Evidence for God from Science

Physics and laws could be different = they're contingent.
Contingent "things" are dependent upon something external for their existence or form.

For example, icecream could be chocolate or strawberry.
The icecream could have always existed, but the fact it could be this or that shows that it depends upon something other than itself for its flavour.

Contingent things therefore are not foundational to their own existence.
If they cannot stand in their own right, then they also cannot be the most primary existence that underlies all other existing things.

Our universe is contingent. Universes in multiverse theories, indeed the laws that govern such theories, are conceived as being contingent.
Therefore there is something more primary, more foundational, to the existence of our universe or multiverse if you prefer that route.

This foundational something is what Theists identify as God.
What other option is there when all we can see and experience in our world is contingent?
So it seems something immaterial must be what provides a unified theory for all existence.

I think Atheists and agnostics actually believe a scientist is one day going to demonstrate nothing creating something.It is a pipe dream.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think Atheists and agnostics actually believe a scientist is one day going to demonstrate nothing creating something.It is a pipe dream.

Maybe they could work out a way to measure the immaterial. But, if they do, then they might equally discover the yellow brick road doesn't end with obtaining happiness in this life.

Kurieuo wrote:Contingent things therefore are not foundational to their own existence.
If they cannot stand in their own right, then they also cannot be the most primary existence that underlies all other existing things.

Our universe is contingent. Universes in multiverse theories, indeed the laws that govern such theories, are conceived as being contingent.
Therefore there is something more primary, more foundational, to the existence of our universe or multiverse if you prefer that route.

The Universe is defined as "all that exist" What could "all that exist" possibly be contingent upon?

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think Atheists and agnostics actually believe a scientist is one day going to demonstrate nothing creating something.It is a pipe dream.

You would do well to have many more conversations with people like Audie and I; you obviously have a lot to learn about Atheists and Agnostics.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think Atheists and agnostics actually believe a scientist is one day going to demonstrate nothing creating something.It is a pipe dream.

You would do well to have many more conversations with people like Audie and I; you obviously have a lot to learn about Atheists and Agnostics.

Ken

You obviously don't know about the atheists and agnostics I deal with on-line.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think Atheists and agnostics actually believe a scientist is one day going to demonstrate nothing creating something.It is a pipe dream.

You would do well to have many more conversations with people like Audie and I; you obviously have a lot to learn about Atheists and Agnostics.

Ken

You obviously don't know about the atheists and agnostics I deal with on-line.

I don't have to. All I'm saying is if you gonna paint all Atheists and Agnostics with that broad of a brush, you would do well to hear a different perspective.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think Atheists and agnostics actually believe a scientist is one day going to demonstrate nothing creating something.It is a pipe dream.

You would do well to have many more conversations with people like Audie and I; you obviously have a lot to learn about Atheists and Agnostics.

Ken

You obviously don't know about the atheists and agnostics I deal with on-line.

I don't have to. All I'm saying is if you gonna paint all Atheists and Agnostics with that broad of a brush, you would do well to hear a different perspective.

Ken

I don't do that and I very rarely hear a different perspective when on-line.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Contingent things therefore are not foundational to their own existence.
If they cannot stand in their own right, then they also cannot be the most primary existence that underlies all other existing things.

Our universe is contingent. Universes in multiverse theories, indeed the laws that govern such theories, are conceived as being contingent.
Therefore there is something more primary, more foundational, to the existence of our universe or multiverse if you prefer that route.

The Universe is defined as "all that exist" What could "all that exist" possibly be contingent upon?

Ken

Multiverse would suggest you need to re-define your definition of "universe" as all that exists...
Either we are all together in "one" (uni-) or all together in "many" (multi-).

Nonetheless, perhaps we might include God in your definition.

Ken wrote:

The Universe is defined as "all that exist" What could "all that exist" possibly be contingent upon?

Well, it's probably just kicking the can down the road, but this universe is (was) contingent upon the singularity and the material information contained within. I say kick the can because the next question should be what is contingent upon the singularity... dog chasing it's tail... ? I'm neither trained or really very good at this stuff but it's interesting to me.

I've read that in the world of particle physics... things so small the best they can come up with so far is names like "strings" and quarks (sub atomic particles) that theoretically explain contingency forms that are the building blocks of everything else. In that time and place of our universe it seems to break apart in to a physics meltdown far different than the physics we experience in/and the properties in our time and place. Therefore, it seems to me that quark and string like time and place is a different universe than ours since the physical properties are not the same as ours... is this not a definition for another universe... making it a multiverse we live in and have lived in all along... just without knowing it until we could theorize of such a place.

If it's possible we have been living in this "mutliverse" all along, (imagine looking down to see all the smallest things quarks and strings etc)... then why should it be so hard to look up and realize we are the "small things" that are under the microscope, if you will, of God? Are we His quarks and strings looking up to find the Creator of contingency.. the First Cause and Last End to all things ?

So that would make our "universe"a three tier multiverse. The one quarks et al reside in, the one we reside in and the one (heaven) God resides in ...

I love kicking the can... right or wrong ... ... carry on

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Contingent things therefore are not foundational to their own existence.
If they cannot stand in their own right, then they also cannot be the most primary existence that underlies all other existing things.

