Evidence for God from Science

Lunalle wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lunalle wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I guess were at an impasse, I believe numbers are real and exist outside of human experience, all we have done is discover them.

Uh, well yeah... I don't believe in objective truth, and you do, but not only that, you believe it is possible for you to know it, through your subjective experience... somehow... uh... well... *shrug* I can't stop you from believing such things, I can only point out they're not logically valid.

Not logically valid in your subjective opinion ugggh!

Of course!

So it's not really worth anything then is it, talk about a self defeater.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:So it's not really worth anything then is it, talk about a self defeater.

Would it be worth more if I said it was a revelation from God? Have you decided that my years of study is worth nothing?

Lunalle wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:So it's not really worth anything then is it, talk about a self defeater.

Would it be worth more if I said it was a revelation from God? Have you decided that my years of study is worth nothing?

Sorry this will be my last post to you, I don't like the way you speak too people and I don't want to further your destructive and disruptive behaviour.

I am not going to stoop to tit for tat conversing, I have already let my standards slip a little in this thread and I don't like it.

Lunalle wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I guess were at an impasse, I believe numbers are real and exist outside of human experience, all we have done is discover them.

Uh, well yeah... I don't believe in objective truth, and you do, but not only that, you believe it is possible for you to know it, through your subjective experience... somehow... uh... well... *shrug* I can't stop you from believing such things, I can only point out they're not logically valid.

Objectively, your body will grow old and you will die, That is a truth you cannot deny; objective truth exists.

I know you are taking time off for awhile from the forum and due to what you stated about your condition - take your time cool down.
-
-
-

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lunalle wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am sorry you didn't understand my point but there is no excuse to be rude or condescending even more so with a moderator.
I suggest you be more open to other views and opinions and to work on your debating / discussion skills.

I'm sorry you found that post rude or condescending. I find your previous post the same.

He seems to be going out of his way to get himself into trouble.

I need to clear some things up here, the claims are getting out of hand.... Not what is declared as truth, but what science has said about time and infinity....

Never has science said that 'time' didn't exist before the big bang.... It states that in the pure scientific sense of measurement, it has no idea what the 'universe' and the dynamics surrounding it were before the big bang.... Because of this, it doesn't offer a timeline because it isn't measurable.... It doesn't require one is all!
We created our measurement of time, if there is nothing to measure merely because we are unable to observe....... Got it?

Infinity, again it is applied to our physically observable universe..... What do you suppose is beyond it, a nondescript impenetrable wall? Oh wait, what's beyond that? Ooops!
Questioning or suggesting that infinity and 'time' (without measure of course) doesn't exist is absolutely bizarre concerning base logic.

Here's perhaps a relatable way of viewing it.... What existed in the 'time' before God did? Was it the same nondescript impenetrable wall? Nothingness, blank nothingness?

Revolutionary wrote:I need to clear some things up here, the claims are getting out of hand.... Not what is declared as truth, but what science has said about time and infinity....

Never has science said that 'time' didn't exist before the big bang.... It states that in the pure scientific sense of measurement, it has no idea what the 'universe' and the dynamics surrounding it were before the big bang.... Because of this, it doesn't offer a timeline because it isn't measurable.... It doesn't require one is all!
We created our measurement of time, if there is nothing to measure merely because we are unable to observe....... Got it?

Infinity, again it is applied to our physically observable universe..... What do you suppose is beyond it, a nondescript impenetrable wall? Oh wait, what's beyond that? Ooops!
Questioning or suggesting that infinity and 'time' (without measure of course) doesn't exist is absolutely bizarre concerning base logic.

Here's perhaps a relatable way of viewing it.... What existed in the 'time' before God did? Was it the same nondescript impenetrable wall? Nothingness, blank nothingness?

Time is a unit of measure.
Time AS WE KNOW IT, could not have existed before the Laws of the universe ( this universe) came to be since it is directly relative to those Laws.
We can hypothesis that some sort of "time" MAY have existed.
But not time was we know it.
The issue of "infinite" is irrelevant to the "first cause" or "first mover" argument.
What we do KNOW is that THIS universe had a "first cause", what was "before" this universe came to be is NOT known and there is no reason to believe that the Laws of this universe apply to what existed before this universe came to be.
We KNOW that in this universe, everything must have a "first cause" or "first mover".
We do NOT know if that applies outside of this universe.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I need to clear some things up here, the claims are getting out of hand.... Not what is declared as truth, but what science has said about time and infinity....

Never has science said that 'time' didn't exist before the big bang.... It states that in the pure scientific sense of measurement, it has no idea what the 'universe' and the dynamics surrounding it were before the big bang.... Because of this, it doesn't offer a timeline because it isn't measurable.... It doesn't require one is all!
We created our measurement of time, if there is nothing to measure merely because we are unable to observe....... Got it?

