Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

You're ignoring evidence again and as I've explained atheists/agnostics/skeptics do not take evidence seriously. You ignore evidence and then claim we have no empirical evidence when the Big Bang Theory is the most studied theory in science and it says the universe had a beginning just like Genesis 1:1 tells us. So the evidence points to the God of the bible especially since other holy books of other religions are wrong. But you ignore evidence just like you do when it comes to your atheism and knowing whether or not it is the correct choice to live by,this is why you can dismiss evidence for God.

So what evidence have I been ignoring?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Cosmological arguments are troublesome for those who don't believe in God. You just don't like them Audie because its like a stone in your Atheistic shoe you can't get rid of.

My problem with the Cosmological argument, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
 
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. The argument proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. The argument then proclaims God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
 
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
 
These arguments will only work on those who presuppose the existence of God because they are the only ones who will allow you to apply rules to the opposing argument without applying them to your own.

Ken

So wrong...
No Ken, the argument doesn't do anything like that at all.
You think it does because you don't understand it ( or refuse to, either /or).
Of course you wouldn't be the first nor the last to not understand it.

The argument actually makes NO statement about God whatsoever.

To be fair to Kenny, he isn't necessarily wrong, depending on what kind of Unmoved Mover CA advocates propose as a resolution to their argument. He is absolutely wrong when presented with Aristotle's and Aquinas' unmoved mover, but he is absolutely correct when presented with the "unmoved mover" of Plantinga, Moreland, Craig, and so on. Kenny's real problem, then, is that he's attacking the weakest form of the argument and thereby ignoring the necessary conclusions of the strongest form.

With that said, he is absolutely and necessarily wrong and demonstrates a failure to understand what the CA is all about by bringing up science, as if that had anything at all to say about the subject, much less about the Unmoved Mover.

While I agree that the argument has very little to do with science, I do think that science can be used to prove the main point that keeps getting "misunderstood" and that is ( in its various forms), that what comes into being must have cause.

My problem with the Cosmological argument, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.

The only rule is that observation that things that come into existence have a cause.
That things that move, do so via external stimuli.
These are observable facts.
The argument states that, because we can't have infinite regression ( logic), there must be a fist cause that is uncaused and a mover that is unmoved.
Now, while science can help us accept that things that come into being must have a cause ( because they do), it can NOT address what the first cause/uncaused cause/unmoved mover is.
For that we need logic and reasoning.
That is why the argument is a philosophical one and not a scientific one ( even though we can use science to establish the initial premise of causality).

PaulSacramento wrote:While I agree that the argument has very little to do with science, I do think that science can be used to prove the main point that keeps getting "misunderstood" and that is ( in its various forms), that what comes into being must have cause.

I just respectfully disagree. I think that people who don't understand the argument think that a scientific point can refute it, but the very argument misunderstands the nature of the claim. So, sure, you can rebut their off-target pseudo-scientific argument (better, pseudo-philosophical argument) with an explanation of how the science doesn't say what they think it does, but none of that goes to proving the premises.

Of course, things are different when you consider the Kalam. Some versions of it legitimately do rely heavinly on cosmology. I just don't think they work they way they are usually put forward, and then other versions that avoid the problems of the popular approach, while appropriately not bringing cosmology or physics or any other such field into the discussion fail for other reasons. So my point here is that I don't like the Kalam anyway and have very little interest in defending it.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:No one has been able to dispute the "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument.
It is actually backed by empirical evidence IF people actual l KNOW what "empirical evidence" means ( not what THEY think it means).
Empirical evidence is evidence based one observation and experimentation:
.

We do OBSERVE that all things that come into being have a cause, that all things that "move" ( and by that we mean any movement, including changing states) are moved by an outside force.
Experiments prove the above.

Ergo the premise that all things that come into being, the move from state to state, do so via an "outside force" is proved to be accurate via empirical evidence.

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

You're ignoring evidence again and as I've explained atheists/agnostics/skeptics do not take evidence seriously. You ignore evidence and then claim we have no empirical evidence when the Big Bang Theory is the most studied theory in science and it says the universe had a beginning just like Genesis 1:1 tells us. So the evidence points to the God of the bible especially since other holy books of other religions are wrong. But you ignore evidence just like you do when it comes to your atheism and knowing whether or not it is the correct choice to live by,this is why you can dismiss evidence for God.

So what evidence have I been ignoring?

