Evidence for God from Science

I always find it interesting when people think they know Aquina's arguments (much less refute them) so easily.
Unless you understand metaphysics, you can't even begin to comment on them.
I have read even philosophy professors screw up on Aquinas and it isn't because he is hard to get, it is because people THINK he argument is simple when it really is VERY sophisticated.
If a person doesn't understand actuality and potentiality to begin with, they simply will NOT get it.

The comment: "this we call God" can only be understood by understating the classical view of God.
God is a title given to "a" being of set attributes.
Sort of like saying:
This being reproduces heterosexually, is one of two genders ( male or female) has ideally 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, is rational, is, etc, etc and then sating: "This we call Human".

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Nils wrote:I don't see any obvious arguments for the existence of God.

Have you considered Aquinas' Five Ways?

No, I have not read or heard about Aquinas' Five Ways before but I checked your reference now. There are five arguments. The first about movement can be seen as equivalent to the first law of thermodynamics about energy. The second is about causation. The third is about creation of something out of nothing. The fourth can be seen as equivalent to the forth law of thermodynamics. The fifth finally is about teleology, that the creation is goal directed.

Argument one to four are all about creation of the universe and the laws. It can be discussed if the universe could have been created from nothing or some entity was necessary for creation. Aquina thinks there is a creator and he calls it God. But it is difficult to prove the necessity of a creating entity and it is definitely not necessary to call it God. Note that Aquina says for example "and this everyone understands to be God". If you believe in God, of course you should identify that entity with God, but if you don't believe in God there is no reason to name that entity God. That would be to associate the entity with lot of other characteristics for instance teleology.

The argument of teleology is the most interesting. At the time of Aquina teleology was the only explanation of our world. It seemed that it would be impossible to explain how the world could be as it is without a creator. Since Darwin and the development of natural science it is just as possible that the world has developed without a goal directed creator. Actually, I can argue that there are strong indications that the development is not goal directed. That is a complex argument but I can write about it if you want. (I have not read about it earlier).

Nils

Yeah, I think you need to re-read the arguments again.
Nowhere does he mention the creation of the universe and your grasp of his first way is, well, wrong.
DO you understand actuality and potentiality?
Also, do you understand he is trying to prove the existence of the classical theist God?

Or that the first way has nothing to do with temporal events or that the first way still holds true even if matter/energy were eternal or that the first mover is the necessary conclusion to a set of premises?

Paul and Byblos,

First, the background to my answer was that I asked Kurieuo: "So which are the reasons that are "obvious"". Byblos answered with a reference to Aquina. I am far from an expert on Aquina or Aristoteles but know that physics has developed the last 2300 years. Hence I didn't take Aquinas argument literally but tried to interpret his arguments from my point of view. When I now read about actuality and potentiality in Wikipedia they write that the modern use of these concepts is energy, which also was my interpretation.

Aquina doesn't mention "creation" but he mentions the first mover etc and the first movement occurred at the beginning of the universe, right?

Certainly, Paul, I don't know the relevance of your comment about the classical theist God.

And, Byblos, please explain what you mean by your comments.

Note that to be an answer to my original question the answer has to be stated so that I understand it.

Nils
Edit: When I wrote my comment above I hadn't read Pauls two last comments. I'll be back later.

Nils wrote: Aquina doesn't mention "creation" but he mentions the first mover etc and the first movement occurred at the beginning of the universe, right?

No, that's what I tried to tell you in my last post. It is a very common misconception of the first way, as Paul said, even the most learned philosophers make it so don't fee bad.

The first mover argument has absolutely nothing to do with temporal events or what is more formally known as accidentally ordered series, i.e. time-driven events. The argument from the first way still holds (and has held for the last 700 years) even if it were proven that matter and energy always existed.

Byblos wrote:

Nils wrote: Aquina doesn't mention "creation" but he mentions the first mover etc and the first movement occurred at the beginning of the universe, right?

No, that's what I tried to tell you in my last post. It is a very common misconception of the first way, as Paul said, even the most learned philosophers make it so don't fee bad.

The first mover argument has absolutely nothing to do with temporal events or what is more formally known as accidentally ordered series, i.e. time-driven events. The argument from the first way still holds (and has held for the last 700 years) even if it were proven that matter and energy always existed.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are talking about. Since the Copernican revolution everything is moving. The earth around the sun and the sun around the Milky Way etc. In modern physic all molecules are moving relative to each other the entire time (if not at absolute zero degree) etc.

Are you able to restate the argument relying on modern physics instead?

