Evidence for God from Science

It seems that Auide may be not understanding the CAN part of all this.
No one is stating that ALL or every, simply the some CAN and all things the CAN/DO come into existence have a cause.
Heck I don't know of ANY physicist that would argue that.

PaulSacramento wrote:It seems that Auide may be not understanding the CAN part of all this.
No one is stating that ALL or every, simply the some CAN and all things the CAN/DO come into existence have a cause.
Heck I don't know of ANY physicist that would argue that.

No,thats not it at all. If something "comes into existence" then, sure, it must have a cause.

I was asking the basis for the assertion that mass / energy, physical laws, principles of math etc actually "came into existence", if that is even a meaningful concept to apply.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It seems that Auide may be not understanding the CAN part of all this.
No one is stating that ALL or every, simply the some CAN and all things the CAN/DO come into existence have a cause.
Heck I don't know of ANY physicist that would argue that.

No,thats not it at all. If something "comes into existence" then, sure, it must have a cause.

I was asking the basis for the assertion that mass / energy, physical laws, principles of math etc actually "came into existence", if that is even a meaningful concept to apply.

Oh, I see.

First off, you keep writing mass/energy as if they were the same thing or interchangeable, maybe you mean mass or energy ? or mass & energy ?
Either way I don't understand your line of argument...

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It seems that Auide may be not understanding the CAN part of all this.
No one is stating that ALL or every, simply the some CAN and all things the CAN/DO come into existence have a cause.
Heck I don't know of ANY physicist that would argue that.

No,thats not it at all. If something "comes into existence" then, sure, it must have a cause.

I was asking the basis for the assertion that mass / energy, physical laws, principles of math etc actually "came into existence", if that is even a meaningful concept to apply.

Oh, I see.

First off, you keep writing mass/energy as if they were the same thing or interchangeable, maybe you mean mass or energy ? or mass & energy ?
Either way I don't understand your line of argument...

My very non physicist understanding is they are aspects of the same thing.

It was said that such things "came into existence". That seems to me just an assertion.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It seems that Auide may be not understanding the CAN part of all this.
No one is stating that ALL or every, simply the some CAN and all things the CAN/DO come into existence have a cause.
Heck I don't know of ANY physicist that would argue that.

No,thats not it at all. If something "comes into existence" then, sure, it must have a cause.

I was asking the basis for the assertion that mass / energy, physical laws, principles of math etc actually "came into existence", if that is even a meaningful concept to apply.

Oh, I see.

First off, you keep writing mass/energy as if they were the same thing or interchangeable, maybe you mean mass or energy ? or mass & energy ?
Either way I don't understand your line of argument...

My very non physicist understanding is they are aspects of the same thing.

It was said that such things "came into existence". That seems to me just an assertion.

Sure, saying that all things that come into existence have a cause is an assertion.
So is saying that all things that are hot have elevated temperature.

Assertion:

noun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

Lets not play equivocation.

noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:
a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.

Audie wrote:Lets not play equivocation.

noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:
a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.

Now you are simply being argumentative.

What I asserted about everything that comes into existences has a cause is NOT without support or reason.
If you believe that then you don't seem to understand what I am stating.
So it goes back to this question that I asked you that I you answered:

If something "comes into existence" then, sure, it must have a cause.

Something with Mass can come into existence ( a planet for example) and even some types of energy ( kinetic) can come into existence and if they can come into existence then they have a cause.

And in case you are wondering, YES, Change is a form of "coming into existences/being".

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:Lets not play equivocation.

noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:
a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.

Now you are simply being argumentative.

What I asserted about everything that comes into existences has a cause is NOT without support or reason.
If you believe that then you don't seem to understand what I am stating.
So it goes back to this question that I asked you that I you answered:

If something "comes into existence" then, sure, it must have a cause.

No, not just being argumentative, tho the equiv. is real enough. maybe we are just talking past eachother?

Of course one can make something, and say it "came into existence". I meant the basic "stuff: of the universe.

What I asserted about everything that comes into existences has a cause is NOT without support or reason.

What support other than thro' philosophy is there for the statement?

What support other than thro' philosophy is there for the statement?

Oh I don't know...what about science?
Science is based on the whole notion of causes and science's ability to "predict" is based on the view of causes.
I mean, are you actually asking me what evidence we have that things that come into existence have a cause?
I mean, you just admitted that they do.

PaulSacramento wrote:

What support other than thro' philosophy is there for the statement?

Oh I don't know...what about science?
Science is based on the whole notion of causes and science's ability to "predict" is based on the view of causes.
I mean, are you actually asking me what evidence we have that things that come into existence have a cause?
I mean, you just admitted that they do.

I admit nothing. Sure, SOME things come into existence. Cars, say. No reluctant confession involved in saying that.

I dont think that science has a way to show that the basic stuff of the universe "came into existence" or was "created" in any way.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

What support other than thro' philosophy is there for the statement?

Oh I don't know...what about science?
Science is based on the whole notion of causes and science's ability to "predict" is based on the view of causes.
I mean, are you actually asking me what evidence we have that things that come into existence have a cause?
I mean, you just admitted that they do.

I admit nothing. Sure, SOME things come into existence. Cars, say. No reluctant confession involved in saying that.

I dont think that science has a way to show that the basic stuff of the universe "came into existence" or was "created" in any way.

That is the whole point Audie, SOME things do come into existence and ALL THOSE things have a cause.
And Yes, science (and reason) shows us that all things that come into existence have a cause.
Now, if you can show me something that comes into existence NOT having a cause, please so, or else this discussion is moot.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

What support other than thro' philosophy is there for the statement?

Oh I don't know...what about science?
Science is based on the whole notion of causes and science's ability to "predict" is based on the view of causes.
I mean, are you actually asking me what evidence we have that things that come into existence have a cause?
I mean, you just admitted that they do.

I admit nothing. Sure, SOME things come into existence. Cars, say. No reluctant confession involved in saying that.

I dont think that science has a way to show that the basic stuff of the universe "came into existence" or was "created" in any way.

That is the whole point Audie, SOME things do come into existence and ALL THOSE things have a cause.
And Yes, science (and reason) shows us that all things that come into existence have a cause.
Now, if you can show me something that comes into existence NOT having a cause, please so, or else this discussion is moot.

All the things that were caused were caused. That aint profound.

The Buick plainly has a cause. I dont think you or anyone can demonstrate that physical laws do, nor that they "came into existence".

All the things that were caused were caused. That aint profound.

The Buick plainly has a cause. I dont think you or anyone can demonstrate that physical laws do, nor that they "came into existence".

Careful with your tone.
Yes, it does seem profound because it took all these pages for you to admit that little nugget of common sense on t his thread and the other one as well, so...

Name me one physical Law that has existed since the creation of the universe AND that you can PROVE EXISTED.

At most we can state that the physical laws that seem to govern the universe COULD have been that way all along BUT we do NOT know that for sure.

I am sure that gravity, for example, probably did NOT exist, as it applies to sold mass, UNTIL solid mass came to be.