Evidence for God from Science

seveneyes wrote:

. . . science can conclude that there are things that have always been and will always be . . .

Such as?

coldblood wrote:seveneyes wrote:

. . . science can conclude that there are things that have always been and will always be . . .

Such as?

Anything in the eternal realms. The physical universe is finite, but where the physical universe ends its cause begins, from things that have no beginning or end. It is an impossibility for this not to be, or we wouldn't be here at all.

The known universe is too great to have just happened.
God is greater than the known universe.
Therefore God is too great to have just happened.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Huge stretch in my opinion. You assume that the physical and metaphysical operate as equals under the same rules and not one subject to the other and therefore above the rules set by the one for the other. You're reading in your own presupposition perhaps and circling back, but in any event, it's not a logical given nor a strong argument in my opinion.

If you could show how God arising from the universe or how the universe being created by God would change the conclusion, that would be interesting. Or, should you assume they are independent of each other, and you can show how that would change the conclusion, that, too, would be interesting. In this case, the presupposition that one is subject to the other only reinforces the conclusion. Specifically, the presupposition that God exists and that God created the universe, and therefore God is greater than the universe, reinforces this particular conclusion. And if you are talking about stretches, supposing the existence of a God is the ultimate stretch, but that is what we do. Whatever the metaphysical rules, if any that may apply to God’s existence, he is, nonetheless, a pretty big deal. So, if you disagree with the first premise, that’s fine. Many people will agree with you. But if you disagree with the second premise, you need to show how the existence of God is a lesser occurrence than the existence of the known universe; that is, show that the second premise is false. Once you achieve that, your opinion will carry a lot more weight.


Thank you for your comments.

seveneyes wrote:

Anything in the eternal realms. The physical universe is finite, but where the physical universe ends its cause begins, from things that have no beginning or end. It is an impossibility for this not to be, or we wouldn't be here at all.

Thank you for your comments.

No, Bippy, once again you totally fail to understand evolution. Evolution does arise out of need, that is precisely what you don't understand about the bacteria and fruit flies. A population can't just say "yeah, it would be nice to have adaptation x to avoid problem y" and expect it to happen. You are applying a presumption that isn't part of the theory of evolution. You are right, instability that leads to a wipeout of a population can presumably leave just a few more adapted individuals, but that isn't a requirement. Using the words "try" and "need" immediately tell me you know nothing about what evolution says, because my first day of biology class in college that was covered. If nothing else, it's silly to argue something that you aren't fully versed in, because your arguments

As far as the yeast at the U of Minnesota, I've gone over this on another post. Most of the criticisms of the experiment are based on the lack of follow-up experiments, which are in progress. The paper Rich is criticizing is preliminary work. he full paper/research is not complete. Still, your argument amounts to God of the gaps and isn't even valid for that reason alone.

Want transitional fossils? I really don't understand the need to site 32 year old information here...In science that would be laughable. Unless you are citing an original concept from that long ago, you need newer data than that. Do you have any idea how far biology, genetics, and paleontology have moved forward in over three decades?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/l ... onal.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... diates_ex3
http://pandasthumb.org/links.html#kw-Fo ... leontology

Here just three websites I found really quickly for you. Please explain to me how all this is false, made-up, not real, or whatever you like. It's hilarious to just go on youtube and watch Michael Behe's response to being shown the dog-like-mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates and how he simply has nothing to say. He is similarly stumped at the more recent horse-to-elephant fossil relationships.

Also, because you are so quick to attack evolution as a scientific theory, and would rather see ID, I ask you a simple question. As far as the many intermediate fossils that do exist, the ones that appear and disappear over time, giving way immediately to a new form, how does ID explain that? Was the designer restless? Did it really stink at making new life? Was it just a bad case of OCD? If you can't answer that, as no one I've ever heard of can, then you can't explain ID past this generation.

As far as the many intermediate fossils that do exist, the ones that appear and disappear over time, giving way immediately to a new form, how does ID explain that?

