Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:41 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:34 am

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am Ken: And here is where we disagree; I see Theism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B

TOTALLY false! For example, much of the world has pantheistic beliefs - which are totally incompatible with Christian beliefs. And that's just one difference in Christianity and other religious beliefs.

All the other religions have something about it that is totally incompatible with Christian beliefs; how does this point you made refute what I said?

Reason alone necessarily leads to monotheism (A). From there it's reason coupled with revelation that lead to B. You're forever conflating the 2, hence discussions with you seem to always lead to C (nowhere).

Okay Byblos; I will rephrase it in a way that hopefully you find more suitable.

Here is where we disagree; I see MONOtheism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B


Is that better?

Ken, I meant that pantheism is very different, in that it's not even logically possible - that is, that the universe, earth, humans, animals - that all of this is part of god. That's impossible!

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:00 pm Ken, I meant that pantheism is very different, in that it's not even logically possible - that is, that the universe, earth, humans, animals - that all of this is part of god. That's impossible!

Truth be told; I’m not really concerned with pantheism vs monotheism. The person I was responding to made the claim that because the vast majority of the world population were theists, I should be one due to the points I agreed on. He didn’t make the distinction of monotheism, or pantheism, he just said theism; and that is what I was addressing. Then you guys entered the conversation talking about the difference between monotheism vs pantheism, in the context of my response.
If you want to discuss the difference between monotheism, vs pantheism; I would be happy to do that but that’s a different conversation.

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:41 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:34 am

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am Ken: And here is where we disagree; I see Theism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B

TOTALLY false! For example, much of the world has pantheistic beliefs - which are totally incompatible with Christian beliefs. And that's just one difference in Christianity and other religious beliefs.

All the other religions have something about it that is totally incompatible with Christian beliefs; how does this point you made refute what I said?

Reason alone necessarily leads to monotheism (A). From there it's reason coupled with revelation that lead to B. You're forever conflating the 2, hence discussions with you seem to always lead to C (nowhere).

Okay Byblos; I will rephrase it in a way that hopefully you find more suitable.

Here is where we disagree; I see MONOtheism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B


Is that better?

Actually yes, it is more progress than I ever hoped possible. Practically every discussion I've had with you over the years centered around the topic of theism versus atheism in some form. To my recollection, I have never, ever discussed with you religion in general or Christianity in particular and my reasoning is really very simple, which you should already know. We cannot discuss religion (revelation) unless we first agree on monotheism (reason and rationality). Are you saying there is now in fact evidence for monotheism (A) but your stumbling block is religion/revelation (B)? Because if that's the case, the whole dynamic of our discussions has shifted. If it's not, then we're back to square one.

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:41 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:34 am

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am Ken: And here is where we disagree; I see Theism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B

TOTALLY false! For example, much of the world has pantheistic beliefs - which are totally incompatible with Christian beliefs. And that's just one difference in Christianity and other religious beliefs.

All the other religions have something about it that is totally incompatible with Christian beliefs; how does this point you made refute what I said?

Reason alone necessarily leads to monotheism (A). From there it's reason coupled with revelation that lead to B. You're forever conflating the 2, hence discussions with you seem to always lead to C (nowhere).

Okay Byblos; I will rephrase it in a way that hopefully you find more suitable.

Here is where we disagree; I see MONOtheism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B


Is that better?

Actually yes, it is more progress than I ever hoped possible. Practically every discussion I've had with you over the years centered around the topic of theism versus atheism in some form. To my recollection, I have never, ever discussed with you religion in general or Christianity in particular and my reasoning is really very simple, which you should already know. We cannot discuss religion (revelation) unless we first agree on monotheism (reason and rationality). Are you saying there is now in fact evidence for monotheism (A) but your stumbling block is religion/revelation (B)? Because if that's the case, the whole dynamic of our discussions has shifted. If it's not, then we're back to square one.

Naaw we're back to square one Bruh. See my previous post as to why I responded the way I did.

