Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

present something backed up by modern scientists.

Ken

Ken, you stated on another thread that you were a skeptic...

A true skeptic cannot trust scientist for if they did, how then can they be a skeptic
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

present something backed up by modern scientists.

Ken

Ken, you stated on another thread that you were a skeptic...

A true skeptic cannot trust scientist for if they did, how then can they be a skeptic
-
-
-

Not quite sure of the difference between a skeptic and a true skeptic but I embrace that which makes sense to me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote: Here is the link http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 79#p154540

In the link you provided, Jlay was responding to what someone else said. I didn't respond to him because he wasn't talking to me.

Ken

The link goes directly to my post, not jlay's

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

present something backed up by modern scientists.

Ken

Ken, you stated on another thread that you were a skeptic...

A true skeptic cannot trust scientist for if they did, how then can they be a skeptic
-
-
-

Not quite sure of the difference between a skeptic and a true skeptic but I embrace that which makes sense to me.

Ken

Kenny so tell me does the shroud of turin make sense to you ?

Also Kenny how do you feel about the after life? Any good evidence for that ?
What about veridical Nde's ?

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

present something backed up by modern scientists.

Ken

Ken, you stated on another thread that you were a skeptic...

A true skeptic cannot trust scientist for if they did, how then can they be a skeptic
-
-
-

Not quite sure of the difference between a skeptic and a true skeptic but I embrace that which makes sense to me.

Ken

Kenny so tell me does the shroud of turin make sense to you ?

Also Kenny how do you feel about the after life? Any good evidence for that ?
What about veridical Nde's ?

I will be the first to admit; I know very little about the Shroud of Turin; especially when compared to some of the people on this fourm who has done extensive studying of it; but the fact that the Catholic Church refuses to claim it to be the truth speaks volumes to me. that would be akin to asking a Creationist if he believes in the theory of Abiogenesis even though the scientific community has discredited it already.

I don't believe in an after life, to me that is akin to quenching the flame of a candle then asking where did the flame go.

As far as Near death experiences; I guess it all depends upon how you define "dead" in the USA when the brain quits working we call that dead. there has been many cases of people's brain stop working for a short time then it begins working again. I know very little about what people claim once this has happened to them but from what I have been told, often the religious beliefs they had before NED is confirmed by their NDE experience; weather they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc
Again I know very little about NDE this is just what I've been told and the little I've read about it.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

present something backed up by modern scientists.

Ken

Ken, you stated on another thread that you were a skeptic...

A true skeptic cannot trust scientist for if they did, how then can they be a skeptic

Not quite sure of the difference between a skeptic and a true skeptic but I embrace that which makes sense to me.

Ken

Skepticism is trusted by skeptics as making sense to them in order to define their world. So it is natural that you embrace skepticism as that is how you make sense of things around you. However, skepticism cannot define all things in a nice neat black and white package. Maybe it is your skepticism that is getting in the way here so that you cannot make sense of anything so as just to cement your personal presuppositions because admitting error is unfitting for a skeptic to make sense of...

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:It is logically impossible for there to be more than one uncaused cause for 2 main reasons;

1) if there were 2 of them then each must lack something the other has, they could not be identical, otherwise they would be one and the same. But if each is lacking something then by definition they cannot be the uncaused cause because their existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing.

No, an uncaused cause is not required to contain everything, An uncaused cause could be as simple as a rock!

Byblos wrote:2) 2 uncaused causes with the free will to create is a self-contradiction because it leaves open the possibility for one to create and the other to annihilate. Since existence well ... is ..., ergo there can only be one and only one uncaused cause.

You are error when you assume the first cause must be intelligent and have the ability to create. Multiple non intelligent first causes makes perfect sense because there are multiple types of matter that could have evolved from them.

Ken

Kenny, let’s test your theorem: WannaLearn wrote this:

WannaLearn wrote:Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?

If he did not exist do you think this thread on this forum would exist? WannaLearn was the first cause and started this discussion thread, therefore, there is such a thing as first cause and first cause does indeed exist.

Next, was WannaLearned uncaused – no – he came into being by his parents same as you. An uncaused event such as creation of the universe needs a first cause. If the universe came into being by uncaused items drifting around, where did the stuff come from needed to bump around?

If you desire to build a house and just looked at the ground doing nothing, your house would never be built.
-
-
-

B. W. Wrote:
If the universe came into being by uncaused items drifting around, where did the stuff come from needed to bump around?

Kenny already said the first cause could be like a rock. An eternal rock.

So, correct me where I'm wrong. Kenny refuses to believe in an eternal, loving, personal God. But he believes in an eternal rock.

And Christians are the crazy ones?

Kenny,

All kidding aside, we Christians do believe in an eternal rock who is the uncaused cause. That eternal Rock is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Psalms 78:35
And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer.

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:If website does not constitute scientific proof, then our saying to you the proof does? What? Please explain.

present something backed up by modern scientists.

Ken

Ken, you stated on another thread that you were a skeptic...

A true skeptic cannot trust scientist for if they did, how then can they be a skeptic

Not quite sure of the difference between a skeptic and a true skeptic but I embrace that which makes sense to me.

Ken

Skepticism is trusted by skeptics as making sense to them in order to define their world. So it is natural that you embrace skepticism as that is how you make sense of things around you. However, skepticism cannot define all things in a nice neat black and white package. Maybe it is your skepticism that is getting in the way here so that you cannot make sense of anything so as just to cement your personal presuppositions because admitting error is unfitting for a skeptic to make sense of...