Nils

Kurieuo wrote:Many who do not believe in God think themselves just being a good skeptic. Many such persons will often say there is no evidence or proof for God's existence, you may even come across such statements in discussions.

Yet, I always immediately disagree with those who'd say there is no evidence for God. There are very good reasons, I believe good evidence and proof for God's existence - so much so I see that it is overwhelming to the point I agree with the Psalmist that only a fool would say there is no God.

So then, those who pride themselves on their skepticism when it comes to rejecting God, really I see such persons as being in denial. And often, as discussions evolve, it becomes apparent to me the person who rejects God appears to be rather heavily in denial.

Now I consider myself a skeptic, and yet I believe in God. Perhaps that sounds strange to you, if you don't believe in God. I'd question however whether you are a truly healthy skeptic or merely in denial? Watch this video. Then let us know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGVeB_SPJg

Do you realize this works both ways? Did you consider that it is you (the theists) that is the 'Fred'. That thousands of years of theological indoctrination ultimately made you in denial of the true immaterial nature of the universe.

I'm not sure how it can work with us being the "Fred" unless you wish to put forward some positive arguments for Atheism.

Re: evidence, the fact Nils didn't even know of Aquinas' arguments which are generally presented at some point an an introductory Philosophy of Religion course... and the fact many of my posts have made you really have to think and even left you unsure how to respond, suggests to me that at least with you two, there are many strong arguments for God's existence that do infact exist which you likely haven't thought about.

Yet, one need not go to such lengths as Aquinas even. Children tend towards belief in God (as scientific studies on such reveal). God from the created order seems to be an obvious intuition, and yet, we bury God for some reason or another, convince ourselves out of belief. The natural disposition of humanity carries recognition of something greater, purpose, eternity, etc. Yet, our natures also tend to want to distance ourselves and run from such.

PS. I'm not thousands of years old.

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure how it can work with us being the "Fred" unless you wish to put forward some positive arguments for Atheism.

Re: evidence, the fact Nils didn't even know of Aquinas' arguments which are generally presented at some point an an introductory Philosophy of Religion course... and the fact many of my posts have made you really have to think and even left you unsure how to respond, suggests to me that at least with you two, there are many strong arguments for God's existence that do infact exist which you likely haven't thought about.

Yet, one need not go to such lengths as Aquinas even. Children tend towards belief in God (as scientific studies on such reveal). God from the created order seems to be an obvious intuition, and yet, we bury God for some reason or another, convince ourselves out of belief. The natural disposition of humanity carries recognition of something greater, purpose, eternity, etc. Yet, our natures also tend to want to distance ourselves and run from such.

PS. I'm not thousands of years old.

Kurieuo, I am sorry that I was misleading. When I wrote " No, I have not read or heard about Aquinas' Five Ways before" I was referring to the specific document but not to the contents. Of course, I know all the arguments before. It would really be foolish to discuss with Christians without knowing them.
However in a basic philosophical class the professor showed their logical schemas and how they are dependent of dubious premises (and I havn't found any fault in that reasoning, even after long discussions with Christians). But that didn't include the teleological argument which I think is the most interesting even if I find it wrong.

But, asking you Kurieuo, which argument(s) is/are "obvious" or as you say in OP:"it is overwhelming to the point I agree with the Psalmist that only a fool would say there is no God."

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote:I always find it interesting when people think they know Aquina's arguments (much less refute them) so easily.
Unless you understand metaphysics, you can't even begin to comment on them.
I have read even philosophy professors screw up on Aquinas and it isn't because he is hard to get, it is because people THINK he argument is simple when it really is VERY sophisticated.
If a person doesn't understand actuality and potentiality to begin with, they simply will NOT get it.

Aqinas first argument and the terminology "actuality" and "potentiality" relate to Aristotelian metaphysics. As I understand it, that terminology is outdated by modern physics and then the argument has to be restated in modern terminology to hold any water. (But I don't think that restating it will help).

Nils

You can I'm sure go through many of my posts, many here know I've debated often on this board. I think I delved into some here with JustAtheist previously. As for myself, right now, I am actually tired in life of such discussions and certainly it'd be foolhardy of me to think I could convince you of that which you willfully deny.

I will make some remarks. Namely reasserting there is a plethora of evidence. The likes of Antony Flew (and others) don't just switch positions after dedicating books and much of his life to belief set toward Atheism.

