Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:05 am

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

The fact that things exist tells me that something/somethings could not have been created from something else. Do you agree?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:41 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:05 am

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

The fact that things exist tells me that something/somethings could not have been created from something else. Do you agree?

That's a metaphysical statement. You've dismissed metaphysics, remember?

Paul asked you for evidence for anything to have always existed.

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:41 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:05 am

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

The fact that things exist tells me that something/somethings could not have been created from something else. Do you agree?

That's not what I asked you.
And that question doesn't make any sense.
Things are created from other things all the time.

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:41 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:05 am

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

The fact that things exist tells me that something/somethings could not have been created from something else. Do you agree?

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:47 am That's a metaphysical statement. You've dismissed metaphysics, remember?

If I recall correctly, I believe I dismissed philosophy as providing proof; not evidence. I do believe logic (a branch of philosophy) can be used as evidence.

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:47 am Paul asked you for evidence for anything to have always existed.

True, and I provided him with what I consider to be evidence

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:41 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:04 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:05 am

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

The fact that things exist tells me that something/somethings could not have been created from something else. Do you agree?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:49 am That's not what I asked you.

Whether you agree or not, what I provided you with was what I see as evidence for something(s) being eternal.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:49 am And that question doesn't make any sense.

Why does it not make sense?" Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:49 am Things are created from other things all the time.

What I'm talking about would require an infinite number of prior events.

Do you have any evidence for any event that had a infinite prior number of events ?
Do you have evidence for the existence of something that has always existed?

No speculation, which is what you posted.
EVIDENCE.

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"


You speculation:
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

Starts with a false premise:
"X" was never created because it has always existed.
It is false because you have NO EVIDENCE for "X" always existing UNLESS, of course, the very nature of "X" is that it MUST have always existed.

Do you have any evidence for that about CELLS, since THAT is what begin this part of the discussion.

Is there ANYTHING in the nature of what cells are that DEMANDS they have always existed?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:09 am Do you have any evidence for any event that had a infinite prior number of events ?

Of course not. If such evidence did exist, I wouldn’t recognize it if I saw it either.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:09 am Do you have evidence for the existence of something that has always existed?

Again; no.,

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:09 am No speculation, which is what you posted.

I speculate because this is what makes sense to me; which is what we are talking about, since nobody has proof.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:09 am You speculation:
1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

Starts with a false premise:
"X" was never created because it has always existed.
It is false because you have NO EVIDENCE for "X" always existing UNLESS, of course, the very nature of "X" is that it MUST have always existed.

Again; I never claimed to have evidence, this is just what makes sense to me.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:09 am Do you have any evidence for that about CELLS, since THAT is what begin this part of the discussion.

No.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:09 am Is there ANYTHING in the nature of what cells are that DEMANDS they have always existed?

No. If there was I wouldn’t recognize it if I saw it. But that still doesn’t refute the point I was making.

I am confused.

The point you are making is this:

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.

BUT the world around refutes that point because you have no reason to believe it since you have no evidence that is the case.

You do, however, have evidence to believe that is something CAN be created , since you see things being created everyday.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:50 am I am confused.

The point you are making is this:

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.

BUT the world around refutes that point because you have no reason to believe it since you have no evidence that is the case.

You do, however, have evidence to believe that is something CAN be created , since you see things being created everyday.

How are you defining "create"? Is it to assemble using already existing ingredients/parts? Or to make something out of nothing?

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:26 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:50 am I am confused.

The point you are making is this:

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.

BUT the world around refutes that point because you have no reason to believe it since you have no evidence that is the case.

You do, however, have evidence to believe that is something CAN be created , since you see things being created everyday.

How are you defining "create"? Is it to assemble using already existing ingredients/parts? Or to make something out of nothing?

Doesn't really matter.
Point is that you have no evidence for cells always existing but you do have evidence of cells being created.

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:26 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:50 am I am confused.

The point you are making is this:

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.

BUT the world around refutes that point because you have no reason to believe it since you have no evidence that is the case.

You do, however, have evidence to believe that is something CAN be created , since you see things being created everyday.

How are you defining "create"? Is it to assemble using already existing ingredients/parts? Or to make something out of nothing?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:10 pm Doesn't really matter.

Yes it does matter. I define "create" as bringing into existence; IOT to make something from nothing. if you are interpreting it a different way, let me know so I can respond accordingly.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:10 pm Point is that you have no evidence for cells always existing but you do have evidence of cells being created.

Again; going by how I am defining "create", I have never seen anything created, and I doubt you have either; all I've seen is various things assembled from previous exiting parts. Again; how are you defining "create"?

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:12 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:26 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:50 am I am confused.

The point you are making is this:

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.

BUT the world around refutes that point because you have no reason to believe it since you have no evidence that is the case.

You do, however, have evidence to believe that is something CAN be created , since you see things being created everyday.

How are you defining "create"? Is it to assemble using already existing ingredients/parts? Or to make something out of nothing?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:10 pm Doesn't really matter.

Yes it does matter. I define "create" as bringing into existence; IOT to make something from nothing. if you are interpreting it a different way, let me know so I can respond accordingly.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:10 pm Point is that you have no evidence for cells always existing but you do have evidence of cells being created.

Again; going by how I am defining "create", I have never seen anything created, and I doubt you have either; all I've seen is various things assembled from previous exiting parts. Again; how are you defining "create"?

Of course you have never seen anything created "from nothing", because nothing can be created from nothing.
To create is to "bring forth something NEW" that didn't exist before.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:43 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:12 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:26 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:50 am I am confused.

The point you are making is this:

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.

BUT the world around refutes that point because you have no reason to believe it since you have no evidence that is the case.

You do, however, have evidence to believe that is something CAN be created , since you see things being created everyday.

How are you defining "create"? Is it to assemble using already existing ingredients/parts? Or to make something out of nothing?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:10 pm Doesn't really matter.

Yes it does matter. I define "create" as bringing into existence; IOT to make something from nothing. if you are interpreting it a different way, let me know so I can respond accordingly.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:10 pm Point is that you have no evidence for cells always existing but you do have evidence of cells being created.

Again; going by how I am defining "create", I have never seen anything created, and I doubt you have either; all I've seen is various things assembled from previous exiting parts. Again; how are you defining "create"?

Of course you have never seen anything created "from nothing", because nothing can be created from nothing.
To create is to "bring forth something NEW" that didn't exist before.

Okay; so just to be clear, every time a child is born, that is an example of creation?

You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:52 am You guys are arguing semantics.

Ever heard of a painter creating a masterpiece?

He didn't create the masterpiece from nothing. There's paint, a brush, and a canvas that already existed.

Ken knows this, I am not sure what he is trying to pull to be honest.