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:37 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:41 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:34 am

All the other religions have something about it that is totally incompatible with Christian beliefs; how does this point you made refute what I said?

Reason alone necessarily leads to monotheism (A). From there it's reason coupled with revelation that lead to B. You're forever conflating the 2, hence discussions with you seem to always lead to C (nowhere).

Okay Byblos; I will rephrase it in a way that hopefully you find more suitable.

Here is where we disagree; I see MONOtheism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B


Is that better?

Actually yes, it is more progress than I ever hoped possible. Practically every discussion I've had with you over the years centered around the topic of theism versus atheism in some form. To my recollection, I have never, ever discussed with you religion in general or Christianity in particular and my reasoning is really very simple, which you should already know. We cannot discuss religion (revelation) unless we first agree on monotheism (reason and rationality). Are you saying there is now in fact evidence for monotheism (A) but your stumbling block is religion/revelation (B)? Because if that's the case, the whole dynamic of our discussions has shifted. If it's not, then we're back to square one.

Naaw we're back to square one Bruh. See my previous post as to why I responded the way I did.

Thank you for not wasting my time. I just wish you'd stop with the nonsense of making it look like the reason you don't believe in God is religion when in fact it is irrationality, pure and simple.

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:43 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:37 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:41 am

Reason alone necessarily leads to monotheism (A). From there it's reason coupled with revelation that lead to B. You're forever conflating the 2, hence discussions with you seem to always lead to C (nowhere).

Okay Byblos; I will rephrase it in a way that hopefully you find more suitable.

Here is where we disagree; I see MONOtheism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B


Is that better?

Actually yes, it is more progress than I ever hoped possible. Practically every discussion I've had with you over the years centered around the topic of theism versus atheism in some form. To my recollection, I have never, ever discussed with you religion in general or Christianity in particular and my reasoning is really very simple, which you should already know. We cannot discuss religion (revelation) unless we first agree on monotheism (reason and rationality). Are you saying there is now in fact evidence for monotheism (A) but your stumbling block is religion/revelation (B)? Because if that's the case, the whole dynamic of our discussions has shifted. If it's not, then we're back to square one.

Naaw we're back to square one Bruh. See my previous post as to why I responded the way I did.

Thank you for not wasting my time. I just wish you'd stop with the nonsense of making it look like the reason you don't believe in God is religion when in fact it is irrationality, pure and simple.

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:44 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:43 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:37 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Okay Byblos; I will rephrase it in a way that hopefully you find more suitable.

Here is where we disagree; I see MONOtheism in general as evidence A points to conclusion B, but nobody agrees on what B is; and Christianity is just one of countless versions B


Is that better?

Actually yes, it is more progress than I ever hoped possible. Practically every discussion I've had with you over the years centered around the topic of theism versus atheism in some form. To my recollection, I have never, ever discussed with you religion in general or Christianity in particular and my reasoning is really very simple, which you should already know. We cannot discuss religion (revelation) unless we first agree on monotheism (reason and rationality). Are you saying there is now in fact evidence for monotheism (A) but your stumbling block is religion/revelation (B)? Because if that's the case, the whole dynamic of our discussions has shifted. If it's not, then we're back to square one.

Naaw we're back to square one Bruh. See my previous post as to why I responded the way I did.

Thank you for not wasting my time. I just wish you'd stop with the nonsense of making it look like the reason you don't believe in God is religion when in fact it is irrationality, pure and simple.

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

The underlined shows that you have not understood, or have refused to understand the entire conversation.

You don't see evidence for God, yet proof of God has been explained to you over and over. The fact that you conflate scientific evidence, and metaphysical proof, is extremely frustrating to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

Rick addressing Ken: You don't see evidence for God, yet proof of God has been explained to you over and over. The fact that you conflate scientific evidence, and metaphysical proof, is extremely frustrating to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

He has ZERO metaphysical proof, only hopeful metaphysical speculation. As the ONLY proof is in the real-world evidence that any rational person should conclude that a powerful, eternal intelligence HAD to be behind the universe, unless one thinks A) that there are blind, eternal things that B) have to potential to BECOME intelligent, and then the ability to create mind-blowing complexity, designs and functionalities that our best scientists can scarcely understand a small percentage of. As there is absolute no way blind, non-intelligent things can do anything at all - and least of all, can they "jump the shark" from the non-physical realm to the physical one. Logic should be factually based - and not speculatively.