There are so many arguments and lines of evidence. First and foremost for me is the structured and orderly world that has been created, which many in their denial simply deny out-of-hand requiring those who believe to put forward arguments with more sophistication -- only to then have each in turn also denied. There is a strong denial mindset, and so again, it isn't my role to convince you out of denial. I believe based upon evidence, you disagree and deny God and believe that the material-physical world is all there is, that is where really we end and part ways. Trust me, I've done such routines perhaps a 1000 times.

By more sophisticated arguments, we might invoke Aquinas', which as PaulS pointed out, are often misunderstood in some sort of Kalam Cosmological argument (which is a logical argument I nonetheless believe holds up with/without the Big Bang which offers scientific support). Argument for an actual foundational something via potential contingecies is much more solid, which a multiverse cannot even escape. Something must have always existed which has no prior foundation, not just temporally via cause and effect but also in a heirarchical order of contingency. E.g., a piece of paper with writing on may have existed at one and the same time, yet we might say the writing is contingent upon the paper.

Given intelligence exists, this non-contigent foundational must possess intelligence of its own. Code requires a coder, information someone to have given it structure and even created the language itself, DNA is information, indeed the whole world is often considered to be on some fundamental level just organised information. Waves of energy wiggling this way or that, positive or negative, which defines the orderly world we see. Yet, then we also have quantum mechanics which highly suggests there is no such thing as passive observation of a purely objective and external physical-material world, rather it seems that consciousness constructs reality to some degree -- observation will influence the behaviour of matter behaving as particles or waves. If true, as the science suggest, consciousness must be considered separate and in its own light.

Intelligence exists as well as the physical. Consciousness. Our basic intuitions that I don't believe shouold be rejected without good reasoning -- that "we" really do exist, there is a true semblence self that continues throughout time despite our physical composition changing, that we are more or less truly responsible for decisions we make (rather than purely physical effects). Morality. Concepts of fairness, justice, beauty, good, true meaning, purpose to life, etc.

So then, Theim provides foundations for all these basic intuitions we all have and share, something that Materialism either dismisses or relativises out of being an actual reality and as such true.

Really, as I see matters, people willfully ignore the evidence. Have buried their heads in the sand. Are blinded. Hence as Newton reported in his now famous Amazing Grace song, "was blind, but now I see" -- something many, many Christians report experiencing -- being previously blind and now seeing. Previously seeing that world in black and white, and now seeing the world in colour. What are they seeing? Perhaps as Freud and Kant might suggest we see a delusion or illusion.

One side is right -- you are either blind, or we are delusional. I don't believe they/you are right. And your own evidence is thin, robs us of our common intuition in many things, such as goodness, even people's lifes being inherently valuable, etc. These questions however are important, and I pray your life's journey finishes with embracing not merely that God exists, which is good, but being restored relationally with God via Christ which is better and as I see matter a primary purpose for each of us in life. Yet, I understand that this is something you cannot contemplate or grasp where you are at in your thoughts.

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I always find it interesting when people think they know Aquina's arguments (much less refute them) so easily.
Unless you understand metaphysics, you can't even begin to comment on them.
I have read even philosophy professors screw up on Aquinas and it isn't because he is hard to get, it is because people THINK he argument is simple when it really is VERY sophisticated.
If a person doesn't understand actuality and potentiality to begin with, they simply will NOT get it.

Aqinas first argument and the terminology "actuality" and "potentiality" relate to Aristotelian metaphysics. As I understand it, that terminology is outdated by modern physics and then the argument has to be restated in modern terminology to hold any water. (But I don't think that restating it will help).

Nils

Metaphysics are to physics what chess is to checkers.
Metaphysics is philosophy.

To help you understand:
Motion is everything that moves and that doesn't mean just movement of position but states of being ( ice melting to water for example).
Actuality is what something is ( rubber ball for example) and potentiality is what something ( the rubber ball again) has potential of being ( a bouncing ball if bounced, a rolling ball if rolled, a melted pieces of rubber if melted, etc).
How has modern physics "outdated" the above?
It hasn't.
Everything that comes into being as both actuality and potentiality, do you agree?

Thanks for the answer Kurieuo. Just some short comments.

Kurieuo wrote:You can I'm sure go through many of my posts, many here know I've debated often on this board. I think I delved into some here with JustAtheist previously. As for myself, right now, I am actually tired in life of such discussions and certainly it'd be foolhardy of me to think I could convince you of that which you willfully deny.

You say "willfully deny". To me it seems that you think I am not convinced but that I don't want Christianity to be true. Why not just say that I don't believe.
According to google: willful: 2. unreasonably stubborn or headstrong.

