Evidence for God from Science

I believe in the big bang theory, at least up to a point. I think there was what I would call a time before time before the big bang. Natural law, such as everything had to have a beginning, did not exist.
But God was unbound by not yet existing natural law. He always was, He needed no beginning. In His good "non-time" he caused the big bang, probably about 14,000,000,000 years ago.

Try that on an atheist unless you have a oroblem with it.

Um....Hi.

Yup, I'm okay with the BB idea.

As for the 'What went before?' *Shrug*

Much cheers to all.

I like peter kreeft's first cause argument best because it brings up the principle of sufficient reason.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The most famous of all arguments for the existence of God are the "five ways" of Saint Thomas Aquinas. One of the five ways, the fifth, is the argument from design, which we looked at in the last essay. The other four are versions of the first-cause argument, which we explore here.

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

bippy123 wrote:I like peter kreeft's first cause argument best because it brings up the principle of sufficient reason.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

The naturalistic explanations for the universe and life are full of these impossibilities.

Something (the universe) cannot come from nothing.
Life cannot come from non-life.
Information cannot arise spontaneously.
Order always descends to disorder and chaos.

bippy123 wrote:I like peter kreeft's first cause argument best because it brings up the principle of sufficient reason.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The most famous of all arguments for the existence of God are the "five ways" of Saint Thomas Aquinas. One of the five ways, the fifth, is the argument from design, which we looked at in the last essay. The other four are versions of the first-cause argument, which we explore here.

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Does that mean I'm right or I am wrong, or what? I have trouble following arguments that long. Did I make it too simple?

Its means you are right Ultimate and you did a great job in bringing the basic argument. Just remember to always bring in the principle of sufficient, that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that things dont pope into existence out of thin air magically caused.

Just remember that the atheist will be left at that point with infinite regression or an necessary first cause that always existed, and since the article I posted showsthat infinite regress is a logical contradiction you are one solid ground philosophically here
Good job my friend

pat34lee wrote:

bippy123 wrote:I like peter kreeft's first cause argument best because it brings up the principle of sufficient reason.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

The naturalistic explanations for the universe and life are full of these impossibilities.

Something (the universe) cannot come from nothing.
Life cannot come from non-life.
Information cannot arise spontaneously.
Order always descends to disorder and chaos.

Correct Pat, that is if you are following the argument from sound reasoning, But atheists will always try to bring up the multiverse at that point, in effect violating occam's razor and trying to smuggle the possibility, no matter how low and impossible it is for the universe to come about teh way it is without an intelligent cause behind it being the more reasonable explanation.

This isnt sound logic they are using.

its the same argument they use when they try to define veridcal near death experiences as hallucinations, which is irrational for anyone to believe.

ultimate777 wrote:I believe in the big bang theory, at least up to a point. I think there was what I would call a time before time before the big bang. Natural law, such as everything had to have a beginning, did not exist.
But God was unbound by not yet existing natural law. He always was, He needed no beginning. In His good "non-time" he caused the big bang, probably about 14,000,000,000 years ago.

Try that on an atheist unless you have a oroblem with it.

I see nothing wrong with that, and nothing contrary to the "big bang" theory in what you've said.

pat34lee wrote:

bippy123 wrote:I like peter kreeft's first cause argument best because it brings up the principle of sufficient reason.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

The naturalistic explanations for the universe and life are full of these impossibilities.

Something (the universe) cannot come from nothing.
Life cannot come from non-life.
Information cannot arise spontaneously.
Order always descends to disorder and chaos.

Correct and these are the problems that materialists and naturalists have to deal with, and the problems have only grown stronger with the strong evidence from veridical near death experiences that can no longer be explained by the hallucination or dying brain theories that naturalists try to use.

The evidence from psi (remote viewing and other paranormal events being experimented on) is also becoming tougher for them to explain from a naturalistic point of view.
I believe we are in the early stages that will eventually lead to the collapse of materialism/naturalism as a full explanation for everything in the universe .

I've never really liked the first cause argument, because it raises more questions than it answers:

• What caused God?
• If God has no cause, why does he get a causal exemption?
• If we've established things can exist without a cause, than how can we argue cause is necessary for existence?
• If God is eternal, why not create the universe sooner or later? Doesn't that involve an infinite amount of waiting before the creation of the universe?
• If we say infinities cannot exist, does that mean God is not infinitely powerful?
• Where did all the "stuff" that makes up the universe come from?
• How do you make the leap from "first cause" to Christian God is the cause?

I don't pretend to know what caused the universe, but I have thought about it. Nobody is saying that the universe began to exist at the Big Bang; it's just that we are unable to measure or infer the conditions before the event. It's interesting to hear people say that "something" can't come from "nothing", because there is an assumption that nothing would be the default. Nobody has ever experienced a total "nothing", or even witnessed something being caused into existence (if you ignore virtual particles). The same argument could be made that the universe or a natural mechanism of universe creation (instead of God) is necessary and eternal.

