Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Einstein twisting it too?

Why, did Einstein assert too that there were errors in the bible without backing up his claim?

It is a simple concept of basic science, that a theory or hypothesis can be disproved.
If that is still in dispute here, then there is no use going on.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Einstein twisting it too?

Why, did Einstein assert too that there were errors in the bible without backing up his claim?

It is a simple concept of basic science, that a theory or hypothesis can be disproved.
If that is still in dispute here, then there is no use going on.

I never did nor would I ever state otherwise. All I was saying is that a correction that shows a prevailing theory in error may also be disproven (or shown to be an error) by later discoveries. What is thought of as a correction now may very well turn out to be an error later.

With that said and going back to the OP, any more biblical "errors" you'd like to share with us?

Thats very different from what you said earlier,and the thinnest of concessions
that I was right, that science is very much in the business of disproof.

And no, I dont care to discuss the bible or anything else. Ive seen where this goes.
It took a virtual act of congress for something so simple as that science works with disproof.
I'll not take on a book and belief system that cannot be held to any particular meaning for
even the most explicit language, but slips, will- o- the- wisp, to some other meaning, so that its always right.

Kinda like the rework on the plain statement about science not doing disproof.

Its a ridiculous game that will have to find someone else to play it.

There is so much evidence for the bible being true that I don't see how anybody could fit all of the evidence in to a thread.I mean science,medical science,history,archeology,astronomy,bible prophecy,etc.

Audie wrote:Thats very different from what you said earlier,and the thinnest of concessions
that I was right, that science is very much in the business of disproof.

Not different at all, merely a poor choice of wording. All along my point of emphasis was on the fact that science is not in the business of proving anything. Contrary to what you might think, I am a scientist, so is my wife and the majority of our respective family members.

Audie wrote:And no, I dont care to discuss the bible or anything else.

Then 1) you ought not be making claims you have no intention of backing up, and 2) what the heck are you doing posting in a thread whose topic you do not wish to engage in? Those are mere suggestions, obviously you do whatever you want but do expect to be called on it, every time.

Audie wrote: Ive seen where this goes.
It took a virtual act of congress for something so simple as that science works with disproof.
I'll not take on a book and belief system that cannot be held to any particular meaning for
even the most explicit language, but slips, will- o- the- wisp, to some other meaning, so that its always right.

Kinda like the rework on the plain statement about science not doing disproof.

Its a ridiculous game that will have to find someone else to play it.

In other words your assertions are without proof and can be dismissed likewise.

Audie, you must admit you are inconsistent, as you quickly dismiss what is inconvenient for your unbelief in God. You want to babble on about supposed scientific proofs and evolution, accuse others of not understanding science (what about all of those PhDs who are Christians, Nobel Prize winners?!!!), but when challenged how something (a universe) can quickly spring into existence with enormous energy and power, where before there was previously nothing (Big Bang and cosmology 101), BY ITSELF, immediately adhering to and enabled by extraordinarily complex guiding laws (where did THOSE come from?), you are quick to avoid the question by saying it is unknowable and basically irrelevant. So you unquestionably believe in the miraculous, as you clearly believe what we see, observe and live in actually exists - which is, even on its simplest levels, MASSIVELY complex.

EVERYTHING has a beginning and a cause. Trace it all backwards and you have a tremendous problem to answer. And so you believe that all of this incredibly complexity, DNA, and an uncountable number of incomprehensibly complex elements, must have all come from, what... NOTHING?!!! That's your problem. You apparently believe (and must) that there was always something, but that whatever that entailed, it had no origins or cause. Even Einstein finally realized his great error in belief in a static universe. And when facing the truth, he unquestionably realized the implications of what that meant for theism. So some material thing with exceptional potential that later actualized could exist, but God could not? What is far more reasonable to believe? From NOTHING came awesomeness, or that it all had a Cause? What you believe takes more faith - you just refuse to admit it.

And let's be clear: To deliberately and stubbornly continue to deny God and to sincerely avoid finding out the truth of His existence, is also to reject Him. And so if what Christians believe is true, you are in great danger right now. Every time you step out of your home, you could be one step closer to an eternity without God. As if you are wrong, even the possibility of that should greatly frighten you. And whatever the truth of that matter is, your unbelief won't change it - He either exists or He doesn't. And so many here were exactly where you were at some point. Do you really think we're all just naive and haven't asked the very same questions you have, that we haven't all struggled to the Truth. We have! And so don't think you are unique! We here deeply care about what happens to you. So you need to be brutally honest with yourself and how serious you are about finding out the truth of this matter.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Thats very different from what you said earlier,and the thinnest of concessions
that I was right, that science is very much in the business of disproof.

