Evidence for God from Science

Ken: Perhaps your answer lies somewhere in that vast amount of ignorance we have concerning the laws and what is possible in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. I can understand a desire to define God in a way that he can be inserted as an answer to any question one might have, and I am sure that system has served you well; but for me it doesn’t work, it just sounds like “God of the gaps” as they say.

Ken, this part of your reply, "... what is possible in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with." That STILL means that within that part of the universe there is an intelligence that is able to produce and organized itself with unimaginable complexity, design and function. This is a reality for whatever you entertain MIGHT be possible, regardless of whether we understand it. There are not infinite possibilities of what a non-living, undesigned, uncontrolled, nonliving thing can do - in fact, much the opposite. Strange that you can't possibly apply this sort of logic to anything else that you've read about, experienced, science, etc. That's because it's not observed as being possible with anything known. But IF such uncaused, nonliving things can have even the potential for unimaginable sophistication and function, can be physically non-existent and then burst into physical forms, self-caused - really, the extraordinary and miraculous happening - then why can't you reverse-engineer your thinking to believe that an Intelligent and Living Being could exist and do the very same? Your logic is highly inconsistent! If whatever is unknown could engineer a universe of untold marvels, how can you logically rule out that this UNKNOWN Entity (to you) cannot be God? You appear to want to be open-minded about every strange, unlikely, unscientific, incredible, unobserved, statistically/massively improbable possibility, yet not the possibility of God.

Ken, why could the answer, among the possibilities, not include God? Why do you dismiss that possibility? Because you already admit that you entertain there is something so incredible, yet undiscovered, that "must" explain it all. But yet you rule out God. As what you theorize MIGHT be possible is beyond all known knowledge, and it certainly isn't scientifically based or observed, then your rejection that God could be the cause can have none of this basis either. So what is it?

SoCalExile wrote:Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging.

Follow me here:

1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection.

2: Therefore, God must be all actuality, which means He does not change, He is "immobile".

But doesn’t this contradict Exodus 33:21-23 and Genesis 3:8 that describes God actually walking?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Well, you're on track for a reasonable counter.
So then, the "eternal state of change" must also have an "eternal state of effect".
Right? To logically be an eternal change, then it must also have an eternal effect. The change cannot come after the effect or vice-versa.

The question then is, is such a property of the universe that we find ourselves within -- that is, are things caused as eternal as their effect?
Is the "cause and effect" that we experience illusory, or does time really exist as a real property of our universe (and as such effects cannot precede their cause)?

The fact we experience change, something things earlier, other things later, kind of points to our universe not being the eternal something.

So if I understand your position correctly, God existed for eternity immobile, then at some point in history, he began willing things into existence, and started action. Is this correct? If so, why did he choose to be immobile for so long, and how is this immobile period indiscernible from non existence?
Perhaps I’ve gotten it all wrong; if so please explain

Clever! You're the first on your side I have come across to actually not reject the argument out of hand, but to even entertain it.

"God existed for eternity immobile" -- that's the picture Craig presents.
It is only in such a state that there can't be a previous or after state right? (i.e., time)
So it is God existing eternally changeless and infinitely complete within Himself.

And now comes in where Craig differs to traditional theology which maintains God is timeless.
Craig posits that God willed from eternity to create the universe. This was always an eternal decision.

How is it possible to know this? Where in the Bible does it say God spent eternity motionless; without thought or movement? And how is this different from not existing at all?

Ken

Philip wrote:

Ken: Perhaps your answer lies somewhere in that vast amount of ignorance we have concerning the laws and what is possible in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. I can understand a desire to define God in a way that he can be inserted as an answer to any question one might have, and I am sure that system has served you well; but for me it doesn’t work, it just sounds like “God of the gaps” as they say.

Ken, this part of your reply, "... what is possible in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with." That STILL means that within that part of the universe there is an intelligence that is able to produce and organized itself with unimaginable complexity, design and function.

