss the matter when the opportunity has been presented over and over again. In other words, incredulity is no substitute for assessment.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.

The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.

Yeah, I don't think it is bad, but have found it difficult explaining this logical argument to kids. That tells me it is unclear, and certainly the argument isn't clear to all (i.e., Atheists).

I've found better mileage with examples. We're their Mum and Dad, we have our Mum and Dad, they had their ancestors and on and on. But it didn't go on forever, did it? They're quick to jump to God as the starter. (good kids ) Though my son asked once what about God? (heretic! )

But, what I press them towards isn't an uncaused cause, but rather that something has always had to have existed without ever having a start itself. Otherwise there would be no one and nothing.

Whether one believes somehow that's a universe ensemble (which is quite clear to me is rather contingent), or better postulated as an intelligent powerful being (aka God) -- well we know people have different preferences.

Clearly the preference here is to choose to believe in god, and in such philosophical comstructions as can be made to support that belief.

I've read the cosmo arguments through, and I have read the counter arguments, elsewhere dismissed under the fanciful statement that "nobody has been able to dispute" it.
I think everyone's

I dont think the cosmos start with valid premises. As presented here by some, it is riddled with
half truths and nonsense, leading to some into rather hilarious absurdities, for all the pomp with which they are delivered.

Cosmo is for preachin' to the choir.

I think it's more the case that we're each our own judges, each possess our own natures, so some arguments work for some others don't. What it shows to me, isn't that the arguments are suspect, but that logic and reason is also largely subjective, since, at the end of the day, it comes down to an individual juror.

Who is right? That is the question. Any attempt to answer such with logical arguments are considered absolute rubbish by post-modern standards, of which many is society today now cling to in saying that's your truth but not mine (as though truth is merely relative opinion since no one can have it, and to claim you did is the height of arrogance). What is more important here are socially beneficial exchanges, so truth is promptly shown the door by such, and relegated as something that is destructive and causes division, is rather unforgiving and nasty.

Sorry, if I'm talking off on tangents here, you know me... just letting my thoughts run. You and I though, surely know different to such people, while you parade science as your badge, and me philosophy though more-so theology (which holds is often considered more a shameful badge to the other two ). We like truth, and think we have it, even if we strongly disagree. But, at least there's some epistemological foundation there right? We believe we can know truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Audie wrote:Most convincing? For me, it would be my own (sadly, ex-) father in law,
a man of sterling character and intellect, a man who lives his faith.

You've mentioned such several times, evidently are large impact upon your life. I wonder, if he ever discussed his beliefs, what he believed, why he believed in Christ? Did he ever offer up his reasons?

PaulSacramento wrote:No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Those who identify as non-believers, what do you see as the most powerful arguments for God's existence that you've seen? Second to that, what do you see as the least powerful arguments? Please be open and honest both ways.

The "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad.

Yeah, I don't think it is bad, but have found it difficult explaining this logical argument to kids. That tells me it is unclear, and certainly the argument isn't clear to all (i.e., Atheists).

I've found better mileage with examples. We're their Mum and Dad, we have our Mum and Dad, they had their ancestors and on and on. But it didn't go on forever, did it? They're quick to jump to God as the starter. (good kids ) Though my son asked once what about God? (heretic! )

But, what I press them towards isn't an uncaused cause, but rather that something has always had to have existed without ever having a start itself. Otherwise there would be no one and nothing.

Whether one believes somehow that's a universe ensemble (which is quite clear to me is rather contingent), or better postulated as an intelligent powerful being (aka God) -- well we know people have different preferences.

Clearly the preference here is to choose to believe in god, and in such philosophical comstructions as can be made to support that belief.

I've read the cosmo arguments through, and I have read the counter arguments, elsewhere dismissed under the fanciful statement that "nobody has been able to dispute" it.
I think everyone's

I dont think the cosmos start with valid premises. As presented here by some, it is riddled with
half truths and nonsense, leading to some into rather hilarious absurdities, for all the pomp with which they are delivered.

Cosmo is for preachin' to the choir.

I think it's more the case that we're each our own judges, each possess our own natures, so some arguments work for some others don't. What it shows to me, isn't that the arguments are suspect, but that logic and reason is also largely subjective, since, at the end of the day, it comes down to an individual juror.

Who is right? That is the question. Any attempt to answer such with logical arguments are considered absolute rubbish by post-modern standards, of which many is society today now cling to in saying that's your truth but not mine (as though truth is merely relative opinion since no one can have it, and to claim you did is the height of arrogance). What is more important here are socially beneficial exchanges, so truth is promptly shown the door by such, and relegated as something that is destructive and causes division, is rather unforgiving and nasty.