Our universe is contingent. Universes in multiverse theories, indeed the laws that govern such theories, are conceived as being contingent.
Therefore there is something more primary, more foundational, to the existence of our universe or multiverse if you prefer that route.

The Universe is defined as "all that exist" What could "all that exist" possibly be contingent upon?

Ken

Multiverse would suggest you need to re-define your definition of "universe" as all that exists...
Either we are all together in "one" (uni-) or all together in "many" (multi-).

Nonetheless, perhaps we might include God in your definition.

Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? The Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Contingent things therefore are not foundational to their own existence.
If they cannot stand in their own right, then they also cannot be the most primary existence that underlies all other existing things.

Our universe is contingent. Universes in multiverse theories, indeed the laws that govern such theories, are conceived as being contingent.
Therefore there is something more primary, more foundational, to the existence of our universe or multiverse if you prefer that route.

The Universe is defined as "all that exist" What could "all that exist" possibly be contingent upon?

Ken

Multiverse would suggest you need to re-define your definition of "universe" as all that exists...
Either we are all together in "one" (uni-) or all together in "many" (multi-).

Nonetheless, perhaps we might include God in your definition.

Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? The Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

Ken

I didn't know that was your position.

What then do you make of an expanding universe, and following it backwards to the "big bang" singularity?
Isn't it a sensible question to ask, "where did it come from?" and equally sensible to think "something other"...?

Audie, from the exchanges I've seen of hers on this board, seems to disagree with you here re: multiverse/parallel universes.
At least as far as she is concerned, it seems that she thinks such scenarios are for some reason less absurd than assuming creation.

BUT, you're your own person of course. You see both as equally absurd.
However, now you are in a sticky position since science reveals that the universe appears to have a singular beginning point in time.



What then are we to make of this... or is it really a case that you're not interested to answer such?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Contingent things therefore are not foundational to their own existence.
If they cannot stand in their own right, then they also cannot be the most primary existence that underlies all other existing things.

Our universe is contingent. Universes in multiverse theories, indeed the laws that govern such theories, are conceived as being contingent.
Therefore there is something more primary, more foundational, to the existence of our universe or multiverse if you prefer that route.

The Universe is defined as "all that exist" What could "all that exist" possibly be contingent upon?

Ken

Multiverse would suggest you need to re-define your definition of "universe" as all that exists...
Either we are all together in "one" (uni-) or all together in "many" (multi-).

Nonetheless, perhaps we might include God in your definition.

Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? The Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

Ken

I didn't know that was your position.

What then do you make of an expanding universe, and following it backwards to the "big bang" singularity?
Isn't it a sensible question to ask, "where did it come from?" and equally sensible to think "something other"...?

Audie, from the exchanges I've seen of hers on this board, seems to disagree with you here re: multiverse/parallel universes.
At least as far as she is concerned, it seems that she thinks such scenarios are for some reason less absurd than assuming creation.

BUT, you're your own person of course. You see both as equally absurd.
However, now you are in a sticky position since science reveals that the universe appears to have a singular beginning point in time.



What then are we to make of this... or is it really a case that you're not interested to answer such?

I'm not in a sticky situation because I've never professed to know the answer. I am interested in knowing but I don't think anyone knows. From what I know; science says the Universe as we know it has a beginning. I don't think they were calling the singularity that expanded into the Universe as the Universe.

Ken

K wrote:
What then do you make of an expanding universe, and following it backwards to the "big bang" singularity?
Isn't it a sensible question to ask, "where did it come from?" and equally sensible to think "something other"...?

This must feel like the theme of the day for you Ken

Ken wrote:
I don't think they were calling the singularity that expanded into the Universe as the Universe.

If the current theory unfolds, the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation". Prime mover, God is in control to such exacting definition that defies all odds of natural causation.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Multiverse is just a concept; there is no proof it exists in reality. If I were going to go around making those kind of assumptions; might as well assume God right??? The Universe on the other hand; does exist in reality.

Ken

I didn't know that was your position.

What then do you make of an expanding universe, and following it backwards to the "big bang" singularity?
Isn't it a sensible question to ask, "where did it come from?" and equally sensible to think "something other"...?

Audie, from the exchanges I've seen of hers on this board, seems to disagree with you here re: multiverse/parallel universes.
At least as far as she is concerned, it seems that she thinks such scenarios are for some reason less absurd than assuming creation.

BUT, you're your own person of course. You see both as equally absurd.
However, now you are in a sticky position since science reveals that the universe appears to have a singular beginning point in time.



What then are we to make of this... or is it really a case that you're not interested to answer such?

I'm not in a sticky situation because I've never professed to know the answer. I am interested in knowing but I don't think anyone knows. From what I know; science says the Universe as we know it has a beginning. I don't think they were calling the singularity that expanded into the Universe as the Universe.

Ken

So then, am I and others here less admirable?
That is, in being someone who questions and desires an answer to the beginning...
... and as such to believe that in the beginning God really did create the entire universe.

Even to be ridoculed for belief in a creator, as though such is really some far fetched belief.

You know, I think that we can and do know. But, whether we know that our knowledge is 100% correct
-- obviously such certainty can never be had by subjective beings on anything.