Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
Yes regardless of anyone's opinion; even God's. Because even if God said raping an 8 yr old girl is good, it would still be wrong, right?

I never said rape of an 8 yr old girl is wrong due to some rule written down somewhere, I said it was wrong due to MY rule.

Im sorry Kenny. I don't mean to be rude, but if your responses are going to be nonsense, then I can't continue trying to have a conversation with you.

Why is this nonsense? If the rape you described is objectively wrong, that would mean in theory if God said it were right, that would make God wrong; do you agree? It seems to me, in order for morality to be objective, God would have to be subject to those laws of morality; even if they are his laws! Otherwise it is all subjective to God. If you disagree, tell me where I’m going wrong.

Ken

First, God cannot have an opinion.

Second, IF rape is objectively wrong, then God wouldn't say it's right. Just like God can't create a three-sided square. It's nonsense.

I am speaking hypothetically.

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

Ken : How am I supposed to answer that question? Suppose I said all the matter that currently exist in the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. could you prove me wrong using established scientific theories?

Philip: Ken, if you insist that matter existed prior to the Big Bang, then either you don't believe the overwhelming number of physicists and studies that deny that, or you don't understand basic Big Bang science assertions and studies. You are asserting something that science says isn't true.

Again; can you point to a scientific theory that says nothing existed prior to the Big Bang? I don't believe science says that.

I've already linked to info that shows scientists asserting some Big Bang scenario (the vast majority of physicists (based upon many studies and correlating data), all believe that ALL matter came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. I've also mentioned some of the basic incredible details, designs, functionalities, interactions that all previously non-existing matter (a mere moment before), instantly displayed. The characteristics of those immediate first things unquestionably show great intelligence, power, and an ultimate eternal Source. You keep asking for evidence that science doesn't think matter existed before the Big Bang's beginning - which shows your ignorance of what science now overwhelmingly and prolifically asserts - that only energy in a hot, dense state pre-existed the Big Bang. Ken, all of these show me that you are not driven by the evidence science asserts to be true. And I assert that logic shows non-existing things can't create or design themselves. Energy is not an intelligence. It does not design, etc. As well, the ultimate Source behind the universe could not create "itself." So that Source HAD to be eternal. And I assert also supremely intelligent, obvious per the characteristics and behaviors of what immediately burst forth. Supremely powerful, due to the the unfathomable heat/energy and power instantly unleashed. This is why I assert that believing those things instantly could have come into existence uncaused or via self-caused, random, unintelligent means, is more a matter of faith in metaphysics, in the supposed abilities of unknown, blind mechanisms, and thus is irrational. It's what I call belief in magic! It sure isn't evidence-based or scientific. Science only measures the physical, changes that are observable. Matter is physical - and only a moment before the Big Bang began, none existed. That is what Big Bang models all assert. There are, of course, theoretical speculations that are not evidence-based - which mean they are as about as reliable as whatever fiction one wants to choose.

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

Ken : How am I supposed to answer that question? Suppose I said all the matter that currently exist in the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. could you prove me wrong using established scientific theories?

Philip: Ken, if you insist that matter existed prior to the Big Bang, then either you don't believe the overwhelming number of physicists and studies that deny that, or you don't understand basic Big Bang science assertions and studies. You are asserting something that science says isn't true.

Again; can you point to a scientific theory that says nothing existed prior to the Big Bang? I don't believe science says that.

Philip wrote:I've already linked to info that shows scientists asserting some Big Bang scenario (the vast majority of physicists (based upon many studies and correlating data), all believe that ALL matter came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang.

The links you provided were to Christian sites, (obviously I’m skeptical) and all they provided were speculations about the Big Bang, none provided any scientific theories that say nothing existed prior to it.

Philip wrote:I've also mentioned some of the basic incredible details, designs, functionalities, interactions that all previously non-existing matter (a mere moment before), instantly displayed. The characteristics of those immediate first things unquestionably show great intelligence, power, and an ultimate eternal Source. You keep asking for evidence that science doesn't think matter existed before the Big Bang's beginning - which shows your ignorance of what science now overwhelmingly and prolifically asserts - that only energy in a hot, dense state pre-existed the Big Bang. Ken, all of these show me that you are not driven by the evidence science asserts to be true.

Neither are you! You keep saying the Universe was caused by something non-physical in nature, and this cause was intelligent, eternal, had immense power and God-like abilities. Now we both know this is not backed up by science; not even the Christian websites you pointed were willing to make such a leap.
If there were any scientific theories that say all the matter in existence (the singularity) popped into existence prior to expanding to what what is known as the Big Bang, I’m sure you would have provided something by now; all you've provided were speculations and scenarios. If neither of our ideas are supported by science, perhaps we should take science off the table. What do you think?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
According to my understanding, anecdotal evidence is generally considered the least reliable type of evidence because it is often based upon heresy or faulty reasoning. For me a personal experience would be more convincing.