Ken

I just gave you an example of evidence you ignore that points to the God of the bible.Re-read what I wrote. This is not really hard Kenny,you just have to follow where the evidence points to,for some reason,you don't and I think it is because you excuse atheists/agnostics/skeptics when it comes to evidence they've made the correct choice to live by not believing in God because you think they don't have to have any evidence and so you don't really value evidence,so you can't tell when you are presented with evidence.This is why evidence for God does not phase you.You're ignoring that the Big Bang Theory which is the most scientifically tested theory in science states that our universe had a beginning which is exactly what our bible tells us.This is evidence the bible is correct especially when other religious holy books are wrong. So you ignore that both science and the bible says the universe had a beginning. I'm not talking proof,but evidence.So to reject this evidence you ignore the Big Bang Theory and what the bible says,for some reason you suddenly ignore what science says.Let me guess,it is wrong?You can't accept it?

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

You're ignoring evidence again and as I've explained atheists/agnostics/skeptics do not take evidence seriously. You ignore evidence and then claim we have no empirical evidence when the Big Bang Theory is the most studied theory in science and it says the universe had a beginning just like Genesis 1:1 tells us. So the evidence points to the God of the bible especially since other holy books of other religions are wrong. But you ignore evidence just like you do when it comes to your atheism and knowing whether or not it is the correct choice to live by,this is why you can dismiss evidence for God.

So what evidence have I been ignoring?

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: I just gave you an example of evidence you ignore that points to the God of the bible.Re-read what I wrote. This is not really hard Kenny,you just have to follow where the evidence points to

What evidence have you presented? You talking about when you compared Christianity to other religions? Sorry, but proving someone else wrong does not prove you right. I know that may work for you, but not me; that only works when you preach to the choir; I’m not the choir.

,

abelcainsbrother wrote: for some reason,you don't and I think it is because you excuse atheists/agnostics/skeptics when it comes to evidence they've made the correct choice to live by not believing in God because you think they don't have to have any evidence and so you don't really value evidence,so you can't tell when you are presented with evidence.This is why evidence for God does not phase you.You're ignoring that the Big Bang Theory which is the most scientifically tested theory in science states that our universe had a beginning which is exactly what our bible tells us.This is evidence the bible is correct especially when other religious holy books are wrong. So you ignore that both science and the bible says the universe had a beginning. I'm not talking proof,but evidence.So to reject this evidence you ignore the Big Bang Theory and what the bible says,for some reason you suddenly ignore what science says.Let me guess,it is wrong?You can't accept it?

[/quote]
The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:While I agree that the argument has very little to do with science, I do think that science can be used to prove the main point that keeps getting "misunderstood" and that is ( in its various forms), that what comes into being must have cause.

I just respectfully disagree. I think that people who don't understand the argument think that a scientific point can refute it, but the very argument misunderstands the nature of the claim. So, sure, you can rebut their off-target pseudo-scientific argument (better, pseudo-philosophical argument) with an explanation of how the science doesn't say what they think it does, but none of that goes to proving the premises.

Of course, things are different when you consider the Kalam. Some versions of it legitimately do rely heavinly on cosmology. I just don't think they work they way they are usually put forward, and then other versions that avoid the problems of the popular approach, while appropriately not bringing cosmology or physics or any other such field into the discussion fail for other reasons. So my point here is that I don't like the Kalam anyway and have very little interest in defending it.

Understood and yes, I see your point.

The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken

You assert that as if this was a proven fact Ken.

PaulSacramento wrote:

The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken

You assert that as if this was a proven fact Ken.

What did I assert as if it was a proven fact? That the Big Bang theory starts with a singularity? Or that the theory does not include God? Or something else.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA

Ah so, now the "i am rubber" play. How diabolical.

See above.

I have said nothing to misrepresent it. I dont need to. It has flaws enough all on its own;
look where it has led you, if you cant see any others.


Try to restrict your comments to things that you dont need to misrepresent, and you, like ab if he could manage the same, would not present
your "faith" in such shady light. Not that I care, you yeccers and gappers can hold it up to as much
derision as you like.

Look at how defensive you're getting Audie. Clearly when you said, "the "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad," you were meaning it was pretty bad for you and others like yourself who don't believe in God. I identify by your defensiveness that it is more the case you are not quite sure how to respond to such arguments.

It's like a thorn you'd prefer to not have to deal with in any logical fashion. Which is possibly why you also let your prejudice and diatribe also often spill out against philosophy, that field pursuing knowledge via logic and reason. Science without logic and reason isn't really science at all.

Why you choose to make up nonsense about me rather than look at an idea, I dunno. Do you?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA

Ah so, now the "i am rubber" play. How diabolical.

See above.

I have said nothing to misrepresent it. I dont need to. It has flaws enough all on its own;
look where it has led you, if you cant see any others.


Try to restrict your comments to things that you dont need to misrepresent, and you, like ab if he could manage the same, would not present
your "faith" in such shady light. Not that I care, you yeccers and gappers can hold it up to as much
derision as you like.

Look at how defensive you're getting Audie. Clearly when you said, "the "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad," you were meaning it was pretty bad for you and others like yourself who don't believe in God. I identify by your defensiveness that it is more the case you are not quite sure how to respond to such arguments.