I will make some remarks. Namely reasserting there is a plethora of evidence. The likes of Antony Flew (and others) don't just switch positions after dedicating books and much of his life to belief set toward Atheism.

I havn't read Flew so I can't comment.

There are so many arguments and lines of evidence. First and foremost for me is the structured and orderly world that has been created, which many in their denial simply deny out-of-hand requiring those who believe to put forward arguments with more sophistication -- only to then have each in turn also denied. There is a strong denial mindset, and so again, it isn't my role to convince you out of denial. I believe based upon evidence, you disagree and deny God and believe that the material-physical world is all there is, that is where really we end and part ways. Trust me, I've done such routines perhaps a 1000 times.

I don't just deny. I can argue.

By more sophisticated arguments, we might invoke Aquinas', which as PaulS pointed out, are often misunderstood in some sort of Kalam Cosmological argument (which is a logical argument I nonetheless believe holds up with/without the Big Bang which offers scientific support). Argument for an actual foundational something via potential contingecies is much more solid, which a multiverse cannot even escape. Something must have always existed which has no prior foundation, not just temporally via cause and effect but also in a heirarchical order of contingency. E.g., a piece of paper with writing on may have existed at one and the same time, yet we might say the writing is contingent upon the paper.

I understand the Kalam argument even if I disagree with at least one premise but the Aquinas / Aristoteles argument concerning potentiality and actuality I don't understand at all and your explanation doesn't help. See also my answer to Paul, forthcoming.

Given intelligence exists, this non-contigent foundational must possess intelligence of its own. Code requires a coder, information someone to have given it structure and even created the language itself, DNA is information, indeed the whole world is often considered to be on some fundamental level just organised information. Waves of energy wiggling this way or that, positive or negative, which defines the orderly world we see. Yet, then we also have quantum mechanics which highly suggests there is no such thing as passive observation of a purely objective and external physical-material world, rather it seems that consciousness constructs reality to some degree -- observation will influence the behaviour of matter behaving as particles or waves. If true, as the science suggest, consciousness must be considered separate and in its own light.

I am not quite sure about what you mean, but information is created by the evolution process and by computer programs. I can describe that further if you want.

Intelligence exists as well as the physical. Consciousness. Our basic intuitions that I don't believe shouold be rejected without good reasoning -- that "we" really do exist, there is a true semblence self that continues throughout time despite our physical composition changing, that we are more or less truly responsible for decisions we make (rather than purely physical effects). Morality. Concepts of fairness, justice, beauty, good, true meaning, purpose to life, etc.
So then, Theim provides foundations for all these basic intuitions we all have and share, something that Materialism either dismisses or relativises out of being an actual reality and as such true.

With my materialist worldview I have no problems with intelligence, a sense of "we", responsibility, morality, justice, beauty and good. Parts of consciousness are a bit tricky but I think that that will be solved in the future. True meaning depends of what you mean by "true" and I suspect that you define it so that a materialistic account can't live up to it but meaning or purpose to life is certainly possible.

So then, Theim provides foundations for all these basic intuitions we all have and share, something that Materialism either dismisses or relativises out of being an actual reality and as such true.

Theism provides foundations, indeed it does, and to Theism it is quite simple. It's only to attribute all good things to God. For materialism it is more complicated but I can argue in all these cases if you want. Argue that they are actual realities even if it is impossible to call them "true".

Really, as I see matters, people willfully ignore the evidence. Have buried their heads in the sand. Are blinded. Hence as Newton reported in his now famous Amazing Grace song, "was blind, but now I see" -- something many, many Christians report experiencing -- being previously blind and now seeing. Previously seeing that world in black and white, and now seeing the world in colour. What are they seeing? Perhaps as Freud and Kant might suggest we see a delusion or illusion.

"willfully ignore" and "burying heads in sand". Not partiularly respectful. Shall we start to discuss who is most blinded? You certainly think that I am not fully aware of your arguments and I think the corresponding about you, but I think you are intellectually honest and I would appreciate if you regard me being intellectually honest as well

One side is right -- you are either blind, or we are delusional. I don't believe they/you are right. And your own evidence is thin, robs us of our common intuition in many things, such as goodness, even people's lifes being inherently valuable, etc. These questions however are important, and I pray your life's journey finishes with embracing not merely that God exists, which is good, but being restored relationally with God via Christ which is better and as I see matter a primary purpose for each of us in life. Yet, I understand that this is something you cannot contemplate or grasp where you are at in your thoughts.

There are things that are better with theism but there are other things that are better with materialism. We can come back to that.

