Evidence for God from Science

You're projecting your materialistic assumptions and the context of your own existence onto someone who created that context. As is the case with my presuppositions and assumptions as well, all you're demonstrating here is the circularity inherent that brings us to those same presuppositions, on in the form of conclusions.

God by definition doesn't have any part of his being that is becoming, because by definition, God is all and has created all.

If you wish to understand more about how "Yahweh" (which is a Hebrew form of the verb "to be") was communicated and revealed then you need to undergo the epistemological exercise of suspending your own cultural context and approach (which is decidedly not Hebrew) and seek to understand what that phrase meant to those receiving it at that time.

Try that and you'll perhaps come to another understanding or at the very least, at least learn to take a concept and put it into its historical and cultural context instead of forcing it into your already determined context.

Whynot: Food for thought: Are you sure our only two options are random chance or intelligent design?

Can you name me any testable, repeatable and observable process other than intelligence that generates information? Not replicates, or copies, but generates. I know some get offended when the term "random chance" is used. That's fine with me. Unguided material processes, or something similar is often substituted. My problem with that terminology is it borrows presuppositions of uniformity it has no basis for accounting for.

Thus, if time and space/place has to exist for "nothing" to exist, and since time and place are something, as opposed to nothing, again we arrive at the logical conclusion that there has never been a time when "nothing" existed. Thus, "something" has always existed and our next logical question must be "what"?

There has never been a time.....when nothing existed. We reaaly need to break that statement down, regarding what we call existance. If there was nothing, then there wasn't a time for nothing to exist. So, that statement is correct, just not in the way in which you were driving at.

"something" has always existed,.....
'Thing,' implies material, and 'always' presupposes infinite time. As Bart said, you are forcing your determined context. The statement, "something has always existed" really just begs the question.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're projecting your materialistic assumptions and the context of your own existence onto someone who created that context. As is the case with my presuppositions and assumptions as well, all you're demonstrating here is the circularity inherent that brings us to those same presuppositions, on in the form of conclusions.

God by definition doesn't have any part of his being that is becoming, because by definition, God is all and has created all.

If you wish to understand more about how "Yahweh" (which is a Hebrew form of the verb "to be") was communicated and revealed then you need to undergo the epistemological exercise of suspending your own cultural context and approach (which is decidedly not Hebrew) and seek to understand what that phrase meant to those receiving it at that time.

Try that and you'll perhaps come to another understanding or at the very least, at least learn to take a concept and put it into its historical and cultural context instead of forcing it into your already determined context.

whynot: You may be right Canuck...I was only thinking of the Christian God in my response and specifically Genesis where it is recorded God said, "Let us make man in our image..." which I may be mistaken but have always taken to be a reference to man's historical journey, rather than to Adam...surmising a God who decided the "making of man in His image" was best accomplished via a process rather than by divine fiat. Thus, I can only further surmise, from this, if God could be doing so for a purpose that involves a value added to his own existence, else why bother? Then, following this line into the NT where Paul declares the elect shall judge angels, I wondered if perhaps a theodocy of sorts emerged wherein man, in the image of God, becomes a replacement of the fallen angels occupying a familial position with God as sons, rather than the angelic position of servants? Thus the "tell them I am sent you" was a confirmation of God's identity as both the initiator of the process and representative of the finished product, something only the Hebrews would have recognized, believing themselves to be God's chosen vessels in the distillation process.

Whynot: Food for thought: Are you sure our only two options are random chance or intelligent design?

jl: Can you name me any testable, repeatable and observable process other than intelligence that generates information? Not replicates, or copies, but generates.

whynot: That's a good question, and one that I've cogitated upon before. What would your response be to the following proposition:

P: A common quality of all existents, (things, places, events, phenomena, etc.), in an anthropic universe, is knowability.

The reason I ask is because it was a thought I had...and I can't even remember in what context now...but I never ran it by anyone for critical analysis. I think it fits...somewhat...with your question above. Our sensory perception appears to be attenuated to recieve information...often referred to as data...from sources of light, heat, pressure, sound, chemical odors, etc...so isn't it conceivable that all existents generate information and we, as sentient observers, collect some of it, (when we're lucky), then analyse and classify it as experience?

jl: I know some get offended when the term "random chance" is used. That's fine with me. Unguided material processes, or something similar is often substituted. My problem with that terminology is it borrows presuppositions of uniformity it has no basis for accounting for.

whynot: I'm not a big fan of random chance.

whynot earlier: Thus, if time and space/place has to exist for "nothing" to exist, and since time and place are something, as opposed to nothing, again we arrive at the logical conclusion that there has never been a time when "nothing" existed. Thus, "something" has always existed and our next logical question must be "what"?

jl: There has never been a time.....when nothing existed. We reaaly need to break that statement down, regarding what we call existance. If there was nothing, then there wasn't a time for nothing to exist. So, that statement is correct, just not in the way in which you were driving at.

whynot: Ok...

whynot earlier: "something" has always existed,.....

jl: 'Thing,' implies material, and 'always' presupposes infinite time. As Bart said, you are forcing your determined context. The statement, "something has always existed" really just begs the question.

whynot: In this case/context it's just a placeholder for whatever one wishes to insert. Now "always existed" is past tense and is infinitely regressive...and not necessarily eternal...but very infinite. I'm not following you on why this statement is begging the question though?

jlay wrote:Can you name me any testable, repeatable and observable process other than intelligence that generates information?

That's a tough call. Can you name any process which recognises information other than intelligence?

Proinsias wrote:

jlay wrote:Can you name me any testable, repeatable and observable process other than intelligence that generates information?

That's a tough call. Can you name any process which recognises information other than intelligence?

No.

The only things I can think of that recognize information besides intelligence would be something like the basic systems of life that recognize and code DNA, even in bacteria. But of course, that was designed by the Creator, because you can't have a complex coding system and a non-intelligent method for recognizing that code both develop at the same time. That, and computers, also of which were designed by intelligence.

Proinsias wrote:

jlay wrote:Can you name me any testable, repeatable and observable process other than intelligence that generates information?

That's a tough call. Can you name any process which recognises information other than intelligence?

whynot: I would have to know your definition of intelligence. On a molecular level information is carted back and forth electro-chemically between living cells all the time. I'd hesitate to call a single cell intelligent though. Although one of my teachers use to say I was acting like I only had three functioning brain cells, so it would be to my advantage to allow that single cell data transference is equivalent to intelligence...

kmr wrote:The only things I can think of that recognize information besides intelligence would be something like the basic systems of life that recognize and code DNA, even in bacteria. But of course, that was designed by the Creator, because you can't have a complex coding system and a non-intelligent method for recognizing that code both develop at the same time. That, and computers, also of which were designed by intelligence.

whynot: Yabut...the processes you're referring to only recognize those strands in the code relevant to their specific role in the system. So it isn't the case that each cell recognizes and processes the entire code. Kinda reminds of that old adage, "To each his own." It's the role of cooperation that represents the biggest gap.