Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Not sure I follow your question.


We know that our universe is not colliding with other universes. Because we are here. We are alive, not destroyed.
In general science agrees that the universe is expanding. It is also in a quandry as to where. These are not my ideas, I could link you to several articles from secular science on this matter. I can also link you to articles where some are trying to explain that the universe could have originated out of nothing. I mean come on, let's be intellectually honest here. Everything known thing originated out of nothing?

God is THE THING. The eternal, uncreated thing. The "I am."

Yes I agree that the universe is expanding. I don't get how you managed to get from beginning plus expansion to god?

Also, I'm not sure that the question of what the universe is expanding "into" has much meaning...

If I plug a lightbulb into your mouth will it light up?

This idea that God is energy that exists in creation as a soul is in a body has a name. It is called panentheism. But you are so unstructured and unschooled you could easily believe in some sort of a untenable personal mix of panentheism and pantheism and Rosicrucianism with many other disparate thought which violate laws like an alcoholic in a black out leaving a bar on a Saturday night all jumbled together changing in ratio depending on your feelings at the moment.

Panentheism should not be confused with pantheism which says God and nature are the same and cannot be distinguished. Panentheism maintains that God is changing. You'll have to make a choice young man since God cannot be both.

As Geisler pointed out:

"Panentheists think of God as a finite, changing, director of world affairs who works in cooperation with the world in order to achieve greater perfection in his nature…they believe the world is God's body."

Panentheism maintains that God has two "polls:" actuality and potentiality. God's actual existence and nature is changing, but his potential, what he can become, does not change.

Panentheism itself is unbiblical since it denies God's transcendent nature, says that God is changing, confuses creation with God, denies miracles, and denies the incarnation of Christ along with the atoning sacrifice and relies on a host of scientific and philosophical false assertions.

Pantheism, Rosicrucianism, solophism, etc... are all untenable as well.

Hey TC, sorry you don't get it.

I do believe there is a truth, I just don't believe you or I know it.

If there is a truth, could it be knowable?

I just think everything is natural, and energy is related to life, and the universe is small.

The universe is small? Aside from your opinion, what evidence do you use to come to this conclusion? If truth is not known, how can you make statements as to what might be true.

Would you believe something if you KNEW it to be false?

ageofknowledge wrote:If I plug a lightbulb into your mouth will it light up?

This idea that God is energy that exists in creation as a soul is in a body has a name. It is called panentheism. But you are so unstructured and unschooled you could easily believe in some sort of a untenable personal mix of panentheism and pantheism and Rosicrucianism with many other disparate thought which violate laws like an alcoholic in a black out leaving a bar on a Saturday night all jumbled together changing in ratio depending on your feelings at the moment.

Panentheism should not be confused with pantheism which says God and nature are the same and cannot be distinguished. Panentheism maintains that God is changing. You'll have to make a choice young man since God cannot be both.

As Geisler pointed out:

"Panentheists think of God as a finite, changing, director of world affairs who works in cooperation with the world in order to achieve greater perfection in his nature…they believe the world is God's body."

Panentheism maintains that God has two "polls:" actuality and potentiality. God's actual existence and nature is changing, but his potential, what he can become, does not change.

Panentheism itself is unbiblical since it denies God's transcendent nature, says that God is changing, confuses creation with God, denies miracles, and denies the incarnation of Christ along with the atoning sacrifice and relies on a host of scientific and philosophical false assertions.

Pantheism, Rosicrucianism, solophism, etc... are all untenable as well.

Neither. I used to be pantheist, if one define god as the universe, then in that case I am a theist, I believe in the universe.

I think you misread what I wrote. I would believe that such an energy force might have caused existence as we know it, but without a consciousness that energy force is not a entity, and that is what a deity is.

jlay wrote:Hey TC, sorry you don't get it.