No, it does not mean that. It means there is much to the Universe we do not know about.

Philip wrote:Ken, why could the answer, among the possibilities, not include God? Why do you dismiss that possibility? Because you already admit that you entertain there is something so incredible, yet undiscovered, that "must" explain it all. But yet you rule out God. As what you theorize MIGHT be possible is beyond all known knowledge, and it certainly isn't scientifically based or observed, then your rejection that God could be the cause can have none of this basis either. So what is it?

I am not dismissing the possibility of intelligence somewhere out there in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with, I just refuse to claim there is intelligence out there unless I see evidence that leads me to believe this.
I am also not dismissing the possibility that if there is an intelligence out there responsible for many of the things that we don’t understand, some people may want to call it God! But I don’t call it God. In order for me to call something God I would have to have an idea of what it is.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging.

Follow me here:

1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection.

2: Therefore, God must be all actuality, which means He does not change, He is "immobile".

But doesn’t this contradict Exodus 33:21-23 and Genesis 3:8 that describes God actually walking?

Ken

Apparently my point flew over your head.

We're not talking about literal movement here, materially or figuratively, we are talking about the ancient Greek concept of change, I.e. not on the sense of taking a rubber ball and bouncing it, but moving/changing it in the sense of heating it up and turning it into a pile of goo.

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging.

Follow me here:

1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection.

2: Therefore, God must be all actuality, which means He does not change, He is "immobile".

But doesn’t this contradict Exodus 33:21-23 and Genesis 3:8 that describes God actually walking?

Ken

Apparently my point flew over your head.

We're not talking about literal movement here, materially or figuratively, we are talking about the ancient Greek concept of change, I.e. not on the sense of taking a rubber ball and bouncing it, but moving/changing it in the sense of heating it up and turning it into a pile of goo.

Okay; bear with me here; and I don't know Greek, you gonna have to speak English; that's the only language I know. What did you mean when you said God is immobile?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Well, you're on track for a reasonable counter.
So then, the "eternal state of change" must also have an "eternal state of effect".
Right? To logically be an eternal change, then it must also have an eternal effect. The change cannot come after the effect or vice-versa.

The question then is, is such a property of the universe that we find ourselves within -- that is, are things caused as eternal as their effect?
Is the "cause and effect" that we experience illusory, or does time really exist as a real property of our universe (and as such effects cannot precede their cause)?

The fact we experience change, something things earlier, other things later, kind of points to our universe not being the eternal something.

So if I understand your position correctly, God existed for eternity immobile, then at some point in history, he began willing things into existence, and started action. Is this correct? If so, why did he choose to be immobile for so long, and how is this immobile period indiscernible from non existence?
Perhaps I’ve gotten it all wrong; if so please explain

Clever! You're the first on your side I have come across to actually not reject the argument out of hand, but to even entertain it.

"God existed for eternity immobile" -- that's the picture Craig presents.
It is only in such a state that there can't be a previous or after state right? (i.e., time)
So it is God existing eternally changeless and infinitely complete within Himself.

And now comes in where Craig differs to traditional theology which maintains God is timeless.
Craig posits that God willed from eternity to create the universe. This was always an eternal decision.

How is it possible to know this? Where in the Bible does it say God spent eternity motionless; without thought or movement? And how is this different from not existing at all?

It is a way of conceiving of timelessness.

For there to be anything now, some thing must have always existed.
And we went over some reasoning to uncover this eternal thing must not possess change -- something we witness in our universe.

You and I have both had previous discussions on this board about the world consisting of both physical and immaterial.
Now what is change in physical terms (e.g., motion, location, time) is different from change in immaterial terms.
For example, it would be wrong to ascribe motion or colour to our consciousness. Such labels are a category error.