Infinity, again it is applied to our physically observable universe..... What do you suppose is beyond it, a nondescript impenetrable wall? Oh wait, what's beyond that? Ooops!
Questioning or suggesting that infinity and 'time' (without measure of course) doesn't exist is absolutely bizarre concerning base logic.

Here's perhaps a relatable way of viewing it.... What existed in the 'time' before God did? Was it the same nondescript impenetrable wall? Nothingness, blank nothingness?

Time is a unit of measure.
Time AS WE KNOW IT, could not have existed before the Laws of the universe ( this universe) came to be since it is directly relative to those Laws.
We can hypothesis that some sort of "time" MAY have existed.
But not time was we know it.
The issue of "infinite" is irrelevant to the "first cause" or "first mover" argument.
What we do KNOW is that THIS universe had a "first cause", what was "before" this universe came to be is NOT known and there is no reason to believe that the Laws of this universe apply to what existed before this universe came to be.
We KNOW that in this universe, everything must have a "first cause" or "first mover".
We do NOT know if that applies outside of this universe.

And again to address this "first cause".... It's the same argument regardless of how you want to lace it with beliefs....

Something can't 'poof' appear from nothingness....
The same argument can be applied to the concept of God, did God 'poof' appear from nothingness or has God always existed?

Likewise, if there existed a dynamic to create our observable universe, there has to be something there to 'contain' said dynamic.... Is that something less than infinite? Doesn't work that way! If it didn't just 'poof' appear from nothingness, it also has an infinite yet undefined by our observation 'timeframe'... Well, eternal!

What minds are failing to grasp, is that something that has always been there doesn't require a creator, just as we would would argue that God doesn't require a creator.

So really, what's the point to arguing an absurdity like saying that infinity and time don't exist.... Obviously they do in some capacity..... 'poof'!

Trying to argue that the universe must have a creator is like trying to contain infinity, it just doesn't work!

Revolutionary wrote: And again to address this "first cause".... It's the same argument regardless of how you want to lace it with beliefs....

Something can't 'poof' appear from nothingness....
The same argument can be applied to the concept of God, did God 'poof' appear from nothingness or has God always existed?

That's a fallacious argument Rev. Our claim is NOT that everything that exists must have a cause. If this were what we are arguing then you'd be well within reason to argue well, who created God. But our argument is that everything that began to exist must have had a cause. Since God is eternal, he never began to exist so your question is irrelevant.

Revolutionary wrote:Likewise, if there existed a dynamic to create our observable universe, there has to be something there to 'contain' said dynamic.... Is that something less than infinite? Doesn't work that way! If it didn't just 'poof' appear from nothingness, it also has an infinite yet undefined by our observation 'timeframe'... Well, eternal!

What minds are failing to grasp, is that something that has always been there doesn't require a creator, just as we would would argue that God doesn't require a creator.

So really, what's the point to arguing an absurdity like saying that infinity and time don't exist.... Obviously they do in some capacity..... 'poof'!

Trying to argue that the universe must have a creator is like trying to contain infinity, it just doesn't work!

Are you familiar with the metaphysical arguments for first causation? They are quite reasonable (as in logical) and they will answer all your objections.

Byblos wrote: That's a fallacious argument Rev. Our claim is NOT that everything that exists must have a cause. If this were what we are arguing then you'd be well within reason to argue well, who created God. But our argument is that everything that began to exist must have had a cause. Since God is eternal, he never began to exist so your question is irrelevant.

Well since the dynamic by which our observable universe sprung is eternal, it never began to exist but is merely a perpetual state of said dynamic, hence doesn't need a creator.... News flash, the argument is the same..... So exactly what is your point?

Just because you claim that God is eternal and that the all encompassing aspect and dynamic to which the universe is, is not.... It doesn't make it so, just because you say so!

Science doesn't adhere to a premise based on belief, what it does base it upon is logic, reason, sense and sensibility.

'poof' doesn't work in science and instantly proves an eternal dynamic by which it arose.... And if that specific dynamic wasn't eternal and arose from another dynamic, well if that isn't eternal then it continues for up to an infinite number of dynamics needed until, well.... It's official, it's eternal!

Infinity realized, congrats!

Can infinity have less than an eternal timeframe?

And there it is folks, the dynamic by which the universe arose is eternal.......

Just a quick note if you could keep your posts combined in a single reply it would make it easier to follow and reply to them. If you don't mind.

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote: That's a fallacious argument Rev. Our claim is NOT that everything that exists must have a cause. If this were what we are arguing then you'd be well within reason to argue well, who created God. But our argument is that everything that began to exist must have had a cause. Since God is eternal, he never began to exist so your question is irrelevant.

Well since the dynamic by which our observable universe sprung is eternal, it never began to exist but is merely a perpetual state of said dynamic, hence doesn't need a creator.... News flash, the argument is the same..... So exactly what is your point?

