Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:08 am**

Now, I've skimmed through most of this site for quite a while. But I'm just deciding I wanted to point out some serious issues with at least the first part(s) for now. Here are the two main issues I have with statements made in the introductory article. If I am in the mood, I'll continue through.

1. "The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design"
This is an unfair statement. The author is asking a question, then filling in the answer for the opposing side himself. The first problem is that it assumes that because something is unlikely, it needs to be directed by a third party (there is really no logical backing behind this one). And I have no choice but to question the author's ability to think in a non-biased manner. The second issue is that it is not true. Yes, most places in the universe will instantly kill life; however, given a terrestrial planet is within the habitable zone, scientists are finding that life is not as needy of a single specific environment as we once thought (reference: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/life-s ... d=12291373) And don't even get me started on evidence for life on Mars.

To summarize, this statement shows some pretty clear bias, self-answered conclusions to fit a preconceived belief, as well as a lack of understanding of what life is.
2. "If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism."

If true, there would still be no observational evidence, and reason would lean towards us not knowing why we are here (thankfully, there is a lot done in the field of abiogenesis, astronomy and evolution which are helping us realize that an unlikely event is still extremely likely in the vastness of the universe). (Reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)
To summarize, not knowing something is not evidence that it is by default supernatural. This goes against everything we know and have ever observed (considering no supernatural event has ever been observed, making such an assumption is silly, at best). I myself find serious issues with questions like "what happened before the big bang". For one, this is an illogical question. Before the big bang there was no time, nothing could have happened before the big bang. God does not solve this problem, it simply adds an unnecessary variable which branches to several other questions. What I mean is, when we do not know something, we cannot add in the "solve all" variable to make it make sense, because this variable would then need to be explained (which, seeing as there is no evidence suggesting it is even real, let alone real as theists would like to describe it, all unsolved equations are left as unsolved until science can provide answers).

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:41 pm**

"If true, there would still be no observational evidence, and reason would lean towards us not knowing why we are here..."

Before you get into some extremely detailed points of debate, what alternative do you propose to God as the cause of the universe? Not of human beings, DNA, or any of the higher order things. I'm talking about matter, energy, forces, and existence itself. Where did it come from?

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:13 pm**

I think your criticism is basically that you think the website appeals to the God of the Gaps arguement. However, I think this site is very careful to stay away from using that and does a good job of offering positive evidence for God rather than an appeal to ignorance and claiming that God wins by default.

The site's point in pointing out the all of the factors that go into the creation of life is to show how increadibly unlikely (basically impossible) it is for life to rise up in a purely naturalistic worldview of our universe from the big bang. It isn't suggesting "we don't know how it happened so it must have been God" but is rather saying "the extreme unlikelyhood of life coming about on its own gives one a sound reason to believe that there was intelligent intent from a higher power in the creation of life". The two are rather different.

As for the challenge that life isn't as unlikely as the site suggests, I wouldn't know. The list of factors that the site lays out are pretty compelling though.

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:39 pm**

what alternative do you propose to God as the cause of the universe? Not of human beings, DNA, or any of the higher order things. I'm talking about matter, energy, forces, and existence itself. Where did it come from?

I'm afraid I haven't a clue

The list of factors that the site lays out are pretty compelling though.

Please refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:20 pm**

what alternative do you propose to God as the cause of the universe? Not of human beings, DNA, or any of the higher order things. I'm talking about matter, energy, forces, and existence itself. Where did it come from?

I'm afraid I haven't a clue

Agnostic is the most safe position if you fear being proven wrong but the fact is, you can not experience God unless you want to. A man can not be wet unless he is in water. Abiogenesis and evolution are still theories, strong ones but not proven. Still it is a common fallacy to think that evolution can't co-exist with God. For one you need to elaborate which evolution are you talking about. There is more than one model. This is no God of the Gaps argument but simply put. Can you or any body tell me, "How matter first originated?" It is a basic scientific principle, in fact it is the one on which all evident science is based. Something can not come out of nothing. Matter can produce matter. The matter that you see is the residue of matter. Energy can not be destroyed, only transformed. This question is so tricky that Stephen Hawking had to write in his book that if the universe had a beginning than there is a God. But since he favors the steady state theory which said that the universe had always existed, it has been like this forever. He eliminates the question from even arising. The point is whatever theory states, what you are seeing is the result of something. No matter when the universe started. The matter would have to be created for the first time. If you say it existed always without any origin then why a theist is blamed to be ignorant - if he chooses to say God exists forever. I mean isn't that what you are saying and without any proof, if I might add. That to me is unfair. You are as blind as us if we come to talk about origins.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:38 am**