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:It is logically impossible for there to be more than one uncaused cause for 2 main reasons;

1) if there were 2 of them then each must lack something the other has, they could not be identical, otherwise they would be one and the same. But if each is lacking something then by definition they cannot be the uncaused cause because their existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing.

No, an uncaused cause is not required to contain everything, An uncaused cause could be as simple as a rock!

Byblos wrote:2) 2 uncaused causes with the free will to create is a self-contradiction because it leaves open the possibility for one to create and the other to annihilate. Since existence well ... is ..., ergo there can only be one and only one uncaused cause.

You are error when you assume the first cause must be intelligent and have the ability to create. Multiple non intelligent first causes makes perfect sense because there are multiple types of matter that could have evolved from them.

Ken

Kenny, let’s test your theorem: WannaLearn wrote this:

WannaLearn wrote:Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?

If he did not exist do you think this thread on this forum would exist? WannaLearn was the first cause and started this discussion thread, therefore, there is such a thing as first cause and first cause does indeed exist.

Next, was WannaLearned uncaused – no – he came into being by his parents same as you. An uncaused event such as creation of the universe needs a first cause. If the universe came into being by uncaused items drifting around, where did the stuff come from needed to bump around?

If you desire to build a house and just looked at the ground doing nothing, your house would never be built.
-
-
-

BWSkepticism is trusted by skeptics as making sense to them in order to define their world. So it is natural that you embrace skepticism as that is how you make sense of things around you. However, skepticism cannot define all things in a nice neat black and white package. Maybe it is your skepticism that is getting in the way here so that you cannot make sense of anything so as just to cement your personal presuppositions because admitting error is unfitting for a skeptic to make sense of...

Ken
Fair question. First of all; I believe everyone is a skeptic to some degree; some more than others. As far as my skepticism getting in the way of me seeing the truth, I doubt that to be the case because there has been countless times when I have been proven wrong which has caused me to change my mind various subjects.


BW
Kenny, let’s test your theorem: WannaLearn wrote this:


WannaLearn wrote:
Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?

If he did not exist do you think this thread on this forum would exist? WannaLearn was the first cause and started this discussion thread, therefore, there is such a thing as first cause and first cause does indeed exist.

Next, was WannaLearned uncaused – no – he came into being by his parents same as you. An uncaused event such as creation of the universe needs a first cause. If the universe came into being by uncaused items drifting around, where did the stuff come from needed to bump around?

Ken
My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

Question: How do you feel about the Big Bang Theory?

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote: Here is the link http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 79#p154540

In the link you provided, Jlay was responding to what someone else said. I didn't respond to him because he wasn't talking to me.

Ken

The link goes directly to my post, not jlay's

Okay I see! I probably didn't respond because it appeared you didnt address the question at hand. The question was what would happen if God addressed everyone in an audible voice and your reply was about arrogant and prideful people not seeig God, which I didn't think fit into the conversation. You backed everything you said with bible scriptures so there was nothing to refute, I did no disagree with anything you said.

Ken

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

Question: How do you feel about the Big Bang Theory?

People who know a whole lot more about astronomy than I do, claim that is the best explanation avaliable; have see reason to assume otherwise.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

Question: How do you feel about the Big Bang Theory?

People who know a whole lot more about astronomy than I do, claim that is the best explanation avaliable; have see reason to assume otherwise.

Ken

Okay, just for clarification: Doesn't that technically mean you believe the universe did come into being?

(I know someone is going to try and use whatever the answer he gives to make a point. I'm just trying to understand his POV better)

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

Question: How do you feel about the Big Bang Theory?

People who know a whole lot more about astronomy than I do, claim that is the best explanation avaliable; have see reason to assume otherwise.

Ken

Okay, just for clarification: Doesn't that technically mean you believe the universe did come into being?

(I know someone is going to try and use whatever the answer he gives to make a point. I'm just trying to understand his POV better)

According to my understanding, science claims the big bang is how the Universe became as we know it today. They don't claim it didn't exist before, it was just different.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Kenny, let’s test your theorem: WannaLearn wrote this:

WannaLearn wrote:Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?

If he did not exist do you think this thread on this forum would exist? WannaLearn was the first cause and started this discussion thread, therefore, there is such a thing as first cause and first cause does indeed exist.

Next, was WannaLearned uncaused – no – he came into being by his parents same as you. An uncaused event such as creation of the universe needs a first cause. If the universe came into being by uncaused items drifting around, where did the stuff come from needed to bump around?

If you desire to build a house and just looked at the ground doing nothing, your house would never be built.

My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

Then how did the universe come into being?

God is indeed speaking, it is you who chooses not to hear...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Kenny, let’s test your theorem: WannaLearn wrote this:

WannaLearn wrote:Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?

If he did not exist do you think this thread on this forum would exist? WannaLearn was the first cause and started this discussion thread, therefore, there is such a thing as first cause and first cause does indeed exist.

Next, was WannaLearned uncaused – no – he came into being by his parents same as you. An uncaused event such as creation of the universe needs a first cause. If the universe came into being by uncaused items drifting around, where did the stuff come from needed to bump around?

If you desire to build a house and just looked at the ground doing nothing, your house would never be built.

My problem comes from the claim that the Universe came into being, or that the Universe was actually created.

Then how did the universe come into being?

They say the Universe came into being during the big bang.

BW wrote:God is indeed speaking, it is you who chooses not to hear...
-
-
-

Is he speaking to me in a language I am able to understand?

Ken