Ken

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

You assume others senses and reasoning would be?

Yes! I do assume somebody else's senses and reasoning could be mislead

K

But according to you, NOT YOURS?

There are twp issues here:

What is objective / absolute morality
Does it exist.

First off we have to accept that morality is not a tangible thing, much like consciousness.
As such it many not be demonstrable, like love is not demonstrable but its effects and results and actions are.

Objective morality means that there IS such a thing as right and wrong and this IS demonstrable through out history:
In every society, every culture, since the dawn of recorded history, there has always been a right and wrong ( regardless of what they may have been, there always WAS a right and a wrong).
This is demonstrable via history and anthropology.
ALSO, it is demonstrable via rational and reasoning ( and before anyone goes on a tangent about what is reason and whatever, remember this: We are having a discussion and if you don't get how that refutes your very issue, then don't be part of this discussion).

Now that we have established what is objective morals and that it is demonstrable and how, does it exist?

Well, laws and society couldn't function without it so, yes, it quite obviously does.

Ken: Neither are you! You keep saying the Universe was caused by something non-physical in nature, and this cause was intelligent, eternal, had immense power and God-like abilities. Now we both know this is not backed up by science; not even the Christian websites you pointed were willing to make such a leap.

Ken, the Christian sites are only referencing Big Bang scientific assertions - they're not ORIGINATING them. And that there was NO matter in existence prior to the Big Bang beginning. I challenge you to show me just ONE Big Bang model or study that asserts that it did. And there are now many scientific studies and data that correlate with the Big Bang - which is why physicists unanimously support its basic tenants concerning what might have pre-existed it, and the characteristics to what it immediately produced.

Of course science doesn't and can't identify the Source of the universe. But that is not my point. THE points you are in denial over is the fact that Big Bang science studies DO assert exactly what showed up instantly, and their astounding and instantly appearing attributes. And the did not need time to physically evolve to becoming what they were - these immediate first things. In a second, had remarkable designs, specific functionality, interactivities of unfathomable specificity, and were obeying exceptionally precise laws. And so these things check every description known that indicate a great intelligence far beyond anything man has ever created. In fact, we've only scratched the surface in our understandings if how they work. The immense power of the immediate expansion and range involved show the Source to be awesomely powerful! Last, that Source had to be eternal - because NOTHING in existence can create itself. Everything in this paragraph, science confirms. So the basic CHARACTERISTICS of the Source dictated by the known evidences it produced cannot be in serious doubt.

Now, as for what science asserts is true about what CAN be deduced about the beginning, which CAN be known with ever-abundant certainty, per what the natures and functions of those immediate first things reveal about their Source, they can NEVER prove that their Source is the God of Scripture - science can't measure or test for non-physical - which prior to the Big Bang, no physical things existed. But what the DO reveal is that they match up perfectly with what we know about God's intelligence and power, AND the fact that the universe had an actual moment of birth, as these things are all asserted in Scripture.

My questions to Ken: Have you now researched to realize that prior to the Big Bang, science believes no physical things or matter yet existed? How can a state of non-existent matter instantly produce incredibly sophisticated physical things requiring great intelligence and power? Do you believe that ANY blind, random, non-intelligent source or power can eventually become supremely intelligent, learn, develop some ability to harness proximities, or combine things for their potential advantages? Could such things have the ability to transmit what chance has produced into a physical realm - and to then control that physical reality so precisely that we can deduce the descriptive laws that reveal their breathtaking precision of operation. If there was nothing physically in existence, where did those first things come from? Could they create themselves? Can physical things emerge from non-physical or non-existing things? Don't ALL things have to have a source? Didn't the ultimate first source of all things HAVE to be eternal?

Note, all of my questions relate to the need for a great intelligence, and challenge that believing only time and chance can produce the universe's necessary and awesome things, and INSTANTLY so, where nothing physical previously existed, IS the equivalent of believing magic is possible. And make no mistake, whatever one believes about whatever preceded what science can actually measure (PHYSICAL things), therefore cannot be based upon science. Only the ATTRIBUTES of what would be required to produce the precise things that instantly came into existence, all at once, at the moment of the Big Bang, can be given general but necessary descriptive parameters - and thus my contention as to the minimal attributes and capabilities the universe's ultimate and non-physical Source HAD to have to produce the things that it did, and for them to have the designs and functional capabilities they all INSTANTLY had.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Many people view personal revelation as anecdotal, that is why I ask.
Skeptics tend to discount personal revelation for this matter, unless, of course, it is THEIR personal revelation.
That said, some skeptics would even discount their own since, as they put it, senses and reasoning can be mislead.