I understand that you have debated all these questions many times so I will start the work you gave me and read the discussion with JustAtheist. It is 22 pages so it will take some time. I certainly will get a better picture of your position. Hopefully there are some discussions in depth. I'll be back.

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I always find it interesting when people think they know Aquina's arguments (much less refute them) so easily.
Unless you understand metaphysics, you can't even begin to comment on them.
I have read even philosophy professors screw up on Aquinas and it isn't because he is hard to get, it is because people THINK he argument is simple when it really is VERY sophisticated.
If a person doesn't understand actuality and potentiality to begin with, they simply will NOT get it.

Aqinas first argument and the terminology "actuality" and "potentiality" relate to Aristotelian metaphysics. As I understand it, that terminology is outdated by modern physics and then the argument has to be restated in modern terminology to hold any water. (But I don't think that restating it will help).

Nils

Metaphysics are to physics what chess is to checkers.
Metaphysics is philosophy.

To help you understand:
Motion is everything that moves and that doesn't mean just movement of position but states of being ( ice melting to water for example).
Actuality is what something is ( rubber ball for example) and potentiality is what something ( the rubber ball again) has potential of being ( a bouncing ball if bounced, a rolling ball if rolled, a melted pieces of rubber if melted, etc).
How has modern physics "outdated" the above?
It hasn't.
Everything that comes into being as both actuality and potentiality, do you agree?

Sorry Paul, I am still confused.

Actuality seems to be the state "something" is in. The first question is how you define that "something". Can it be a molecule, a cloud or a galaxy?
But still more unclear is potentiality. Is the potentiality of a rubber ball what is left after being hammered on or being hit by an ordinary bomb, or by an atomic bomb.
And then how to define movement. If there are two rubber balls floating in free space, are they moving? And what happens if they collide? Is there anything that is not moving. 400 000 years after Big Bang there were only atoms moving around and colliding. Can you talk about unmoving things then? And as I said earlier: All molecules are vibrating in thermal noise, are they moving?

If Aquinas argument can be interpreted as that you have to add energy to make things to happen I have no problem. If not, please give me a reference that explains the argument using well defined terminology.

Nils

The bottom line in these kinds of discussions is it comes down to either God or nothing when it is an atheist debating with a theist or Christian.Now,atheists don't like to own their world view and tend to choose to be in limbo about whether or not God exists or not.But if you do not believe in God you are forced to accept nothing and you must own it despite not wanting to. So go ask a scientist to actually demonstrate nothing creating something if you don't believe in God,since you need evidence you can see.Go ask Stephen Hawking to demonstrate nothing creating something and you'll see he cannot do it.

So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.We read about miracles althroughout the bible so just like Jesus said it does not take much faith,faith the size of a mustard seed is not very big compared to what atheists are forced to accept according to their world-view.Their world-view is a totally secular world where no gods exist and you own it eventhough we know it makes you cringe.

And based on the law of non-contradiction only one world view can be correct out of them all this includes all other religions,gods,etc.Only one can be correct and so we must go by evidence something atheists refuse to do being an atheist.For atheism is the only group in the world that accepts atheism knowing there is no evidence it is the correct world view,but they do and it messes them up when it comes to evidence.Once a person accepts a world view like atheism where you know there is no evidence that world view is true and correct it causes you to not value evidence about other things too.

abelcainsbrother wrote:The bottom line in these kinds of discussions is it comes down to either God or nothing when it is an atheist debating with a theist or Christian.Now,atheists don't like to own their world view and tend to choose to be in limbo about whether or not God exists or not.But if you do not believe in God you are forced to accept nothing and you must own it despite not wanting to. So go ask a scientist to actually demonstrate nothing creating something if you don't believe in God,since you need evidence you can see.Go ask Stephen Hawking to demonstrate nothing creating something and you'll see he cannot do it.

So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.We read about miracles althroughout the bible so just like Jesus said it does not take much faith,faith the size of a mustard seed is not very big compared to what atheists are forced to accept according to their world-view.Their world-view is a totally secular world where no gods exist and you own it eventhough we know it makes you cringe.

And based on the law of non-contradiction only one world view can be correct out of them all this includes all other religions,gods,etc.Only one can be correct and so we must go by evidence something atheists refuse to do being an atheist.For atheism is the only group in the world that accepts atheism knowing there is no evidence it is the correct world view,but they do and it messes them up when it comes to evidence.Once a person accepts a world view like atheism where you know there is no evidence that world view is true and correct it causes you to not value evidence about other things too.

You have got a lot to learn.

Ken