Evidence for God from Science

This is probably more of a question to atheists, but it's a fairly general idea.
On almost every level, it always seems more natural, or more likely, that something doesn't happen or doesn't exist. Only when another force intervenes does something happen/exist, because it is easier to not ___ than to ___. For theists because God or some other intelligent being wanted to accomplish something, they intervened with the natural flow of things. For atheists, ?
For example, it would be most logical that there is an equal amount of quarks and anti-quarks, resulting in lack of matter. That is not the case though.
Summary:
For atheism:
1) Nature takes the easiest path.
2) Nothing is the easiest path.

Theism:
3)Intelligent beings change the flow of nature.
Objection: We have to presuppose intelligent beings and their intent, or want, or need to do something.

Any solutions from either side?


Btw, people tend to avoid this question by saying:"Well, things do exist so whats the point of asking?". This is a "why" question though, so saying that is like telling a detective:"Why ask how that person died? Does it really matter?". Please avoid this question.

One needs to go back to the Aristotelian causes:

- Material cause: What a thing is made of (an ax: wood, metal)
- Efficient cause: Agency by which a thing is made (craftsman)
- Formal cause: That into which a thing is made (identity: the act of being an ax)
- Final cause: That for which a thing is made (purpose: cutting wood)

Formal and final causation, coupled with Aquinas' 5 ways are as solid as any proof for the existence of an intelligent, uncaused cause, irrespective of the nature of the universe (big bang, eternal, multiverse, whatever).

Byblos wrote:One needs to go back to the Aristotelian causes:

- Material cause: What a thing is made of (an ax: wood, metal)
- Efficient cause: Agency by which a thing is made (craftsman)
- Formal cause: That into which a thing is made (identity: the act of being an ax)
- Final cause: That for which a thing is made (purpose: cutting wood)

Formal and final causation, coupled with Aquinas' 5 ways are as solid as any proof for the existence of an intelligent, uncaused cause, irrespective of the nature of the universe (big bang, eternal, multiverse, whatever).

Those are good arguments, but they aren't answering the right question. There is something now and there necessarily has always been something or someone. So I think you (it seems by accident) dodged the question. I am a theist, but to play devils' advocate: Does this necessarily need to be God? Couldn't this be the multiverse or something similar? Basically, why is God necessary (I know He is, unless...) ? Couldn't something else fill this role? See, I agree with eternal and uncaused, but intelligent I'm not so sure about.
Also, why would God want to make the universe? Why would He have a personality at all? I hope whynot doesn't start one of his objective morality arguments here though. Not that they lead anywhere...

Maybe this will answer some part of your question(s) Snow.

This vid talks about why God is necessary- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8 ... re=related

This vid talks about why the cause of the universe has to be personal and intelligent & among other things - http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvide ... qzqEFw5_1c

Both are a tad long but if you have time i would recommend watching em, especially the second one.

But the atheist still needs to come up with something. I do hear people say "Couldn't it have been something else?" Well, they need to give us Christians an idea what that something else could be. I don't see much evidence for a multiverse and see it more as wishful thinking, but even that does nothing to solve the problem of infinite regression (even the multiverse can't be eternal) and I'm not so sure that it even negates fine tuning either.

Atheists love bringing up "God of the gaps" even when arguments aren't even close to fitting the bill, but I believe skeptics are more than willing to resort to "science of the gaps" reasoning here. Theists do provide reasons why God is the only entity that could fit the bill, but atheists will act like there is some science that will be discovered even as the evidence that God IS the best explanation grows stronger and stronger.

There have been numerous proposed answers to the Cosmological argument, some even by Christian philosophers. Do you want to be referred to literature on the topic?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Something and nothing are complementary. When there is something in my cup I drink it until there is nothing in my cup, and repeat.
The closer we look the more 'something' is composed of mainly 'nothing'.
Nothing is essential to something. Nothing is substantial, it's what stands beneath. There's plenty of it about

Why this particular arrangement of something interspersed with nothing at this particular point in time? I'm not sure.

Proinsias wrote:Why is there something rather than nothing?

Something and nothing are complementary. When there is something in my cup I drink it until there is nothing in my cup, and repeat.
The closer we look the more 'something' is composed of mainly 'nothing'.
Nothing is essential to something. Nothing is substantial, it's what stands beneath. There's plenty of it about

Why this particular arrangement of something interspersed with nothing at this particular point in time? I'm not sure.

Something and nothing are most certainly not complementary, one is the exact opposite of the other much in the same way ^A is the negation of A. A and ^A cannot both be true at the same time and neither can something and nothing. When there is something in your cup and you drink it you're not left with the complement of what you drank, you're left with nothing. There's plenty of nothing about? Proinsias, I'm sorry my friend but you've really gone off the deep end here. Really? Is this what it comes down to? Are you testing out the theory of absurdity you've been reading about or something?

Guys, remember that nothing is not just no thing, it's not a vacuum, it's nothing - what rocks dream of. Something coming from true nothing is beyond me. Trying to explain that leads to the conclusion that, well, pretty much anything can happen for no reason at all.
Here's a good explanation : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqfoiL9_deU
I conclude that the universe is a miracle , no matter how you take it.

@ Cet-To - I don't quite understand the ontological argument, but it reminds me of the argument from absolute truth. Could you explain the jump from "God is possible in all worlds (or actual world)" to "God exists in the actual world". Possibility does not mean certainty, right? Some of the arguments presented for the Trinity and a MGB though are very good.