When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

You assume others senses and reasoning would be?

Yes! I do assume somebody else's senses and reasoning could be mislead

K

But according to you, NOT YOURS?

Yes. I think it is natural for people to be more skeptical of other people's claims than their own

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:There are twp issues here:

What is objective / absolute morality
Does it exist.

First off we have to accept that morality is not a tangible thing, much like consciousness.
As such it many not be demonstrable, like love is not demonstrable but its effects and results and actions are.

Objective morality means that there IS such a thing as right and wrong and this IS demonstrable through out history:
In every society, every culture, since the dawn of recorded history, there has always been a right and wrong ( regardless of what they may have been, there always WAS a right and a wrong).
This is demonstrable via history and anthropology.
ALSO, it is demonstrable via rational and reasoning ( and before anyone goes on a tangent about what is reason and whatever, remember this: We are having a discussion and if you don't get how that refutes your very issue, then don't be part of this discussion).

Now that we have established what is objective morals and that it is demonstrable and how, does it exist?

Well, laws and society couldn't function without it so, yes, it quite obviously does.

I see right and wrong as labels; like silly, funny, or serious. Do labels exist? Also, I think some people confuse ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

Ken

Ken: Neither are you! You keep saying the Universe was caused by something non-physical in nature, and this cause was intelligent, eternal, had immense power and God-like abilities. Now we both know this is not backed up by science; not even the Christian websites you pointed were willing to make such a leap.

Philip wrote:Ken, the Christian sites are only referencing Big Bang scientific assertions - they're not ORIGINATING them. And that there was NO matter in existence prior to the Big Bang beginning. I challenge you to show me just ONE Big Bang model or study that asserts that it did.

I never claimed that it did. I said I don’t know, but that I suspect matter has always existed. Remember, it is you who are making the claim that matter did not exist prior to the singularity. I don’t think science knows what pre-existed the singularity that lead to the Big Bang, and that’s why you haven’t been able to present something that supports your claim.
Below are some links that support my claim that though there is a lot of speculation out there, science just don’t know, thus there is no established theories out there pre-big bang.

https://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-un ... ainer.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre–Big_Bang_physics

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... /23012729/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... theory.htm

Philip wrote:And there are now many scientific studies and data that correlate with the Big Bang - which is why physicists unanimously support its basic tenants concerning what might have pre-existed it,

What MIGHT have pre-existed it? So these are more speculations; huh?

Philip wrote:and the characteristics to what it immediately produced.

Of course science doesn't and can't identify the Source of the universe. But that is not my point. THE points you are in denial over is the fact that Big Bang science studies DO assert exactly what showed up instantly, and their astounding and instantly appearing attributes.

Rather than just saying it, present a link or something that supports this claim. Again; not speculation, but an established scientific theory.

Philip wrote:And the did not need time to physically evolve to becoming what they were - these immediate first things. In a second, had remarkable designs, specific functionality, interactivities of unfathomable specificity, and were obeying exceptionally precise laws. And so these things check every description known that indicate a great intelligence far beyond anything man has ever created.

Remarkable designs, specific functionality, and obeying precise laws? Is this more speculation on your part or do you have a link or something to back this up?

Philip wrote:In fact, we've only scratched the surface in our understandings if how they work. The immense power of the immediate expansion and range involved show the Source to be awesomely powerful! Last, that Source had to be eternal - because NOTHING in existence can create itself. Everything in this paragraph, science confirms.

Again; if science confirms this, give me a link or something other than your word. I provided links to support what I believe, can’t you do the same?

Philip wrote:So the basic CHARACTERISTICS of the Source dictated by the known evidences it produced cannot be in serious doubt.

Now, as for what science asserts is true about what CAN be deduced about the beginning, which CAN be known with ever-abundant certainty, per what the natures and functions of those immediate first things reveal about their Source, they can NEVER prove that their Source is the God of Scripture - science can't measure or test for non-physical - which prior to the Big Bang, no physical things existed. But what the DO reveal is that they match up perfectly with what we know about God's intelligence and power, AND the fact that the universe had an actual moment of birth, as these things are all asserted in Scripture.

My questions to Ken: Have you now researched to realize that prior to the Big Bang, science believes no physical things or matter yet existed?

My research shows science doesn’t know what happened prior to the singularity that lead to the Big Bang; see the above links I provided. Do you have something that shows they do know?

