Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:25 amAt the very least, Ken must admit that A) SOMETHING must be eternal and B) only a source with many of the capabilities described of the God of the Bible could produce the Big Bang event / our universe today!

You're half right; A) makes sense; B) does not

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:25 am Also, the Source for the universe had to have the knowledge and ability to create its building blocks (non-intelligent things cannot create themselves nor do they have awareness of ANYTHING!),

Intelligent things don't create themselves either.

Instead of wasting our time trying to use evidence to convince atheists of God. We need to stop doing the same thing over and over expecting to get different results- Insanity.This is a one sided evidence debate devised by atheists to get you to try to use evidence to prove your religion and God is true just so they can reject,deny and explain it all away,while they sit there with no evidence at all,muchless proof they are correct to live as if a god does not exist. They believe atheists who have no evidence and no credibility concerning their atheistic opinions on any subject.They believe them so much despite knowing that they have absolutely no evidence at all they ignore the fact atheists have no evidence and decide to live as an atheist,knowingly despite the lack of evidence.Instead of trying to convince Kenny here using evidence he is going to reject,you/we should instead try to remind him the importance of going by evidence to get to the truth of any subject so that Kenny will realize atheism is not the correct way I should be living. There is no reason based on evidence for me to be living as a atheist. Atheists have no evidence,no credibility and are living by blind faith.Atheism is not and cannot be the correct way I should be living,etc. This does not mean we can't use evidence but when it is an atheist we are dealing with we should use evidence strategically,not to convince atheists but to point out to people watching/reading these debates atheists are the ones who have no evidence,no credibility on any subject,not just religion and God,but any subject because you should not believe people who have no evidence.We need to explain to people atheists don't know how to use evidence to know if something is true or not and we need to help them learn. Then you can present your evidence and say "Here look at our evidence and see we do have credibility about why we believe and live as we do"

God always existed. Someone or something always existed. Simple.

I have to tell this to ppl on YouTube shorts. Ugh.

Armyman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:17 pm God always existed. Someone or something always existed. Simple.

I have to tell this to ppl on YouTube shorts. Ugh.

I don't think it is a matter of if something or someone has always existed, not much debate there; the debate is who or what has always existed. That is where everybody disagrees on.

Ken: I don't think it is a matter of if something or someone has always existed, not much debate there; the debate is who or what has always existed. That is where everybody disagrees on.

Ken is exactly right - something, or rather, SOMEONE, had to have pre-existed the universe. But there are two other absolutely necessary attributes of that pre-existing Entity:

This creative / eternal Force behind the universe had to be unfathomably powerful, with the ability to grow what first existed, from an almost infinitely small point to nearly an octillion (that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros) times in size, and in less than a trillionth of a second. And this was no random explosion, but a exceptionally powerful and controlled expansion.

The creative / eternal Force also had to be intelligent beyond what we can conceive, as what it built, designed, and how these things were deployed were astoundingly brilliant and still mysterious, even to our best scientific minds and analysis, for a century now. In just the first THREE MINUTES of the Big Bang's beginning, light elements, such as hydrogen and helium, were formed. When the universe was less than 0.0001 second old, the photons of the cosmic background were so energetic, proton-antiproton pairs were continuously being formed by pair production. However, the proton-antiproton pairs were also continuously being destroyed by annihilation. At an age of just four seconds, the temperature of the universe dropped below 6 billion degrees Kelvin. two minutes after the initial Big Bang, the universe contained nuclei more complicated than a single proton. After three minutes, helium formed by the fusion of deuterium, protons, and neutrons. All of these amazing things of incredible designs were created in just three minutes, and perfectly began to combine, alter and interact in stunning ways. And they had to have a specific sequence in their developments and timings, as the laws of physics observe and that continue to this day. I don't even drink a cup of coffee in three minutes - which makes what physicists say about the universe's beginning so mind-blowing! But as stunningly fast as these things came into existence, in mere minutes, it's not as if this Creative Force were in a hurry, as It wasn't until matter started to dominate the density of the universe (after about 2,500 years) that the universe became transparent (after about 300,000 years) and as stars began forming and started up the process of nucleosynthesis again.

But the existence of EVERYTHING that exists depends upon those first three minutes of the Big Bang. There was a astonishing Mind behind our universe, that also designed and powered it up, and has expanded it beyond comprehension! Blind things can't build and design ANYTHING - it took a purposeful Mind to begin the universe and to set in place it's guiding mechanics and ongoing operation.

Is there evidence for other universes yet? Scientifically speaking.
I recall a program decades ago when I was a young child on the science Channel mentioning this. Apparently it was due to the fact that one part of this universe is being pulled out faster than the others, hinting at a sister universe pulling it.

Army, the idea of a multiverse - or sequence of them - has zero evidences. Oh, the idea does have a lot of CONJECTURE - but nothing exists beyond people theorizing about them. And as the idea that such universes existing - if the "did" exist, each would have to have a source - just like every chain starts with one manufactured link. And thus this is true of universes linked in a chain - as the first one must come into existence FIRST - and that universe, just as with our own one, must be created by a Creator!

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:04 am

Ken: I don't think it is a matter of if something or someone has always existed, not much debate there; the debate is who or what has always existed. That is where everybody disagrees on.

Ken is exactly right - something, or rather, SOMEONE, had to have pre-existed the universe.

That's not what I said. I said something had to have existed eternally. IOW the Universe could be that which has existed eternally

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:20 pm Army, the idea of a multiverse - or sequence of them - has zero evidences. Oh, the idea does have a lot of CONJECTURE - but nothing exists beyond people theorizing about them. And as the idea that such universes existing -

The same can be said concerning your theory of an intelligent creator as well.

Ken: The same can be said concerning your theory of an intelligent creator as well.

Ken, the evidences for a Creator are massive and many impossibilities and extraordinary complexities have been noted on this site - but to a one, you appear to insist they could just happen without an intelligent source behind them. And that's simply not credible! EVERY contingent thing that exists or has existed has had a source. And every thing that has incredibly complex design had a designer! But you can imagine what blind, random things are capable of, and then I'd point out just the first three minutes of the Big Bang. Explain those three minutes and the things that appeared, instantly, with complex designs, functionalities, and their amazing interactions and interdependencies. Then we can talk about the rest of evidences across all of time. Anyone can make a statement, but to be credible, one must be able to otherwise demonstrate things that are known to be able to replicate such marvels without an intelligent source. Create DNA, a "simple" cell (more complex than ANY machine man has ever produced), etc. No, Ken, the evidences are there, it's just that you continue to deny they take an intelligent designer to exist. And a mere wave of your hand or statement won't change that.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:13 am EVERY contingent thing that exists or has existed has had a source. And every thing that has incredibly complex design had a designer!

Why would you just assume the Universe is designed and is contingent?

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:13 am But you can imagine what blind, random things are capable of,

I disagree. Nobody knows enough about the entire Universe to know what everything blind and random, are capable of

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:13 am and then I'd point out just the first three minutes of the Big Bang. Explain those three minutes and the things that appeared, instantly, with complex designs, functionalities, and their amazing interactions and interdependencies. Then we can talk about the rest of evidences across all of time. Anyone can make a statement, but to be credible, one must be able to otherwise demonstrate things that are known to be able to replicate such marvels without an intelligent source.

Are you suggesting the first 3 minutes of the Big Bang could not have happened without an intelligent source behind it? How do you know this?

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:13 am Create DNA, a "simple" cell (more complex than ANY machine man has ever produced), etc.

So cells and DNA were actually created now? Again; how do you know this?