neo-x wrote:The point is whatever theory states, what you are seeing is the result of something. No matter when the universe started. The matter would have to be created for the first time. If you say it existed always without any origin then why a theist is blamed to be ignorant - if he chooses to say God exists forever. I mean isn't that what you are saying and without any proof, if I might add. That to me is unfair. You are as blind as us if we come to talk about origins.

Very true. And one of the most blatant of ironies. If a theist states that God (X) created the universe (Y), then the atheist asks what created God (X). Likewise, the atheist wants to say the Big Bang (X) created the universe (Y). Well, we’re asking what created X? Some have admitted that they don't know. Others, however, assert that X doesn't have to have a cause. So when X is the Big Bang, it doesn't have to have a cause. But when X is God, then it is fair game to demand of the theist a cause of X? This seems to me to be hypocritical.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:12 am**

neo-x wrote: Can you or any body tell me, "How matter first originated?" It is a basic scientific principle, in fact it is the one on which all evident science is based. Something can not come out of nothing. Matter can produce matter. The matter that you see is the residue of matter. Energy can not be destroyed, only transformed. This question is so tricky that Stephen Hawking had to write in his book that if the universe had a beginning than there is a God. But since he favors the steady state theory which said that the universe had always existed, it has been like this forever.

"According to quantum theory, there is no state of 'emptiness'," agrees Frank Close of the University of Oxford. Emptiness would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world. Instead, a vacuum is actually filled with a roiling broth of particles that pop in and out of existence. In that sense this magazine, you, me, the moon and everything else in our universe are just excitations of the quantum vacuum.

Might something similar account for the origin of the universe itself? Quite plausibly, says Wilczek. "There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," he says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

... perhaps nothingness itself cannot exist. Here's why. ...

For interested the continuation is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tml?page=1

But still:
Our understanding of creation relies on the validity of the laws of physics, particularly quantum uncertainty. But that implies that the laws of physics were somehow encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed. How can physical laws exist outside of space and time and without a cause of their own? Or, to put it another way, why is there something rather than nothing?

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:18 am**

aimforthehead wrote:Now, I've skimmed through most of this site for quite a while. But I'm just deciding I wanted to point out some serious issues with at least the first part(s) for now. Here are the two main issues I have with statements made in the introductory article. If I am in the mood, I'll continue through.

1. "The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design"
This is an unfair statement. The author is asking a question, then filling in the answer for the opposing side himself. The first problem is that it assumes that because something is unlikely, it needs to be directed by a third party (there is really no logical backing behind this one). And I have no choice but to question the author's ability to think in a non-biased manner. The second issue is that it is not true. Yes, most places in the universe will instantly kill life; however, given a terrestrial planet is within the habitable zone, scientists are finding that life is not as needy of a single specific environment as we once thought (reference: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/life-s ... d=12291373) And don't even get me started on evidence for life on Mars.

To summarize, this statement shows some pretty clear bias, self-answered conclusions to fit a preconceived belief, as well as a lack of understanding of what life is.
2. "If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism."

If true, there would still be no observational evidence, and reason would lean towards us not knowing why we are here (thankfully, there is a lot done in the field of abiogenesis, astronomy and evolution which are helping us realize that an unlikely event is still extremely likely in the vastness of the universe). (Reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)
To summarize, not knowing something is not evidence that it is by default supernatural. This goes against everything we know and have ever observed (considering no supernatural event has ever been observed, making such an assumption is silly, at best). I myself find serious issues with questions like "what happened before the big bang". For one, this is an illogical question. Before the big bang there was no time, nothing could have happened before the big bang. God does not solve this problem, it simply adds an unnecessary variable which branches to several other questions. What I mean is, when we do not know something, we cannot add in the "solve all" variable to make it make sense, because this variable would then need to be explained (which, seeing as there is no evidence suggesting it is even real, let alone real as theists would like to describe it, all unsolved equations are left as unsolved until science can provide answers).

