Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. The miracle of Noah's flood isn't believable because God should have used a different miracle, or just had Noah move. Ok.

If the first miracle is true (creation) then all miracles are plausible.

That's basically what I've been trying to show Kenny.

He says there are possibly unknown reasons why the universe came into existence. And while saying that he doesn't know what they could be, he discounts God as the answer. So according to Kenny, it could be an infinite number of things that he just doesn't have the ability to know, as long as it's not God.

Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Ken: "I don't know how the universe came into existence. It could be an infinite number of things we just don't understand."

Theist: "Since you don't know what it could have been that caused the universe to exist, are you open to the possibility that God could've done it?"

Ken:"No way!"

RickD wrote: Ken I lettered your latest responses A-D. I will respond that way.
A) show me proof that lions were on the Ark. Do you even know if lions lived in the area of the flood at that time? Or, are you just choosing animals that weren't in the region(koalas, kangaroos) to make your argument sound like it makes sense?

Actually the replies I made assumed a world wide flood. I forgot you believe the flood was local so my responses do not apply to you.

RickD wrote:And Ken, I'm not discounting the miraculous in the flood story. And you are inconsistent if on one hand, you dismiss the miraculous when it comes to God, and on the other hand you can think that the universe may have begun by some means that is presently unknown. Both of those instances are unknown to you, yet you conveniently use the unknown when it suits you(beginning of universe). And you throw away an unknown to you(God), when His existence goes against your argument. At best, that inconsistent. At worst, that's intellectually dishonest.

To claim the Universe may have begun by some means presently unknown is to admit to not know the answer.
To reject the claim that God did it is to reject a claim. That is different.

Ken

RickD wrote:

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. The miracle of Noah's flood isn't believable because God should have used a different miracle, or just had Noah move. Ok.

If the first miracle is true (creation) then all miracles are plausible.

That's basically what I've been trying to show Kenny.

He says there are possibly unknown reasons why the universe came into existence. And while saying that he doesn't know what they could be, he discounts God as the answer. So according to Kenny, it could be an infinite number of things that he just doesn't have the ability to know, as long as it's not God.

Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Ken: "I don't know how the universe came into existence. It could be an infinite number of things we just don't understand."

Theist: "Since you don't know what it could have been that caused the universe to exist, are you open to the possibility that God could've done it?"

Ken:"No way!"

Oh 'Cmon Rick! You know our conversation didn't go that way. If I remember correctly, (at least I think it was you) I even claimed the possibility of an intelligent being or beings behind the beginning of the Universe, and some people may choose to call it God! But I don't call it God, thus I reject the claim that God did it. Remember that conversation?

Ken

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. The miracle of Noah's flood isn't believable because God should have used a different miracle, or just had Noah move. Ok.

If the first miracle is true (creation) then all miracles are plausible.

Even ones that so demonstrably did not happen?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ken I lettered your latest responses A-D. I will respond that way.
A) show me proof that lions were on the Ark. Do you even know if lions lived in the area of the flood at that time? Or, are you just choosing animals that weren't in the region(koalas, kangaroos) to make your argument sound like it makes sense?

Actually the replies I made assumed a world wide flood. I forgot you believe the flood was local so my responses do not apply to you.

RickD wrote:And Ken, I'm not discounting the miraculous in the flood story. And you are inconsistent if on one hand, you dismiss the miraculous when it comes to God, and on the other hand you can think that the universe may have begun by some means that is presently unknown. Both of those instances are unknown to you, yet you conveniently use the unknown when it suits you(beginning of universe). And you throw away an unknown to you(God), when His existence goes against your argument. At best, that inconsistent. At worst, that's intellectually dishonest.

To claim the Universe may have begun by some means presently unknown is to admit to not know the answer.
To reject the claim that God did it is to reject a claim. That is different.

Ken

Why would anyone reject (a) god as even a possibility?

I had quite a run in with two professors not long ago, which involved my
"side" being impossible.

I lost a lot of respect for them over the whole thing.
I did not lose the debate.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. The miracle of Noah's flood isn't believable because God should have used a different miracle, or just had Noah move. Ok.

If the first miracle is true (creation) then all miracles are plausible.

That's basically what I've been trying to show Kenny.

He says there are possibly unknown reasons why the universe came into existence. And while saying that he doesn't know what they could be, he discounts God as the answer. So according to Kenny, it could be an infinite number of things that he just doesn't have the ability to know, as long as it's not God.

Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Ken: "I don't know how the universe came into existence. It could be an infinite number of things we just don't understand."

Theist: "Since you don't know what it could have been that caused the universe to exist, are you open to the possibility that God could've done it?"

Ken:"No way!"

Oh 'Cmon Rick! You know our conversation didn't go that way. If I remember correctly, (at least I think it was you) I even claimed the possibility of an intelligent being or beings behind the beginning of the Universe, and some people may choose to call it God! But I don't call it God, thus I reject the claim that God did it. Remember that conversation?

Ken

I don't remember that particular conversation Kenny.
But if you don't rule out the possibility that an intelligent being created the universe, but that being can't be God, then what's your logic behind that?

Audie wrote:


Why would anyone reject (a) god as even a possibility?

That's a great question Audie!

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:


Why would anyone reject (a) god as even a possibility?

That's a great question Audie!

Sh-t for brines*, maybe?

I never ran across anyone who did reject it as even a possibility.

* my favourite line in "Crocodile Dundee"

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. The miracle of Noah's flood isn't believable because God should have used a different miracle, or just had Noah move. Ok.

If the first miracle is true (creation) then all miracles are plausible.

That's basically what I've been trying to show Kenny.