Not different at all, merely a poor choice of wording. All along my point of emphasis was on the fact that science is not in the business of proving anything. Contrary to what you might think, I am a scientist, so is my wife and the majority of our respective family members.

Audie wrote:And no, I dont care to discuss the bible or anything else.

Then 1) you ought not be making claims you have no intention of backing up, and 2) what the heck are you doing posting in a thread whose topic you do not wish to engage in? Those are mere suggestions, obviously you do whatever you want but do expect to be called on it, every time.

Audie wrote: Ive seen where this goes.
It took a virtual act of congress for something so simple as that science works with disproof.
I'll not take on a book and belief system that cannot be held to any particular meaning for
even the most explicit language, but slips, will- o- the- wisp, to some other meaning, so that its always right.

Kinda like the rework on the plain statement about science not doing disproof.

Its a ridiculous game that will have to find someone else to play it.

In other words your assertions are without proof and can be dismissed likewise.

The exact wording of something can and often does make all the difference. Taken literally, you were saying something different from what you meant. Im glad you, unlike some less educated, to understand the proof / disproof thing.

I was being as bit uncharitable thinking you were playing squirrel with the think about disproof.


To clarify what I meant about not wanting to discuss... if its squirrel thru the treetops, its pointless.
It does seem as if the bible means more or less whatever people choose. IF the claim is that there was a world wide flood, that can be disproved as an actual event.

As for dismissing, your choice.

Philip"] you must admit you are inconsistent, as you quickly dismiss what is inconvenient for your unbelief in God.

Oh? I will admit it if you point it out and its so.

You want to babble on about supposed scientific proofs and evolution, accuse others of not understanding science

Some do some dont. Its nothing to do with being Christian. Its not an accusation anyway, its a simple observation. For example, science does not do proof, so speaking of it suggests a lack of solid background in science.

(what about all of those PhDs who are Christians, Nobel Prize winners?!!!),

Ive never for a second suggested all Christians are uneducated. So what about them?

but when challenged how something (a universe) can quickly spring into existence with enormous energy and power, where before there was previously nothing (Big Bang and cosmology 101), BY ITSELF, immediately adhering to and enabled by extraordinarily complex guiding laws (where did THOSE come from?), you are quick to avoid the question by saying it is unknowable and basically irrelevant.

I've noted taht there are some who think they can solve such mysteries by thinking about them. Or by being given direct knowledge. Its my opinion that nobody is at this time in a position to solve such things. It wasnt long ago people had no idea bout electricity even.

the origin of the universe is irrelevant to my life.

So you unquestionably believe in the miraculous, as you clearly believe what we see, observe and live in actually exists - which is, even on its simplest levels, MASSIVELY complex.

See now here you simply assume things about me that you made up. I complained about that earlier.

And let's be clear: To deliberately and stubbornly continue to deny God and to sincerely avoid finding out the truth of His existence, is also to reject Him.

I dont doubt that you are entirely sincere in saying that.

And so if what Christians believe is true, you are in great danger right now

If what the moslems sincerely believe is true, then I am facing eternity hanging by my hair in a fire, for the sin of going about with my hair uncovered.

.. We have! And so don't think you are unique! We here deeply care about what happens to you. So you need to be brutally honest with yourself and how serious you are about finding out the truth of this matter.

[/quote]


I do appreciate your concern. Now, for a bit of brutal honesty of my own. You dont understand me, what I have seen and done and experienced or thought. Your telling me things about me that are not so is not being honest, its just missing the mark. I appreciate that the things you mistakenly assume are not just concocted as a way to attack me, but your best guess.

Oh, ps, try to straighten out that proof / disproof thing in science. You dont want to look naive.

And dont use words like "babble" unless you wish to provoke!

Philip: but when challenged how something (a universe) can quickly spring into existence with enormous energy and power, where before there was previously nothing (Big Bang and cosmology 101), BY ITSELF, immediately adhering to and enabled by extraordinarily complex guiding laws (where did THOSE come from?), you are quick to avoid the question by saying it is unknowable and basically irrelevant.

Audie: I've noted taht there are some who think they can solve such mysteries by thinking about them. Or by being given direct knowledge. Its my opinion that nobody is at this time in a position to solve such things. It wasnt long ago people had no idea bout electricity even.