It's like a thorn you'd prefer to not have to deal with in any logical fashion. Which is possibly why you also let your prejudice and diatribe also often spill out against philosophy, that field pursuing knowledge via logic and reason. Science without logic and reason isn't really science at all.

Why you choose to make up nonsense about me rather than look at an idea, I dunno. Do you?

I'm all ears, if you wish to refute the cosmological argument. What logical reasons do you have for just swiping it aside like nothing? I'm open to hear your reasons, rather than rhetoric that claims it's just some creationist nonsensical argument.

K to Audie: I'm all ears, if you wish to refute the cosmological argument. What logical reasons do you have for just swiping it aside like nothing? I'm open to hear your reasons, rather than rhetoric that claims it's just some creationist nonsensical argument.

I've asked her over and over about the three absolutes characteristics of what had to pre-exist everything else (Something was eternal, immensely intelligent and powerful), but I never get a straight answer. I would respect her speculations a lot more if she could at least check those boxes with ANY alternative she might bring up - as ANY possible alternative had to check those boxes. I'd think Ken would see this as well.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

I think that those who dismiss this as "God of the gaps" need to provide empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are things that come into being that have no uncaused cause if they are going to reject it.Let them demonstrate things coming into being without an uncaused cause. This means standing there and demonstrating things coming into existence without an uncaused cause. Think about it,the moment they touch matter in anyway totally disproves them because they then become the cause.We have evidence to show that things that come into being have a cause and also things that come into existence are willed into existence.It is they who reject it who have no evidence and these people ignore infinite regression and live in their own made up reality - LA LA LAND.We can shut these people up and make them look silly by demanding evidence like they do us.I have seen propaganda science TV shows that shows matter popping into existence all on its own and then that matter forming itself into things all on its own.

I don't have empirical evidence that all things have always existed in one form or another; and that nothing actually came into being, and I don't think you have empirical evidence that God has always existed and God brought everything else into being.

Ken

You're ignoring evidence again and as I've explained atheists/agnostics/skeptics do not take evidence seriously. You ignore evidence and then claim we have no empirical evidence when the Big Bang Theory is the most studied theory in science and it says the universe had a beginning just like Genesis 1:1 tells us. So the evidence points to the God of the bible especially since other holy books of other religions are wrong. But you ignore evidence just like you do when it comes to your atheism and knowing whether or not it is the correct choice to live by,this is why you can dismiss evidence for God.

So what evidence have I been ignoring?

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: I just gave you an example of evidence you ignore that points to the God of the bible.Re-read what I wrote. This is not really hard Kenny,you just have to follow where the evidence points to

What evidence have you presented? You talking about when you compared Christianity to other religions? Sorry, but proving someone else wrong does not prove you right. I know that may work for you, but not me; that only works when you preach to the choir; I’m not the choir.

,

abelcainsbrother wrote: for some reason,you don't and I think it is because you excuse atheists/agnostics/skeptics when it comes to evidence they've made the correct choice to live by not believing in God because you think they don't have to have any evidence and so you don't really value evidence,so you can't tell when you are presented with evidence.This is why evidence for God does not phase you.You're ignoring that the Big Bang Theory which is the most scientifically tested theory in science states that our universe had a beginning which is exactly what our bible tells us.This is evidence the bible is correct especially when other religious holy books are wrong. So you ignore that both science and the bible says the universe had a beginning. I'm not talking proof,but evidence.So to reject this evidence you ignore the Big Bang Theory and what the bible says,for some reason you suddenly ignore what science says.Let me guess,it is wrong?You can't accept it?

The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken[/quote]

The reason I bring up other holy books is to show they are wrong according to science but the bible is right. This is evidence that our bible is correct and their's is wrong. This cannot be a " God of the gaps" argument because we have evidence our bible is correct. The only way you could say it is a "God of the gaps" argument is if we had no evidence and were just using God to fill in the gaps of our knowledge,but we are not doing that.We have evidence based on both the Big Bang Theory and the bible claiming the universe had a beginning. Singularity = beginning.

But not only do we have evidence that our bible is correct we also have logic and reason that tells us all things in our universe has a cause,and all things that have a cause are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.

This is evidence and the only way you can reject this is to have evidence,logic and reason that refutes this and there is none. There is no evidence that matter does not have a cause and can just pop into existence on its own without being willed into existence and then form itself into the things that makes up our universe.

Therefore you must ignore the evidence in order to believe something else contrary to the evidence,logic and reason. Which is what you do,reject evidence,logic and reason that points to God in order to reject God.This is because you believe you do not have to have any evidence to choose to reject God and have no evidence you are right.It trickles down to other things when you don't take evidence seriously.