Sorry, if I'm talking off on tangents here, you know me... just letting my thoughts run. You and I though, surely know different to such people, while you parade science as your badge, and me philosophy though more-so theology (which holds is often considered more a shameful badge to the other two ). We like truth, and think we have it, even if we strongly disagree. But, at least there's some epistemological foundation there right? We believe we can know truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Audie wrote:Most convincing? For me, it would be my own (sadly, ex-) father in law,
a man of sterling character and intellect, a man who lives his faith.

You've mentioned such several times, evidently are large impact upon your life. I wonder, if he ever discussed his beliefs, what he believed, why he believed in Christ? Did he ever offer up his reasons?

Individual juror-wise, I think the nature of reality is far too subtle for the canopener of philosophy / logic / religious texts of hundreds of years ago to have any success with grand conclusions as those committed to those -predetermined- conclusions like to present.

Now, I dont doubt that jac, for one, could beat me at the game. It may be that the logic honed by centuries is impeccable. That is fine, I am not especially good at chess either. I can let who will, be clever.

Of course, there is the faulty premise issue, and the counter argumentbut again, its not my thing.


Such logic as cosmo is tho not just unconvincing, and worse than pointless for its practitioner,
or as a device to bring me into the fold.

At the expense of repitition, it is because I see jac, say, un-able to do any better than a gappist,
worse actually as he is without the excuse of poor education, and comes to even stupider conclusions.

Cosmo is an inept tool.

I see people using it the same way that low creationists will use
some unanswerable "why" question to try to defeat evolution.

It is revelatory of the paucity of their case, that they resort to such


You are correct about tangential, you didnt say much about any thoughts I actually expressed.


I wont detail them but I dont agree with most of what you said of me.

As for father in law, one of my great regrets is thinking I had all this
time. I barely got the to beginning of the depth there.

Many lay non-Christians find the Cosmological argument persuasive. Take my brother in law. Probably the reason why people often say they believe some higher power or the like, but that's it. So I think it is a tad exaggerative to overplay it as a creationist spacitionist thing.

That said, first cause arguments aren't necessarily cosmological in nature. They are also quite diverse. I rather find the argument from contingency to be quite powerful, which is more like a layered approach rather than linear such as temporal causal cosmological type arguments.

In any case, you must wonder how an intellectual you'd respect must have come to ever hold belief in God, let alone be Christian. Evidently, there must be some good reasons, if you value his intellect. Perhaps you just have not come across them or given them the time of day.

Maybe one day... you'll have the time and consider such an investigative task as something worthwhile.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

I think what you're saying is neither of us have proof. Proof and evidence are two different things but before we can even begin to follow the evidence we need to take evidence seriously and atheists/agnostics/skeptics don't, so they are easily mislead. We have evidence the Christian God created the universe based on all other holy books being wrong about our universe coming into existence which is what science says with the Big Bang Theory and the bible says,so right off the bat we can eliminate other religious holy books that are wrong. Then we can just tell you to demonstrate things come into being without an uncaused cause and it is evidence that it does not happen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

I think what you're saying is neither of us have proof. Proof and evidence are two different things

No; I meant exactly what I said. I am not talking about proof, I’m talking about empirical evidence. The person I was initially responding to made a claim about empirical evidence, and I am responding to his claim.

I stand by what I said; I don’t have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one state or another, and you don’t have empirical evidence that God has always existed and created everything that currently exists.


Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Many lay non-Christians find the Cosmological argument persuasive. Take my brother in law. Probably the reason why people often say they believe some higher power or the like, but that's it. So I think it is a tad exaggerative to overplay it as a creationist spacitionist thing.

That said, first cause arguments aren't necessarily cosmological in nature. They are also quite diverse. I rather find the argument from contingency to be quite powerful, which is more like a layered approach rather than linear such as temporal causal cosmological type arguments.

In any case, you must wonder how an intellectual you'd respect must have come to ever hold belief in God, let alone be Christian. Evidently, there must be some good reasons, if you value his intellect. Perhaps you just have not come across them or given them the time of day.

Maybe one day... you'll have the time and consider such an investigative task as something worthwhile.

Sure, many do this and many do that, including those who try to play "cosmo" without a clue
about it, talk science / evidence / proof with nary a clue. And that is not exagerated.

I know people of very different cultural traditions whose intelligence and integrity I
respect. I dont respect the philosophy, science or intellect of those who embrace
idiocy like gappery or yec.

You asked about convincing approaches. Cosmo can be and is used with
great care and precision to lead into collossal stupidity. I dont think
punctuated creationism or whatever intermediate from god-poof 6kya
to god started it, based on cosmo can be considered significantly better
than gappery or good ol' yec. They all look like childish superstitions,
however cogently argued, cosmistically.

Audie wrote:Sure, many do this and many do that, including those who try to play "cosmo" without a clue
about it, talk science / evidence / proof with nary a clue. And that is not exagerated.

Evidence Audie doesn't know what the cosmological argument is. I may as well say that evolution is wrong because monkeys are still around.