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:54 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:44 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:43 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:37 pm

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:04 am

Actually yes, it is more progress than I ever hoped possible. Practically every discussion I've had with you over the years centered around the topic of theism versus atheism in some form. To my recollection, I have never, ever discussed with you religion in general or Christianity in particular and my reasoning is really very simple, which you should already know. We cannot discuss religion (revelation) unless we first agree on monotheism (reason and rationality). Are you saying there is now in fact evidence for monotheism (A) but your stumbling block is religion/revelation (B)? Because if that's the case, the whole dynamic of our discussions has shifted. If it's not, then we're back to square one.

Naaw we're back to square one Bruh. See my previous post as to why I responded the way I did.

Thank you for not wasting my time. I just wish you'd stop with the nonsense of making it look like the reason you don't believe in God is religion when in fact it is irrationality, pure and simple.

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

The underlined shows that you have not understood, or have refused to understand the entire conversation.

You don't see evidence for God, yet proof of God has been explained to you over and over. The fact that you conflate scientific evidence, and metaphysical proof, is extremely frustrating to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

Conflate scientific evidence with metaphysical proof? I have never conflated the study of the physical world with philosophy.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:18 pm

Rick addressing Ken: You don't see evidence for God, yet proof of God has been explained to you over and over. The fact that you conflate scientific evidence, and metaphysical proof, is extremely frustrating to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

He has ZERO metaphysical proof, only hopeful metaphysical speculation. As the ONLY proof is in the real-world evidence that any rational person should conclude that a powerful, eternal intelligence HAD to be behind the universe, unless one thinks A) that there are blind, eternal things that B) have to potential to BECOME intelligent, and then the ability to create mind-blowing complexity, designs and functionalities that our best scientists can scarcely understand a small percentage of. As there is absolute no way blind, non-intelligent things can do anything at all - and least of all, can they "jump the shark" from the non-physical realm to the physical one. Logic should be factually based - and not speculatively.

Or C) the answer is something you or I are completely unaware of. I think it would be a mistake to limit the possibilities of the physical world to what you currently know of it.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:54 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:44 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:43 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:37 pm

Naaw we're back to square one Bruh. See my previous post as to why I responded the way I did.

Thank you for not wasting my time. I just wish you'd stop with the nonsense of making it look like the reason you don't believe in God is religion when in fact it is irrationality, pure and simple.

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

The underlined shows that you have not understood, or have refused to understand the entire conversation.

You don't see evidence for God, yet proof of God has been explained to you over and over. The fact that you conflate scientific evidence, and metaphysical proof, is extremely frustrating to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

Conflate scientific evidence with metaphysical proof? I have never conflated the study of the physical world with philosophy.

Of course you have. This thread for example, is about proof. Metaphysical proof. You have been shown proof of why God must exist, as you have been shown before. And instead of acknowledging the proof which you have been shown, you say:

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

Again, metaphysics proves God. It's logical and leads to God. You are looking at the evidence throughout the natural universe, and conclude that the evidence does not point to God. And at the same time, you choose to ignore or deny the metaphysical proof for God's existence.

In other words, you are saying that you don't believe in God, because you don't believe the evidence points to God.

And we're saying, at least in this thread, that the proof for God is metaphysical. Let's call evidence(science) box A, and proof(metaphysics) box B. We are telling you that the proof is in box B, yet you refuse to look at box B, and keep saying that box A shows you that God doesn't exist.

At what point do we just say that you don't want to know the truth, because you keep refusing to see it?

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:09 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:54 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:44 am

Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:43 pm

Thank you for not wasting my time. I just wish you'd stop with the nonsense of making it look like the reason you don't believe in God is religion when in fact it is irrationality, pure and simple.