You're accusing us theists of something we've never stated. God is not some sort of lazy answer to the hard questions about science. Heck, through the fine tuning argument and the ID movement we don't even know it was God who designed the universe. But there is proof out there, sir, that there WAS a cause. If you look at, for example, the vital ratio of electromagnetism to gravity which is accurate to 1/1000000000000000000000000000000, or perhaps the fact that the probability of the simplest cell "just happening" through naturalistic chance is four times less likely than what statisticians call mathematically impossible, then you realize of course that something else is going on. We don't say automatically it's God. Oftentimes people ASSUME it's God because of religious presumptions within society today. We know it's God through an understanding of the remarkable historical and prophetical accuracy of the Bible, eyewitness accounts of Jesus etc.

But to apply the "God-of-the-Gaps" accusation to Creationism is akin to saying that a Shakespeare play came through an explosion of a printing factory, because to say that someone wrote it is an "author-of-the-gaps" argument. It makes no sense. Of course there isn't scientific proof of an author, but any idiot can see the mind-stretching improbability of the universe existing without one. Science has demonstrated how fine-tuned the universe is. There HAS to be a designer.

Whether or not it's God, and which god, is another debate.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:35 am**

1over137 wrote:
"There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," he says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

There's the blunder right there. Trying to ascribe attributes to "nothingness" is ridiculous

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:39 am**

I'm seeing some serious misunderstandings going on here...
1.Agnostic is not some place in between theist and atheist. It is the stance most people would take (accepting the existence of god is unknowable or unknown). I am considered to be an agnostic atheist.
2.To "Evolution is just an unproven theory". This is an extremely immature view of what theory means. A theory is a proven hypothesis. The statement itself makes no sense. It would not be a theory if there were not facts, observations, and numerous stacks of evidence to support it.
3.

perhaps the fact that the probability of the simplest cell "just happening" through naturalistic chance is four times less likely than what statisticians call mathematically impossible

I've already made a response and linked to this issue I believe. To summarize, as a determinist, I accept there is in fact no chance, only unknown causes. And you'd be mistaken even if it were random chance, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html *again*
4.

If you say it existed always without any origin then why a theist is blamed to be ignorant - if he chooses to say God exists forever

I used to believe in an infinite universe (a finite universe makes more sense now). Having said that, for starters, we have evidence that the universe exists. And we don't worship it. And it doesn't make us shun gay people. Or pick and choose from science what supports our beliefs.
5.

Very true. And one of the most blatant of ironies. If a theist states that God (X) created the universe (Y), then the atheist asks what created God (X). Likewise, the atheist wants to say the Big Bang (X) created the universe (Y). Well, we’re asking what created X? Some have admitted that they don't know. Others, however, assert that X doesn't have to have a cause. So when X is the Big Bang, it doesn't have to have a cause. But when X is God, then it is fair game to demand of the theist a cause of X? This seems to me to be hypocritical.

As I've pointed out, that question is illogical (what happened before time).
However, we are learning more and more about the origins of the universe, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang. We know the big bang happened, we don't know why. Adding the God of Gaps does not solve that equation (you guys say it isn't the god of gaps, but you only put him in the equation when we don't know something. In other words, if everything needs a cause, this does not solve the causality issue. It is better to admit we do not know.

Admitting you do not know opens your mind to truth when it arrives. Assuming you know when in fact you do not, will close yourself to reason and science.
I have another question...
6.If you accept evolution, when does the soul evolve? Did Neanderthals have souls?