Excuse me? the 'dynamic by which our observable universe sprung is eternal'? I'm sorry but I'm not aware of ANY scientific dynamic , not one worth its weight on paper at least, that postulates itself to be eternal. What I am aware of and not entirely certain if you are, is that the latest cosmological theories very powerfully point to an ultimate creation. We can discuss those in some detail if you wish.

Revolutionary wrote:Just because you claim that God is eternal and that the all encompassing aspect and dynamic to which the universe is, is not.... It doesn't make it so, just because you say so!

The metaphysical argument for necessity of a timeless, immaterial, intelligent creator is not a mere claim Rev, it is an absolute, undeniable, unequivocal proof. If you deny it you do so at the risk of marginalizing reason.

Revolutionary wrote:Science doesn't adhere to a premise based on belief, what it does base it upon is logic, reason, sense and sensibility.

Absolutely agree, hence my reliance on reason and logic in the form of the first causation proof. If understood in its proper form it cannot be denied.

Revolutionary wrote:'poof' doesn't work in science and instantly proves an eternal dynamic by which it arose.... And if that specific dynamic wasn't eternal and arose from another dynamic, well if that isn't eternal then it continues for up to an infinite number of dynamics needed until, well.... It's official, it's eternal!

Infinity realized, congrats!

Can infinity have less than an eternal timeframe?

And there it is folks, the dynamic by which the universe arose is eternal.......

Fallacious arguments, attacking a straw man, the only things going 'poof' are your unsubstantiated assertions. Neither philosophy (the bedrock of science) nor science itself is on your side.

Science does not make comments on what it can't observe, typically ( Quantum physics and such theoretical sciences aside).
Science does not and has never made a comment on God, since God is not observable in our universe.

We we know of THIS universe is that nothing comes to be without a "first cause".
We know the universe came to be because it is expanding and as such, must have had a starting point, something happened to get it "expanding".
Science has NOT concluded what that something was/is.
We believe that force to be God.
God is the "name" we use when we think of the "creative force" that either caused the universe into being OR started it expanding ( depending on the view one subscribes to).
Since this force was outside of nature as we know it ( nature as we know it didn't exist yet) there is no reason to believe that the laws of nature that apply to THIS universe, apply to Him/It.
There is no reason to believe that any of the issue of "infinity" or anything else that is based on the laws of THIS universe apply to what was before this universe came to be.

Byblos wrote:Just a quick note if you could keep your posts combined in a single reply it would make it easier to follow and reply to them. If you don't mind.

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote: That's a fallacious argument Rev. Our claim is NOT that everything that exists must have a cause. If this were what we are arguing then you'd be well within reason to argue well, who created God. But our argument is that everything that began to exist must have had a cause. Since God is eternal, he never began to exist so your question is irrelevant.

Well since the dynamic by which our observable universe sprung is eternal, it never began to exist but is merely a perpetual state of said dynamic, hence doesn't need a creator.... News flash, the argument is the same..... So exactly what is your point?

Excuse me? the 'dynamic by which our observable universe sprung is eternal'? I'm sorry but I'm not aware of ANY scientific dynamic , not one worth its weight on paper at least, that postulates itself to be eternal. What I am aware of and not entirely certain if you are, is that the latest cosmological theories very powerfully point to an ultimate creation. We can discuss those in some detail if you wish.

Revolutionary wrote:Just because you claim that God is eternal and that the all encompassing aspect and dynamic to which the universe is, is not.... It doesn't make it so, just because you say so!

The metaphysical argument for necessity of a timeless, immaterial, intelligent creator is not a mere claim Rev, it is an absolute, undeniable, unequivocal proof. If you deny it you do so at the risk of marginalizing reason.

Revolutionary wrote:Science doesn't adhere to a premise based on belief, what it does base it upon is logic, reason, sense and sensibility.

Absolutely agree, hence my reliance on reason and logic in the form of the first causation proof. If understood in its proper form it cannot be denied.

Revolutionary wrote:'poof' doesn't work in science and instantly proves an eternal dynamic by which it arose.... And if that specific dynamic wasn't eternal and arose from another dynamic, well if that isn't eternal then it continues for up to an infinite number of dynamics needed until, well.... It's official, it's eternal!

Infinity realized, congrats!

Can infinity have less than an eternal timeframe?

And there it is folks, the dynamic by which the universe arose is eternal.......

Fallacious arguments, attacking a straw man, the only things going 'poof' are your unsubstantiated assertions. Neither philosophy (the bedrock of science) nor science itself is on your side.

Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought.... Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness.... More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time.... If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.
Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

Revolutionary wrote: Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Revolutionary wrote:Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought....

We shall see ...

Revolutionary wrote:Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's not a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

Revolutionary wrote: More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-a-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

Revolutionary wrote:If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Revolutionary wrote:Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of any periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

Revolutionary wrote:And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.