Noah1201 wrote:There have been numerous proposed answers to the Cosmological argument, some even by Christian philosophers. Do you want to be referred to literature on the topic?

Sure, though most I have gone through I realize are ridiculous after some further thinking.

Proinsias wrote:Why is there something rather than nothing?

Something and nothing are complementary. When there is something in my cup I drink it until there is nothing in my cup, and repeat.
The closer we look the more 'something' is composed of mainly 'nothing'.
Nothing is essential to something. Nothing is substantial, it's what stands beneath. There's plenty of it about

Why this particular arrangement of something interspersed with nothing at this particular point in time? I'm not sure.

As I said in the other comment, it's not really nothing, there's plenty even in a vacuum. That's not the point though.
This view pretty much demolishes absolute truth, in which case there's not really a point to argue. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqfoiL9_deU
Did you check your living room?

SnowDrops wrote:

Byblos wrote:One needs to go back to the Aristotelian causes:

- Material cause: What a thing is made of (an ax: wood, metal)
- Efficient cause: Agency by which a thing is made (craftsman)
- Formal cause: That into which a thing is made (identity: the act of being an ax)
- Final cause: That for which a thing is made (purpose: cutting wood)

Formal and final causation, coupled with Aquinas' 5 ways are as solid as any proof for the existence of an intelligent, uncaused cause, irrespective of the nature of the universe (big bang, eternal, multiverse, whatever).

Those are good arguments, but they aren't answering the right question. There is something now and there necessarily has always been something or someone. So I think you (it seems by accident) dodged the question. I am a theist, but to play devils' advocate: Does this necessarily need to be God? Couldn't this be the multiverse or something similar? Basically, why is God necessary (I know He is, unless...) ? Couldn't something else fill this role? See, I agree with eternal and uncaused, but intelligent I'm not so sure about.
Also, why would God want to make the universe? Why would He have a personality at all? I hope whynot doesn't start one of his objective morality arguments here though. Not that they lead anywhere...

I agree with you. We cannot ascertain by the impossibility of matter arising on its alone that the cause was a god, not only that, but the God of the Bible. A lot of atheists take this to an absurd extent, they say "just because there's fine tuning in the universe you think God made the universe, and YOUR god, no less." but of course that's not our position. We ascertain that there was a cause through the study of the universe, but on that basis alone we cannot know that the God we believe in is the correct one - although there is a theory that the constellations in the stars paint the gospel story actually better than they do Greek or Roman mythology. That's not the point. We've established that there is a cause, however vague that at first may seem, and then the search for that cause is narrowed down to Yahweh through personal revelation, an understanding of the incredible prophetical and historical accuracy of the Bible, eyewitness accounts of Jesus etc. I think Christians kind of take the intelligent design and causality argument to a ridiculous extent, a lot of them say that because something came from nothing that automatically we can know that it was Yahweh, and that's where the "fairy tale" stereotype of Christians comes in. If you play devil's advocate for a second and ask Christians how they know that the cause was God, and no less Yahweh out of the thousands of conceived Gods, they don't have a good reply, that's when Biblical study and prophecy etc. comes in to fill in the gaps and indicate that Yahweh really is the cause.

Oh, I think I got the ontological argument. Since a MGB is possible and it is better to exist than to not exist, then a MGB exists. Well that has a lot more weight than the multiverse.

Byblos wrote:

Something and nothing are most certainly not complementary, one is the exact opposite of the other much in the same way ^A is the negation of A. A and ^A cannot both be true at the same time and neither can something and nothing. When there is something in your cup and you drink it you're not left with the complement of what you drank, you're left with nothing. There's plenty of nothing about? Proinsias, I'm sorry my friend but you've really gone off the deep end here. Really? Is this what it comes down to? Are you testing out the theory of absurdity you've been reading about or something?

Just another way of looking at it. It can be looked at as more mutual arising and less "what came first" It's not something I've picked up from Camus, although he does allude to that sort of thing. It's an ancient idea. Laozi, or at least someone, was writing "Being and non-being create each other" over two thousand years ago and there have been many others with similar ideas.

It's an old answer to an old question. Like asking why there is positive rather than negative the answer must be that there is both, even though we may admit that both cannot be true at the same place in the same time.

Can opposites not compliment each other?

Proinsias wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Something and nothing are most certainly not complementary, one is the exact opposite of the other much in the same way ^A is the negation of A. A and ^A cannot both be true at the same time and neither can something and nothing. When there is something in your cup and you drink it you're not left with the complement of what you drank, you're left with nothing. There's plenty of nothing about? Proinsias, I'm sorry my friend but you've really gone off the deep end here. Really? Is this what it comes down to? Are you testing out the theory of absurdity you've been reading about or something?

Just another way of looking at it. It can be looked at as more mutual arising and less "what came first" It's not something I've picked up from Camus, although he does allude to that sort of thing. It's an ancient idea. Laozi, or at least someone, was writing "Being and non-being create each other" over two thousand years ago and there have been many others with similar ideas.

It's an old answer to an old question. Like asking why there is positive rather than negative the answer must be that there is both, even though we may admit that both cannot be true at the same place in the same time.

Can opposites not compliment each other?

But negative is a thing. As I said before, even a vacuum is in reality quite a lot. True nothing - what rocks dream of - creating something is ridiculous.