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:02 am**

aimforthehead wrote:I'm seeing some serious misunderstandings going on here...
1.Agnostic is not some place in between theist and atheist. It is the stance most people would take (accepting the existence of god is unknowable or unknown). I am considered to be an agnostic atheist.
2.To "Evolution is just an unproven theory". This is an extremely immature view of what theory means. A theory is a proven hypothesis. The statement itself makes no sense. It would not be a theory if there were not facts, observations, and numerous stacks of evidence to support it.
3.
perhaps the fact that the probability of the simplest cell "just happening" through naturalistic chance is four times less likely than what statisticians call mathematically impossible
I've already made a response and linked to this issue I believe. To summarize, as a determinist, I accept there is in fact no chance, only unknown causes. And you'd be mistaken even if it were random chance, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html *again*
4.
If you say it existed always without any origin then why a theist is blamed to be ignorant - if he chooses to say God exists forever
I used to believe in an infinite universe (a finite universe makes more sense now). Having said that, for starters, we have evidence that the universe exists. And we don't worship it. And it doesn't make us shun gay people. Or pick and choose from science what supports our beliefs.
5.
Very true. And one of the most blatant of ironies. If a theist states that God (X) created the universe (Y), then the atheist asks what created God (X). Likewise, the atheist wants to say the Big Bang (X) created the universe (Y). Well, we’re asking what created X? Some have admitted that they don't know. Others, however, assert that X doesn't have to have a cause. So when X is the Big Bang, it doesn't have to have a cause. But when X is God, then it is fair game to demand of the theist a cause of X? This seems to me to be hypocritical.
As I've pointed out, that question is illogical (what happened before time).
However, we are learning more and more about the origins of the universe, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang. We know the big bang happened, we don't know why. Adding the God of Gaps does not solve that equation (you guys say it isn't the god of gaps, but you only put him in the equation when we don't know something. In other words, if everything needs a cause, this does not solve the causality issue. It is better to admit we do not know.

Admitting you do not know opens your mind to truth when it arrives. Assuming you know when in fact you do not, will close yourself to reason and science.
I have another question...
6.If you accept evolution, when does the soul evolve? Did Neanderthals have souls?

You keep saying Creationism is a God-of-the-Gaps position... I'm telling you, you're wrong. Look over my analogy of the Shakespeare play. You're just repeating your position without really addressing the objections to it.
"Assuming you know when in fact you do not, will close yourself to reason and science."
First of all, no one knows there's a God. How could one "know" that? It is a belief, something trusted in because to many people, it is the most logical interpretation of the world around us.

And what do you mean by "reason"? Are you referring to the laws of logic here?
Is it being proposed that we follow the dictates of absolute logical laws to guide us in our scientific pursuits? What's the origin of these laws of logic; surely they have been scientifically proven to exist? Isn't it ironic that the one thing exempt from your naturalistic philosophy is the logic you use to defend it? I've heard many atheists say that "we should be logical, and deal with this reality instead of fantastical ones." In this case, sir, I must ask you to demonstrate that the laws of logic are indeed within "this reality." Are they?

And by the way, God doesn't make us shun gay people. He has us LOVE gay people, and because we LOVE them we tell them that their lifestyle is wicked and unnatural. Where in the Bible does God tell us to shun gay people? Surely you have a reference.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:24 am**

aimforthehead wrote:I'm seeing some serious misunderstandings going on here

Snap.

aimforthehead wrote:Agnostic is not some place in between theist and atheist. It is the stance most people would take (accepting the existence of god is unknowable or unknown). I am considered to be an agnostic atheist.

The two are mutually exclusive, one pertaining to no knowledge, the other pertaining to knowledge. You're one or the other. Take your pick.

aimforthehead wrote:To "Evolution is just an unproven theory". This is an extremely immature view of what theory means. A theory is a proven hypothesis. The statement itself makes no sense. It would not be a theory if there were not facts, observations, and numerous stacks of evidence to support it.

Define Evolution.

aimforthehead wrote:I've already made a response and linked to this issue I believe. To summarize, as a determinist, I accept there is in fact no chance, only unknown causes.

Did you choose to become a determinist?

aimforthehead wrote:As I've pointed out, that question is illogical (what happened before time). However, we are learning more and more about the origins of the universe, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang. We know the big bang happened, we don't know why. Adding the God of Gaps does not solve that equation (you guys say it isn't the god of gaps, but you only put him in the equation when we don't know something. In other words, if everything needs a cause, this does not solve the causality issue. It is better to admit we do not know.