He says there are possibly unknown reasons why the universe came into existence. And while saying that he doesn't know what they could be, he discounts God as the answer. So according to Kenny, it could be an infinite number of things that he just doesn't have the ability to know, as long as it's not God.

Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Ken: "I don't know how the universe came into existence. It could be an infinite number of things we just don't understand."

Theist: "Since you don't know what it could have been that caused the universe to exist, are you open to the possibility that God could've done it?"

Ken:"No way!"

Oh 'Cmon Rick! You know our conversation didn't go that way. If I remember correctly, (at least I think it was you) I even claimed the possibility of an intelligent being or beings behind the beginning of the Universe, and some people may choose to call it God! But I don't call it God, thus I reject the claim that God did it. Remember that conversation?

Ken

I don't remember that particular conversation Kenny.
But if you don't rule out the possibility that an intelligent being created the universe, but that being can't be God, then what's your logic behind that?

I do not know enough about the Universe to rule out the possibility of an intelligent being behind it's creation, but that intelligent being I do not call God. Do you see the logic behind that?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

jlay wrote:Let me get this straight. The miracle of Noah's flood isn't believable because God should have used a different miracle, or just had Noah move. Ok.

If the first miracle is true (creation) then all miracles are plausible.

That's basically what I've been trying to show Kenny.

He says there are possibly unknown reasons why the universe came into existence. And while saying that he doesn't know what they could be, he discounts God as the answer. So according to Kenny, it could be an infinite number of things that he just doesn't have the ability to know, as long as it's not God.

Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Ken: "I don't know how the universe came into existence. It could be an infinite number of things we just don't understand."

Theist: "Since you don't know what it could have been that caused the universe to exist, are you open to the possibility that God could've done it?"

Ken:"No way!"

Oh 'Cmon Rick! You know our conversation didn't go that way. If I remember correctly, (at least I think it was you) I even claimed the possibility of an intelligent being or beings behind the beginning of the Universe, and some people may choose to call it God! But I don't call it God, thus I reject the claim that God did it. Remember that conversation?

Ken

I don't remember that particular conversation Kenny.
But if you don't rule out the possibility that an intelligent being created the universe, but that being can't be God, then what's your logic behind that?

I do not know enough about the Universe to rule out the possibility of an intelligent being behind it's creation, but that intelligent being I do not call God. Do you see the logic behind that?

Ken

No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

RickD wrote: No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

Look at it this way; of all the intelligent beings in existence, none of them I call God. So if one or more of said intelligent beings is behind the development of the Universe, logic should tell you I do not call it God!
Please tell me you are getting it this time because I cannot think of an easier way of explaining it to you.

K

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

Look at it this way; of all the intelligent beings in existence, none of them I call God. So if one or more of said intelligent beings is behind the development of the Universe, logic should tell you I do not call it God!
Please tell me you are getting it this time because I cannot think of an easier way of explaining it to you.

K

Ok Kenny. If there were an intelligent being that created the universe, this being would obviously have to be outside the universe. Which would mean this being would at the very least, be timeless(eternal, no beginning), and immutable (unchanging , because change is a product of time).

Both of those attributes, are attributes of God.

So, your saying that if an intelligent being created the universe, and this being had attributes of God, but wasn't God, I don't understand what else this being could be.

It would be like me saying that I saw something drive by. I know this thing had 4 wheels, a pickup bed, and a bowtie symbol on its grill and tailgate. I don't know what I'd call it, but I definitely wouldn't call it a Chevrolet truck.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

Look at it this way; of all the intelligent beings in existence, none of them I call God. So if one or more of said intelligent beings is behind the development of the Universe, logic should tell you I do not call it God!
Please tell me you are getting it this time because I cannot think of an easier way of explaining it to you.

K

Ok Kenny. If there were an intelligent being that created the universe, this being would obviously have to be outside the universe. Which would mean this being would at the very least, be timeless(eternal, no beginning), and immutable (unchanging , because change is a product of time).

Both of those attributes, are attributes of God.

So, your saying that if an intelligent being created the universe, and this being had attributes of God, but wasn't God, I don't understand what else this being could be.

It would be like me saying that I saw something drive by. I know this thing had 4 wheels, a pickup bed, and a bowtie symbol on its grill and tailgate. I don't know what I'd call it, but I definitely wouldn't call it a Chevrolet truck.

Consider this scenario

Perhaps it is a more advanced civilization who has control of time and laws of nature in a way that we do not? Yet they are flawed, evolved, and imperfect just like us, but they are responsible for the existence of the universe via time travel in the same way as I planting a seed and watching it grow is responsible for the tree full of apples growing in my back yard?
Would you consider such an advanced race Gods?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: No Kenny, I don't. That's why I asked you to explain the logic behind it.

Look at it this way; of all the intelligent beings in existence, none of them I call God. So if one or more of said intelligent beings is behind the development of the Universe, logic should tell you I do not call it God!
Please tell me you are getting it this time because I cannot think of an easier way of explaining it to you.

K

Are you applying god-like characteristics (such as cosmological creation) to non-god "intelligent beings?" If so, you're describing a God and simply labeling it at otherwise. A infinite being is required to bring forth a finite universe (assuming the universe is finite), and infinite existence is a great making property exceeding the limitations of a physical intelligent being; logic would tell me this being you're describing is a God regardless of what you call it.

I may have missed your point, I'm a bit slow on topics like this.

The only other conclusion I can dream up from your statement is that non-god beings with an incredible technological understanding 'created' our universe (a theory I've actually heard respectable people present). I simply view this as "kicking the can down the road."

opps