Life from non-life
Life comes from non-life all of the time, unless you consider an egg and sperm (or their composite substances while being manufactured) to be alive. Labs have made basic chemicals into self-replicating chains, and also birthed life outside of the womb. Unless you argue magic goes into every egg and sperm (ignoring miscarriages), then you must admit life comes from non-life.

Information theory
The argument of information needs a designer is a weak one. The moon contains information of the asteroids that have stricken it in the form of craters. A spilled red wine will contain information as to the direction and velocity of the fluid at the time of ejection from the cup. It's easy to get caught in the thought process that "information" equals something encoded to be decoded. Information exists without someone to create or consume it.

Order into chaos
This is true as to what we can observe, but I can't imagine we can create a model or predict what would happen when the universe reaches complete entropy. Our intuition tells us that no work can be done in complete entropy, but our intuition is at odds with our understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Is God not ordered, or does he necessarily violate the laws of thermodynamics? If these laws can't be used to exclude the God possibility, then we can't use them to exclude other possibilities.

I created this account because I saw that you didn't have a lot of good arguments from the opposition. I hope this can give you a better understanding of the Atheist position.

[quote]

• What caused God?
• If God has no cause, why does he get a causal exemption?
• If we've established things can exist without a cause, than how can we argue cause is necessary for existence?
• If God is eternal, why not create the universe sooner or later? Doesn't that involve an infinite amount of waiting before the creation of the universe?
• If we say infinities cannot exist, does that mean God is not infinitely powerful?
• Where did all the "stuff" that makes up the universe come from?
• How do you make the leap from "first cause" to Christian God is the cause?

[quote]

God is not of this universe, therefore not required to its laws.

WannaLearn wrote:

• What caused God?
• If God has no cause, why does he get a causal exemption?
• If we've established things can exist without a cause, than how can we argue cause is necessary for existence?
• If God is eternal, why not create the universe sooner or later? Doesn't that involve an infinite amount of waiting before the creation of the universe?
• If we say infinities cannot exist, does that mean God is not infinitely powerful?
• Where did all the "stuff" that makes up the universe come from?
• How do you make the leap from "first cause" to Christian God is the cause?

God is not of this universe, therefore not required to its laws.

If the Universe is defined as "all that exists"; if God exists, then by definition God is a part of the Universe.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

WannaLearn wrote:

• What caused God?
• If God has no cause, why does he get a causal exemption?
• If we've established things can exist without a cause, than how can we argue cause is necessary for existence?
• If God is eternal, why not create the universe sooner or later? Doesn't that involve an infinite amount of waiting before the creation of the universe?
• If we say infinities cannot exist, does that mean God is not infinitely powerful?
• Where did all the "stuff" that makes up the universe come from?
• How do you make the leap from "first cause" to Christian God is the cause?

God is not of this universe, therefore not required to its laws.

If the Universe is defined as "all that exists"; if God exists, then by definition God is a part of the Universe.

Ken

The definition of "the universe" is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." according to the Oxford American Dictionaries app that my computer has. As God is immaterial and 'spaceless', well, he is not a part of the universe.

As for the matter of the first cause thing: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFqrPPFKOM[/youtube] This is a video by "TheDutchPhilosopher", critiquing Stephen Hawking's claims that were in an episode of the "Curiosity" series that aired on the Discovery Channel.

I take it that Kenny here would pretty much agree with Stephen Hawking's claims (since Kenny's claims about the origins of the universe sounds very similar to Hawking's.)

Life from non-life
Life comes from non-life all of the time, unless you consider an egg and sperm (or their composite substances while being manufactured) to be alive. Labs have made basic chemicals into self-replicating chains, and also birthed life outside of the womb. Unless you argue magic goes into every egg and sperm (ignoring miscarriages), then you must admit life comes from non-life.

Yes, eggs and sperm are alive. It's a biological fact. They are made of cell(s), are undergoing chemical processes, capable of change, they reproduce (Strictly speaking they are part of reproduction for something else, but you could say what they are creating makes sperm, even if it takes more than one generation). It is kind of impossible for a biologically functioning 'cell' not to be counted as alive.

If the Universe is defined as "all that exists"; if God exists, then by definition God is a part of the Universe.

Semantic argument does not destroy the argument, merely forces someone to define how they are using a word. For instance, a teacher had a kid in her class once. They were doing a vocabulary test, one had an arrow point to the skin of a tree and couldn't figure out the answer. So he asked for help. Since this was a pretest to figure out how much they could tell them the answer was bark.

"That's silly!" he laughed, "I don't see a dog!"

Same word different definitions.

Same thing here. Universe has several definitions, the most literal being all that one can observe. This limits it to being within the Hubble Space (or from one particle horizon to another). There are also other definitions in between these two (this one and Kenny's). So the same word can be being used to explain several different ideas.

Okay, okay, you probably didn't need half that. But it's late here and I'm babbling. Anyway, at most you just proven you two have two different definitions for universe. If everyone defined it as all that exists, no scientist would ever utter the word "multiverse", yet, there it is. Gets used in M-theory & string theory all the time, scientists trying to prove it with evidence (Dark pull).

So, Wannalearn, I think the next logical question for you is, "How are you defining universe?"

Edit: FI beat me to posting. Oh well