I might get it if you stepped through it a bit step-by-step...I think there are some steps that are implicit to you that I'm not grasping here.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I do believe there is a truth, I just don't believe you or I know it. My signature says: You don't look out there for god, something in the sky, you look in you. It says that for a reason. I don't believe in a creator, I believe what you call god is in the heart of all (wo)men.

Your idea doesn't make sense though. If there is truth, but we can't really know it, then there's no reason to believe what you say. It may or may not be true, what you say, since we can't know truth.

Haha fantasy. I just think everything is natural, and energy is related to life, and the universe is small. You might call it fantasy but to me anything supernatural seems like fantasy.

Since you're making it all up, it is fantasy. Sure, energy is related to life, but you are extrapolating on that in your own mind.

As for why I am here I have anwsered this before. I am sorry if I seem unopen.

Since you don't show much interest in learning anything, you are unopen. If you truly believe that everything is just a reality in one's own mind, then I could see where you really wouldn't care much whether you learned anything or not. It's a good excuse for not dealing with reality. Believe it or not, Christians, if they know what they are about, are very much interested in dealing with reality.

I'm even more sorry that you can not see how a leaf falling is not random, and does not have purpose. I truly believe nothing is random I don't know how else to explain it better than I already did.

Again, you don't seem to think about what people say. I said NOTHING of my own belief about the leaf, I was repeating what you wrote, so I thought. I was questioning you, not stating my own belief. If you don't know how to explain your beliefs, then you should take a look at them more, or maybe just give it up. Lol. If nothing is random, then there's meaning behind it. If there is meaning, there is purpose. Random is nonsystematic, nonrandom is systematic. If you are saying that the leaf falls not simply because it's a dead part of the tree (like our skin or hair), but for some other nonrandom reason, then what? Please explain more - how you have come to this conclusion. I'm not saying what I think or believe or feel about it - I'm wondering why you make this conclusion. And taking it a step farther, as a conscious being who made the observation and made a conclusion (which in itself has "meaning"), what of that? Why do you even make conclusions? What would be the point of being able to do that?

jlay wrote:Hey TC, sorry you don't get it.

I do believe there is a truth, I just don't believe you or I know it.

If there is a truth, could it be knowable?

I just think everything is natural, and energy is related to life, and the universe is small.

The universe is small? Aside from your opinion, what evidence do you use to come to this conclusion? If truth is not known, how can you make statements as to what might be true.

Would you believe something if you KNEW it to be false?

Well sure, as I have said before, I my beliefs could all be reality.

Small only exists in contrast to other things. A cell is massive compared to an electron, yet cells are small compared to us, we are small compared to the city block, etc. I believe there is a big vast world outside of this universe.

If truth is not known what am i left to do? Read the statement I made over again. It says clearly; "I just think..."

How do you propose one knows anything?

Is it true that we exist? To think about the answer proves we exist. Existence proves the state of reality. And to think about yourself, proves reason. These are two axioms or undeniable facts; I exist, and I reason.

See how easy that was? Having shown that reality and reason exist, we are on our way to answering your question.

cslewislover wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I do believe there is a truth, I just don't believe you or I know it. My signature says: You don't look out there for god, something in the sky, you look in you. It says that for a reason. I don't believe in a creator, I believe what you call god is in the heart of all (wo)men.

Your idea doesn't make sense though. If there is truth, but we can't really know it, then there's no reason to believe what you say. It may or may not be true, what you say, since we can't know truth.

Again, you don't seem to think about what people say. I said NOTHING of my own belief about the leaf, I was repeating what you wrote, so I thought. I was questioning you, not stating my own belief. If you don't know how to explain your beliefs, then you should take a look at them more, or maybe just give it up. Lol. If nothing is random, then there's meaning behind it. If there is meaning, there is purpose. Random is nonsystematic, nonrandom is systematic. If you are saying that the leaf falls not simply because it's a dead part of the tree (like our skin or hair), but for some other nonrandom reason, then what? Please explain more - how you have come to this conclusion. I'm not saying what I think or believe or feel about it - I'm wondering why you make this conclusion. And taking it a step farther, as a conscious being who made the observation and made a conclusion (which in itself has "meaning"), what of that? Why do you even make conclusions? What would be the point of being able to do that?