Philip wrote:How can a state of non-existent matter instantly produce incredibly sophisticated physical things requiring great intelligence and power? Do you believe that ANY blind, random, non-intelligent source or power can eventually become supremely intelligent, learn, develop some ability to harness proximities, or combine things for their potential advantages? Could such things have the ability to transmit what chance has produced into a physical realm - and to then control that physical reality so precisely that we can deduce the descriptive laws that reveal their breathtaking precision of operation. If there was nothing physically in existence, where did those first things come from? Could they create themselves? Can physical things emerge from non-physical or non-existing things? Don't ALL things have to have a source? Didn't the ultimate first source of all things HAVE to be eternal?

Note, all of my questions relate to the need for a great intelligence, and challenge that believing only time and chance can produce the universe's necessary and awesome things, and INSTANTLY so, where nothing physical previously existed, IS the equivalent of believing magic is possible. And make no mistake, whatever one believes about whatever preceded what science can actually measure (PHYSICAL things), therefore cannot be based upon science. Only the ATTRIBUTES of what would be required to produce the precise things that instantly came into existence, all at once, at the moment of the Big Bang, can be given general but necessary descriptive parameters - and thus my contention as to the minimal attributes and capabilities the universe's ultimate and non-physical Source HAD to have to produce the things that it did, and for them to have the designs and functional capabilities they all INSTANTLY had.

I will be looking foreword to a link or something to back up some of these claims you’ve made; until then you will have to excuse me if I am unwilling to take your word for it.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
When I said personal revelation, I meant MY personal revelation. I am not one the type to assume my senses and reasonings would be mislead.

Ken

You assume others senses and reasoning would be?

Yes! I do assume somebody else's senses and reasoning could be mislead

K

But according to you, NOT YOURS?

Yes. I think it is natural for people to be more skeptical of other people's claims than their own

Ken

At least you are honest about your bias.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There are twp issues here:

What is objective / absolute morality
Does it exist.

First off we have to accept that morality is not a tangible thing, much like consciousness.
As such it many not be demonstrable, like love is not demonstrable but its effects and results and actions are.

Objective morality means that there IS such a thing as right and wrong and this IS demonstrable through out history:
In every society, every culture, since the dawn of recorded history, there has always been a right and wrong ( regardless of what they may have been, there always WAS a right and a wrong).
This is demonstrable via history and anthropology.
ALSO, it is demonstrable via rational and reasoning ( and before anyone goes on a tangent about what is reason and whatever, remember this: We are having a discussion and if you don't get how that refutes your very issue, then don't be part of this discussion).

Now that we have established what is objective morals and that it is demonstrable and how, does it exist?

Well, laws and society couldn't function without it so, yes, it quite obviously does.

I see right and wrong as labels; like silly, funny, or serious. Do labels exist? Also, I think some people confuse ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

Ken

You can all right and wrong whatever you like, doesn't change the evidence that there is objective right and wrong.
The evidence proves this:
History, anthropology, reasoning and even evolutionary biology.
All point to the fact that through out the existence of mankind, there has always been a right and a wrong.

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:


Ultimately, the reason is man-made morality.
Unless you believe that God hard-wired us in considering it wrong, it comes down to free choice.

As I'm a Christian, you'd probably be able to guess where I think objective morality comes from.

I'd like to hear where you think it comes from. Objective morality, by definition, cannot be "man-made". Remember, if something is objectively wrong, it's wrong even if some people don't think it's wrong. Subjective morality, it could be argued, is man-made.

Do you see the difference?

Objective moralilty... does that exist? Maybe an 'overal consensual morality'.
I our human hostory love and care (for our children) forms a common basis. Despite our sometimes violent and brutal (sometimes even inhumane) past, humans mostly strive for a peacefull society. Many basic common conformities mean an overall common morality. We all think alike about the wrogness of rape (whatever the age). Excluding psycho's and terrorists, etc..
Nevertheless, since I've become an Agnost... In the absence of a god, objective, subjective, or any other way, I think it can only be man-made of origin.

If it is man made then it MUST be subjective for obvious reasons.
If it is man DISCOVERED ( sort of like man discovering the Pythagorean theory) then it can be objective ( like the aforementioned theory).

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: You assume others senses and reasoning would be?

Yes! I do assume somebody else's senses and reasoning could be mislead

K

But according to you, NOT YOURS?

Yes. I think it is natural for people to be more skeptical of other people's claims than their own

Ken

At least you are honest about your bias.

I don't think it is so much of a bias as it is the fact that my ideas and beliefs are a result of the best information I have at the moment. This is not the case with somebody else's ideas and beliefs.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Yes! I do assume somebody else's senses and reasoning could be mislead

K

But according to you, NOT YOURS?

Yes. I think it is natural for people to be more skeptical of other people's claims than their own

Ken

At least you are honest about your bias.

I don't think it is so much of a bias as it is the fact that my ideas and beliefs are a result of the best information I have at the moment. This is not the case with somebody else's ideas and beliefs.

You ASSUME it is not the case.