So with God, we need to work out which category the "First Cause" belongs and when we discuss God the overwhelming belief is that God is immaterial.
What we mean by God being changeless must be understood in immaterial terms. And that is quite a feat for us physical beings to try and conceptualise.
Certainly, things like "motion", or "waiting" or the like describe physical entities. But, if God is not physical then it is wrong to ask "why God doesn't move" or "why did God wait before creating".
These are category errors which borrow concepts from our physical world and experiences.

Re: Scripture,
Malachi 3:6 says "I the Lord do not change."
James 1:17 says "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow."
Psalm 41:13 says something relevant also "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting!"

I am not dismissing the possibility of intelligence somewhere out there in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with, I just refuse to claim there is intelligence out there unless I see evidence that leads me to believe this.
I am also not dismissing the possibility that if there is an intelligence out there responsible for many of the things that we don’t understand, some people may want to call it God! But I don’t call it God. In order for me to call something God I would have to have an idea of what it is.

This is good news ken...really good news. In my world of God, we all have an opportunity for a yes or a no in regards to eternity at our "last stand" before judgement. The Divine Mercy of Christ overcomes the righteous judgement of the Father. In order for me to call something God I would have to have an idea of what it is may be your last, best opportunity. You will, IMO, have an idea of who that is at that time. Will you say yes, or no if confronted with that situation ? That's a yes or no answer only, req'd .

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging.

Follow me here:

1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection.

2: Therefore, God must be all actuality, which means He does not change, He is "immobile".

But doesn’t this contradict Exodus 33:21-23 and Genesis 3:8 that describes God actually walking?

Ken

Apparently my point flew over your head.

We're not talking about literal movement here, materially or figuratively, we are talking about the ancient Greek concept of change, I.e. not on the sense of taking a rubber ball and bouncing it, but moving/changing it in the sense of heating it up and turning it into a pile of goo.

Okay; bear with me here; and I don't know Greek, you gonna have to speak English; that's the only language I know. What did you mean when you said God is immobile?

Ken

He does not change.

Some of Aristotle's logic on God and His nature: http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/grphil ... stotle.htm

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Well, you're on track for a reasonable counter.
So then, the "eternal state of change" must also have an "eternal state of effect".
Right? To logically be an eternal change, then it must also have an eternal effect. The change cannot come after the effect or vice-versa.

The question then is, is such a property of the universe that we find ourselves within -- that is, are things caused as eternal as their effect?
Is the "cause and effect" that we experience illusory, or does time really exist as a real property of our universe (and as such effects cannot precede their cause)?

The fact we experience change, something things earlier, other things later, kind of points to our universe not being the eternal something.

So if I understand your position correctly, God existed for eternity immobile, then at some point in history, he began willing things into existence, and started action. Is this correct? If so, why did he choose to be immobile for so long, and how is this immobile period indiscernible from non existence?
Perhaps I’ve gotten it all wrong; if so please explain

Clever! You're the first on your side I have come across to actually not reject the argument out of hand, but to even entertain it.

"God existed for eternity immobile" -- that's the picture Craig presents.
It is only in such a state that there can't be a previous or after state right? (i.e., time)
So it is God existing eternally changeless and infinitely complete within Himself.

And now comes in where Craig differs to traditional theology which maintains God is timeless.
Craig posits that God willed from eternity to create the universe. This was always an eternal decision.

How is it possible to know this? Where in the Bible does it say God spent eternity motionless; without thought or movement? And how is this different from not existing at all?

It is a way of conceiving of timelessness.

For there to be anything now, some thing must have always existed.
And we went over some reasoning to uncover this eternal thing must not possess change -- something we witness in our universe.

You and I have both had previous discussions on this board about the world consisting of both physical and immaterial.
Now what is change in physical terms (e.g., motion, location, time) is different from change in immaterial terms.
For example, it would be wrong to ascribe motion or colour to our consciousness. Such labels are a category error.