Philip: But there ARE probabilities! And without a God that created (now, you can argue which One that might be), you are only left with, dumb, blind materialism, and that whatever existed in the very beginning has always existed and that it had great intelligence, unimaginable sophistication and enormous power. So, whatever that was, it could not have created itself from NOTHING. Things can't create themselves! And so, whatever this pre-existing "thing" was, it had to have always existed. So to believe that all physical things came into being uncaused and by themselves is to believe in the impossible, something no science actually believes, as science always wants to talk about what can be observed, tested, or traced back to some prior thing and processes.

Audie: The origin of the universe is irrelevant to my life.

Philip: This is true, until you are impacted by it while you are here, and, of course, UNLESS there is a God Who has given His words to man and has come here to save us. If those are true, then this subject very much impacts you. In fact, I doubt seriously whether you would have hung around and so prolifically posted if the subject didn't greatly intrigue you.

Philip: So you unquestionably believe in the miraculous, as you clearly believe what we see, observe and live in actually exists - which is, even on its simplest levels, MASSIVELY complex.

Audie: See now here you simply assume things about me that you made up. I complained about that earlier.

What? You don't believe what we see around us is real? You aren't well aware of it's great sophistication from the very earliest stages we have long studied? Is it the word "miraculous" that bothers you? How about, "you believe in things so statistically improbable and inexplicable that you are forced to articulate the questions surrounding this as you already have: "Its my opinion that nobody is at this time in a position to solve such things." Wow, so with all of our great scientific tools, exhaustive knowledge and study, we have something science is unable to understand or explain, and that has never been observed. But it DID happen, nonetheless. If by itself and uncaused, your probabilities go off into fantasyland, even if only so statistically improbable as to be absurd as to be considered impossible. I'd call belief that THAT could have happened to be belief in the miraculous - even if merely not currently understood or explainable. Maybe you might just swap out "miraculous" for "so statically improbable and ill understood that it cannot be explained."

Philip: And so if what Christians believe is true, you are in great danger right now

Audie: If what the moslems sincerely believe is true, then I am facing eternity hanging by my hair in a fire, for the sin of going about with my hair uncovered.

Philip: You are correct - IF what Muslims believe is true, we are ALL definitely in trouble - HUGE trouble. But where it the credibility of the Quran? Muhammad? These are all based upon what only one man said was given him, without and corroboration, miracles or fulfilled prophecies to attest for any of it. This is typical of false religions.

Audie: And dont use words like "babble" unless you wish to provoke!

OK, I'll admit I was a bit frustrated in using it.[/quote]

Phil..

I know that a theme of this forum is that ancient philosophy has proved that there is a god. I dont accept that. I hold that the universe / nature of reality is far more subtle than our minds have yet or may ever grasp. We dont even know what time is. Not long ago, people were amazed by the telegraph.

Phil:
"you believe in things so statistically improbable and inexplicable"


Do I?
Dont you? Contemplate the odds of your having been born, esp if you count in that you are at the end of a lineage that stretches back for many millions of years.


Phil-
"something science is unable to understand or explain, and that has never been observed. But it DID happen, nonetheless. If by itself and uncaused, your probabilities go off into fantasyland"

its the stories people make up that do that.

Id find the bible credible in the matter of origins, if so much of what it says is the story is so plainly ad odds with what one finds when an effort is made to cross check.

Audie wrote:
Id find the bible credible in the matter of origins, if so much of what it says is the story is so plainly ad odds with what one finds when an effort is made to cross check.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Audie, this is getting tiring.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Id find the bible credible in the matter of origins, if so much of what it says is the story is so plainly ad odds with what one finds when an effort is made to cross check.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Audie, this is getting tiring.

Then dont deal wtih it. Im aware that the bible can be read any way someone chooses.

Audie,
If you truly want a philosophical argument for the existence of God, then Aquinas is the place to start because, IMO, his arguments are as close to a "scientific argument" as you can get in terms of philosophical arguments for God.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie,
If you truly want a philosophical argument for the existence of God, then Aquinas is the place to start because, IMO, his arguments are as close to a "scientific argument" as you can get in terms of philosophical arguments for God.

Thanks Paul and I have read through it.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie,
If you truly want a philosophical argument for the existence of God, then Aquinas is the place to start because, IMO, his arguments are as close to a "scientific argument" as you can get in terms of philosophical arguments for God.

Thanks Paul and I have read through it.

And you don't find it convincing?