It may not make sense to you, but it works for me.

"Your last paragraph doesn't seem to make any sense. Nothing is random . . I guess the alien controls that??? The leaf falling is NOT random, yet it has no meaning . . ."
You said that you didn't understand it, in fact I said nothing of your belief about the leaf so I have no idea what YOU'RE talking about.

Now as most words have many different definitions I figured I'd grab the ones I mean when I was talking about the leaf metaphor.

Random : Having no specific pattern (so not random things follow a pattern, as in the leaf falls because of gravity, glides because it is light and shaped like a sail and catches any wind)

Meaning: Intent (No intent would simply mean the lead didn't intend to fall in that specific spot or in a specific way)


Why do you even make conclusions? What would be the point of being able to do that?
As for this, if animals could not come to a decision they wouldn't decide to run or not, or eat, or sleep, or do anything. It would be impossible for higher life to function without decision making. Take a pack of wolves, if they don't decide which deer they are going to go for, they probably wont eat. And for early man, deciding when to strike a woolly mammoth could mean death, no meal for a month, or dinner on the table.

ageofknowledge wrote:Is it true that we exist? To think about the answer proves we exist. Existence proves the state of reality. And to think about yourself, proves reason. These are two axioms or undeniable facts; I exist, and I reason.

See how easy that was? Having shown that reality and reason exist, we are on our way to answering your question.

It proves that something exists, but what is the individual? gtg!

qq - whilst I don't begrudge you your faith one bit, it may be best to not advance positions for which you have exclusively subjective feelings without a jot of evidence. Your personal feelings and revelations may be very powerful but if you don't at least stump up a morsel or two of evidence then we can't really have a reasonable discussion about what you believe based on "how you feel"...

qq, I have rarely run across so much avoiding of questions and putting it on someone else to explain things.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

jlay wrote:Hey TC, sorry you don't get it.

I do believe there is a truth, I just don't believe you or I know it.

If there is a truth, could it be knowable?

I just think everything is natural, and energy is related to life, and the universe is small.

The universe is small? Aside from your opinion, what evidence do you use to come to this conclusion? If truth is not known, how can you make statements as to what might be true.

Would you believe something if you KNEW it to be false?

Well sure, as I have said before, I my beliefs could all be reality.

Small only exists in contrast to other things. A cell is massive compared to an electron, yet cells are small compared to us, we are small compared to the city block, etc. I believe there is a big vast world outside of this universe.

If truth is not known what am i left to do? Read the statement I made over again. It says clearly; "I just think..."

How do you propose one knows anything?

Do you think it is consistent to say no one knows what is outside the universe, and that small only exist in contrast to other things, and then say the universe is small?
If Christianity is unbelievable to you because of an evidence problem, then how have you arrived at a world view based on believe with no evidence?

You seem to have a defeatism approach. Kind of like asking someone to count to 10 without using numbers

jlay wrote:If Christianity is unbelievable to you because of an evidence problem, then how have you arrived at a world view based on believe with no evidence?

Especially bizarre considering his opening gambit in the thread was a Sagan quote.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I mean physical death is certain but for those who believe in eternal life, death is no more than a moment? Am i wrong here?

Truths definitely exist, but we could be in a matrix I could be a dream character for you. Absolutes do exist but I dont think you or I grasp truth as an absolute.

Then how then can you grasp the truth about the inevitability of death's certainness since you are so absolutely certain that we cannot grasp truth as an absolute?

You say on one hand that absolute exists and on the other that these absolutes cannot because we cannot grasp them. Then, how can you be certain that we cannot grasp truth as an absolute if we can grasp the inevitability of death's certainness?

If you took two items and added two more items to them, how many total items do you have?

There are absolutes that we can grasp...
-
-
-