Yes we did have a previous conversation about the world consisting of physical and immaterial, and we did not agree.
I do not see immaterial like thoughts, ideas, numbers, imagination etc. as having an actual existence, they only exist in the context of material beings that are real.
If believing these immaterial things are real is required in order to fit God into the picture, it may very well explain why God doesn’t fit into my picture, but fits perfectly in yours.

Ken

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

I am not dismissing the possibility of intelligence somewhere out there in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with, I just refuse to claim there is intelligence out there unless I see evidence that leads me to believe this.
I am also not dismissing the possibility that if there is an intelligence out there responsible for many of the things that we don’t understand, some people may want to call it God! But I don’t call it God. In order for me to call something God I would have to have an idea of what it is.

This is good news ken...really good news. In my world of God, we all have an opportunity for a yes or a no in regards to eternity at our "last stand" before judgement. The Divine Mercy of Christ overcomes the righteous judgement of the Father. In order for me to call something God I would have to have an idea of what it is may be your last, best opportunity. You will, IMO, have an idea of who that is at that time. Will you say yes, or no if confronted with that situation ? That's a yes or no answer only, req'd .

If given such proof of God’s existence, I would accept it as the truth.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is a way of conceiving of timelessness.

For there to be anything now, some thing must have always existed.
And we went over some reasoning to uncover this eternal thing must not possess change -- something we witness in our universe.

You and I have both had previous discussions on this board about the world consisting of both physical and immaterial.
Now what is change in physical terms (e.g., motion, location, time) is different from change in immaterial terms.
For example, it would be wrong to ascribe motion or colour to our consciousness. Such labels are a category error.

Yes we did have a previous conversation about the world consisting of physical and immaterial, and we did not agree.
I do not see immaterial like thoughts, ideas, numbers, imagination etc. as having an actual existence, they only exist in the context of material beings that are real.
If believing these immaterial things are real is required in order to fit God into the picture, it may very well explain why God doesn’t fit into my picture, but fits perfectly in yours.

Perhaps... but, you're still left with a dilemma that all sides have when faced with our existence.
That is, something has always existed which is eternal. Otherwise nothing would exist.

You posit the universe is it (despite current scientific thought being contrary).
Nonetheless, for the universe to be eternal we covered that causes must be as eternal as their effect.
To recap, within our universe we see cause and effect. So for the whole universe to be eternal, effects have to be as eternal as their cause.
And if this is so, then causality and time that we experience isn't real but rather an illusion we somehow experience.

I don't know whether that sounds at all absurd to you.
It sounds more absurd to me than believing that the universe is finite.

Just a thought here.

Am I right in thinking that scientists think, or claim, that time itself started with the Big Bang? If so, then before the Big Bang there was no time hence God being eternal before, during, and after.
Thinking as I type here but time is a man made thing is it not? When we die, whether you believe in God or not, time no longer exists, it is eternity. Before the Big Bang time didn`t exist, it was eternity.
God is eternal. He has to be timeless.

Storyteller wrote:Just a thought here.

Am I right in thinking that scientists think, or claim, that time itself started with the Big Bang? If so, then before the Big Bang there was no time hence God being eternal before, during, and after.
Thinking as I type here but time is a man made thing is it not? When we die, whether you believe in God or not, time no longer exists, it is eternity. Before the Big Bang time didn`t exist, it was eternity.
God is eternal. He has to be timeless.

I think You're on the right track Annette. Except for time being man-made.

RickD wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Just a thought here.

Am I right in thinking that scientists think, or claim, that time itself started with the Big Bang? If so, then before the Big Bang there was no time hence God being eternal before, during, and after.
Thinking as I type here but time is a man made thing is it not? When we die, whether you believe in God or not, time no longer exists, it is eternity. Before the Big Bang time didn`t exist, it was eternity.
God is eternal. He has to be timeless.

I think You're on the right track Annette. Except for time being man-made.

Perhaps I should have said God made. Or just remove that sentence. I did say I was thinking as I type