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

The underlined shows that you have not understood, or have refused to understand the entire conversation.

You don't see evidence for God, yet proof of God has been explained to you over and over. The fact that you conflate scientific evidence, and metaphysical proof, is extremely frustrating to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

Conflate scientific evidence with metaphysical proof? I have never conflated the study of the physical world with philosophy.

Of course you have. This thread for example, is about proof. Metaphysical proof. You have been shown proof of why God must exist, as you have been shown before. And instead of acknowledging the proof which you have been shown, you say:

I have never said me not believing in your God was due to religion or irrationality, but due to a lack of evidence.

Again, metaphysics proves God. It's logical and leads to God. You are looking at the evidence throughout the natural universe, and conclude that the evidence does not point to God. And at the same time, you choose to ignore or deny the metaphysical proof for God's existence.

In other words, you are saying that you don't believe in God, because you don't believe the evidence points to God.

And we're saying, at least in this thread, that the proof for God is metaphysical. Let's call evidence(science) box A, and proof(metaphysics) box B. We are telling you that the proof is in box B, yet you refuse to look at box B, and keep saying that box A shows you that God doesn't exist.

At what point do we just say that you don't want to know the truth, because you keep refusing to see it?

Metaphysical proof? Metaphysics is philosophy. Philosophy doesn’t provide proof, it asks questions, and raises the possibility of different concepts, that may eventually lead to answers; but physical proof isn’t going to be solved via metaphysics or any other branch of philosophy. I can understand a person attaining subjective answers through the use of philosophy, but as far as getting physical proof, you aren’t going to get this through philosophy.

Kenny wrote:
Metaphysical proof? Metaphysics is philosophy. Philosophy doesn’t provide proof, it asks questions, and raises the possibility of different concepts, that may eventually lead to answers; but physical proof isn’t going to be solved via metaphysics or any other branch of philosophy. I can understand a person attaining subjective answers through the use of philosophy, but as far as getting physical proof, you aren’t going to get this through philosophy.

You are conflating evidence and proof again. Physical evidence, relates to the scientific method. Metaphysics deals with proof.

And again Kenny, there is proof for God. Just because you don't/can't understand the difference, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Or C) the answer is something you or I are completely unaware of. I think it would be a mistake to limit the possibilities of the physical world to what you currently know of it.

The problem with that answer is, it offers nothing but imaginative speculation. AND, A) it denies that, what came into existence has characteristics that reveal their necessity for an intelligent Cause and B) the fact that non-intelligent things cannot produce physical things where none previously existed, and C) nor could they create things of astonishing complexity and functionality that are so precisely interactive that some Intelligence clearly has set into motion how they are to function, both individually and comprehensively, with each other. The parameters of ANY first Cause - at least that could have produced the Big Bang - MUST be D) immensely intelligent, E) supremely powerful, and F) eternal - because only a Source with such attributes could have produced the results and things that had and have the attributes these many wonders instantly contained and continue to. And so the ONLY characteristics that could have collectively produced the Big Bang and what instantly emerged within moments of it beginning must combine the attributes of D, E and F.

So, one can speculate all day long about the identity of the Cause of the universe, but they cannot rationally get around the characteristics which that causative Source MUST contain, in order to be able to produce what appeared. That's just logic 101. Yes, we can speculate - but we need to do so logically - or else it's just irrelevant speculation that gives us no reason to actually believe it, OTHER THAN, because one WANTS to believe it. I can speculate that it's possible to win the lottery a million times in a row - but it won't be LOGICAL specuation.

Consider:

Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox' quoting of renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

For what Ken asserts to be possible, much less true, he'd have to be able to believe in an uncaused universe that would be possible of approaching this statistically impossible number noted by Penrose! But let's not let Ken's unreasonable logic in what might be possible stop him. Because once a person' is prepared to embrace the absurd and illogical - well, NO well-reasoned logic or statistical improbability will ever deter one so determined to believe otherwise!