Ivellious, progressive creationism says that as some species disappear(become extinct), God created new species, culminating with Gods final creation, modern man.

So God created failures that were intended to die out just so he could create incrementally not-quite-as-likely-to-die species? Sounds kind of cruel to me. Doesn't it make kind of no sense to just make failures intentionally and then after billions of years spontaneously create supposed greatness in humans?

Ivellious wrote:So God created failures that were intended to die out just so he could create incrementally not-quite-as-likely-to-die species? Sounds kind of cruel to me. Doesn't it make kind of no sense to just make failures intentionally and then after billions of years spontaneously create supposed greatness in humans?

I guess that would depend on what we believe God's reason was for this temporary creation. If one believes this creation is the best possible creation for the rapid conquest of evil, then it wasn't a failure. Everything that God created, and then died, was for that ultimate purpose of this creation.

But that makes no sense. Why not just create the final product and avoid millions of years of repeated death and failure? also, I must point out that, presuming there were millions of years of this cycle, there was no evil on Earth yet. It had not been created, and thus, unless this somehow prepared the Earth to deal with evil (and that would certainly be interesting) I don't see how this can be classified as a good thing.

Ivellious wrote:But that makes no sense. Why not just create the final product and avoid millions of years of repeated death and failure? also, I must point out that, presuming there were millions of years of this cycle, there was no evil on Earth yet. It had not been created, and thus, unless this somehow prepared the Earth to deal with evil (and that would certainly be interesting) I don't see how this can be classified as a good thing.

why create a universe that will eventually die out anyway? We do not know the answer, but that doesnt mean that applying human logic of our reasoning in anyway reflects the realities of an omnipotent mind

Ivellious wrote:But that makes no sense. Why not just create the final product and avoid millions of years of repeated death and failure? also, I must point out that, presuming there were millions of years of this cycle, there was no evil on Earth yet. It had not been created, and thus, unless this somehow prepared the Earth to deal with evil (and that would certainly be interesting) I don't see how this can be classified as a good thing.

I can see why you would say it makes no sense from a human perspective. But, keep in mind that in God's timeless, eternal perspective, 13.7 billion years is but a blink of an eye. If you believe scripture, Satan fell sometime before man was in the garden. So, it's pretty safe to say that evil was on the earth.
The rapid conquest of evil, is a pretty good thing, in my book.

So you would scientifically appeal to the concept of "don't try because you can't figure it out."? If historically scientists used that reasoning to describe the complex things in life, it is unlikely we'd be alive today to talk about it. Well, maybe 1 in 5 of us would be around.

Also, I can find human rationale in creating a finite universe based upon Christianity. If revelations is true, this universe won't matter after that anyway, case closed. Though I'm curious, what evidence is there that our universe will end? Stars die out, but I haven't read that we have scientifically determined that the universe will just go away in the future.

So you would scientifically appeal to the concept of "don't try because you can't figure it out.

Sorry, not following you on this one.

Though I'm curious, what evidence is there that our universe will end? Stars die out, but I haven't read that we have scientifically determined that the universe will just go away in the future.

Entropy?

Wasn't referring to your post, was referring to seveneyes on the "you can't comprehend it so stop trying" point.

I'm not much into theoretical physics. I think lots of it isn't all that credible. I understand that entropy is a real concept, but its effects on a supercosmic level are a little too much for me to understand. It's totally abstract.

Wasn't referring to your post, was referring to seveneyes on the "you can't comprehend it so stop trying" point.

Sorry, getting tired.

I'm not much into theoretical physics. I think lots of it isn't all that credible. I understand that entropy is a real concept, but its effects on a supercosmic level are a little too much for me to understand. It's totally abstract.

Lol, I don't even know what theoretical physics is. I'm talking about the simple definition of entropy, as it applies to stars burning out, and an eventual loss of heat and disorder, etc.