Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Eh?

Evolution in real time

Literally, a textbook example of multiple independent mutations, occurring in real time, coordinating to produce a new function, viz., E. coli metabolizing citrate. Such a feat is something that Dr. Behe said was statistically impossible, which is one of multiple reasons why he embarrassed himself with his Intelligent Design testimony in the 2004 Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District case.

What are those darn scientists going to come up with next.

Morny: Literally, a textbook example of multiple independent mutations, occurring in real time, coordinating to produce a new function, viz., E. coli metabolizing citrate. Such a feat is something that Dr. Behe said was statistically impossible, which is one of multiple reasons why he embarrassed himself with his Intelligent Design testimony in the 2004 Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District case.

What are those darn scientists going to come up with next.

Research a little more and you'll find Lenski's claims don't hold up!

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/05/richard_lenski/

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:07 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:18 pm

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:


From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

I'm going on vacation for about 10 days. I may not have access to a computer during that time; if I don't I will have to respond to whatever replies when I get back

Ken

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:07 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:18 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:17 am
When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:

ignore-
fail to consider

From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

That would mean something IF the argument has to do with Cosmology.

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:04 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:07 pm
If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

That is NOT the argument, the argument was never and never has been "Everything has a cause".
We have said that over and over and over again.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:09 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:07 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:18 pm

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:


From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

That would mean something IF the argument has to do with Cosmology.

Cosmology, biology, it doesn’t matter; no scientist worth his salt is going to resort to philosophy in search of answers concerning the material world

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:10 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:04 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am
Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

That is NOT the argument, the argument was never and never has been "Everything has a cause".
We have said that over and over and over again.

I was very clear an exception was made for God. The argument says everything requires a cause except God. Still disagree?

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:10 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:04 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am
Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

That is NOT the argument, the argument was never and never has been "Everything has a cause".
We have said that over and over and over again.

I was very clear an exception was made for God. The argument says everything requires a cause except God. Still disagree?

Like I said, you don't understand the argument.

Ken: Cosmology, biology, it doesn’t matter; no scientist worth his salt is going to resort to philosophy in search of answers concerning the material world

Of course not, because the answers are beyond what science can touch or explain! Science can and does, however, provide evidences that strongly suggest it not rational to believe a universe could suddenly begin self organizing with incredible precision and stunningly complex interactions of it's many (and NECESSARY) components and mechanisms, and on such a astonishing scale. And my observation that it's not rational is based upon precedent that is nowhere else to be found. Science merely uncovers massive hints within the evidences, complexities and precision themselves - but the determination as to what is possible without intelligence - well, that's a question each person must decide for themself - and they can look at the evidences to come to their own conclusion. It's sort of like a black hole itself can't be seen directly, but we can detect the disk of fast-moving gas swirling around and into a black hole, which emits lots of radiation, so such silhouettes stand out. So, while we can't directly see a black hole, we can detect the impact of this unseen, mysterious thing, up things in front of it, and how objects and light around it are impacted - so we know something else - something we can't actually see - is impacting these other things.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:10 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:04 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:32 am
Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

That is NOT the argument, the argument was never and never has been "Everything has a cause".
We have said that over and over and over again.

I was very clear an exception was made for God. The argument says everything requires a cause except God. Still disagree?

Argument DOES NOT SAY THAT.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:09 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:10 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:04 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

That is NOT the argument, the argument was never and never has been "Everything has a cause".
We have said that over and over and over again.

I was very clear an exception was made for God. The argument says everything requires a cause except God. Still disagree?

Argument DOES NOT SAY THAT.

https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/cause

This site seems to agree with me that the argument says that only God is uncaused every thing else is caused. However feel free to provide an source that say otherwise

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:07 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:10 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:04 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.

If I recall correctly, the argument went something like this;

1) Everything was caused (moved, changed, etc.) by something else.
2) Since you can’t have an infinite regress of prior causes, there must be something uncaused that was not caused by something else. (which contradicts the first claim)
*That uncaused cause is what you guys call God.

My objections were

* why must there be only one uncaused cause? Why not two? or ten? or a billion uncaused causes?
*If you are going to make an exception for God with #1 claiming he always existed, what’s to stop someone from making the same exception for the Universe claiming it has always existed? Or something else?

Yeah you may say because God is spirit, #1 doesn’t apply to the spiritual world, it only applies to the physical world. But how do you know #1 even applies to the physical world? Our greatest scientists admit they know less than 4% of the entire Universe! that means there is 96% of the Universe they have no clue about, so what makes anybody qualified to claim #1 applies to the entirety of the physical world?

I don’t recall getting a straight answer from any of those questions.

That is NOT the argument, the argument was never and never has been "Everything has a cause".
We have said that over and over and over again.

I was very clear an exception was made for God. The argument says everything requires a cause except God. Still disagree?

Like I said, you don't understand the argument.

https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/cause
This site seems to agree with me that the argument says only God is uncaused, everything else is caused. However feel free to provide your understanding of the argument that isn’t addressed in the objections I provided

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:32 pm

Ken: Cosmology, biology, it doesn’t matter; no scientist worth his salt is going to resort to philosophy in search of answers concerning the material world

Of course not, because the answers are beyond what science can touch or explain! Science can and does, however, provide evidences that strongly suggest it not rational to believe a universe could suddenly begin self organizing with incredible precision and stunningly complex interactions of it's many (and NECESSARY) components and mechanisms, and on such a astonishing scale.

I have never heard of anybody believing that stuff; have your? Where are you getting this stuff?

Yes, Ken, BILLIONS of people around the planet believe in some kind of higher Power, and many of them also believe the evidences science has uncovered are so extraordinary as to think it foolish they don't ultimately have an intelligent cause. Ken, atheists and agnostics are a minority on planet earth!