And you possess a presupposed naturalist argument of the gaps. You just haven’t found it yet. You have your own presuppositions, and it’s nothing short of dishonest to claim otherwise. Think you’re rational? Metaphysical worldviews are all circular.

aimforthehead wrote:Admitting you do not know opens your mind to truth when it arrives. Assuming you know when in fact you do not, will close yourself to reason and science.

Are you open to truth?

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:34 am**

KravMagaSelfDefense wrote: You keep saying Creationism is a God-of-the-Gaps position... I'm telling you, you're wrong. Look over my analogy of the Shakespeare play. You're just repeating your position without really addressing the objections to it.

"God of the gaps" sounds completely stupid to a Christian. God is the God of everything. What are these "gaps"? Does this assume that God is 'filling in' for some thing? Nonsense.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:47 am**

aimforthehead » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:39 pm

I'm seeing some serious misunderstandings going on here...
1.Agnostic is not some place in between theist and atheist. It is the stance most people would take (accepting the existence of god is unknowable or unknown). I am considered to be an agnostic atheist.
2.To "Evolution is just an unproven theory". This is an extremely immature view of what theory means. A theory is a proven hypothesis. The statement itself makes no sense. It would not be a theory if there were not facts, observations, and numerous stacks of evidence to support it.
3.
perhaps the fact that the probability of the simplest cell "just happening" through naturalistic chance is four times less likely than what statisticians call mathematically impossible

I've already made a response and linked to this issue I believe. To summarize, as a determinist, I accept there is in fact no chance, only unknown causes. And you'd be mistaken even if it were random chance, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html *again*
4.
If you say it existed always without any origin then why a theist is blamed to be ignorant - if he chooses to say God exists forever

I used to believe in an infinite universe (a finite universe makes more sense now). Having said that, for starters, we have evidence that the universe exists. And we don't worship it. And it doesn't make us shun gay people. Or pick and choose from science what supports our beliefs.
5.
Very true. And one of the most blatant of ironies. If a theist states that God (X) created the universe (Y), then the atheist asks what created God (X). Likewise, the atheist wants to say the Big Bang (X) created the universe (Y). Well, we’re asking what created X? Some have admitted that they don't know. Others, however, assert that X doesn't have to have a cause. So when X is the Big Bang, it doesn't have to have a cause. But when X is God, then it is fair game to demand of the theist a cause of X? This seems to me to be hypocritical.

As I've pointed out, that question is illogical (what happened before time).
However, we are learning more and more about the origins of the universe, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang. We know the big bang happened, we don't know why. Adding the God of Gaps does not solve that equation (you guys say it isn't the god of gaps, but you only put him in the equation when we don't know something. In other words, if everything needs a cause, this does not solve the causality issue. It is better to admit we do not know.

Admitting you do not know opens your mind to truth when it arrives. Assuming you know when in fact you do not, will close yourself to reason and science.
I have another question...
6.If you accept evolution, when does the soul evolve? Did Neanderthals have souls?

Aimforthehead, do you really think you are among illiterate blokes here? Seriously? Who have never seen or defended or done a debate. come on, the issues you are bringing here are ones that come here daily. you have a serious misunderstanding of what I (and If I may speak of the others) believe. To know nothing is to just get your hands off the hook, that means you don't answer and you don't care./ but the truth is, you do care. The whole point of a theory is that it can be proven wrong. that means the observation you make may not have taken all the factors in. so you are assuming some stuff to complete it. But theory is not proven scientific fact. I hope you know the difference.

Posted: **Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:01 pm**

the issues you are bringing here are ones that come here daily.

I have my doubts...

But theory is not proven scientific fact.

You claim you've gotten into this argument before, but I'm wondering how you still don't know what a theory is then...
A theory is a collection of data (facts) that explains a phenomenon. While evolution is a theory, it is also a fact. Recognize a scientific theory is different from the common meaning of the word (which is generally synonymous to "idea").
For more, refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So yes, there is a difference between fact and theory. Facts are data, theories are explanations. They go hand in hand, not in a hierarchy.

Evidence for God from Science

A response to this website

A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website

Re: A response to this website